Times are Hard

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by WTF

If you actually had any honor you would not be bringing up the Marine Corp on a hooker board in a discussion such as this towards your fellow citizens.

I don't see anything in the US Constitution making P4P illegal. It's a hell of a lot more honest than a politician prostituting to special interest groups instead of being Representative to their constituencies. As far as I know and I could be wrong, I don't believe there are any FEDERAL laws making it illegal. It's the states and the people under the 9th and 10th amendments who made it what it is today.

Therfore, in your mind only, the D's are the majority and IF they were the freedom minded individuals YOU think they are, why haven't the laws prohibiting P4P been abolished? I am libertarian minded and believe the prohibitive laws should be abolished. i.e., true freedom of choice.

[Doove]

Originally Posted by Jdriller

His opinion is not important to me and matters not.

Then why the post?

He also does not believe there is rampant waste in government spending, including fraud.

Where did i say that? But as WTF pointed out, there's fraud everywhere, including the military. If you wanna eliminate the fraud, and can figure out how, by all means, knock yourself out. But if your solution is to eliminate the program altogether, i'll oppose you. Strenuously.

He also does not believe in a strong military as a deterrent to our many enemies.

I didn't say that either. Boy, you just can't stop making shit up, can ya? I just happen to think we can accomplish it by spending only 2X what the next largest country spends, we don't need to spend 8X what the next largest country spends. You know, fraud and all that....

He probably does not believe one should have to show an ID to vote.

I think the signature that i provide when i vote should be ID enough.

I doubt he has ever served his country in the military.

Finally, you got one right.

Originally Posted by JONBALLS

Driller,You dont owe ANYONE , ESPECIALLY Doove, an explanation for your beliefs and work history.

No, he doesn't. But when he makes a claim about himself, then makes a statement that shows he has no clue about the realities concerning that claim, i'll question whether or not he's honest about himself.

If i claimed that Buffalo was a 20 minute drive from NYC, then tried to claim i lived in Buffalo to attempt to give myself some credibility in matters regarding NYS, you'd call me a liar. Pretty simple concept.

Originally Posted by Jdriller

There is a lot of talk about raising taxes by closing tax loop holes. One of the "loop holes" is elimination of the tax break afforded to home owners for their interest and taxes paid on their homes.....Eliminating this tax break will hurt the middle class far more than the "rich".

Being one who tries to not talk out of his ass (unlike some), i'll clarify this by suggesting it's only in the plans i've heard discussed.....but....."closing " the loop hole you're referring to would, in reality, consist of a cap on the deduction that can be taken - say, interest up to $500,000. And only on one home. So it wouldn't affect the middle class like you claim.

The rush to raise revenue by raising taxes will not really hurt the rich all that much.

Damn good thing, too. Wouldn't want them to be punished for being successful.

I have also read that the insurance coverage you will be by law mandated to carry, if paid for by your employer will have to reported as part of your income, and thus you will have to pay additional income tax on that too.

Again, it will be set up as a cap on what's not considered taxable. At least according to the plans i've heard discussed.

Again, this won't hurt the poor who don't pay income taxes nor the "rich" people either. But, it will be a hit on the middle class.

So no.

Those of you who clamor for raising taxes better be careful about what you wish for.

And i'm sure you'll figure out a way to lay all the blame on the Democrats for these phantom middle class tax increases you attempt to lay out.

You can't have it both ways. Taxes are going to go up. Probably on everybody. But make no mistake, they are going up - because they have to. So if you want to defend not raising taxes on the rich, as you've done, don't bitch and moan if/when taxes get raised on the middle class, rather than the rich. It's that simple.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

I am libertarian minded and believe the prohibitive laws should be abolished. i.e., true freedom of choice.

True libertarians do not believe in waging unprovoked wars, (Iraq did not attack us)....especially unfunded ones!

The wars you support have cost more lives and restricted more freedoms than you will ever understand.

You are a Republican dressed in libertarian talk.

I would cut all programs, I would quit policing the world. We spend way to much money on our military and the Defense Industry. SS and Medicare is presently OVER funded. It is your beloved military that has overspent.

You are a selective libertarian....which is to say not one at all.

[DFW5Traveler]

Originally Posted by WTF

True libertarians do not believe in waging unprovoked wars, (Iraq did not attack us)....especially unfunded ones!

The wars you support have cost more lives and restricted more freedoms than you will ever understand.

You are a Republican dressed in libertarian talk. (you only wish I was because I detest you and your typical left wing retoric)

I would cut all programs, I would quit policing the world. We spend way to much money on our military and the Defense Industry. SS and Medicare is presently OVER funded. It is your beloved military that has overspent. (you are damned right about this, but I'd bet you wouldn't cut the EPA, FDA, DoEducation, DoEnergy, obamacare, or any other bureacracy that is wasteful. There is a need for defense, but our current prez is depleting weapon stocks without replacing them. Weapon stocks are a deterence; Article One Section Eight, i.e., provide for the common defence which would include our own borders.)

You are a selective libertarian....which is to say not one at all. (I'm a constitutionalist and every left/right test online places me smack-dab in the middle. It's you that is truly selective about the US Constitution.)

Uhmm, you'll have to refresh our collective memories about iraq, but I've never been pro-iraq war. You really need to stop projecting stereotypes onto me. As a matter of fact I posted a link on this site where Ron Paul read off charges against B-41 after April Gillespie hand delivered a letter to Sadam or his envoy that practically gave him the green light to invade kuwait. There would have never been a need for the second invasion of iraq without the resulting sanctions after the first invasion.

Either you truly have selective memory or you just can't absorb fact. Either way, you really need to get a grip.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by DFW5Traveler

. (I'm a constitutionalist and every left/right test online places me smack-dab in the middle. It's you that is truly selective about the US Constitution.)

You need to understand how your beliefs actually shape your facts. Shermer has written a great book I hear. I am going to read it but really it is folks like you that really need to read more.

http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher...380&isRss=true

STOSSEL: Your book's subtitle is "How we construct believes and reinforce them as truths."

SHERMER: How we're raised, and peer groups, and whatnot shape our beliefs.

STOSSEL: You write it's a myth that the founding fathers were believing Christians. I thought they were.

SHERMER: They were deists, liberal Christians. They had a general belief in a creator but nothing like modern evangelical Christians.

STOSSEL: How do you know it is not the case?

SHERMER: We have their letters, their diaries, they told us what they believe.

STOSSEL: But "In God we Trust" has been on the currency since 1850s.

SHERMER: The beautiful thing about constitution, our founders were scientists, they could talk about the American experiment. They said look we don't know how to govern. Let's set it up in a way that can change and collect new data and rerun. They are called elections. We will try to tweak the variables and this tax rate and that legal system, and change it, if it does not go well, science works that way. We don't know the truth. We just try to understand how the world works, I really think that democracy and science are closely related.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're a hypocrite. Evidently, you've already forgoten these remarks where you criticized Lauren:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=21

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...1&postcount=27

You badgered her every post until she left Eccie. These posts were just the final straw.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You are deflecting. You are the one who drove Lauren from the board.

I B , I will not go ignore you on this issue. You compared me to Marshall. He insulted a woman's profession to gain advantage in a debate.

I never did that with Lauren Summerhill.

I challenge you to find any posts of mine doing so.


Did I ever start a thread bragging out being correct predicting when someone would die?

Did I ever start a thread making fun of people's videos, what they would consider their art?

The answer is no but if I make fun of a person who does those things, one who constantly talked about respect and human dignity and then brags about participating on a bet that she correctly predicting Amy Winehouse would be the next
celebrity to die... I am responsible for their leaving?

I point out hypocrisy, it is what I love to do. Is it my fault she was the Queen of hypocrisy? Had she not been such a hypocrite, I never would have posted a thing to her. Neither her body nor brain did it for me.


Apologize for your lie or prove me wrong and I will apologize.

Until that time, I will continue to give my old friend atlcomedy something to chuckle over.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WTF

You need to understand how your beliefs actually shape your facts. Shermer has written a great book I hear. I am going to read it but really it is folks like you that really need to read more.

You would do well to heed your own advice. Perhaps you could start with Thomas Jefferson’s The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, also known as The Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson troubled himself to edit the Gospels, omitting all third person references, so that he could personally study and reflect on only the moral and ethical teachings of Jesus contained in the Bible. On January 9, 1816, Thomas Jefferson wrote to one Charles Thomson saying:

“I, too, have made a wee-little book [The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth] from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus . . .” (Source: Jefferson, Thomas. The Jefferson Bible: The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. New York: Henry Holt and Company. 1995. pp. ix-x)

Regarding Shermer: This is what some other readers have to say about Shermer’s latest book.

“I have not found any credentials as a Master or PhD that back-up all his theoretical endeavor. Furthermore, I have not read any research(es) he has been involved with. Then, where are his theories and approaches coming from. It seems that he honestly and openly exposes his own conclusions and beliefs; no experience as an active researcher in any specialized Biology field, at all. . . the impression was exactly that, I was having the information from someone own perspective. Besides, many important and updated scientific articles and books are missing from his bibliography; only those focused on his manuscript are mentioned.” You know what they say about "birds of a feather" don't you WTF?

“I'm a high school psychology teacher, so I'm always looking for books that will expand my knowledge base but not be so technical as to be over my head. This book was really disappointing in almost every respect. . . The actual neuroscience in the book could be summarized in about five pages. In fact, the neuroscience covered in this book is covered in the survey text used in my high school class. Very simplistic, not very original science. The rest of the book is more information about the author's personal beliefs, pet peeves, etc. Interestingly, when discussing theories he is critical of, the author holds studies to a very high standard, but when discussing his own theory, he references studies and concepts that often do not reach the same level of rigor. In fact, some of his discussions about certain regions of the brain being responsible for highly complex thought patterns is the exact type of modern phrenology that makes most modern neuroscientists cringe.”

“Shermer briefly, but briefly talks about Kahneman's and Tversky's study in behavioral economics (without also citing Dan Ariely, among others). One will learn much more about how irrational human behavior is in matters of economics, and related psychology, by going to the source. Shermer could have had a better book with a whole chapter just on this field. So, why didn't he? I suspect because he knows how totally behavioral economics chops into little bitty pieces the claims of his beloved Ayn Rand and the Austrian School of Economics.” You are into Ayn Rand and the Austrian School of Economics?

http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brai...rBy=addOneStar

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Regarding Shermer: This is what some other readers have to say about Shermer’s latest book.

“I have not found any credentials as a Master or PhD that back-up all his theoretical endeavor. Furthermore, I have not read any research(es) he has been involved with. Then, where are his theories and approaches coming from. It seems that he honestly and openly exposes his own conclusions and beliefs; no experience as an active researcher in any specialized Biology field, at all. . . the impression was exactly that, I was having the information from someone own perspective. Besides, many important and updated scientific articles and books are missing from his bibliography; only those focused on his manuscript are mentioned.” You know what they say about "birds of a feather" don't you WTF?

“I'm a high school psychology teacher, so I'm always looking for books that will expand my knowledge base but not be so technical as to be over my head. This book was really disappointing in almost every respect. . . The actual neuroscience in the book could be summarized in about five pages. In fact, the neuroscience covered in this book is covered in the survey text used in my high school class. Very simplistic, not very original science. The rest of the book is more information about the author's personal beliefs, pet peeves, etc. Interestingly, when discussing theories he is critical of, the author holds studies to a very high standard, but when discussing his own theory, he references studies and concepts that often do not reach the same level of rigor. In fact, some of his discussions about certain regions of the brain being responsible for highly complex thought patterns is the exact type of modern phrenology that makes most modern neuroscientists cringe.”

“Shermer briefly, but briefly talks about Kahneman's and Tversky's study in behavioral economics (without also citing Dan Ariely, among others). One will learn much more about how irrational human behavior is in matters of economics, and related psychology, by going to the source. Shermer could have had a better book with a whole chapter just on this field. So, why didn't he? I suspect because he knows how totally behavioral economics chops into little bitty pieces the claims of his beloved Ayn Rand and the Austrian School of Economics.”

http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brai...rBy=addOneStar

32 Reviews

5 star: (19)
4 star: (4)
3 star: (3)
2 star: (2)
1 star: (4)

26 out of 32 gave 3 stars or more. @60% of the reviewers gave it 5 stars. I think posting one of the 5 star reviews is enough.

"The Believing Brain" is a fantastic and ambitious book that explains the nature of beliefs. Mr. Shermer provides his theory of belief and with great expertise and skill provides compelling arguments and practical examples in explaining how the process of belief works. He applies his theory to a wide range of types of beliefs and does so with mastery. This excellent 400 page-book is composed of the following four parts: Part I. Journeys of Belief, Part II. The Biology of Belief, Part III. Belief in Things Unseen, and Part IV. Belief in Things Seen.

Positives:
1. A fascinating
topic in the hands of a master of his craft.
2. Well-written, well-researched, engaging and accessible book. Bravo!
3. Great, logical format. Good use of illustrations.
4. Great use of popular culture to convey sophisticated concepts in an accessible manner.
5. Establishes his theory early on and then proceeds like a great architect building his masterpiece.
6. Great quotes from many great minds, including some of his own, "What I want to believe based on emotions and what I should believe based on evidence do not always coincide. I'm a skeptic not because I do not want to believe but because I want to know".
7. Answers the question of "Why we believe" to complete satisfaction.
8. A thorough explanation on what the brain is.
9. The first of four parts of this book starts off with three distinctly different routes to belief, including his own revealing journey to beliefs.
10. The concept of patternicity defined. A great take at why our brains evolved to assume that all patterns are real.
11. Insightful and thought-provoking, consider the following "The problem we face is that superstition and belief in magic are millions of years old, whereas science, with its methods of controlling for intervening variables to circumvent false positives, is only a few hundred years old".
12. Where would we be without evolution? Great use of science from the best scientific minds.
13. The concept of agenticity defined and how patternicity and agenticity form the cognitive basis for various "spiritualisms".
14. The evidence that brain and mind are one is now overwhelming. Great examples in support of the aforementioned assertion.
15. Great tidbits of knowledge throughout, "what people remember happening rarely corresponds to what actually happened".
16. Provides four great explanations for the sensed-presence effect found in the brain. With plenty of fascinating examples.
17. The mind in its proper context.
18. In order to understand beliefs you must understand neurons.
19. Dopamine...the belief drug. A lot of interesting facts.
20. Great explanation on why dualism is intuitive and monism counterintuitive.
21. The theory of mind and agenticity.
22. Enlightening look at why belief comes quickly and naturally while skepticism is slow and unnatural.
23. The afterlife chapter is one of my favorite chapters of this book...worth the price of admission.
24. Six solid reasons why people believe there is life after death.
25. The case for the existence of the afterlife around four lines of evidence and the thorough debunking that follows.
26. Compelling explanations for Near-Death Experiences (NDEs).
27. Ditto for Out-of-Body Experiences (OBEs).
28. A compelling explanation of, why do so many people believe in God?
29. Three lines of evidence that supernatural beliefs are hardwired into our brains. Great stuff.
30. The compelling evidence that humans created gods and not vice versa.
31. Great explanation on the difference between agnosticism versus atheism.
32. Mr. Shermer's last law, an interesting take. I will not spoil it here.
33. Interesting tidbits on Einstein who is always fascinating.
34. The supernatural in proper context.
35. Science as the best tool ever in devising how the world works.
36. Interesting chapter on aliens.
37. Conspiracy theories and what characteristics indicate they are likely untrue.
38. Fascinating look at the 9/11 "conspiracy".
39. How conspiracies actually work.
40. Mr. Shermer even delves in the world of politics. Liberals versus conservatives.
41. A realistic visions of human nature and why it would help understand one another.
42. A dozen essentials to liberty and freedom. Democracy a different perspective.
43. Interesting look at how our brains convince us that we are always right.
44. Explanation of a series of biases: confirmation bias, hindsight bias, self-justification bias, attribution bias, sunk-coast bias, status-quo bias, anchoring bias, representative bias, inattentional blindness bias, and more...
45. Why science is the ultimate bias-detection machine.
46. Awesome belief history on exploration: Columbus, Galileo, Bacon...
47. Astronomy...beliefs and historical debates.
48. Good use of previous knowledge of biases to help understand data.
49. Red shifts and other astronomical hypotheses explained, and the photograph that changed the universe.
50. The greatest unsolved mystery.
51. Links worked great!
52. An intellectual treat from cover to cover!

Negatives:
1. Having to buy extra copies to share with close friends.
2. Having to wait for Mr. Shermer's next book.

In summary, this may be Michael Shermer's greatest book. This book feels like a labor of love in which Mr. Shermer is able to match his accumulation of prodigious knowledge and his lucid thoughts in total harmony. This book not only met my high expectations it exceeded it, I couldn't put it down. Thought-provoking, enlightening and a joy to read. I can't recommend this book enough, kudos to Mr. Shermer for a great accomplishment.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

26 out of 32 gave 3 stars or more. @60% of the reviewers gave it 5 stars. I think posting one of the 5 star reviews is enough.

Stephen King is also a popular writer, but he is not known for his scholarship. So what is your point? Nearly one third of the reviewers at Amazon rate the book as average or below average. The three Amazon critiques cited at post #262 are questioning the scholarship of the book (and these weren’t the only ones to do so). Shermer's other books have been similarly critiqued for factual errors and lack of scholarship (see @ Amazon). If you want weak scholarship, go ahead and buy his books. “Ignorance is bliss,” as they say, and that would suit WTF - and you - just fine.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Stephen King is also a popular writer, but he is not known for his scholarship. So what is your point? Nearly one third of the reviewers at Amazon rate the book as average or below average. The three Amazon critiques cited at post #262 are questioning the scholarship of the book (and these weren’t the only ones to do so). Shermer's other books have been similarly critiqued for factual errors and lack of scholarship (see @ Amazon). If you want weak scholarship, go ahead and buy his books. “Ignorance is bliss,” as they say, and that would suit WTF - and you - just fine.

His book is about beliefs and how we shape our view of facts around our beliefs.

I clearly stated I had not read his book but planned to.

Originally Posted by WTF

You need to understand how your beliefs actually shape your facts. Shermer has written a great book I hear. I am going to read it but really it is folks like you that really need to read more.

.[/quote]

I find that concept fascinating.

A concept that we discount facts because of our belief system.

You seem to be walking proof. You clearly have not read the book and quickly go to sources to back up your belief.

None of which discounted the books contention , nor the books on the founding fathers.

You sir are exactly what a book like that is written for.

You do not believe in science, you believe in some pie in the sky.

You believe that Lauren Summerhill was ran off this site by me.

You believe that she is a great person who cares about human dignity , yet she joins in on a bets guessing when the next person will die. Proof that she does not believe in human dignity, she only wants enough people (that she can con out of their money) to believe that she believes in human dignity, You being one of them , though I doubt that you have enough money to do the trick....no pun intended. Kyra Graves appears much more worthy of your defense.

There are many differences between you and I , one being I do not have to kiss a narcissistic woman's ass online to fuel my need to communicate with a woman....any woman in your case. You really need to join some self help group and find a mate to raise your self esteem. Though , you will find that raising your self esteem means you do not have to kiss ass or find a mate. You will then be able see things for what they are, not what you believe them to be.

First though I recommend you read the very book you are denouncing to see how your false beliefs are leading you astray from science and facts. Facts like the founding fathers are such great men that had your interests at heart or that Lauren Summerhill believes in human diginity.

btw....you really are doing LS a disservice by not apologizing to me. I had no reason to ever bring her name up nor would I ever again were you to do the right thing.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Stephen King is also a popular writer, but he is not known for his scholarship. So what is your point? Nearly one third of the reviewers at Amazon rate the book as average or below average. The three Amazon critiques cited at post #262 are questioning the scholarship of the book (and these weren’t the only ones to do so). Shermer's other books have been similarly critiqued for factual errors and lack of scholarship (see @ Amazon). If you want weak scholarship, go ahead and buy his books. “Ignorance is bliss,” as they say, and that would suit WTF - and you - just fine.

Actually Stephen King is known for correct details in his books.

The point is the same as it normally is. You rely on the “minority report”.

The review I included stated the reasons why the reviewer liked it. The reviews you included had complaints about the bibliography, not quoting an individual, about his scholarship without specific examples, etc. You know, the kind of review you would write. No details, no links, nothing to back up what he says except his opinion. Which is OK for a book report and a hooker board. As usual, your opinion has clouded your view. All of the editorial reviews are good. The vast majority of customer reviews are 3 stars or higher, with averages consistently above 4 stars. He has a master’s in experimental psychology and a Ph.D. in the history of science. If you looked into his background you would see he hasn’t spent his life with his nose in a book.

You describe your own posts when you write, “have been similarly critiqued for factual errors and lack of scholarship”.
You are a good example of the arrogance of ignorance.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

Actually Stephen King is known for correct details in his books. You don't really intend to argue that King's books are completely factual do you? He is, after all, really well known for his flights of fancy.

The point is the same as it normally is. You rely on the “minority report”. See below.

The review I included stated the reasons why the reviewer liked it. The reviews you included had complaints about the bibliography, not quoting an individual, about his scholarship without specific examples, etc. You know, the kind of review you would write. No details, no links, nothing to back up what he says except his opinion. Which is OK for a book report and a hooker board. As usual, your opinion has clouded your view. All of the editorial reviews are good. The vast majority of customer reviews are 3 stars or higher, with averages consistently above 4 stars. He has a master’s in experimental psychology and a Ph.D. in the history of science. If you looked into his background you would see he hasn’t spent his life with his nose in a book.

You describe your own posts when you write, “have been similarly critiqued for factual errors and lack of scholarship”.
You are a good example of the arrogance of ignorance.

Here’s another critique for you:

“Where do I even start? I guess with the brain, since that is my speciality. The book is called "The Believing Brain", so one might expect the book to be about how the brain constructs beliefs. There is actually very little of that, and when Shermer does invoke neuroscience it is maddeningly simplistic - of the 'activity in area X, which is involved in Y' variety. There are many examples of bad pop neuroscience in this book, so I will just pick a couple: the anterior cingulate cortex as a 'Where's Waldo detection device'?? "Dopamine - the belief drug?" While Shermer does cite a couple studies on the effect of dopamine on belief, to suggest that dopamine is somehow the key player, worse yet 'the belief drug', is absurdly simplistic and misleading. If we are going to pinpoint a neuromodulator, what of the serotonergic system, the common target of most hallucinogenic drugs? Schizophrenia, which Shermer mentions, affects far more than the dopaminergic system, e.g. cortical NMDA receptors. Anyone interested in a serious discussion on how the schizophrenic brain forms beliefs should seek out the Bayesian perspective of Fletcher and Frith. I won't get into the anterior cingulate, for the simple reason that I don't think anyone has a coherent view of it yet, but it most certainly is not a 'Where's Waldo detection device.' That's an uncritical and bad pop adaptation of a poor theory. With such simplistic and superficial treatments, Shermer misses an opportunity to discuss how the brain actually forms beliefs - that is by probabilistic and hierarchical neocortical inference of sensory and subcortical inputs.

Of course, it doesn't really matter, since this is not a book about the brain. It is really a book about Michael Shermer - e.g. what he believes and doesn't, what television shows he's been on, how much hate mail he has received, how many times he has biked across the country. He evidently has a very high opinion of himself, constantly referring to common hypotheses as 'my theory', 'my thesis' and citing his prior books as though they were major scientific treatises. A trivial corollary of Clark's Law is even referred to as "Shermer's last law" (any sufficiently advanced extra-terrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God). For what does he hold himself in such esteem? For simple smackdowns of alien abductees and 9/11 truthers? For his "realistic vision" of human society that "acknowledges that people vary widely both physically and intellectually... Therefore governmental redistribution programs are not only unfair to those from whom the wealth is confiscated and redistributed, but the allocation of the wealth to those who did not earn it cannot and will not work to equalize these natural inequalities." But don't worry, Shermer assures you that he is fair and balanced - after all, he "doesn't even listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore." Shermer cites Stephen Pinker's 'The Blank Slate' as brilliant, but given his simplistic links between human nature and politics one has to wonder if he even read the book. Since his thesis concerns how humans believe irrationally, it would be nice if Shermer held his own naive libertarianism up to some scrutiny.”

http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brai...rBy=addTwoStar

Now consider, using your very simpleton logic, everyone should run right out and buy Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon, by Gretchen Morgenson.

Here’s how the reviews stacked up:

5 star: (45)
4 star: (14)
3 star: (4)
2 star: (5)
1 star: (9)

And the individual cited below gave the book “two stars.”

“Read the Prologue to Reckless Endangerment and you learn that Barney Frank, James Johnson and Bill Clinton caused the 2008 economic crash.”

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endan...rBy=addTwoStar

Per your simpleton argument that reviewer should be ignored. Per your simpleton argument you should rush right out and buy the book. According to you this book is obviously good and factually accurate because those people who favored the book out number those who find fault with the book. Pardon, but it’s your arrogant ignorance that is showing.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Per your simpleton argument that reviewer should be ignored. Per your simpleton argument you should rush right out and buy the book. According to you this book is obviously good and factually accurate because those people who favored the book out number those who find fault with the book.

Thay is not what Munchmasterman said....

The book I recommended premise was that people do not understand scientific analysis.

Something you prove with every post.

You fit facts into your belief system.

You think Reagan brought down the Soviet Union. Low oil prices did. The ME did not like them in Afghanistan.

Yet you will not look at the facts because it collides with your belief system.

You think lower taxes are always the answer...yet that is not what the Laffer Curve states. That only works if taxes are to high. If the tax rate is to low raising taxes is actually the answer.

That reality does not fit into your belief system.

Therefore you believe in beliefs and I try to deal in facts or science.

You do to when it comes down to it. When you are sick you go to a doctor trained in the sciences. Not God to heal you.

If you believe that Lauren Summerhill gives a fuc about you, you are believing in another fairy tale. Narcissist do not care about anything other than their reflection. You put any ripples in her reflective pond and you'll soon find out my science on the matter.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Here’s another critique for you:

“Where do I even start? I guess with the brain, since that is my speciality. The book is called "The Believing Brain", so one might expect the book to be about how the brain constructs beliefs. There is actually very little of that, and when Shermer does invoke neuroscience it is maddeningly simplistic - of the 'activity in area X, which is involved in Y' variety. There are many examples of bad pop neuroscience in this book, so I will just pick a couple: the anterior cingulate cortex as a 'Where's Waldo detection device'?? "Dopamine - the belief drug?" While Shermer does cite a couple studies on the effect of dopamine on belief, to suggest that dopamine is somehow the key player, worse yet 'the belief drug', is absurdly simplistic and misleading. If we are going to pinpoint a neuromodulator, what of the serotonergic system, the common target of most hallucinogenic drugs? Schizophrenia, which Shermer mentions, affects far more than the dopaminergic system, e.g. cortical NMDA receptors. Anyone interested in a serious discussion on how the schizophrenic brain forms beliefs should seek out the Bayesian perspective of Fletcher and Frith. I won't get into the anterior cingulate, for the simple reason that I don't think anyone has a coherent view of it yet, but it most certainly is not a 'Where's Waldo detection device.' That's an uncritical and bad pop adaptation of a poor theory. With such simplistic and superficial treatments, Shermer misses an opportunity to discuss how the brain actually forms beliefs - that is by probabilistic and hierarchical neocortical inference of sensory and subcortical inputs.

Of course, it doesn't really matter, since this is not a book about the brain. It is really a book about Michael Shermer - e.g. what he believes and doesn't, what television shows he's been on, how much hate mail he has received, how many times he has biked across the country. He evidently has a very high opinion of himself, constantly referring to common hypotheses as 'my theory', 'my thesis' and citing his prior books as though they were major scientific treatises. A trivial corollary of Clark's Law is even referred to as "Shermer's last law" (any sufficiently advanced extra-terrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God). For what does he hold himself in such esteem? For simple smackdowns of alien abductees and 9/11 truthers? For his "realistic vision" of human society that "acknowledges that people vary widely both physically and intellectually... Therefore governmental redistribution programs are not only unfair to those from whom the wealth is confiscated and redistributed, but the allocation of the wealth to those who did not earn it cannot and will not work to equalize these natural inequalities." But don't worry, Shermer assures you that he is fair and balanced - after all, he "doesn't even listen to Rush Limbaugh anymore." Shermer cites Stephen Pinker's 'The Blank Slate' as brilliant, but given his simplistic links between human nature and politics one has to wonder if he even read the book. Since his thesis concerns how humans believe irrationally, it would be nice if Shermer held his own naive libertarianism up to some scrutiny.”

http://www.amazon.com/Believing-Brai...rBy=addTwoStar

Now consider, using your very simpleton logic, everyone should run right out and buy Reckless Endangerment: How Outsized Ambition, Greed, and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon, by Gretchen Morgenson.

Here’s how the reviews stacked up:

5 star: (45)
4 star: (14)
3 star: (4)
2 star: (5)
1 star: (9)

And the individual cited below gave the book “two stars.”

“Read the Prologue to Reckless Endangerment and you learn that Barney Frank, James Johnson and Bill Clinton caused the 2008 economic crash.”

http://www.amazon.com/Reckless-Endan...rBy=addTwoStar

Per your simpleton argument that reviewer should be ignored. Per your simpleton argument you should rush right out and buy the book. According to you this book is obviously good and factually accurate because those people who favored the book out number those who find fault with the book. Pardon, but it’s your arrogant ignorance that is showing.

Sorry bud. I was referring to the original book in the post. The book isn't a course matter reference or class text book. So you don't like it. Big deal, get over it.
You just had a chance to show your knowledge of brain chemistry. For the lay-person, the term "experience" is close enough to what you said (everyone knows the pyramidal tracts are a housing development outside of Cairo). And before you start bitching about that choice of word for the chemical process of imprinting, I bet there is another word similar to experience that lops a semester of reading off the table. They don't need in depth biology classes to catch the gist of the subject. Books are written for different levels of readers with different backgrounds. Get over it.

Showing the review wasn't part of some plan to be used to buy books. Trying to extend a book review to cover all aspects of purchasing books is pretty simplistic, don't you think? I showed a review that was well thought out and with lots of details. Opinion, remember?

The bottom line here is that you disagree with the majority of the reviewers. This isn't a text book. It's a person's take on an inexact science. A book he want to sell to more than 50 people. He has tried to make it informative for people who don't have a huge background in biology. Not being simplistic, just realistic.

You can't seem to tell the two apart.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You know what they say about "birds of a feather" don't you WTF?

Yea... that Kookoo birds like you should be locked up in a cage and force fed a dose of reality before you become certified DoDo Birds.

How's that SR? I quoted the nut case that lied about me running Lauren Summerhill off. Had you and him kept your mouths shut about me on another place, I would never have to address you again.

Here is a philosophical question for you two birds of a feather....

Would it be diginified for me to start a betting pool on who the next lady that works in this profession death will be?

Keep in mind that I do not go 'round preaching about human diginity. I actually do have a sense of humor and make jokes about all things including myself. But were I known to be so proactive on the human diginity thing...would you two rocket scientist think it proper.

Now I will start quoting I B until he answers me. I had no idea you would twist my quotes of myself trying to get I B to back up his accusation with facts into a comparison of me and Marshall on another board.

Why would either of you wanna do that? I have left you and others well enough alone until you brought me up. Can't ya'll get along just fine without me?