Brain ''Wiring''

[questor]

This is included in my statement opening this thread:

''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. I call this ''different wiring''. ''

Since there has been quite a bit of confusion and disagreement over this concept, I have to wonder why most of the posters have not taken the time to read about biochemistry in order to better understand it as the basis of human life and activity. If one wishes to acquaint himself with the subject, go to Wikipedia and search for -- biochemistry.

[InfiniteNow]

Your suggestion that the rest of us are uniformed offers zero evidence to support your contention.

[REASON]

I fail to understand why environmental factors such as upbringing, life experiences, education, and other external influences, are not an adequate explanation for understanding someone's world view and ideology, questor.

 

Where do you think people get their ideas about things?

[questor]

Reason, I think the things you mentioned are data input stimuli and may also color data interpretation. I think that underlying this is a possible genetic biochemical predisposition to process data in certain ways. I think some people are neurally wired to interpret data in a liberal fashion and others in a conservative fashion. I think that further brain research wil eventually prove me right or wrong. We don't yet know how thoughts are formed or how opinions or beliefs occur. It would make sense that a belief occurs from observation and examination leading to a valid conclusion, but we know this is not true, religion being a good example. It is also true that some individuals think it is OK to kill innocent fetuses, but it is not OK to kill violent murderers.

People do not interpret data the same way even when observing the same event. This is the basis of my post.

[REASON]

Reason, I think the things you mentioned are data input stimuli and may also color data interpretation. I think that underlying this is a possible genetic biochemical predisposition to process data in certain ways. I think some people are neurally wired to interpret data in a liberal fashion and others in a conservative fashion. I think that further brain research wil eventually prove me right or wrong. We don't yet know how thoughts are formed or how opinions or beliefs occur. It would make sense that a belief occurs from observation and examination leading to a valid conclusion, but we know this is not true, religion being a good example. It is also true that some individuals think it is OK to kill innocent fetuses, but it is not OK to kill violent murderers.

People do not interpret data the same way even when observing the same event. This is the basis of my post.

 

I'm sorry questor, but I just can't seem to get past your labels. Maybe it would be a good idea for you to try and identify what characteristics you think are representative of liberals vs. conservatives.

 

I suspect once you try to list these characteristics, you will find that they are very consistent with what is perpetuated for each in the media, and among other outside influences such as friends and family, demonstrating that the biases you have are externally generated, not a result of your biological construct. You will also likely find that only a very small minority of people are likely to be wholly representative of the characteristics you attempt to provide.

 

We do not live in an either/or world.

[questor]

Labels are restrictive. Just for example, how can we label a person who would answer YES to the following questions? Do you think most people would say yes to some, but no to others? If you presented these questions to a website frequented by liberals, how many no's would you get? If you presented these questions to a conservative website, how many yes's would you get? How many would you answer no to?

1. Are you against capital punishment?

2. Do you think the wealthy should pay more taxes?

3. Do you think affirmative action should be used to ''level the playing field''?

4. Should government should do more for the people?

5. Should New Orleans be rebuilt immediately?

6. Should we allow undocumented aliens to stay in the US ?

7. Is it unfair that a larger percentage of penal institution inmates are black?

8. Our society has been greatly improved by political correctness.

9. Prayer should not be allowed in public schools.

10. People have no right to sit in moral judgement of others.

[InfiniteNow]

:);)

[REASON]

Labels are restrictive. Just for example, how can we label a person who would answer YES to the following questions? Do you think most people would say yes to some, but no to others? If you presented these questions to a website frequented by liberals, how many no's would you get? If you presented these questions to a conservative website, how many yes's would you get? How many would you answer no to?

1. Are you against capital punishment?

2. Do you think the wealthy should pay more taxes?

3. Do you think affirmative action should be used to ''level the playing field''?

4. Should government should do more for the people?

5. Should New Orleans be rebuilt immediately?

6. Should we allow undocumented aliens to stay in the US ?

7. Is it unfair that a larger percentage of penal institution inmates are black?

8. Our society has been greatly improved by political correctness.

9. Prayer should not be allowed in public schools.

10. People have no right to sit in moral judgement of others.

 

These questions are incredibly vague and the answers to 9 and 10 in particular could be misconstrued due to the way they are phrased. I answered "depends" to the first seven and 9, and "no" to 8 and 10.

 

What does that tell you about my brain wiring?

 

Why are these questions indicative of anything to you? Where did you learn about these issues? Do you live in New Orleans? Have you ever been in prison with a predominately black inmate population? How would your parents and siblings (if you have any) answer these questions? How would the people you socialize with answer them? Were you raised by strict parents, or parents that promoted openness and encouraged you to be expressive? If you attended church growing up, what was the message there? What was expected of you growing up? What values were instilled in you from the time you were a child? Who were your biggest influences? Tell me about some important childhood memories you can recall. Can you describe any defining moments that have happened in your life?

 

I could go on and on with these questions in an effort to try and piece together what it is that makes you you. Your experiences in life have shaped your mental filter from the moment you were born, and information passes through your filter as part of your mental process of formulating an opinion or your beliefs. I'm not saying that hemispheric orientation is not also a factor in how you perceive and analyze information, but there is no evidence that it determines political persuasion or political aptitude as you have suggested.

 

This has been thoroughly gone over in this thread, and I know CraigD in particular has presented studies that confirm this in his posts.

[questor]

You asked me what your replies to the questions indicated about your thought processes . To me they indicate a difficulty in understanding

the questions. Maybe I could have somehow made them simpler or provided you with more information. Perhaps I do not communicate meaning very well.

To help me, lets take the first question:

1. Are you against capital punishment?

What is it about this question that is confusing or needs further explanation?

In question number two:

2. Do you think the wealthy should pay more taxes?

How could I phrase this so it wouldn't be ''incredibly vague''?

I am not trying to ''label'' you, I am truly interested in a person's thought mechanism and I think each of these questions are easy to understand and can be answered with one word.

[REASON]

You asked me what your replies to the questions indicated about your thought processes . To me they indicate a difficulty in understanding the questions. Maybe I could have somehow made them simpler or provided you with more information. Perhaps I do not communicate meaning very well.

 

Well if you don't mind, I'll just go with the last one.

 

 

To help me, lets take the first question:

1. Are you against capital punishment?

What is it about this question that is confusing or needs further explanation?

 

I have always been a bit on the fence on this issue. It is very emotional and complicated. It's not that I don't undestand it, I'm concerned about granting this type of power to our government, particularly when I'm not convinced it is being properly applied. I'm concerned about the fact that our system of justice is not always precise and the wrong people have been executed. Generally, I'm opposed to the idea. But if one of my loved one's was brutally raped and murdered, I would probably want the perpetrator executed, assuming I was convinced they had caught the right person.

 

But how is it applied? What are the methods of execution? I might be in favor of lethal injection, I'm opposed to electricution. I might be in favor of allowing it to remain a state issue, but I would oppose it at as federal law.

 

It's not just as simple as your litmus test question, questor. There are details to consider that affect my thinking.

 

 

In question number two:

2. Do you think the wealthy should pay more taxes?

How could I phrase this so it wouldn't be ''incredibly vague''?

I am not trying to ''label'' you, I am truly interested in a person's thought mechanism and I think each of these questions are easy to understand and can be answered with one word.

 

Really? What do you mean by "more taxes?" Do you mean more dollars, a higher percentage, a variety of different types of taxes that those who are not wealthy don't have to pay, or all of the above?

 

I would say yes to more dollars. It doesn't make sense for someone who's AGI is $1,000,000 to pay the same dollar figure as someone who's AGI is $10,000. So from the standpoint of actual dollars, the wealthy should pay more taxes. As for percentage, I'm not convinced that the wealthy should pay a higher percentage.

 

Generally, I prefer a consumption tax system, such as the Fair Tax, as opposed to income tax and property tax and so on. In that scenario, the wealthy would probably pay more tax dollars because they would tend to spend more money, but might pay a lower percentage because they are often better at saving (well, it is a lot easier to save when you have something to save). But this would be based more on personal responsibility, and could help to stem tax evasion, fraud, corruption, and the outsourcing of jobs.

 

Again, it's not just as simple as "pay more taxes."

 

Maybe in your left-brainedness you don't pay much attention to detail, which is something I think is important when establishing laws.

 

All of this is beside the point because my positions on these issues are not indicative of my wiring. They are indicative of my education, experiences, and influences. I was not born with a propensity toward consumption taxes or capital punishment, but I was taught about the value of fairness from a very young age, and it has resonated throughout my life as an important aspect of my filter.

 

I hope I'm making it difficult for you to caste me. I know you like to have everyone tied up in a neat and tidy little box.

[questor]

Whatever side of my brain I am using enables me to see that you want a lot of information before making a decision. Does this cause you to delay important decisions until you can gather quite a bit of data pro and con? The first question: 1. Are you against capital punishment?, could have been answered with a simple no, since you would favor it under certain circumstances.

The second question: 2. Do you think the wealthy should pay more taxes?, means exactly what it says. It does not address alternative taxes, fair taxes, deductions or anything else. It basically asks if you think the rich are undertaxed and should pay more.

If I may say, when answering a question it helps to answer the question asked without considering other permutations of the question. It is usually true that most issues have more than one side or facet, but in this case, all I wanted was a yes or no.

Since this thread is about biochemical and neural networks having an effect upon one's thought processes, and since you do not think this is the case,

why don't we terminate the conversation because we have nowhere to go?

[InfiniteNow]

And all of these (seemingly) random questions relate to hemispherical dominance, how exactly?

 

It' quite intriquing how far you seem willing to carry on this self-delusion with zero empirical support. Fascinating, really. :eek_big:

[Ahmabeliever]

I'll use an analogy.

 

I have a computer in my head. The operating system was installed to run a human with genetics determining some factors like bulk, appearance, and processing speed. Other than that it is a clean computer, much like any other human operating system. We'll call it a mac :shrug: There are no other types of operating systems (for humans), but some might be manufactured faulty and appear to be different (ie: idiot savants, very low iq people, genetic defects, Rosie O'Donnell).

 

In my mothers stomach I hear trains every night. We move before I am born. I do not know why but I've always found the sound of trains comforting. When the local mayor plans to install trains, I love the idea!

 

I might develop a taste for jazz, or punk rock, or even death metal and opera, according to what I hear in the womb. I might prefer silence. My programming begins with the consciousness of anything external to myself. Everything becomes an input to the database. The combinations become infinite before I have exited the womb.

 

One operating system and infinite possibilities.

 

Two types of human??? :eek_big: Far too convenient.

 

Billions actually, but if we must be boxed we'll use the two for now.

 

The only reason you are able to categorise people in this manner is due to the existance of the political parties, not some hard wired brain function. In NZ using your supposition there are 6 types of people, possibly more, maybe we're more evolved.... :)

 

Labour, National, NZ First, Act, Christian Heritage, Greens.

 

These parties tell us much about NZ. We obviously have the left, the right, the parties unhappy with either choice (fence sitters?), then the green movement and christians which could be called far left and right.

 

This not only points out the varying shades of black and white, it points out far more. Poor people, rich people, people in between. Consumers, conscientious objectors, much like any society...

 

Get any rich neighbourhood, it is composed of left and right brained people. But the percentage of conservative voters is always higher. Why? Conservative parties always promise to protect the interests of those who 'have'. Now get a poor neighbourhood, they'll vote for who might benefit their interests better. Generally this is a vote for the left.

 

Question for the threads author - Does a newly converted christian switch brain wiring when he stops voting green and starts voting christian heritage?

 

Values are not installed as part of our brains hard wiring. Values are taught and learned. The actual values created in individuals depend upon individual interpretation of the input. The interpretation is influenced by other external inputs, or frames of reference.

[questor]

The brain processes data according to the way the neural pathways are set up. The neural pathways are operated by biochemical reactions taking place

according to genetic direction. Outside stimuli, environmental events, social interactions and all input is perceived and interpreted by the underlying biochemical reactions. If the biochemical reactions and neural pathways were the same for all people, we would pretty much think the same way. This is not the case, so there must be a difference at some level of thought production. If you want to say that life's experiences cause your reactions to an event, explain that influence at the biochemical level.

[InfiniteNow]

The brain processes data according to the way the neural pathways are set up. The neural pathways are operated by biochemical reactions taking place

according to genetic direction. Outside stimuli, environmental events, social interactions and all input is perceived and interpreted by the underlying biochemical reactions. If the biochemical reactions and neural pathways were the same for all people, we would pretty much think the same way. This is not the case, so there must be a difference at some level of thought production. If you want to say that life's experiences cause your reactions to an event, explain that influence at the biochemical level.

 

Your lack of knowledge on this subject makes you appear quite ill suited to be framing a theory.

 

Your text above is so full of nonsequiturs and misrepresentations of what people are saying that I am not even sure where to begin. However, I will start here.

 

Every time a nerve fires, it increases it's web like connections to the nerves around it. The less a nerve fires, the fewer connections it has. The neural system is very plastic, and is in a constant state of dynamic changes, where some connections are pruned and others created with each passing second... as a result of life's experiences which cause all of the electrochemical neural cascades transmitting information throughout the CNS.

 

Are you with me so far? Can you repeat back to us in your own words what I've said above so we can see what you've understand and where the gaps in your knowledge remain?

[questor]

Since you obviously consider yourself an expert because you have quoted an extraneous snippet you have read somewhere, why don't you continue your explanation of how a neural plexus is formed and how the biochemical reactions underlying this formation form the thought process? This way ,you can clarify the reason ( on a biochemical level ) why people think differently when presented with a stimulus. This could also help us to go forward with the right brain- left brain research that has been published and reduce it to the cellular level or below. In the end, all life processes begin at the particulate level,do they not?

[InfiniteNow]

You've completely ignored my request, and have not demonstrated that you understand this, but I will DESPITE that provide you with an answer to YOUR question.

 

This way ,you can clarify the reason ( on a biochemical level ) why people think differently when presented with a stimulus.

Because the information from that stimulus is travelling through a different sensory and neural pathway, a sensory and neural pathway which has been shaped by the very unique and individual experiences of each person.

 

 

Asking questions of others does nothing to support your own assertions, but if you ask the RIGHT questions it might help you to learn where your assertions don't hold water.