So, the amygdala doesn’t just impact fear response, it also does anger, anxiety, and stress. An overactive amygdala negatively impacts your ability to think clearly.
Just like alligators. They’re so ornery because they have all them teeth and no toothbrush
Well looks like mama was wrong!
I understood that reference
No worries, conservatives have no use for thinking anyways.
HA HA take that COMMIE you’re braver than me due to your genetic superiority! ^oh ^wait
I didn’t have fascists scientifically proving that they’re cowards on my 2026 bingo card.
It’s still just as funny as the flat Earthers that keep accidentally proving that the Earth is round
It’s still just as funny as the flat Earthers that keep accidentally proving that the Earth is round
Which is itself extra funny because I believe they both knew this and measured its circumference in ancient Egypt using two faraway towers, if I’m remembering that episode of Carl Sagan’s Cosmos correctly.
Eratosthenes, to within 10% of the modern value. They think, I don’t think they’re 100% on the exact size of his measurement unit. Stadia?
deleted by creator
Fun fact: Conservativism can be linked to Lead and/or Mercury exposure
Or brain damage
Without clicking I knew who you linked to.
There’s no better man than Fettermanas an example of brain damage
Anyone who is 50+ is lead brained.
POV:
You just aggravated someone with an ‘undersized’ amygdala.
I’d say that amygdala is regular sized, since it’s activating a fight response
I sure hope that kid’s doing well.
Conservatives are more afraid of everything, and respond in anger. How the fuck is that “better”?
Those are “manly” emotions! But also don’t forget that we are better for running countries because we’re so calm and cool.
One could frame this as “Leftists are more naive and reckless, while Conservatives are cautious”. I wouldn’t, but I can see someone make that argument.
How the fuck is [being scared and angry] “better”?
Through the power of sarcasm.
Ah, the typical nazi idea of correlating random body measurements with complex behavioral and emotional patterns.
You mean the Brit/American eugenics idea.
Hitler was a great fan of these racists so he sent a dr Mengele to study the superior Nordic race at Carnegie’s American Eugenics Society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Eugenics_Society_Exhibit_(1930s)._Image_from_Wellcome_Library.jpg
Amygdala’s wardrobe in “A Phantom Menace” was overactive
Amidalin.
Amygdalia.
A McDonalds.
Went to a Mediterranean restaurant for dinner with my wife. We celebrated her birthday, and so decided to check the dessert menu. We generally don’t get dessert, just never really lie thing, but this menu has a dessert called amygdalopita, which piques my interest. Why would they name it after part of the brain?
And so upon further research, we discovered that the Greek word αμύγδαλο (amýgdalo) means almond. And this really got my wheels turning, because it brought back memory of EMT classes, way back in like 2003, where they talked about the amygdala being named such due tonit being almond shaped.
So I like a dessert that not only tasted great, but also helped me make connections, maybe fire off some neurons I hadn’t in a while.
In Flemish/Dutch the toncills (Tonsillae palatinae) are called almonds
You ate brains for dessert?!
Conservatives don’t know anything about the person they voted for. They don’t know anything about how their government functions. They don’t know anything about their Constitution.
I promise they don’t know what an amygdala is or what it does.
OMG they are so detached from reality that they are bragging about being terrified?
Tiny amygdala
Big dick
Hat3rs will h8
Sanders 2028
Nah please, we need younger actually representatives of the population, not ancient people (as much as I like Sanders). There’s various young progressive candidates that are suitable when the Dems allow them…
I’ve seen some interesting discussion of this linked to the idea of survive/thrive strategies. Is the world a dangerous place that calls for avoiding risks and protecting what you have, or is it full of opportunities and calls for exploring and being open to novelty? Neither inclination is fundamentally wrong. But I’m not sure how to reconcile that with modern “rightists” who want to burn down the system and aren’t conservative in the lowercase-C sense.
But I’m not sure how to reconcile that with modern “rightists” who want to burn down the system and aren’t conservative in the lowercase-C sense.
The Republican party (and conservatism as a movement) are full-blown reactionaries. I like this passage from Corey Robin’sThe Reactionary Mind:
People who aren’t conservative often fail to realize this, but conservatism really does speak to and for people who have lost something. It may be a landed estate or the privileges of white skin, the unquestioned authority of a husband or the untrammeled rights of a factory owner. The loss may be as material as money or as ethereal as a sense of standing. It may be a loss of something that was never legitimately owned in the first place; it may, when compared with what the conservative retains, be small. Even so, it is a loss, and nothing is ever so cherished as that which we no longer possess. It used to be one of the great virtues of the left that it alone understood the often zero- sum nature of politics, where the gains of one class necessarily entail the losses of another. But as that sense of conflict diminishes on the left, it has fallen to the right to remind voters that there really are losers in politics and that it is they— and only they— who speak for them. “All conservatism begins with loss,” Andrew Sullivan rightly notes, which makes conservatism not the Party of Order, as Mill and others have claimed, but the party of the loser.
The chief aim of the loser is not— and indeed cannot be— preservation or protection. It is recovery and restoration.
And from another section:
There’s a fairly simple reason for the embrace of radicalism on the right, and it has to do with the reactionary imperative that lies at the core of conservative doctrine. The conservative not only opposes the left; he also believes that the left has been in the driver’s seat since, depending on who’s counting, the French Revolution or the Reformation. If he is to preserve what he values, the conservative must declare war against the culture as it is.
I just now saw this and… that is a much erudite explanation than I gave… I will have to check out this Corey Robin.
I think these ideas, and what I said, are mutually true.
What do you think?
Basically, yes, conservatives either literally are losers or fear loss, to horrifically paraphrase Robin… and also, their replacement identity, their group identity that has supplanted their personal identity, which includes being directed to war against certain ideas and concepts, well, they can’t not perform those ideas, otherwise, its another existentual criss.
First, they lost or failed at something core to their personal identity, then they subsume themself into the aggrieved group identity… and if they renege against or fail at the performance of the group identity… well now they have another existential crisis, suffer another kind of identity loss.
Conservatism, as a trauma response.
I just also want to note the immense cognitive dissonance between the actual, fear-based conservative mindset of ‘zero-sum’… and their purported belief in the ‘free market’, much of which totally fails to be any kind of logically coherent without the idea that… an unregulated market generally (or even always) leads to a ‘positive-sum’ situation.
They lie about how they actually think, and tell you the thing that very often actually is zero-sum in reality… is broadly mutually beneficial… and that you’re wrong/evil if you disagree.
Its… all projection.
Quite a logical short circuit.
You should definitely read the book if it’s a topic that interests you; it’s the best overview of conservatism that I’ve read. I’d say you’re pretty well aligned with what he wrote within, too.
Fear of non-conformity.
They value being in some kind of ‘tribe’ to a literally irrational extent.
Hence, black and white, ingroup vs outgroup thinking.
Then combine that with half of them hate themselves (mostly because of the peer pressure that comes from their tribe) and are literally in a suicidal apocalyptic death cult.
So when the death cult says ‘destroy’, they don’t want to lose their group identity, because without that, they are nothing, so, they destroy.
Well they are afraid of the system, which they think is out to get them. See white nationalists who claim they are being persecuted, “deep state”, various conspiracy theories, need for guns for self protection, etc, etc. I don’t see anything hard to reconcile.
Conservatism typically assumes that much of the world is a zero-sum game, so for one to prosper someone else must be worse off. Instead of them collaborating for a better outcome.
“I’m afraid more often and that’s why I’m a terrible person!”
Since we’re sharing fun facts, conservatism and authoritarianism is unsurprisingly correlated with high levels of obedience in things like the Milgrim shock experiment replications. Something akin to 90% compared to the original 60% (which was already quite high since they only had white men at the time).
They’re also more likely to choose selfish options in things like the prisoners dilemma, too!
(Edit, if you wanna read more there’s an open source textbook I use: https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/ )
(Edit, if you wanna read more there’s an open source textbook I use: https://opentextbc.ca/socialpsychology/ )
Let me guess: illegal in Florida?
Good question, but it’s technically not sociology so… maybe not? Oh wait no, psychologists also acknowledge racism as existing so probably illegal.
who need they amygdalussy ate
I’m willing to bet no one has ever said this before.
I’m just like Ghoulia from Monster High:
- smart as af
- gives good brain
- wants good brain
- massive, huge, thick, Juicy amygdalas
- keeps it sloppppy
- incoherent
- scolioSIS
- dresses cunt
- pallid corpse blue
We’re literally twins
._Image_from_Wellcome_Library.jpg){kind=link}