Brain ''Wiring''

[Zythryn]

Questor, you can't teach if you won't discuss.

If you would simply quote a small snippet of an example of why you feel the study supports your idea, it gives a basis of discussion.

If you wish to lecture, that is fine too, but I would rather see a discussion.

[Ahmabeliever]

Questor = you took three posts basically to tell me to butt out. While praising people who's posts fit your idea of intelligence. Then you had a go at them anyway.

 

It is you working from ignorance. You think I'm not capable of reading, that I haven't read your repeated ignorance of facts presented to you.

 

You got a nerve. You accuse Infinite of only wanting to argue but you seem unwilling to cede anything and have now begun to try throw people out of the debate who don't fit your standards.

 

You are a brain surgeon? You work with the human mind? You have read a bit more and have some vocabulary you like to throw around, and laymans terms are beneath you?

 

Your dismissal of myself is humorous. I was the boy in class you tried to catch up with. But education does not make an intellect, only hones the potential.

 

I stand by what I said, one operating system with infinite possible inputs.

 

Like this thread, only you would have it censored to suit as you think you are on some higher level intellectual pursuit, not being a stubborn ***.

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite, due to your attitude from the beginning of this thread, I have to believe you only want to argue, not to learn.

Any speculation as to my motivations is irrelevant to the issue at hand. Please refrain from trying to tell me (and others) what I am thinking.

 

Please focus on the content of my posts. Would it be possible for you to please quote which parts of which articles you feel support your conjecture?

 

 

It does not matter to me whether you believe or disbelieve my position.

You have made this plainly obvious.

 

 

Since I had to do some work and spend some time arriving at my opinion, why don't you do the same?

I have, sir. Now, would it be possible for you to please quote which parts of which articles you feel support your conjecture?

 

 

The information is there before you.

Would it be possible for you to please quote which parts of which articles you feel support your conjecture?

 

 

I don't care to communicate with a rude person, so when you apologize for the insults you have directed toward me, maybe we can have polite dialogue.

Not likely to happen. Now, would it be possible for you to please quote which parts of which articles you feel support your conjecture?

 

 

You never want to seek out knowledge for your self, you always want it spoon-fed to you by others.

That's quite an ad hominem attack, and it does nothing to a) discredit the work I have put into acquiring knowledge for myself, and B) to support your conjecture. For a person who seeks apology, you sure have a funny way of reciprocating.

 

 

As you can see, you are the one making this personal. Others here have requested the same data I have, and you've curtly dismissed their requests as well.

 

I ask you, given the above, who seems to be the argumentative person in this thread? :rolleyes:

[DougF]

I've been following this thread sense it first started and found it very interesting and would like to see where it goes from here,

but when I read stuff like this.

questor

Infinite' date=' due to your attitude from the beginning of this thread, I have to believe you only want to argue, not to learn. It does not matter to me whether you believe or disbelieve my position. Since I had to do some work and spend some time arriving at my opinion, why don't you do the same? The information is there before you. I don't care to communicate with a rude person, so when you apologize for the insults you have directed toward me, maybe we can have polite dialogue. You never want to seek out knowledge for your self, you always want it spoon-fed to you by others. Why don't you re-read the posts to see where the insults are? [/quote']

:doh:

It reminds me of the little kid who grabs his ball and goes home, so are we adults here or what, lets get on with it and stop the he said she said or are you going to take you ball and go home! :rolleyes:

 

come on stay and play, pretty please. B)

[questor]

A suggestion to those who may be interested in this topic. Read my opening statement (post #1). Read the studies presented by Modest (post#145). Read the studies on right-brain left-brain research ( google for them). Make up your own mind as to the possibilities. This field has been thoroughly plowed, you either recognize genetic and biochemical differences of thought processes that may determine political affiliation or you don't. If you have a specific question, I will answer it.

[InfiniteNow]

A suggestion to those who may be interested in this topic. Read my opening statement (post #1). Read the studies presented by Modest (post#145). Read the studies on right-brain left-brain research ( google for them). Make up your own mind as to the possibilities. This field has been thoroughly plowed, you either recognize genetic and biochemical differences of thought processes that may determine political affiliation or you don't. If you have a specific question, I will answer it.

 

 

Would it be possible for you to please quote which parts of which articles you feel support your conjecture?

 

ANY articles?

[freeztar]

A suggestion to those who may be interested in this topic. Read my opening statement (post #1). Read the studies presented by Modest (post#145).

 

I would also recommend that readers look at all the posts that refute this idea.

 

Read the studies on right-brain left-brain research ( google for them).

 

Not this again... :rolleyes:

Questor, you need to provide these links as well as how they support your idea.

 

Make up your own mind as to the possibilities. This field has been thoroughly plowed, you either recognize genetic and biochemical differences of thought processes that may determine political affiliation or you don't. If you have a specific question, I will answer it.

 

I'm in the camp of those that don't recognize the connection, not because I'm incapable of recognizing, but rather because there's no hard supporting evidence.

[nutronjon]

I no longer moderate these boards. So, I can call you a dumbshit all I want as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences of my words from the people who are currently moderators. B)

 

Again, you asking me questions to support my stance does nothing to validate the claims you've been making, the claims we've been poking holes in.

 

Onus of proof is on the person making the claim. If you feel that something I've shared needs evidence in support, then let me know and I'll share said evidence.

 

However, you're continued questions to the rest of us is evasion, pure and simple. The issue here is that you're idea is false, no matter how much you yell that it isn't or ask arbitrary subjective questions, and it's become quite obvious that you can't back it up with data or evidence.

 

And, since you asked, I studied biochem and neuropsy at the University of Texas at Austin. :rolleyes:

 

 

Excuse me, "So, I can call you a dumbshit all I want as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences of my words from the people who are currently moderators." This is not just about you and the person you were addressing, I got a bad feeling when I read what you want, because it is so unpleasant. That is kind of like peeing in the swimming pool. I am getting out of this thread, and I will get out of the forums if they fall to this level.

[InfiniteNow]

If you have a specific question, I will answer it.

 

Questor,

 

As you are most certainly aware, Cloninger proposed three dimensions of personality traits, each of which has strong correlation with activity in a specific central monoaminergic system. Other studies have also shown that activity in a variety of cortical regions is associated with human personality traits, which hence lend support to Cloninger's theory concerning central monoaminergic influence on human personality traits.

 

As you’ve surely read, Cloninger demonstrated the existence of three independent dimensions of personality, dimensions which are defined and related to heritable variation in patterns of response to specific types of environmental stimuli.

 

The three dimensions, for the other folks reading this thread (beside you and me) who have never seen them before, are summarized as: Novelty Seeking. Novelty seeking is due to a heritable tendency toward frequent exploratory activity and intense excitement in response to novel stimuli. The next is Harm Avoidance. Harm avoidance is due to a heritable tendency to respond intensely to aversive stimuli and to learn to avoid punishment, novelty, and non-reward passively. The third is Reward Dependence. Reward dependence is due to a heritable tendency to respond intensely to reward and succorance and to learn to maintain rewarded behavior.

 

This argues for a naturally selected set of characteristics in each human being which have both biochemical explanation surrounding their mechanism of action, as well as support and foundation regarding their evolutionary utility.

 

 

So, let’s start here.

 

How does your proposal that political ideology such as “liberal” and “conservative” are emergent behavioral properties generated from hemispherical lateralization and dominance supplement without inherent contradiction the three personality traits as proposed by Cloninger, a proposal which is heavily supported by scientists working across research modalities?

 

Next… So these measurements can be replicated by other labs and your conjecture tested independently, how have you quantitatively defined your binary behavioral/personality divisions of “right brained” and “left brained,” and what scale have you used to do so?

 

Finally, what was the evolutionary advantage of the hemispherical dominance split in humans, and how did this differentiation of cortical lateralization aid in the survival of these offspring in greater frequency than the offspring of humans whose hemispheres were roughly equal in chemoelectric activation and cardiovascular hemoglobin use as described by physiologist Claude Bernard?

 

Like I said. Let’s just start there. Once you’ve addressed these rather basic questions, I’ll start asking some that are a bit harder.

 

Cheers! :rolleyes:

[InfiniteNow]

Excuse me, "So, I can call you a dumbshit all I want as long as I'm willing to accept the consequences of my words from the people who are currently moderators." This is not just about you and the person you were addressing, I got a bad feeling when I read what you want, because it is so unpleasant. That is kind of like peeing in the swimming pool. I am getting out of this thread, and I will get out of the forums if they fall to this level.

 

Yeah, well. I know Questor, and we have some history here on Hypography. I'm generally an amiable sort, and I get along with anyone who has academic integrity and supports their positions, but I've grown abundantly tired of questor's assertions as if they are fact with zero credible supporting evidence.

 

I do sincerely apologize if I've offended you, and I hope you will rest assured that the staff of Hypography are a group with a tremendous amount of integrity who did Infract me for my comments. However, if you have something to add to this thread, please don't let my own personal frustration prevent you from doing so.

 

Be well. :rolleyes:

[modest]

Modest, thanks for posting the studies. The studies definitely support my position, even though the biochemical influence on genetic activity and vice versa has not been deeply pursued. It would be helpful if anyone who wanted to discuss this subject would read this material rather than argue from a position of ignorance.

 

You think both papers support your position? That doesn't make any sense. You haven't even looked at them have you?

 

:rolleyes:

 

-modest

[DougF]

questor

A suggestion to those who may be interested in this topic. Read my opening statement (post #1). Read the studies presented by Modest (post#145). Read the studies on right-brain left-brain research ( google for them). Make up your own mind as to the possibilities. This field has been thoroughly plowed' date=' you either recognize genetic and biochemical differences of thought processes that may determine political affiliation or you don't. If you have a specific question, I will answer it. [/quote']

 

Results 1 - 10 of about 222,000 for right-brain left-brain research. (0.18 seconds)

right-brain left-brain research - Google Search

 

Did you want me to read all of this, do you think you could narrow it down a little to the ones that are relative to your point of view.

Thank you. DougF

[questor]

Infinite, you don't know questor. And all you have done is criticise something about which you show little understanding. Don't bother to try to overwhelm

me with posting articles with multi-syllabic words written by someone else and

bearing little relation to my theme.

[questor]

Modest, if you have read the studies you posted links for, what do the first two paragraphs of this one mean to you?

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/GeneticsAPSR0505.pdf

[modest]

Modest, if you have read the studies you posted links for, what do the first two paragraphs of this one mean to you?

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/GeneticsAPSR0505.pdf

 

Ok, but first:

 

Modest, thanks for posting the studies. The studies definitely support my position, even though the biochemical influence on genetic activity and vice versa has not been deeply pursued. It would be helpful if anyone who wanted to discuss this subject would read this material rather than argue from a position of ignorance.

 

These papers are in disagreement with each other. By saying studies (plural) it is apparent you haven't spent time understanding what the authors are trying to prove - much less how they are trying to prove it. Your other comment shows equal misunderstanding:

 

A suggestion to those who may be interested in this topic... Read the studies presented by Modest (post#145).

 

It seems odd to me you are urging other people to read something you clearly have not. I honestly would urge you to look at the methods these political scientists used to come to their conclusions. Also look at the conclusions closely - look at what they really say - don't assume any implications that you would have them assume.

 

Now then:

 

The first 2 paragraphs of the one study? What do they mean? That seems limited, but ok. It means that in order to understand political ideology we need to understand genetics better. It would be "far-fetched, odd, even perverse" if people were born with "political predispositions"; however, behavior has a genetic component and therefore political science can't ignore genetics as a factor in ideology.

 

That's what those two paragraphs of this fourteen thousand word study say.

 

-modest

[questor]

Modest, you got part of the idea corect. The first two paragraphs suggest there is a genetic component to political thought. Would this lead you to believe there is a genetic component to all thought or just to political thought? Would you agree that all thought has a biochemical cause? Do these studies speak to the mechanism of biochemical reactions in the thought process? Have you read and understand my opening post? What do you think I am trying to say?

[InfiniteNow]

Infinite, you don't know questor. And all you have done is criticise something about which you show little understanding. Don't bother to try to overwhelm me with posting articles with multi-syllabic words written by someone else and bearing little relation to my theme.

 

Nice. :)

 

 

You've again proven your incompetence. You didn't even try...