Hard-wired: The brain's circuitry for political belief

Most likely.

Remember circumcision does irreparable damage to the amygdala by permanently increasing it's reactivity level. You end up with kids who become adult with far easier to trigger fight-or-flight responses, and emotional responses.

Also keep in my Ted Kaczynski who discussed that the Leftist will fight to the death for their political ideology because they know without policy to ensure their pathetic survival, they would inevitably perish.

If the leftist policy leaves, so do their genes from the gene pool.

So you get radical, easily to manipulate zealots for most people.

...

bump

So you're telling me I'm built to be Natsoc?

That's my thinking. This would suggest a few more specific conclusions. First, traumatized individuals less likely to change beliefs that are already present. Second, it becomes easier to implant hypnotic triggers - but is it easier to implant the trigger only after trauma, or during? Third, are public schools inherently traumatizing? The way I've seen people adamantly defend the necessity of children being "socialized" (it isn't even about actual learning for most people) has made me suspect schools are traumatizing. A study comparing amydalae between school students and non- would get to the bottom of this, if you could control certain variables (eg selection effects). Of course I'm certain no such study has been performed, even the possibility that it would give evidence of a negative role of public schools means it would never be greenlit. That said, crafty anons who know how to get their hands on the relevant data could make some headway.

Come 2017, I don't see why Holla Forums couldn't do some science.

The irony….

...

No shit, it seems to reinforce the older lore around the amygdala. I even remember some knowledge from a K selected individual, around a debate with an r selected degenerate, and how he was triggered with very specific counter points to his being, into stressing his amygdala out. Its a shame I lost that lecture but it was fucking brilliant.

you know, to some degree, the amygdala size these days can probably used to identify dissenters, traitors and generally horrible people.

youtube.com/watch?v=W8N3FF_3KvU

Technically speaking, the science around this is so solid, that every spy agency should have an MRI scan to measure the amygdala size. People already do get an impression of the size through psychological tests, but a scan would be far more accurate.

Its a weird new small link though, the way the journal explains it. It makes sense to the non standard approach that some of us have when trying to red pill people. You see people on the right all the time trying to lecture others that if one wants to red pill a normie, you have to do it gradually, and without the buzzwords that may trigger the amygdala.

So in a way, this knowledge can be used for pro social, and also anti social purposes (like making a lefty flip the fuck out on national debate), but also helping a loved one to overcome the weakness in himself by allowing to nurture the amygdala gradually.

to add to that: Anyone have that link of the several generals debating some lefty journalist, about vietnam? It was fucking superb to red pill people about the tactical speech warfare against lefties.

Absolutely. Not to give too much away, but I've engaged in my fair share of Sam Hyde-esque redpilling on university campuses. The funnest (IMO) way to do it is this: get them to agree to a long series of small, non-controversial propositions about the media. These could be things like, e.g. the vast majority of media companies are owned by only 6 companies (but don't name the Jew at this point, otherwise you will have already flipped their trigger), that the media has distinct agendas that run contrary to the public and the ostensible purpose of journalism (you can rely on Chomsky's manufactured consent to get you this far), you can go on to point out that people form beliefs through the unconscious noticing of certain facts (e.g. this is why it is so important to liberals that the media portrays minorities positively and never ever negatively), and so on. I have a whole list written down of non-controversial premises about the media that liberals will agree to without questioning. Then, once you've assembled this all together, you can go ahead and drop the bomb on them.

YOU are being manipulated. Mere consumption of the media is enough for them to manipulate you. If you give them your attention, you are giving them your mind. Your attention is assent. This works a lot better if you are able to set up synonymous historical situations they would immediately recognize as tending to distort facts to preserve an institution's power, e.g. the Catholic Church and its control of all institutions of learning, knowledge, and ultimately the dissemination of information during the Middle Ages. Emphasize that new ideas (which we now accept as truisms) could only spread with the aid of new media (i.e. the printing press) and fuck you money (Italian city-states that were independently wealthy and thus not beholden to the Church for wealth and power). With practice, you should be able to get them to recognize in a single moment that everything they have already agreed to PROVES all their beliefs are based on delusions. This will pit their amygdala against their prefrontal cortext (which they would have been engaging up to this point), and the results can be pretty spectacular.

I once did this to a huge crowd on a college campus during some open mic event. They were cheering and nodding along, right until I unleashed the final truth. I got out of there quick before they realized what had happened, but I had a friend in the friend working as a plant, he said quite a few of the blue-haired feminist types freaked the fuck out, pulling their hair and shrieking, one of them passed out apparently.

Anyway, just giving an idea of what's possible. What you're doing basically is sharpening all their beliefs into a fine point, and then getting them to stab themselves with it. For anons who want to gain the magic power to blow heads up, I would suggest reading books like How To Win Friends and Influence People, there are some really powerful redpill truths about people in those pages that any user should know and use.

Just remember the golden rule of combat:

Know yourself and your enemy, win every battle.
Know yourself but not your enemy, win some.
Know neither yourself nor your enemy, lose every battle.

So when challenged regarding some trivia from history, people don't really care, but when challenged on beliefs that they actually care about (which they probably feel they've read a great deal on), they will be less eager to budge and feel anxious when having to be challenged on it.

Just looking at the political statements they challenged people on is pathetic:
and provide a path to legal residency for illegal
immigrants.
American judicial system
necessary help to the poor

When trying to 'challenge' people they just used old statements that people have gone over a hundred times:
have been killed in gun-related accidents since
1980.

It's no wonder they only made people feel anxious when challenging people with statements like that when these are rebuttals people have seen so many times.

These were terribly chosen statements to challenge people on which makes the entire study worthless. What would have been better would be to challenge people in a more obtuse way regarding their politics, like "if discrimination is bad then should affirmative action be ended to avoid discriminating against white people?" or ask about whether we should want to allow anyone to immigrate to the US even if it means changes the demographics so that people that don't believe in equal rights become the majority of the population.

They needed to phrase the questions in such a way that it challenged their beliefs, but not things that they consider fact. Which is the primary problem with this study, they're not challenging beliefs as in what ideology a person believes in, but in what these people believe is fact.

The study indicates future avenues of research that we badly need to explore, but it still works as an adequate test of the theory. Don't knock it just because you might imagine more specific experimental results and conclusions, this is a necessary step to getting there.

IOW: if you feel so strongly about this, why don't you go into neuroscience? Seriously, you have no idea how easy it would be to make progress in the field, at least 90% of the field is totally pozzed and has ideological blinkers on preventing them from acknowledging the most basic truths or their meaning. I've met "neuroscientists" who claimed that all neurological differences observed between men and women or whites and blacks is only the result of social forces. This is low-hanging fruit that even the dopiest anons here could grab.

T-tay? Is that that you?

and jews… wesley.

Indeed, the first decade of the 2000s offered an approach based on the very own concepts of physics and chemistry applied to the brain; this is what Neuroscience was focused on.
From 2010 onwards, the coming of more powerful, capable computers and technology in general, we in Neuroscience fields have started to change our approach to the brain, instead trying to understand the "underlying program", just like stated.
Computational Neuroscience has opened a new Pandora's Box in terms that we have actually been able to create small portions of true thinking machines, not as powerful or complex as a human brain, but we have been successful in creating AIs capable of generating voice, speech, as well as recognition (sounds, images, videos).
God knows what a machine created with wrong intentions can do. Also remember that project Metal Gear uses artificial intelligence to a certain extent, as well as state-of-art social engineering software.
Here I will show you a short video that caught my attention in these regards.

Quads of truth

Maybe it's just me but I make an opinion on what evidence I see, not what people say.

Could you expand on how exactly you managed to do that?

I have a script that I've adapted over the years. But I won't just give it to you, that won't actually be effective because it depends on spontaneity and the ability to read people. It has to be your script that you've developed and have experience with.

How to build a truthbomb script:

Make conversation with normies, and pay attention to how they respond to certain facts that are relevant to an argument you might make if you strung all those facts together in a certain way. Write down the specific facts normies will readily assent to, or will at least accept as being plausible. With time, you will have enough normie-proof facts that even normies can be forced into agreeing to redpill truths. Once you get a normie to assent to enough facts (the more disparate they seem the better, but that depends on your ability to tie them together in an easily digestible way and really it also depends on your audience being smart, which is rarely the case) you can figure out how to lead them to use those facts in constructing the answer to a question that you pose. Then it is a matter of inserting the 'key' fact that makes the whole argument structure a redpill.

In essence, it's a lot like you're giving the raw materials to make a redpill, and then giving them the instructions on how to put it together. Suddenly, once they realize what they've done, they will blow up - they will be furious at you, of course, but that is only an outward appearance to hide the fact they are furious with themselves. Basically, they froth and rage because it helps the amygdala to ease the tension in their mind.

It is helpful if you can get a sense for the discourses of different scientific fields. Those are useful for getting a non-buzzword vocabulary which can also be traced back to systematic, scientific usage that not even normies can deny (or if they do, then they become science deniers which is always fun to shout out loud so everyone around can hear OH YOU'RE A SCIENCE DENIER and then you more calmly, but still loud enough for people to hear, explain what scientific facts they are simply denying).

If you need help just getting conversations started, I would really suggest Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People. It's golden. Hope this helps user.

post list plox

so you went up there and basically dropped a leftist-sounding line about how "they're all controlling you bro", but then were like "its the jews"?

that didn't happen, but just the idea of it makes me giggle, so thanks

except we're not stupid, so we'll adapt your script to our own personality and situation, you stupid nigger. now give us the basics of it at least faggot

best post this week

I read an book by (((David Eagleman))) and one of the lines was something like "if it were up to me, it would be impossible to have any anti-semitic thoughts" which is absolutely disgusting, and considering that he is one of the leading researchers and innovators of neuroscience it is terrifying. If the science of the brain is dominated by kike chekas we are all fucked. I am not worried about delusional idiots in Neuroscience refusing to acknowledge their findings so much as neuroscientists who are figuring out new ways to manipulate and neuter the minds of bad goys, they are the real threat.

oy veey