Tomorrow, our show will spotlight a first-of-its-kind social experiment to identify the dangerous and disruptive effect of fake news on our brains. We had high profile fake news creator Jestin Coler craft two fictional stories: one designed to prey on liberals and another on conservatives. Women read the articles, not knowing they were fake, as neuropsychiatrist Dr. Daniel Amen gathered quantitative EEG assessments. The findings supported results of a functional MRI study recently published in Nature Scientific Reports, which showed how challenging a person’s political beliefs could activate the parts of the brain associated with emotion and self-identity.
A self-described liberal woman in our social experiment reported feeling sad after reading a fictional article on illegal immigrants, but revealed stronger irritation and anger when processing a fake story about a jailed climate change researcher. Simultaneous changes in her brain activity were also much greater when processing the climate change story and correlated with a strong emotional response of angst and fear. A conservative woman demonstrated opposite reactions. For her, the article on illegal immigration elicited changes in brain activity changes that you would see during a physical threat.
Anger is what you express when your brain feels irritation, but not threat. The mosquito buzzing in your ear at night provokes anger, and you want to destroy it, because there is no perception of threat.
On the other hand, the Grizzly Bear which sneaks into your house and wanders into your bedroom in the middle of the night provokes threat, combining assessment with caution.
Notice, amygdala dysfunction impairs the ability to recognize threats. Liberals are people who have not had the experience with adversity to recognize threat and the caution it requires, because they have grown up in an r-selected environment and their amygdala has little ability to perform any processing beyond triggering a tantrum.
We see this now, as Liberals view attacking conservatives as their brightest move. Obviously when the shit goes down, and the decision has to be made, 74 million gun owning conservatives are going to face at most a half a million or so idiot hipsters who will not recognize their own mortality, until it is taught to them in a final lesson. At that point, when K-selection hits, liberals will make the transition from anger to fear, and once so paralyzed, the leftist-free nation will move fully to the K-selected psychology.
The future is bright.
Spread r/K Theory, because making angry liberals throwing tantrums is fun
[…] Fake News Activates Anger In Liberals, And Threat In Conservatives […]
Hmm. I know it was an analogy but I have never known Grizzly Bears to be sneaky.
You say in your book strength, even contempt is needed in challenging r-wing beliefs. On a cultural level, I think you’re right: we need to stimulate amygdalas. Conservatives have done no-one favours by sugar coating the truth to the point of dilution. But I’d like to get your thoughts as to whether this is always correct. I can’t help but think public debate with dyed in the wool social justice warriors demands a different tack than discussions with someone who merely lacks exposure to good ideas.
Part of my reservations, I’ll admit, stem from the fact that going on the offence can carry a steep cost, particularly if you work in an environment like academia where your livelihood can be at stake. I want to be sure that this is the right approach. But if you’re right, it’s imperative more people do so.
Not only does it disrupt the left’s offensive strategy, it empowers many other people who might otherwise feel reluctant to express ideas nobody else is willing to vigorously espouse. This is something Donald Trump understood that his primary opponents did not. Whatever his flaws or virtues, he did not pretend that people who are implacable should be placated. In the case of the media, if he had folded, they wouldn’t have stopped their attacks. Many people see this, and are being more open about their conservative opinions.
The argument style I was advocating is for public debate where you want the observers to align with you, and you want the leftists to back off.
Though there are always personal considerations. If you work in a liberal university, and need your paycheck, then obviously amygdala hijacking your peers is a bad idea.
There are also other skills, such as the persuasion Scott Adams writes about. I am increasingly seeing how arguing in vague terms will cause observers to fill in blanks with their own biases, and lead them to agree with you more than if you are specific. If somebody’s favorite color is red, and they hate blue, then saying, “Think how beautiful a blue Ford Mustang is” will not be as effective as saying “That Ford Mustang that is such a beautiful color is really pretty.” In their mind, they will see a red one and agree.
One thing to also consider is that r and K are like tides. You can’t fight a strong r-tide, but you can use the tide of a K-shift to push yourself along as you amygdala hijack leftists. So in academia, where there is no threat and resources flow freely, it will be more difficult to convert people than in an area that is filled with raping migrants and economic uncertainty, where everyone is going to go K anyway.
That said, Trump’s aggression and amygdala hijacking is going to drive the left into hiding, and once it does, the Overton window will shift right strongly. So there his aggression and strength will yield incredible dividends.