It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Science proves that the politically biased are legally insane and medically addicted/diseased!

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Prelude to Debate:
[Study Article 1]
[Study Article 2]

Definitions:

Disease; Noun: An impairment of health or a condition of abnormal functioning.
www.websters-online-dictionary.org...


Addiction is now narrowly defined as "uncontrolled, compulsive use despite harm"; if there is no harm being suffered by, or damage done to, the patient or another party, then clinically it may be considered compulsive, but within this narrow definition it is not categorized as "addiction".
en.wikipedia.org...


Learning: is the process of acquiring knowledge, skills, attitudes, or values, through study, experience, or teaching, that causes a change of behavior that is persistent, measurable, and specified or allows an individual to formulate a new mental construct or revise a prior mental construct (conceptual knowledge such as attitudes or values)
en.wikipedia.org...


Insanity:
1. mental illness, lack of sanity, or
2. a legal plea, see insanity defense.
www.websters-online-dictionary.org...


Sanity: Sanity is a legal term denoting that an individual is of sound mind and therefore can bear legal responsibility for his or her actions. It is generally defined in terms of the absence of insanity. It is not a medical term, although the opinions of medical experts are often important in making a legal decision as to whether someone is sane or insane. It is also not the same concept as mental illness. One can be acting under profound mental illness and yet be sane, and one can also be ruled insane without an underlying mental illness.
www.websters-online-dictionary.org...


Loose Legal Definitions:

UNSOUND MIND, MEMORY - These words have been adopted in several statutes, and sometimes indiscriminately used to signify, not only lunacy, which is periodical madness, but also a permanent adventitious insanity as distinguished from idiocy.
www.lectlaw.com...



DEFENSE, INSANITY - A criminal defense asserting that at the time of the commission of the acts constituting the offense, the defendant, as a result of a severe mental disease or defect, was unable to appreciate the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his acts. Mental disease or defect does not otherwise constitute a defense. U.S.C. 18 (in other words inability to distinguish right from wrong).
www.lectlaw.com...


What I Think:
Thanks to bias, politically biased people have a distorted view of reality. The perfect example of bias is the little known scientific fMRI brain scan study with politically biased people from each side. The study proved that politically biased people dismiss negative things about their leader heroes, and during the dismissals their reward centers in their brains actually fire. In effect, they actually get a rush from dismissing the painful truth in the same way that drug addicts do when they get their fix. True drug addicts are usually just as much addicted to the rush of the game as they are their drugs, in fact its often what brings them back. They're addicted to the glory of when "they're" "right. In the current state of politicians and politics the only way the subjects could get consistent "glory" would be to be in an almost absolute state of denial.

My reasoning with the the insanity case is that they cant control themselves for their own well being and if selecting the wrong leader was "illegal" they wouldnt even realize that they're "breaking the law" by blindly making the wrong choice. I'm not sure if there's any decision making process involved with many of these cases.


When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats the scans showed that reward centers in volunteers brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior. -S.A.#1


The average political person usually seems to fall into the line of binary thinking (left/right, on/off, 0/1, etc). If they hear news that glorifies their side (or any member of it) they enter a state of bliss and glory; they feel as if theyre personally right. When they hear negative news about their guy they automatically start searching for reasons it must be false its all just a smear campaign by the right/left.

They have absolutely no desire to know the truth about much of anything, obviously, since they only wish see their guys look good so they can go and gloat to their opposite coworker or whoever. This is the dark side of our indoctrinated competitivness that nobody likes to talk about. Its so widespread that there would be mass hysteria if all news outlets were to continually broadcast that bias study for several weeks straight. Talk about a buzz kill, or would there be a greater collective high from biased people of both sides dismissing the study and the implications the phenomena plays on their memories perception of history? The powers at be could have all sorts of fun playing that sick joke on everyone just to watch everyone scramble, and test their devotion like never before; that will never happen because theyd lose too power of manipulation and justifiable treachery.

This is dangerous because it allows the leaders to get away with anything, no wonder nobody cared when the news got out about both Bush and Kerry being members of the ultra-elite Skull & Bones. Its not even like its a theory, its a fact and it even made mainstream news, yet nobody cared. So if you get millions of people who disregard issues like that and forget about them, what will happen when you show them far worse things and more importantly things that are vast in scope? Dismissed! Political bias is also dangerous because youll get people who will believe bad things against the enemy without actually checking into the claims.

Clearly, politically biased people are legally insane, because they cant decypher right from wrong when assessing their favored politicians. They also legally have unsound minds because they legally are under permanent insanity as a result. Additionally, theyre scientifically addicted to this sad form of insanity, as proven by Westins study (be sure to read that entire article). Because of the addiction, this would indicate that the phenomena is also a disease. Since learning is described as Any improvement in behaviour based on new information, its safe to say that people should take this disease of epidemic proportions very seriously.


All Democrats are insane, but not one of them know it; none but the Republicans and Mugwumps know it. All the Republicans are insane, but only the Democrats and Mugwumps can perceive it. - Mark Twain



[edit on 23-4-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]




posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:18 AM
link   
WATS.


This should be on ATS or anywhere that would draw more attention to it.


When presented with negative information about the candidates they liked, partisans of all stripes found ways to discount it, Westen said. When the unpalatable information was rejected, furthermore, the brain scans showed that volunteers gave themselves feel-good pats the scans showed that reward centers in volunteers brains were activated. The psychologist observed that the way these subjects dealt with unwelcome information had curious parallels with drug addiction as addicts also reward themselves for wrong-headed behavior. -S.A.#1


Your source. Emphasis mine. And I bet you that that could be applied to more than just political parties. Only the strong survive, eh? Mental health is every bit as important as physical health, if not moreso. And people will throw it away so much more easily, without even realizing it, just by getting wrapped up into polarizing media.

[edit on 24-4-2006 by bsbray11]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Thanks! I'll try it over there too. After i posted in here (first time browsing PTS) I realized I probably should have had it in General Ideological Topics anyways. Blunders.

Believe me, I intend to push this issue until society acknowledges it. It is the greatest threat.



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:26 AM
link   
This explains the saying:

Insanity is repeating the same thing over (voting)
And expecting a different result.



posted on Apr, 26 2006 @ 03:20 AM
link   



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:29 PM
link   
Just a quick question for you, how do you define a political bias? That sounds like a rather farsweeping judgement. We are, all of us, biased one way or another, in political matters, perhaps especially in political matters. So by your sweeping standards all of us are insane, or have a distorted view of reality. If so, then how do you define what is not insane, since we've all been diagnosed as insane.

I feel a philosophical discussion of epic proportions looming. Thanks.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I suspect that the definition of politcal bias, if we're not careful, becomes tautologous. Politically biased people reject unpalatable data: but the definition of someone biased IS someone who rejects unpalatable data.

I have another problem with the way this discussion is being framed, in that the whole Republican/Democrat thing is very US-centred. Most Europeans percieve that the whole political debate in the US is way, way to the right of where it is in European countries. How then are we to define bias without resorting to the tautology outlined above?



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Couldn't the rejection of unpalletable data also possibly reflect knowledge that the data is false, therefore negating the insanity diagnoses? A bias in and of itself, isn't wrong, it reflects opinion. Now how that opinion is arrived at could indeed reflect on the sanity or lack thereof on the part of the person(s) stating said opinion. If I disagree with someone, obviously I have a bias of some sort, that in and of itself doesn't reflect on me one way or the other. It's the shape that the bias takes, that reflects on the sanity of the person with the bias.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 01:52 PM
link   
I suspect that there are those on this forum who might accuse me of bias simply because I believe that Dubya's grip on reality is like a baby's on a buttered anvil and because I don't think he can open his mouth without lying. I also think that the historical sequence bears me out on this. Am I biased? I certainly consider the possibility that he might be telling the truth. But he usually turns out to be lying anyway.

Actually, I don't think I can be biased... I don't believe ANY of the ###ers. If I were biased I'd have someone to root for.



posted on Apr, 27 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I suspect that there are those on this forum who might accuse me of bias simply because I believe that Dubya's grip on reality is like a baby's on a buttered anvil and because I don't think he can open his mouth without lying. I also think that the historical sequence bears me out on this. Am I biased? I certainly consider the possibility that he might be telling the truth. But he usually turns out to be lying anyway.

Actually, I don't think I can be biased... I don't believe ANY of the ###ers. If I were biased I'd have someone to root for.


I assume lying to cover up bias is not assuming bias by lying???



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by seagull
Just a quick question for you, how do you define a political bias? That sounds like a rather farsweeping judgement. We are, all of us, biased one way or another, in political matters, perhaps especially in political matters. So by your sweeping standards all of us are insane, or have a distorted view of reality. If so, then how do you define what is not insane, since we've all been diagnosed as insane.


Damnat! I had this almost finished and the link tool/button wiped out my post! NOTE: Don't try copying that link it replaces your post with or you cant undo.

Starting over completely, the definition would seem to apply to those who label themselves hard (herd) right/left'ers. Westin's study included 15 from each side and it appears they all had the same results. Hopefully further testing will be done that includes others that are hard right/left, one scope being to identify how far the variations may be from person to person in regards to how deeply influenced (and incedentally addicted) people are on the national level. Until that happens we can only work available data, but hopefully there are only certain percentages deeply affected.

It's safe to there is in excess of 10 million people deeply affacted by this disorder/disease, in America alone. According to the below Zogby poll, 74% of the polled voters had their minds fully made up about who to vote for, at about the midway point between the 2004 primaries and election day. It may be entirely possible that approx 75% of the 2004 voters were deeply affected bias victims, and there was just over 100M voters that year.

www.zogby.com...
This also substantiates these figures, and demonstrates the binary aspect:
www.zogby.com...

Now if there really was 75M biased voters in 2004 that means there is slightly more new voters that have come of age that may be biased indoctrinated, and most of the combined total are potentially helping to indoctrinate their peers/children into this binary thinking.

Moving on, it's hard to definititively define the depth of the insanity at this stage, but I think that all who actually go as far as to "reward" themselves for "lying" to themselves would have to be considered politically insane.

One positive thing about this 'addictive' 'disease' is that it isnt bound by physically addictive drugs, so therefore should be effectively 'treatable' through public awareness. The scope of the treatment/recovery problem is probably mostly based on peoples idealism bias, and willingness to accept that the world isnt perfect and might need a change. Denial can be an ugly thing.




[edit on 28-4-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I have another problem with the way this discussion is being framed, in that the whole Republican/Democrat thing is very US-centred. Most Europeans percieve that the whole political debate in the US is way, way to the right of where it is in European countries. How then are we to define bias without resorting to the tautology outlined above?


I'm framing this from the US persective because it's the one I see and the one that also threatens world stability. Hopefully, if this idea becomes a social movement, then acknowledgement would cross overseas.

I'm planning on eventually researching global binary-isms over world history. Binary bias, which is probably the most prolific form of bias, is also existant in other forms such as the binary form of Islam that is firing up the Iraqi Cival War.



posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
I suspect that there are those on this forum who might accuse me of bias simply because I believe that Dubya's grip on reality is like a baby's on a buttered anvil and because I don't think he can open his mouth without lying.


A symptom of bias, according to me at least, is when people automatically jump to the conclusion that one is 'biased' (against their party) for speaking out against their hero(s). The reasoning is "they must be [rep/dem] because they're bashing 'my' guy. It's all [rep/dem] propaganda to further their agenda and make 'me' and 'my side' look bad."



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 01:43 AM
link   
There is not one single word in either of the two articles you cite that indicates that those who are politically biased are either addicted or insane. Mark Twain does allude to such, but his observations are from the 19th century and he is careful to try to include everyone in his definition and of course, he his known more as a humorist than a psychologist or as an neuro-scientist.

The inclusion of the various definitions are themselves biased insofar as they are included without any observable correlation to the data from the two studies, which, by the way, are not cited directly.

Perhaps, if we want to assign some pathological term to any one group who has political opinions, it should be for those who think themselves to be politically unbiased.

[edit on 2006/4/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 02:11 AM
link   
You've got to be kidding me?


www.msnbc.msn.com...
""None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "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.""

"But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix,"



www.cbsnews.com...
""The thinking caps went off and the feeling caps went on,""

"They processed the information about the non-politicians with the reasoning centers of the brain. It was politics that short-circuited them. "

"That process is almost entirely emotional, heating up regions of the brain that govern things like forgiveness, relief and pleasure. The reasoning zones stayed ice cold."


I'm curious what parts of your brain were firing as you read those 2 juicy articles? No offense.




[edit on 29-4-2006 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 12:59 PM
link   
If I had to guess what regions of my brain were firing, I would guess it was the clinical region. The studies do focus on politics, but people seem, in my experience, to do about the same thing when it comes to religion and any subject that is emotionally charged, like say abortion, even when it is divested of politics and discussed purely from a moral perspective. I would be willing to bet that your brain works the same way and that in a clinical interview I could discover what shuts off your reasoning circuits in less than an hour.

If you want to observe this phenomenon yourself, go to this link and start reading:

politics.abovetopsecret.com...

The main problem that I have with your post is that is abuses the concept of mental illness and ignores the content of the articles you cite. Mental illness is perhaps the only issue upon which the politically correct crowd has not pounced.



[edit on 2006/4/29 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 05:18 PM
link   
"to do about the same thing when it comes to religion"

*But the difference with politics and religion is it's not a threat to national well being if people form biased religious beliefs. That's the difference, politics is the greatest threat to national well being. I will say that in Iraq they need to apply this knowledge to prevent their civil war. Here it's politicas, and Iraq and the rest of the world are threatened by political insanity.

"(I'd) bet that your brain works the same way "

**So you send me to a political thread when I'm skeptical and unbiased?

I would seem that you ignored the content, and quotes, from the articles I cited. Just what exactly is politically "correct" anyways?



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 07:43 PM
link   
Think what you will. Your assumption that these articles deal with mental illness is baseless and absurd.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:07 PM
link   
These people live in a delusional reality, which they are also addicted to. How can you NOT live in a truth based reality and be sane (at least in regard to that category of thinking, and the others affeected by it)? How does someone who is addicted to lying to themself have a "sound mind"? Explain, otherwise your arguments are baseless.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join