The Liberal Politics & Current Events Book Club discussion

Heh! That was just to get your attention. Per Donegal's call for book club moderators ( http://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/1... ), I am trying to ignite a discussion of Chris Mooney's magnum opus ("The Rebulican Brain:The Science of Why They Deny Science").

So check in if you've read the book, and even if you haven't: is there a Republican in your life who thinks the world in 6,000 years old, that global warming is a hoax and that it's all the fault of the trees, or that everyone will be happy if we all just follow Ayn Rand and defraud each other and store the proceeds in the Cayman Islands?

Do you agree with Mooney that this is a genetic condition? Tell us your own stories, and speculate on whether enlarged amygdalas are really a problem. :)

I promise too look for the book though I usually read about the author, other books they wrote, other posts if possible, then come to the ultimate conclusion:Junk.

My first question is simple. The human mind/brain will compensate for an injured or malfunctioning section that might impair it's survival in the real world. Does the book mention any effort to see if any other part of the brain was compensating for the enlarged amygdalas?

The flip side is that the enlarged amygdala could be compensating for something else.

Hey, Robert. I don't think Mooney's view is that the amygdalas of extreme conservatives are impaired or morphologically totally abnormal. The amygdala superintends the "fight or flight" syndrome, hence people with larger ones may be disposed to react to crises more with adrenaline surges than with analytical problem-solving, and this may actually have had some evolutionary survival value. It's just that subordinating the frontal lobe to the "gut" may not have such salutary outcomes, in the aggregate, when the threat is more global warming and global dysfunction than it is a saber-toothed tiger at the door.

Its not available for download for free for me.

I will have to read lots of reviews.

It includes fight or flight but not restricted to just fight or flight.

Compartmentalizing people like they were slot machines is appealing. The inner mental wiring, then the spin of the biological parts followed by the actual physical actions that actually express yourself.

I believe I also read somewhere that those who are inclined to think it out are also more inclined to be psychopaths at the far end of the spectrum. Would that be like four cherries coming up every time the crank was pulled?

I kinda have a problem when some one is telling me they are peddling the unadulterated truth. I find it almost always colored by self preservation of the species and since the success of this world does not depend on the success of humans, I find that the information has a hollow sort of truthiness to it, kinda like a piece of fruit missing the pit, like it was never there.

Most people who make scientific arguments aren't *consciously* lying. Most honest academicians, though, I think would be reticent to claim that they were asserting absolute, infallible truths. On the other hand, unless I'm a deliberate liar (per Gricean implicature, and I'm not), then I generally believe what I say, though I'd never lay claim to infallibility.

To tell the truth, I *am* primarily interested in the survival of sentient life (and not only of this particular species), because else, who will even notice the world succumbing to entropy?

All the evidence is that people do differ in their cognitive dispositions. I do not think it represents some kind of invidious "compartmentalization" to acknowledge this and to try to deploy what can be known in an effort to increase the prospects of species survival.

Compartmentalization is mine, not sharing it.
When it comes to self preservation, the lie that places human life first is not a lie, it is the cornerstone that all other "truths" rest on.

Robert - If your point is that nothing else matters or has meaning if the intelligence that defines meaning doesn't exist, I couldn't agree with you more.

There you go again, forgetting that I'm in the gutter and don't have the slightest idea how intelligence could define itself.

Plain easyspeak, where reality exists, this world with all life forms (well, except for one), food chains, and energy cycles running intact is worth far more as a planet than the condition it is in now.

What about the book ,does any of this relate to the book or would it send the author screaming into the wood piles.

It relates to the book only in that the book ultimately addresses epistemology. I have no problem, though, with discussing virtually anything that engages the interest of participants in this thread, and so far, the active participants are no one but the two of us.

I don't think you're "in the gutter:" I don't actually think that *anyone* is in the gutter. Since it happens to have been my profession, though, I *do* have an idea how intelligence can be self-defining (and self-replicating).

But none of that matters to the current discussion. Frankly, I've just been trying to get a handle on your view of the world. You seemed to me previously to be saying that human intelligence (and derivatively, humanity) was of preeminent importance. If you extend that to all forms of sophisticated intelligence, then I agree, because the world can not be "worth something" merely in the abstract. Valuation requires an evaluator, and the universe cannot (by definition) have any value without a sentient, intelligent being to observe it. And anyway, Heisenberg comes into play here. Quantum issues cannot be resolved without an observer.

But if what you're saying now is that the planet would be better off absent humanity (and other highly-intelligent life forms), then I have to ask: better off for whom? The chunk of rock is not, itself, sentient.

I'm happy to address either side of the question, but I'd like to have a clear idea of whether you are taking position 1 (humanity is essential for the existence of meaning -- for meaningful existence, actually); or position 2 ( the planet and/or the universe would in some sense be better off if we ceased to blight it with our presence).

Please clarify, and then I'll get back to Mooney's ideas concerning cognitive dualism and conservative ideological predispositions.

LOL, human intelligence (and derivatively, humanity) was of preeminent importance. tell where where I I said that, 50 shades of fight club. that's a definite no.

People are here, and that is that.
I don't have to appreciate what people are doing.
To the question "Are people necessary for intelligence to be present on this planet", my answer is no, there is plenty of intelligence present without people.

What are you calling (and other highly-intelligent life forms) ? You mean like whales and dolphins, creatures like that?

better off for whom? The chunk of rock is not, itself, sentient. Tricky question. The chunk of rock is coated with all kinds of life from 50 miles or so below the surface to around 100 miles above the surface. Pets and micro-organisms are better off with people and some of it is not better off with people around. That is not to say that problems we create for the continued existence of an animal could not be created without human intervention/activity.

Are you saying that unless people are around to appreciate life there is no appreciating happening?

Position 1, no, humanity is not essential for observing the meaning of life (I believe self preservation will claim it is necessary) but life of some sort is which can be on the planet or off planet. Just because we can't see any signs of reasoning doesn't mean there isn't any present. I don't believe humanity is the only source of intelligence although most likely if we ever see signs of "alien" intelligence it will be in the form of a robot that probably won't even pay any attention to us, so naturally we would try to recycle them for the cool materials they would be made of.

position 2 ( the planet and/or the universe would in some sense be better off if we ceased to blight it with our presence) nah, don't really think about that, people can always change either by choice or by external events. There are some really far out ideas that the same way some types of ants provide for the mold that grows in their nests that they can eat (mold is controlling the ants not ants controlling the mold) you can have people working for bacteria, molds, viruses without realizing it. One idea is that yeast is exerting an influence over human beings to make sure people provide for its continued existence. So we might be useful to something. Been trying to figure out who or what benefits or will benefit from all the plastic bits and chips we are distributing throughout the world, on land and oceans included.

Robert - Sorry for being delayed (I sometimes lose tracks of threads -- and parts of my body), but yes, I was referring to whales and dolphins (and chimps) as other forms of "sentient, intelligent life." So you're rejecting the two positions: both that humanity is essential AND that it's a pestilential annoyance that ought to be got rid of for the sake of whatever might be leftover.

Physics (since Heisenberg) has sort of backed us into a corner by requiring the presence of a sentient observer to precipitate the collapse of the probabilistic wave form (and determine whether the cat is dead), but I personally think it's a specious model, anyway, and tend to throw in my lot with the RWOT people.

Oh... and Mooney basically says that Republicans are genetically predisposed to be dumba**es and narcissistic sociopaths because of the size of their amygdalas and concomitant dominance of their fight-or-flight syndromes. Oh, well.

Latest scientific american says cat is now both live and dead, it is now based on simple probability. You get to decide what is real now.

OK, democrats are psychopaths and repubs are sociopaths, sounds like nature vs nuture.

Robert wrote: "OK, democrats are psychopaths and repubs are sociopaths, sounds like nature vs nuture."

Just reporting on Mooney's findings. I think it's been pretty well-established through scientific studies (see Martha Stout's book) that roughly 5% of humans are sociopaths, based on the clinical indicia of the DSM IV. Also, professionals (psychologists and psychiatrists) don't generally distinguish formally between "psychopaths" and "sociopaths." (though there is the "Hare Scale of Psychopathy") Howsoever, if you think Democrats are psychopathic by nature, this is a singularly peculiar venue in which to express the opinion. Just sayin'... :)

It was in one of the reviews/articles of/about the book, mentioned that the ultimate extent of democratic behavior (willing to go past the normal bounds to get something [done]) was psychopathic. Socio is externally triggered and psycho is internally triggered?