Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-29-2010, 08:37 AM   #1 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Conservatives have larger area of the brain associated with fear: study

There are a number of studies being released regarding brain research. See this TFP thread here for a discussion on brain structures and socializing: http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/general...cializing.html

The study reported below makes an association between those with right-wing views and a larger area of the brain associated with fear:
Quote:
Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain
Tories may be born not made, claims a study that suggests people with right wing views have a larger area of the brain associated with fear.

Richard Alleyne
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent 5:00PM GMT 28 Dec 2010

Scientists have found that people with conservative views have brains with larger amygdalas, almond shaped areas in the centre of the brain often associated with anxiety and emotions.

On the other hand, they have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.

The "exciting" correlation was found by scientists at University College London who scanned the brains of two members of parliament and a number of students.

They found that the size of the two areas of the brain directly related to the political views of the volunteers.

However as they were all adults it was hard to say whether their brains had been born that way or had developed through experience.

Prof Geraint Rees, who led the research, said: "We were very surprised to find that there was an area of the brain that we could predict political attitude.

"It is very surprising because it does suggest there is something about political attitude that is encoded in our brain structure through our experience or that there is something in our brain structure that determines or results in political attitude."

Prof Rees and his team, who carried out the research for the Today programme on BBC Radio 4, looked at the brain make up of the Labour MP Stephen Pound and Alan Duncan, the Conservative Minister of State for International Development using a scanner.

They also questioned a further 90 students, who had already been scanned for other studies, about their political views.

The results, which will be published next year, back up a study that showed that some people were born with a "Liberal Gene" that makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views.

The gene, a neurotransmitter in the brain called DRD4, could even be stimulated by the novelty value of radical opinions, claimed the researchers at the University of California.
Political views 'hard-wired' into your brain - Telegraph

The particular angle here is that the study points to brain structure as a signifier of political affiliation.
  • Do you believe political associations are dictated by brain structures? i.e. are politics hardwired?
  • Is it possible for an extreme conservative to become a deep-seated liberal or vice versa?
  • Is there a "liberal gene"?
  • Does this study lead you to believe that conservative politics are fuelled by fear?

I usually take these studies with a grain of salt. The brain is so complex, and human behaviour is still a largely misunderstood thing. However, these findings are interesting.

I tend to view conservatives as people who react to things they don't trust or believe in or accept into their own lives. Many tend to think that the acceptance of something new will somehow rip at the very fabric of society. Many disapprove of a lot of things, and it's difficult to know what they do approve of. So I guess that is a kind of fear.

I don't see this as an absolute. I know that politics are a spectrum. I'm more or less commenting on what I've observed in people. There are a few people who I have trouble pegging as either conservative or liberal, and so I guess these people are generally "moderates" for the lack of a better word.

Anyway, what do you think of the study? Of the theory?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Last edited by Baraka_Guru; 12-29-2010 at 08:44 AM..
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 09:33 AM   #2 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
Do you believe political associations are dictated by brain structures? i.e. are politics hardwired?
No.

Quote:
Is it possible for an extreme conservative to become a deep-seated liberal or vice versa?
Yes, I have both watched and experienced this process within my own life. I have seen the switch go both ways, btw: there is much truth in the adage that "A Conservative is a Liberal who's just been mugged, while a Liberal is a Conservative who's just been arrested."

Quote:
Is there a "liberal gene"?
No more than there is a "catholic gene."

Quote:
Does this study lead you to believe that conservative politics are fuelled by fear?
It leads me to believe that the persons authoring or funding the study had a predetermined, desired outcome in mind (ie; Conservatives Are Stupid -AND- Cowards!) and set out to prove it. There have been several such dubious "studies" come out recently, all purporting to show that non-Leftists are cowardly, stupid, uninformed, lacking in compassion and generally Nasty People: oddly enough all of these "studies" seem to do nothing more than support asinine Leftist stereotypes. I wonder if we'll ever see a "study" by a major University which purports to confirm all the nasty stereotypes Rightists bandy about in regards to liberals?

When "The Bell Curve" came out, it was rightly panned for engaging in this kind of "research." But then again, The Bell Curve purported to show that Blacks are stupid, oversexed, criminally-inclined numpties, while these latest such works purport to show that non-Leftists are greedy, stupid, cruel, and cowardly.

If anyone can point out to me a difference between these two cases besides the fact that Black Americans usually vote Democrat, I'd love to see what it is.
__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 09:47 AM   #3 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i am in the middle of something, but this is interesting so a quick note.

first off conservative discourse is freighted with all kinds of assumptions about the demographic it is aimed at. and within that discourse, fear and its inverse in assertions of identity and/or stability and/or "transcendence" (as over against, say, assertions of historical contingency of values, which would be scary scary bad within the discourse---the erosion of this vaporous illusion called "the american way of life" for example) is a central theme.

it turns up all over the place in conservative-speak.

for example, status anxiety and it's reverse in the surreal assumptions about the welfare state, which is presumably some scary bad instrument of scary bad social mobility which of course is a problem of conservatives who are beset with status anxiety because it follows that if a conservative is interpellated by his or her own discourse as the Eternal Victim and there's social mobility breaking out all over the place, then the conservative cum Eternal Victim is going to loose out.

the racist opposition to "ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS" as a threat to the racial purity of the american volk is another example.

"terrorist" is another.

the list is easy to extend.


anyway, it's reasonable from a sociological viewpoint (say) to assume that there's something compelling about a discourse based on fear or anxiety about loss of position or status for people who share certain beliefs or assumptions about the world. it's logical to assume that there are connections between these beliefs and some sort of cognitive arrangement, simply because there are connections between *any* disposition (or act or anything else human beings do) with *some* kind of cognitive arrangement.

but i am not convinced at first blush by the approach taken in the study---there are many theoretical frameworks for thinking about the relation between a geography of the brain and cognitive activity and some of the more interesting recent ones (that i'm aware of---there's no doubt others) don't see cognition as linked in any strong way to particular regions of the brain. neural networks more like, which are not localized (but not entirely other than localized---a different frame).

the press release seems to make a simple correlation claim.
i'm not sure.
but i want to check into it more when later...
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Last edited by roachboy; 12-29-2010 at 09:51 AM..
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 09:56 AM   #4 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan View Post
There have been several such dubious "studies" come out recently, all purporting to show that non-Leftists are cowardly, stupid, uninformed, lacking in compassion and generally Nasty People: oddly enough all of these "studies" seem to do nothing more than support asinine Leftist stereotypes.
Can you point me to information regarding these identifiers?

Quote:
I wonder if we'll ever see a "study" by a major University which purports to confirm all the nasty stereotypes Rightists bandy about in regards to liberals?
What stereotypes?

Quote:
When "The Bell Curve" came out, it was rightly panned for engaging in this kind of "research." But then again, The Bell Curve purported to show that Blacks are stupid, oversexed, criminally-inclined numpties, while these latest such works purport to show that non-Leftists are greedy, stupid, cruel, and cowardly.

If anyone can point out to me a difference between these two cases besides the fact that Black Americans usually vote Democrat, I'd love to see what it is.
There is a difference between behavioural-based research and race-based research.

---------- Post added at 12:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:47 PM ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy View Post
so it's reasonable from a sociological viewpoint (or a discourse analysis viewpoint, or a rhetorical viewpoint) to assume that there's something compelling about a discourse based on fear or anxiety about loss of position or status for people who share certain beliefs or assumptions about the world. it's logical to assume that there are connections between these beliefs and some sort of cognitive arrangement, simply because there are connections between *any* disposition (or act or anything else human beings do) with *some* kind of cognitive arrangement.
I think this is at the core as to why the media would make a correlation. The mainstream conservative political discourse tends to play off of anxieties and fears. It happens in Canada as well as in the U.S.

As one example, there is a big push from conservatives to build more prisons despite a dropping crime rate. And the backdrop of this is a past push for tougher penalties for criminals. All of this despite a dropping crime rate.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 11:25 AM   #5 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
Further proof that Liberalism really is a mental disorder - the study and the results. Perhaps the Obama administration can draft something to get it added to the ADA? Sorry, having trouble taking this seriously. No doubt, you guys will, though.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."

Last edited by Cimarron29414; 12-29-2010 at 11:29 AM..
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 11:32 AM   #6 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
cimmaron. so you don't like the results.
but rather than give anything like a coherent argument, you resort to "i know you are but what am i?"

please. that's just weak.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 11:43 AM   #7 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
There's no argument to be had. It's a study and it has results. Unless one finances a study to further investigate, it is what it is. What I do know is that for the next 20 years, you guys will be able to say you once read a study that conservatives have a bigger "fear gland" than liberals and that's why <insert liberal mantra here>. So, congratulations for that. Shrug.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 11:54 AM   #8 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
but the more difficult problem is that conservative discourse has the characteristics i outlined above and those characteristics are what oriented the study--which isn't really that interesting as a study if you actually look at it---but hey why bother with that when the "real" issue here is that you don't like what it says on the surface?

it's self-evident that there are dispositions amongst conservative folk---across their diversity---that resonate with the patchwork of memes and patterns that comprises conservative discourse. otherwise there'd be no mobilization. there'd be no conservatism.

it's also self-evident that dispositions come from somewhere. that somewhere is one form or another of cognitive arrangement.

unless you imagine that personal dispositions float around in space or that they are consumer goods like everything else in the united states---but even if you for some strange reason thought that you went shopping for dispositions, there'd still be dispositions or patterns of experience/projection (which organize information) that'd lean on one form or another of cognitive arrangement.

because everything human beings do leans at one level of another on cognitive arrangements.
and this because there's very little about the world as human beings understand it that's given with the objects themselves. almost everything is imputed to objects in the world, imputed to the world, across types of (embodied) cognitive arrangements.


so if there is an underlying argument that shapes your objections, it's absurd.


for what it's worth, i think most forms of continuity are illusions. so the idea of some pineal gland defect that "explains" conservatism is laughable. but that's another matter.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 11:57 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
A worthwhile critique (or endorsement) of a study typically requires reading the study.

I think that perhaps the conclusion of the study makes sense, but having not read the paper, I have no idea how relevant it is.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 12:05 PM   #10 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Well, that's just it. I don't know anything about the study beyond what's reported here. I just don't see anything that says it is suggesting that conservatives are crybabies and liberals are Pollyannas. To do so would be projecting.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 12:12 PM   #11 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
From what I've learned about the brain, the size of any one component does tend to correlate with the intensity of its neural activity - more networks, more myelinated axons, more bulk. Not only is the amygdala associated with fear reactions but it is also heavily involved in almost all of the emotional responses that make up our 'survival instincts' as well as the retention of emotion-based memory so obviously the quality (hardship or relative ease) of one's life is going to affect the size of the amygdala, as well. So I'm not sure you could easily make a case that its size necessarily correlates with political opinion. After all, I'm a liberal and I certainly do fear the consequences of unchecked conservatism in this country. I quite literally fear it.

Overall, I tend to agree with Baraka's observation that the brain is a very complex organ and there are many 'higher' brain functions that contribute to the formation of things like values and opinions (not to mention experience and memory) - so much so that I would think it to be quite difficult to pin down something as vague as 'political attitude' on the observation of one area of the brain.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 12:23 PM   #12 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
having some trouble locating the actual study. it looks like it may have just been announced. and these people put out lots of stuff.

this page is from university college london and links to both the wellcome institute, which is the institutional space from which the study originated, and to a bbc radio program that features a discussion with one of the authors

Left wing or right wing? It's written in the brain

the radio program appears to be the source for the other coverage.

in one or another of the press blurbs i've been going through, this caveat from Geraint Rees, the neurologist who carried out the study:

Quote:
He cautions that, because the study was carried out only on adults, there is no way to tell what came first -- the brain differences or the political opinions.
which means basically that the apparent circle pointed out earlier is an actual circle.

it'd be nice to read the study.

---------- Post added at 08:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:18 PM ----------

this piece explains it:

Quote:
An experiment has found differences between the brains of progressives and conservatives.

Head scans of students at University College London, conducted by neuroscientist Geraint Rees, showed a "strong correlation" between thickness in two regions, the amygdala and the anterior cingulate, and political viewpoint.

Rees said he was "very surprised" by the finding because the experiment was a lighthearted item commissioned by Colin Firth for his guest-editing slot on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.


The actor has said he no longer supports the Lib Dems, and joked about Nick Clegg: "I think we should have him scanned."
Political allegiances linked to brain structure, study finds | Politics | The Guardian
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 02:28 PM   #13 (permalink)
let me be clear
 
ottopilot's Avatar
 
Location: Waddy Peytona
Science!

They should make an educational video and use this for the template...

__________________
"It rubs the lotion on Buffy, Jodi and Mr. French's skin" - Uncle Bill from Buffalo
ottopilot is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 02:41 PM   #14 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Am I the only one that thinks that the study is far too small to draw any conclusion beyond "huh, that's kinda interesting" from?

I will be shocked if this turns out to be much more than an interesting aside.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 02:51 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Quote:
What stereotypes?
You know, how Liberals are intrinsically hostile to Religion in general and Christianity in particular, and will as a result favour any non-Christian in almost any dispute with any Christian, and any Atheist over any Believer.

Or how Liberals are so in love with themselves that, rather than answer a simple and direct question in a simple and direct way, they'll predictably veer of into unintelligible pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook in order to both stroke their own egos (look how smart I am!) and confuse/obfuscate the issue. Mr. Obama is an unfortunate walking-talking-bullshitting avatar of this particular stereotype.

Or how Liberals are motivated primarily by jealousy and greed (thinly and poorly disguised as altruism) and a desire to punish anybody who has ever had any success in life of their own making.

Or how Liberals are too concerned about the possibility of drug-smuggling terrorists dying in the desert to give a fuck about the fact that they are, in fact, drug-smugglers and terrorists.

Or how an analogous concern for (and subliminal guilt over) collectivised racial sins of the past causes Liberals to be more concerned with making sure a Black criminal is released from prison than they are about the crimes he commits upon said release, or the severity of the crimes which landed him there in the first place.

Or how only Liberals could possibly be stupid enough to believe that the way out of debt is by borrowing -more- money, and that the way to make sure people are safe in their beds is to disarm them so that they cannot defend themselves while simultaneously castrating and hobbling the Police, and that the proper response to threats/bullying/assault is either to beg and reason with, bribe, or appease the bully in question, and that self-defense is somehow less dignified and socially acceptable than allowing onesself to be beaten, robbed or killed.


And those are the most polite of the stereotypes I routinely encounter. I'm sure with enough money, a properly manipulated sample, and a vague enough set of objectives, a study could be done which proves each of these bullshit statements to be "fact." It would be just as much horseshit as this alleged "study."
__________________
"I personally think that America's interests would be well served if after or at the time these clowns begin their revolting little hate crime the local police come in and cart them off on some trumped up charges or other. It is necessary in my opinion that America makes an example of them to the world."

--Strange Famous, advocating the use of falsified charges in order to shut people up.

Last edited by The_Dunedan; 12-29-2010 at 05:27 PM..
The_Dunedan is offline  
Old 12-29-2010, 03:32 PM   #16 (permalink)
Junkie
 
filtherton's Avatar
 
Location: In the land of ice and snow.
Just going by the infotainment in the OP: this type of study doesn't give any indication of temporality, so no claims can be made about what causes what. Also, there is no indication that any care was given to drawing a representative sample, just that they polled folks who had been scanned for other studies. The nature of these other studies would be good to know.

As far as the study goes, whatever. A more interesting question would be whether conservative political positions are primarily fear driven. A better way of answering would likely rely on aking people why they believe the things they believe.
filtherton is offline  
Old 12-30-2010, 05:32 AM   #17 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
i don't think the centrality of fear is a stereotype. it's a feature of how conservative political language works.

stereotyping would come with the attempt to say that there's a particular personality traits that explain the appeal of conservative political-speak. it's not that difficult to get your head around.

i find it bewildering how snippy the conservative set has become over this "study"---if you accept the worldview, you obviously know already about the central place accorded anxiety about loss of position, be it international or social or racial....you believe this stuff to the extent that you employ a political discourse that builds patterns (links elements in the worldview) based on that anxiety about loss of position.

so why get all pissy if it's pointed out?

btw the "study" wasn't really a study. it was a lark commissioned for a radio program that turned out to reveal a consistency the explanation for which was not developed and the meaning of which is basically what jazz said: o look at that. interesting.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-31-2010, 07:31 PM   #18 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
I can't really comment until more information is released about the study. Before then, all the bruised conservative egos and liberal "ah, I see"s in the world are moot.
Willravel is offline  
Old 12-31-2010, 08:09 PM   #19 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
thing is that it's not really a study. it was a gig commissioned for the bbc radio 4 show linked above. in the course of that, the team noticed this curious correlation in brain organization. they dont have a real interpretation of it. maybe there'll be a study at some point.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 12-31-2010, 08:23 PM   #20 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
i suppose the act of fearing is far less significant than what you fear.
and, of course, that brings us right back around to where we started.
__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 08:49 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
When I was young and stupid (or stupider) I did not fear anything. I assumed fear was learned and was natures way of helping the human race propagate. Does this study contradict my assumption or what is the implication of the study relative to wisdom that comes with experience?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 12:37 PM   #22 (permalink)
Upright
 
I can't help wondering what a southern red necked Baptist brain looks like?
rimshot is offline  
Old 01-03-2011, 01:39 PM   #23 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by rimshot View Post
I can't help wondering what a southern red necked Baptist brain looks like?
I know a few southern red neck baptists; I doubt their brains look any different than yours. Sorry, i could not help myself with that set up and I should add - or mine or anyone else's brain - they all kinda look the same.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-04-2011, 09:29 PM   #24 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Interesting, but how does it explain conservative concentrations in certain parts of the USA. The so called "bible belt" for example.

Does everyone in those areas have the same brain configuration?

From a purely statistical perspective, that would be impossible.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 07:56 AM   #25 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by james t kirk View Post
Interesting, but how does it explain conservative concentrations in certain parts of the USA. The so called "bible belt" for example.

Does everyone in those areas have the same brain configuration?

From a purely statistical perspective, that would be impossible.
I moved from Southern California to North Carolina. Before the move, I did research, my primary goal was to get out of California so my options were open. I am not a religious person, but the area I live in now is more conservative than liberal (even self designated liberals around here seem more conservative than not) and is an excellent place for family life. I would not recommend it to a young single adult, for that person I would actually recommend Southern California. Seems to me that migration patterns reinforce the perceptions of certain areas and you end up with more of what an area is known for.

Also, this notion of fear has to be looked at from both sides. For example some people fear McDonald's Happy Meals others fear the government taking their guns - which fear is more irrational?
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 08:23 AM   #26 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
Also, this notion of fear has to be looked at from both sides. For example some people fear McDonald's Happy Meals others fear the government taking their guns - which fear is more irrational?
Probably the one based on the much higher improbability or, in extreme cases, fantasy.

I'd be more afraid of junk that's actually inside of children than of the totalitarian state that might one day come.

It's kind of a silly comparison though, and I don't think this is really what this is about. I think the idea is about how we handle fear and how perspectives vary based on how we handle or otherwise register fear.

Kind of a "close the borders!" vs. "reform immigration policy!" sort of thing.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 08:53 AM   #27 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Probably the one based on the much higher improbability or, in extreme cases, fantasy.
In either case in the examples, the fear is not really the Happy Meal or not having a gun. In one case it seems to be a fear of corrupt big corporations and the other rooted in the fear of corrupt big government.

Quote:
I'd be more afraid of junk that's actually inside of children than of the totalitarian state that might one day come.
Fat, salt and sugar is a necessary part of the human diet. It seems your statement supports my point - your fear can not really be what is in a Happy Meal, given acceptable food quality standards. A Happy Meal can easily be a part of a healthy diet for a child.

Quote:
It's kind of a silly comparison though, and I don't think this is really what this is about.
If your point is that I could have given two better side by side examples of irrational fear, I can be comfortable with the "silly" terminology. If your point is that a comparison of group A's irrational fears to group B's irrational fears is "silly", I think that is "silly".

Quote:
I think the idea is about how we handle fear and how perspectives vary based on how we handle or otherwise register fear.
The human response to fear is very predictable. Most of the initial reaction occurs on a subconscious level. It is easy for me to accept and understand a response to fears that I share - it is more difficult to accept and understand a response to fears that I don't have. I think this is true for most people.

Quote:
Kind of a "close the borders!" vs. "reform immigration policy!" sort of thing.
Isn't that just a question of degree. Neither allows for open boarders or a total free-flow. In order to actually have an immigration policy there has to be some kind of closed boarder - even if it is to regulate the flow. Most people I know who want closed boarders actually want the government to do that first and then reform immigration policy. It is a chicken v egg kind of question in my view more than a issue of intolerance.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 09:26 AM   #28 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
My point is that your comparison contrasts what is vs. some long shot.

I don't think the fear about Happy Meals is the same as the fear about guns. With the Happy Meals, I'm not sure you could even call it a fear. Maybe more of a concern for the well-being of other people, especially impressionable minors.

Sure you can pass off a Happy Meal as a part of one's diet, but the issue isn't that they contain fat, salt, and carbohydrates, it's that they contain an unideal amount and unideal types. Any nutritionist will tell you that the amount of salt in a Happy Meal is high enough to warrant making it only a rare treat, rather than "a part of a balanced diet." The animal fat and refined carbohydrates are another matter. They're okay in moderation, I suppose, but too much isn't ideal.

I don't even know why I'm going into this. Are people really afraid of Happy Meals, or are they afraid of childhood obesity and the long-term effects of diet on such things as heart disease and cancer?

What's more reasonable to fear? The top actual killers in America or some totalitarian fantasy?

If you were just using these examples as metaphors, then do away with them because they're distracting. Are you instead asking what's more reasonable to fear between corporations and governments?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 10:25 AM   #29 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
My point is that your comparison contrasts what is vs. some long shot.


I don't think the fear about Happy Meals is the same as the fear about guns. With the Happy Meals, I'm not sure you could even call it a fear. Maybe more of a concern for the well-being of other people, especially impressionable minors.
My point was not a fear of guns. Some people fear of life without guns.

Children don't buy Happy Meals, adults do. The concept of the food police (spreading across this nation in various forms) is something I don't understand, it has never been logically explained - I consider it an irrational fear.

Quote:
Sure you can pass off a Happy Meal as a part of one's diet, but the issue isn't that they contain fat, salt, and carbohydrates, it's that they contain an unideal amount and unideal types.
One size does not fit all. Ideal to one child may not be ideal for another.

Quote:
Any nutritionist will tell you that the amount of salt in a Happy Meal is high enough to warrant making it only a rare treat, rather than "a part of a balanced diet." The animal fat and refined carbohydrates are another matter. They're okay in moderation, I suppose, but too much isn't ideal.
The sodium content ranges in Happy Meals depending on which on it is, the highest is about 700 mg. Depending on age the daily recommended allowance is about 500 mg. Given the nature of the way some children eat, some will only eat a few select foods perhaps sacrificing protein, to get a child to regularly eat a Happy Meal hamburger may be well worth the extra sodium that they might be getting. Then if you take an extremely active boy in the summer in a hot and humid climate - they may very well need extra sodium. Any nutritionist who make blanket statements without qualification for individual assessment and individual needs is not worth a grain of salt.

Quote:
I don't even know why I'm going into this. Are people really afraid of Happy Meals, or are they afraid of childhood obesity and the long-term effects of diet on such things as heart disease and cancer?
Why do they want to outlaw happy Meals? Why is there the chatter about setting legal limits on salt? The issues are judgment, knowledge and the availability of cost effective alternatives. The target of the fear is incorrect. the target is irrational. Such is the case with other fears, and I am just using this to illustrate a point, I think you see it.

Quote:
What's more reasonable to fear? The top actual killers in America or some totalitarian fantasy?
That is not how gun lovers would frame the argument. I have never been a good judge of what is a reasonable fear for others, I have started taking the time to understand them. For example I know some black southern gun owners who lived through the "Jim Crow" era in the US, thousands were lynched, as government did nothing, they will never give up their guns. Are their fears reasonable for 2011? Who am I to say.

Quote:
If you were just using these examples as metaphors, then do away with them because they're distracting. Are you instead asking what's more reasonable to fear between corporations and governments?
Distracting? Excuse me, feel free to get back on the real issue.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 01-05-2011 at 10:29 AM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 10:44 AM   #30 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Yes, it's a bit distracting. You're not going to talk me out of my knowledge that eating too much salt, animal fat, and refined carbohydrates is bad for your health. Also, I'm unaware of people who want to ban McDonald's. I suppose I would rank those people right up there with the people who are afraid the government is going to take away all the guns. You know, extremists.

So to summarize, 1) you won't convince me that McDonald's is healthy, 2) I don't support the idea of a Food Police, and 3) if you are afraid of America becoming a totalitarian state, you're being a bit irrational to say the least.

I guess the core of the matter is, again, how we manifest and how we register fear. Fear often makes one think irrationally because its mechanism doesn't easily distinguish harm from harmlessness. It's a survival mechanism, of course. It's normal to fear danger, but when the chance of that danger is a long shot, it becomes irrational rather quickly.

If I had to choose, though, I assume I would be more afraid of McDonald's and its effect on my children's health than I am of the government tossing out the Constitution. Junk food is bad for you right now. What the government might do to you in your mind is generally harmless except in the unlikelihood that it comes true...or maybe if it causes some kind of psychosomatic illness.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 02:16 PM   #31 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Yes, it's a bit distracting.
What I find distracting is responce to trivial matters while ignoring major points.

For example:

There is a definite correlation with fear and age. If there is a correlation with fear and conservatism it has more to do with the fact that older people are more conservative than younger people.

Another point, both conservatives and liberals have fears, some are irrational. A liberal is more likely to understand a response to the fears of other liberals based on shared points of view, even when those fears or the responses are irrational - same with conservatives. Based on ideology people tend to find some irrational fears or responses acceptable.

Another point - humans respond to fear in predictable ways.

The premise in the original post's citation has obvious holes.

Quote:
You're not going to talk me out of my knowledge that eating too much salt, animal fat, and refined carbohydrates is bad for your health.

First that is not my position. I agree "too much" can be bad, even "too much" water can be bad for one's health. Second, a bad diet has more to do with not having access to low cost alternatives. In urban areas in the US fresh fruit and vegetables are extremely costly compared to processed food. The obvious answer is not to attack processed food, but to make alternatives available at a low cost. Poor people will drink more orange juice than orange soda, if the orange juice cost less than orange soda.

Quote:
Also, I'm unaware of people who want to ban McDonald's.
Again, not my point. There are people who want to ban Happy Meals. There are people who want to ban soda for children. People who want to regulate salt content in restaurant prepared meals. We even have the government banning certain drinks containing alcohol and caffeine. It is getting ridiculous. Why are they doing this? Why do they think this way? I don't get it.

Quote:
I suppose I would rank those people right up there with the people who are afraid the government is going to take away all the guns. You know, extremists.
I was raised in the Chicago area. They banned gun ownership, basically making hundreds of thousands of regular law abiding people criminals overnight. Yet, the city is not safer. You can bet if I lived in the city of Chicago, I would own a gun. if you consider a man who wants to protect his family and property an extremist, color me an extremist along with hundreds of thousands of others who live in the city - a city with one of the highest murder rates in the country. Generations of liberal leadership in the city has failed. Yes, I fear government incompetence.

Quote:
So to summarize, 1) you won't convince me that McDonald's is healthy, 2) I don't support the idea of a Food Police, and 3) if you are afraid of America becoming a totalitarian state, you're being a bit irrational to say the least.
I do have some irrational fears. But, even knowing they are irrational, those irrational fears cause known and predictable reactions in me. I have taken the time to understand this and I work on it. You seem to suggest that you don't have any irrational fears, is that truly the case?

I might add that it requires an objective and detached self analysis to even be able to understand when a personally held fear is irrational. Most people won't do that type of self analysis. This topic is one that I have given a lot of thought to.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."


Last edited by aceventura3; 01-05-2011 at 02:25 PM..
aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-05-2011, 03:23 PM   #32 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Oh, believe me, I have many irrational fears. I'm quite familiar with the subject, which is why I had originally commented on your comparison. I still think fearing the taking away of guns is more irrational than fearing the health effects of junk food.

Is that what we're talking about?

Quote:
Originally Posted by aceventura3 View Post
I was raised in the Chicago area. They banned gun ownership, basically making hundreds of thousands of regular law abiding people criminals overnight. Yet, the city is not safer. You can bet if I lived in the city of Chicago, I would own a gun. if you consider a man who wants to protect his family and property an extremist, color me an extremist along with hundreds of thousands of others who live in the city - a city with one of the highest murder rates in the country. Generations of liberal leadership in the city has failed. Yes, I fear government incompetence.
I thought it was a handgun ban.
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 08:39 AM   #33 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru View Post
Oh, believe me, I have many irrational fears. I'm quite familiar with the subject, which is why I had originally commented on your comparison. I still think fearing the taking away of guns is more irrational than fearing the health effects of junk food.
I gave a very concrete example of a set of people who lived in fear during the Jim Crow era of the real possibility of being abducted from their homes at night and hung from a tree often in the presence of elected government officials and law enforcement officials. Gun ownership became very important to these men as a means to protect life and property. In 2011 their fears prompting their desires for having guns may in fact be irrational in 2011 - but I am not to judge. However, I understand their fear when it is explained to me but I do not understand fearing the health effects of junk food.

A comparison of junk food and guns was never the key point, the key point was that regardless of ideology, all people have fears that could be considered irrational or responses to fears that can be considered irrational. I further suggest that ideology has an impact on how another views the fears or responses of another. So, to me it is easy to go down a long list of fears held by liberals that I think are completely irrational - but I have learned to pause and try to get a better understanding. I don't think you have done that on the issues involving gun ownership.

Quote:
I thought it was a handgun ban.
I have never read the text of the actual ordinance. Some sources call it a handgun ban some call it a gun ban. The technical differences between a handgun and other types of firearms can get blurry pretty fast, I would assume the ordinance includes its own specific definition.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 09:10 AM   #34 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
Since this somehow derailed into an argument about McDonalds (or is it guns?) I'll revitalize the thread with a recent post by that god-awful heathen PZ Myers, and I agree with him word for word.

The new phrenology : Pharyngula

Quote:
Morphological variation is important, it's interesting…and it's also common. It's one of my major scientific interests — I'm actually beginning a new research project this spring with a student and I doing some pilot experiments to evaluate variation in wild populations here in western Minnesota, so I'm even putting my research time where my mouth is in this case. There has been some wonderful prior work in this area: I'll just mention a paper by Shubin, Wake, and Crawford from 1995 that examined limb skeletal morphology in a population of newts, and found notable variation in the wrist elements — only about 70% had the canonical organization of limb bones.
... (snipped)

Quote:
I bring up this subject as a roundabout introduction to why I find myself extremely peeved by a recent bit of nonsense in the press: the claim that liberal and conservative brains have a different organization, with conservatives having larger amygdalas ("associated with anxiety and emotions") and liberals having a larger anterior cingulate ("associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life").

Gag.

I don't deny the existence of anatomical variation in the brain — I expect it (see above). I don't question the ability of the technique, using MRI, to measure the dimensions of internal structures. I even think these kinds of structural variations warrant more investigation — I think there are great opportunities for future research to use these tools to look for potential effects of these differences.

What offends me are a number of things. One is that the interesting questions are ignored. Is this variation genetic, environmental, or simply a product of slop in the system? Does it actually have behavioral consequences? The authors babble about some correlation with political preferences, but they have no theoretical basis for drawing that conclusion, and they can't even address the direction of causality (which they assume is there) — does having a larger amygdala make you conservative, or does exercising conservative views enlarge the amygdala?

I really resent the foolish categorization of the functions of these brain regions. Courage is an awfully complex aspect of personality and emotion and cognition to simply assign to one part of the brain; I don't even know how to define "courage" neurologically. Are we still playing the magical game of phrenology here? This is not how the brain works!

Furthermore, they're picking on a complex phenomenon and making it binary. Aren't there more than one way each to be a conservative or a liberal? Aren't these complicated human beings who vary in an incredibly large number of dimensions, too many to be simply lumped into one of two types on the basis of a simple survey?

This is bad science in a number of other ways. It was done at the request of a British radio channel; they essentially wanted some easily digestible fluff for their audience. The investigator, Geraint Rees, has published quite a few papers in credible journals — is this really the kind of dubious pop-culture crap he wants to be known for? The data is also feeble, based on scans of two politicians, followed by digging through scans and questionnaires filled out by 90 students. This is blatant statistical fishing, dredging a complex data set for correlations after the fact. I really, really, really detest studies like that.

And here's a remarkable thing: I haven't seen the actual data yet. I don't know how much variation there is, or how weak or strong their correlations are. It's because I can't. This work was done as a radio stunt, is now being touted in various other media, and the paper hasn't been published yet. It'll be out sometime this year, in an unnamed journal.
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel
Jinn is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 09:37 AM   #35 (permalink)
Tilted Cat Head
 
Cynthetiq's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Manhattan, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by mixedmedia View Post
From what I've learned about the brain, the size of any one component does tend to correlate with the intensity of its neural activity - more networks, more myelinated axons, more bulk. Not only is the amygdala associated with fear reactions but it is also heavily involved in almost all of the emotional responses that make up our 'survival instincts' as well as the retention of emotion-based memory so obviously the quality (hardship or relative ease) of one's life is going to affect the size of the amygdala, as well. So I'm not sure you could easily make a case that its size necessarily correlates with political opinion. After all, I'm a liberal and I certainly do fear the consequences of unchecked conservatism in this country. I quite literally fear it.

Overall, I tend to agree with Baraka's observation that the brain is a very complex organ and there are many 'higher' brain functions that contribute to the formation of things like values and opinions (not to mention experience and memory) - so much so that I would think it to be quite difficult to pin down something as vague as 'political attitude' on the observation of one area of the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Jazz View Post
Am I the only one that thinks that the study is far too small to draw any conclusion beyond "huh, that's kinda interesting" from?

I will be shocked if this turns out to be much more than an interesting aside.
This is about where I am with this. It's too complex to just pigeon hole except say, "Interesting... almost."
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.
Cynthetiq is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 10:48 AM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
aceventura3's Avatar
 
Location: Ventura County
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jinn View Post
Since this somehow derailed into an argument about McDonalds (or is it guns?)...
This type of comment comes up frequently after I use specific examples to illustrate a point. When I use an example it is just that, one example. Normally when I give one example, there are hundreds of others that could follow-also illustrating or supporting a point. Often, "we" (when questioned or challenged I will almost always respond) get derailed in the example rather than the primary point. I often interpret this as a mechanism used when there is no reasoned response to the primary point. Then the narrative becomes Ace derailed the thread. I think this is an irrational response to a fear of a strongly held belief being challenged. I also believe it serves as yet another example of the points I have made here.
__________________
"Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch."
"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion."
"If you live among wolves you have to act like one."
"A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

aceventura3 is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 10:55 AM   #37 (permalink)
Still Free
 
Cimarron29414's Avatar
 
Location: comfortably perched at the top of the bell curve!
The Liberals of California do not fear Happy Meals. They fear having to parent their children.
__________________
Gives a man a halo, does mead.

"Here lies The_Jazz: Killed by an ambitious, sparkly, pink butterfly."
Cimarron29414 is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 11:12 AM   #38 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Yeah this is somethingf I don;t understand about some conservatives terrified of taking a shower with a homosexual fellow soldier but fearless up against a heterosexual terrorist with an 80lb machinegun and orders to kill him.
powerclown is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 12:17 PM   #39 (permalink)
Lover - Protector - Teacher
 
Jinn's Avatar
 
Location: Seattle, WA
In case anyone is wondering what kind of strange metaphor McDonald's Happy Meals are for conservatives, they're talking about this:

Quote:
The city’s Board of Supervisors passed an ordinance on November 2, 2010 requiring that meals that include toys with their purchase, like the popular Happy Meal does, meet specific nutritional guidelines. Since the Happy Meal currently does not meet such nutritional requirements, it is effectively banned from the McDonalds restaurants throughout the city.
The ordinance, which will take effect in December 2011, requires that meals that include toys have less than 600 calories, less than 640 milligrams of sodium and less than 35% of calories from fat (with less than 10% from saturated fat). The meal must also include at least a half cup of fruit or three-quarters of a cup of vegetables.
OH NOES! McDonalds can't sell things with toys that have MORE THAN 600 CALORIES!! YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ENTIRE DAILY ALLOWANCE FOR A CHILD! NANNY-STATE LIBERALISM!

Sad day for conservatives when they have to defend corporations at all costs.. when the government cannot interfere with corporations at all without disturbing some sort of free-market ideal, where government actually regulating anything is "too much government".. or somehow indicative of a problem..
__________________
"I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

Last edited by Jinn; 01-06-2011 at 12:20 PM..
Jinn is offline  
Old 01-06-2011, 12:21 PM   #40 (permalink)
warrior bodhisattva
 
Baraka_Guru's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: East-central Canada
Isn't there something about marketing cigarettes to minors as well?
__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot
Baraka_Guru is offline  
 

Tags
area, brain, conservatives, fear, larger, study


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:28 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360