A neuropsychology of political orientation: ideology in patients w lesions

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7935085/

by DrierCycle • 8 months ago

4 13 8 months ago

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

DrierCycle6• 8 months ago

The earlier entry was flagged, yet the science regarding how beliefs can be made extreme with reduced flexibility has a sizable citation list. Let's keep an open mind, folks, our discourse is not expanding these days, it's constricting. We should try to find out how.

elmerfud4• 8 months ago

Reposting something that was flagged generally not a good idea. Taking a look at this research it is quite a lot like a lot of research over the past hundred years that is very similar. Attempting to find medical problems for an ideology or a culture/race you disagree with. None of which is widely accepted by the scientific community although you still will find the ardent backers of such things.

If you have decades of peer-reviewed research then you might have something but that is not what you have here. Just because something's published doesn't make it correct.

Even just reading the abstract of this paper shows it is highly suspect. Because they went looking for something and then they found it. This is a well-known cognitive bias. What they should have been looking for is ways to disprove it not ways to find some correlation.

DrierCycle6• 8 months ago

I didn't repost anything form the previous post, I posted work that reflects the overarching view of neuropsychology that precedes that PFC work, which is neuroscience.

Mike Meager is a preeminent neurologist at Grossman/NYU, Jay Van Bavel is high-level academia. They didn't go looking for something to fit it into an argument, they used hard science to test the results.

The previous flagged posts are not "medical problems" it's hard science at Northwestern's brain lab, one of the premiere labs in the country.

This is fundamental, peer-reviewed research about how ideologies are developed. How fundamentalism and extremism as biases against flexible thinking are becoming epidemic now. The research is empirical, and it's built first in a theoretical approach (theory is evidence mapped in deeper hypothesis) and then developed through empirical results.

These are both decades of peer-reviewed approaches culminating in these papers, read the citations, check the academics, they are the highest caliber.

1970-01-01• 8 months ago

Should have also tried looking for religious ideology correlations.

DrierCycle6• 8 months ago

My previous flagged entry was a trio of papers detailing this, I'll repost them here, they're quite amazing. We talk about them quite a bit on our team of devs studying the political rhetoric.

Biological and cognitive underpinnings of religious fundamentalism Zhong https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5500821/

A neural network for religious fundamentalism derived from patients with brain lesions https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322399121

The neural underpinning of religious beliefs: Evidence from brain lesions https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9583670/

richardatlarge2• 8 months ago

ha-ha, I just began serializing a novel where...

Two days after a CDC scientist is fired, she uploaded a research paper linking MAGA behavior to a mind-altering parasite. She never expects people to believe it. But they do—and that's not just the beginning. It’s the end.

https://usop.substack.com

DrierCycle6• 8 months ago

Yes! I saw that and read it but didn't favorite in time. And I'd heard some friends talking about these papers a year ago and we'd brought them up in our lunchtime chats, So when I found the link notes, I posted them.

The first one was flagged, here it is. This post here was a more specific study.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46065113

A neuropsychology of political orientation: ideology in patients w lesions

Related Stories