Brain ''Wiring''

[Zythryn]

Questor, I think there is little argument that there is a genetic component to the brain's biochemistry. I also believe that there is little argument that the brain's biochemisty has some general affect on how people process information.
I think where you are getting the argument is that this relationship does not specifically, absolutely, dictate people's positions on specific questions.
As you define it, 'brain wiring' is different in different people. However, I would still hold that experience plays as big a role, if not more, in specific day to day reactions to events.
In other words, yes brain chemistry is a factor of some level.
And, experience is another factor of some level.
People are not slaves to their brain chemistry. Your position and many of your posts seem to imply that brain chemistry is the only factor.
This is where I think you are running into resistance with many posters.

[questor]

The resistance of some posters has been in some cases openly hostile to a new idea which has not undergone much research at present, and therefore
does not have links to substantiate the proposition. I have said that research must be done in order to know the extent of the influence of the wiring upon
perception and I do not know the answer. Your statement:
''People are not slaves to their brain chemistry.'', implies that people can change their minds easily upon being presented with facts. I am not sure this is 100% true. It is obvious that minds can be changed, but it is also
obvious that some mechanism can resist change when presented with facts.
For instance, it has been shown that tax cuts stimulate spending, business activity and growth and a healthy economy. Why then would some politicians want to raise taxes? If there was not a difference in ''wiring'', why would these people not come to the same conclusion? Perceptions are colored by observation and experience, but the mechanism underneath all perceptions is biochemical activity at some particulate level. We don't know what level this is as yet, but someday we will.
You can list all the important issues of the day and you will get 40-50 people
having one view and 40-50 million having an opposing view. These same people will generally agree upon a long list of disparate issues and each group will hold to those views. That is why tests can be devised to quickly tell if one is liberal or conservative. This must be in the ''wiring'' unless someone has evidence of another reason.

[Zythryn]

Your statement:
''People are not slaves to their brain chemistry.'', implies that people can change their minds easily upon being presented with facts.

My apologies, there was no intent to imply that the mind could be changed 'easily'. If you read that into my post please reconsider my points without the term 'easily'.

Again, I don't argue that the genetic foundation of biochemisty is non-existant, just that it isn't the only factor.
Many people end up changing their political views over time. This isn't 'easy', typically it happens over many years.

For instance, it has been shown that tax cuts stimulate spending, business activity and growth and a healthy economy. Why then would some politicians want to raise taxes? If there was not a difference in ''wiring'', why would these people not come to the same conclusion?

Because it is not a given that tax cuts stimulate spending long term. Many people feel that the government needs the funds now and tax cuts will result in an immediate loss of funds even if they grow over 2-5 years.
There are also differences in opinions on WHERE those tax cuts will do the most good. I feel tax cuts are a good idea for the greatest number of working people. The more people you can raise out of poverty, the more people will become consumers of discretionary items.

Do you have any examples/analogies of something that everyone agrees on, yet people react differently too? That might put your hypothesis into a clearer view.

[modest]

Originally Posted by modest

The first 2 paragraphs of the one study? What do they mean? That seems limited, but ok: It means that in order to understand political ideology we need to understand genetics better. It would be "far-fetched, odd, even perverse" if people were born with "political predispositions"; however, behavior has a genetic component and therefore political science can't ignore genetics as a factor in ideology.

That's what those two paragraphs of this fourteen thousand word study say.

-modest

Originally Posted by questor

Modest, you got part of the idea corect. The first two paragraphs suggest there is a genetic component to political thought. Would this lead you to believe there is a genetic component to all thought or just to political thought? Would you agree that all thought has a biochemical cause? Do these studies speak to the mechanism of biochemical reactions in the thought process? Have you read and understand my opening post? What do you think I am trying to say?

Firstly, what are you talking about "political thought". That phrase is not in the paragraphs you are talking about - or anywhere else in the paper. In fact - the word 'though' is not in the study except for saying "it was once thought that twins...."

This is why I warned you not to assume the study is talking about what you are talking about. You are now asking me if the study speaks to the mechanism of something it doesn't discuss. No questor - it does not.

Also, I'm not exactly sure what you mean by biochemical. Do you mean (for example) more testosterone = aggressive and violent? More serotonin = happier? That kind of thing. Do you have some way of relating that to political ideology? That sounds really unlikely and far-fetched. If that were true there could be some bio-chemical formula when taken would result in people choosing a certain political party. If that is your claim it seems completely and utterly unsupported and frankly a little crazy. Can you perhaps be more specific about your proposition. I've read your opening post and others in the thread and they sound politically motivated to me. Is that the case?

-modest

[questor]

Modest, I don't want to get in a conversation unless we both understand what we're talking about. It would help if you would read up on the biochemistry and functioning of the human body.

[modest]

Originally Posted by questor

Modest, I don't want to get in a conversation unless we both understand what we're talking about. It would help if you would read up on the biochemistry and functioning of the human body.

Do you think inhibiting the reuptake of hydroxy tryptamine will result in a liberal party affiliation? If so how so.

-modest

[questor]

Modest, if you know how the thought process takes place and at what particulate level it takes place and which chemical reactions are involved then please elucidate. Otherwise, we may as well terminate the conversation.
The post has already been moved to the ''oddball claims'' section, even though I made no specific claims, so the thought police are doing their job in anonymity and without any discussion with me.

[InfiniteNow]

I take that to mean that you have absolutely no idea how to answer modest's question, correct?

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by questor

The post has already been moved to the ''oddball claims'' section, even though I made no specific claims,

Sure you did. From post #3:

Originally Posted by questor

The right brain thinkers are more
''head in the clouds'' and less able to make quick and incisive decisions. Right brain thinkers have trouble understanding cause and effect and are less suitable for mangement of businesses or governments. As proof of this theory, the US seems to be poised to elect a right brain thinker as President. A person who has no experience in business or management or foreign policy. A person who continues to threaten us with higher taxes and social experimentation, and has no conception of cause and effect. All of this because 40 or so % of our population are also right brain thinkers and have
''different wiring''.

so the thought police are doing their job in anonymity and without any discussion with me.

While I did not personally move your thread, I fully support the moving.
If you have issue with the thread move, then feel free to PM a mod or admin.

[questor]

Which part of post # 3 makes a scientific claim that is unsupported by any evidence ? This subject has been fully discussed and now the thread is visited only by those engaged in childish, peevish, nit-picking. Get a life! What good does this nit-picking do for anyone? The time you're wasting here could certainly be put to better use. I assume that some people fancy themselves as great debators and use free time to practice their skills. They would be better suited to get a nice job to get paid for their efforts. I will wager one thing with great certitude--these people are right brain thinkers