--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > And this insightful analysis from a commenter > > > on Kevin Drum's Political Animal blog: > > > > > > "What the study seems to be saying is that the people who are > > > great liars have less grey matter to work with, which is the > > > element that does the serious calculating work, so it's > > > terrifically harder for them to work out the actual truth of > > > something, but really easy to make up a great story about it, > > > a story that outwardly fits tightly to the few most obvious > > > facts which are all they can really determine." > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/c9f82 > > > > This would imply that "liars" may not be consciously deciding > > to lie. They simply are a bit dimwitted (less grey matter) but > > are clever,have a gift for gab (more white matter). That is, > > they simply don't "get" many things, but are good at spinning > > compelling stories about the quite limited stuff they do get. > > Great minds... I just made the same point in another > post. > > > I know some,perhaps many, that appear to fit that model. > > However, there are some to whom this model applies > who *also* tell outright, very conscious lies.
A fuller model is to view it as a matrix, say 3x3, like a tic-tac-toe board. Grey matter (processing power) on one axis, white (connectivity) on another. 1 being lowest, 3 highest, with grey matter being denoted first. A 3,3 at upper right cell, is brillant and articulate. A 1,1 at lower left cell is dimwitted and slow of tongue. A large portion of the population are 2,2 -- the center square. A 3,1 is the brilliant professor, who can't lecture for shyte. A 1,3 is perhaps a low-level comic -- spinning good tales but no real insight. Or some politicians. GWB might be a 1.3. Though probably a 1,2 or 1,1. Though its not as simple as this model suggests, I presume. Great discoveries and artistic leaps are due to greater connectivity, as far as I have read. Maybe a different type of connectivity than the "gift for gabbers". Einstein and Darwin had many more enlivened synapes (connectivity) than your average professor, I specualate. The former made great leaps, connecting stuff others had not previously. While the heavy grey matter types, but low connectivity types are good researchers, pushing science (or art) ahead a small step at a time -- but not at great new "paradigm shifts". Perhaps a 3D matrix is needed to model this. Processing / Insight connectivity / communications connctivity. This also relates to experiences and their interpretation, and views of "how the world works. Insights are from connectivity (white matter), analysis of the insight -- kicking the tires -- are from grey matter. A spoof on spaced-out new-age types is that they postulate great things from connecting some dots -- a wow type thing. "Heavy!" being the response. But they lack the grey matter to then properly analyze the insight to see if it holds water. Many great flashes of insight (connectivity) are duely thrown in the trash bin because upon reflection, they are full of holes. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
