Here is an anonymous comment in response to this essay I wrote:

You have an interesting spin on this study. The truth however is that “anterior cingulate cortex” Is why liberals are much more malleable and easier to manipulate. This is why its nearly impossible to find a self made successful liberal”statist”. Also the anterior cingulate cortex isn’t exactly “Higher intelligence” that would be the frontal lobe which the anterior cingulate cortex is only partially related. You also don’t seem to grasp from your article that the amygdala is also involved in connect both the right and left hemispheres of the brain combining emotions with logic. example: my dog is emotional not analytical. This is why liberals accept utopian arguments and seemingly disregard reality.

I find this spin not as much interesting as it is perplexing. I bring this up as an example of what I find typical and empty about internet comments in general. I come from an environment where signing your name and referencing your argument to notable sources is essential. A convincing argument must have a real author and real sources to justify its claims. A real author designates the seriousness of the claim and legitimate sources (not mired in mere apologetics) gives substance to the claims. I am not saying I always do this well but I do understand the need for it and make an attempt to do it. I always appreciate when others make me aware of my failing in this regard. In any case, here is a bit of my specific perplexities with this comment.

A statist is the idea that “a government should control either economic or social policy or both to some degree”. It is espoused by fascists in particular. This commenter appears to be conservative to me. Conservatives have mock posters of President Obama to make him look like Hitler. They are also constantly ragging him about using the government to control their lives. On the other hand, the commenter states that this, “is why its nearly impossible to find a self made successful liberal”statist””. Does the commenter want it both ways? Are we to believe that President Obama is one of those “impossible to find a self made successful liberal”statist”” AND “malleable and easier to manipulate”. This is a logical contradiction which is a hallmark of over-emotionality. Additionally, would the commenter suggest that the folks that voted for President Obama are “malleable and easier to manipulate”? If this is so, why is it that the successful conservative “statist” could not manipulate them into voting Republican? Are they not malleable to conservative devices only to liberal devices? The commenter’s statement does not account for the “statist’s” inability to manipulate liberals as they would like. This also appears logically inconsistent as the liberals ‘malleability’ appears not so malleable when it comes to the successful “statist” or the conservative pundit.

Additionally, the QUOTE “Higher intelligence” cannot be found anywhere in the essay I wrote. A quote is always meant to be verbatim. Perhaps the commenter has a private language that defines the quote differently. In any case, to the contrary, in the original comments I stated:

Oh, also, I did not think of these studies as giving any indication of intelligence. I think that was a leap on your part. I think the whole topic of intelligence is a can of worms (emotional, IQ, analytic, logical, poetic/artistic, folksy wisdom, etc.). I personally do not feel like these studies had anything to say about the intelligence of liberals or conservatives merely how they typically, in our particular present situation, handle making sense of their environment. There certainly is no claim to greater or lesser intelligence in the studies themselves…

The fact that the commenter read this article as a statement of ‘intelligence’ means the commenter really did not ‘grasp’ the article but only used it to give an occasion for some emotional issue the commenter must have with liberals.

I did state:

It [ACC] is responsible for higher cognitive learning – error correction is a big function of the anterior cingulate cortex.

It is backed up by this statement from the study:

The ACC has a variety of functions in the brain, including error detection, conflict monitoring1, and evaluating or weighing different competing choices. It’s also very important for both emotion regulation and cognitive control (often referred to as ‘executive functioning’)—controlling the level of emotional arousal or response to an emotional event (keeping it in check), as to allow your cognitive processes to work most effectively. (the source is in the article)

This Wiki link states:

Reward-based learning theory

A more comprehensive and recent theory describes the ACC as a more active component and poses that it detects and monitors errors, evaluates the degree of the error, and then suggests an appropriate form of action to be implemented by the motor system. Earlier evidence from electrical studies indicate the ACC has an evaluative component, which is indeed confirmed by fMRI studies. The dorsal and rostral areas of the ACC both seem to be affected by rewards and losses associated with errors. During one study, participants received monetary rewards and losses for correct and incorrect responses respectively.

Note: I always check WIKI sources for accuracy before I quote it.

I also made the point that the amygdale plays a vital role in long term memory with these quotes from the original sources (cited in my essay):

Although the amygdala is critical for fear conditioning, it also plays a broader, noncritical role in other types of learning and memory. The amygdala can modulate the function of other memory systems, particularly the hippocampal memory system necessary for declarative or episodic memory.

Investigations into the neural systems of fear conditioning have mapped the pathways for learning from stimulus input to response output. One finding that has emerged from this research is that information about the identity of a stimulus can reach the amygdala by more than one pathway. Romanski and LeDoux (1992) have shown that there are separate cortical and subcortical pathways to convey perceptual information to the amygdala. If one pathway is damaged, the other is sufficient to signal the presence of a conditioned stimulus and elicit a conditioned response. It has been suggested that these dual pathways may be adaptive (LeDoux, 1996). The amygdala responds to stimuli in the environment that represent potential threat. The amygdala then sends signals to other brain regions and the autonomic nervous system, preparing the animal to respond quickly. The subcortical pathway to the amygdala can provide only a crude estimation of the perceptual details of the stimulus, but it is very fast. The cortical pathway allows the stimulus to be fully processed, but it is somewhat slower. This crude, fast subcortical pathway may prepare the animal to respond more quickly if, when the stimulus is fully processed and identified by the cortical pathway, the threat turns out to be real.

More recent research with nonhuman animals has emphasized the amygdala’s role in emotional learning and memory. Work by Davis (1992), Kapp, Pascoe, and Bixler (1984), and LeDoux (1992) has shown that while the amygdala is not critical to express an emotional reaction to stimuli that are inherently aversive, it is critical for learned fear responses.

The amygdala is part of the limbic system, the area of the brain associated with emotions. The amygdala is important for formation of emotional memories and learning, such as fear conditioning, as well as memory consolidation. Emotions significantly impact how we process events; when we encounter something and have a strong emotional reaction—either positive or negative—that memory is strengthened.

The sources further states:

Too much emotion gets in the way of logical thinking, and disrupts cognitive processing. This is why in times of crisis, we learn to set aside our emotions in order to problem-solve our way out of a dangerous situation. Those with the ability to maintain low emotional arousal and have high cognitive control are generally better at handling conflict in the moment, plus tend to be the least permanently affected by trauma in the long term2. They tend to be more adaptable to changing situations (or have a higher tolerance for complexity), and have what we call cognitive flexibility.

The amygdala has many functions, including fear processing [11]. Individuals with a large amygdala are more sensitive to fear [12], which, taken together with our findings, might suggest the testable hypothesis that individuals with larger amygdala are more inclined to integrate conservative views into their belief system. Similarly, it is striking that conservatives are more sensitive to disgust [13, 14], and the insula is involved in the feeling of disgust [15]. On the other hand, our finding of an association between anterior cingulate cortex volume and political attitudes may be linked with tolerance to uncertainty. One of the functions of the anterior cingulate cortex is to monitor uncertainty [16, 17] and conflicts [18]. Thus, it is conceivable that individuals with a larger ACC have a higher capacity to tolerate uncertainty and conflicts, allowing them to accept more liberal views.

The commenter further states:

You also don’t seem to grasp from your article that the amygdala is also involved in connect both the right and left hemispheres of the brain combining emotions with logic.

A further source for the description of the amygdale is given here (many different sources are cited at the bottom of this link). There is nothing here suggesting “the amygdala is also involved in connect both the right and left hemispheres of the brain combining emotions with logic”. Perhaps the commenter is thinking about the corpus callosum in a different more evolved part of the brain that does connect the right and left hemispheres. There is also no mention of “combining emotions with logic” with regard to the amygdale. However, this is a primary function of the corpus callosum. I think the commenter may not have “grasped” this. Additionally, since the amygdale is 500 million years old it should suggest something about the “higher intelligence” and “logic” as the commenter writes in this part of the brain. All the sources I have seen suggest it has much more to do with long term recollection and emotion, especially of fear, which are related.

From these wrong premises the commenter concludes with, “This is why liberals accept utopian arguments and seemingly disregard reality”. I would suggest that wrong premises lead to wrong conclusions but this conclusion seems to stand apart from any previous premise and thereby, gives credence to the fact that if the commenter is conservative as it appears, is using the amygdale portion of the brain more than the ACC.

I must admit that I have seen these types of anonymous, un-sourced comments by both the left and right on the internet. Apparently, folks do not seem to realize that making things up off the top of their head is not the same as making a real and serious argument by a real and serious person. This type of behavior confuses readers. I think it is really primarily emotional. I have gone into this detail to highlight what I think is ‘critical thinking’. ‘Critical thinking’ means you lay down a personal, non-anonymous stake in the game and back it up with something outside of personal emotions. Emotion of this type may have a pretense to knowledge but, in the last analysis, is really only wishful and imaginary self-delusion. Additionally, I think an argument must have logical consistency such that conclusions follow from or are reinforced by premises and contradictory statements are avoided. I will grant that reading syllogisms can be really dull so the argument cannot be too formulaic to make it more palatable. I think it is also important to avoid informal fallacies which may be easier said than done. Informal fallacies may make the argument more fun for sympathetic readers but really take away from the formal credence of the argument.