OMG BRAINS - study show's that Bush's is dysfunctional
I've decided that if what I'm posting has nothing to do with my personal life, then it's ok to put it up here.
I got this article from Slashdot: Neuroscience proves that the world is black and white. (Title courtesy of me.)
Maybe this is just a sign that I read too much Language Log, but I have a strong distrust of media reports on neuroscience. It's a field that most people (myself included) know very little about, and for some reason, that means that anyone who claims to know anything about it must be right. This article from Language Log reports on a study showing that people are more likely to accept bad arguments simply due to the addition of neurobiological data that is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
The fact of the matter is, the idea that there is a two-way distinction between "liberals" and "conservatives" is a gross oversimplification, and all this study does is to perpetuate the myth that liberals are smart and conservatives are dumb. I vacillate between placing myself in one of these camps, both of them simultaneously, and neither, but the fact of the matter is, I know many smart liberals and conservatives, whose opinions are well thought-out, and whom I respect greatly, and I know many stupid liberals and conservatives, who make ridiculous assumptions about the other side ("Liberals hate God", "Conservatives hate the poor"), and rely on fallacies to support their views. I have no respect for those people. That's why I don't read any of the political papers at Cornell (or the Daily Sun editorials, for that matter). The only people who write for The Cornell Review and Turn Left (or whatever names those publications are going by now), are the kind of people who single-mindedly rely on ad hoc arguments to "prove" their point, and refuse to acknowledge actual facts that go against their views. You don't have to hate Bush to be my friend (although if you haven't wised up to the fact that he's a bad president by now, I do question your judgement), but if you think that I'm a bad person for not supporting the war (which, by the way, <> the troops), then it might be a little difficult for us to get along.
EDIT: Ok, so I actually just found another political story that interests me. Democratic presidential hopefuls participate in Spanish-language debate.
I think the part of this I found most intriguing was the fact that the candidates were required to answer the questions in English, which was then translated into Spanish (and apparently the translation was spotty at times). The funny/sad part is that Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are both fluent in Spanish, and tried to answer some questions in that language, and the moderator reprimanded them. WTF? It's a Spanish-language debate, for a Spanish-speaking audience, and the candidates aren't allowed to speak Spanish?? *facepalm*
According to the Associated Press (c/o the International Herald Tribune), the debate got 2.2 million viewers (compared to 3.2 million for Fox's last Republican debate). Also, Republican candidates have so far declined to have a similar debate despite Univision's offer to them to do so. Hmm...
Ok, now that's all.
Brian
I got this article from Slashdot: Neuroscience proves that the world is black and white. (Title courtesy of me.)
Maybe this is just a sign that I read too much Language Log, but I have a strong distrust of media reports on neuroscience. It's a field that most people (myself included) know very little about, and for some reason, that means that anyone who claims to know anything about it must be right. This article from Language Log reports on a study showing that people are more likely to accept bad arguments simply due to the addition of neurobiological data that is completely irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
The fact of the matter is, the idea that there is a two-way distinction between "liberals" and "conservatives" is a gross oversimplification, and all this study does is to perpetuate the myth that liberals are smart and conservatives are dumb. I vacillate between placing myself in one of these camps, both of them simultaneously, and neither, but the fact of the matter is, I know many smart liberals and conservatives, whose opinions are well thought-out, and whom I respect greatly, and I know many stupid liberals and conservatives, who make ridiculous assumptions about the other side ("Liberals hate God", "Conservatives hate the poor"), and rely on fallacies to support their views. I have no respect for those people. That's why I don't read any of the political papers at Cornell (or the Daily Sun editorials, for that matter). The only people who write for The Cornell Review and Turn Left (or whatever names those publications are going by now), are the kind of people who single-mindedly rely on ad hoc arguments to "prove" their point, and refuse to acknowledge actual facts that go against their views. You don't have to hate Bush to be my friend (although if you haven't wised up to the fact that he's a bad president by now, I do question your judgement), but if you think that I'm a bad person for not supporting the war (which, by the way, <> the troops), then it might be a little difficult for us to get along.
EDIT: Ok, so I actually just found another political story that interests me. Democratic presidential hopefuls participate in Spanish-language debate.
I think the part of this I found most intriguing was the fact that the candidates were required to answer the questions in English, which was then translated into Spanish (and apparently the translation was spotty at times). The funny/sad part is that Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson are both fluent in Spanish, and tried to answer some questions in that language, and the moderator reprimanded them. WTF? It's a Spanish-language debate, for a Spanish-speaking audience, and the candidates aren't allowed to speak Spanish?? *facepalm*
According to the Associated Press (c/o the International Herald Tribune), the debate got 2.2 million viewers (compared to 3.2 million for Fox's last Republican debate). Also, Republican candidates have so far declined to have a similar debate despite Univision's offer to them to do so. Hmm...
Ok, now that's all.
Brian