Talk:Political beliefs and brain structure

Wikipedia has an article on this topic [1] and I think we should have an article on it. --Liberal Warrior (talk) 00:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has an article on Spoons. Тy^Talk. 00:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps you could put a few more sentences in it. Eg what does an ACC do? what is an amygdala? why should we care? and who says so? then we can decide whether its worth keeping or no. --Damo^Hi 00:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

At this stage I agree with a delete. Lets give him a while to see if he can get it to a point at which we have something to decide. There might actually be a bit of woo here that we can latch on to. This notion sounds a bit like eugenics, but I am willing to hear him out - for a while. --Damo^Hi 00:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, give me some time, I will expand it. --Liberal Warrior (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Expanding

I'm working on this article and it will take approximately half an hour. Please do not make edits until then. Than you. --Liberal Warrior (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Done

Expanded. These is nothing pseudoscience/fringe here. The studies were published in reputed journals and widely reported in media [2] So the article should be kept. --Liberal Warrior (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Тy^Talk. 02:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Size of ACC/Amygdala?

I took a look at the first paper, which has nice sample and effect sizes. However, I don't have access to the second one, and I'm skeptical as to whether what was reported is what the paper actually says. Journalists tend to simplify the role of brain structures -- the ACC, for example, also helps to mediate the circulatory system and the amygdala is related to extreme emotions, both fear/aversive response and happiness. I'm not so sure the second study means what they think it means. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, we are only beginning to crack into what "brain structure" means, and how it relates at all to how we think. More significant would be things like fMRIs taken during discussions of political events. GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, delete

I forgot we still had this piece of nonsense. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Alright. 16:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

There are very real studies about brains, cognition and how we see the world - especially related to how conservative we are (not politically, necessarily, but how likely we are to try new things, trust new people, etc). There are also legitimate studies about the brain of people who tend towards fundamentalism, or conspiracy theories. Those both might be very very ripe for such an article. I'm not sure either of these studies is even real, however.GodotThe Peyote God awaits 16:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The guy who wrote this turned into a vandal not long afterwords, adding suspicion. 16:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

My main objection is to the "liberals make good decisions/conservatives are afraid" bunk. Take that out and it's basically a cut-and-paste of some papers. The new phrenology stinks just as much as Phrenology Classic. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

So... Ty^talk 11:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Write it more in line with "this is bunk because...". I don't think there's much reason to get rid of the idea and sweep it under the carpet. ADK^{...I'll hear your osteoporosis!} 12:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Michael Shermer wrote something along similar lines in The Believing Brain - at last if I remember correctly. Though he was a bit more even-handed about it. The fact that we don't like the conclusion of research doesn't mean it's wrong.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

On the flip side, just because we like the outcome of some research doesn't mean it's right. ADK^{...I'll duel your windows!} 15:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure. But it's like the debate we had on circumcision and AIDS - if the peer reviewed papers say something then it's what we should go with. --Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 18:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

My post on WfG's talk page should clarify a bit. Really, all you have here is two studies being shoehorned into political narratives. Take, for example, the "larger conservative amygdala." This is a pop-neuroscience interpretation of the amygdala as the "fear center," which is true but not the whole story. It is also involved in extreme happiness and mediates emotional learning and memory. This could just as easily be interpreted as "conservatives have better memory." But it's much easier to go with a pop-neuroscience explanation as it happens to confirm liberal political narratives: Liberals as "Adlai Stevenson eggheads, Al Gore wonks" and the conservative "politics of fear." Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

So can we kill this yet? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 18:32, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of inclined to believe Shermer.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 19:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read TBB. Has he written any spin-off essays that cover this? Or I might just flip through this section of the book if I pass by the bookstore. Shermer is definitely not averse to spinning psych research to fit his pet theories (cf. Mind of the Market). Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay, most of the pertinent chapter was on Google Books. I didn't even see any discussion of neuroscience studies, only psych studies that have nothing to do with this page in the chapter. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Speaking of articles that need to be deleted... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd say delete this article and come up with something better if we need one on this topic. Blue (is useful) 21:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Just vapourised it now. That will take it out of the mainspace so we don't need to worry about it being there while people discuss what to do with the topic. ADK^{...I'll disintegrate your rabbit!} 21:10, 30 October 2011 (UTC)