Originally Posted by jimmac
He didn't conduct the study. But you know that. trumpy you need another expert in the field to counter this. Not your uneducated ( in the field ) assumptions.
Also it wouldn't matter what his intentions are if this turns out to be conclusive. Sorry but that's the scientific way to look at this.
So the only thing that can refute a scientist is another scientist and all scientists are experts in all fields? A mathematician cannot check the data of a scientist because the mathematician isn't a scientist? An actor can be an author and not be questioned because, well who really knows why...perhaps you can explain why an actor is an author in this study. Try to use small words for all the non-actors out there.
And you have the creditials to back up this statement about the brain right?
That tolerance is a trait and not automatically a positive or a negative? My statement is the starting state, merely noting it exists. If you believe it a positive or a negative, you must prove it as such. Your own study here merely notes who has what. It in no form of fashion proves that one is a positive or a negative.
If there's something wrong with this study ( which by the way as stated has other studies that cooberate it's conclusions ) then someone in the field must have countered it. But it seems you haven't found that. I know I didn't because I searched long and hard before I posted this.
The news articles I looked up on it claimed it is one of only three studies to have attempted to address this topic.
All of the stuff you listed above would automatically be taken into account by the scientific community and someone out there would be bringing these items to light if they had any bearing on it at all. You need to site someone who wants to counter this with evidence to the contrary. In the future until you can counter this with facts that actually do so I will simply ask for your proof or credentials.
I'm sorry but you are presuming peer review here. If the study hasn't been gone over by others, then it isn't "automatically" taken into account. The point of peer review is precisely to attempt to replicate and find flaw with prior work. The things I mentioned were from your wikipedia links and those entries cite other studies of course from other scientists that note those results. I'm doing nothing different than you. If I cannot cite a study due to not being a scientist, then you cannot either.
And Kanai qualifies the findings of his own study, acknowledging that political orientation is complex, and can fall into more than just two categories. In addition, the study doesnt answer whether brain structure influences political preferences or vice versa: its possible that the shape of the brain changes over time with a persons experiences and with his or her changing political views..............
Kanai warns against reading too much into the findings. Its very unlikely that actual political orientation is directly encoded in these brain regions, he said. More work is needed to determine how these brain structures mediate the formation of political attitude.
From your source itself, it reads as, this is proto-science, we need a lot more work here.
I can also offer this. You of course cannot respond to it since, well since you aren't a scientist.
It's an appealing story and a topic worth investigating, says cognitive neuroscientist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania. But there's plenty of reason to be cautious, she says. For one, it's not clear what a bigger amygdalaor a bigger anything in the brainactually means in terms of brain function and behavior. The research, she says, is unclear and often contradictory on this point.
Another problem is that most brain regions have multiple functions, Farah says: "Who says fear is the only function of the amygdala?" She notes that this brain region also responds to sexually arousing images and pictures of happy faces, and one recent study found a correlation between amygdala volume and the size of people's social networks. Likewise, the anterior cingulate cortex has been implicated in a long list of cognitive functions. By picking and choosing from the previous studies, "they're indulging in a bit of just-so storytelling," Farah says.
Now on to the thread topic rather then dealing with what some non-scientist wants to read into a study.....ABCNEWS.com
The man who made change we can believe in and yes, we can hallmarks of the 2008 presidential race is still searching for a catchy phrase to define his next campaign.
Were still working on it, President Obama told ABC News Barbara Walters when asked about his slogan in an exclusive pre-Christmas interview.
I think thats a great question, Obama said, grinning. If those middle-schoolers have any suggestions, let me know. (Walters question had been written by a young American student and Obama admirer.)
While no official selection has been made 313 days before the election, Obamas campaign team has been testing a mix of pithy phrases meant to reflect the presidents accomplishments and vision for the future all while deflecting attention from the lagging economy and some of the promises from 2008 that didnt quite get fulfilled.
I think his answer is the perfect slogan for 2012 don't you?
Obama 2012- We're Still Working On It!
In another sad note, President Obama has begun gleefully eating small children!
Actually though it is sort of an interesting case study into how the media blows up everything, no matter how small for news.
I mean seriously, the couple needed to be questioned about their baby trying to honk the nose of Obama or stick his fingers into his mouth? People should remember how much space these guys feel they need to fill when they swear every little detail for a Republican gives them momentum or shows they aren't presidential or whatever other nonsense their babbling heads feel the need to spit out and fill the airwaves 24/7.
In the meantime though.....
Obama Eats Your CHILDREN!
Obama Eats Your CHILDREN!
Obama Eats Your CHILDREN!