One STDV had a post discussing the futility of arguing with modern Liberals. No matter how logical your argument, they will dismiss it in the stupidest fashion, and then all pat each other on the back – the idiots of Idiocracy, all dazzled by their own brilliance. Of course such a mind as the Liberal’s has no use for logic – its sole measure of success is not the degree to which its argument comports with logic, but rather the degree to which its argument averts the shocking agony inflicted by the raw amygdala For this reason you might be well advised to review the post on the origins of the raw amygdala here. It might also help, after one grasps the basic premise herein, to examing the concept of amygdala hijack, as it is a similar concept to what is presented here, and an understanding of it will aid in understanding this material.
I spent a considerable period of time in my early childhood in close proximity to an individual with Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and among the most anticompetitive, Liberal psychologies I could possibly imagine). I subsequently dealt with him again for a fairly long period in my adulthood. Due to this, I found myself acquiring an unusually intimate knowledge of the Liberal psychology, and how best to antagonize and manipulate it.
Bear in mind, what I will describe is not theory. It is based upon lengthy periods of careful observation of the most extreme form of the Liberal psychology, combined with careful testing of these techniques, absent any sympathy for the guinea pig upon whom they were developed.
In the course of this extensive analysis, I have literally found myself in a car, driving such an individual to the emergency room with clear symptoms of a stroke, after a wholly un-confrontational (but carefully planned – over weeks) conversation. His MRI and CT were negative for a stroke, and he was released the next day, his gross neurological dysfunction an unexplainable mystery. I believed my conversation with him was the cause (even though his pseudo-stroke was not my objective), and I was proven correct in subsequent tests, demonstrating repeatability. I was overloading a brain structure, to the point it actually shut down – just as it would have due to oxygen insufficiency. Eventually, the stroke symptoms were so common an occurrence when we would interact that he didn’t even go to the emergency room, but would just lie down until they passed.
Thus, when I say Liberals are traumatized by the techniques I will describe, I do not mean they are merely bothered or uncomfortable. Rather, I mean they will experience a gut wrenching, neurological upset, the likes of which a Conservative can only vaguely imagine.
My observations elsewhere indicate that almost all ardent Liberal ideologues suffer from similar damage to some extent, even if not as severe. Indeed, I believe that the very neurological deficiency producing Liberalism is what facilitates the effectiveness of these techniques. The embrace of Liberalism is a direct attempt to shield these vulnerable structures from stimulation, so as to avoid the adverse consequences this stimulation would produce.
The more Liberal the individual, the greater the extent of their brain damage, and the more effective these techniques will be upon them. The less Liberal the individual, the less of a problem they are, and the better your efforts are focused upon more Liberal individuals, upon whom this will work much better. Again, everyone is unique and some Liberals may be immune to this, but I have seen this done on enough Liberals (often by others, accidentally, and in attenuated form), and done it enough myself, that I am led to believe this will work on the vast majority of true-blue, hard-core Liberal believers.
As but one example of how subtle stimuli, presented properly, can yield outsized results, consider the case of MIT Biology Professor Nancy Hopkins. Larry Summers gave a speech on gender differences in scientific aptitude, in which he said that since the uppermost echelons of scientific study depended heavily on aptitude, it is possible there may be a gender disparity in aptitude which will affect the relative numbers of men and women within such fields. Simply listening to this speech, Hopkins reported that, “I felt I was going to be sick. My heart was pounding and my breath was shallow. I was extremely upset. I just couldn’t breath because this type of bias makes me physically ill.” If she hadn’t left, she reported that, “I would have either blacked out or thrown up.”
That response, particularly the disruption of the enteric nervous system, and associated GI upset, was produced by an amygdala stimulation, and it leaves little doubt that Hopkins is a lefty, with an amygdala poorly suited to routing specific types of adverse stimuli into productive action, or anything for that matter, beyond a panic attack of extraordinary proportions. I recognize the phenomenon because I have engendered it myself, using the techniques which will be described herein.
This is not nearly as unusual a phenomenon as Liberals would like you to believe. In fact, it is the threat of this sensation which I believe drives the frantic vitriol and shrillness of the modern Liberal when confronted with undeniable facts and logic by an unemotional opponent. That shrillness is desperation – it is amygdala.
Another group of examples, as background for this series, is located at this site, which examines case studies of what it refers to as SOB’s in management (So named because the individuals the author took note of all referred to themselves as SOB’s in casual conversation). Here, the writer recounts cases he has experienced of similar psychologies, where individuals in management positions seek to exert control over others, so as to quiet their own amydgalae.
Note in this case, a Captain, confronted with an inability to prevent his own out-grouping suffers an immediate nervous breakdown (his amygdala was stimulated to a point of no return by the incident). Here, in this case, another is so shaken by simple meetings with upper management that he leaves on sick leave within minutes of each meeting’s end, and is out sick for several days after each meeting. I am aware that these are the most extreme and defective examples of this anticompetitive, Liberal psychology. In that manner, they appear unique. However this is where one begins to acquire the ability to perceive the differences which are present elsewhere, but too subtle to detect without a practiced eye, trained to detect them. Captain Oakes and Nancy Hopkins are defectives separated only by degree. On their spectrum is Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Bill Clinton. Understand one, and you will know the others better, and better understand how to manipulate them using their own neurobiology against them.
In all of these cases, people with defective amygdalae are engaging in bizarre behaviors in an effort to exert control, and quiet their amygdalae. Whether using the bravado of calling yourself a tough “Son of a Bitch” to try and mask insecurity, or denying the threat posed by a national enemy, these are all individuals who have amygdalae poorly suited to process stressful stimuli into productive action. But just as that creates discomfort in those around them, their easily triggered amygdala can also be used as a weapon against them.
This series of posts will assert that you can identify the stimuli which produce this effect in the modern Liberal, and that this stimuli will be relatively standardized among hardcore Liberal ideologues. It will be subtle – yelling, vitriol, and other extreme emotional presentations will not be required to produce the effects – and indeed will even diminish their magnitude.
Evidence I have presented previously here, supports my contention that the Liberal brain operates differently from the Conservative brain. Specifically, in debate the Liberal brain will be highly concerned with types of stimuli that the Conservative brain will tend to ignore. If Conservatives can learn how to touch the Liberal’s raw amygdala through the presentation of these stimuli, they will be able to destroy the Liberal in public debate. The Liberal will do anything to stop the assault upon their amygdala, including abandoning the debate, and ceding the issue to the Conservative.
I actually first learned to recognize these techniques and stimuli during my childhood, while watching the Narcissist I knew interact with some of his family. He had other relatives, similarly afflicted, and the few times when I witnessed them assembled, they would have polite conversations, all structured around these techniques and stimuli, as each tried to inflict psychological misery upon the other subtly, without initiating an open confrontation. I suspect that being so afflicted, each had a lifetime of self analysis to discover what most bothered them, and they used this information to then structure their attacks upon their relatives.
In retrospect, these experiences were almost surreal. A group of defectives, speaking in their own coded language, seeking to assail each other, while apparently trying to avoid any consequence of their attacks by keeping them below the perceptible radar. Today I view those events as psychologically identical to the modern Liberal’s efforts to attack the successful through government without openly initiating a confrontation, by cloaking their assaults within layers of phoney empathy. (Phoney because the Liberal will only sate their empathy with the money of others. True empathy would produce an associated personal sacrifice as well, which Brooks has clearly shown tends not to emerge.)
What I would observe in my childhood when these Narcissists met, was polite conversations filled with things I would never have said, and drawing attention to things I would have purposely ignored out of courtesy. In my childhood naivete, I could not figure out why they said these things to each other. Could these adults be more ignorant than a child? These conversations were so opposite to my own natural inclinations, and so surprising and confusing as I followed them, that even today I can recall some of them from my earliest childhood. Of course today, they make perfect sense, in the context of the psychologies involved, and the desires they fulfilled. But at the time, they were indecipherable, absent my understanding of the Narcissist.
This series of posts will make the case that when arguing with Liberals (or just presenting arguments to them in public), one must demote the importance of the logical argument, and instead focus upon creating an emotional/environmental stimuli, designed to present to the Liberal several emotional/environmental themes, all of which will trigger amygdala activation in the Liberal (it’s effects upon Conservatives will be grossly attenuated or nonexistent – this technique is useless against us). Logic can aid in the creation or substantiation of these themes, but only so far as it bolsters the theme, and fortifies it’s structural integrity from attack. The theme and it’s presentation are paramount.
In doing this, you may even be forced at times to disregard the logical debate yourself, focusing solely, like a robot, on presenting these emotional themes to the Liberal. The Liberal wants their advocacy of Liberalism to be approved of by the crowd, or to at least see the crowd turned against Conservatism. Your goal, by contrast, is to make their advocacy of Liberalism emotionally wrenching, absent any consideration of facts or figures. Your goal is to make their contemplation of Liberalism stimulate their amygdala to such a degree that they will become physically afflicted, and conditioned neurologically to avoid openly advocating upon Liberalism’s behalf.
I suspect this theory is why Liberals frequently present “for the children” emotional arguments. Ignore the statistics on gun violence – we need more gun control for the children (even if statistics indicate it will do nothing). We laugh at them when we hear these arguments. However the Liberal believes in the effectiveness of these arguments, because after detailed self-analysis, the Liberal has concluded that these emotional arguments would be effective upon their own psychology (In this case, the Liberal is attempting to out-group you, by portraying you as opposed to child-welfare, something everyone within the group can agree upon. In the Liberal mind, you should become so fearful of out-grouping, you will cede the argument to the Liberal, despite the Liberal’s lack of any intellectual reasoning for their position). Knowing nothing of Conservatives, they extrapolate from their own self-analysis, that these arguments will overwhelm logic within us as well, by traumatizing our amygdalae.
To illustrate these points, in the next few posts, we will first examine the case of Mike Wallace. Mike Wallace is an excellent case study. He embodies this defective Liberal psychology perfectly. We have free video available online of a debate in which logic failed to dissuade him from a Liberal position, but the sudden application of this emotional argumentative technique by one participant quickly shut him up, and changed the course of the debate. We also have a tremendous amount of information about his life story, illuminating how his mind worked, how the argument affected him physiologically, and what aspects of the technique most affected it.
After dealing with Mike Wallace’s example, we will examine what the emotional/environmental themes which affect the Liberal are, and then we will cover how this technique is best applied to argue with Liberals on issues like gun control, economics, etc.
Following this series, this blog will focus a fair number of it’s posts on providing assessments of current events in the context of this emotional debating technique. Hopefully as time goes on, the Conservatives who read this blog will begin to argue with Liberals by couching issues in emotional/environmental terms, and in so doing, further the interests of freedom.
Touching the Raw Amygdala: An Analysis of Liberal Debate Tactics
Table of Contents