Conservative brains are more primitive???

[MMIX]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1342239/Brain-study-reveals-right-wing-conservatives-larger-primitive-amygdala.html


It will be interesting to see whether this survives peer review.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

daily mail.

[Adios]

*trots off to see memnoch*

[MMIX]

daily mail.

Yep but that just makes it sweeter,

oh and Charley, if Memnoch gets agressive thats just the clincher . . .

[Golden Applesauce]

Another study finds that people will believe anything that makes the other tribe seem dumber.

[Adios]

daily mail.

Yep but that just makes it sweeter,

oh and Charley, if Memnoch gets agressive thats just the clincher . . .

Exactly.

[Phox]

Another study finds that people will believe anything that makes the other tribe seem dumber.

The other tribe is dumber; they fall for it.

[Kai]

Daily mail = Daily fail.

Never trust science from a newspaper.

[Adios]

Originally Posted by memnoch View Post
Oh, the daily mail...this is as legit as a website claiming a war with UFO's in Antarctica. I'm reminded of a saying about stones and glass houses.

Or you could read the rest of the thread without getting all butthurt and see that it was a joke.

Hawk,
just sayin'
___________

My work is done. 

[Cain]

While I don't trust the Mail to report on science anything accurately, it should be noted that UCL has one of the highest rated neuroscience departments in the world (IIRC it is rated second, actually).  And Professor Geraint Rees, who carried out the research, isn't exactly a crank either.

So I guess I'll just have to wait until I can see the paper....

[MMIX]

Actually I'm kind of surprised that the Mail would even touch this one -  unless, of course, they are going to start a campaign to have those of us with 'defective' amygdalas removed from the gene pool.

And ammo for anyone arguing with anyone who pooh poohs any thing that they read in the Mail heres a link to UCL's own quiet trumpet blow
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/1012/10122301

[Cain]

The Mail can be strange like that, though.  I remember there was a rash of articles (pre-Credit Crunch) which were quite critical of corporatist/state capitalism - and Peter Osborne, one of the best journalists in the country, a man very critical of Islamaphobia (and the media's role in creating it) is on their payroll.

I think there is some kind of warped, twisted desire to do real journalism there - it just gets caught out by laziness and seeing the world through a socially conservative, moralizing lens.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So if this is true, then it supports Wilson's model that Conservatives tend to be more oriented toward 2nd circuit thinking than liberals (who tend more toward 3rd circuit in the model).

[Cain]

It would also correlate, or at least give some kind of neurological/physical basis to some of the findings of Altermeyer's work on authoritarianism.

[Kai]

While I don't trust the Mail to report on science anything accurately, it should be noted that UCL has one of the highest rated neuroscience departments in the world (IIRC it is rated second, actually).  And Professor Geraint Rees, who carried out the research, isn't exactly a crank either.

So I guess I'll just have to wait until I can see the paper....

It's really unfortunate that the only science journalism that I can trust for accuracy are 1) field experts (in their own papers, writings or blogs) and 2) the Not Exactly Rocket Science blog.

And while Ed Young tries very hard to cover a diverse number of topics, he can't cover everything.