tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post113838683482226702..comments2024-02-28T14:41:47.313-07:00Comments on Flares into Darkness: Trollery Explainedambisinistralhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03836786826294202405noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138557470075726912006-01-29T10:57:00.000-07:002006-01-29T10:57:00.000-07:00markOh well, I'm late to this corner of the party ...mark<BR/><BR/>Oh well, I'm late to this corner of the party but...<BR/><BR/>Kerry's war record consists of citations for his purple hearts. Guess who wrote those citations? Kerry! Citations are taken from the After Action reports, which Kerry wrote.<BR/><BR/>Clever, isn't it?Sylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03069871911665125873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138542471177238092006-01-29T06:47:00.000-07:002006-01-29T06:47:00.000-07:00That's it Mark, avoid the point. Your world sounds...That's it Mark, avoid the point. Your world sounds like a scary place to be. Just who do you believe?Lutherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08901441364329385474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138467080003604852006-01-28T09:51:00.000-07:002006-01-28T09:51:00.000-07:00Just tell Kerry to release 'all' of his records, t...Just tell Kerry to release 'all' of his records, them we can decide for ourselves and not be so manipulated.Lutherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08901441364329385474noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138428745428280942006-01-27T23:12:00.000-07:002006-01-27T23:12:00.000-07:00Without actually reading the study, I suspect that...Without actually reading the study, I suspect that the population was all men because they wanted to subtract baseline brain activation from the activation under the manipuation. Women's brains respond differently, and are smaller, to boot, and that adds noise to the data.<BR/><BR/>As for the size of the study, the null hypothesis in these experiments is that there will be no difference in activation patterns (which of course is not the case), and they usually reject at the 0.0001 level of lower, depending on how they define the regions of interest - normally they divide the brain into a few million cubic millimeters or so (after accounting for head size differences as best they can).<BR/><BR/>So the reasoning runs like this: <BR/><BR/>"We hypothesize that activation will differ between baseline and manipulation." <BR/><BR/>"Look! It does!" <BR/><BR/>"Look! The active region is the part of the brain that we think has something to do with reward and reinforcement/learning and memory/higher order processing " <BR/><BR/>"Therefore, the manipulation is highly rewarding/memorable/characteristic of humans!" <BR/><BR/>"Call the press, and start working on another grant!"Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13849696277722291312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138409851847804932006-01-27T17:57:00.000-07:002006-01-27T17:57:00.000-07:00The study referred to was covered over at JustOneM...The study referred to was covered over at <A HREF="http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/01/partisans_not_t.html#comments" REL="nofollow">JustOneMinute</A>. The sample was 30 men (no women) who were paid $50 to be in a MRI machine and read the conflicting statements.<BR/><BR/>It sure sounds like there was a problem with the statistical population.Specterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14253933751289239821noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138400551094107952006-01-27T15:22:00.000-07:002006-01-27T15:22:00.000-07:00We think in terms of paradigms, which we have bec...We think in terms of paradigms, which we have because our consciousness is scenic and a paradigm is a kind of master narrative, event, or scene, like a founding event/scene of a religion (e.g. passion, crucifixion, resurrection). When we can fit all information, all "logical contradictions" into our scene or story, we are happy, at one with the scene or whatever centers it. A "logical contradiction" is often just abstracted from two different moments in the unfolding event/scene, e.g. "was my guy just crucified or did he give himself for my sins and was resurrected?" No such contradiction, then no crisis/event, no transcendent figure that survives the event to make the (e.g. Christian) story, no paradigm, and no consciousness.truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138398364296682302006-01-27T14:46:00.000-07:002006-01-27T14:46:00.000-07:00You hear what you want to hear . . . Unless you're...You hear what you want to hear . . . Unless you're you/Neo.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2006/01/a_certain_distr.html" REL="nofollow">"Denying reality is making them feel great"</A>Sissy Willishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04316411260777111360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138392839301056672006-01-27T13:13:00.000-07:002006-01-27T13:13:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Morganhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13849696277722291312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138391603475810752006-01-27T12:53:00.000-07:002006-01-27T12:53:00.000-07:00"Getting positive brain-shocks from reasserting th...<I>"Getting positive brain-shocks from reasserting their illogical statements in the face of contradictory facts. Denying reality is making them feel great."</I><BR/><BR/>It sounds all too human. According to a University College London study<BR/><BR/><I>"Love leads to a suppression of neural activity associated with critical social assessment of other people and negative emotions . . . The work could provide a neurological explanation for why love makes us blind."</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://sisu.typepad.com/sisu/2004/04/scientists_are_.html" REL="nofollow">What is this thing called love?</A>Sissy Willishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04316411260777111360noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138389570822524472006-01-27T12:19:00.000-07:002006-01-27T12:19:00.000-07:00chuck,Perhaps the explanation is as follows. Somet...chuck,<BR/><BR/>Perhaps the explanation is as follows. Sometimes it is necessary for us to achieve goals and not get distracted. Sometimes survival requires that we totally focus all of our energy on the goal at hand and block everything else out.<BR/><BR/>My observation of political reasoning is that it often goes like this. 1) There is a certain goal I want to achieve (make abortion legal for example). 2) This goal is more important to me than anything else. 3) I must focus all of my political energy on those people who will help me achieve my goal. 4) Therefore all of the people whom I perceive to be in favor of my goal are good and all opponents are evil. 5) Everything else must be blocked out.<BR/><BR/>I submit that this "cart before the horse" reasoning process is extremely common in politics, on every side. By contrast, there is another group of people who are looking for truth, wherever it may lead. An excellent example of the latter is <A HREF="http://neo-neocon.blogspot.com/2006/01/mind-is-difficult-thing-to-change-part_26.html" REL="nofollow">neo-neocon</A>.MeaninglessHotAirhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11767916621253839341noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138388401706112142006-01-27T12:00:00.000-07:002006-01-27T12:00:00.000-07:00"...activity spiked in the circuits involved in re...<I>"...activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix."</I><BR/><BR/>It looks like we are hardwired to follow demagogues. Much is explained, but why is such a trait useful?<BR/><BR/>So... what does your uncle say about 2008? He seems a man of uncanny prescience and I would like to place some bets early onchuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15164145672293455823noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138388298963445192006-01-27T11:58:00.000-07:002006-01-27T11:58:00.000-07:00Ah, there was a discussion about this over at Tom ...Ah, there was a discussion about this over at Tom Maguire's.<BR/><BR/>I think the conclusion I came to (based on CathyF I think) was that the people taking the test were politically aware and were only reacting to the stupidity of the questions rather than their content.<BR/><BR/>Stuff junk science is built on. :(<BR/><BR/>As to the basic question itself, arggghhhhh. Too frustrating to contemplate 'til I get some sleep.Sylhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03069871911665125873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16821859.post-1138388048605065232006-01-27T11:54:00.000-07:002006-01-27T11:54:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.chuckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15164145672293455823noreply@blogger.com