undefined | Better HN

0 pointsDrierCycle7mo ago0 comments

I didn't repost anything form the previous post, I posted work that reflects the overarching view of neuropsychology that precedes that PFC work, which is neuroscience.

Mike Meager is a preeminent neurologist at Grossman/NYU, Jay Van Bavel is high-level academia. They didn't go looking for something to fit it into an argument, they used hard science to test the results.

The previous flagged posts are not "medical problems" it's hard science at Northwestern's brain lab, one of the premiere labs in the country.

This is fundamental, peer-reviewed research about how ideologies are developed. How fundamentalism and extremism as biases against flexible thinking are becoming epidemic now. The research is empirical, and it's built first in a theoretical approach (theory is evidence mapped in deeper hypothesis) and then developed through empirical results.

These are both decades of peer-reviewed approaches culminating in these papers, read the citations, check the academics, they are the highest caliber.

0 comments

3 comments · 1 top-level

elmerfud7mo ago· 2 in thread

You can read the abstract and see that they absolutely went looking for a pattern. They found some mild correlation and then they went looking for a bigger pattern. They didn't look for the opposite they didn't look for the exceptions they didn't look for the outliers. They did not rigorously investigate correlation and causation.

You only need to look through lots of medical research that has shown all kinds of things that have been routinely debunked. Many of which were done by prominent people in their day. This is simply an excuse to find a medical reason for ideologies you disagree with. That always ends badly for everyone.

DrierCycleOP7mo ago

Clearly you have absolutely no idea how these experiments are developed. Everything you're stating is from a folk science POV. These are all controlled. There's a base used to compare the experimental evidence with, and data is used to prove the correlations. We have 40 years of proof of this statement alone: "Substantial evidence indicates that damage to the PFC can modify individuals’ belief systems."

I'd get a degree in science instead of pretending to understand neuroscientific testing.

elmerfud7mo ago

Making the assertion that damage can modify a belief system is one thing. That was well known long before this. Claiming that that damage makes people maga is quite a different thing.

Again there is 100 plus years of reputable scientists publishing claims trying to associate biological or medical conditions to racial or cultural things. All of them ideologically based and at the time it was widely supported. This appears no different. Do you want to justify your distaste and dislike for an ideology you don't agree with due to a medical cause. Makes it easier to say that they're not bad people and force them to get some sort of re-education. Does that sound familiar at all? It should maybe you should get it history degree.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse