Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Personally i don't see any point in using a letter-writing campaign to cancel a fictional program simply because it is offensive(although i could see the point if it was a reality show that was putting babies or puppies in danger).If people don't like it they don't have to watch it.i found the show rather silly and did not care for it,but it did not offend me religiously.Since it was a low-rated show it would have been pulled anyhow.i don't care for people,either strict atheists or fundamental religious people,telling me what to think. Kajiraenvironmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I am soley responsible for getting over 3,000 people to write letters to NBC and its sponsors to get the show cancelled. http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/culture/stories/012706_02.htmlNBC axes "Book of " January 27, 2006 Public pressure, especially from people of faith, is being credited for NBC's decision last Friday to cancel its controversial new show, The Book of .The low-rated dramatic series featured the travails of Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest, and his homosexual son, drug-dealing daughter and alcoholic wife. But what many found most offensive was its insulting, unbiblical portrayal of Jesus as – in the words of one U.S. television critic – "an affable, hippie-like therapist dude in robes and long hair who basically wants approval." NBC had contracted for eight episodes of the series, but pulled the plug after only three. Focus on the Family US and the American Family Association had both asked their constituents to pressure their local NBC affiliates to refuse to air the show. And although, as the Christian Post reported, NBC gave no reason for its decision to cancel The Book of , both are convinced it is because of the 678,394 people who emailed NBC plus the thousands more who telephoned or emailed their local NBC affiliates.The result, says AFA spokesperson Randy Sharp, was a dearth of sponsors."No legitimate advertiser would support this program. NBC was losing approximately $2 to $3 million per week in advertising revenue," he told Family News in Focus. "This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that your voice is important, that it can be heard." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 Exactly. I didn't watch, but only because I found other things to watch when the show was on. What people seem to be objecting to is the portrayal of Jesus. They seem to be forgetting that Jesus was sent to Earth in human form. It's jsut a show, folks. If you don't like, change the channel or turn off the tv. Kajira <kajira_2001@...> wrote: Personally i don't see any point in using a letter-writing campaign to cancel a fictional program simply because it is offensive(although i could see the point if it was a reality show that was putting babies or puppies in danger).If people don't like it they don't have to watch it.i found the show rather silly and did not care for it,but it did not offend me religiously.Since it was a low-rated show it would have been pulled anyhow.i don't care for people,either strict atheists or fundamental religious people,telling me what to think. Kajiraenvironmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I am soley responsible for getting over 3,000 people to write letters to NBC and its sponsors to get the show cancelled. http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/culture/stories/012706_02.htmlNBC axes "Book of " January 27, 2006 Public pressure, especially from people of faith, is being credited for NBC's decision last Friday to cancel its controversial new show, The Book of .The low-rated dramatic series featured the travails of Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest, and his homosexual son, drug-dealing daughter and alcoholic wife. But what many found most offensive was its insulting, unbiblical portrayal of Jesus as – in the words of one U.S. television critic – "an affable, hippie-like therapist dude in robes and long hair who basically wants approval." NBC had contracted for eight episodes of the series, but pulled the plug after only three. Focus on the Family US and the American Family Association had both asked their constituents to pressure their local NBC affiliates to refuse to air the show. And although, as the Christian Post reported, NBC gave no reason for its decision to cancel The Book of , both are convinced it is because of the 678,394 people who emailed NBC plus the thousands more who telephoned or emailed their local NBC affiliates.The result, says AFA spokesperson Randy Sharp, was a dearth of sponsors."No legitimate advertiser would support this program. NBC was losing approximately $2 to $3 million per week in advertising revenue," he told Family News in Focus. "This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that your voice is important, that it can be heard."If you love something, set it free! So it is with books. See what I mean atwww.bookcrossing.com/friend/nheckoblogcritics.orghttp://notesfromnancy.blogspot.com Heckofreelance proofreadernancygailus@... Bring words and photos together (easily) with PhotoMail - it's free and works with . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2006 Report Share Posted January 30, 2006 -It's like how some people wanted to ban " Life of " and " Tommy " because they thought those movies mocked Jesus.Actually,both movies,in their own way,were pro-Jesus because they were satirizing the way society builds up idols and then destroys them if they are not quite what the public wanted.Kajira -- In , Hecko <nancygailus@y...> wrote: > > Exactly. I didn't watch, but only because I found other things to watch when the show was on. What people seem to be objecting to is the portrayal of Jesus. They seem to be forgetting that Jesus was sent to Earth in human form. It's jsut a show, folks. If you don't like, change the channel or turn off the tv. > > Kajira <kajira_2001@y...> wrote: Personally i don't see any point in using a letter-writing campaign to cancel a fictional program simply because it is offensive(although i could see the point if it was a reality show that was putting babies or puppies in danger).If people don't like it they don't have to watch it.i found the show rather silly and did not care for it,but it did not offend me religiously.Since it was a low-rated show it would have been pulled anyhow.i don't care for people,either strict atheists or fundamental religious people,telling me what to think. Kajira > > environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I am soley responsible for getting over 3,000 people to write > letters to NBC and its sponsors to get the show cancelled. > > http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/culture/stories/012706_02.html > > NBC axes " Book of " > January 27, 2006 > > Public pressure, especially from people of faith, is being credited > for NBC's decision last Friday to cancel its controversial new show, > The Book of . > > The low-rated dramatic series featured the travails of > Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest, and his homosexual son, > drug-dealing daughter and alcoholic wife. But what many found most > offensive was its insulting, unbiblical portrayal of Jesus as – in > the words of one U.S. television critic – " an affable, hippie-like > therapist dude in robes and long hair who basically wants > approval. " > > NBC had contracted for eight episodes of the series, but pulled the > plug after only three. > > Focus on the Family US and the American Family Association had both > asked their constituents to pressure their local NBC affiliates to > refuse to air the show. And although, as the Christian Post > reported, NBC gave no reason for its decision to cancel The Book of > , both are convinced it is because of the 678,394 people who > emailed NBC plus the thousands more who telephoned or emailed their > local NBC affiliates. > > The result, says AFA spokesperson Randy Sharp, was a dearth of > sponsors. > > " No legitimate advertiser would support this program. NBC was losing > approximately $2 to $3 million per week in advertising revenue, " he > told Family News in Focus. " This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt > that your voice is important, that it can be heard. " > > > > > > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked " Other FAM Sites. " > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I think most people liked Terminator back in 84. Then came "rise of the machines" in which the machines grew more & more incapacitating. It seems to me there are alot of people who tell everyone to be like Jesus but, are hypocrites. Superman was a hero & then he died. Arnold was a robot with a gun and a psychopathic personality and the american image has changed. kajira_2001 <kajira_2001@...> wrote: -It's like how some people wanted to ban "Life of " and "Tommy" because they thought those movies mocked Jesus.Actually,both movies,in their own way,were pro-Jesus because they were satirizing the way society builds up idols and then destroys them if they are not quite what the public wanted.Kajira-- In , Hecko <nancygailus@y...> wrote:>> Exactly. I didn't watch, but only because I found other things to watch when the show was on. What people seem to be objecting to is the portrayal of Jesus. They seem to be forgetting that Jesus was sent to Earth in human form. It's jsut a show, folks. If you don't like, change the channel or turn off the tv. > > Kajira <kajira_2001@y...> wrote: Personally i don't see any point in using a letter-writing campaign to cancel a fictional program simply because it is offensive(although i could see the point if it was a reality show that was putting babies or puppies in danger).If people don't like it they don't have to watch it.i found the show rather silly and did not care for it,but it did not offend me religiously.Since it was a low-rated show it would have been pulled anyhow.i don't care for people,either strict atheists or fundamental religious people,telling me what to think. Kajira> > environmental1st2003 <no_reply > wrote: I am soley responsible for getting over 3,000 people to write > letters to NBC and its sponsors to get the show cancelled. > > http://www.fotf.ca/tfn/culture/stories/012706_02.html> > NBC axes "Book of " > January 27, 2006 > > Public pressure, especially from people of faith, is being credited > for NBC's decision last Friday to cancel its controversial new show, > The Book of .> > The low-rated dramatic series featured the travails of > Webster, a drug-addicted Episcopal priest, and his homosexual son, > drug-dealing daughter and alcoholic wife. But what many found most > offensive was its insulting, unbiblical portrayal of Jesus as – in > the words of one U.S. television critic – "an affable, hippie-like > therapist dude in robes and long hair who basically wants > approval." > > NBC had contracted for eight episodes of the series, but pulled the > plug after only three. > > Focus on the Family US and the American Family Association had both > asked their constituents to pressure their local NBC affiliates to > refuse to air the show. And although, as the Christian Post > reported, NBC gave no reason for its decision to cancel The Book of > , both are convinced it is because of the 678,394 people who > emailed NBC plus the thousands more who telephoned or emailed their > local NBC affiliates.> > The result, says AFA spokesperson Randy Sharp, was a dearth of > sponsors.> > "No legitimate advertiser would support this program. NBC was losing > approximately $2 to $3 million per week in advertising revenue," he > told Family News in Focus. "This proves beyond any shadow of a doubt > that your voice is important, that it can be heard."> > > > > > > > > > FAM Secret Society is a community based on respect, friendship, support and acceptance. Everyone is valued. > > Don't forget, there are links to other FAM sites on the Links page in the folder marked "Other FAM Sites." > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 Kajira, I respect your point of view. Generally I just don't watch TV at all. Rarely have I been motivated to write for the cancellation of a TV program. In fact, this MAY have been the first time I have written in to have a show cancelled. There might have been another time, but I've lost part of my memory since a suicide attempt a few years back. This program was different though. The premise was silly, and I could live with that. My problem was the depiction of Jesus. As someone who has read the Bible extensively and whom has continuously pondered going into the clergy, I know that how Jesus was depicted in the Bible. In the Bible he is self assured and a man of action. He relieves suffering for the asking and chastises people for their transgressions but loves them afterwards. In this show he was just a sort of laid back dude that was sort of discouraging. People who believe in that Jesus or those who wonder what Christianity is, will be severely misled by that depiction, not to mention a med- addicted Priest with an alcoholic wife and drug dealing daughter. We all have our faults and make bad lifestyle choices, but one has to ask how a priest that is supposed to be guiding a flock of parishoners could allow things to be carried quite that far. How can he lead anyone if he cannot even manage his own family? In matters of faith, I have to stand by my God. That may off-put some, but I could not live with myself otherwise. Tom Administrator Personally i don't see any point in using a letter-writing campaign to cancel a fictional program simply because it is offensive(although i could see the point if it was a reality show that was putting babies or puppies in danger).If people don't like it they don't have to watch it.i found the show rather silly and did not care for it,but it did not offend me religiously.Since it was a low-rated show it would have been pulled anyhow.i don't care for people,either strict atheists or fundamental religious people,telling me what to think. Kajira Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 --Sadly,as we have seen in the Catholic sex scandals,clergy are real people like everyone else, and some have the same neurosis and even criminal tendencies,like any other segment of the population.Kajira and Mac - In , environmental1st2003 <no_reply@y...> wrote: > > Kajira, > > I respect your point of view. > > Generally I just don't watch TV at all. Rarely have I been motivated to > write for the cancellation of a TV program. In fact, this MAY have been > the first time I have written in to have a show cancelled. There might > have been another time, but I've lost part of my memory since a suicide > attempt a few years back. > > This program was different though. The premise was silly, and I could > live with that. My problem was the depiction of Jesus. As someone who > has read the Bible extensively and whom has continuously pondered going > into the clergy, I know that how Jesus was depicted in the Bible. In > the Bible he is self assured and a man of action. He relieves suffering > for the asking and chastises people for their transgressions but loves > them afterwards. In this show he was just a sort of laid back dude that > was sort of discouraging. > > People who believe in that Jesus or those who wonder what Christianity > is, will be severely misled by that depiction, not to mention a med- > addicted Priest with an alcoholic wife and drug dealing daughter. We > all have our faults and make bad lifestyle choices, but one has to ask > how a priest that is supposed to be guiding a flock of parishoners > could allow things to be carried quite that far. How can he lead anyone > if he cannot even manage his own family? > > In matters of faith, I have to stand by my God. That may off-put some, > but I could not live with myself otherwise. > > Tom > Administrator > > > > Personally i don't see any point in using a letter-writing campaign to > cancel a fictional program simply because it is offensive(although i > could see the point if it was a reality show that was putting babies or > puppies in danger).If people don't like it they don't have to watch > it.i found the show rather silly and did not care for it,but it did not > offend me religiously.Since it was a low-rated show it would have been > pulled anyhow.i don't care for people,either strict atheists or > fundamental religious people,telling me what to think. Kajira > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2006 Report Share Posted January 31, 2006 I saw the below item on another group but their was no link... It's about politics but it's likely to be true about religious opinions too. And explain why it is a touchy topic to discuss even with friends... Ender >LiveScience >Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET Jan. 24, 2006 > >Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without >letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows. > >And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to >their point of view. > >Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate >information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the >2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while >they pondered. > >The results were announced today. > > " We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain >normally engaged during reasoning, " said Drew Westen, director of >clinical psychology at Emory University. " What we saw instead was a >network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits >hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known >to be involved in resolving conflicts. " > >Bias on both sides > >The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally >biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally >be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say. > >Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas >that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked >in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts >experience when they get a fix, Westen explained. > >The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making. > > " None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were >particularly engaged, " Westen said. " Essentially, it appears as if >partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the >conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, >with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of >positive ones. " > >Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral >prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with >reasoning. > >The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President > W. Bush and Senator Kerry, that clearly contradicted each >other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the >discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that >might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated >several times for each candidate. > >A brain-scan technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, >or fMRI, revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats >consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but >detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. > > " The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can >learn very little from new data, " Westen said. > >Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, such >as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and >Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in the >same manner. > >The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail. > > " Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may >reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested >interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen said. > >The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual >Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 >Kajira: "--Sadly, as we have seen in the Catholic sex scandals, clergy are real people like everyone else"From USA TODAY.com: "Personally, I have come to see that all of us take much of life way too seriously most of the time; we are especially good at taking ourselves too seriously. It is one of the elements that has polarized religion in our country. What I appreciated about this show is the touch of reality it had.""What this show did was represent all of us in one way or other, capturing the comical, often messy situations we may eventually face in this fragile world. Despite its short run, the show reminded me that being a person of faith is as downright challenging and difficult as it can be fun and entertaining."by Fr. s, the rector at Grace Episcopal Church in ElmiraI'm glad that NBC has decided to offer the remaining four episodes online for free! Rainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 >Kajira: "--Sadly, as we have seen in the Catholic sex scandals, clergy are real people like everyone else"From USA TODAY.com: "Personally, I have come to see that all of us take much of life way too seriously most of the time; we are especially good at taking ourselves too seriously. It is one of the elements that has polarized religion in our country. What I appreciated about this show is the touch of reality it had.""What this show did was represent all of us in one way or other, capturing the comical, often messy situations we may eventually face in this fragile world. Despite its short run, the show reminded me that being a person of faith is as downright challenging and difficult as it can be fun and entertaining."by Fr. s, the rector at Grace Episcopal Church in ElmiraI'm glad that NBC has decided to offer the remaining four episodes online for free! Rainbow Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 The below article does not surprise me at all. For a long time I have suspected that many when you question their beliefs tend to re-act with emotions rather than logic - I do suspect there may be a few rare exeptions to the rule though. Personally I can agree with and witness if you are talking with or reading material that boosts your own beliefs, yes that is likely to make one feel good. However I think many miss out by instantly dismissing other views just because they do not agree with ones own. I have also witnessed the taking sides - as with politicians people tend to stick with what they have chosen despite disregarding reasoning - many do make descions on purely emotional. I stand by my belief that emotions screw up logic :-) but I am willing to listen to a contradictory opinion :-) > > I saw the below item on another group but their was no link... It's > about politics but it's likely to be true about religious opinions > too. And explain why it is a touchy topic to discuss even with friends... > > Ender > > > >LiveScience > >Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET Jan. 24, 2006 > > > >Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions without > >letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows. > > > >And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to > >their point of view. > > > >Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate > >information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the > >2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while > >they pondered. > > > >The results were announced today. > > > > " We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain > >normally engaged during reasoning, " said Drew Westen, director of > >clinical psychology at Emory University. " What we saw instead was a > >network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits > >hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known > >to be involved in resolving conflicts. " > > > >Bias on both sides > > > >The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally > >biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally > >be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say. > > > >Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas > >that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked > >in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts > >experience when they get a fix, Westen explained. > > > >The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision- making. > > > > " None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were > >particularly engaged, " Westen said. " Essentially, it appears as if > >partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the > >conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, > >with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of > >positive ones. " > > > >Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral > >prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with > >reasoning. > > > >The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President > > W. Bush and Senator Kerry, that clearly contradicted each > >other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the > >discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that > >might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated > >several times for each candidate. > > > >A brain-scan technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging, > >or fMRI, revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats > >consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but > >detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. > > > > " The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can > >learn very little from new data, " Westen said. > > > >Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, such > >as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and > >Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in the > >same manner. > > > >The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail. > > > > " Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may > >reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested > >interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen said. > > > >The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual > >Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 --my Mom always said it's a good idea to read books by people with opinions different from one's own,every now and then,so you don't get too complacent.i even forced myself to read Ann Coulter....UGH i despise that creature lol.But,if the person is not a total nutcase like Coulter,you CAN learn something from them.i am a pro-sex feminist,but i can see where the late Dworkin made some good points,like when she went to Israel thinking their Govt.would be better to women and it turned out to be very old-fashioned in many ways.Kajira - In , " greebohere " <julie.stevenson16@n...> wrote: > > The below article does not surprise me at all. For a long time I have > suspected that many when you question their beliefs tend to re-act > with emotions rather than logic - I do suspect there may be a few > rare exeptions to the rule though. > > Personally I can agree with and witness if you are talking with or > reading material that boosts your own beliefs, yes that is likely to > make one feel good. However I think many miss out by instantly > dismissing other views just because they do not agree with ones own. > > I have also witnessed the taking sides - as with politicians people > tend to stick with what they have chosen despite disregarding > reasoning - many do make descions on purely emotional. > > I stand by my belief that emotions screw up logic :-) but I am > willing to listen to a contradictory opinion :-) > > > > > > > > I saw the below item on another group but their was no link... It's > > about politics but it's likely to be true about religious opinions > > too. And explain why it is a touchy topic to discuss even with > friends... > > > > Ender > > > > > > >LiveScience > > >Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET Jan. 24, 2006 > > > > > >Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions > without > > >letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows. > > > > > >And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's > contrary to > > >their point of view. > > > > > >Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate > > >information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the > > >2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored > while > > >they pondered. > > > > > >The results were announced today. > > > > > > " We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain > > >normally engaged during reasoning, " said Drew Westen, director of > > >clinical psychology at Emory University. " What we saw instead was a > > >network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits > > >hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits > known > > >to be involved in resolving conflicts. " > > > > > >Bias on both sides > > > > > >The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached > totally > > >biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not > rationally > > >be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say. > > > > > >Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas > > >that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity > spiked > > >in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what > addicts > > >experience when they get a fix, Westen explained. > > > > > >The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision- > making. > > > > > > " None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were > > >particularly engaged, " Westen said. " Essentially, it appears as if > > >partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the > > >conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for > it, > > >with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of > > >positive ones. " > > > > > >Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral > > >prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with > > >reasoning. > > > > > >The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President > > > W. Bush and Senator Kerry, that clearly contradicted > each > > >other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the > > >discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that > > >might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated > > >several times for each candidate. > > > > > >A brain-scan technique known as functional magnetic resonance > imaging, > > >or fMRI, revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and > Democrats > > >consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate > but > > >detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. > > > > > > " The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person > can > > >learn very little from new data, " Westen said. > > > > > >Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, > such > > >as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and > > >Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in > the > > >same manner. > > > > > >The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail. > > > > > > " Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians > may > > >reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested > > >interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen said. > > > > > >The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual > > >Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 Actually I have read books that others may consider controversial - mostly to see what all the fuss was about and also cause I was curious - thing is the more stuff I read along those lines the more confused I became. I have a hard time when emotions are present because my logic and reasoning are screaming out at me - I am beginning to think that not everything that seems rational and logical is necesarrily good though. Confusing stuff - but I think I'm beginning to get my head around some of it :-) > > > > > > I saw the below item on another group but their was no link... > It's > > > about politics but it's likely to be true about religious > opinions > > > too. And explain why it is a touchy topic to discuss even with > > friends... > > > > > > Ender > > > > > > > > > >LiveScience > > > >Updated: 6:46 p.m. ET Jan. 24, 2006 > > > > > > > >Democrats and Republicans alike are adept at making decisions > > without > > > >letting the facts get in the way, a new study shows. > > > > > > > >And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's > > contrary to > > > >their point of view. > > > > > > > >Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to > evaluate > > > >information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to > the > > > >2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored > > while > > > >they pondered. > > > > > > > >The results were announced today. > > > > > > > > " We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the > brain > > > >normally engaged during reasoning, " said Drew Westen, director of > > > >clinical psychology at Emory University. " What we saw instead > was a > > > >network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits > > > >hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits > > known > > > >to be involved in resolving conflicts. " > > > > > > > >Bias on both sides > > > > > > > >The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached > > totally > > > >biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not > > rationally > > > >be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say. > > > > > > > >Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the > areas > > > >that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity > > spiked > > > >in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what > > addicts > > > >experience when they get a fix, Westen explained. > > > > > > > >The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision- > > making. > > > > > > > > " None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were > > > >particularly engaged, " Westen said. " Essentially, it appears as > if > > > >partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the > > > >conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced > for > > it, > > > >with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation > of > > > >positive ones. " > > > > > > > >Notably absent were any increases in activation of the > dorsolateral > > > >prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with > > > >reasoning. > > > > > > > >The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, > President > > > > W. Bush and Senator Kerry, that clearly contradicted > > each > > > >other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the > > > >discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that > > > >might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated > > > >several times for each candidate. > > > > > > > >A brain-scan technique known as functional magnetic resonance > > imaging, > > > >or fMRI, revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and > > Democrats > > > >consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own > candidate > > but > > > >detected contradictions in the opposing candidate. > > > > > > > > " The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the > person > > can > > > >learn very little from new data, " Westen said. > > > > > > > >Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the > mix, > > such > > > >as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and > > > >Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in > > the > > > >same manner. > > > > > > > >The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail. > > > > > > > > " Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and > politicians > > may > > > >reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested > > > >interest in how to interpret 'the facts,' " Westen said. > > > > > > > >The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual > > > >Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2006 Report Share Posted February 1, 2006 " I have a hard time when emotions are present because my logic and > reasoning are screaming out at me - I am beginning to think that not > everything that seems rational and logical is necesarrily good > though. Confusing stuff - but I think I'm beginning to get my head > around some of it :-) " I think that's why the dialogue between Kirk and Spock is good--to show where you need both emotions and logic. Of course no human is completely emotionless, like Spock is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.