Comments on: The Conservative Brain and the Laws of Motion http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Mon, 13 Feb 2012 10:56:07 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-3/#comment-210878 bi Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:01:20 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210878 Remember, abb1, this thread was about "Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism"... Remember, abb1, this thread was about “Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism”…

]]> By: abb1 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-3/#comment-210877 abb1 Sun, 16 Sep 2007 10:10:44 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210877 Mark. War, killing millions of people - that's not a good response to a failure to provide adequate documentation, everybody knows that. Just say that your gut tells your that it was a good war, that's all; don't try to explain. Why waste everybody's time? Seriously. Mark. War, killing millions of people – that’s not a good response to a failure to provide adequate documentation, everybody knows that.

Just say that your gut tells your that it was a good war, that’s all; don’t try to explain. Why waste everybody’s time? Seriously.

]]> By: bad Jim http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-3/#comment-210870 bad Jim Sun, 16 Sep 2007 08:11:40 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210870 It is a truth universally acknowledged that our women are strong, our men good-looking, and all our children above average. It is a truth universally acknowledged that our women are strong, our men good-looking, and all our children above average.

]]> By: bi http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-3/#comment-210861 bi Sun, 16 Sep 2007 05:57:31 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210861 Mark Dorroh: Yeah, the UN is always right... except when it isn't (like, you know, when it does anything opposing Israel) -- in which case we realize it has always been like the KKK. Same for the US Congress. Same for _Newsweek_, which has suddenly transformed from the anti-American perpetrator of the "urinate on the Koran" news fiasco, into a "solid source". Hey, _A_ is _A_ indeed! And yeah, use the word "facts" to describe conservative talking points, but use the phrase "hafl-baked dialectic deconstruction or vituperative, semi-coherent wordplay" to describe a scientific experiment. You hate science. Mark Dorroh:

Yeah, the UN is always right… except when it isn’t (like, you know, when it does anything opposing Israel)—in which case we realize it has always been like the KKK. Same for the US Congress. Same for Newsweek, which has suddenly transformed from the anti-American perpetrator of the “urinate on the Koran” news fiasco, into a “solid source”. Hey, A is A indeed!

And yeah, use the word “facts” to describe conservative talking points, but use the phrase “hafl-baked dialectic deconstruction or vituperative, semi-coherent wordplay” to describe a scientific experiment. You hate science.

]]> By: Mark Dorroh http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210858 Mark Dorroh Sun, 16 Sep 2007 01:55:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210858 " ... we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world." "That would’ve been a perfect illustration of the “gut feeling” vs “analysis” thing. And what did you do instead? You came out with this tortured rationalization that won’t withstand any kind of close examination. "I blame Ayn Rand." Ahh, I get it. A dozen years of Iraqi noncompliance with either the terms of the Operation Desert Storm armistice or, for that matter, 17 UN Security Council resolutions, had nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom? Odd, the Security Council, in voting to authorize the use of force, thought otherwise. As did the US Congress. Saddam did in fact have scientists who told the post-invasion weapons inspectors that they were indeed involved in WMD research and development (every bit as illegal as the missing WMD, required records of the destruction of which Saddam also withheld from the UN). According to what those inspectors told Newsweek Magazine in 2003, with what they had already accomplished, Iraq could have ramped up production of VX gas and weaponized anthrax spoors any time it wanted within six weeks three meonths. Silly me. I keep thinking that when Hans Blix's final report to the Security Council mentioned Saddam's 12 years of failure to provide adequate documentation of the destruction of the WMD left in his care in 1991, that may have stirred a member or two to get a trifle truculent. Yep, I'm an idiot. We LibCons keep assuming people who read widely-available news reports from solid sources can remember their contents and the implications thereof for months, even years after they read or heard them. Santayana and Ayn Rand were both right. We either learn from out mistakes or keep making them, and A is A. No amount of hafl-baked dialectic deconstruction or vituperative, semi-coherent wordplay will change those facts. But thanks for trying! It made a rattling good read! Yer eternal pal, Mark Dorroh, A.K.A. Larry "Boots" Dorfman Warrior Poet Sandhurst Class of '74 B.S., M.S., Ph.D., B.M.O.C., S.O.B., Q.E.D. ” … we hit Saddam for one simple reason: because we could, and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that world.”

“That would’ve been a perfect illustration of the “gut feeling” vs “analysis” thing. And what did you do instead? You came out with this tortured rationalization that won’t withstand any kind of close examination.

“I blame Ayn Rand.”

Ahh, I get it. A dozen years of Iraqi noncompliance with either the terms of the Operation Desert Storm armistice or, for that matter, 17 UN Security Council resolutions, had nothing to do with Operation Iraqi Freedom?

Odd, the Security Council, in voting to authorize the use of force, thought otherwise.

As did the US Congress.

Saddam did in fact have scientists who told the post-invasion weapons inspectors that they were indeed involved in WMD research and development (every bit as illegal as the missing WMD, required records of the destruction of which Saddam also withheld from the UN).

According to what those inspectors told Newsweek Magazine in 2003, with what they had already accomplished, Iraq could have ramped up production of VX gas and weaponized anthrax spoors any time it wanted within six weeks three meonths.

Silly me. I keep thinking that when Hans Blix’s final report to the Security Council mentioned Saddam’s 12 years of failure to provide adequate documentation of the destruction of the WMD left in his care in 1991, that may have stirred a member or two to get a trifle truculent.

Yep, I’m an idiot. We LibCons keep assuming people who read widely-available news reports from solid sources can remember their contents and the implications thereof for months, even years after they read or heard them.

Santayana and Ayn Rand were both right.

We either learn from out mistakes or keep making them, and A is A. No amount of hafl-baked dialectic deconstruction or vituperative, semi-coherent wordplay will change those facts.

But thanks for trying! It made a rattling good read!

Yer eternal pal,
Mark Dorroh,
A.K.A. Larry “Boots” Dorfman
Warrior Poet
Sandhurst Class of ‘74
B.S., M.S., Ph.D., B.M.O.C., S.O.B., Q.E.D.

]]> By: Sam C http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210713 Sam C Fri, 14 Sep 2007 11:19:30 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210713 OK, people including neuroscientists often apply terms like 'belief' to brains instead of people, oddly on the currently-standard usage of such terms. But as we find out more about the ways people are embodied, the meaning and use of such terms changes. What's wrong with that? In other words, why should the current usage of 'belief', which makes 'this brain has a belief' a weird thing to say, be assumed to be permanent or normative? [I haven't read the Bennett/Hacker book, so I'm just going on what Patrick O'Donnell said]. OK, people including neuroscientists often apply terms like ‘belief’ to brains instead of people, oddly on the currently-standard usage of such terms. But as we find out more about the ways people are embodied, the meaning and use of such terms changes. What’s wrong with that? In other words, why should the current usage of ‘belief’, which makes ‘this brain has a belief’ a weird thing to say, be assumed to be permanent or normative?

[I haven’t read the Bennett/Hacker book, so I’m just going on what Patrick O’Donnell said].

]]> By: quidnunc http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210701 quidnunc Fri, 14 Sep 2007 09:26:48 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210701 Bennett and Hacker actually is relevant here but their discussion of parts and wholes is problematic. They fairly point out the latent cartesianism in the way that researchers had been reasoning (or rather assuming ridiculous consequences from its falsity) a while ago (e.g. Wegner and Libet) but they prove too much and make many of the same mistakes. There are a lot of articles that make the same points sans silly assumptions about parts and wholes. Bennett and Hacker actually is relevant here but their discussion of parts and wholes is problematic. They fairly point out the latent cartesianism in the way that researchers had been reasoning (or rather assuming ridiculous consequences from its falsity) a while ago (e.g. Wegner and Libet) but they prove too much and make many of the same mistakes. There are a lot of articles that make the same points sans silly assumptions about parts and wholes.

]]> By: Crooked Timber » » Neurocons http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210689 Crooked Timber » » Neurocons Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:35:24 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210689 [...] turns out that short Nature Neuroscience paper discussed before, “Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism”, is available free (PDF). [...] [...] turns out that short Nature Neuroscience paper discussed before, “Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism”, is available free (PDF). [...]

]]> By: perianwyr http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210683 perianwyr Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:43:53 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210683 I think someone is trying for an Ig Nobel. I think someone is trying for an Ig Nobel.

]]> By: MetaEd http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210640 MetaEd Thu, 13 Sep 2007 13:59:22 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210640 The paper can be viewed online <a href="http://www.psych.nyu.edu/amodiolab/Amodio%20et%20al.%20%282007%29%20Nature%20Neuro.pdf" title="Neurocognitive Correlates of Liberalism and Conservatism" rel="nofollow">here</a> in Adobe format. The paper can be viewed online here in Adobe format.

]]> By: bad Jim http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210624 bad Jim Thu, 13 Sep 2007 07:13:34 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210624 <blockquote>I have just such a fixed response when I trip on my own two size 13 feet: I do whatever is necessary to prevent me from falling down.</blockquote> The "wide stance" argument. We've heard that before.
I have just such a fixed response when I trip on my own two size 13 feet: I do whatever is necessary to prevent me from falling down.

The “wide stance” argument. We’ve heard that before.

]]> By: philosopher http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210623 philosopher Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:37:52 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210623 (Sorry, that may have gotten too elliptical as I wrote it. That last part should be understood as "Second of all, even if the mereological fallacy were a fallacy, nothing at all...) (Sorry, that may have gotten too elliptical as I wrote it. That last part should be understood as “Second of all, even if the mereological fallacy were a fallacy, nothing at all…)

]]> By: goatchowder http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210622 goatchowder Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:35:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210622 <blockquote>So, conservatives will choose “W” right or wrong! Wasn’t there a recent study with much larger n?</blockquote> Yes, I believe it was in 2004. And the methodology, sample bias, and instrumentation involved in that study, and along with a similar one conducted several years prior to that as well, have been shown to have had some difficulties which called the results into question.
So, conservatives will choose “W” right or wrong! Wasn’t there a recent study with much larger n?

Yes, I believe it was in 2004. And the methodology, sample bias, and instrumentation involved in that study, and along with a similar one conducted several years prior to that as well, have been shown to have had some difficulties which called the results into question.

]]> By: philosopher http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210621 philosopher Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:30:07 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210621 First of all, the mereological fallacy isn't a fallacy. Mostly the problem is that their argument rests entirely & uncritically on a pretty much discredited form of Wittgensteinianism. But even if we must insist on speaking in Wittgensteinian terms, then it's important to keep in mind that words can have more than one home, and thus the important question is whether the systematic usage of mentalistic terms in neuroscience (and the cognitive sciences more generally) succeed in providing a home for those terms. I think they do, but it is a point that one could easily debate. But B&H duck that debate altogether, by leaning on this 'fallacy'. Second of all, even if it were, nothing at all in the study in question would be committing it. Not even close. (Or, in short: ditto to what engles said at 84.) First of all, the mereological fallacy isn’t a fallacy. Mostly the problem is that their argument rests entirely & uncritically on a pretty much discredited form of Wittgensteinianism. But even if we must insist on speaking in Wittgensteinian terms, then it’s important to keep in mind that words can have more than one home, and thus the important question is whether the systematic usage of mentalistic terms in neuroscience (and the cognitive sciences more generally) succeed in providing a home for those terms. I think they do, but it is a point that one could easily debate. But B&H duck that debate altogether, by leaning on this ‘fallacy’.

Second of all, even if it were, nothing at all in the study in question would be committing it. Not even close. (Or, in short: ditto to what engles said at 84.)

]]> By: Patrick S. O'Donnell http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/comment-page-2/#comment-210616 Patrick S. O'Donnell Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:17:25 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/2007/09/11/the-conservative-brain-and-the-laws-of-motion/#comment-210616 From the back cover: "M.R. Bennett AO is Professor of Physiology and University Chair at the University of Sydney. He is the author of many papers and books in neuroscience.... He is President of the International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience, Past President of the Australian Neuroscience Society and the recipient of numerous awards for his research in neuroscience, including the Neuroscience Medal, the Ramaciotti Medal and the Macfarlane Burnet Medal." So, yes, bi, display your acumen in all its glory by concluding Bennett and Hacker "obviously hate science." And by all means make any manner and number of inferences about their thoughts on and beliefs about "the mind" without having read the book. From the back cover: “M.R. Bennett AO is Professor of Physiology and University Chair at the University of Sydney. He is the author of many papers and books in neuroscience…. He is President of the International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience, Past President of the Australian Neuroscience Society and the recipient of numerous awards for his research in neuroscience, including the Neuroscience Medal, the Ramaciotti Medal and the Macfarlane Burnet Medal.”

So, yes, bi, display your acumen in all its glory by concluding Bennett and Hacker “obviously hate science.” And by all means make any manner and number of inferences about their thoughts on and beliefs about “the mind” without having read the book.

]]>