12.30.2010 08:01 AM

Help wanted

A Toronto-based PR/GR firm is looking for a bright young consultant with a Conservative (or conservative) pedigree. If you know such a person, send along a CV to wkinsella@hotmail.com.


  1. Anne Peterson says:

    Are you sure you want a conservative? I don’t suppose this will be written about in the Canadian MSM but a study was done at University College London Institue of Cognitive Sciences which discovered through brain imaging that conservatives have larger fear centers in their brains (amygdalas) which is associated with imagining worst case scenarios and also a smaller anterior cingulate – the part of the brain responsible for courage and optimism. No wonder they run scared and terrorised all the time. Guess that tells us why the prisons and jets are so important to them.

    They also discovered that liberals have larger anterior cortexes – the region associated with decision making linked to complicated facts.

  2. smelter rat says:

    I suppose Ezra might be looking for work 😉

  3. Anne Peterson says:

    It it’s true? It is true. Read the web site. And I don’t think your bafflegab quite accounts for it.

    • Namesake says:

      More B.S.

      Not that I’m in favour of the procedure, of course, but far from being a “singular” study, thousands of lobotomies were performed, and, yes, they did bring demonstrable, lasting behavioural changes to schizophrenics (albeit thru drastic, barbaric, ill-considered means), but more importantly:

      The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine that the Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz received in 1949 for his development of the prefrontal leucotomy has NOT been rescinded (although there have been many calls for that to happen).

  4. Namesake says:

    What a bullshitter you are. Having a larger fear-based responding, more primitive part of the brain is indicative of having more life experience and shows they’ve learned to be less risk aversive, blah blah blah?! And then you try to foist eugenics arguments onto the person who merely reported that some differences were found?

    Anyhow, as with most university psychology studies, the subjects were all university students, probably in a very narrow age range (i.e., around 20) & likely with a similar range of experiences re: what they’ve tried & failed. http://urlm.in/gneu


    • Namesake says:

      That wasn’t an ad hominem.

      It would be if I’d tried to just duck your conclusion and said something like, “Don’t believe Tulk — he’s a well-known bullshitter.”

      Rather, it was an argument for the fact that you ARE a bullshitter,* as evidenced by the fact that the actual circumstances of the subjects of the study — which you appeared to know nothing about — bore little to no resemblance to the conclusions you were extemporaneously drawing about them.

      And now I’ll be able to link back to this exchange to make future uses of the line in the second par. far less of an ad hom., as well.

      * i.e., someone who “present[s] evidence of an understanding of form in the hope that the reader may be deceived into supposing a familiarity with content… [and] generally either knows the statements are likely false, exaggerated, and in other ways misleading or has no interest in their factual accuracy one way or the other ” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit

  5. allegra fortissima says:

    Totally happy with my larger anterior cortex 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.