Scientists link brain damage, religious fundamentalism

[Bradshaw3]

Interesting read that may have more genral implications.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/03/scientists-established-link-brain-damage-religious-fundamentalism/

[BigmanPigman]

1. Did we need scientists to tell us what we already knew?

Thanks for the story!!!!! Will be sharing it.

[NCTraveler]

2. Raw Story is on a major downward trajectory.

Has been for some time.

[Bradshaw3]

3. Did you read the article?

Do your feelings about Raw Story render the scientists findings moot?

[NCTraveler]

5. I did. Horrible writing. As has become the norm for them.

Please post the link to the research. Raw Story didn't.

"Do your feelings about Raw Story render the scientists findings moot?"

I don't trust anything that comes out of Raw Story and they didn't link to the research.

[Bradshaw3]

7. Here's the link

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393217301318

Yes they should have linked to the article but your critique of the writing is totally off-base. I was a science writer and wrote many articles on neuroscience. I felt like the article was representative of the research and well-written for a general and peer audience. Your claims about the writing were not supported by any examples.

The author is a PhD. in neuroscience and here are some of the publications he has written for:
Bobby Azarian is a freelance writer with a PhD in neuroscience. His research has been published in journals such as Cognition & Emotion and Human Brain Mapping, and he has written for The Atlantic, The New York Times, BBC Future, Scientific American, Psychology Today, and others.
That's quite a resume. Perhaps you could put aside your feelings about Raw Story and reread it.

Again, crtiticsm of the messenger doesn't reflect on the message of the scientists.

[NCTraveler]

9. The messenger is a shit show.

The research could have linked vmPFC to numerous other possible thought structures by small groups yet completely avoided doing so.

It also backs up the grand claim made by Raw Story in no way.

An attempt to tell a larger story where one is not possible. If you had read the research you would know that.

There is a reason they didn't link the information they clearly should have linked to. It didn't support their own words. Fox News style reporting. Report some of the facts, thrown in opinion disguised as fact, then let the ill informed reader decide.

[NurseJackie]

13. "There is a reason they didn't link the information they clearly should have linked to."

There is a reason they didn't link the information they clearly should have linked to. It didn't support their own words.

That site is a trainwreck.

[Bradshaw3]

15. Less emotion and more facts would make your case

Doing what you claim others are doing doesn't bolster your case. Sorry if the article hit a nerve. First you attack the messenger then the researchers. I prefer rational discussions to emotion-based ones.

For those who haven't resd it, here is their conclusion:
Instead, we found that participants with dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC) lesions have fundamentalist beliefs similar to patients with vmPFC lesions and that the effect of a dlPFC lesion on fundamentalism was significantly mediated by decreased cognitive flexibility and openness. These findings indicate that cognitive flexibility and openness are necessary for flexible and adaptive religious commitment, and that such diversity of religious thought is dependent on dlPFC functionality.

[NCTraveler]

16. lol. Emotion. That's funny.

Now you are simply getting personal.

"I prefer rational discussions to emotion-based ones. "

The Raw Story article is not rational. It's deceptive.

[LAS14]

4. The article's description/definition of religious fundamentalism,

as it applies to its research - rigidity, resistance to new ideas, could be applied to any ideological group, including far left and far right.

[NCTraveler]

6. The manner in which they directed the information at hand,...

If they were even using quality information, is truly deceptive.

[Bradshaw3]

8. How do you know it was deceptive?

I mean since you admitted that you didn't read the original research.

[NCTraveler]

11. Because what was in the story could have clearly been directed multiple different ways.

I have now read the research. It made the article out to be even a bigger joke. Fox News style.

[Bradshaw3]

12. Again no examples, just lots of opinion and emotional attacks

[NCTraveler]

17. There you go with the personal attack again.

All to back up a deceptive article.

[smirkymonkey]

10. I don't think a scientific study was needed to tell us that.

It's pretty obvious to most sane people.

[yortsed snacilbuper]

14. I didn't read the article,

but does it say anything about hearing voices?