Brain ''Wiring''

[charles brough]

Ok, so I myself looked up right/left brain and took a test.. . four were for right brain and 14 for left brain. Fine, so I am supposed to be left brain.

 

But it said: "In addition to thinking in a linear manner, the left brain processes in sequence. The left brained person is a list maker. If you are left brained, you would enjoy making master schedules and and daily planning. You complete tasks in order and take pleasure in checking them off when they are accomplished. Likewise, learning things in sequence is relatively easy for you. For example, spelling involves sequencing - if you are left-brained, you are probability a good speller. The left brain is also at work in the linear and sequential processing of math and in following directions. "

 

actually NONE of that applies to me. I am a terrible speller, don't follow directions and don't bother checking things off or even make lists. I am both or neither. I do not make plans ahead for the day and let my spouse do that. Many of the questions were impossible to answer accurately.

 

Isn't this the way astrology and numerology work?

 

I gather that it is supposed to help direct students on how to learn, but does it have any application at all to social theory? After all, this is a sociological forum.

 

If in the future anyone asks me if I am right or left brain, I think I will reply that I use both of them . . .

[InfiniteNow]

Isn't this the way astrology and numerology work?

Precisely.

 

 

If in the future anyone asks me if I am right or left brain, I think I will reply that I use both of them . . .

 

Bravo. :phones:

[questor]

Charles, I'm sure you do use both sides. Everyone does. This is not an either/or situation. Since this post is trying to show that there are some thought patterns that are desirable for certain endeavors and some are inimical to those endeavors, why would we elect leaders who show none of the patterns necessary for good leadership and stewardship? After all, we are soon to elect a president to lead us through perhaps the most perilous time in our history. My theory is that at some time in the future we can use thought patterns to give an idea of who is most qualified for which job. In other words,a biochemical aptitude test.

[InfiniteNow]

Here's a site called Neuroscience for Kids. It's written at a level that even the most ignorant can understand. In sum, left hemisphere is specialized for language, math, and logic. Right hemisphere is specialized for spatial ability, face recognition, visual imagery, and music.

 

Please... how exactly are you landing on your speculative non-sequitur that we can predict policital affiliation and leadership ability based on these perceptual and motorsensory differences? Screw telling me to google. Cite a specific source and how that source supports your specific conclusions. Stop talking out of your *** about topics you clearly do not understand.

 

 

Neuroscience For Kids - Hemispheres

 

 

Your posts in this thread support the fact that you have no understanding of psychometrics, and your premises are clearly the result of pop science news articles. Your interpretations of these articles is mistaken which results in your premises being false, and hence so are your conclusions.

 

Think I'm just being a jerk and am attacking you for no reason? Fine. Go ahead and prove your assertions with specific citations and show how those support your conclusions. Please...

 

 

Just google it?!?! :phones: Jackass...

[questor]

Your quote:

''left hemisphere is specialized for language, math, and logic. Right hemisphere is specialized for spatial ability, face recognition, visual imagery, and music.''

I have provided this information in my original post. My posits are based upon personal observation. I do not have statistics to support them as I am not aware of any research done on this subject. I have read a couple of news articles based on reactions to political behavior. One is titled ''How the Brain

Helps Partisans Admit No Gray'' Washington Post newspaper July 31, 2006.

Another was written by Drew Westen , professor of psychology and psychiatry at Emory University, also Washington Post-I don't have the date but it's within the last 8 months. The article is titled ''Dems, You Gotta Have Heart''. I would assume anyone with any observational ability would notice that there are two main political parties in the US that have totally different views on how to carry on the nations business and how to react to national security problems. I would also think it should be obvious that these two groups must have different neural activity to reach different conclusions when viewing the same event. Is this clear enough for you? Are you an expert on brain biochemistry? Do you understand the way thoughts are initiated? If so, why not enlighten us all rather than calling someone a jerk?

[InfiniteNow]

I'll take that to mean no, you can't.

[questor]

And I will take that to mean you are no expert on brain activity--

[CraigD]

I would assume anyone with any observational ability would notice that there are two main political parties in the US that have totally different views on how to carry on the nations business and how to react to national security problems.

I don’t believe the Democratic and Republican parties have “totally different views” on how to carry on the nation’s business, either regarding national security, or many other major policy areas. On nearly any given issue, a significant number of Republicans agree with the majority of Democrats, and a significant number of Democrats with the majority of Republicans.

 

American politics are not simple – despite our best wishes and efforts to see them as such.

 

I think it’s useful to distinguish between what various members of the two political parties say the fundamental goals and principles – the purpose, if you will - of the parties are, and what, in a purely practical sense, their purposes actually are. I submit that the purpose of any long-lived, successful political party is to aid its members in being elected to public office. In this sense, the two parties are, practically, identical.

 

This definition is simple, and, I think, accurate, but not, I think, scientifically or sociologically insightful or profound. The only legislative of policy change is suggest to me is “outlaw political parties” – an idea older than the American republic, and extreme to the point of implausibility. As noted by William C. Kimberling in his essay “The Electoral College”

[the early American nation] believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil …

Yet, despite the best efforts of the first Congresses and other political thinkers and policy makers, political parties became dominant in American politics within a few election cycles of the ratification of the Constitution.

 

In short, I don’t think trait such as “being a conservative”, “being a liberal”, “voting Democratic” or “voting Republican” can be correlated well to scientifically quantifiable neuroanatomical or physiological features – “brain wiring”, as this thread’s title puts it. As I describe in post #6, some scientifically rigorous but preliminary research suggests that such traits as “likely to vote” and “unlikely to vote” may correlate well to neuroanotomical and physiological features, but these traits appear to be essentially “politically neutral”, applying equally to self-identified conservatives, liberals, Democrats, Republicans, etc.

 

IMHO, the most promising theory involving the “conservative-liberal” label is the “strict father vs. nurturing parent” model described by Lakoff in his 1996 book “Moral Politics”, which suggests that political beliefs are learned, not innate physical traits.

[charles brough]

Charles, I'm sure you do use both sides. Everyone does. This is not an either/or situation. Since this post is trying to show that there are some thought patterns that are desirable for certain endeavors and some are inimical to those endeavors, why would we elect leaders who show none of the patterns necessary for good leadership and stewardship? After all, we are soon to elect a president to lead us through perhaps the most perilous time in our history. My theory is that at some time in the future we can use thought patterns to give an idea of who is most qualified for which job. In other words,a biochemical aptitude test.

 

Questor, I've studied neurology when young but I am no authority on this sort of psychology. I have done no research on right/left brain data. I came down unnecessarily hard on the subject because from my perspective of social psychology, it is superfelous. Late in the day, I get tired and have been known to make mean posts. The reason we are getting such irresponsible people in office cannot, to me, be materially affected by applying right/left brain research. All the social problems we have accumulated are still here, and things slowly grow worse. People elect the wrong people because (1) the most corrupt have the biggest campaign budget because of special interest backing, (2) the public is more concerned about "what's in it for me right now?" than in building for the long term, (3) voters are more interested in personality than in the integrity of the candidate and watch the electioneering as if it were a prolonged sporting event (4) no candidate with any honor and self-respect would subject himself to the humiliating groveling and lying that is mandatory in order to get elected, (5) and the media makes all the problems worse.

 

In my research, I show that this trend goes with and results from the dividing of a society, in this case, our own society. It has been dividing since about 1500 and as it continues, the very bond that we social beings need to feel we are safe and belong keeps disintegrating further. Social problems multiply and people feel all sorts of stress. So, they have come to hate "society" for its growing failures. They are discouraged and often unable to afford all the "stuff" the system is demanding they buy. They are in no mood to sacrifice for the future because they fear it is a lost cause.

[questor]

Since the basis of brain and neurological biochemical activity is not yet understood, no definitive statement can be made on this subject. You are correct that there are ''aisle crossers'' in politics, but they are the minority. You are also correct that all politicians' first obligation is to themselves. Votes

on any issue are not always unanimous by liberals or conservatives. Being

these things are so, how do you account for almost universal liberal opposition to the Iraq war? Almost universal conservative opposition to the idea of welfare? Almost universal conservative opposition to same sex marriage? Almost universal liberal opposition to a national ID card? Almost universal conservative opposition to the ACLU and the concept of Political Correctness?

These are just a few of the issues engendering opposite reactions. If there were not opposing thought we would have no disagreement.

My question is , how can so many people have an opposite view of the same problem? The liberals are generally of the secular '' if it feels good, do it '' mentality while the conservatives are more moral and judgemental.

[questor]

Charles the failure is not in the society, it is in the people that live in the society. The dividing of our culture is due to different wiring in thought pathways. why does one person think the government owes him a living while another would never accept welfare? Why does one want affirmative action, while another wants merit? Why would we allow social promotions in school?

Would you call this a conservative trait? Why can we not offer constructive criticism to those who need it most? Why do we allow narrow interests to remove the last remaining vestiges of the religion our nation was founded on?

There is a cultural war going on between people who want to live life with no curbs on it, to cheapen our society and those who would like to maintain the qualities that made us a great nation. Yes, our country is being torn apart by conflicting views of the left and the right.

[InfiniteNow]

Since the basis of brain and neurological biochemical activity is not yet understood, no definitive statement can be made on this subject.

This is what everyone has been telling you for five pages. You have just defeated your own entire basis for this argument by acknowledging the above.

[questor]

You don't read so well. the title of these threads is ''Alternative Theories'', not ''Alternative Science''.

I said:

''Since the opposing candidates have such differing world views, I can't help but think there has to be a basic difference in the biochemical processes of their brains. '' The operative word is THINK, I didn't say I KNEW. It is a theory of mine based upon observation. The difference exists and there are many examples of it, some of which I have posted. I think it is the reason the US is coming apart and the reason there is a lack of consensus among the citizens.

If thoughts are biochemical reactions and the chemistry involved is the same

for all, it would appear that the result would be the same, colored of course, by personal experiences. Instead, the result of the chemical activity can lead to opposing perceptions leading me to think there is different ''wiring''. We are already certain that all people do not possess the same intellectual ability, so it follows that all people cannot reason to the same degree of competence.

It would naturally follow that if there are two sides to an argument it is quite possible that one side could be incorrect.

[InfiniteNow]

You don't read so well. the title of these threads is ''Alternative Theories'', not ''Alternative Science''.

I said:

''Since the opposing candidates have such differing world views, I can't help but think there has to be a basic difference in the biochemical processes of their brains. '' The operative word is THINK, I didn't say I KNEW. It is a theory of mine based upon observation.

Despite the alternativeness of your theory, it's still been shown false, not accurate, and against existing science. Do you still think the same way you did when you opened the thread despite this contradictory information? If so, you win a creationist trophy. They're pretty, and go well next to the dancing Jesus on the dashboard.

[questor]

I still think as I did when I started. I do not think you have grasped what

I think. Your utterance of the phrase '' it's still been shown false, not accurate, and against existing science. Do you still think the same way ''

proves to me you do not understand. Give me one bit of science or any type of proof that I am wrong.

[charles brough]

Charles the failure is not in the society, it is in the people that live in the society. The dividing of our culture is due to different wiring in thought pathways. why does one person think the government owes him a living while another would never accept welfare? Why does one want affirmative action, while another wants merit? Why would we allow social promotions in school?

Would you call this a conservative trait? Why can we not offer constructive criticism to those who need it most? Why do we allow narrow interests to remove the last remaining vestiges of the religion our nation was founded on?

There is a cultural war going on between people who want to live life with no curbs on it, to cheapen our society and those who would like to maintain the qualities that made us a great nation. Yes, our country is being torn apart by conflicting views of the left and the right.

 

"People" are a consistenty instinctive unchanging entity which is ALWAYS shaped only by the ideology that binds everyone into the society. Human nature is not and never has been a failure. Societies fail only because the ideology that binds the people into them fail. People are taking increasingly adversarial positions in politics because the ideological system is failing. Christianity was failing five hundred years ago so it was supplemented by a growing secular ideology which is also now failing. So, there is a tendency to return to the old ideology which has still survived and people think is the moral support for society.

 

They turn back to it because there is no viable alternative for them. All our secular ideals are failing. The free-enterprise systems is leading both to greedy rich making immense sums of money to spend on an excess of luxuries while the poor spend their time figuring out ways to pry more welfare from the government. People think of their class instead of the nation or society and show little interest in paying to maintian the nation's infrastructure. Instead, the government wastes the nations wealth on ventures to finance the military-industrial complex.

 

The secular ideals: EQUALITY . . . how equal can people possibly get? DEMOCRACY . . . we cannot even IMPOSE democracy successfully on nations any more . . . PEACE . . . we are the ones who are waging wars. . . ETC.

[questor]

Charles, you have put the cart before the horse. Name one ideology that did not spring from the head of a man or a small group of men. It is only when enough people agree to follow a certain leader that ideologies are adopted by a society.