Here is our electoral situation in a nutshell.
The Democratic candidate for Congress was Clay Aiken, a gay singer who can’t get work, artificially impregnated his best female friend because he wanted a kid, turned on the friend, is milking her for 7,500 a month in child support, and who used the entire electoral process as the basis for a reality television show.
This guy wanted to dictate law to the rest of us, and would have, if the rabbits had their way. You can see how leftist revolutions eventually promote guys like Stalin to leadership positions. No amygdala equals no ability to discriminate between good and bad. The hardware to flag bad as significant just isn’t there.
Thank God the K-shift appears to be underway.
Is this perhaps why the left is seemingly obsessed with being non-judgmental and indiscriminate? It defies all logic, people should seek to make the right judgements and the right discriminations rather than dismissing them as innately wrong when they clearly are not so.
Exactly so. The amygdala flags differences, and drives the negative sensation which makes us not like stuff. Without it, we don’t see differences, or feel aversion to anything.
As time goes on, an understanding of the amygdala coalesces into a perception of leftist rabbits as programmed animals, perfectly designed for r-selected conditions of free resource availability. As a result, this isn’t “amygdala deficiency” per se, so much as a programming perfectly designed to make them conflict-avoidant in an environment where being conflict prone would be a decided disadvantage. Rabbits are in fact, very well designed for an environment where resources are everywhere, and shortage is unknown.
So if I understand your response correctly, what you are saying is that a functioning, sensitive amygdala is not the problem. The problem is an amygdala that fires off to the wrong stimulus.
E,g. If some SJW gibbers it’s usual outgrouping threats, a properly trained amygdala will categorize the information as meaningless.
But the same amygdala will fire off in alarm if it recognize the facial expressions of a stranger as indicating perversion/pathology.
What I believe is that there are two facets, and one arises from the other. The foundation is an amygdala that produces a panic response that is too strong. It produces such an overwhelming panic from a mild stimuli, that it precludes normal reasoning in the face of the stimuli. This eventually trains the brain to use indirect cognitive techniques (denial, perception modification, etc) to shut off the panic, rather than more direct means, like physical modification of the environment to shut off the amygdala’s panic response.
Eventually, this produces an amygdala which is unable to find a neurological path from aversive stimulus (panic response) to physical modification of the environment to alleviate the panic. This inability due to lack of use exacerbates the panic, as now the amygdala can’t solve problems, and panics even more on encountering them. The brain also becomes more adroit at the indirect means it uses to shut off the panic artificially, such as ignoring/de-emphasizing threat, emphasizing any weak evidence which supports what they want to believe, de-emphasizing contradictory evidence, engaging in credentialism as a way of bypassing logic and reason (if the credentialed individuals promote an amygdala assuaging concept), living in a world where nothing can go wrong, etc. All are ways to diminish aversive stimulus produced by the amygdala without actually confronting the stressful stimulus directly, or enduring the discomfort inherent to that.
I am new to your site and your r/K theory analysis. In this story you relate how the rabbits failed to elect one of their own, Clay Aiken. I suspect that part of Aiken’s failure was the K voters overwhelming the r voters at the polls. But I also suspect the r voters weren’t very enthusiastic about Aiken so they didn’t turn out in droves for that election. Was this lack of enthusiasm because the r voters saw Aiken as just like themselves i.e. weak?
In January of this year, Terry McCauliffe won his election as governor of Virginia. McCauliffe is a well-known financial con-man who is agressive and competitive in the crony-capitalist competitive arena. He is also a liberal and appeals to liberals. Why do the r voters like people such as McCauliffe when he is seemingly so different from them? Is it because they like strong and duplicitous leaders as long as they believe those leaders will fight for their interests? Is this why conservatives who talk about self-reliance and turning power back to the people have a disadvantage with r voters? Because r voters don’t want to have to compete for themselves but rather want to elect someone else who will do the fighting for them?