An international team of researchers has found that people have lower levels of activity in brain in areas related to cognitive control and reasoning when they are focusing on sacred values. In their paper published in Royal Society Open Science, the group describes their study involving brain scans of terrorist sympathizers and what they found.
Prior research and anecdotal evidence have shown that once a person develops sacred values regarding a particular topic, it is difficult to get them to change their minds. Prior research has also shown that people who have certain sacred values are often more willing to fight and die for a cause than others. In this new effort, the researchers sought to learn more about what goes on in the minds of people who have expressed a willingness to die for a cause that is based on sacred values—in this case, sympathizers of an Al-Qaeda offshoot called Lashkar-et Taiba.
The researchers note that sometimes, people say and do things that are contrary to what they are truly thinking or feeling. For this reason, they chose to recruit several sympathizers for brain scan testing. They claim that neuroimaging rules out posturing by individuals because brain signals related to brain processing cannot be controlled.
Testing involved asking the volunteers questions while they were undergoing fMRI scanning. The questions concerned their sacred values, such as whether they would be willing to fight and die for these values, and non-sacred values as a comparison.
The researchers report that they found that when the volunteers were being asked questions related to their sacred values, there were lower levels of brain activity in areas related to reasoning and cognitive control. Prior research has shown that such areas are typically involved in processing consequences and calculating costs. They report that they also found that if they told the volunteers that other sympathizers they knew were less willing to die for a cause, their own willingness to do so dropped, as well. The researchers claim their findings show that there are distinct processes that occur in the brain when a person is focused on issues related to strongly held sacred values.
Not necessarily because of the position they take, but because we won’t know whether it is wrong until we have conducted the experiment properly and observed, analyzed, and digested its results. That’s the point. Science. It’s the thing you still aren’t sure whether you completely trust. And you fear. And you legislate from fear. That is error.
Ffs, people. There is one person to blame for your child’s death. Nikolas Cruz. This is wrong-headed. The man may have had no business being an armed law officer. My guess is that is why he was assigned to a school in the first place. Trying to put him in jail is just one of those examples of human beings being unable to stop generating suffering. Each parent pinning their sorrow on him is pitiful and misguided, and the “professionals” entertaining this for political/career gain are even worse for being happy to oblige the parents, whose brokenness and error are at least understandable. The prosecutor is a piece of shit for making this happen and for indulging the worst of everything. There truly are no adults in the world. You cannot trust the human beings in the criminal justice system to do the right thing. Ever.
Attorney General Bill Barr, in an interview aired on Friday, blamed President Donald Trump‘s critics for “shredding institutions,” not the president, and bluntly spelled out his disagreements with special counsel Robert Mueller, saying his team’s legal analysis “did not reflect the views” of the Justice Department.
“I think it’s important that in this period of intense partisan feeling not to destroy our institutions,” Barr told CBS News’ Jan Crawford. “I think one of the ironies today is that people are saying it’s President Trump shredding our institutions. I really see no evidence of that. From my perspective, the idea of resisting a democratically-elected president and basically throwing everything at him, you know, is really changing the norms on the grounds ‘we have stop this president.’
“That’s where that shredding of our norms and institutions are occurring,” Barr said in an interview done during an official trip to Alaska to meet with the Native American community on tribal access to law enforcement.
Elaborating on his ongoing review of how the FBI’s investigation began, including what he has called “spying” on the Trump campaign, Barr said, “I think the activities were undertaken by a small group at the top which is one of the- probably one of the mistakes that has been made instead of running this as a normal Bureau investigation or counterintelligence investigation,” Barr said. “It was done by the executives at the senior level, out of headquarters.”
“Like many others regarding intelligence activities, I had a lot of questions. I went in and got no answers that are satisfactory and, in fact, probably have more questions and some of the facts I’ve learned don’t hang together with the official explanations of what happened,” Barr said. “That’s really all I will say, things are not jiving.”
Speaking generally about the danger of a government abuse of power, he said “…republics have fallen because of Praetorian Guard mentality where government officials get very arrogant, they identify the national interest with their own political preferences and they feel that anyone who has a different opinion, you know, is somehow an enemy of the state.
“And you know, there is that tendency that they know better and that, you know, they’re there to protect as guardians of the people. That can easily translate into essentially supervening the will of the majority and getting your own way as a government official,” he said.
Barr continued to defend his use of the word “spying,” saying it is “part of the craziness of the modern day that if the president uses a word it all of a sudden becomes off bounds. It’s a perfectly good English word. I’ll continue to use it.”
“Well, I think Bob said that he was not going to engage in the analysis,” Barr said. “He was not going to make a determination one way or the other. We analyzed the law and the facts, and a group of us spent a lot of time doing that and determined that both as a matter of law, many of the instances would not amount to obstruction as a matter of law.
“In other words, we didn’t agree with the legal analysis — a lot of the legal analysis in the report. It did not reflect the views of the department. It was the views of a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so we applied what we thought was the right law,” Barr said in his first television network interview since Mueller made his public statement on Wednesday.
Barr, according to CBS, said that over a period of weeks he had asked the special counsel’s office to identify the sensitive grand jury material in the report so that he could release the rest immediately to the public and was surprised when Mueller’s team delivered the report to him with no redactions.
Barr also said that he’s not surprised by the blowback he is getting.
“We live in a crazy hyper-partisan time and I knew it was only be a matter of time if I was behaving responsibly and calling them as I see them, that I’d be attacked because nowadays people don’t care about the merits or the substance. They only care about who helps, benefits, whether my side benefits or the other side benefits,” he said.
“Everything is gauged by politics and that antithetical to the way the department runs and any attorney general in this period is going to end up losing a lot of political capital and I realized that and that’s one of the reasons why I was ultimately persuaded to take it on because I think at my stage in life it doesn’t really make any difference.”
Asked about his legacy, Barr said it doesn’t matter.
“Everyone dies and I don’t believe in the Homeric idea that immortality comes by having odes sung about you over the centuries,” he said.
It is a fact that the lowest abortion rates are found in the countries with the most liberal abortion policies. It is also a fact that the highest abortion rates are found in places with the strictest, most conservative abortion laws. That correlation is pretty strong. It only follows that if you wanted to lower abortion rates, you would liberalize abortion laws. It’s not hard. Your kids are smart enough to see it. That means the fight is about something else. The disconnect is a product of a population not committed in any significant way to self-knowledge or truth-orientation. Fact-orientation, if you prefer.
What makes it so goddamn frustrating is that the claim that personhood begins at conception is based on ideology, and not truth. The ideology comes from people who call themselves Christian, and who have the temerity to say that their moral instruction is Christian, and that this is the Lord’s Work, stopping abortions.
Look. I am an atheist Christian. Not the one to tell anyone how to live, but certainly willing to tell you what I think is true. What is true, as far as I can see, is ignorance fostered by churches sowing rot with bad theology and ignorance to support their all too human concerns.
In his recent briefing he said, “If we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so”.
Yeah, but see, what you just said is misleading. In fact, what you just said, while trying hard not to say it, is that if you HAD full latitude to bring criminal charges against Trump that you couldn’t have won a case against him. That is the logical consequence of our criminal justice system, which does not require evidence beyond doubt of innocence, but rather of guilt. Innocence is presumed.
But not by the Morality Police, you’ll notice. From every corner they are united in their fear and loathing of individual liberty and intellectual and moral autonomy.
Extreme Pro-Lifers are funny. We evolved to do a lot of lying, about everything, and mostly to ourselves. That’s what it means to be a social ape with an, for all we know, accidental capacity for abstraction.
Pro-Lifers are ostensibly waging legal war over abortion rights and the reason they give for it is a belief in the sanctity of human life, and the perceived right of a fetus to be considered a “person”, with the legal ramifications of that designation.
That sounds convincing, doesn’t it? But in fact, it’s a lie. Political fights (and fights in general) are often not about what they are about. What do I mean?
The empirical, objective evidence is overwhelming, and it is available. There is no embargo. If a person wanted to know how to reduce abortion rates, they would look to the available data. The available data say, overwhelmingly, that the countries with the most liberal abortion laws also have the lowest abortion rates. It’s right there for anyone who cares to see it. Conversely, the highest abortion rates are in countries with oppressive, conservative anti-abortion laws.
So, you have to stop and ask yourself, if you are Pro-Life AND have a brain AND are honest: What is it that you actually want?
I understand that he would do speaking engagements on short notice and wouldn’t try to empty your bank account. Plus, he was a model for how in the modern era, we don’t need professional clerics. Clerics can’t give you the samadhi experience (being Born Again, or resurrected, in Christian terms), but they can stimulate you toward the experience if it is already in your character to go there. Friedman demonstrated that you can participate in that work while still being a normal person with a normal job. No frock-wearing required. He showed how you can preserve mystery and stay with the facts at the same time. The original Jewish scheme was to rationalize their populations by sucking out the mythical back stories for their practices and replacing them with historical (non-magical) bases. The religion was at its peak as a mechanism for chasing out magical thinking. Contrast with most modern churches, mosques, and synagogues, where mystification and an insistence on magical thinking is the norm just to follow the theology.
The inheritors of the Sons of Zadok’s legacy are normal people and not clerics. Clerics are people who may or may not experience samadhi for themselves, but in any case, seek to wring a paycheck and an enhanced social status from it. That makes them disgusting, superfluous, and obsolete. Friedman shows what tomorrow’s cleric looks like.
I’m just referencing to say, “Good.” They did “everything they were supposed to do according to social norms”. I have no sympathy for that, whatsoever. Those norms are designed to weed out those whom the Good Boys and Girls would like to think are beneath them. So fuck you all. Your participation in a system designed to discard as many Americans as possible does not make you a hero. Yeah, I know. You only did all of those things because you were indoctrinated at a young age into believing that being obedient and following those norms was the way to deserve love, or apparently, the right to live. So, again, fuck you all. I hope you lose it all. You were never better than blue-collar workers anywhere, or anyone at all for that matter. You managed to get away with a gross, exclusionary, self-aggrandizing fantasy for most of your lives, and now I’m supposed to feel badly for you because your bubble popped and the measures you endorsed against others was turned on you? Did I mention fuck you? Well, fuck you, then.