Work's been crazy busy lately, so tonight I'm just now catching up on a lot of the Internet time-wasting I'd normally have done on my lunch break. As luck would have it I ran across two separate posts, back to back, that both had me saying out loud, "OMG I love the Internet so much."
First, Baseball Prospectus' Ben Lindbergh analyzes a two-minute scene from the pilot of the TV show "Elementary" that featured a Mets-Reds game. It turns out that the game in question doesn't exist, and what ended up in the episode was spliced together from different games (against different teams) that took place over a year apart. And the reason for this is that the pilot's writers and producers wanted it that way. They wrote a scene where Sherlock gets to be all mentalist about some upcoming baseball plays, and then the MLB's game tape keepers provided clips that fit their scene's needs, and voila. Lindbergh's piece is amazing not just because it provides a glimpse of the legwork that goes into a mere snippet of a TV show, but because he actually tracked down the real-life games that showed up onscreen. It's kind of nuts, but I love it.
Speaking of the sausage-making of film, someone is really, really tired of hearing conspiracy theories about the 1969 moon landing. If you weren't a communication major in college and therefore never had to take a History of Broadcasting quiz, I apologize for all the techno-speak - but it's important, especially since this video-maker's entire point is that conspiracy theorists have poor understanding of the things that actually go into lighting, shooting, editing and completing an in-focus, dust-free film clip.
Prior to the 1990s, both of these people would be the guy at the dinner party that's either incredibly, painfully boring or super-interesting, depending on your perspective. But now they get to share their hunches and pet peeves with those of us who are just as nerdy about the same things. Yes, the Internet amplifies some really awful things like anonymous commenters who can't spell... But at times it's pretty awesome.
Showing posts with label It's science. Show all posts
Showing posts with label It's science. Show all posts
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Wednesday, December 29, 2010
Size matters, at least for your amygdala
Scientists at the University of London have found a correlation between political conservatism and having a larger "fear center" in the brain, according to a study that will be published next year. They examined brain scans of two members of Parliament, one Conservative and one Labour (what we in the U.S. would call liberal), and also questioned 90 college students who'd previously been scanned about their political beliefs.
They found that people identifying themselves as conservative in their political beliefs tended to have a larger amygdala, which is the part of your brain that controls fear responses and arousal. But hey, the same people are very popular, also according to science.
When I read this, my first thought was, "Well, that explains a lot." I tend to lean toward the notion that a person's experiences may shape their brain chemistry, not that anyone is hard-wired to only think one way for the rest of his or her entire life. And while, anecdotally, the people I know who don't feel safe without a loaded gun in every room of the house tend to be conservative and the people who have Ph.D's tend to be liberal, it's just too easy to think that an amygdala is the explanation for all our differences. Or that one brain make-up is better than another.
It would also be really condescending for anyone to look at this report and say to themselves, "Oh, well, no wonder x is conservative - his brain is just made that way. Poor dear." For one thing, brain researchers have also found what they call a "liberal gene," that, in the words of the Telegraph, "makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views." A neurotransmitter does not trump an amygdala.
How about this - let's not use scientific research to score political points. Let's let scientific research do what it's supposed to - namely, tell us something about our amazing world that we didn't know before, and appreciate that difference.
Full disclosure, though: I probably have one of those liberal genes.
They found that people identifying themselves as conservative in their political beliefs tended to have a larger amygdala, which is the part of your brain that controls fear responses and arousal. But hey, the same people are very popular, also according to science.
When I read this, my first thought was, "Well, that explains a lot." I tend to lean toward the notion that a person's experiences may shape their brain chemistry, not that anyone is hard-wired to only think one way for the rest of his or her entire life. And while, anecdotally, the people I know who don't feel safe without a loaded gun in every room of the house tend to be conservative and the people who have Ph.D's tend to be liberal, it's just too easy to think that an amygdala is the explanation for all our differences. Or that one brain make-up is better than another.
It would also be really condescending for anyone to look at this report and say to themselves, "Oh, well, no wonder x is conservative - his brain is just made that way. Poor dear." For one thing, brain researchers have also found what they call a "liberal gene," that, in the words of the Telegraph, "makes people more likely to seek out less conventional political views." A neurotransmitter does not trump an amygdala.
How about this - let's not use scientific research to score political points. Let's let scientific research do what it's supposed to - namely, tell us something about our amazing world that we didn't know before, and appreciate that difference.
Full disclosure, though: I probably have one of those liberal genes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)