Brain ''Wiring''

[Zythryn]

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, we were, in general speaking in more general terms. YOU then asked people to carefully read the papers linked to and to post specific questions.

Infi then posted a very specific question which you now don't want to answer even though you said that was what you were looking for?

 

Let me check on something, because I am not sure I understand your position as well as I should.

 

Is your position that the genetic component to thought/opinions are 'hard wired' and can't be changed?

 

Please feel free to expand on your position as I think that might clarify a number of your statements.

[REASON]

Is your position that the genetic component to thought/opinions are 'hard wired' and can't be changed?

 

Sort of. My understanding of his position is that people tend to be oriented hemispherically in the way they think and process information. Some are left-brained in their orientation, some are right-brained. Left-brained people tend to be conservative because they are more rational. Right-brained people tend to be liberal because they are idealistic (It is this definition where individual bias is applied).

 

This is demonstrated by the fact that people receiving the same information obviously process that information in different ways based on their wiring, or hemishperic orientation, and since conservative left-brained people are more rational, they make better politicians and business executives. Generally, they are better leaders.

 

From this, he states in his first post (to which he keeps referring):

 

I have googled ''Left brain, Right brain''thinking and am aware that the brain halves seem to be specialized with the right brains artistic and idealistic, the left mathematical and more rational. It would seem that if the world's largest business is to be run properly you need to have a large portion of rationality with a seasoning of idealism. I can envision the time when all our politicians will have to have their brains scanned so as to fit the activity which they are supposed to perform.

 

It seems to me that it can be inferred from these notions that questor believes that people, or should I say left-brained people, are genetically predisposed to government and business leadership positions, and right-brained people should just stick to the arts and labor. Of course, he sees himself as left-brained. And, according to his post above, we may one day have laws that only allow people to perform certain jobs based on the results of some type of brain scan. It doesn't matter what you aspire to do.

 

Scary huh?

 

Is anyone reminded of the Dr. Seuss story of The Sneetches? We're supposed to learn these lessons as children so we don't become discriminatory as adults.

 

Obviously, not everyone is getting that type of education.

 

Feel free to correct me if I have misrepresented your position, questor.

[questor]

Reason, you did quite well until this:

''It seems to me that it can be inferred from these notions that questor believes that people, or should I say left-brained people, are genetically predisposed to government and business leadership positions, and right-brained people should just stick to the arts and labor. Of course, he sees himself as left-brained. And, according to his post above, we may one day have laws that only allow people to perform certain jobs based on the results of some type of brain scan. It doesn't matter what you aspire to do.''

 

Why not just say what you understand instead of trying to put words or ideas into something I didn't say? If you aspire to something, have a go at it.

You may not be good at it, but there is no ''law'' against it. We don't have ''laws'' concerning employment, but we have had aptitude tests for many years to help people find their niche. I do believe people who are rational, can understand what they read, understand business principles, and are capable of thinking ahead make better government leaders than those who have much difficulty with concepts. Why do you think you understood what I said quite easily, but others here can't get it?

[Ahmabeliever]

My words are too small, Infinite's words are too big.

 

Somewhere in the middle the porridge is just right.

 

I'll go now Questor, I invested a lot of energy here on listening to circular reasoning and blatant avoidance. But have come away with the theory that some left brain people are not capable of seeing the woods for the trees they plant themselves.

[HydrogenBond]

Just quoting studies, although good for offering argument support, does not always lead to the truth, since one merely uses the study that works. Based on that, sometimes one has to rely on common sense.

 

The nature of the basic differences, within the two hemisphere, is an area of science where everyone sort of agrees. The disagreement is the political connection. This would not be an easy experiment; monitoring brain activity in its natural political habitat. If there was a stigmatism for being right brained, one only has to think numbers and give a false reading.

 

Regardless of this difficulty, if we reverse engineer what we do agree on and describe the type of personality each hemisphere would create, if only one hemisphere was being used, hypothetically, the correlation does slant itself somewhat along political line. The Conservative, by its definition, is happy with the status quo and is not trying to be creative just for the sake of creativity. There has to be a logical reason such as making money. The Liberal is far more likely to see something wrong needing to be fixed or changed, offering themselves a creative outlet. There needs to be a cause. Sometimes the quick fixes of constant creativity makes more problems. But it also makes room for more creative solutions. The conservative likes the traditional family. Logically, if something has worked for thousands of years maybe it is worth doing. The Liberal tries to be more creative offering the possibility of alternative family, which may be in the dozens. This is not based on any value judgement, of right and wrong.

 

One can also reverse engineer long and short term memory. The place in life where long term memory often begins to dominate short term is old age. The person can remember what they worn on a particular day when they were 18, but can't find the keys or pay attention to drive. Under those conditions one becomes more structured by the past. If you put the key in the same place each time, one can forget it and still find it.

 

The other extreme is the small child. They are living in the moment mostly working with short term memory. They are not structured, yet, in the way of long term memory, but are free to move from toy to toy, seeing things for the first time. They are also more likely to use creative imagination as part of their play. This can be totally original to them.

 

If we compare parents, the Liberal parent is less likely to structure their children compared to the stricter ways of the Conservative parent. The average result is less long term memory programming while young, so they will stay more in the short term. For the conservative, the philosophy may be spare the rod and spoil the child. There is nothing like fear to generate long term memory. The Liberal thinks this is much too harsh and the child needs his own space to develop.

 

If you look at ADD and related disorders, the attention span is very short term, implicit of dominant short term memory. There is not enough long term memory to offer much in the way of internal resistance or structured will. The child will often need someone on the outside to provide the long term structure for them. The drugs help by moderating short term, but I am not sure if they help with long term.

[questor]

Hydrogen Bond---Well Said! Why didn't you write this earlier? I can't for the life of me understand such a long thread to cover what I said quite plainly in the opening post. Whichever hemisphere one uses and whatever their gender, age, or ehnicity, some people think more clearly, learn better, plan better and execute better. This is all due to the biochemistry or better ''brain

wiring''.

[InfiniteNow]

Wow... so basically all this time the only thing I needed to do for my feedback and the feedback of others to be classified as intelligent and useful was to agree with your position? Fascinating. You're right, that could have saved us all a lot of time had we known sooner.

 

 

 

 

STAFF:

 

The OP of this thread has shown a repeated unwillingness to discuss this issue scientifically and has failed after 18 pages to offer any evidence directly supporting his conjecture.

 

Please move this thread to the Strange Claims, as Alternative Theories is intended as a place for people to support and improve upon their non-mainstream, but otherwise scientific theories. The OP has offered no such support, willingness to support, nor understanding of the scientific method or recognition of the importance of supporting his positions with direct peer-reviewed citations.

 

You have already demonstrated a tremendous amount of patience, but after 18 pages this thread is now detrimental to the heart and spirit of the Alternative Theories forum.

[REASON]

Hydrogen Bond---Well Said! Why didn't you write this earlier? I can't for the life of me understand such a long thread to cover what I said quite plainly in the opening post. Whichever hemisphere one uses and whatever their gender, age, or ehnicity, some people think more clearly, learn better, plan better and execute better. This is all due to the biochemistry or better ''brain

wiring''.

 

WOW! You guys are just way better with better brain wiring. :rolleyes:

 

If you even had a clue you'd realize that this need you have to demonstrate how much better you think you are only reveals the unfortunate depth of your insecurity and low self esteem.

 

Good luck.

[HydrogenBond]

I like to brain storm, looking at thing in many ways. Sometimes the answer is more complicated than one thing.

 

Overall, the mechanisms of memory are not completely understood. Brain areas such as the hippocampus, the amygdala, the striatum, or the mammillary bodies are thought to be involved in specific types of memory. For example, the hippocampus is believed to be involved in spatial learning and declarative learning, while the amygdala is thought to be involved in emotional memory.

Long-term memory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Here is another possible angle. The Conservatives have a different ratio usage of hippocampus to amygdala, with more hippocampus. Conservatism is based on long term traditions, where enough time and repetition gives one a greater sense of perspective. This is not to say the perspective is perfect, but the longer one does anything the more spatially one is able to react to the environment. It is like learning a job, if you compare month one to year ten there is a difference.

 

The Liberal appears to have a greater amygdala to hippocampus ratio. This is connected to more emotional learning. Save the whale is more of a community warm fuzzy to make everyone feel good. It is not a cold rational event based on practical thinking. It is a warm community event.

 

The Liberals will often stereo-type the Conservatives as cold and heartless unconcerned for the poor. Or they don't use enough amygdala for the emotional learning needed to make this warm connection. The Conservative may stereo-type the Liberal as a tree hugger. To them cause and affect seems off, treating the tree like a person. In the warmth of their irrational emotions it becomes a friend. Not enough hippocampus to see it is wood ready for to be manufactured for a house.

 

Emotional thinking is different than rational thinking, although both use logic and emotions. The difference is which comes first, the logic or the emotion. Once it is in motion it is not easy to tell the difference.

 

For example, I go into a cave and start to explore. I notice there are cracks in the ceiling and it looks like there is a danger. Based on this reasoning, I get scared and leave the cave. The next person, is afraid of caves, even before they enter. The emotion is already active without real input data or rational pre-assessment. Without even collecting data their imagination begins to generate rational scenarios. When the two run out of the cave looking scared, one may be hard pressed to see any difference. Both are afraid and both may even present reasons for why they are afraid. The first person may use the one two punch of hippocampus-amygdala. The second person may be using the one two punch amygdala-hippocampus.

 

According to the psychology of Jung, he said they humans have four orientating factors, with most humans specializing in one. One can orientate themselves to reality with intellect, emotions, intuitions or direct sensory interaction. Based on the intellect, doing X is good for little Joe. But based on emotions, maybe little Joe is not ready, today. This may not appear rational to the intellect, but it still follows emotional cause and affect, with Joe's mood today not good for learning.

 

This emotional orientation and ability to pick up even the most subtle emotional cues, requires the amygdala. Without it we may not sense little Joe doesn't like to play ball. He is different. But if emotion leads reason, each emotion can create its own different line of reason. For example, if someone is angry with the system they may reason the need for doing something harsh. If someone is sympathetic to the complexities of change, they may reason the need to go slow. The pure intellect beginning without emotion tries to look at the reality of cause and affect. But if change is too fast they get disoriented and also starts to think emotionally. If the amygdala is not as well developed the emotions are crude or the emotional reaction becomes narrowed down. Reasons becomes linear.

[questor]

Before my free speech is curtailed by the powers that be, I would like to make a couple of observations:

1. All answers to biochemical and neural activity are not known, therefore there are no links to give on research not yet done.

2. The research that has been done admits that neural activity has a biochemical and perhaps a genetic basis.

The Biological Basis of Memory: Neural Activity Leaves Biochemical Traces

3. As the numerous posts about this subject clearly show, different people

can view the same data and arrive at opposing conclusions. Some indeed, never do arrive at the specific point.

4. Since this difference should be obvious, it should also be obvious that ''brain wiring'' is different in different people.

5. Research on hemispheric differences have shown specific patterns of brain

function peculiar to the different sides.

Funderstanding - Right Brain vs. Left Brain

Right Brain Left Brain Inventory

6. If one accepts this research as valid, these differences could be used to help determine one's aptitude for a particular job or profession. For President

of the U.S.A. for example, I would like to have a non-dreamer, good executive, rational, person able to make good long range decisions. The following characteristics would not be desirable:

1. • Intuitive, led by feelings

2. • Organisation tends to be lacking

3. • No sense of time

4. • Trouble prioritising, so often late, impulsive

5. • Unlikely to read instruction manual before trying

6. • Listen to how something is being said, rather than what is being said.

 

1.--6. is taken from Right Brain Left Brain Inventory

 

Hemispheric differences may not explain the difference in the ability to think clearly or the difference in political persuasion, but certainly there are obvious differences and we know that thought is biochemical at its base.

[Zythryn]

Questor, I think there is little argument that there is a genetic component to the brain's biochemistry. I also believe that there is little argument that the brain's biochemisty has some general affect on how people process information.

I think where you are getting the argument is that this relationship does not specifically, absolutely, dictate people's positions on specific questions.

As you define it, 'brain wiring' is different in different people. However, I would still hold that experience plays as big a role, if not more, in specific day to day reactions to events.

In other words, yes brain chemistry is a factor of some level.

And, experience is another factor of some level.

People are not slaves to their brain chemistry. Your position and many of your posts seem to imply that brain chemistry is the only factor.

This is where I think you are running into resistance with many posters.

[questor]

The resistance of some posters has been in some cases openly hostile to a new idea which has not undergone much research at present, and therefore

does not have links to substantiate the proposition. I have said that research must be done in order to know the extent of the influence of the wiring upon

perception and I do not know the answer. Your statement:

''People are not slaves to their brain chemistry.'', implies that people can change their minds easily upon being presented with facts. I am not sure this is 100% true. It is obvious that minds can be changed, but it is also

obvious that some mechanism can resist change when presented with facts.

For instance, it has been shown that tax cuts stimulate spending, business activity and growth and a healthy economy. Why then would some politicians want to raise taxes? If there was not a difference in ''wiring'', why would these people not come to the same conclusion? Perceptions are colored by observation and experience, but the mechanism underneath all perceptions is biochemical activity at some particulate level. We don't know what level this is as yet, but someday we will.

You can list all the important issues of the day and you will get 40-50 people

having one view and 40-50 million having an opposing view. These same people will generally agree upon a long list of disparate issues and each group will hold to those views. That is why tests can be devised to quickly tell if one is liberal or conservative. This must be in the ''wiring'' unless someone has evidence of another reason.

[Zythryn]

Your statement:

''People are not slaves to their brain chemistry.'', implies that people can change their minds easily upon being presented with facts.

 

My apologies, there was no intent to imply that the mind could be changed 'easily'. If you read that into my post please reconsider my points without the term 'easily'.

 

Again, I don't argue that the genetic foundation of biochemisty is non-existant, just that it isn't the only factor.

Many people end up changing their political views over time. This isn't 'easy', typically it happens over many years.

 

For instance, it has been shown that tax cuts stimulate spending, business activity and growth and a healthy economy. Why then would some politicians want to raise taxes? If there was not a difference in ''wiring'', why would these people not come to the same conclusion?

 

Because it is not a given that tax cuts stimulate spending long term. Many people feel that the government needs the funds now and tax cuts will result in an immediate loss of funds even if they grow over 2-5 years.

There are also differences in opinions on WHERE those tax cuts will do the most good. I feel tax cuts are a good idea for the greatest number of working people. The more people you can raise out of poverty, the more people will become consumers of discretionary items.

 

Do you have any examples/analogies of something that everyone agrees on, yet people react differently too? That might put your hypothesis into a clearer view.

[modest]

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

 

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?

 

Firstly, what are you talking about "political thought". That phrase is not in the paragraphs you are talking about - or anywhere else in the paper. In fact - the word 'though' is not in the study except for saying "it was once thought that twins...."

 

This is why I warned you not to assume the study is talking about what you are talking about. You are now asking me if the study speaks to the mechanism of something it doesn't discuss. No questor - it does not.

 

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by biochemical. Do you mean (for example) more testosterone = aggressive and violent? More serotonin = happier? That kind of thing. Do you have some way of relating that to political ideology? That sounds really unlikely and far-fetched. If that were true there could be some bio-chemical formula when taken would result in people choosing a certain political party. If that is your claim it seems completely and utterly unsupported and frankly a little crazy. Can you perhaps be more specific about your proposition. I've read your opening post and others in the thread and they sound politically motivated to me. Is that the case?

 

-modest

[questor]

Modest, I don't want to get in a conversation unless we both understand what we're talking about. It would help if you would read up on the biochemistry and functioning of the human body.

[modest]

Modest, I don't want to get in a conversation unless we both understand what we're talking about. It would help if you would read up on the biochemistry and functioning of the human body.

 

Do you think inhibiting the reuptake of [imath] 5-HT_1[/imath] hydroxy tryptamine will result in a liberal party affiliation? If so how so.

 

-modest

[questor]

Modest, if you know how the thought process takes place and at what particulate level it takes place and which chemical reactions are involved then please elucidate. Otherwise, we may as well terminate the conversation.

The post has already been moved to the ''oddball claims'' section, even though I made no specific claims, so the thought police are doing their job in anonymity and without any discussion with me.