"Yes Men" have it in their genes

[algernonsidney]

For anyone who cares about creating a rational and free society, this is a very interesting discovery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8461819/Yes-men-are-born-new-research-suggests.html

The gene means that like "a "yes man, who is flexible to a fault, the brain is more likely to be influenced by what it is told than what its experience tells it," the report said.

This study seems to back up something that I have long believed. It confirms that some people are simply unfit to live in a free society. Rand correctly observed that the choice to think or not to think is one of the most fundamental choices that we make. If genes are the reason that some people choose not to think, then it is obvious that those who do choose to think have to separate ourselves from those who do not. And that separation has to be permanent.

[Xray]

For anyone who cares about creating a rational and free society, this is a very interesting discovery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8461819/Yes-men-are-born-new-research-suggests.html

The gene means that like "a "yes man, who is flexible to a fault, the brain is more likely to be influenced by what it is told than what its experience tells it," the report said.

This study seems to back up something that I have long believed. It confirms that some people are simply unfit to live in a free society. Rand correctly observed that the choice to think or not to think is one of the most fundamental choices that we make. If genes are the reason that some people choose not to think, then it is obvious that those who do choose to think have to separate ourselves from those who do not. And that separation has to be permanent.

Can one choose not to think?

The "yes" men think too. They think that the given advice is correct.

And the thinking of "non-yes" men who ignore advice and want to try everything out themselves can be irrational in certain situations, possibly landing themselves in danger.

[Selene]

Has anyone seen the article in Neuroscience? I would like to see the statistical analysis and what percentage "some" is...less than five 5%? More than 5%?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Chris,

Talk about a Progressive's wet dream (or a thug's, for that matter)!

Here is some official-sounding "proof" that there are human subjects out there who have to obey him because they are genetically programmed that way, just like livestock. Just like slaves!

Notice that the person who communicates this NEVER has such a condition. On the contrary, he's the one with the genetic condition that favors ruling the hapless inferior souls.

(Must be a coincidence, huh? )

Well, it's not that simple.

A predisposition to one learning style is not necessarily a death sentence on objectivity and/or volition once you take neuroplasticity into account. The nature and function of the brain is a wee bit more multifarious than a simple syllogism based on a simple deduction.

Frankly, I do not suggest you get your science information from the mainstream press--except for a general notion of passing interest. I've been tripped up, myself, by taking mainstream media accounts of science more seriously than water-cooler talk. If you like information spun, dumbed-down and distorted to fit an agenda, though, the MSM is great.

If you are truly interested in keeping up-to-date using a condensed, simple version of what science is doing in the mind/brain area, I suggest the following site:

Science Daily - The Mind and Brain Section

I was turned on to this site by studying Kevin Hogan, a motivational hypnotist who practices NLP (basically Ericksonian stuff) and enhances his techniques (and develops new ones) with regular cutting-edge scientific information.

Here are a couple of articles from Science Daily that deal with DARPP-32.

Advice Vs. Experience: Genes Predict Learning Style

Structure for Three Intrinsically Disordered Proteins Determined

Kevin says he visits this site every day with his morning coffee to see what new things are happening in mankind's understanding of his own mind. This is a habit I am seriously considering adopting.

Michael

[Xray]

Chris,

Talk about a Progressive's wet dream (or a thug's, for that matter)!

Here is some official-sounding "proof" that there are human subjects out there who have to obey him because they are genetically programmed that way, just like livestock. Just like slaves!

Notice that the person who communicates this NEVER has such a condition. On the contrary, he's the one with the genetic condition that favors ruling the hapless inferior souls.

(Must be a coincidence, huh? )

Well, it's not that simple.

A predisposition to one learning style is not necessarily a death sentence on objectivity and/or volition once you take neuroplasticity into account. The nature and function of the brain is a wee bit more multifarious than a simple syllogism based on a simple deduction.

Frankly, I do not suggest you get your science information from the mainstream press--except for a general notion of passing interest. I've been tripped up, myself, by taking mainstream media accounts of science more seriously than water-cooler talk. If you like information spun, dumbed-down and distorted to fit an agenda, though, the MSM is great.

If you are truly interested in keeping up-to-date using a condensed, simple version of what science is doing in the mind/brain area, I suggest the following site:

Science Daily - The Mind and Brain Section

I was turned on to this site by studying Kevin Hogan, a motivational hypnotist who practices NLP (basically Ericksonian stuff) and enhances his techniques (and develops new ones) with regular cutting-edge scientific information.

Here are a couple of articles from Science Daily that deal with DARPP-32.

Advice Vs. Experience: Genes Predict Learning Style

Structure for Three Intrinsically Disordered Proteins Determined

Kevin says he visits this site every day with his morning coffee to see what new things are happening in mankind's understanding of his own mind. This is a habit I am seriously considering adopting.

Michael

Thanks for the link to this informative site, Michael.

Here is an excerpt from one of the above links which sheds some light on the complexity of the issue:

From Advice Vs. Experience: Genes Predict Learning Style

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419205534.htm

Tradeoffs of adaptability

It may seem like having the genes for a strong-willed prefrontal cortex and an overly obsequious striatum could make people dangerously oblivious to reality, but Frank said there's a good reason for brains to be hardwired to believe in advice: Advice is often right and convenient.

People inclined to follow instructions from others, albeit to varying degrees based on their genes, can make sensible decisions much more quickly than if they had to learn the right thing to do from experience. In some cases (e.g., "Danger: high voltage") experience is a very dangerous way to learn. But in other cases (e.g. "The cable guy should be there at 1 p.m." or "This slot machine pays off"), believing in advice for too long is just foolish.

"It's funny because we are telling a story about how these genes lead to maladaptive performance, but that's actually reflective of a system that evolved to be that way for an adaptive reason," Frank said. "This phenomenon of confirmation bias might actually just be a byproduct of a system that tries to be more efficient with the learning process."

Edited May 2, 2011 by Xray

[IamBalSimon]

Great advice, Michael. Here are some of the science venues I frequent. And even then, I do so with a skeptic's eye because (1) they are not the 1st hand reports of scientific journals and more importantly (2) in the "mind" sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.), political correctness has a way of rearing its hideous ugly face and skewing the reporting of the data - sometimes to the point of lunacy. Next time I come across such a beast I'll try to remember to post it here.

Here's the list:

http://sciencedaily.com

http://scitechdaily.com (they also have a wealth of other science links: http://scitechdaily.com/resources.htm)

http://sciam.com (Scientific American)

http://www.scicentral.com/

http://www.popsci.com/ (Popular Science)

Just for fun: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/

One of the questions I would have of the authors, assuming the effect is real, is whether the effect "out in the wilds of normal society" is determinative or marginal in its effect. I suspect the answer would be marginal for most people and extreme for some cases. Then, of course, would be the follow-up question of the factors that move one from being marginally influenced to being highly determined by the effect. (Nature? Nurture? Evil Spirits? What?)

- Bal

[syrakusos]

Frankly, I do not suggest you get your science information from the mainstream press--except for a general notion of passing interest. I've been tripped up, myself ....

"Researchers at Brown University have found that ... The story they tell in a paper in the April 20 issue of the Journal of Neuroscience is one of the byplay between two brain regions ....

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110419205534.htm

It is the same story. It did not begin with the British newspaper; they only reported what came across their desk. The story is found on your highly-recommended "science" website almost verbatim.

Created by Canadian-American science writer/editor Dan Hogan and his wife Michele Hogan in December 1995, ScienceDaily has grown from a two-person operation to a news service with roughly 2,000 contributing organizations worldwide, partnerships with major content providers, and technical support services. The web site is produced out of ScienceDaily's main office in Rockville, Maryland just outside of Washington, D.C., and is hosted on dedicated servers provided by The Planet in Dallas, Texas.

It might well be praiseworthy, but it is still just a news digest. If you want to get past the mainstream media, then read the actual journal article itself, not a morning coffee pre-digested version of it.

Edited May 3, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... read the actual journal article itself, not a morning coffee pre-digested version of it.

Michael,

I agree with this--if I were eternal and had a lot more patience.

I find most scientific literature about as exciting as watching paint dry. But despite this, it is usually quite emotional. It makes me alternately feel like punching holes in the wall with my bare fists and screaming at the top of my lungs just to keep awake and sitting quietly in a corner pretending I am a door-hinge on a birdcage.

But there's even another consideration--value.

My own reason for reading this stuff is not academic, but practical. I am interested in Internet marketing. These findings are useful in copywriting and constructing information products in such a manner that people actually change using them (hopefully for the better ).

I am not clear about your objection to Science Daily. It is a specialized information aggregator site, not a research division of anything. It serves up-to-the-minute scientific information in bite-sized chunks to a target audience--and does it quite well. You seem to be objecting to it being what it is. But A is A, no sense trying to make it otherwise...

I merely suggested it to Chris if he wants to use something a bit more accurate than The Telegraph as basis for overhauling all of human nature and political institutions everywhere.

Michael

[caroljane]

For anyone who cares about creating a rational and free society, this is a very interesting discovery.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8461819/Yes-men-are-born-new-research-suggests.html

The gene means that like "a "yes man, who is flexible to a fault, the brain is more likely to be influenced by what it is told than what its experience tells it," the report said.

This study seems to back up something that I have long believed. It confirms that some people are simply unfit to live in a free society. Rand correctly observed that the choice to think or not to think is one of the most fundamental choices that we make. If genes are the reason that some people choose not to think, then it is obvious that those who do choose to think have to separate ourselves from those who do not. And that separation has to be permanent.

Everybody I asked thinks you should not be in charge of organizing a free society.

[IamBalSimon]

If genes are the reason that some people choose not to think, then it is obvious that those who do choose to think have to separate ourselves from those who do not. And that separation has to be permanent.

Hi Chris,

Why, exactly, is this obvious?

When he was a lad of about 5 years old, I began telling my son,

-------------------------

"There are 4 things you need to consider when evaluating whether you should hang out with someone (besides just liking him or her).

1 - Whether they have and use the brains that God gave them. (I do not mean God as God; it's just a colloquialism, OK?)

2 - What is in their hearts. (Another colloquialism, yes?)

3 - Who they hang out with. (Hang out with idiots and you set the bar for yourself far too low. Hang out with geniuses (if they'll let you) and you will find opportunities to excel that won't come any other way.)

4 - Whether they have communicable (especially airborne) diseases. (Family and others close to your heart form an exception to this rule as might professional responsibility.)"

-------------------------

The ability and performance of "thinking" does not guarantee good, high-fidelity, accurate thoughts. (GIGO still applies - and I think that is more obvious than anything this study might tell us.) But even with good, high-fidelity, accurate thoughts, IMO the other three factors still count bigtime.

I'd rather hang out with an ignorant, superstitious, out-in-the-sticks rube who happens to treat people decently, with honesty, has a light sense of humor, and a sense of the square deal than with some high-fallutin' gun-slinging, barbarian who happens to "think" original thoughts, who tells everyone "no" instead of "yes," has steely, shifty, beady little eyes, and wouldn't know how to square a deal if his mother's life depended on it. (Fortunately, most of the time, our choices aren't so binary.)

If you are saying that a "thinker" wouldn't do that, then I believe there's a semantic issue you need to address; namely that your definition of "think" and the definition of "think" used by the people performing the study (who likely are not Randian O-ists) probably are very different, meaning you can't get to your conclusion from their definition without some translation of their definition into your philosophical system.

- Bal

[Xray]

Funny comment by a blogger:

Further research: the "NO!" women.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8461819/Yes-men-are-born-new-research-suggests.html

Edited May 7, 2011 by Xray