Both of this years lead Oscar winners have published scientific papers on neuroscience. Weve covered Natalie Portmans work on frontal lobe development in children before, but it turns out Colin Firth has also just co-authored a study on structural brain differences in people with differing political views.
An excellent post on The Neurocritic tells the intriguing story of how the study came about. It turns out Firth was a guest editor on the daily BBC Radio 4 news programme Today and -----((( commissioned neuroscientist Geraint Rees )))------- to scan the brains of two prominent UK politicians one staunchly liberal and the other a confirmed conservative to look for differences. The piece was clearly a piece of news fluff as you can tell very little from scanning just two people but it was motivated by a genuine interest in whether political opinions correlate with brain differences. -----(((Rees decided to develop the idea into a more comprehensive study,)))----- using scans from 90 people, to see whether the density of the brains grey matter differed in line with differences in political views. Summary, Idiot actor paid Reese to do a study proving people that disagreed with him are biologically inferior: From Eric's article that you like: I decided to find out what was biologically wrong with people who dont agree with me and see what scientists had to say about it. Reese like the predetermined results and added people. It's really not so hard to follow. Stop attacking me and read what I say. You will stop at nothing to defend Larry's lunacy. That's not a good thing. . On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Dana <dana.tier...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sigh. > > 1. I don't care if he finished high school, if the study results have some > validity, and no I have not done a chi-square analysis on this. > 2. I think you are possibly skewing Mr Firth's idea quite a little > 3. He didn't commission the study; where did you get that? > > 4. It may be a stupid theory, but at the moment the data is on its side > 5. I think you mean predetermined, and now that you have said it, please > explain the accusation > > And that's without breaking a sweat or getting into the fact that you > misrepresent one study as the other. Even if it was an accident, that was > uncool. And this is essentially what happens any time I actually try to > figure out what the fuck you are talking about. Invariably the answer is > " ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:346924 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
