It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
During the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, while undergoing an fMRI bran scan, 30 men--half self-described as "strong" Republicans and half as "strong" Democrats--were tasked with assessing statements by both George W. Bush and John Kerry in which the candidates clearly contradicted themselves. Not surprisingly, in their assessments Republican subjects were as critical of Kerry as Democratic subjects were of Bush, yet both let their own candidate off the hook.
The neuroimaging results, however, revealed that the part of the brain most associated with reasoning--the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex--was quiescent. Most active were the orbital frontal cortex, which is involved in the processing of emotions; the anterior cingulate, which is associated with conflict resolution; the posterior cingulate, which is concerned with making judgments about moral accountability; and--once subjects had arrived at a conclusion that made them emotionally comfortable--the ventral striatum, which is related to reward and pleasure.
"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," Westen is quoted as saying in an Emory University press release. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts." Interestingly, neural circuits engaged in rewarding selective behaviors were activated. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones," Westen said. www.scientificamerican.com...
originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
Is that comedy or poetry? Both.
But seriously, you tackled it well and with humor.
It worries me that so many people are taking this hook line and sinker, but does not surprise me.
Taking this approach is cheap, lazy, dishonest, and it loses potential votes. Because I would rather throw a vote away on a third party than support zealotry. The seconds someone acts divine, they are no longer a viable lesser of two evils, they are just evil. 2020 is a no vote from me no matter what, partly because Sara Sanders took this approach, and partly because people are not only buying it, but bathing in it.
Dude I've seen it in practice "if you're against Bush you're against God because God put him there". Even if YOU are able to tell yourself what you're saying above, this is playing with undue connections of adoration and so on subconsciously.
Most people in history had none of that going for them. Total sheep. Probably get sent off to fight some bogus war for it. Or not question and rise up against their divine monarchs when they should have for it (which the Bible tells them not to wtf). Totally screwed. Billions of people over millenia marching around in groupthink autopilot half their lives, self-deceiving themselves to maintain some ideal vision of their groups, which always have a psychopath at the top in charge of it.
Freewill was Gods Design? Where is it?
So again, god you suck at this human stuff.
Oh, Im pretty sure after the New Test. god was no longer Mr Eye For An Eye God.
Oh, I'm sorry...should have said so sooner. I may not have mocked him as much.
originally posted by: carewemust
When you consider the many powerful entities working against Donald Trump becoming President of the United States in 2015/2016, it's obvious that a "higher power" interceded to ensure that he beat "sure winner", Hillary Clinton.