Impressive list of signatories--I've never heard of any of these people, but it looks impressive anyway. (I did google a few of them and they seem to be genuine goods.)
Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---- Original message ---- >Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 12:00:25 -0600 >From: Paul Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: [tips] Politics and the Brain >To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > > Interesting Letter to the Editor in todays NYTimes: > > November 14, 2007 > > Letter > > Politics and the Brain > > To the Editor: > > "This Is Your Brain on Politics" (Op-Ed, Nov. 11) > used the results of a brain imaging study to draw > conclusions about the current state of the > American electorate. The article claimed that it > is possible to directly read the minds of > potential voters by looking at their brain > activity while they viewed presidential > candidates. > > For example, activity in the amygdala in response > to viewing one candidate was argued to reflect > "anxiety" about the candidate, whereas activity in > other areas was argued to indicate "feeling > connected." While such reasoning appears > compelling on its face, it is scientifically > unfounded. > > As cognitive neuroscientists who use the same > brain imaging technology, we know that it is not > possible to definitively determine whether a > person is anxious or feeling connected simply by > looking at activity in a particular brain region. > This is so because brain regions are typically > engaged by many mental states, and thus a > one-to-one mapping between a brain region and a > mental state is not possible. > > For example, rather than simply providing a brain > marker of anxiety levels, as the article assumed, > we know that the amygdala is activated by arousal > and positive emotions as well. Such problems of > interpretation with brain imaging studies can be > avoided only by careful experimental design, and, > as with any scientific data, the peer review > process is critical to understanding whether the > data are sound or based on faulty methodology. > > Unfortunately, the results reported in the article > were apparently not peer-reviewed, nor was > sufficient detail provided to evaluate the > conclusions. > > As cognitive neuroscientists, we are very excited > about the potential use of brain imaging > techniques to better understand the psychology of > political decisions. But we are distressed by the > publication of research in the press that has not > undergone peer review, and that uses flawed > reasoning to draw unfounded conclusions about > topics as important as the presidential election. > > Adam Aron, Ph.D., University of California, San > Diego > > David Badre, Ph.D., Brown University > > Matthew Brett, M.D., University of Cambridge > > John Cacioppo, Ph.D., University of Chicago > > Chris Chambers, Ph.D., University College London > > Roshan Cools, Ph.D., Radboud University, > Netherlands > > Steve Engel, Ph.D., University of Minnesota > > Mark D'Esposito, M.D., University of California, > Berkeley > > Chris Frith, Ph.D., University College London > > Eddie Harmon-Jones, Ph.D., Texas A&M University > > John Jonides, Ph.D., University of Michigan > > Brian Knutson, Ph.D., Stanford University > > Liz Phelps, Ph.D., New York University > > Russell Poldrack, Ph.D., University of California, > Los Angeles > > Tor Wager, Ph.D., Columbia University > > Anthony Wagner, Ph.D., Stanford University > > Piotr Winkielman, Ph.D., University of California, > San Diego > > -- > > The best argument against Intelligent Design is that > fact that > people believe in it. > > * PAUL K. BRANDON > [EMAIL PROTECTED] * > * Psychology Dept Minnesota State > University * > * 23 Armstrong Hall, Mankato, MN 56001 ph > 507-389-6217 * > * > http://krypton.mnsu.edu/~pkbrando/ * > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ---
