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.
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
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?
all media is propaganda
So maybe you two should be deciding the scientific paper instead.
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.
everything is political
No, it isn’t. You’re being needlessly argumentative in a weird thread to choose to do so. Which is not Beeing Nice.