Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's the headline -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamo...0-and-falling/

...

-So, PW is jumping up a down because we're in the proces of wrecking the finest health sytem in the world in the name of forcing 3 million extra people to have insurance that they may or may not want...

Originally Posted by playwrite

Here's the headline -

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamo...0-and-falling/




Just look at these two charts from a recent Urban Institute poll -




- that difference in states expanding Medicaid or not should be sufficient enough to damn the amygdala-dominated to Hell.




- the uninsured has been cut in half, and much of that uninsured left is undocumented immigrants. Just imagine the public health payoff if we can get over the amygdala-dominated fetish with the 11 million undocumented that are already here.

Yippee!! The worthless are almost all insured. I wonder what the cost of the fucking cost of the worthless is going to be in twenty years. Two currencies! Lib's better start pulling their heads out of their asses and start considering two currencies as far as OUR futures together are concerned.

The Forbes article references Chris Hayes' recent take down of former Senator Gregg.

Here's the actual video clip; essential viewing for those interested in the Amygdala Override phenomenon -

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/wa...wn-ex-senators

Watch: Chris Hayes Beats Down Ex-Senator's ACA Lies With Facts

Perfect example where the amygdala forces the Senator's cerebral lobes to manufacture his own numbers and then go on to question Hayes' real numbers before taking off - see "fight-or-flight," "archaic brainstem," "reptilian brain"

Originally Posted by playwrite

The Forbes article references Chris Hayes' recent take down of former Senator Gregg...

...uh, a difference of 3M betwen 2009 and 2015 is not "plummeting." Gregg was right.

Now, how many of the people who had to get insurance actually wanted it, well, no comment from Hayes, right?

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Yippee!! The worthless are almost all insured. I wonder what the cost of the fucking cost of the worthless is going to be in twenty years. Two currencies! Lib's better start pulling their heads out of their asses and start considering two currencies as far as OUR futures together are concerned.

Pretty good example of the xenophobia of the amygdala-dominated. Notice the reptilian thinking behind the presumption of "the Other" (in this case, 20 million people, the majority women and children) being "worthless." For those with fully-functioning cerebral lobes, just imagine from an economic and public health perspective if these folks remained uninsured or just disappeared.

Then there's the full amygdala override being tweak here - "cost of the fucking cost of the worthless is to be in the twenty years.... OUR futures together..." Lions, tigers, and bears, oh my! Benghazi!! Mufasa!!!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Pretty good example...

-I haven't had time to read the study, but this would seem to support Classic X'er:


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99504203321606

One third of the world's population is infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and in the developed countries immigration is a major force that sustains the incidence of tuberculosis. We studied the effects of immigration on the epidemiology of tuberculosis and its recent resurgence in the United States...

Conclusions

Immigration has had an increasingly important effect on the epidemiology of tuberculosis in the United States. It will be difficult to eliminate tuberculosis without better efforts to prevent and control it among immigrants and greater efforts to control it in the countries from which they come.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...uh, a difference of 3M betwen 2009 and 2015 is not "plummeting." Gregg was right.

Now, how many of the people who had to get insurance actually wanted it, well, no comment from Hayes, right?

Notice the amygdala-override that prevents acknowledging the rather clear graph showing the number going of uninsured going from 42.7 million to 19.9 million (since this sentence is for those with fully-functioning cerebral lobes, I won't bother to do the math...oh hell, I'm a bleeding heart Liberal - hey Glick and Cynic, that's over 20 million.)

One of the elite masters of the amygdala-dominated sheeple gets visible pawned, and the sheeple still can't help but do the same mistake.

It really is amazing.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I haven't had time to read the study, but this would seem to support Classic X'er:


http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...99504203321606

One third of the world's population is infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and in the developed countries immigration is a major force that sustains the incidence of tuberculosis. We studied the effects of immigration on the epidemiology of tuberculosis and its recent resurgence in the United States...

Conclusions

Immigration has had an increasingly important effect on the epidemiology of tuberculosis in the United States. It will be difficult to eliminate tuberculosis without better efforts to prevent and control it among immigrants and greater efforts to control it in the countries from which they come.

Another outstanding example of the amygdala blinding of the cerebral lobes - and its in his own post. Amazing.

Ugh! Mr. Playwrite, as much as I like a good 'comedy of errors', I feel a 'noblesse oblige'
to tell you, my comments weren't directed towards you(Aggh! This is actually painful! ).

So, ... :

Originally Posted by playwrite

I made the point that most of those oppose to the ACA do so as a conditioned response; certain keywords (e.g., Obama, Obamacare) end any attempt by their cerebral lobes to grasp any associated issue - in this particular situation, fail to undertake even a modicum of effort to help a friend in need.

I went back and checked; No disagreement on my end.
IOW, in this particular situation, I don't see any evidence that you were
saying or implying anything regarding 'racism' in what I believe is your
post that you're referencing.

Originally Posted by PW

You attempted to discredit that point by a bizarre suggestion I was calling someone racist.

Nope. To be fair, I can see how you may have interpreted it as such.
(for efficiency, I'm going to respond to this here as well):

Originally Posted by JDG 66

...if POC made an accustaion, it was probably based on this comment:

Originally Posted by playwrite

... See "dog whistle"

Nope. It was actually the conversation between Eric and Moron(!).
(and just to be thorough, I wasn't making any 'accusations' there).

Now PW, to be as transparent as possible here, I do enjoy making fun of you,
and I was making fun of the whole 'dog whistle'-concept in general, but any
spill-over to you was at most in-direct. IOW, I can say with utmost certainty
that my comments were not directed at you specifically. So, that's that.


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by PW

If there was an Armistice, you broke it.

I believe my clarification makes this moot, but as far as I'm concerned, it's your call.
IOW, I'm fine either way(that is, if my over-active 'amygdala' can handle it! ).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Notice the amygdala-override that prevents acknowledging the rather clear graph showing the number going of uninsured going from 42.7 million to 19.9 million...

-Notice that PW doesn't notice the cherry-picked date of 2013:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamo...0-and-falling/

...instead of 2009.

From PW's own graph, comparing 2009 and later:

Originally Posted by playwrite

There is those that do - with the biggest drop in uninsured ever -

...

Amazing!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Another outstanding example of the amygdala blinding of the cerebral lobes - and its in his own post. Amazing.

-Best thing would be to keep the illegals out in the firwst place. I guess PW didn't think of that.

Well, here is something for the fully functioning cerebral lobes to consider from Charles Gaba, Mr. Numbers for all-things ACA, -

http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/...ease-hysteria/

Reports of double-digit rate hikes in 2016?

They could be just a lot of gas

A quick summary (with a NM example) is here -

http://acasignups.net/15/06/13/new-m...hly-misleading

with this -

I've written a lot about how the 2016 policy rate increase request numbers flying around in scary-sounding headlines at the moment are misleading for a bunch of reasons:

1. They may not be weighted by company market share
2. They may not be weighted by metal level
3. The percentages listed may be based on relatively small dollar amounts
4. NONE of them have actually been APPROVED yet
5. Shopping around could make many "increases" moot
6. HHS's "rate review" tool only includes increase requests over 10%
7. In some cases, the policies listed may not even exist yet

Here's some more specific rate changes -

http://avalere.com/expertise/managed...umers-may-be-a

Lowest-Cost Exchange Premiums Remain Competitive in 2016; Consumers may be able to keep increases small by selecting a low-cost silver option

....“While recent public attention has focused on a subset of plans that filed for premium increases of 10 percent or more, these data reveal that most plans are proposing more modest increases,” said Caroline Pearson, senior vice president at Avalere. “Notably, final premiums could be even lower than those proposed.”

....indeed, premiums for the lowest and second lowest cost silver plans in the eight states analyzed will increase on average 4.5 percent and 1.0 percent respectively, compared to a 5.8 percent across all silver exchange plans. Accessing these low cost plans may require enrollees to change carriers in some regions; however, the data suggest that low premium options may remain available for those consumers who are selecting plans based primarily on price. In 2014, two-thirds of consumers who chose a plan on the silver metal tier picked the lowest or second lowest cost option available.

“The good news for consumers in many states is that they may be able to keep premium increases low, depending on the plan they choose,” said Elizabeth Carpenter, director at Avalere. “However, low-cost plan options in 2016 may not be from the same insurers who offered these plans in 2015. In these markets, consumers will need to balance continuity of care with lower monthly premiums when comparing their health insurance options.”

So, what the amygdala-dominated hysterically report are just the premiums that will go up more than 10%. What the fail to mention (granted it may be because they can't comprehend it as a result of their amygdala override) is that the reporting of these large increase premiums is to inform consumers who are then free to shop around for a better deal in the ACA exchanges.

It will be awhile before there is full reporting and analysis of premium increased AND consumer responses (including shopping for better deal in their exchanges). In the interim, do you believe the amygdala-dominated will STFU and wait to see if their hysteria is warranted? If so, please contact me, I have a NYC bridge I'd like to sell you!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well, here is something for the fully functioning cerebral lobes to consider from Charles Gaba, Mr. Numbers for all-things ACA, -

http://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/...ease-hysteria/

...

-I see that PW has gone from amygala inspired panic to pangloss.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-There are far more people pissed off that they're forced to buy crap that they didn't want in the first place. So get rid of the individual mandate. Problem solved.

Or, for a "compromise," drop the individual mandate, but only for those states which don't have an exchange. It would be instructive to see how many states jump ship.

Actually, the insurance companies would be the first to leave. Without the mandate, their customer base would skew older and sicker,, premiums would have to rise dramatically, and subsidies, if any remained at that point, would be totally inadequate to the task. But since sabotage is your chosen method, let's also eliminate the Federal subsidies to rural and low income urban hospitals for indigent care. I'll bet we can get a pandemic started pretty fast. H1N1 is out there somewhere, waiting.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Notice that PW doesn't notice the cherry-picked date of 2013:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamo...0-and-falling/

...instead of 2009.

From PW's own graph, comparing 2009 and later:



Amazing!



-Best thing would be to keep the illegals out in the firwst place. I guess PW didn't think of that.

Notice the amygdala-dominated trying desperately to hold onto his false belief system by -

1. Not using his cerebral lobes to grasp that the trendline was for more and more uninsured (plenty of pre-ACA forecasts of that trend not abating due to health care costs and insurance ) and his discounting of the 2013 data point would require him to come up with an alternative that would have not only arrested the upward trend but dropped it like a rock like the ACA has successfully done;
2. Completely ignores the more recent post with the more recent data, showing that nationally we are at 10% uninsured not the previous 12%, and that could be at the 7.5% for Medicaid expansion states if only his tribe of the amygdala-dominated sheeple hadn't voted in their elite masters in their states; and
3. Failing to read, let alone comprehend, the article where the differences are not only explained but notes that all current numbers probable have underestimated the impact on the number of uninsured.

As one can easily see in this example, the amygdala-dominated pretty much ignore any information that falsifies their deeply-held but false belief systems. If you think you can reason with the amygdala-dominated with facts and reasons, I have this NYC bridge...

- regarding the majority of people that are on employer-sponsored insurance

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-a...b_7552882.html

Despite Dire Predictions, Health Care Reform Hasn't Hurt Employer-Sponsored Coverage Rates

Last week, the Urban Institute released a new study on employer-sponsored health insurance rates, finding they've remained steady under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). This study is yet another blow against the law's harshest critics, who insisted it would force employers to drop coverage for employees.

Prior to the passage of the health care law, our health insurance system was spiraling out of control, and small businesses were paying the price. A study by the President's Council of Economic Advisors found that small businesses have paid on average 18 percent more for health insurance than large companies in the past. This problem was only getting worse - an economic analysis from Small Business Majority found that without reform, small businesses' health insurance costs would more than double to $2.4 trillion by 2018, causing the loss of 178,000 small business jobs.

Despite the obvious need for reform, critics pushed back hard against the new health care law. Opponents made dire predictions about its effects; chief among them was an allegation that the new health care law would force employers to drop coverage, leaving workers to secure insurance on their own.

But new data from the Urban Institute proves these critics wrong: the percentage of workers offered employer-sponsored health insurance has remained virtually unchanged under the new health care law. The Urban Institute found 82.3 percent of workers reported being offered coverage in June 2013, before the law's implementation, compared to 83 percent in March 2015. Additionally, 60.3 percent of all adults ages 18-64 had employer-sponsored coverage in March 2015, compared with 59.7 percent in June 2013. The study predicts that these rates will remain stable in coming years thanks to factors including tax credits for smaller firms and for workers who obtain coverage through employers.

These numbers are a clear indicator that companies aren't dropping their health insurance, as critics threatened. And it's not the only empirical evidence suggesting that the law is working as intended. For instance, a survey conducted by Towers Watson and the National Business Group on Health found that in 2013, employers experienced the lowest increase in health care costs in 15 years. The new law has also begun eliminating job lock, which occurs when employees are trapped in jobs because they can't risk losing coverage. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation estimated that an additional 1.5 million people would start their own businesses in 2014 because of the health care law.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.
The most effective way to mitigate sneezy weezy diseases that make us sicky poo-poo is regular hand washing, not health insurance.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Actually, the insurance companies would be the first to leave...

-Which was possibly one of the ulterior motive for passing Obamacare. After Obamacare screws up the best health system the world, the proggies can then claim to "fix" it with "single-payer."

Originally Posted by playwrite

...Not using his cerebral lobes to grasp that the trendline was for more and more uninsured (plenty of pre-ACA forecasts of that trend not abating due to health care costs and insurance )...

-Maybe PW should try reading his own graph.

From the facts I've posted this morning, a person with fully functioning cerebral lobes (i.e., those not overridden by their more primitive, reptilian, fight-or-flight amygdala) would likely conclude that the ACA has been an unmitigated success - perhaps up there in the starry realm of SS and Medicare!

On the eve of the King-Burwell decision that is something to keep in mind (6 million plus people certainly will be).

But to illustrate the problem with having a large portion of our population dominated by their amygdala, look at this aspect of the issue of how much the ACA has cost -



That lack of knowledge and understanding is pitiful.

What's really really sad, however, from an MMT perspective, other than some penny ante taxes on suntan beds and Cadillac health plans, the ACA has actually cost us NOTHING, but has brought health coverage and care to millions of people. And yet it's not only still debated but could be destroyed by 5 wingnuts on the SCOTUS. Try to keep your amygdala in check and think about that for a moment.

Its pretty pathetic. And all because a large group of people in this country are walking around with an enlarged primitive part of their brains.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Oh yeah, I almost forgot.
The most effective way to mitigate sneezy weezy diseases that make us sicky poo-poo is regular hand washing, not health insurance.

Well no shit, Sherlock.

And I guess that would work for AIDS and other STDs, pre-mature babies, obesity in kids, etc. Or does none of that happen in the undocumented population or it just doesn't come to any cost to our society?


This is another perfect example of the amygdala-dominated. Similar to how they believe that a single anecdote (even one undocumented) outweighs entire statistical data sets, they pick at scabs of nuances in attempts to discredit the exceedingly bigger point.

I find it amazing that with your attitude and skill set that some educational institution in this country let you anywhere near the medical field.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

--Maybe PW should try reading his own graph.

You mean this more recent one, the one that the article suggest better reflects reality -




When psychologists talk about "mirroring" they are just pointing out another tactic of the amygdala's dominance of the cerebral lobes in some people.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

... the best health system the world, ...

Is there a link to some kind of reliable evidence for this broad-brush, sweeping view from 90,000 feet?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-I see that PW has gone from amygala inspired panic to pangloss.

Well there it is: facts that counter the doom-and-gloom paranoid narrative of the amygdala-dominated must be pangloss.

Truly, amazing. Just amazing.

This took a while, but I think it'll be worth it regarding this whole amygdala thing:
http://andrewgelman.com/2013/09/01/p...-really-works/

...Read between the lines. The paper originally was released in 2009 and was published in 2013 in PLOS-One, which is one step above appearing on Arxiv. PLOS-One publishes some good things (so does Arxiv) but it’s the place people place papers that can’t be placed. We can deduce that the paper was rejected by Science, Nature, various other biology journals, and maybe some political science journals as well...

http://www.science20.com/science_20/...st_time-119666

It's easy to forget that there was once a time when a lot of hype resulted from claims that magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) showed biological differences between political brains - it was open season on the opposition by people who understand biology even less than psychology.

To dredge the water-logged corpse up again, the scholars behind a paper (eventually published years later in PLoS One, with a few modifications) said conservatives were found to be more 'afraid' in a risk-taking task and that is why they like more social authoritarian policies...

Next, the study doesn't exactly claim what PW's article claims:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology...al_orientation

...although it would explain the 4TF proggies' tendency to doublethink.

Originally Posted by playwrite

She can comment on it all she wants, but it will probable help more if she provides her research study reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal...

-Watch carefully. This is going to be priceless...

First, you follow Playdude's trail from here:

http://www.alternet.org/story/155210..._is_terrifying

...to here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-...b_1262542.html

...and then, here's the study:

(from Section 4 "Discussion"):

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...640.full#aff-1

It appears individuals on the political right are not so much ‘fearful’ and ‘vulnerable’ as attuned and attentive to the aversive in life...

...which sort of rejects the spin that HuffPo later gives it (go figure).

But here's the fun part: When you click on where it says "free version here,":

http://www.unl.edu/polphyslab/sites/...%2016_2011.pdf

...you get something that's not exactly impressive, is it?

So, I tried the "Contact Us" page. This was the response I got from the University of Nebraska-Lincoln (where the study was supposedly done):

James:
Can you provide a more complete cite? I’m not sure where this link originated, but it’s not the website of our lab, and the only clue I have is the 2011 date in the URL … and as far as I can recall we neither published nor presented an MRI study in that year (co-authors, correct me if I’m wrong). I’ve pasted in below a complete list of the papers John and I have been co-authors on for the past five years below, hopefully you’ll be able to pick out what you’re looking for.
Cheers
Kevin

Geez. You'd think that they'd remember such a supposedly brilliant piece of work.

Here's the other studies Kevin Smith recommended:


Neiman, Jayme, Frank Gonzales, Kevin Smith and John Hibbing. “Speaking Different
Languages or Speaking From the Same Script?” Political Communication. Forthcoming.

Mills, Mark, Kevin B. Smith, John R. Hibbing and Michael D. Dodd. “The Politics of Face-in-
The-Crowd.” Journal of Experimental Psychology. Forthcoming.

Wagner, Michael W., Kristen Deppe, Carly M. Jacobs, Amanda Friesen, Kevin B. Smith, and
John R. Hibbing. “Beyond Survey Self-Reports: Using Physiology to Tap
Political Orientations,” International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Forthcoming.

Mills, Mark, Kevin B. Smith, John R. Hibbing and Michael D. Dodd. 2015. “Obama Cares
About Visuo-Spatial Attention: Perception of Political Figures Moves Attention and
Determines Gaze Direction. Behavioral Brain Research. 278: 221-225.

Hatemi, Peter K., Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford, Nicholas G. Martin and John R. Hibbing.
2015. “The Genetic and Environmental Foundations of Political, Psychological, Social
and Economic Behaviors.” Twin Research and Human Genetics. 18: 243-255.

Hibbing, John R., Kevin B. Smith and John R. Alford. 2014. “Differences in Negativity Bias
Underlie Variations in Political Ideology.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 37: 297-350.

Ahn, Woo-Young, Kenneth T. Kishida, Xiasi Gu, Terry Lohrenze, Ann Harvey, John R. Alford,
Kevin B. Smith, Gideon Yaffe, John R. Hibbing, Peter Dayan, and P. Read Montague.
2014.“Non-Political Images Evoke Neural Predictors of Political Ideology.” Current
Biology. 24: 2693-2699.

Hibbing, John R., Kevin B. Smith, Jonathan Peterson, and Balazs Feher. 2014. “The Deeper
Sources of Political Conflict: Evidence from the Psychological, Cognitive and Neuro-
Sciences.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 18: 111-113.

French, Jeffrey A, Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford, Adam Guck, Andrew K. Birnie, and John R.
Hibbing. 2014. “Cortisol and Politics: Variance in Voting Behavior is Predicted by
Baseline Cortisol Levels.” Physiology & Behavior. 133: 61-67.

Mitchell, Dona-Gene, Matthew V. Hibbing, Kevin B. Smith and John R. Hibbing. 2014. “Side
by Side, Worlds Apart: Liberals’ and Conservatives’ Distinct Perceptions of Political Reality.” American Politics Research. 14: 338-363.

Funk, Carolyn, Kevin B. Smith, John R. Alford, Matthew V. Hibbing, Nicholas Eaton, Robert Krueger, Lindon Eaves and John R. Hibbing. 2013. “Genetic and Environmental
Transmission Of Political Orientations.” Political Psychology. 34: 805-819.

McLean, Scott, John Garza, Sandra Wiebe, Michael Dodd, Kevin Smith, John Hibbing and
Kimberly Andrews Espy. 2013. “Applying the Flanker Task to Political Psychology: A
Research Note.” Political Psychology. Doi:10.1111/pops.12056.

Deppe, Kristen D., Scott F. Stoltenberg, Kevin B. Smith and John R. Hibbing. 2013. “Candidate
Genes and Voter Turnout: Further Evidence on the Role of 5-HTTLPR.” American
Political Science Review. 107: 375-381..

Smith, Kevin B. and Peter K. Hatemi. 2013. “OLS is AOK for ACE: A Regression-Based
Approach to Synthesizing Political Science and Behavioral Genetics Models.” Political
Behavior. 35: 383-408.

Gruszczynski, Michael, Amanda Balzer, Carly M. Jacobs, Kevin B. Smith, John R. Hibbing.
2013. “The Physiology of Political Participation.” Political Behavior. 35: 135-152.

Smith, Kevin B., John Alford, Peter Hatemi, Lindon Eaves, Carolyn Funk and John Hibbing.
2012. “Biology, Ideology, and Epistemology: How Do We Know Political Attitudes Are Inherited and Why Should We Care?” American Journal of Political Science. 56: 17-33.

Dodd, Michael D., Amanda Balzer, Carly Jacobs, Michael Gruszczynski, Kevin B. Smith and
John R. Hibbing. 2012. “The Political Left Rolls with the Good; The Political Right Confronts The Bad: Connecting Physiology and Cognition to Preferences.” Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society. 367 (1589): 640-649..

Smith, Kevin B., Douglas Oxley, Mattew V. Hibbing, John R. Alford and John R. Hibbing.
2011.“Disgust Sensitivity and the Neurophysiology of Left-Right Political Orientations.”
PLoS One. 6(10): e2552. Doi:101371/journal.one.002552.

Dodd, Michael D., John R. Hibbing and Kevin B. Smith. 2011. “The Politics of Attention: Gaze
Cuing Effects Are Moderated by Political Temperament.” Attention, Perception &
Psychophysics. 73: 24-29.

Smith, Kevin B., Douglas R. Oxley, Matthew Hibbing, John Alford and John Hibbing.
2011. “Linking Genetics and Political Attitudes: Re-Conceptualizing Political Ideology.” Political Psychology. 32: 369-397.

Hatemi, Peter, John Hibbing, Sarah Medland, Matthew Keller, John Alford, Kevin B. Smith.
2010. “Not By Twins Alone: Using the Extended Family Design to Investigate
Genetic Influence on Political Beliefs.” American Journal of Political Science. 54: 798-814.


...Well. That's a lot for Playwrong to wade through.

I'll bet he doesn't.

Anyway, I followed up on the other link in HuffPo:

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.o...640.full#aff-1

...and here's what Kevin Smith sent back:

That’s an eye tracking study, not an MRI study. The only MRI study that has my name on it is the one on the list I sent with Woo-Young Ahn as lead author—this was done out of Read Montague’s lab in West Virginia. Our lab has presented a couple of ERP studies at conferences, but those were all really preliminary and none have been published. Sorry I can’t be of more help, but I just can’t figure what study you are referring to.

Of course, it doesn't take an MRI to let us know that in the real world, that it's the proggies who can't handle the overload from their amygdalas. Thank God we don't have a draft which would stick these crybabies in rifle platoons anymore.

FWIW, I bet I can can post the word "Amygdala" more often than PW can:

Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala! Amygdala!

Any chance that PW feels silly yet? Nah. That choo-choo left the station years ago.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Well no shit, Sherlock.

And I guess that would work for AIDS and other STDs, pre-mature babies, obesity in kids, etc. Or does none of that happen in the undocumented population or it just doesn't come to any cost to our society?


This is another perfect example of the amygdala-dominated. Similar to how they believe that a single anecdote (even one undocumented) outweighs entire statistical data sets, they pick at scabs of nuances in attempts to discredit the exceedingly bigger point.

I find it amazing that with your attitude and skill set that some educational institution in this country let you anywhere near the medical field.

I know. I'm such a loser.
And you are a Wile E super genius. Perhaps Harvard would like to have you on their neuroscience research team.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I know. I'm such a loser.
And you are a Wile E super genius. Perhaps Harvard would like to have you on their neuroscience research team.

I use to do that for them; I even did it for free. Several years ago, I got tired of it.

However, I'm now in discussion with them about coming back up on a research project. There's a lot of recent interest in seeing if we can reduce amygdala mass painlessly, by way of the nostril, on an out-patience basis. One team member has come up with a possible pharmaceutical approach - take the pill and next time you sneeze, part of your amygdala comes out with the snot. Some early test have not gone so well; that's why some reporting of some grad students there with half-a-brain. But we're working on it. We've come up with a slogan - "Free your mind."