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.
If you had paid attention, or read the article at all, you would have noticed that they noticed changes in brain wiring, but have no idea if it is certain ideology causing brain wiring differences or brain wiring differences causing certain ideology.
You would have also noticed that it’s an actual scientist talking, who doesn’t seem to be making any outrageous claims, or anything you could call propaganda, no conclusions are drawn, so idk what the propaganda would even be for.
It is a shortened article, which it also directly says in there, sometimes you just want a quick thought-teaser, allowing you to dive in deeper if it sounds interesting.
It seems like you fall massively into preconceived notions, that while they may even be correct more often than not, your comment honestly just sounds like nonsense propaganda in this instance.
when did you last read the definitions of propaganda
Hey fam, starting with this reply its pretty clear you’re not engaging in good faith - this statement is fundamentally accusatory. It’s unsurprising that other folks viewed this as an attack. Please chill out, treat users with good faith, and do your best to avoid escalating things - you should gut check your own comments and ask yourself “how will others view this? Is this helpful?” and if the answer is no, rewrite your comment or don’t reply.
When did you last express your criticisms clearly instead of making people guess with vaguely unrelated questions?
Just tell me how I misunderstood propaganda.
if instead of getting sarcastic, you had gone and read the definitions of propaganda, you’d find that all media is propaganda.
“The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.”
I have said quite clearly that I can’t identify a doctrine or cause. It seems just a simple description of observations. If you are so certain that it is propaganda, please tell me what the agenda behind it is that is supposed to be propagated. I do actually want to know, I’m not being sarcastic.
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.
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?