tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post8838644132403565081..comments2024-03-14T23:52:09.893-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: This Is Your Brain on Bad fMRI StudiesThe Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-63667589189735090162012-08-31T04:54:57.957-07:002012-08-31T04:54:57.957-07:00I'm familiar with similar studies and the stud...I'm familiar with similar studies and the study you are citing does not fall in line with any of the almost 2 dozen studies I've read. In fact, I see no logic in this 2 experiments to begin with. The other studies regarding amygdala/smaller amygdala had a point to the study that was consistent, done in more than one facility and by different researchers-meeting the minimum requirements for a proper study to be given considerations. It's almost as if the studies you listed were made up by someone with an enlarged amygdala. It makes no sense..ergo the caveman amygdala stigma. <br /><br />The studies I've read coincide with anecdotal evidence and so with this additional confirmation, I give them some validity. Why did the initial study use independents? According to what we know, those with enlarged amygdala don't have much control over critical thinking. Therefore, an independent, sans some bizarre situation would be likely to be missing access to critical thinking also. That would make independents not a good subject to observe anything to do with the amygdala or anterior cingulate cortex. <br /><br />Have to agree with commenter number one: This is crap. <br /><br />If anyone is interested in some well done studies, google: "Political leanings and fMRI studies" You'll find marvelous studies regarding the origins even of the enlarged amygdala. It's as if one put a strain of cavemen in modern times. Explains quite a bit of behavior.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-78046764930722408042008-12-09T10:54:00.000-08:002008-12-09T10:54:00.000-08:00Well I understand marketers selling an 'Easy B...Well I understand marketers selling an 'Easy Button' but what amazes is Academics jumping on board. How would semgmenting the cranium help especially when market segment models, well, don't work? And how many different ways can you light up the brain?<BR/><BR/>Luca Turin's work was described in the "Emperor of Scent" where two different chemical molecules would smell the same even though one was toxic. Could this happen with the brain? Bet on it.<BR/><BR/>When American interregators would rather talk to terrorists instead of supporting the Bush torture approach, why would Marketers and Academics launch an invasive and all out assault on the cranium? To quote Wallace of Wallace & Grommit fame--...mental!<BR/><BR/>Some background on stories at http://numerati.wordpress.com and commercial application at www.scenario2.com<BR/><BR/>I hope that this provides a little balance in a nutty trend.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>Nick<BR/>http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=212886&title=intro-terrorist-interrogator&byDate=true<BR/><BR/>Stories can do the same, ask the interregators.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-40906971550529764752007-11-14T11:48:00.000-08:002007-11-14T11:48:00.000-08:00Thanks for mentioning this, Anonymous. I've been w...Thanks for mentioning this, Anonymous. I've been wanting to post a follow-up, and this letter will certainly be cited.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-75804136849951389132007-11-14T11:41:00.000-08:002007-11-14T11:41:00.000-08:00See this letter to the editor which debunks the cl...See <A HREF="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/14/opinion/lweb14brain.html" REL="nofollow"><BR/>this letter to the editor</A> which debunks the claims in the op-ed piece.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-68689306341923655562007-11-13T22:22:00.000-08:002007-11-13T22:22:00.000-08:00I haven't read his 1999 Science paper, but you're ...I haven't read his <A HREF="http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5449/2526" REL="nofollow">1999 <I>Science</I></A> paper, but you're right, most of his work seems respectable. When hunting around for any trace of an abstract or submitted paper on the NYT dreck, I noticed there was no mention of <A HREF="http://www.fkfappliedresearch.com/" REL="nofollow">neuromarketing stuff</A> on his <A HREF="http://iacoboni.bmap.ucla.edu/" REL="nofollow">UCLA website</A>.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-85165089267174322642007-11-13T21:27:00.000-08:002007-11-13T21:27:00.000-08:00How unfortunate. Iacoboni used to do some decent w...How unfortunate. Iacoboni used to do some decent work. I particularly remember his Science paper on mirror areas, not because I am in love with the concept, but because it was a clearly thought out approach to finding them. This, on the other hand, looks like crap.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com