Brain ''Wiring''

[charles brough]

Charles, you have put the cart before the horse. Name one ideology that did not spring from the head of a man or a small group of men. It is only when enough people agree to follow a certain leader that ideologies are adopted by a society.

 

People see problems in their society so they think of possible solutions and gradually a new ideal develops. It is the same sort of process that is called "swarming" and herd behavior. No single person, no "great man" is ever involved.

Hinduism evolved this way, so did our secular ideology in response to problems wrought by the Reformation. Christianity is an ancient tribal faith that split off a popular sect because Paul and Peter evolved it in order to feed the demand of the Roman poor who felt despair and wanted The End Times. Even Mohammed was a product of the times and his ideology was shaped by the need. That is the only reason it was so successful in such a large area of the world. He had to include the "Black Rock. Hooding the women and the four-wives bit evolved in it. The Chinese system evolved and goes back some 4,500 years. Buddhism evolved from the PHILOSOPHY or "path" of one man. It ended up much different and a whole cult in itself.

 

History is a teleological process explainable only via social evolution. Great men are generally involved in history but the "great man theory" explains nothing. It only raises the question of what causes THEM.

[CraigD]

It [that “conservatives” are “left-brained”, while “liberals” are “right-brained”] is a theory of mine based upon observation.

A scientific theory makes objectively testable, repeatable predictions. Questor, you’ve not done this yet, so what you’ve written is not a theory, but a “pre-theory”, or, given that you claim to accept it without proof, a belief.

 

An example of how you might make such predictions is as follows:

1. People I label “left-brained” (LB) are people who score high on mathematical aptitude and achievement tests.
   
2. “Conservatives” are people who answer “yes” to the question “does the following describe you: ‘I am not a liberal, but a conservative.’?”
   
3. From a random sample of 1000 people who have taken the SAT test, I select those with SAT Math scores in the 90th percentile
   
4. My theory predicts a high likelihood of more of these people being “conservatives”.
   

By constructing you predictions well, you can test them using existing good-quality survey data, sparing yourself the time, money, and effort of designing and administering your own surveys

 

Give me one bit of science or any type of proof that I am wrong.

It is NOT acceptable science to make poorly-defined claims which you contend are supported by personal observation, and contend that your theory is correct until proven wrong.

 

Forums can serve to encourage people who share your ideas to assist you in formulating them as theories, and design and conduct experiments to test them. If, as appears to be the case in this thread, few or no people join, even tentatively, in your belief, then the forum has not served this purpose, leaving you on your own to formulate and test your theories.

 

Until you’ve done the necessary work, your ideas are in the dubious category of “not even good enough to be wrong.”

[questor]

Craig, I make no claims to the accuracy of my ''pre-theory''. I do not know why people have opposing ideas when viewing a common event, but the differences in thought generation makes good sense to me. I don't know why it's a big deal to you since I have clearly stated there is no scientific proof of its accuracy. This is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion. I will say there is considerable amount of research about right brain-left brain thinking that is readily available for anyone to read, and the characteristics of the different thinking are well known. They are listed in my thread. My challege to you as well as others is to show any research that would refute my pre-theory. Just because something has not been tested does not obviate validity. I would not have developed this theory if I had not observed this obvious difference in thought patterns in many people. In fact, I think there are a couple of at least 80% right brainers contributing to this post. On that subject, I might say that in my experience, right brainers have a real problem with cause and effect and making quick, accurate decisions on difficult matters. That is one reason I posted my list of questions in post #25.

[freeztar]

I do not know why people have opposing ideas when viewing a common event

 

It would certainly be impossible to understand on a global level, but suffice to say that everyone is different.

 

I don't know why it's a big deal to you since I have clearly stated there is no scientific proof of its accuracy. This is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion.

 

As this is a science forum, most people around here expect some scientific backing for ideas, especially new ones.

 

I will say there is considerable amount of research about right brain-left brain thinking that is readily available for anyone to read, and the characteristics of the different thinking are well known. They are listed in my thread.

 

The RB/LB idea is a well known psychological construct. I would wager that most people involved in this thread are aware of it.

 

My challege to you as well as others is to show any research that would refute my pre-theory.

 

Our challenge to you is to present evidence that supports your theory.

 

Just because something has not been tested does not obviate validity.

 

Nor does it validate it.

 

In fact, I think there are a couple of at least 80% right brainers contributing to this post. On that subject, I might say that in my experience, right brainers have a real problem with cause and effect and making quick, accurate decisions on difficult matters. That is one reason I posted my list of questions in post #25.

 

Are you prejudice against right-brainers?

 

Your experience must be put in more quantifiable terms for anyone else to consider your ideas.

 

I feel that this thread has become circular and unless you clarify these hanging question marks, Questor, I have nothing further to add.

[questor]

Freeztar, your statement:

''It would certainly be impossible to understand on a global level, but suffice to say that everyone is different.''

This statement is incorrect if referring to the conclusions drawn by large groups on a given issue. If this was true, then there would be 3 billion different perceptions on each issue. This is one of the tenets of my theory, that people tend to show aggregations based upon whether they are right brained or left brained.

I would think that any new idea has to be conceived because of someone's observation. At this point, it is not science. Tests must be devised, administered and vetted before something has scientific validity. I am making no claims for my theory except that given the agreed upon characteristics of

left brainers, they would make better leaders.

Out of curiosity, will you be supporting the Democrats or Republicans next Nov.

[InfiniteNow]

I am making no claims for my theory except that given the agreed upon characteristics of left brainers, they would make better leaders.

Can you at least define clearly and put actual metrics on what is a good leader?

 

 

It's totally a "really big" on the "awesomeness" scale. Nobody has ever scored so high. :(

[questor]

Here are some qualities I would say are necessary for a good leader:

 

1. Honesty

2. Concern for our country, proper motivation

3. A good grasp of foreign policy

4. Experience in running a business

5. Experience in managing people

6. A good understanding of cause and effect

7. A good understanding of the difference between socialism and capitalism

 

These traits are copied from post #5 on this same thread. I would add strong rational beliefs and unselfishness.

[InfiniteNow]

Here are some qualities I would say are necessary for a good leader:

 

1. Honesty

2. Concern for our country, proper motivation

3. A good grasp of foreign policy

4. Experience in running a business

5. Experience in managing people

6. A good understanding of cause and effect

7. A good understanding of the difference between socialism and capitalism

 

These traits are copied from post #5 on this same thread. I would add strong rational beliefs and unselfishness.

 

And precisely how are those measured?

[questor]

Are you saying you need to measure honesty by weight or volume? Or by length or width? This is an odd question. How would you measure honesty to your satisfaction?

[InfiniteNow]

How would you measure honesty to your satisfaction?

 

That was my question to you, in fact.

[questor]

You ask a lot of questions, refuse to accept answers and refuse to give an answer when you are asked a question. I see no need for a one way discussion. If you don't want to answer questions, don't ask any. I can see you have no way to measure human traits, and you have made numerous statements for which you have no proof. You have shown you cannot get the ''big picture'' of my theory, so let's not continue a tiresome conversation

unless you want to get some experience in personal observation.

[freeztar]

...let's not continue a tiresome conversation

unless you want to get some experience in personal observation...

 

Precisely why I dropped out.

 

Infy, it's hopeless. :)

[InfiniteNow]

You ask a lot of questions, refuse to accept answers and refuse to give an answer when you are asked a question.

The only time (which I recall) that I did not answer a question is when you responded to a question I posed to you by asking the same thing of me. Do you have any other examples? If I've evaded your questions, perhaps you can specify where and give me the opportunity to address them now.

 

 

If you don't want to answer questions, don't ask any.

Again, specifically what questions have I failed to address? Is it possible those questions were not relevant to the central discussion being had, that they were tangential to the topic?

 

 

I can see you have no way to measure human traits, and you have made numerous statements for which you have no proof.

Neither of these are true. There are several ways to measure human traits, of which I'm aware of several. Precisely which statements have I made for which I have no proof? Most statements I've made regard the fact that your idea of classifying personality characteristics based on hemispherical dominance are unfounded. The onus is not on me to disprove your claim. The onus is on you to support the claims you make, especially when they are challenged.

 

 

You have shown you cannot get the ''big picture'' of my theory, so let's not continue a tiresome conversation unless you want to get some experience in personal observation.

 

Huh? The big picture of your theory is that it's based on unsupported premises, has no evidence, and seems a blatant misinterpretation of the information we do have. Just because I challenge you to support your points and I disagree with your premises and conclusions does not mean I am missing some bigger picture.

 

And, I apologize, but I have no clue what you mean about wanting to "get some experience in personal observation." Can you elaborate? I presume you are suggesting that anecdotal highly subjective perceptions are enough to prove a theory true, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and ask again that you clarify.

 

 

 

I've suggested your theory doesn't hold up against scrutiny. Don't counter my claims by saying that I "just don't get it," prove me wrong. :)

[questor]

Infy, why do you refuse to Google right brain-left brain and read some of the research papers? You could better understand what I am talking about.

[freeztar]

Infy, why do you refuse to Google right brain-left brain and read some of the research papers? You could better understand what I am talking about.

 

Since it is your "theory" quest, the burden of proof is yours. Why not, as has been asked multiple times, supply some links yourself that help support your claim. As a matter of fact, that is one of the rules on this forum, back up your claims.

[questor]

Since you refuse to educate yourself on the subject after being told on several occasions to look where the information is plentiful, I wouldn't think that a link would do you any good. If you can't take the time to go where directed, why not butt out of the discussion?

[InfiniteNow]

Infy, why do you refuse to Google right brain-left brain and read some of the research papers? You could better understand what I am talking about.

 

I know PRECISELY what you are talking about. You are wrong with your premises, your assumptions, as well as your conclusions. Case closed.

 

 

You think I'm mistaken? PROVE IT.

 

 

Btw... you're also wrong about me not googling this topic. I've done so several times since you opened your thread, and it was a good refresher for the scores of research papers I read on the brain while at university.