Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9770457)

To be fair it's more basic than that and the language used here (fear and anxiety vs complexity) is a little pointed.

The amygdala is responsible for instant / instinctual emotional response (fear, yes, but the other instant surface reactions too both positive and negative) and also instant motivation (action without consideration).

The ACC plays a role in higher cognitive function and emotional consideration (logic, reason, consideration and in theory empathy, as empathy is an abstract emotional response rather than one driven by instinct.)

So it's more a logic vs instinct thing here. It's not always about "fear", that's a huge oversimplification of the function of the amygdala.

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier (Post 9770327)

Most of England (especially the South), yes. Though it is sort of worrying that they keep being voted in.

Though I can't help but feel like the news here is, "Study Finds That Conservatives Are Conservative!"...

Its like another article I read today about Boris using terms like "Hot Totty" and "Bumboys" in his articles like this is news. "WHAT?? Boris Johnson is a soggy biscuit Tory toff?? This is brand new information!"

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9779045)

So the liberals have more grey cells and therefore higher IQs - of course they do. :joker::joker: Don’t psychologists tend to lean to the left so no bias there then. :joker: Too many variants and people with opinions reading what they will into the ‘results’.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9779335)

Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity.

What don't you understand about that?

And you think Neural Scientists probably make this up according to their political leaning :joker:

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9769879)

Conservative members are “a breed apart” from members of the other main political parties, with much stronger tendencies towards socially illiberal and authoritarian attitudes and completely different views on Brexit, a study has found.

The biggest ever polling of party members’ opinions shows that Tories are half as likely to support gay marriage as members of Labour, the Lib Dems or the SNP and significantly more supportive of the death penalty, obedience to authority and censorship of the media “to uphold moral standards”.

The findings by academics at Queen Mary University of London could spell trouble for the chances of a more socially liberal candidate such as Ruth Davidson succeeding Theresa May as Tory leader, given that the final choice is made in a vote of party members.

The study also shows that almost five years after David Cameron sought to move the party towards a more socially inclusive position by pushing through the gay marriage law, Tory members – 44% of whom are 65 or older – remain resistant.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...es-study-finds

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9779430)

Psychology is not a proper science, not in the same way as physics, maths or chemistry with cast iron facts.

It is largely based on observation and interpretation and can’t be considered a science when confirmation bias remains rampant in the field. What part of that do you not understand. :joker:

The scans were real but the rest was based on interpretation.

Originally Posted by Kizzy (Post 9769879)

Conservative members are “a breed apart” from members of the other main political parties, with much stronger tendencies towards socially illiberal and authoritarian attitudes and completely different views on Brexit, a study has found.

The biggest ever polling of party members’ opinions shows that Tories are half as likely to support gay marriage as members of Labour, the Lib Dems or the SNP and significantly more supportive of the death penalty, obedience to authority and censorship of the media “to uphold moral standards”.

The findings by academics at Queen Mary University of London could spell trouble for the chances of a more socially liberal candidate such as Ruth Davidson succeeding Theresa May as Tory leader, given that the final choice is made in a vote of party members.

The study also shows that almost five years after David Cameron sought to move the party towards a more socially inclusive position by pushing through the gay marriage law, Tory members – 44% of whom are 65 or older – remain resistant.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...es-study-finds

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9779430)

Psychology is not a proper science, not in the same way as physics, maths or chemistry with cast iron facts.

It is largely based on observation and interpretation and can’t be considered a science when confirmation bias remains rampant in the field. What part of that do you not understand. :joker:

The scans were real but the rest was based on interpretation.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9779941)

I'm sorry but you can't go oooh its not a proper science! Are you also saying there's no real science in metallurgy or fracture mechanics or fluid dynamics or pure mathematics?

All science is based on observation and then proposing a mechanism.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9778955)

44% 65 or older which means 56% are not. And. What do you expect the over 65s to do roll over and die. Talk about AGEIST. I believe you are only about 20 years away from that yourself - what do you propose to do at that age put up and shut up. Disgusting attitude.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9779786)

https://www.theguardian.com/business...the-uk-economy

If you think a second referendum is the answer to your prayers I think you might be in for a rude awakening.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9780169)

Psychology is a cognitive science more predisposed to combination bias. People will cherry-pick the information that confirms their own beliefs and it is therefore not as reliable as other sciences.

The study mentioned is one such example of this and the ‘results’ mentioned flitted with what the researchers wanted to see. It is not an exact science so pardon me for not giving it the same credibility I would give to say a mathematical equation.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9781421)

Cognitive or not, all science is based on theory. There are no facts in science, (even in hard science). All science including psychology, adheres to scientific method and all science including hard science and psychology abides by the same rules and includes a great deal of mathematics and statistics. The only difference between psychology and other sciences is its relative newness and its massive complexities.

Someone wrote a theory based on their findings which of course included mathematical equations. Do you really believe a theory is an opinion of what an individual wants to see?

I don't think you have any real understanding about the importance of psychology. Without psychology we wouldn’t of tackled any mental illness or aided drug development for various diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Without psychology we wouldn't have anti-depressants or anti-psychotic drugs and surgeons wouldn't be able to carry out many types of neurosurgery.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9781421)

Cognitive or not, all science is based on theory. There are no facts in science, (even in hard science). All science including psychology, adheres to scientific method and all science including hard science and psychology abides by the same rules and includes a great deal of mathematics and statistics. The only difference between psychology and other sciences is its relative newness and its massive complexities.

Someone wrote a theory based on their findings which of course included mathematical equations. Do you really believe a theory is an opinion of what an individual wants to see?

I don't think you have any real understanding about the importance of psychology. Without psychology we wouldn’t of tackled any mental illness or aided drug development for various diseases like Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s. Without psychology we wouldn't have anti-depressants or anti-psychotic drugs and surgeons wouldn't be able to carry out many types of neurosurgery.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9781425)

I stopped reading at the highlighted part.

Originally Posted by Brillopad (Post 9781481)

Please quit with the patronising tone all the time. I trained as a nurse and am fully aware of the importance of psychology and it’s benefits but that doesn’t change the fact it is not an exact science and confirmation bias is an issue sometimes in the interpretation of data which is all I said. I didn’t Say it had no value - of course it does.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9781579)

Of late there has been obsession that things should be based on scientific facts which, on the surface, sounds like a good idea. Drug policy should be based on the science, global worming is a scientific fact, the medicines our doctors give us have been subject to rigorous scientific evaluation etc and we will all be sure that we are heading to a bright new future.

But there is a problem, there is, no such thing as scientific fact. Surprised? You should be because it can change the way we view the pronouncements made by scientists. http://brainatthedoor.blogspot.co.uk...ific-fact.html

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9781613)

I found that all so tiresome and patronising. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

But hey, using someone's blog as your "proof"? Inspired...

Edit: Found this in the comments section of that eight year old blog. Makes much more sense than the blog itself:

Quote:
Monkey Courage said...
A friend of mine pointed this out to me. Frankly I expect more from an Englishman.

You seem to work under the assumption that scientists don't already understand the principles behind the scientific method. You also miss a crucial step in the description of the method (though you allude to it). Observation is a step in the Method. Then an hypothesis is formed and tested. If, through repeated experiments, the hypothesis is confirmed it becomes a Theory. A Theory is provisional and can be overturned at a moments notice. However, for a theory to be overturned doesn't require a complete paradigm shift. Newtonian Physics is still valid at sublight speeds. Einsteinian Physics is still valid at macro scales. Those Theories were less overturned than they were refined. Newton was on to something. But his study required more delicate measurements to get the complete picture. The same goes for Evolution or Climate Change. Something is occurring. There are correlations. Those correlations must be isolated and tested for causation.

Of course there can be bias. That is why we have peer review. We hope it keeps the scientists honest. And it does.

What amazes me is that the term "fact" is used in response to charges that so called skeptics make against the term "theory." A theory is a provisional fact. But pundits have purposefully obfuscated the meaning of theory as to be practically useless against a credulous layperson. And now that "fact" is being used to solidify what knowledge science have painstakingly garnered along comes you armchair philosophers explaining to the credulous once again that there are no scientific facts and that all knowledge is provisional. And you've conveniently withheld an explanation of the term "theory."

Well done, sir. You've uncovered a non-mystery and further confused the debate.

Unquote.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9781583)

Actually you were very patronizing about psychology being nothing other than someone's opinion based on their political leaning. Someone who thinks like that simply doesn't understand the rudiments of how science works.

If you trained as a nurse you know that your working with applied science which is not an exact science either.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9781640)

You of all people found it patronizing!!
Try looking it up yourself, if of course you can be bothered which I doubt you can.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9781613)

I found that all so tiresome and patronising. Surprised? You shouldn't be.

But hey, using someone's blog as your "proof"? Inspired...

Edit: Found this in the comments section of that eight year old blog. Makes much more sense than the blog itself:

Quote:
Monkey Courage said...
A friend of mine pointed this out to me. Frankly I expect more from an Englishman.

You seem to work under the assumption that scientists don't already understand the principles behind the scientific method. You also miss a crucial step in the description of the method (though you allude to it). Observation is a step in the Method. Then an hypothesis is formed and tested. If, through repeated experiments, the hypothesis is confirmed it becomes a Theory. A Theory is provisional and can be overturned at a moments notice. However, for a theory to be overturned doesn't require a complete paradigm shift. Newtonian Physics is still valid at sublight speeds. Einsteinian Physics is still valid at macro scales. Those Theories were less overturned than they were refined. Newton was on to something. But his study required more delicate measurements to get the complete picture. The same goes for Evolution or Climate Change. Something is occurring. There are correlations. Those correlations must be isolated and tested for causation.

Of course there can be bias. That is why we have peer review. We hope it keeps the scientists honest. And it does.

What amazes me is that the term "fact" is used in response to charges that so called skeptics make against the term "theory." A theory is a provisional fact. But pundits have purposefully obfuscated the meaning of theory as to be practically useless against a credulous layperson. And now that "fact" is being used to solidify what knowledge science have painstakingly garnered along comes you armchair philosophers explaining to the credulous once again that there are no scientific facts and that all knowledge is provisional. And you've conveniently withheld an explanation of the term "theory."

Well done, sir. You've uncovered a non-mystery and further confused the debate.

Unquote.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9781672)

No, I can't be bothered. I have more interesting stuff to do than trawl round Google trying to find something that proves or disproves what you're saying. I already know it's rubbish... and you're not a scientist any more than I am.

Originally Posted by Livia (Post 9781672)

No, I can't be bothered. I have more interesting stuff to do than trawl round Google trying to find something that proves or disproves what you're saying. I already know it's rubbish... and you're not a scientist any more than I am.

Originally Posted by DemolitionRed (Post 9782035)

But you were willing to come on here and make a mocking comment at something I wrote and you did so without understanding what it was you were mocking. :hehe:

I'm not playing your game Livia, its predictable and its boring.