Originally Posted by playwrite

To be clear, it is well-seasoned GOP political elites trying to spin the issue in a manner to take advantage of the cognitive dissonance of their amygdala-dominated sheeple.

See "dog whistle"

There is a bit of nervousness. The Republican's Full-on anti-Obama campaign has a shot at killing the ACA, has to cheer on the prospect, but hasn't decided how to deal with a few million pissed-off people who would then lose their ACA subsidies.

Originally Posted by playwrite

To be clear, it is well-seasoned GOP political elites trying to spin the issue in a manner to take advantage of the cognitive dissonance of their amygdala-dominated sheeple.

See "dog whistle"

Agreed.

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 10 characters.

Before I do anything else on this thread, I'd like to see Playdude to explain this:

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Leave it to an amygdala-dominated to find 'intellectual' encouragement in a 50+ year old study, based on even older, highly-discredited Marshall data...

1) S. L. A. Marshall's conclusion, that many American soldiers didn't shoot at the enemy in combat, even when they have the opportunity, has never been discredited.

SLAM didn't come up with his 75% non-firer figure by going through his records of WWII combat actions, and he never asked individual units "what percent of you guys didn't fire your weapon," but they were reasonable off-the cuff "ball park guesses" based on his after action interviews. The US Army's Training & Doctrine Command (TRADOC) published SLAM: The Influence of S.L.A Marshall on the US Army in 1990, and reprinted it in 1994. They note those (e.g., Spinner and Leinbaugh) who attacked SLAM's conclusions in the 1980s and 1990s. Conclusion? SLAM was right. SLAM notes that SLAM's conclusions were replicated by numerous studies (e.g., Stouffer's The Amerian Soldier, Volume II), the assessment of most WWII vet's at the time, and even official documents (e.g., MOH citations). (In Spinner's case, he didn't even study WWII).

The US military's combat training is still based on SLAM's findings studies today: Firing at human-appearing targets to overcome queziness; more realistic expectations on the isolation of combat; the buddy-team and fire-team concepts; an emphasis on the psychological and behavioral aspects of leaderships instead of the merely technical. I'd also point out that the the Brit's, the Israelis, and others came to similar conclusions, incorporated SLAM's ideas into their training, and reaped the benefits against their less well prepared enemies.

2) Even if SLAM had somehow been "discredited," that wouldn't effect the Fighter studies. Fighter was inspired by the SLAM's findings, but if PW had bothered to read it (despite his amygdala-based fear of the truth ) ), he'd have discovered that it was based on the the results of the interviews and tests of hundreds of infantryman who had just gotten off the line in Korea, and was not directly related to any of SLAM's research.



Unlike SLAM's analysis, which emphasized training remedies (e.g., shooting at realistic targets under realistic conditions; teaching soldiers to expect and accept the apparent isolation of a firefight); or doctrinal remedies (e.g., the buddy team and fire team concepts to facilitate tactical efficiency and to bolster psychological support; emphasis on psycholical aspects of leadership), the HumRRO's Fighter studies added a look at the soldiers' inherent qualities. The inspiration for this was an article from COL Anthony Standish.

Among other things, Fighter convinced the US Military to stop enlisting (or drafting) men of category V intelligence (dumb guys just don't do well in combat).

The Fighter study also discovered things that would have been difficult to put into practical effect. One of them was that "very liberal" soldiers weren't just natural "non-firers" (which is most guys), but that they were disproportionately "non-fighters." Apparently, very liberal types aren't very good at controlling their amygdalas under stress. )

The fact that the data was collected in 1953 is irrelevant. Pavlov's research was in the 1890s, IIRC. Horrors! )) Now, a legitimate critique might be that those who are described as "very liberal" today are a very different breed from those "very liberal" types in 1953. Good luck for anyone who wants to go there. If anything, I suspect that the very liberal have gotten even wussier than their forebears in 1953.


Anyway, both SLAM's findings and the Fighter Studies have been updated by LTC Dave Grossman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Grossman_(author)).

As I've already pointed out elsewhere:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...
http://www.history.army.mil/html/ref...ist/list3.html

http://guides.grc.usmcu.edu/content....59&sid=3340396

...

...The US Marine Corps and the US Army accept Grossman's findings enough to put it on their professional reading lists.

So, the question: Can Playdude explain why he thinks he knows more about this than the US Army, the US Marine Corps, and most of the countries in the world that have army's that don't completely suck?

Size of any brain part (amygdalae included) is a very non-specific indicator of functioning.
I'd be really interested to know how talking about people losing their ACA subsidies is a racist dog whistle.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

... I'd be really interested to know how talking about people losing their ACA subsidies is a racist dog whistle.

-Well, if it isn't, then the proggies would have to actually talk about what a mess Obamacare is.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Size of any brain part (amygdalae included) is a very non-specific indicator of functioning.

'Amygdalae'. Please, please tell me you posted that for me.
(I believe you know all this is really making me 'chuckle'. )

Originally Posted by NM

I'd be really interested to know how talking about people losing their ACA subsidies is a racist dog whistle.

I think it's freakin' weird.


Prince

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Size of any brain part (amygdalae included) is a very non-specific indicator of functioning.

I agree.

I'd be really interested to know how talking about people losing their ACA subsidies is a racist dog whistle.

It works this way. Obamacare and its subsidies is unpopular with right-wingers because they claim it raises taxes in order to help the poor. The poor are predominantly non-white. Those who have white-racist tendencies don't want to spend their tax money for programs that help the non-white. So, opposing Obamacare (ACA) is a dog whistle for those folks.

But not everyone, by any means, who opposes taxes and government healthcare programs, is a racist.

So he's whistling to the dogs that they should be wagging their tails in celebration of them black folks possibly losing their subsidies?
I wonder which part of the liberal brain imagines this stupid crap. Must be a biggie.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

So he's whistling to the dogs that they should be wagging their tails in celebration of them black folks possibly losing their subsidies?
I wonder which part of the liberal brain imagines this stupid crap. Must be a biggie.

No, the conservatives use the dog whistles, and them white folks wag their tails in celebration of them black folks possibly losing their subsidies.

Liberals have similar brains to conservatives. Generally speaking, liberals use their brains, and conservatives do not. What you don't use, you lose.

In that case, the quote should have read "six million people in danger of losing their subsidies ... woohoo!"
But it didn't.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

So he's whistling to the dogs that they should be wagging their tails in celebration of them black folks possibly losing their subsidies?
I wonder which part of the liberal brain imagines this stupid crap. Must be a biggie.

The only thing I can get from all of this is that: if somebody is able
to hear one of these supposed 'dog-whistles', they're a 'racist'.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

The only thing I can get from all of this is that: if somebody is able
to hear one of these supposed 'dog-whistles', they're a 'racist'.


Prince

I've been listening and listening and I can't hear a damned thing.

There was this pool party in Texas where black kids got roughed up by the police. A few neighbours (black and white) supported the cops and said the kids were a nuisance. Their houses were promptly vandalized. People are starting to think that they can cry racism and get away with all kinds of nasty shit.

Obamacare "is bad because we can kill it."



So the sheeple are told, with the dog whistle, Obamacare is bad because people might lose their subsidies.

But that's only because the opponents might kill it in the Supreme Court. So I guess what playwrite means, is that the dog whistle sounds when any reason at all to oppose Obamacare is heard, even if the reason actually is caused by the opponents of Obamacare.

The Dog-whistling Republicans do that a lot. They succeeded, for example in the 2014 election to blame Obama for gridlock, even though it is caused by the Republicans. They got their sheeple to blame Obama for the recession in 2010, even though it started under Bush and his policies.

Whatever problem there is, the Republicans convince their sheeple that it must be caused by "big government" and "high taxes," which for many people is code for "them black folks who get my tax money for not working."

Always at your service to clarify things

That's not a dog whistle. Blaming the other side no matter what is politics as usual.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I've been listening and listening and I can't hear a damned thing.

<chuckle!>

So, if a tree doesn't fall in the woods, apparently some people still hear a sound.

Originally Posted by NM

There was this pool party in Texas where black kids got roughed up by the police. A few neighbours (black and white) supported the cops and said the kids were a nuisance. Their houses were promptly vandalized. People are starting to think that they can cry racism and get away with all kinds of nasty shit.

Yeah, I saw some of that story. I basically chalk it up to a seriously convoluted example
of 'the blind men and the elephant'. I guess this sort of 'jumping to conclusions'-thing
has always been around to some degree, but it seems to me to be getting worse. Weird.


Prince

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

<chuckle!>

So, if a tree doesn't fall in the woods, apparently some people still hear a sound.

Well, you know dog whistles, at least the ultrasonic sort. You can't hear them unless you're a dog.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There is a bit of nervousness. The Republican's Full-on anti-Obama campaign has a shot at killing the ACA, has to cheer on the prospect, but hasn't decided how to deal with a few million pissed-off people who would then lose their ACA subsidies.

Fix it???

That will never happen.

Instead, as Thune's tweet clearly indicates, they are polishing their continue attack - it's Obama's fault because he signed a Bill that we found an achilles heel to offer it up to our ultra-wingnuts on the SCOTUS to destroy and really F over millions of people.

The amygdala-dominated sheeple will lap it up like candy.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... 75% non-firer figure...


The US military's combat training ... Firing at human-appearing targets to overcome queziness; more realistic expectations on the isolation of combat; the buddy-team and fire-team concepts; an emphasis on the psychological and behavioral aspects of leaderships instead of the merely technical...

Getting individuals to fire in some situations can be a problem; getting individuals not to fire in other situations can also be a problem. The military trains for both. Neither have anything to do with political views - Pacifist don't sign up.

Go to a bar outside of Quantico, Lejune or PI and tell a group of USMC that you know that 75% of them are "non-fighters." Please mail me one of your teeth that get loosen - its been awhile since I added to my pogue horseshit collection.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Size of any brain part (amygdalae included) is a very non-specific indicator of functioning.

It's not just relative size, it is also measured in areas of brain activation. It is also been relatable to psychological tests, such as thresholds for fear and intolerance, that are associated with amygdala functions.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ts-republicans

Under your previous moniker, didn't you claim some sort of psychology expertise? Is there some aspect of that field where one doesn't need to be familiar with the literature?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I'd be really interested to know how talking about people losing their ACA subsidies is a racist dog whistle.

The notion of "dog whistle" in politics most often comes up as a racist issue but it is not limited to that. It pertains to a word(s) that sets off deep-seated prejudices in certain sub-set of people and they react in certain ways (most typical, their cerebral lobes shut down). Only they can hear the "whistle" much like a dog can hear certain high pitches that humans can't - i.e. "dog whistle."

For example, you just need to hear the word "health insurance" and your amygdala shuts down your cerebral lobes to the point that you have actually nothing to offer a friend-in-need except Obama-hatin.

It's pretty ugly, but it is interesting. I'm hoping someday we can get you all on your own island (Greenland perhaps, I hear its always green year-round) and send drones over to observe you from a distance.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I think it's freakin' weird.

Prince

Well, of course you do.

Seeing "weird" in everyone else is pretty part-and-parcel for the amygdala-dominated.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

In that case, the quote should have read "six million people in danger of losing their subsidies ... woohoo!"
But it didn't.

That was out of character. Usually we get the "insurance is not care" canard - which is a good example of the amygdala-dominated's "F the Other(s)."

My sense is that the amygdala short-circuiting those cerebral lobes probably varys in frequency and what sets it off. Glick's short-circuiting is obviously hard wired, your's maybe less so - a rational thought, perhaps even an empathetic higher brain function one, slips out on occasion?

Like I said, interesting, but you probably won't last long in Greenland with all those shoot-first-let-the-Lord-sort'em Glick sub-types.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

The only thing I can get from all of this is that: if somebody is able
to hear one of these supposed 'dog-whistles', they're a 'racist'.


Prince

The commonality in the amygdala-dominated is xenophobic. In some that conveys as racist; in others, Obama-hatin; still others, seeing weirdness in all others - but at least you seem not to be violent. Perhaps you can do funny dances for the Glick "wolf" sub-types in Greenland?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

That's not a dog whistle. Blaming the other side no matter what is politics as usual.

The dog whistle is sounded by the politicians, not hoping that the other side of the aisle will hear it, but that their followers will hear it.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The amygdala-dominated sheeple will lap it up like candy.

And that's got you running scared, eh?
Ask not for whom the amygdala tolls.
Amygdalophobia.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...me_126973.html

"There are also those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally," President Barack Obama proclaimed in a 2009 speech to Congress.

It was a memorable event, in part because Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted, "You lie."

Editorial page umbrage followed.

This month, the California Senate proved that, though Wilson was wrong to heckle the president, he had reason to challenge the sincerity of Obama's pledge. By a 28-11 vote, the Democratic-controlled state Senate became the first U.S. legislative body to vote to expand health care to immigrants who are here illegally. Senate Bill 4, by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, would allow Californians without documentation to buy Affordable Care Act policies (assuming the feds grant a waiver), authorize residents up to age 19 to enroll in Medi-Cal regardless of immigration status and allow some people 19 or older to enroll in Medi-Cal regardless of immigration status...

If SB 4 becomes law, the camel's nose will have penetrated the tent. Within six years of the president's promising that immigrants in the country would not be eligible for Obamacare -- presumably because that would be wrong -- the first state will have bypassed that promise...

Asked whether he'll sign or veto SB 4, Gov. Jerry Brown told a reporter that "there's not a lot more money to be spent" on top of what he allocated in his revised May budget. In this one-party state, only Democratic Gov. Brown can save Californians from a Legislature that can't say "no" to a chance to spend other people's money.

-So...

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

...There was this pool party in Texas where black kids got roughed up by the police. A few neighbours (black and white) supported the cops and said the kids were a nuisance. Their houses were promptly vandalized. People are starting to think that they can cry racism and get away with all kinds of nasty shit...

-Keep in mind that it was the homeowners who called the cops in the first place.

http://townhall.com/columnists/markd...acism-n2010468

One of the most unfortunate by-products of the McKinney, Texas, pool party aftermath is the lost opportunity for a constructive evaluation of police performance...

One of the most valuable, even-handed quotes this week was from a woman who spoke with a local TV station. Lamonica Birmingham, who is black, lives just down the street from the pool. “We pay HOA dues to use that pool,” she told a reporter. “So you can’t come out here and throw unauthorized events. I do not, however…agree with how the police officer handled the situation.”

Imagine that. A measured grasp of two concepts at the same time— the proper concern that led residents to call police, and an equally proper wish to thoughtfully scrutinize what unfolded...

Originally Posted by playwrite

Getting individuals to fire in some situations can be a problem; getting individuals not to fire in other situations can also be a problem. The military trains for both. Neither have anything to do with political views...

-Simply false:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... The Fighter study also discovered things that would have been difficult to put into practical effect. One of them was that "very liberal" soldiers weren't just natural "non-firers" (which is most guys), but that they were disproportionately "non-fighters." Apparently, very liberal types aren't very good at controlling their amygdalas under stress.)...

-This unchallenged study:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a325914.pdf

(p. 61, #59)...

...the results of which the US Army and the US Marine Corps both accept, and whose modern day proponents are required reading for soldiers and marines:

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...
http://www.history.army.mil/html/ref...ist/list3.html

http://guides.grc.usmcu.edu/content....59&sid=3340396

...

...indicates that those who are identified as "very liberal" are also usually wussies in combat.

So the question is: Why can't very liberal people control theior amygdalae?

AS for pacifist not signing up, neither did Alvin York. Bujt he turned out to be quite the fighter, didn't he?

Originally Posted by playwrite

... Go to a bar outside of Quantico, Lejune or PI and tell a group of USMC that you know that 75% of them are "non-fighters." ...

-I doubt they are:

1) They're all volunteers;

2) They're better trained;

3) Very few of them are wussy-a$$ liberals who can't control their amygdalae.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... So the sheeple are told, with the dog whistle, Obamacare is bad because people might lose their subsidies...

Whatever problem there is, the Republicans convince their sheeple that it must be caused by "big government" and "high taxes," which for many people is code for "them black folks who get my tax money for not working."

-So, Eric. Explain how YOUR comment here, from your "Philosopher's Wheel," squares with not being a dog-whistling bigot:

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

... Your "The History of Man" continues... "And in America, the individual himself will find union, as the mind (white race) and the heart (black race) get it together...
http://philosopherswheel.com/revolution1989.jpg
...