In my experiments I’ve found that the most rigid thinkers have genetic dispositions related to how dopamine is distributed in their brains.
Rigid thinkers tend to have lower levels of dopamine in their prefrontal cortex and higher levels of dopamine in their striatum, a key midbrain structure in our reward system that controls our rapid instincts. So our psychological vulnerabilities to rigid ideologies may be grounded in biological differences.
In fact, we find that people with different ideologies have differences in the physical structure and function of their brains. This is especially pronounced in brain networks responsible for reward, emotion processing, and monitoring when we make errors.
For instance, the size of our amygdala — the almond-shaped structure that governs the processing of emotions, especially negatively tinged emotions such as fear, anger, disgust, danger and threat — is linked to whether we hold more conservative ideologies that justify traditions and the status quo.
well first of all, it’s clearly promoting a fucking book for sale
True, but I’m sure that wasn’t meant by the person I originally responded to. So what’s the “second of all”? Can you even name any more, even if you said “first of all”, as if there were more agendas?
scientism, a link to Cambridge University site indicates they are pushing Cambridge asa reliable source of information, and the times itself is advertising paid reprints on that page. not too mention the ads they are running on it, and the title of the author: “health and blah blah blah” . it’s that five propaganda angles I’ve identified so far? how many angles does a propaganda piece need to have before it becomes propaganda?
what evidence do you have?
Because “propaganda” is usually used in a political context. Sure, advertising is technically propaganda, but you’d call it advertising if you meant that.
everything is political
No, it isn’t. You’re being needlessly argumentative in a weird thread to choose to do so. Which is not Beeing Nice.
it is and debiting it doesn’t change that.
I’m making objectively a true statements.
I’ve been perfectly pleasant. my objections are factual, and I’ve been defending another user against undue attacks. I’m extra nice.
Don’t gaslight. This may not be the right instance for you. We expect people to actually be nice, not go through mental gymnastics to claim being provocative is actually being nice.
If you’re used to being contrarian for its own sake because, “fuck it, it’s the internet and no one is real,” there are loads of other platforms for this take.
id love for an admin to weigh in on this dispute. have you reported it yet?
this accusation of bad faith is, itself, bad faith
Because no one does book tours. This is an absurd argument.
that doesn’t change whether this piece is propaganda. or your comments. or mine. we are all trying to change what people think through media
I actually agree it is absurd though, from the French “without meaning”. it’s totally moot whether this is propaganda, we should only be asking what message it is trying to convey, and whether that message has truth.
It’s a Q&A with a scientist who did the study. If that’s “propaganda,” what isn’t?
all media is propaganda
So maybe you two should be deciding the scientific paper instead.
what? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Sorry, typo. I meant discussing.
even non glide typing smartphone keyboards make ridiculous errors… between autocorrect and changing the size of the hitbox based on predictive patterns, it’s a scourge we all need to tolerate in this age
I wish. there is no paper linked in the article, just a book they are trying to sell.