Let them have passion

[Silly Bubbles]

Which is why, when somebody expresses their belief/opinion passionately, but doesn't include why they feel as they do, it's not persuasive. To persuade is to give the other person your passion by giving the experiences/reasons for that passion. Unfortunately, often we haven't really asked ourselves why we feel as we do -- what objective things we've experienced and learned that lead us to perceive things as we do -- and we can't tell the other person why we feel as we do. WE feel its right so THEY should feel the same. That they don't makes us suspect them. And that leads to ad hominem fallacies and, too often, anger by both sides as they exchange remarks designed to undermine the other person, rather than the other person's evidence and reasoning.

AJ

And another thing is that we can change the way we feel just by looking at things differently. So it's actually fully up to us the way we feel.

 

[Katwick]

There's an interesting concept that's attributed to The Buddha,
https://beingraluca.com/someone-doesnt-accept-gift-gift-belong/

Anger is like an Apple
If someone offers you an Apple that you don't accept, it's still THEIR Apple.
Likewise with Anger

 

[Deleted User - 850238979]

You are absolutely right. Passion/emotion is the foundation of thought itself. However, passion/emotion are what we call metonymic events -- they take place in the moment, while logic and reasoning are linear and are processed primarily in the left brain (the "Left Brain Interpreter" is a primary example of this). And, just to balance things out, linear things are metaphoric and thus usually temporaly considered. Philosophers have, for at least a hundred years, considered the primary measure of reality as the quality of "extension," meaning whatever exists to us must, to us, have dimensions (it extends) in time and space. Our brains deal with the "here and immediate" with the right, metonymic brain, and the linear "through time" with the left, the metaphoric. (Roman Jakobson was, to my knowledge, the first to classify these two "poles of understanding" and to discover they were left/right brain methods way back in about 1916). In the end we are rational first because we have passion. You might actually consider thinking a form of "disciplined feeling."

So, when it comes to the "here and now" we only do things because we "sense," (i.e. "feel") we should or desire to do them, and that includes thinking with reason.

AJ

There is no "left brain/right brain" differentiation. That's a myth.

But you seem to be having fun so I'll leave you to it.

 

[Katwick]

There is no "left brain/right brain" differentiation. That's a myth.

Just in case somebody is still sticking by what they learned in High School Biology, let's reference an interesting article that was published in 2013.
Left Brain / Right Brain

 

[ajqtrz]

There is no "left brain/right brain" differentiation. That's a myth.

But you seem to be having fun so I'll leave you to it.

Well, you may be right that the left brain/right brain distinction is "old school" and, when used as if they were completely separate is a "myth," but when you do a corpous callostomy (cutting the corpus callosum) you can measure each sides electro-chemical response to certain kinds of stimuli. And when you do, there is a difference in the responses you get from the patient. In experiments done over one hundred years ago and repeated many, many times, you find the left hemisphere of the brain (because it's, technically, not a separate brain) responds to linear simuli overwhelmingly more than the right, and the right brain hemisphere to stagnant imagery more than the left. Patients response to each test would indicate that each side is processing the stimuli differently because the responses of the patients to the stimuli is different when each side is triggered. Now, in the long run, because the two must work together, the size and density of the corpus callusom allows the two to resolve the difference in response (i.e. the interpretation) of the stimuli. If you follow the line of reasoning and experiment Roman Jakobson started over one-hundred years ago you can easily discover the differences have been medically substantiated many, many times.

Now, to your larger point, perhaps. Yes, there was a crazy over-exaggeration of the differentiation of the two sides of the brain. Yes, people started acting as if it were two separate brains and made all sorts of claims based upon that mythic understanding. But, sadly, that's what often happens when the media get a hold of an idea -- they tend to overstate it to make it more exciting and thus to sell more media. But let's not ignore the science and go the opposite way to overstate the case against the idea. That too, is not warranted. I suppose, in the end, it depends on how much of a difference in response you find between the two hemispheres that determines if you take seriously the Left/Right brain distinction.

And finally, when discussing something, it does little good to simply make a counter-claim and expect that, one supposes, because you made the claim the reader should automatically assume you are right. That you simply say the distinction is a myth and then add "But you seem to be having fun so I'll leave you to it" sounds a bit, to me, dismissive. Now think about that. Not only do you make a counter-claim without giving any evidence as to why the reader should believe your claim over that of the other side, you then dismiss the other side as if -- what? -- that we are to just take it you know best? Certainly you have a right to your opinion. But if you want to be helpful rather than just expressing your emotional state (which is the theme of this thread), wouldn't it be better to add at least some link to where we can see some of the reasons/evidence upon which you base your claims?

Just in case somebody is still sticking by what they learned in High School Biology, let's reference an interesting article that was published in 2013.
Left Brain / Right Brain

First, I didn't learn it in High School. LOL!

From the abstract: "Lateralization of brain connections appears to be a local rather than global property of brain networks, and our data are not consistent with a whole-brain phenotype of greater “left-brained” or greater “right-brained” network strength across individuals."

The experimenters were not asking the question: "is there a difference between the two sides," but instead "can one side be dominant over the other?" The fundamental question, therefore, is not addressed by the overall experiment design.

Sadly, though, the whole thing may be a red herring. Nobody, to my knowledge, has claimed a full left or full right hemisphere involvement in any stimuli presented (i.e. the "two independent brains, idea). Everything I've read indicates the experiments focus not on where the brain response occurs so much as on which side is dominant in that response. Thus, it may be that one area of the left brain responds to symbolic presentations more than the rest of that side, and that is in the data, but it gets reduced to "the left side," rather than being more specific (perhaps because the experiment design does not call for it to be more specific even if it was). In any case there are two problems with the whole "right brain/left brain" controversy. And both are rhetoriczl


First, those opposing writers are often in a position where they want to publish. That something that undermines a distinction assumed or at least used in discussions, is more likely to be published than something which simply reinforces the distinction, makes it more likely researchers will put more effort into making the case for their work. They may be right, but once they get to the idea that they are challenging some assumption, they can easily miss things. And those who read their report may be in the same boat, wanting to disconfirm something "everybody" is certain is right.

In this particular case, the researchers set up their experiment to answer the question: "Is right or left brain dominance a thing?" They weren't asking the question: "Is there a difference between the two hemispheres?" Since they were asking about dominance they attempted to create an experimental design able to determine the answer. The experimental design is insufficient to determine if there is a difference between the two hemispheres of the brain because it wasn't designed to do so. That they imply that the distinction between the two sides may be a myth, is, sadly, what people do when they want to challenge the "old school" views. Almost ever document I've ever read tends to exaggerate...even what I'm currently writing! LOL!

Second, the whole "left brain/right brain" idea is an exaggeration of the research. But that it is does not mean the two are identical in function or response. The popular media of science writers, since the 1960's has churned out article after article of exaggerated claims of science. All experiments have a level of confidence, and while it may be 99%, it's recognized that the conclusions could be wrong. But the media often presents what "scientists have learned" as certain, and then, simplifies it for the lay audience (or sometimes for less informed collegues). The reports of the differences in the left/right hemispheres of the brain done in 1957-1959 were used to popularize the "two brain" hypothesis (which no competitent scientist actually subscribed to that I know of) in countless articles (and text books) were summarizes of the experiments done, and were greatly simplified and exaggerated.

Third, What the usual verbiage used, that "the chief processing of the stimuli occurs on the left side of the brain" is easily, and often, short hand for an observation of responses on the left side of the brain. It is not saying "all the left side of the brain responded." That those reading often made the short hand into what it was not, is to be expected and led to the the 1960's "left brain/right brain myth." After all, it is not a difficult thing to say, "potatoes come from Idaho" when they are grown primarily in southern Idaho. The first includes the last but is less specific. So the "left brain/right brain" distinction is an less specific, short hand, description of something which occurs in each side, though, perhaps, very localized to sub or independent small networks in those sides.

AJ

 

[Deleted User - 850238979]

Just in case somebody is still sticking by what they learned in High School Biology, let's reference an interesting article that was published in 2013.
Left Brain / Right Brain

Thank you for the link, Katwick. Very interesting read!

 

[Deleted User - 850238979]

Well, you may be right that the left brain/right brain distinction is "old school" and, when used as if they were completely separate is a "myth," but when you do a corpous callostomy (cutting the corpus callosum) you can measure each sides electro-chemical response to certain kinds of stimuli. And when you do, there is a difference in the responses you get from the patient. In experiments done over one hundred years ago and repeated many, many times, you find the left hemisphere of the brain (because it's, technically, not a separate brain) responds to linear simuli overwhelmingly more than the right, and the right brain hemisphere to stagnant imagery more than the left. Patients response to each test would indicate that each side is processing the stimuli differently because the responses of the patients to the stimuli is different when each side is triggered. Now, in the long run, because the two must work together, the size and density of the corpus callusom allows the two to resolve the difference in response (i.e. the interpretation) of the stimuli. If you follow the line of reasoning and experiment Roman Jakobson started over one-hundred years ago you can easily discover the differences have been medically substantiated many, many times.

Now, to your larger point, perhaps. Yes, there was a crazy over-exaggeration of the differentiation of the two sides of the brain. Yes, people started acting as if it were two separate brains and made all sorts of claims based upon that mythic understanding. But, sadly, that's what often happens when the media get a hold of an idea -- they tend to overstate it to make it more exciting and thus to sell more media. But let's not ignore the science and go the opposite way to overstate the case against the idea. That too, is not warranted. I suppose, in the end, it depends on how much of a difference in response you find between the two hemispheres that determines if you take seriously the Left/Right brain distinction.

And finally, when discussing something, it does little good to simply make a counter-claim and expect that, one supposes, because you made the claim the reader should automatically assume you are right. That you simply say the distinction is a myth and then add "But you seem to be having fun so I'll leave you to it" sounds a bit, to me, dismissive. Now think about that. Not only do you make a counter-claim without giving any evidence as to why the reader should believe your claim over that of the other side, you then dismiss the other side as if -- what? -- that we are to just take it you know best? Certainly you have a right to your opinion. But if you want to be helpful rather than just expressing your emotional state (which is the theme of this thread), wouldn't it be better to add at least some link to where we can see some of the reasons/evidence upon which you base your claims?


First, I didn't learn it in High School. LOL!

From the abstract: "Lateralization of brain connections appears to be a local rather than global property of brain networks, and our data are not consistent with a whole-brain phenotype of greater “left-brained” or greater “right-brained” network strength across individuals."

The experimenters were not asking the question: "is there a difference between the two sides," but instead "can one side be dominant over the other?" The fundamental question, therefore, is not addressed by the overall experiment design.

Sadly, though, the whole thing may be a red herring. Nobody, to my knowledge, has claimed a full left or full right hemisphere involvement in any stimuli presented (i.e. the "two independent brains, idea). Everything I've read indicates the experiments focus not on where the brain response occurs so much as on which side is dominant in that response. Thus, it may be that one area of the left brain responds to symbolic presentations more than the rest of that side, and that is in the data, but it gets reduced to "the left side," rather than being more specific (perhaps because the experiment design does not call for it to be more specific even if it was). In any case there are two problems with the whole "right brain/left brain" controversy. And both are rhetoriczl


First, those opposing writers are often in a position where they want to publish. That something that undermines a distinction assumed or at least used in discussions, is more likely to be published than something which simply reinforces the distinction, makes it more likely researchers will put more effort into making the case for their work. They may be right, but once they get to the idea that they are challenging some assumption, they can easily miss things. And those who read their report may be in the same boat, wanting to disconfirm something "everybody" is certain is right.

In this particular case, the researchers set up their experiment to answer the question: "Is right or left brain dominance a thing?" They weren't asking the question: "Is there a difference between the two hemispheres?" Since they were asking about dominance they attempted to create an experimental design able to determine the answer. The experimental design is insufficient to determine if there is a difference between the two hemispheres of the brain because it wasn't designed to do so. That they imply that the distinction between the two sides may be a myth, is, sadly, what people do when they want to challenge the "old school" views. Almost ever document I've ever read tends to exaggerate...even what I'm currently writing! LOL!

Second, the whole "left brain/right brain" idea is an exaggeration of the research. But that it is does not mean the two are identical in function or response. The popular media of science writers, since the 1960's has churned out article after article of exaggerated claims of science. All experiments have a level of confidence, and while it may be 99%, it's recognized that the conclusions could be wrong. But the media often presents what "scientists have learned" as certain, and then, simplifies it for the lay audience (or sometimes for less informed collegues). The reports of the differences in the left/right hemispheres of the brain done in 1957-1959 were used to popularize the "two brain" hypothesis (which no competitent scientist actually subscribed to that I know of) in countless articles (and text books) were summarizes of the experiments done, and were greatly simplified and exaggerated.

Third, What the usual verbiage used, that "the chief processing of the stimuli occurs on the left side of the brain" is easily, and often, short hand for an observation of responses on the left side of the brain. It is not saying "all the left side of the brain responded." That those reading often made the short hand into what it was not, is to be expected and led to the the 1960's "left brain/right brain myth." After all, it is not a difficult thing to say, "potatoes come from Idaho" when they are grown primarily in southern Idaho. The first includes the last but is less specific. So the "left brain/right brain" distinction is an less specific, short hand, description of something which occurs in each side, though, perhaps, very localized to sub or independent small networks in those sides.

AJ

AJ, I'm sorry you wasted your time responding to something I have no interest in debating with you. I thought I'd made that clear when I said I'd leave you to your fun (and it does seem like you enjoy strutting your prolixity) but perhaps I failed to convince you of my intent.

"But if you want to be helpful rather than just expressing your emotional state"

And this is why I won't engage with you. Do these kinds of tactics normally work for you? I don't find the expression or acknowledgment of emotion to be in any way weak or inferior which is why I made a comment in the first place. You seemed intent on parading the usual rubbish about logic=good, emotion=bad and I thought to challenge that idea. I have learned my lesson, AJ, and will now add you to my ignore list to further prevent any more foolishness on my part. Have a great week.

 

[Iyapo]

lol, 2 points to @Gordo the gassy for using a word I had to look up!

 

[ajqtrz]

lol, 2 points to @Gordo the gassy for using a word I had to look up!

Me too. LOL And, to some degree, he is certainly right. But complex arguments and ideas do take more words, so there's that too. My problem is that I do, often, use a few more words than I might if I really went back and concentrated hard on reducing them. I expect my verbiage could be reduced by 10 to 15 percent if I worked at it. Not sure, though, if that would satisfy my critics, since the verbiage would not be reduced to a simple one sentence, easy to read, fully clear, explanation.

On the other hand, @Gordo the gassy sort of missed the point. It's not that emotion is not a piece of evidence. It's that it's only a piece of evidence to the one feeling it and it only lasts as long as you feel it. Emotions are, therefore, fleeting pieces of personal evidence and experessing them in a public forum only informs the reader of how you feel, not why you feel as you do. In other words, while it may reinforce the feelings of of those who already feel the way you do, (and thus let them know they are not alone), it does not actually sort out the reasons I, or any reader, ought to feel the same way. So it's not "emotions=bad" but "emotions=inappropriate as the only source of judgement," especially in a public discussion of a subject.

AJ

 

[Siorse]

AJ I always enjoy reading and pondering your posts.

This time though I got more amusement from Gordo who alluded to the fact (his fact) that he didn't want to engage with you and then proceeded to do so.

ROFL