Tuesday, 28 December 2010

Drool, zombie, drool.

(Picture surgically extracted from here)

It seems a few scientists have taken time out from proving that ice is hot and that smoke has supernatural teleportation powers to look at the nicotine-stained brains of a few people. Not too many because as every Nu-scientist knows, once you have the result you want you stop looking. Otherwise you get into all sorts of statistical tangles and might end up not proving what you were funded to prove. That would embarrass your money tree and would also be considered rude.

What they found will delight eugenecists on both sides of the political divide because it means they might be able to simply breed their opposition out of existence.

Conservatives have big amygdalas (don't get excited, it's not a part you can see or grope for unless you are equipped with some serious surgical kit and very twisted tastes). This part of the brain deals with anxeity and emotion. The hype, of course, is that conservatives are full of fear. There are other emotions but mentioning those would spoil the narrative.

What's not mentioned is that by extension, lefties are emotionless (*cough* cybermen *cough* borg *cough*).

On the otherhand, they [Tories] have a smaller anterior cingulate, an area at the front of the brain associated with courage and looking on the bright side of life.

So Tories are all scared and cowardly while Lefties are brave, cold-hearted warriors for... what? I wonder if those doing the study looked at their own politics?

The thing about emotion is that you don't want too much of it, but you do need some. You don't want to be cold enough to send people into war to die, knowing that you do so based on lies, but you don't want to break down at pictures of cheeldren used by fakecharities to con money out of you to pay their directors' bonuses.

The thing about courage is that you need some, but too much and it becomes foolhardiness. You need to be brave enough to stand up for yourself and your family but you don't want to be so foolhardy that you get on to the roof of a building and throw a fire extinguisher at people below, or deface a cenotaph or smash up someone's property while believing yourself invincible.

I think the fire extinguisher incident, in the context of this science, makes it clear that Lefties are a) foolhardy enough to throw it and b) so emotionless that they simply don't care about whoever it might hit.

In which case the small amygdala and the large anterior cingulate cortex is the anomaly. It's the drooling zombie in the room. Bullet, meet the leftie foot once more.

Well, it's all just a bit of fun until the eugenecists get involved, and until employers demand a brain scan to make sure you fit corporate political policy.

Until then, let's just enjoy a bit of brain music.

Remember, eating brains does not make you smarter. If they were smarter than you, you wouldn't be eating their brain, now would you?


James said...

One useful thing from the smoking ban is that we get useful pictures of criminals.
When they banned smoking inside public buildings criminals were forced to go outside for a smoke rather than hiding in the 'smoking room'.
All criminals smoke and all smoking areas in court buildings are right out in front on the street. Possibly a set up by the authorities to show criminals to the awaiting press photographers.
The thing is criminals can easily avoid being photographed by the press by not playing the states game and going outside for a ciggie. Heck, smoking isn't addictive according to leggie. Why go outside into the glare of press photographers in order to satisfy the craving for a smoke if it's not even addictive ?
The truth of course is that smoking is highly addictive. The craving will even let you give up any attempt at privacy. The hit from the ciggie wil carry you to a relaxing place. Err no. It will take you to reality where the non smoking majority exist all the time. You're paying £6 a packet to stink like an old chimney and take you to a place where non smokers exist permanently.
But thanks for dying young and paying taxes over the odds at the same time. Suckers. !! Or should that be Smokers !!

richard said...

I've been reading up on the phenomenon of psychopathy. 4% of people are psychopaths. Their brains are not like those of normal humans and are startlingly different when CAT scanned, to such an extent that they may be regarded as a separate species. This being the case, and given that their lack of empathy and cuckoo-like mimicry of normal people allows them to do well in positions of power,I would like to see all officials tested to establish their humanity. Read up on ponerology and "guinsberg humanoids"

Smoking Hot said...

James ... no-one l know pays 6 pound a packet. They are around 2 pound and may come with health warnings on them but couldn't be certain as it's all in foreign writing.

Tax paid to UK = Zero!

Sorry to rain on your parade (actually l'm not sorry at all)

JuliaM said...

So what about all those people who are passionate socialists when young, and then grow up into sensible conservatives? Devastating brain injury?

Neal Asher said...

I found some of this sort of dross in New Scientist a while ago, Leg Iron. Here:

Leg-iron said...

James - You actually believe that, in cases high-profile enough to interest the press, the courts let the criminals out onto the street for a smoke break?

I've seen pictures of criminals entering and leaving court but not even in the Mail have I seen a picture of a criminal out for a smoke. Where are these pictures?

In among this, you make a statement -
The truth of course is that smoking is highly addictive.

The evidence suggests otherwise. If you want smokers to stop, why do you persist in telling them they are hopeless addicts? Those who believe they are addicted will act like addicts, but why would you want that?

Are you happy that millions of pounds of your taxes are going on patches that won't work? I'm not. Are you happy to see smokers persuaded that they can't go without a cigarette for a few hours or days because they are desperate addicts who can never be free? I'm not.

I enjoy smoking just as I enjoy a whisky. Neither is an addiction because I can survive perfectly well without them. When it is not appropriate to smoke or drink whisky, I don't do it. I have been in all-day meetings where someone mentioned smoking or Electrofags and said to me 'You won't be interested because you don't smoke'. Why did they assume that? I hadn't once had to excuse myself to go outside. I was busy and therefore not smoking. Also not smelling of it.

Oddly enough, the only comment I have ever had from a non-smoker concerning 'smell' was 'How come you don't smell of tobacco when you're a smoker?' It's easy. I wash myself and my clothes. You can't find me by the smell.

Are you really saying that all criminals smoke, and if so, how long will it be before that becomes 'all smokers are criminals'? It's an easy transition.

So James, why do you want smokers to believe they are addicted when they clearly are not? If you hate smoking so much, surely the opposite stance would be more profitable for you? Where is the advantage to you if all smokers believe themselves addicted and believe they have to keep smoking?

Or is it perhaps not smoking, but smokers, you hate?

Leg-iron said...

Julia - not injury. Recovery.

Leg-iron said...

Neal - New Scientist is turning into a Socialist propaganda paper. Which is a shame becasue the real science that apears in there tends to get lost among the social control policies and cries of 'Climate heretic!'

What's worrying with all these 'we found a gene that might...' stories is that idiot politicians lap it all up. Then they decide they can breed out disease. Then they can breed out obesity, smoking, drinking.

Then they can breed out disagreement.

Finally, the human race will be clones, all with the exact same genetic structure. Like wheat.

Then along comes a virus...

Neal Asher said...

Man the monoculture.
Gave up on New Scientist and Scientific American long ago as they became more and more politicized. Plenty of sites on the Internet for me to go to for my science hits. For example:

Gareth said...

A bigger organ for dealing with emotions would surely make for more processing power and render you better at dealing with them - in short more rational.

A smaller organ for dealing with emotions would leave you vulnerable to being overcome by them.

The last 13 years of Labour would seem to bear that out. Knee jerk legislation often to 'counter' unsubstantiated and/or manufactured moral panic. A Government paralysed by their approval ratings and media profile.

opinions powered by SendLove.to