Bigot? Racist? Something Else?

Yeah, it's utter nonsense. I only regret dignifying it with a response. Would have been better to post (or even just think it and ignore the post) "That's batshit".

The question of cognition is interesting. Cognition is the process by which we arrive at an understanding. Obviously this process involved emotions such fear, respect, resentment, and pride. There has been a lot of research, with numerous studies, showing that humans arrive at an understanding based on many emotional factors often in spite of facts.

Recently there was a study where students were shown pictures of situations with no description or caption. In one a standing student was holding an object, the other student was stooping to pick up similar object.

They showed the same picture twice, with one change. In one case the student standing up had skin that looked African-American (they were drawings with racially undetermined features other than skin color). In the other picture he had Caucasian skin color.

Of course kids interpreted the pictures based on bias. White kids interpreted the first picture as an act of aggression. The "Black" kid was thought to have pushed the other kid. In the other picture it was was a scene of kindness. One kid had fallen and the "White" kid was offering to help. Interestingly, Black kids interpreted the pictures in the opposite way.

Cognition is not often a process of rational thought based on facts. It is based on ideology, and your emotions... and often humans hold beliefs even when they are contradicted by fact, and people are good at explaining away facts.

Notice how Glitterbag explains so much with a single narrative.... when someone questions her, instead of a discussion based on facts she sees it as "men dismissing women".

Disagreement with women is not oppression, at least not in a factual or analytical way. But apparently to some people, it feels that way.

Did anyone else hear this week's "Revisionist History" by Malcolm Gladwell? It is a fascinating story that challenged me (which to me is a sign of good journalism).

He goes over the story of an iconic photo of a civil rights demonstrator being attacked by a police dog. This story is still used in the civil rights context, and was plastered all over the front pages of newspapers of the time.

And it was a lie.... the facts don't back up the narrative. The boy in the photo was not a civil rights protester, he was a bystander, and the police officer was holding back the dog rather than attacking him. Years later the "victim" made it clear he didn't even support the civil rights movement.

http://revisionisthistory.com/episodes/14-the-foot-soldier-of-birmingham

Sometimes objective facts don't support the truth.

I see where you two are coming from but I at least somewhat agree with Olivier. I take it that while emotion has a different brain activity than frontal lobe activity lolloping about, I think emotion can express thought too, if not fully rational. Well, I do bet that frontal lobe stuff, or love questions, can be wrong as well.

Or, is there no thought to emotion at all and all thought comes only from the frontal lobe? That seems off to me. It's been a while since I've read up on brain activity. Can the differing activities mix? I might presume so and be way wrong.

On Phrenology, have you two no humor/humour?

Where is my Good Humor wagon jiggling along down my street?

Now I suppose I'll need to go look this stuff up.

I have to make the oatmeal ginger cookies first.

Precisely

Osso is apparently a man now.... how else would you explain the way he is "dismissing" Glitterbag .

Be careful max...a tag team has formed and they will likely deliver you a big can of whoop ass.

I think I missed that.. will have to backtrack.

Glitter and I know each other from years of some aggravations mixed with big batches of agreement. Normal, in other words.

I saw it, haven't read it, plan to now that you mention it.

Yours was certainly a friendly tweak.

Intuition is different from emotions, IMO. Intuition is how ideas are created. Emotions tweak the way we think, eg speed up our thinking in case of immediate danger (fear).

On the role of emotions as an information processing tool box, and about how the brain is wired to combine emotional intelligence with analytical intelligence, Biology of Emotionsby Jean-Didier Vincent is considered a classic. It summarizes neurobiology discoveries upto the 80's, so its a bit dated now but it covers a lot of ground, including how the brain constantly reconstructs itself -- that part was fascinating; we lose neurons every day, and yet we keep thinking more or less fine... even functions affected by massive brain damages can be recovered at least partly through brain plasticity--, and how networks responsible for emotions are wired to spread messages in a very different way than most neurons, spreading their synapses and neurotransmitter emissions over wide areas of the brain, permeating and affecting the manner in which information is processed by other neuronal networks.

Indeed, the idea that emotions are bad and reason is good is a very phallocratic idea, because women tend to be more emotional than men, closer to their feelings.

A person who relies on emotion alone is unreliable, a person who has no emotion is not trustworthy. Some of the members get over wrought and jump to conclusions. I don't know what these people want from me unless it's obsequent agreement. A2k is only something I do when I want to spend my free time, I assume that's the case for most of the members.

I don't have a bone to pick with ossobucco, we have been friendly since the old NYT Abuzz. She doesn't think it's a personal betrayal if we disagree on some points....neither do I, so it's unfortunate that a few members have such thin skin and are prone to hysterics. Relax, fella's, the women are not coming after you.

I love you, Jo... Your heart is in the right place, your intuition is always pretty sharp, and you're kind enough to lend me a sympathetic ear. I appreciate that more often than I say it.

I wouldn't put it past some members to, having seen good rapport between certain members, endeavor to cause a schism.

The word "intuition" has a couple of different uses. In some senses it is synonymous with the word "prejudice". It is things you "know" in spite of having no factual basis or logical reasoning. When women fear Black men, they would never call it "racism" or "prejudice". Rather it is "intuition".

Intuition can also mean something like "empathy" or being tuned into social patterns. We have evolved social skills, such as face recognition, that allow us to interact, or to relate to each other. The scientific research on intuition I have seen involves around making emotion judgments to social situations. These skills are valuable to operate in society, but they don't replace facts or logical thought.

The idea that women are "intuitive" and that men are "logical" is one of the most sexist things I have ever heard. If this were true, it would justify the fact that women are so rare in mathematics, science and engineering (fields that depend on the ability to think and express ideas using logic).

I teach my daughter to rely heavily on logical analysis. And, she does this naturally... it is a particular skill she has. All too often, "intuition" is used as a cover for intellectual laziness. You don't question your own intuition, you don't test it. It is something you just believe is true.

Yes, something like that. We need both to survive, and to live a decent social life. For instance, empathy (the capacity to mirror in one's brain the feelings or emotions of another) is a strength, not a weakness.

There's a whole literature on "emotional intelligence".

Could it be a faux ami? In French "intuition" is a different concept from "emotions". Poincaré considered intuition a powerful force in mathematics, for instance, and he himself was admirably intuitive. By that, he meant someting very different from "emotional".

Causing a schism? My comment was about the group think here.

You and Glitterbag are part of an ideological cliche that tends to push one point of view to the exclusion of all others. This is all fine, except for the "piling on" dynamic that Finn mentioned. And, the fact that you all ignore any fact that doesn't match up perfectly with the ideology.

The simplistic black and white view from inside a political bubble sometimes doesn't match up with facts. I am simply challenging both you and Glitterbag to step outside of your political bubble once in a while. It helps to get a more complete understanding of the world we live in.