So why bring up enlarged areas of the brain in a thread about, "Bad Thinkers; Why do some people believe conspiracy theories?" if not to imply a causal relationship, especially when such brain growth primarily exists in those who you believe are "Bad Thinkers"?
Because it turns out, that such a bit of neuroanatomy actually is a pretty good predictor of conspiracy buffs.
What could possibly have been your point?
It was interesting that such a minor detail of the brain could be such a great predictor of one's likelihood of buying into conspiracy theories. As I said, it appears that Neville Chamberlain was inclined to the opposite error, not perceiving the danger Hitler presented to the world. And just because one tends to buy into such theories does not necessarily mean that they are always wrong.
The case of James Forrestal is instructive. The first Secretary of Defense, Forrestal, became convinced that dangerous agents of a foreign power were shadowing his every move. He was hospitalized as he became increasingly irrational. He was recognized as being a danger to himself, but due to his position in government, was not restrained or guarded. He fell from a 16 story window to his death while in the hospital.
It turns out that Israel, suspecting that he might make some agreement with the Arab states, did indeed have agents shadowing him. He was mentally ill, but he wasn't wrong. Keep in mind, Forrestal's condition is not at all like that of most conspiracy buffs. They aren't crazy, they just tend to be more inclined to see conspiracies where others do not. And that, as you know, is nicely predicted by a particular detail of neuroanatomy.
If the growth occurs in both the right and the left
As I said, it's a very good predictor, but not a perfect one. Anatomy is not necessarily destiny.
then why bring it up at all?
Because it's interesting to me, as a person who believes that mental qualities like intelligence and attitudes are more strongly influenced by environment than by genes, that such a thing could be.
You might just as well have pointed out that all three groups have eyes in their heads.
Rather, it would be like noting that one group was much more likely than the other group to have acute vision, and that there was a significant anatomical correlation for it.
There is no other possible point to even bringing it up except to imply a causal relationship as well as to try and engender the emotional equivalent of "Ick! I don't want any brain growths!
Remember, these are not abnomalities. They are just normal variations of things we all have. Suppose we found that people with significantly larger muscle mass were quite likely to be liberal, and those who could run faster than normal were quite likely to be conservative. It's like that.
Especially if it means I have something in common with either those Neanderthals on the right or those jack booted fascists who wear black masks and tear up college campuses!
If you're conservative and you don't buy into some of those whacked-out theories,(as a great many conservatives do not) it could mean a number of things.
- You're an outlier, who doesn't have an enlarged amygdala
- You're a rationalist, who depends less on emotion and more on reason
- Your upbringing was very effective, and whatever your anatomical characteristics, that was the deciding factor.
- Any number of other possibilities.
You backed off the clear implication (rightly so) because I pointed out that correlation does not imply causation
I rejected
your implication, Remember, it's not what I said. It was what you said. Remember, I pointed out that this anatomical difference was a good predictor, not that there was a causation. And that's mathematically sound; you can have very good predictors, with not apparent causation. You shot down a claim I never made.
but the point is that you had to back off from that point
My point is now, exactly what it was. That these details of neuroanatomy are very good predictors of conservative or liberal outlook, even better than family background. And I showed you that conservatives are indeed more inclined to conspiracy theories than liberals are.
and want to pretend now like you never intended to make it.
You've made a claim for me, and want me to take ownership.
The fact of the matter is that it is those on the left who cannot think clearly;
I don't think you're getting what this data suggests: conspiracy buffs are not necessarily stupid or confused. That was the point of the research I cited. They tend to be more receptive to conspiracy theories. And it's a very good correlation, not a perfect one. So for example, in that list of weird theories, there are at least two that are often accepted by leftists.
who refuse to learn the lessons of history, who want to lord power over others whom they believe to be "bad thinkers" and who make emotional decisions rather than rational ones.
Perhaps one who thinks of himself as a "very stable genius." Such people might want to reduce the number of citizens who vote. That was an issue as far back as Rome when the Optimates decried the influence of the Populares in government. We see that constantly, in once scheme or another to Gerrymander voting, or to find ways to discourage voting by whoever the "good people" fear.
But of course, this isn't the point of the discussion.
It is those on the right who understand that God does not micromanage your life and that government shouldn't either
You're adding things to the discussion again.
; that it should be done to the criminal as he did (or sought to do) to his neighbor;
Also another issue, but what you said, is not what Jesus said.
that what grows inside a mother's womb is a human being and that private property rights are an extension of one's right to live.
I would not accept the idea that the unborn are private property. But again, our differences on that are not what this discussion is about.
