Originally Posted by playwrite

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."

How's your wife ... Morgan Fairchild?

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

How's your wife ... Morgan Fairchild?

No, I only accept former Bond Girls into the hareem.

Some of them are in their 70s! Hey, they need a place, too.

I'm just that kind of a guy.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

How's your wife ... Morgan Fairchild?

She probably looks like her. Russian mail order brides are usually pretty hot.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

This took a while, but I think it'll be worth it regarding this whole amygdala thing: ...

... and then some!

Originally Posted by JDG

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

In-Deed!


Prince

PS: Excellent work, JDG.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

How's your wife ... Morgan Fairchild?

<chuckle!> Ahh, yeah ... that's the ticket!


Prince

With all these polls out asking people to predict how the Supreme Court is going to rule on same-sex marriage, how about one asking respondents to predict on how the SCOTUS will rule re ObamaCare?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

. This took a while, but ..

blah, blah balh...

"
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).

So you follow a single paper, and get to the usual squabbles among scientists as to who-gets-published-in-what-journal and report that as news. Obviously, your educational experience never got anywhere near the brawling world of academic research.

But what's most interesting is your wrapping it up with that quote. Let's put that cherry pick into context -

"It appears individuals on the political right are not so much ‘fearful’ and ‘vulnerable’ as attuned and attentive to the aversive in life. This responsiveness and attentiveness, in turn, is consistent with the fact that right-of-centre policy positions are often designed to protect society from out-group threats (e.g. by supporting increased defence spending and opposing immigration) and in-group norm violators (e.g. by supporting traditional values and stern penalties for criminal behaviour). Rather than using colourful adjectives, perhaps, the proper approach is simply to state that the aversive in life appears to be more physiologically and cognitively tangible to some people and they tend to gravitate to the political right.

"Protect society from out group threats" - xenophobic

"in-group violators" - imposing your belief system onto others.

Whether these authors believe it is "aversion" rather than "not so much'fearful' and 'vulnerable'," you amygdala-dominated are still pricks and that is made evident on this forum every day (e.g. your cherry-picking that sentence out of context).

But hey, at least your guy has now thrown his hat into the clown car -

Originally Posted by JDG 66

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

[COLOR=#ac193d][FONT=Times New Roman][SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri][SIZE=3][COLOR=#000000]Geez. You'd think that they'd remember such a supposedly brilliant piece of work.

Oh, poor baby, had a broken link and a full professor blew you off, wow, what a surprise.

When I was working, I paid good money to research assistants for good reasons; they'd laugh at your half ass effort - particularly when on the site all you needed to do is click on that box to the right that says "March 2012 Volume: 367 Issue: 1589" - it even has a picture of the front cover for the illiterate. Again, pretty obvious your education fell more than a few years short of the level where one gets introduced to "research world" and the trials and tribulations of tracking down sources. And at your age, forgetaboutit - it's a young person's game.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

Here's the other studies Kevin Smith recommended:

Yea, that's an okay list. But here's another summary in the field and it comes with your reading list -

References:
J. Allman, K. Watson, N. Tetreault, and A. Hakeem (2005) Intuition and Autism: a possible role for Von Economo neurons. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. Vol 9. No. 8. Aug. 2005.
D. Amodio, J. Jost, S. Master, C. Yee. (2007) Neurocognitive correlates of liberalism and conservatism. Nature Neuroscience 10.
D. Amodio, S. Master, C. Yee, S. Taylor. (2008) Neurocognitive components of the behavioral inhibition and activation systems: Implications for theories of self-regulation. Psychophysiology. (45).
K. Barnett and M. Corballis (2002). Ambidexterity and magical ideation. Laterality, 7, 75–84.
T. Braver, D. Barch, J. Gray, D. Molfese, A. Snyder. (2001) Anterior Cingulate Cortex and Response Conflict: Effects of Frequency, Inhibition, and Errors. Cerebral Cortex, Vol 11, No 9.
C. Butti, C. C. Sherwood, A. Hakeem, J. Allman (July 2009). "Total number and volume of Von Economo neurons in the cerebral cortex of cetaceans.". The Journal of comparative neurology 515 (2): 243–59.
W. Cunningham, M. Johnson, C. Raye, J. Gatenby, J. Gore, M. Banaji (2004). Separable neural components in the
processing of Black and White faces. Psychological Science, 15, 806–813.
C. Fajardo, M. Escobar, E. Buriticá, G. Arteaga, J. Umbarila, M. Casanova, H. Pimienta (2008). "Von Economo neurons are present in the dorsolateral (dysgranular) prefrontal cortex of humans.". Neuroscience Letters 435 (3): 215–218.
M. Gazzaniga and J. LeDoux (1978) The Integrated Mind. Plenum Press, New York and London.
J. Grafman, J. Wood, M. Spampinato, and K. Knutson (2006) Politics on the Brain: An fMRI Investigation. Social Neuroscience. 2006 March ; 1(1): 25–40.
J. Haidt and J. Graham (2007). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98!116.
W. Harbaugh, U. Mayr, and D. Burghart (2007). Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations. Science 316, 1622–1625.
A. Hart, P. Whalen, L. Shin, S. McInerney, H. Fischer, S. Rauch (2000) Differential Response in the Human Amygdala to Racial Outgroup vs Ingroup Face Stimuli. Neuroreport. 11, 2351-2355.
R. Hashimoto and Y. Tanaka (1998) Contribution of the supplementary motor area and anterior cingulate gyrus to pathological grasping phenomena. Eur. Neurol. 40, 151–158 (1998)
Y. Inbar, D. Pizarro, and P. Bloom (2009). Conservatives are more easily disgusted than liberals. Cogn. Emotion 23, 714–725.
J. Jost, B. Nosek, & S. Gosling (2008). Ideology: Its resurgence in social, personality, and political psychology. Perspectives of Psychological Science, 3, 126–136.
J. Kaplan, J. Freedman, and M. Iacoboni (2007) Us versus them: Political attitudes and party affiliation influence neural response to faces of presidential candidates. Neuropsychologia Volume 45, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 55-64.
J. Kerns, J. Cohen, A. MacDonald III, R. Cho, V. Stenger, and C. Carter (2004) Anterior Cingulate Conflict Monitoring and Adjustments in Control. Science, Vol 303, Feb 2004.
D. Knoch, A. Pascual-Leone, K. Meyer, V. Treyer, and E. Fehr. (2006) Diminishing Reciprocal Fairness by Disrupting the Right Prefrontal Cortex. Science. Vol. 314. no. 5800, pp. 829 - 832.
A. Mcdonald, F. Mascagni, and L. Guo (1996) Projections of the medial and lateral prefrontal cortices to the amygdala: a Phaseolus vulgaris leucoagglutinin study in the rat. Neuroscience. 1996 Mar;71(1):55-75.
V. Menon, N. Adleman, C. White, G. Glover, and A. Reiss (2001) Error-Related Brain Activation During a Go/NoGo Response Inhibition Task. Human Brain Mapping. 12:131-143(2001).
C. Niebauer, S. Christman, and S. Reid (2002). Degree of handedness predicts beliefs in creationism versus evolution. Poster presented at Toward a Science of Consciousness Symposium, Tucson, AZ.
D. Pandya and D. Rosene (1985) Some observations on trajectories and topography of commissural fibers. In Reeves, A.G. (ed.) Epilepsy and the Corpus Callosum. New York: Plenum Press. pp. 21-39
T. Paus (2001) Primate Anterior Cingulate Cortex. Nature Reviews. Volume 2, June 2001.
E. Phelps, K. O'Conner, W. Cunningham, S. Funayama, J. Gatenby, J. Gore, M. Banaji. (2000) Performance on indirect measures of race predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 12: 729-738.
J. Richeson, A. Baird, H. Gordon, T. Heatherton, C. Wyland, S. Trawalter, J. Shelton (2003) An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Nature Neuroscience. Nov 2003.
P. Rudalevièiene, T. Stompe2, A. Narbekovas, N. Raškauskiene, R. Bunevièius (2008) Are religious delusions related to religiosity in schizophrenia? Medicina (Kaunas) 2008; 44(7).
D. Simmonds, J. Pekar, and S. Mostofsky (2008). Meta-analysis of Go/No-go tasks demonstrating that fMRI activation associated with response inhibition is task-dependent. Neuropsychologia 46, 224–232.
M. Vanderhasselt, C. Baeken, M. Hendricks, and R.De Raedt (2011) The effects of high frequency rTMS on negative attentional bias are influenced by baseline state anxiety. Neuropsychologia. 2011 Jun;49(7):1824-30. Epub 2011 Mar 21.
B. Way and R. Masters (1996), Political attitudes: Interactions of cognition and affect. Motivation and Emotion, Volume 20, Number 3 (September, 1996): pp. 205-236
D. Westen, P. Blagov, K. Harenski, C. Kilts, S. Hamann. (2006) Neural Bases of Motivated Reasoning: An fMRI Study of Emotional Constraints on Partisan Political Judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 18: 1947-1958.
B. Wicker, C. Keysers, J. Plailly, J. Royet, V. Gallese, and G. Rizzolatti (2003). Both of us disgusted in My insula: The common neural basis of seeing and feeling disgust. Neuron 40, 655–664.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

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

Silly? Me? Why? Not when your behavior as well as the links you put on display in your post confirms everything I've been saying.

Silly, yea, silly grateful I am! Thanks!

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...
Prince

PS: Excellent work, JDG.

Further confirmation from the amygdala-dominated.

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.

Except that cancer thing. All the hand-washing in the world won't cure that.

The real medical expenses don't come from flu or colds. It's better to avoid getting contractible diseases do things like washing hands. And getting vaccinated, which is covered by insurance.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

With all these polls out asking people to predict how the Supreme Court is going to rule on same-sex marriage, how about one asking respondents to predict on how the SCOTUS will rule re ObamaCare?

The same-sex marriage issue is more of a "is society ready for this" and while slight, certain SCOTUS members might be influenced by the polling.

The ACA issue is much more about arcane issues of legislative language and state rights. SCOTUS members are pretty set in their ways about those but their "ways" can be very nuanced (the exceptions to that are, of course, the moron know as Thomas and the devil's spawn known as Scalia). Polling will have absolutely no effect on this outcome.

Also it really comes down to two guys - Roberts and Kennedy. And of the two, its really much more likely it will be Kennedy. If Roberts goes for the ACA, I see no way that Kennedy would do otherwise; on the other hand, if Roberts goes against the ACA, Kennedy could still support it and Obamacare will continue as the law of land and the wingnuts can go F themselves.

Your best place to stay up on what's happening is here -

http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ing-v-burwell/

- they're saying we might get a decision at 10am tomorrow.

It might hinge on an exchange back on March 4-

But what may eventually prove to be the key line of questioning may have been kicked off by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who expressed concern about the consequences of a ruling for the challengers. If a state’s residents don’t receive subsidies, she told Carvin, it will lead to a “death spiral”: because a large group of people in those states will no longer be required to buy health insurance, but insurers will still be required to offer insurance to everyone, only sick people will buy health insurance. And that will cause everyone’s insurance costs to rise, leading more people to drop out of the insurance market. States will then feel like they have no choice other than to establish their own exchanges to ward off the “death spiral” – a scenario that is so coercive that it violates the Constitution.

Perhaps critically for the government, Justice Anthony Kennedy – who is often regarded as a strong supporter of states’ rights – also expressed concern about the possibly coercive effect of a ruling for Carvin’s clients. There is, he told Carvin, “something very powerful to the point” that if the challengers prevail, the states have to choose between the death spiral and creating an exchange. “There’s a serious constitutional problem,” he concluded.[/b] (Carvin tried to downplay this concern by telling Kennedy that the government had not raised this issue, but Kennedy quickly retorted that “we sometimes think of things the government doesn’t argue.”)

We'll see - perhaps in less than 24 hours.

Originally Posted by annla899

Except that cancer thing. All the hand-washing in the world won't cure that.

The real medical expenses don't come from flu or colds. It's better to avoid getting contractible diseases do things like washing hands. And getting vaccinated, which is covered by insurance.

Sorry I forgot about that cancer thing.
We'd better get them filthy illegals insured so they can't sneeze on our kids and give them cancer! My amygdala says so!

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Sorry I forgot about that cancer thing.
We'd better get them filthy illegals insured so they can't sneeze on our kids and give them cancer! My amygdala says so!

I believe Annla899's point is that insurance is awfully nice to have if you are unfortunate enough to get cancer, particular one of the kinds that are treatable.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I believe Annla899's point is that insurance is awfully nice to have if you are unfortunate enough to get cancer, particular one of the kinds that are treatable.

Irrelevant to my response to playdude's post.
But yeah, if you want to change the subject, cancer is a way scary thing! Better follow your amygdalae's advice and get that insurance!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I believe Annla899's point is that insurance is awfully nice to have if you are unfortunate enough to get cancer, particular one of the kinds that are treatable.

And my point is that it is awful stupid, in a myriad of ways, to impede undocumented folks from getting health care.

For a person in the health field to rely solely on the hope of handwashing to stop communicable diseases just goes to show how stupid it can get. Her most recent moniker is pretty much spot on.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And my point is that it is awful stupid, in a myriad of ways, to impede undocumented folks from getting health care.

For a person in the health field to rely solely on the hope of handwashing to stop communicable diseases just goes to show how stupid it can get. Her most recent moniker is pretty much spot on.

I'm not a health care professional. I'm just another pathological liar. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Now that gay marriage is legal, I can be married to Morgan Fairchild too!

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

With all these polls out asking people to predict how the Supreme Court is going to rule on same-sex marriage, how about one asking respondents to predict on how the SCOTUS will rule re ObamaCare?

I did successfully predict that Obamacare would be ruled constitutional because it is a tax rather than a mandate. That was Justice Roberts' opinion. This wasn't based on any cosmic indicators, except that I did also predict health care would pass back in 2009 because of the Jupiter-Neptune-Chiron conjunction in Aquarius that year. The Jupiter-Neptune conjunctions do seem to correspond with reforms that last. On that basis, I might predict that the decision coming soon will be positive for Obamacare too. Kennedy seems less opposed to it this time around too. It's hard to say though; I don't see any certain basis of any kind on which to predict this decision.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

I'm not a health care professional. I'm just another pathological liar. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Now that gay marriage is legal, I can be married to Morgan Fairchild too!

I did not say you were lying about being a health care professional. I just find it terribly worrisome that you are.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

I did successfully predict that Obamacare would be ruled constitutional because it is a tax rather than a mandate. That was Justice Roberts' opinion. This wasn't based on any cosmic indicators, except that I did also predict health care would pass back in 2009 because of the Jupiter-Neptune-Chiron conjunction in Aquarius that year. The Jupiter-Neptune conjunctions do seem to correspond with reforms that last. On that basis, I might predict that the decision coming soon will be positive for Obamacare too. Kennedy seems less opposed to it this time around too. It's hard to say though; I don't see any certain basis of any kind on which to predict this decision.

It's confusing as to what is "positive."

If subsidies to fed run exchanges are not upheld, then there will be a mad scramble in 10 or so states to set up their exchanges or hybrid exchanges (see HI) to comply and get the subsidies.

In the other amygdala-dominated states, insurance rates will spiral out of control. The contrast of generally Blue states having no problems vis-a-vis 100s of thousands of problems in Red states will make it clear that this is an amygdala-dominated caused problem. That will greatly accelerated the demise of the GOP that will eventually find its way to producing a national single payer system.

It will be heartbreaking to see what happens to millions of individuals but in the long run the silver lining will be an enormous wake-up call.

Originally Posted by playwrite

I did not say you were lying about being a health care professional. I just find it terribly worrisome that you are.

I did not say that you said that I'm lying. I said that I'm lying.
Does your terribly worried amygdala feel better now?

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

...
I believe my clarification makes this moot, but as far as I'm concerned, it's your call.
IOW, I'm fine either way ...

Originally Posted by playwrite

Further confirmation from the amygdala-dominated.

<chuckle!>

I was actually hoping you'd say that, Mr. Playwrite.
So, that said, regarding any Armistice between us,
I'm gonna go ahead and take that as a 'no'.


Prince

PS: I do seriously want to thank you for that response, though;
It's much appreciated.

Originally Posted by playwrite

It's confusing as to what is "positive."

If subsidies to fed run exchanges are not upheld, then there will be a mad scramble in 10 or so states to set up their exchanges or hybrid exchanges (see HI) to comply and get the subsidies.

In the other amygdala-dominated states, insurance rates will spiral out of control. The contrast of generally Blue states having no problems vis-a-vis 100s of thousands of problems in Red states will make it clear that this is an amygdala-dominated caused problem. That will greatly accelerated the demise of the GOP that will eventually find its way to producing a national single payer system.

It will be heartbreaking to see what happens to millions of individuals but in the long run the silver lining will be an enormous wake-up call.

Expecting bad results to be blamed on bad actors in Bright Red states is highly unlikely. They know their personal devils, and they are always to blame. Case in point: Kansas just reelected Sam Brownback. No one thought he did a good job, but he's not one of Them.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Expecting bad results to be blamed on bad actors in Bright Red states is highly unlikely. They know their personal devils, and they are always to blame. Case in point: Kansas just reelected Sam Brownback. No one thought he did a good job, but he's not one of Them.

Unfortunately, there is much to what you said above. Reagan did a thorough job of implanting the idea that government is inefficient, that the remedy is to cut taxes, cut services and rely on the private sector. A lot of folk see with their wallets. The promise of low taxes is a powerful tool to shape how people perceive their world.

To what extent can wallet vision be fought? Can the Democrats push a few simple messages like Obamacare is working, Voodoo economics isn't, and a reprise of "It's the economy, stupid?"

As you say, the Bright Red States are really locked into the Reagan perspective. We'll have to see...

Originally Posted by B Butler

As you say, the Bright Red States are really locked into the Reagan perspective.

Shhhhh .... playdude's xenophobic/amygdalophobic amygdalae can't take the strain!

Originally Posted by playwrite

The same-sex marriage issue is more of a "is society ready for this" and while slight, certain SCOTUS members might be influenced by the polling.

But why should Americans be more "Catholic" than the Irish?

That's why what just went down in Ireland is going to make a difference.

It might hinge on an exchange back on March 4-

But what may eventually prove to be the key line of questioning may have been kicked off by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who expressed concern about the consequences of a ruling for the challengers. If a state’s residents don’t receive subsidies, she told Carvin, it will lead to a “death spiral”: because a large group of people in those states will no longer be required to buy health insurance, but insurers will still be required to offer insurance to everyone, only sick people will buy health insurance. And that will cause everyone’s insurance costs to rise, leading more people to drop out of the insurance market. States will then feel like they have no choice other than to establish their own exchanges to ward off the “death spiral” – a scenario that is so coercive that it violates the Constitution.

Perhaps critically for the government, Justice Anthony Kennedy – who is often regarded as a strong supporter of states’ rights – also expressed concern about the possibly coercive effect of a ruling for Carvin’s clients. There is, he told Carvin, “something very powerful to the point” that if the challengers prevail, the states have to choose between the death spiral and creating an exchange. “There’s a serious constitutional problem,” he concluded.[/b] (Carvin tried to downplay this concern by telling Kennedy that the government had not raised this issue, but Kennedy quickly retorted that “we sometimes think of things the government doesn’t argue.”)

This didn't seem to matter re the National Recovery Act or the Agricultural Adjustment Act 80 years ago.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

Shhhhh .... playdude's xenophobic/amygdalophobic amygdalae can't take the strain!

<LOL!>

You know what? I think you're right.

If 'xenophobic' is broadened to basically include 'The Other'(ie: 'Them'), I'd say
all this 'Red vs. Blue-nonsense' is pretty much characteristic of that occurring.

Plus, Mr. Playdick thinks that anyone that doesn't buy-into MMT is a 'moron'
that engages in 'magic pony thinking'(ie: they're 'weird'). That works, too!


Prince

PS: Moron, I really think you're on to something there. So maybe this
whole 'amygdala-dominated'-thing actually does have some merit!