Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

How will his presidency and the Republican Party change the economic inequality landscape?

This is a general discussion of any aspect of Donald Trump's presidency and the Republican Party's impact upon economic inequality. Keep the discussion civil and dignified while always being mindful of our principles of conduct (aka SITE RULES).

Posted on: » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:07 pm #21

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #20, Posted Aug 26, 2018
Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality where Donald Trump's reptilian brain (amygdala) deprives oxygen to the frontal lobes.

Many times I will say the conservative brain structure "short circuits" thei...

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by Doctor A » Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:07 pm

In addition to a reptilian brain, that is to say a fear and anxiety based amygdala brain, Donald Trump exhibits the Dunning-Kruger effect. This boils down to the fact that individuals who are stupid are many times too stupid to know they are stupid and exhibit a paradoxical sense of inflated self confidence and superiority.

From Wikipedia

In the field of psychology, the Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people of low ability have illusory superiority and mistakenly assess their cognitive ability as greater than it is. The cognitive bias of illusory superiority comes from the inability of low-ability people to recognize their lack of ability. Without the self-awareness of metacognition, low-ability people cannot objectively evaluate their actual competence or incompetence.

The Intellectualist
Donald Trump Is The ‘Dunning-Kruger’ President For A ‘Dunning-Kruger’ Age
By JakeThomas 10-14-18 ... scyjUy2QQ/
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have a false sense of superiority.
The Dunning-Kruger effect essentially says that “people who are incompetent are too incompetent to realise they are incompetent; people who are stupid, are too stupid to be able to work out they’re stupid; you don’t know what you don’t know. Conversely, it takes a degree of intelligence to have the insight to realise you may not know things, and to understand that you may not be as clever as you think.”

All things considered, it seems clear that Trump is the perfect Dunning-Kruger president for our times.
Trump is the living embodiment of the Dunning-Kruger effect…. In a nutshell, Dunning and Kruger got people to do tests, then estimate how well they did. They found that the higher people scored, the lower they expected they had scored, and the lower they scored, the higher they estimated their score to be.
The Cut
Jan. 9, 2017
Donald Trump, the Dunning-Kruger President
By Jessica Pressler ... scyjUy2QQ/
In hindsight, this kind self-reflection may have been useful in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election, when mentions of Dunning-Kruger on social media reached a new high. In the beginning, many of them were in reference to the candidate Donald Trump, whose combination of over the top blustering (“My IQ is one of the highest,” he has claimed) and obvious ignorance in areas such as foreign policy struck many Twitters users as, “the personification of the Dunning-Kruger effect.”
Dunning himself didn’t disagree. “During the campaign, Trump made a number of statements that didn’t seem well-considered,” he says, citing Trump’s unconstitutional Muslim ban, his apparent unfamiliarity with the nuclear triad, and the time he suggested United States creditors “take a haircut” on Treasury bonds without seeming to understand the role of said bonds in the world economy. “It seemed, especially in contrast with Hillary Clinton, that this was one of the least prepared candidates in my lifetime, but also the most confident candidate. It seemed like the most public example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, or something that looked like the Dunning-Kruger effect, that I’d ever seen.”
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:44 pm #22

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #14, Posted Apr 3, 2018
Conservatives Are More Likely to Believe Lies and Liberals Don't Share or Believe Fake News As Much As Right-Wingers. Why You Ask? Because Their Brains Are Wired Differently....

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by Doctor A » Fri Nov 02, 2018 10:44 pm

According to Paul Krugman, the Republican Party is a party of liars. From scientific research it is known that liars have more white matter than gray matter in their brains compared to norms.

The New York Times
A Party Defined by Its Lies
At this point, good people can’t be good Republicans.
Paul Krugman Nov. 1, 2018 ... -lies.html
What are Republicans lying about? As I said, almost everything. But there are two big themes. They lie about their agenda, pretending that their policies would help the middle and working classes when they would, in fact, do the opposite. And they lie about the problems America faces, hyping an imaginary threat from scary dark-skinned people and, increasingly, attributing that threat to Jewish conspirators.
What Republicans truly stand for, and have for decades, is cutting taxes on the rich and slashing social programs. Sure enough, last year they succeeded in ramming through a huge tax cut aimed mainly at corporations and the wealthy, and came within one vote of passing a health “reform” that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would have caused 32 million Americans to lose health coverage.

The G.O.P.’s problem is that this agenda is deeply unpopular. Large majorities of Americans oppose cuts in major social programs, while most voters want to raise, not reduce, taxes on corporations and high-income individuals.

But instead of changing their agenda to meet voters’ concerns, Republicans have resorted to a strategy of deception and distraction. On one side, they have gone full black-is-white, up-is-down on policy substance. Most spectacularly, they are posing as defenders of protection for people with pre-existing conditions — protection that their failed health bill would have stripped away, and which they are now trying to take away through the courts. And they’re claiming that Democrats are the ones threatening Medicare.
The crucial thing to realize is that these aren’t just ugly, destructive lies. Beyond that, they shape the G.O.P.’s nature. It is now impossible to have intellectual integrity and a conscience while remaining a Republican in good standing. Some conservatives have these qualities; almost all of them have left the party, or are on the edge of excommunication.
As I explained in my previous post #14,
Conservatives Are More Likely to Believe Lies and Liberals Don't Share or Believe Fake News As Much As Right-Wingers. Why You Ask? Because Their Brains Are Wired Differently.
Scientific research indicates the following about liars,
After they were categorized, the researchers used Magnetic Resonance Imaging to explore structural brain differences between the groups. The liars had significantly more white matter and slightly less gray matter than those they were measured against, Raine said.
But in normal people, its the gray matter or the brain cells connected by the white matter that helps keep the impulse to lie in check.
Pathological liars have a surplus of white matter, the study found, and a deficit of gray matter. That means they have more tools to lie coupled with fewer moral restraints than normal people, Raine said.

They've got the equipment to lie, and they don't have the disinhibition that the rest of us have in telling the big whoppers,he said.
Basically the Republican Party is a party of individuals that do not have enough brain gray matter in proportion to their amount of brain white matter to prevent them from being blatant liars. Again it is their brain structure that determines this grouping, an immoral grouping at that. Deception, deflection, and a willingness to do any action where the ends will justify any means to get there are all woven into this complex web of lies. They are an immoral lot of mostly white men who believe "white lives matter" as a call to action; in truth, it is really white matter that matters the most.

Finally, this brings us to the biggest liar, Donald Trump. Here is Robert Reich's short video taking us down memory lane with: "Trump's 30 Biggest Broken Promises," also known as lies.

And let us not forget his pledge to bring the GDP to 4% and above which by today's date has not been accomplished.

Trump Failed to Deliver on Economic Growth Promise, New Report Shows
By Ryan Sit On 1/26/18 ... vos-792406

"Trump pledged a 4 percent growth repeatedly during the presidential campaign and into his presidency. He was so sanguine that he predicted it may rise even higher at the presidential debate in October 2016. "We're bringing [the Gross Domestic Product] from 1 percent up to 4 percent," he said. "And I actually think we can go higher than 4 percent. I think you can go to 5 percent or 6 percent."
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:53 pm #23

User avatar
Sterling Volunteer
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2017 6:15 pm
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #20, Posted Aug 26, 2018
Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality where Donald Trump's reptilian brain (amygdala) deprives oxygen to the frontal lobes.

Many times I will say the conservative brain structure "short circuits" thei...

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by Sterling Volunteer » Sat Jan 12, 2019 12:53 pm

On one hand it seems the brain structure of conservatives vs liberals is fixed in some fashion from birth with a large amygdala vs a large anterior cingulate cortex respectively. Yet I have always wondered why certain geographical regions of the USA are seemingly locked into intransigent views. Can it be that people in these regions are really of the same genetic persuasion and thus producing a rigid pattern of political thinking or is there something more akin to a nature vs nurture issue taking place with environmental interactions tipping the balance into a more conservative direction. Consider the polarization of the Midwest with its more conservative values compared to the more liberal values of the coastal states as an example.

I came across the following article which made me think about this role of genetics vs environmental concerns,

Are You A Democrat Or A Republican? A Look At Your Brain Might Tell Us
By Phil Pruitt and Chance Seales, April 13, 2018 ... ys-a-role/

Although it is not a particularly well written or documented article, it did stimulate my thoughts when I read about the chicken-and-egg question in the following content,
When you look at the science, our brain is the great sieve through which reality is strained. The amygdala controls how we react to disgusting images, foul odors, differences that challenge the norm.

The bigger the amygdala, the more intense the reaction to perceived threats. It's a survival instinct and could prewire some people against progressivism. Researchers have found a few things: First, people with a large amygdala are less likely to join a protest challenging the norm.

The Composition Of Our Political Parties Has Never Been StarkerThe Composition Of Our Political Parties Has Never Been Starker

Psychologists have found that conservatives are more anxious than liberals — that's a big amygdala doing its thing — which may be why they typically desire stability and structure. And if you remove the amygdala in rats, they show no fear. Not even with cats.

Now, how about the person with a large anterior cingulate cortex? They're pretty much just the opposite, naturally more tolerant. More comfortable with differences that challenge the standard or what they're comfortable with. Less fear. Their brains don't mind the turbulence.

But there's a chicken-and-egg question to all of this. Are some people born with a large amygdala and predestined to become conservatives, or does their amygdala get bigger as they become more conservative?

Same question with the cortex. Probably both, says an NYU psych professor. He thinks "our inborn brain structure guides us to political preferences, but that our political environment also alters our brain structure."
The answer to my question as to why geographic location can influence the genetic vs environment issue regarding whether or not an individual is a conservative or a liberal seems to be answered by looking at the brain's neuroplasticity.

From Molecules to Minds: Challenges for the 21st Century: Workshop Summary.
Institute of Medicine (US) Forum on Neuroscience and Nervous System Disorders.
Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2008.

Grand Challenge: Nature Versus Nurture: How Does the Interplay of Biology and Experience Shape Our Brains and Make Us Who We Are?
Nature vs. nurture is one of the oldest questions in science. The answer is not an either/or, but rather it is both nature and nurture, acting in various degrees. As summarized below in greater detail, many workshop participants—including Hyman, Marder, and Michael Greenberg, chair of the Department of Neurobiology at Harvard Medical School—chose to highlight the nature versus nurture question as one of the Grand Challenges of the field, but in so doing, they put a twist on the question, asking: How does the interplay of biology and experience shape our brains and make us who we are?

The key word there is “interplay.” “Interplay” suggests, and modern research in neuroscience demands, that there is a back and forth pattern between nature and nurture, a dynamic system that involves a continuous feedback loop shaping the physical structure of our brains.
In 1998, Fred “Rusty” Gage, working out of the Laboratory of Genetics at the Salk Institute, showed that the human brain can and does produce new nerve cells into adulthood (Eriksson et al., 1998). In mice, he showed that exercise could increase the rate of neurogenesis, showing that the system is not fixed, but responds itself to experience and the outside world. The discovery of neurogenesis and an improved understanding of neuroplasticity—the ability of the brain to shape, form, eliminate, and strengthen new connections throughout life—has completely recast the question of nature versus nurture.

“Neurons can change their connectivity,” explained Blakemore. “They can change the strength of their connections. They can change the morphology of their connections. They can do it not necessarily just in early stages of life, although that is especially exaggerated, but probably throughout life responding to new environments and experiences.”

New research shows, for instance, that the number and strength of connections we have in the brain is determined by how often those connections are stimulated. The brain, if you will, has a “use it or lose it” approach to neurological maintenance.

Genetic programming also plays a key role. In most cases, the initial formation of a synapse occurs independent of stimulation. But if that synapse is not used, the brain will “prune” or eliminate it. Conversely, the more often a connection is used, the stronger it becomes in a physical sense, with more dendritic spines connecting to one another and a stronger net connection over time.
Nature and nurture are not simply additive interactions that result in a particular behavior, but rather a complex interplay of many factors. Nature includes not only the usual factors—parents, homes, what people learn—but also many other factors that individuals are exposed to routinely in their daily environments. As Marder emphasized, we cannot simply assume that gene X produces behavior Y. Instead as Bialek described, there are often many additional factors that directly and indirectly interact with gene X and ultimately influence variants in behavior. These variants define individuality.

As previously described, it has been known for almost 50 years that experience from the outside environment shapes our brain. This comes initially from the original work of Nobel Laureates David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel who studied how information is sensed and processed in the part of the brain responsible for vision. As Greenberg commented, the field is now at a point where we could in the next 10 years attain a significant mechanistic understanding of how the environment impinges directly on our genes to give rise to a malleable organ that allows us to adapt and change.

Under the major heading, YOUR IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS to stop economic inequality, I presented the following idea to change conservatives into liberals. Obviously neuroplasticity is at play as a mechanism to accomplish this which gives us hope we can change the trajectory of purely genetic factors and actually influence conservatives to respond in more liberal ways. The idea is presented as follows:
Meditation To Reduce Conservative Republican's Amygdala Response

Post #1 by Sterling Volunteer » Thu Oct 11, 2018 7:17 pm
I propose using meditation as a means to alter the amygdala's brain structure of conservative Republicans to lessen the amount of income inequality and economic inequality. A mechanism to accomplish this is presented.

The research literature on altering the brain's structure due to meditation is robust and points to structural changes many times in a short period of time. The following article specifically addresses the role of meditation upon the amygdala, the seat of emotional and survival instincts such as fear and anxiety,

The Harvard Gazette
Meditations positive residual effects
By Sue McGreevey
November 13, 2012 ... l-effects/

A new study has found that participating in an eight-week meditation training program can have measurable effects on how the brain functions even when someone is not actively meditating.

“This is the first time that meditation training has been shown to affect emotional processing in the brain outside of a meditative state.”

Several previous studies have supported the hypothesis that meditation training improves practitioners’ emotional regulation. Although neuroimaging studies have found that meditation training appeared to decrease activation of the amygdala (a structure at the base of the brain that is also known to have a role in processing memory and emotion), those changes were only observed while study participants were meditating. The current study was designed to test the hypothesis that meditation training could also produce a generalized reduction in amygdala response to emotional stimuli, measurable by functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI).

In the mindful attention group, the after-training brain scans showed a decrease in activation in the right amygdala in response to all images, supporting the hypothesis that meditation can improve emotional stability and response to stress.

Overall, these results are consistent with the overarching hypothesis that meditation may result in enduring, beneficial changes in brain function, especially in the area of emotional processing.”

Further support is offered in,

University of Toronto
U of T News
How spirituality induces liberal attitudes
By Jessica Lewis
February 28, 2013 ... -attitudes

People become more politically liberal immediately after practising a spiritual exercise such as meditation, researchers at the University of Toronto have found.

"There's great overlap between religious beliefs and political orientations," says one of the study authors, Jordan Peterson of U of T's Department of Psychology. "We found that religious individuals tend to be more conservative and spiritual people tend to be more liberal.

"Inducing a spiritual experience through a guided meditation exercise led both liberals and conservatives to endorse more liberal political attitudes."

In the third study, the researchers recruited 317 participants from the U.S. and asked half to complete a spiritual exercise consisting of a guided meditation video. Those who watched the video were asked to close their eyes and breathe deeply, imagining themselves in a natural setting and feeling connected to the environment. They were then asked about their political orientation and to rate how spiritual they felt. The researchers reported that, compared to those in the control group, participants who meditated felt significantly higher levels of spirituality and expressed more liberal political attitudes, including a reduced support for "tough on crime" policies and a preference for liberal political candidates.

The key to the proposal is to get the wealthy elite to meditate and hence change their brain structure more towards that of liberal's brain structure when it comes to income and economic inequality. This will be accomplished by giving them the reward of a year end tax reduction based upon their fMRI brain scan. This scan will certifying they have truly changed their brain's structure significantly enough to warrant the tax relief.

Have you ever met a conservative Republican who did not want a tax reduction? Certainly not and if you did then they have most likely been mischaracterized and not a true conservative Republican. Just the suggestion of raising their taxes produces an amygdala based fear and survival response whereby they lash out at the individual who made the suggestion as if they were stealing from them. By changing their brain structure through meditation, a reduction in fear and anxiety will set them in the direction of choosing more liberal based programs. This new cognitive gestalt, away from an individualistic survivalist mode to that of a more spiritual induced societal mode, will reduce income and economic inequality by giving them the direct experience of oneness with their fellow human beings.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:49 pm #24

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
REFERENCING: Sterling Volunteer, Post #23, Posted Jan 12, 2019
On one hand it seems the brain structure of conservatives vs liberals is fixed in some fashion from birth with a large amygdala vs a large anterior cingulate cortex respectively. Yet I have always wondered why certain geographical regions o...

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by MaureenCarter » Thu Jan 24, 2019 5:49 pm

From my undergraduate days in college I learned we are only aware of 5% of our brain activity and the other 95% is subconscious. Economic inequality works the same way; neuroscience research indicates most of our thoughts on the matter have been preordained by the unconscious portion of our brains and this happens extremely fast without our awareness. In fact, as soon as you meet someone you have already made an unconscious decision about that person's social class based upon their skin color, gender, facial appearance, dress, and a myriad of other variables outside of your conscious control.

Mysteries of the mind
Your unconscious is making your everyday decisions
By Marianne Szegedy-Maszak
US News and World Report
According to cognitive neuroscientists, we are conscious of only about 5 percent of our cognitive activity, so most of our decisions, actions, emotions, and behavior depends on the 95 percent of brain activity that goes beyond our conscious awareness. From the beating of our hearts to pushing the grocery cart and not smashing into the kitty litter, we rely on something that is called the adaptive unconscious, which is all the ways that our brains understand the world that the mind and the body must negotiate. The adaptive unconscious makes it possible for us to, say, turn a corner in our car without having to go through elaborate calculations to determine the precise angle of the turn, the velocity of the automobile, the steering radius of the car. It is what can make us understand the correct meaning of statements like "prostitutes appeal to pope" or "children make nourishing snacks" without believing that they mean that the pope has an illicit life and cannibals are munching on children.
Fueled by powerful neuroimaging technology, questions about how we make snap decisions, why we feel uncomfortable without any obvious causes, what motivates us, and what satisfies us are being answered not through lying on a couch and exploring individual childhood miseries but by looking at neurons firing in particular parts of our brains. Hardly a week passes without the release of the results of a new study on these kinds of processes. And popular culture is so fascinated by neuroscience that Blink, journalist Malcolm Gladwell's exploration of "thinking without thinking," has remained on the bestseller lists for four weeks.

Most of us can appreciate the fact that we make up our minds about things based on thinking that takes place somewhere just out of our reach. But today, scientists are finding neural correlates to those processes, parts of the brain that we never gave their due, communicating with other parts, triggering neurotransmitters, and driving our actions. Says Clinton Kilts, a professor in the department of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at Emory, "There is nothing that you do, there is no thought that you have, there is no awareness, there is no lack of awareness, there is nothing that marks your daily existence that doesn't have a neural code. The greatest challenge for us is to figure out how to design the study that will reveal these codes."
This is one of the reasons economic inequality is so powerful and ubiquitous in our society. In fact, the brain makes these decisions before we are even consciously aware of them.

Brain makes decisions before you even know it
By Kerri Smith April 11th, 2008
Brain activity predicts decisions before they are consciously made. ... 8.751.html
Your brain makes up its mind up to ten seconds before you realize it, according to researchers. By looking at brain activity while making a decision, the researchers could predict what choice people would make before they themselves were even aware of having made a decision.

“We think our decisions are conscious, but these data show that consciousness is just the tip of the iceberg,” says John-Dylan Haynes, a neuroscientist at the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, Germany, who led the study.

Signs of Social Class: The Experience of Economic Inequality in Everyday Life
Michael W. Kraus, Jun Won Park, Jacinth J. X. Tan
First Published May 25, 2017

By some accounts, global economic inequality is at its highest point on record. The pernicious effects of this broad societal trend are striking: Rising inequality is linked to poorer health and well-being across countries, continents, and cultures. The economic and psychological forces that perpetuate inequality continue to be studied, and in this theoretical review, we examine the role of daily experiences of economic inequality—the communication of social class signals between interaction partners—in this process. We theorize that social class signals activate social comparison processes that strengthen group boundaries between the haves and have nots in society. In particular, we argue that class signals are a frequent, rapid, and accurate component of person perception, and we provide new data and analyses demonstrating the accuracy of class signaling in 60-s interactions, Facebook photographs, and isolated recordings of brief speech. We suggest that barriers to the reduction of economic inequality in society arise directly from this class signaling process through the augmentation of class boundaries and the elicitation of beliefs and behaviors that favor the economic status quo.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:30 pm #25

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #24, Posted Jan 25, 2019
From my undergraduate days in college I learned we are only aware of 5% of our brain activity and the other 95% is subconscious. Economic inequality works the same way; neuroscience research indicates most of our thoughts on the matter hav...

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by MaureenCarter » Sun Jan 27, 2019 5:30 pm

I wish to point out a profound aspect regarding one's thoughts on the formation of economic inequality. The speed at which the subconscious processes information compared to the conscious mind is dramatic. Whereas mental process at the conscious level operate in the realm of seconds, the subconscious operates in milliseconds and is significantly faster than conscious thought. Most of the foundational basis and underpinnings for inequality operate in this millisecond range and is outside our conscious thought; this produces a powerful yet rapid reaction to economic inequality mostly beyond our conscious control.

For example:

BBC Future
The enormous power of the unconscious brain
By Chris Baraniuk, 16 March 2016 ... ious-brain
You’re already aware of the fact that breathing and organ functions are things we do “automatically”, but there are lots of other examples.

Take the experience of hitting a ball with a bat. It takes a ball travelling close to 100mph (160km/h) just a few hundred milliseconds to reach the hitter. It’s so fast that it’s not possible to consciously register the trajectory of the ball and one’s response to it. It’s only after hitting the ball, indeed, that we truly register what happened consciously.

“The reason you practise sports over and over again is so you get really good at automising your actions,” says Eagleman. “Thinking about them, naturally, slows you down.”
Dec. 19, 2016
What Is the Speed of Thought?
By Jeff Wise ... ought.html

Your identity is almost entirely based on unconscious brain processes
It’s not personal awareness but a different mechanism which lends an evolutionary advantage, allowing our species to thrive.
Philip Perry, 27 November, 2017 ... -processes
We often think that our deeply held beliefs, opinions, and emotions are the result of a long time spent thinking. We see ourselves as an executive of sorts somewhere inside our own head, pondering, making plans, and coming to decisions. This is what is known as a top-down model of executive control. It isn't only laypeople who think this way, but scientists and scholars, many anyway. This has been the prevailing theory for decades.

Most experts see human consciousness as a combination of two different phenomena. The first is the consciousness we experience from one moment to the next. That's knowing who and where in the world we are. It's also the ability to evaluate things, and calculate opportunities and threats. The second is our thoughts, feelings, impressions, intentions, and memories. So here's the innovation, a new paper published in Frontiers of Psychology says that actually, our thoughts and feelings are developed by unconscious mechanisms behind our logical thoughts.

We don't so much come to conclusions on things as become aware of how we feel. In fact, researchers write that the “contents of consciousness" are completely unrelated to the “experience of consciousness." The contents of consciousness are derived from “non-conscious brain systems."
The conscious mind is prone to this kind of manipulation because it has a complex computational mission. It must interpret the world, make predictions about the future, and figure out a course of action. All of this is difficult and slow. And while conscious thought is invaluable for forming long-term strategy, it’s absolutely useless in the face of fast-moving danger. Imagine that a tiger leaps out of the bushes at you: If you have to perceive the situation consciously and reason through a response, you’ll be dead.
Fortunately, the brain has several layers of emergency-response circuitry, each faster and more simplistic than the last.

The fastest is the startle reflex. If you’re walking along and you suddenly hear a loud noise, your ear will trigger an extremely simple chain of just three neurons that connect to the spinal cord and brain stem. Within five milliseconds, hundreds of muscles are recruited into a self-defense reaction: eyelids shut, shoulders and chest tighten up, hands clench. There’s absolutely nothing you can do about it — by the time you’re consciously aware that you’ve been startled, you’re already two feet in the air.

Given a few more milliseconds, the body is able to respond in a more nuanced way. When something threatening occurs, it takes about 12 milliseconds for the information to reach the amygdala, the almond-shaped neural hub that’s one of the most important centers for emotional processing. The amygdala isn’t super-sophisticated, but it knows what danger looks like. Imagine that you’re about to get into bed, and you pull back the sheets — and there, right in front of your face, is a three-foot-long snake. The amygdala triggers an immediate fight-or-flight response: your heart rate goes through the roof, your pupils dilate, and you hear yourself scream. A half-second later, your consciousness kicks in and you realize it’s a rubber snake, and you go to throttle your 10-year-old.

We tend to think of startle and panic as bad things, because more often than not, they turn out to be overreactions. But once in a while, they can save your bacon. I’ll never forget the time I put my infant son in his bouncy chair on the kitchen table and turned around to the kitchen counter to make pancakes. I was holding a measuring cup full of flour when I suddenly found myself spinning around, flour flying everywhere, and grabbing my son, who had bounced too far forward and was at that moment falling head first toward the floor. For an instant I crouched there, my son’s head suspended a foot above the floor, wondering what the hell had just happened. (I later learned that there is an entire YouTube genre of “dad save” videos documenting just such behavior.)

This is a dramatic example, but the principle applies to all sorts of daily activity: anything that we do in the span of less than half a second — hitting a fastball, improvising a lyric, catching a stranger’s glance — we do entirely through automatic circuitry rather than conscious decision. The upshot is either depressing or inspiring, depending on how you look at it: For all the wonders that human consciousness has brought into the world, some of the best things we do we accomplish without it.
How to Master Yourself, Your Unconscious, and the People Around You -- 3
Nick Morgan, Mar 7, 2013 ... 2dc8476762
Most of our communication is unconscious. Our conscious brains can only handle something like 40 bits of information a second, while our unconscious minds can handle 11 million bits of information per second. We’ve evolved to push much of our behavior – including much of our communication – down to our unconscious minds because they can handle the chores so much more powerfully and rapidly.
Times Referenced: 1

Posted on: » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:37 pm #26

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm
REFERENCING: MaureenCarter, Post #25, Posted Jan 28, 2019
I wish to point out a profound aspect regarding one's thoughts on the formation of economic inequality. The speed at which the subconscious processes information compared to the conscious mind is dramatic. Whereas mental process at the cons...

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by Doctor A » Fri Feb 01, 2019 4:37 pm

Income inequality related to gender is a serious economic issue. The problem is related to brain structure and specifically implicit (subconscious) bias. The subconscious is maintained as a filter and sees repeating patterns from the external world as a mechanism to process incoming information in a manner to quickly scan for fight or flight events. This rapid and powerful mechanism is the underlying cause of bias in both men and women.

In post #24 of this thread, Maureen expresses an overview of the power of the subconscious compared to our perceived conscious thoughts,
From my undergraduate days in college I learned we are only aware of 5% of our brain activity and the other 95% is subconscious. Economic inequality works the same way; neuroscience research indicates most of our thoughts on the matter have been preordained by the unconscious portion of our brains and this happens extremely fast without our awareness. In fact, as soon as you meet someone you have already made an unconscious decision about that person's social class based upon their skin color, gender, facial appearance, dress, and a myriad of other variables outside of your conscious control.
This phenomena of bias being controlled by the subconscious is borne out in the literature,

Scientific America
How to Think about "Implicit Bias." Amidst a controversy, it’s important to remember that implicit bias is real—and it matters
By Keith Payne, Laura Niemi, John M. Doris on March 27, 2018 ... icit-bias/
When is the last time a stereotype popped into your mind? If you are like most people, the authors included, it happens all the time. That doesn’t make you a racist, sexist, or whatever-ist. It just means your brain is working properly, noticing patterns, and making generalizations. But the same thought processes that make people smart can also make them biased. This tendency for stereotype-confirming thoughts to pass spontaneously through our minds is what psychologists call implicit bias. It sets people up to overgeneralize, sometimes leading to discrimination even when people feel they are being fair.
Bias in the Brain: Overcoming Our Unconscious Prejudices
March 17, 2016 • By Mona D. Fishbane, PhD, ... es-0317165
Research suggests that our brains are wired to distinguish friend from foe, us versus them. This makes evolutionary sense; in early human prehistory, our ancestors lived in small clans. Back then, it was crucial that you could tell who was part of your group and who might be a threatening outsider. Your life depended on it. If you saw the other as a danger, your automatic fight-or-flight response would get triggered, and you did what you had to do to survive. This was a quick, automatic process, and it may have saved your life. If you assessed that the other was a friend or part of your own clan, you could relax and engage socially.

This ancient system for self-protection lives on in our brains and bodies today. We, too, automatically scan our environment for friend versus foe. Parts of the brain, especially the amygdala, are constantly assessing for danger. If threat is sensed, you either flee or fight—or freeze, in the case of life-threatening danger with no escape.

According to neuroscientist Stephen Porges, we have complex vagal systems in our brains and bodies that work to assess safety versus danger. If we sense safety, we relax and our social engagement systems are activated, allowing us to hang out with our friends, smile, and enjoy the many benefits of connecting with others.
As referenced in the above Scientific Article, "implicit bias is real—and it matters."

Implicit Bias and Wage Inequality
Prepared by the Senate Office of Research
April 18, 2017 ... uality.pdf
Implicit Bias and Wage Inequality
Prepared by the Senate Office of Research
April 18, 2017

What is Implicit Bias?

Implicit bias involves “attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner.”1 According to a body of scholarly research, the unconscious attitudes we hold about other people often are based on categories such as race, gender, age, or ethnicity. Studies suggest that implicit bias is pervasive, not necessarily in line with our declared beliefs, developed early in life, and not fixed.2 Further, implicit bias is expressed at both an individual and institutional level. Institutional bias has been studied in education, employment, and criminal justice contexts, and it may present itself in an organization’s policies and procedures. In the employment context, some argue that gender bias influences pay practices and has contributed to a significant gap in what women and men are paid.

What is the Gender Pay Gap?

The gender pay gap measures what women are paid relative to men. It can be measured as a median earnings ratio between men and women or as an actual gap in median earnings. Median earnings generally are reported annually or on a weekly basis. Median earnings are determined by identifying the “middle” salary of the salary set.

In the United States, as of 2015, women’s median earnings were approximately $40, 700, compared with $51, 200 for men.3 This translates to women making 80 cents for every dollar earned by men. In California, the gap is somewhat less, with women making 84 cents on the dollar.4 The gap persists regardless of a woman’s education level. In terms of tangible income, women are losing a little more than $8,000 annually to the pay gap. A study of U.S. Census Bureau pay data reveals that California’s gender pay gap in 2014 amounted to $39 billion in lost wages for women.
Management Today
Unconscious bias lies at the heart of gender inequality
by Harriet Heneghan, Published: 08 Mar 2018 ... le/1458958
Equality in the boardroom is one of the hottest topics of 2018, and especially so on International Women’s Day. In fact, there are countless schemes designed to redress the balance of a global business culture in which less than one in six board members are female.

But what if some of the reasons behind that statistic – revealed by a global Deloitte report in 2017 - were not down to out-and-out prejudice or even to institutional sexism?

Business leaders, psychologists and sociologists are increasingly looking at unconcious bias to understand why progress has not been as fast as society demands.

Unconscious bias is where your background, personal experiences, societal stereotypes and cultural context impact your decisions and actions without you realising. Implicit or unconscious bias happens by our brains making incredibly quick judgments and assessments of people and situations without us realising.

Many people call it a form of mental shortcut. The brain has so much information to take in that it has to come up with a way of dealing with this complexity.
So how does this affect women in the workplace?

It’s easy to see how unconscious bias can affect the progress of women at work. Perhaps deep-lying assumptions are made around whether women want promotion or not, whether they have time to manage all the complications in their lives, whether they can attend anything ‘out-of-hours’. There could also be hidden bias around how women look, how they dress, how they communicate – in fact around all manner of traits.

Of course, it isn’t only men who are driven by unconscious bias, it is women too. All those values we build based on family and culture plus all the experiences we have been through in our life help set the level of our own ambition and self-belief.
Personnel Today
How to use neuroscience to tackle unconscious bias
By Dr Lynda Shaw on 10 Apr 2018 ... ious-bias/
Unconscious bias affects most decision making on a daily basis; it’s normal and it is usually subtle. But in the business arena, if unchecked, it can erode staff morale and ruin any progress an organisation tries to make to embrace inclusion.

Many organisations now appreciate that there is a strong correlation between embracing gender diversity and business success. The logic behind this is powerful: the diverse sea of top talent is larger, so there will be a wider choice of the best people. This could produce a clear competitive advantage.

Findings from a McKinsey Global Institute study (2015) revealed that a lack of gender diversity was associated with a greater likelihood of below par performance in a sample of 366 companies in Canada, Latin America, the UK and the US.

This research, and that from Morgan Stanley’s Institute for Sustainable Investing (2015), also found that individual female investors were twice as likely as male investors to consider positive social or environmental impact alongside rate of return.

Because it is clear that gender diversity is beneficial to organisations, it is vital to close the gender pay gap. Yes, it’s necessary to recruit more women to senior positions, but businesses should look to ensure there is no unconscious bias when recruiting all employees and when offering promotion.
The principle points to take away regarding the outcome of gender inequality are that it is neither fair nor good for both the individual subjected to the bias or to the business's bottom line.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:51 am #27

Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2018 10:00 am
REFERENCING: Doctor A, Post #12, Posted Jul 14, 2017
How Income Inequality Is Messing With Kids’ Brains
Inside the nationwide study exploring the link between poverty and brain development.

From: Mother Jones, Mike MarianiJul. 3, 2017


Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by janebird21 » Tue Feb 19, 2019 1:51 am

Researchers discover physical, neurological differences between children of different socioeconomic classes proving that economic inequality is more than just a wage gap and unfair wealth distribution.

It is a catalyst for injustice. We can call it what we want, try to turn a blind eye, or even repeat to ourselves "Well, sometimes life isn't fair and what could I really do about it?" but the truth of the matter is we can begin formatting it as a tangible problem. Problems have solutions. They also have causes and effects. We need to understand both before a solution can be reached. This is why Dr. Kimberly Noble's work is so important. I have to strongly disagree with Doctor. A's statement that the timing of this research is inconsequential.
SO WHAT? With all the thousands of research studies linking income and economic inequality to social ills, do we really need another study linking poverty to negative cognitive outcomes?

The answer to the question is a definitive yes, but with the caveat, not right now.
Oh yes sir, uh-huh sir, right now sir. For one, this isn't another "social ill" that takes years of analyzing primary data that if you're lucky, results in a clear correlation back to (you guessed it) economic inequality. Even then, who really wants to look at your graphs when they're too busy trying to force their unsustainable income into anything mirroring a sustainable existence.
increasing evidence that poverty itself—and not factors like nutrition, language exposure, family stability, or prenatal issues, as previously thought—may diminish the growth of a child’s brain.

Although Dr. Noble's research does take time and correlation, here are three reasons it should be done now and not group into the "social ill" pile:
1. It removes predisposed arguments and doubts from the naysayers
2. It takes the guesswork out for everyone else.
Unlike what you will see during a real-time brain scan, this is a black and white issue. Poverty has a physical consequence and it can be seen in the brain of developing children.
3. It affects anyone born in poverty, it removes the instinctual response to overlook pressing issues by distancing oneself based on differences. If you and your neighbor both grew up in poverty. You both were affected and regardless of race, gender, or what religion your parents raised you in. The only dividing factor is wealth and only a few have it.
What’s more, the data indicated that small increases in family income had a much larger impact on the brains of the poorest children than similar increases among wealthier children.
Instead of welfare programs What if policymakers looked at fair taxes and wealth distribution. What if that 1% paid their share of taxes and this was redistributed? What would the human race look like and what doors would open to us if we could change all the brains of a population for the better? What if wealth redistribution was the catalyst for the next step in human evolution.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:14 pm #28

User avatar
Doctor A
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Oct 15, 2015 2:30 pm

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by Doctor A » Mon Mar 04, 2019 5:14 pm

There needs to be a new direction of thought and action away from organizational and individualistic centered ideology towards that of a unified front to stop economic inequality. Conservative's brain structure, policy and regulatory capture by the rich, money in politics, flaws in capitalism, and movement nearing the rise of a technological singularity will all play a role in crushing any hope for humanity unless this new direction is achieved. Until that time, it will be business as usual with the last two human generations witnessing ever increasing economic inequality in the USA being proof positive that the old way of thinking is outdated and outright ineffective. What follows is a compilation of four basic mechanisms taken from the FirstRateCrowd website which are instrumental in enslaving our thoughts and actions unless we change.

1) Conservative minded brain structure

Janebird21's ending post will automatically and forcefully create massive fear in the mind's of conservatives when she says,
Instead of welfare programs What if policymakers looked at fair taxes and wealth distribution. What if that 1% paid their share of taxes and this was redistributed?
You can test this for yourself by presenting these concepts to known rabid conservatives and then monitor their reactions as I have done. Fear usually manifests itself either as (A) not getting what an individual wants or perceives they should receive or( B) by perceiving to loose something they already have. I can almost guarantee the terminology used by Janebird21 will end with an angry and fear based response from the conservative that you are trying to steal from them all they have worked so hard for and justly belongs to them as a God given inalienable right. Furthermore, if you try to persuade the conservative towards a more balanced approach with reason, logic, and facts, this will only further anger them with an even more palpable sense of fear driving their anger.

The main biological mechanism underlying this fear is presented in my post #20 under this same thread and repeated here,
Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality where Donald Trump's reptilian brain (amygdala) deprives oxygen to the frontal lobes.

Many times I will say the conservative brain structure "short circuits" their ability to reason and process facts in an attempt to ameliorate the fear." as indicated in my previous post with the quote,

"We know the brain structure of Republicans is different than that of Democrats. Functional MRI's indicate your amygdala, that structure of the limbic system which deals with emotional reactions, is enhanced. That is to say, anxiety and fear play a larger size role in how you process information. To put it bluntly, it short circuits your ability to reason and process facts in an attempt to ameliorate the fear."

The wording "short circuit" is not the most appropriate and here is a more nuanced and scientific approach as to what really happens.

Psychological look at how Trump's 'reptilian brain' motivates his actions | Opinion
By Deborah Stuckey Mulhern, Ph.D. Posted Jun 22, 2016 ... inion.html

Instead, Donald Trump is a slave to the fear-driven operating system of the amgydala -- a small almond shaped structure that lies at the nexus of the three levels of the brain and is derived from the reptilian brain. Trump's power lies in his ability to activate this same operating system in his followers.

He has fine-tuned the skill of activating the primitive fear of the enemy or the "other" with speech and facial expressions -- the two things that most interest the amygdala. The amygdala knows no nuance. It sees nothing but bad and good, enemy or ally.
And it is primed to see the former everywhere. When the amygdala takes over, the lower, reptilian brain is activated. And when this brain is activated, reason and sense are irrelevant.

Actually, not just irrelevant but physiologically embargoed. When the lower survival brain states are activated, blood flow is shunted away from the more highly evolved frontal lobe making thought and conscious decision difficult, if not impossible. This is the state of mind in which Trump speaks to his followers and the state of mind that he activates in them. That is why his words don't matter; only his emotions do. Logic and reason are silenced when the lower brain gains dominance. He and his followers are resonating with fear and anger at a pre-mammalian level. It is not a level at which to make decisions, let alone policy.

Deborah Stuckey Mulhern, Ph.D., a Teaneck native, is a clinical psychologist specializing in relationships, self-destructive behaviors and conflict resolution. She earned her master's in clinical psychology from Boston University and bachelor's in political science and psychology from Wesleyan University.
2) Policy or regulatory capture along with money in politics

There are reasons why the political process is ineffective in correcting economic inequality especially in the long term. Sterling, in his post # 12 under the topic First Rate Crowd's EIRA, captures the essence of this unproductive process as he writes,
Power begets power and a five to four conservative court vote will ensure the demise of Roe v Wade, the passage of laws to suppress minority voting rights, and a continuation of the gerrymandering process as a means for Republicans to stay in control. Are you tired of the political process yet?

Importantly, control of the country's political levers allows the Republicans to maintain their authority over tax policies in favor of the rich and hence the remainder of the population will continue to suffer from unabated economic inequality.

Doctor A in his previous post was correct when he presented the Economic Inequality Rating App as an alternative to putting so much energy into the political process with the following facts,

Stanford Professor Walter Scheidel is quite frank when he writes about income inequality in his new book, "The Great Leveler." "Income Inequality is a Destroyer of Civilizations"

The Professor says, "income inequality can be mitigated by policy, but is only leveled by upheaval - produced by war, state collapse, or revolution"

Our collective psyche has been indelibly imprinted from grade school on that this path of voting in political policy is the way to proceed and has made us blind to other alternatives. With regards to economic inequality, it is not the correct course of action. In fact, "mitigated by policy," the outcome of the political process, is both a slow and an uphill battle.
Jessica, in her post #13 under the same topic, builds upon Sterling's post pointing out flaws in the political process as an effective means to stop economic inequality by writing,
Political policy undergoes continuous erosion when it comes to correcting economic inequality. Money in politics and regulatory capture (including corporate capture) ensures the wealthy will always comeback into power. The Economic Inequality Rating App is a means to stop this insane never ending process.

Like Sisyphus of Greek mythology who was forced to roll an immense boulder up a hill only for it to roll down when it nears the top, repeating this action for eternity, it is the same with our political battle against the wealthy. For those of us who have lived many decades and have experienced this process first hand, we know the political process is a frustrating and demoralizing cyclic endeavor to control the power of the rich. It is said colloquially that power begets power, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the rich get richer. So it has been forever.

There are levers of power that sustain this ongoing insane process. Here are just two such levers:

1) Money in politics

© 2018 Scholars Strategy Network
How Money Corrupts American Politics
Benjamin I. Page, Northwestern University ... -politics

the perfectly legal flood of money that pervades American politics has fundamentally corrupting effects.

The effects of money are manifold, subtle, and hard to pin down, but a number of pathways of influence can be laid out. Most are based on judgments about the best available evidence, short of irrefutable proof. But on certain key points the quantitative evidence is fairly conclusive. Political scientist Gary Jacobson and other scholars have pinned down how monetary advantages affect chances of winning congressional elections Large amounts of money are virtually essential if a candidate is to have any serious chance of winning. Inability to raise big money leads to losing general elections, losing party nominations, or giving up even before getting started. Thus the need to raise money acts as a filter, tending to eliminate public officials who hold certain points of view – even points of view that are popular with most Americans.

The need for money tends to filter out centrist candidates. Most congressional districts are gerrymandered to ensure a big advantage for one party or the other, so that election outcomes are actually decided in low-salience, low-turnout, one-party primary elections. Primaries are usually dominated by ideological party activists and money givers, who tend to hold extreme views and to reject all but the purest partisan candidates. This contributes to party polarization and legislative gridlock in Congress.

The need for money filters out candidates on the economic left. Democratic as well as Republican candidates have to raise big money, most of which comes from economically successful entrepreneurs and professionals who tend to hold rather conservative views on taxes, social welfare spending, and economic regulation. As a result, few candidates whose views are not broadly acceptable to the affluent are nominated or elected.

The quest for money tilts candidates' priorities and policy stands. Countless hours spent grubbing for money from affluent contributors changes candidates' priorities and sense of constituent needs. As they speak with potential donors, candidates hear repeatedly about resentment of progressive taxes and "wasteful" social spending. Special tax breaks for corporations and hedge fund managers start to sound reasonable.

Affluent citizens get extra influence by turning out to vote, working in campaigns, and contacting officials. Campaign contributions are not the only way in which affluent people get involved in politics; these same people tend to be active in other ways too, underscoring their importance to candidates.

Money can tip the outcome of close elections. Money spent on media, organizing, and turnout tends to increase vote totals, giving a significant advantage to candidates favored by money givers.

Money buys access to officials. When big contributors contact officials they tend to get attention. Their economic resources enable them to get a hearing, to offer help with information and expertise – even to draft bills. Research shows that these processes boost the influence of the affluent on the policy topics and ideas officeholders consider, biasing the public agenda toward the concerns of the affluent.

The quest for re-election money affects officials' priorities and policy stands. From the moment they win office, candidates look ahead to the money they must raise for reelection, and this is bound to steal time from official duties and slant their attention toward constituents who are substantial donors.

2) Regulatory capture (and corporate capture)


"Regulatory capture is a form of government failure which occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.[1] When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. Government agencies suffering regulatory capture are called "captured agencies"

"Likelihood of regulatory capture is a risk to which an agency is exposed by its very nature.[6] This suggests that a regulatory agency should be protected from outside influence as much as possible. Alternatively, it may be better to not create a given agency at all lest the agency become victim, in which case it may serve its regulated subjects rather than those whom the agency was designed to protect. A captured regulatory agency is often worse than no regulation, because it wields the authority of government. However, increased transparency of the agency may mitigate the effects of capture. Recent evidence suggests that, even in mature democracies with high levels of transparency and media freedom, more extensive and complex regulatory environments are associated with higher levels of corruption (including regulatory capture).[7]"

Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation
The Corporate Capture of the United States
Posted by the Harvard Law School Forum on Corporate Governance & Financial Regulation, on
Thursday, January 5, 2012 Editor ... ed-states/

American corporations today are like the great European monarchies of yore: They have the power to control the rules under which they function and to direct the allocation of public resources. This is not a prediction of what’s to come; this is a simple statement of the present state of affairs. Corporations have effectively captured the United States: its judiciary, its political system, and its national wealth, without assuming any of the responsibilities of dominion. Evidence is everywhere.

The “smoking gun” is CEO pay. Compensation is an expression of concentrated power — of enterprise power concentrated in the chief executive officer and of national power concentrated in corporations.

This is the essence of “capture” – CEOs are enriched, while all other corporate constituencies, including government, are left with liabilities. A relatively few autocrats have taken control over the policies and wealth allocation of the United States.

The financial power of American corporations now controls every stage of politics — legislative, executive, and ultimately judicial. With its January 2010 decision in the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court removed all legal restraints on the extent of corporate financial involvement in politics, a grotesque decision that can have only one effect: maximizing corporate – not national — value. Today’s CEOs have been granted the power to direct political payments and organize PAC programs to achieve objectives entirely in their own self-interest, and they have been quick to use it.

Capture has been further implemented through the extensive lobbying power of corporations. Abraham Lincoln’s warning about “corporations enthroned” and Dwight Eisenhower’s about the “unwarranted influence by the military/industrial complex” have been fully realized in our own time. Reported lobbying expenditures have risen annually, to $3.5 billion in 2010. Half of the Senators and 42 percent of House members who left Congress between 1998 and 2004 became lobbyists, as did 310 former appointees of George W. Bush and 283 of Bill Clinton.

Capture has placed the most powerful CEOs above the reach of the law and beyond its effective enforcement. Extensive evidence of Wall Street’s critical involvement in the financial crisis notwithstanding, not a single senior Wall Street executive has lost his job, and pay levels have been rigorously maintained even when, as noted earlier, TARP payments had to be refinanced in order to remove any possible restrictions.

Finally, capture has been perpetuated through the removal of property “off shore,” where it is neither regulated nor taxed. The social contract between Americans and their corporations was supposed to go roughly as follows: In exchange for limited liability and other privileges, corporations were to be held to a set of obligations that legitimatized the powers they were given. But modern corporations have assumed the right to relocate to different jurisdictions, almost at will, irrespective of where they really do business, and thus avoid the constraints of those obligations.

Like the epic battle between hyenas and lions, this political fighting for economic control between the rich and those that have not is viscous and enduring. This is madness. Let us put an end to this nonsense by supporting the Economic Inequality Rating App. It creates a new environment not controlled by these politically generated forces and can stop economic inequality. The political process is ineffective in creating long term results on our behalf whereas the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA) bypasses the pitfalls of politics and directly solves the problem of inequality.
3) Flaws in capitalism, which disproportionately impacts the poor, keep us bound in the status quo.

The home page section of this website, under BASIC CONCEPTS, with the title, "Our Position Paper On Economic Inequality," points out basic flaws in capitalism, with the Economic Inequality Rating App, (EIRA) as a counter balance to traditional capitalism as quoted here,
FirstRateCrowd is the vanguard of reasoned capitalism, leading the way to prevent its own demise. Aspects of our economic system are shattered, providing instability of unprecedented proportion. In the past one hundred years, we have witnessed a major depression, a major recession, and now rampant inequality. These dramatic shifts indicate a flawed system; they certainly are not indicative of a smooth operating and well oiled machine. History is well-equipped with examples of this type of volatility bringing about a precipitous economic system change, a change we do not want. Our crowdsourcing Community, with its power of choice based upon "the wisdom of the crowd," and the Economic Inequality Rating App, (EIRA), can help to remedy these economic failures. By modifying and taking corrective action now, the capitalistic economic system we already have in place can be saved. We can prevent a future catastrophic event from occurring.
The economic system is broken and no longer works for us, yet we do not want to do away with it. Rather, we want to repair it by regulating it in a practical and common-sense way, and make it ours once again; this will change the balance of the inequality equation. Our new form of EIRA provides the crowd a new way to choose its economic outcomes in a more favorable fashion aligned with its own best interests. It is an existential principle of choice in economic matters that allows it a greater freedom in meeting its own needs; this more sovereign position is the liberty we strive for.

Our strategy for creating this new kind of company is to provide individuals in the marketplace choice by using the EIRA; this is a democratic principle. This position will not only allow for more wealth and income to flow to the remainder of us, but will modulate the behavior of the 1% from its eventual self-destructive behavior. We want to emphasize that we do not wish to do away with capitalism. We do, however, wish to regulate and damper the ill effects of its actions by offering people choice. Through this process, we have a means to further democratize the economic landscape, generating a more equitable position for all involved.

There are a few proposed solutions being bantered about in the public domain but they have no realistic chance of being successful in changing the economic inequality landscape. These options, presented by politicians and pundits, are fractured along political and class lines. They are unrealistic and insufficient to meet the needs for true change. Their impotent views and callous indifference to suffering is providing lip-service only. In contrast, our organization presents a concrete and realistic way forward; it is by uniting with us in our endeavor that a realistic and viable change will occur for the common good.
Until we can correct the heretofore mentioned imbalances caused by capitalism, and create a new direction of thought and action, the system will continue to be rigged, and we will continue to be crushed under the boots of the elite. The collapse of capitalism is usually caused by the wealthy creating risky laws to enhance their wealth and is the mindset as to how they operate. Whereas they may get killed in the market, many of us less fortunate literally get killed by economic collapse. Until the imbalance is rectified, it will be the same business as usual in a repetitive cycle of upward fortune followed by downward disasters. Although after each and every disaster new laws are put into place to contain the greed of the wealthy that created the disaster to begin with, these laws are quickly diluted down or repealed all together to favor the wealthy once again. What else can we expect from a legal corporate system that has a primary emphasis on fiduciary laws, that is to say, laws that mandate corporations make money for their stock holders as the basic reason for their very existence.

One has only to couple this with the Robert's Supreme court decision "Citizens United" where Corporations are now considered People to see where this is going. It is clear the very wealthy have been manipulating the court system for the past 30 years to feather their own beds. This is continuing at an unprecedented pace and the trajectory points to more and more control for the corporate elite.

4)The rise of the technological singularity.

The speed and power of the coming technological singularity is unprecedented in human history with its exponentially accelerating future growth predicted; a new approach must be implemented to counter the self-serving affects the wealthy will have upon economic inequality because of this. A new direction must be taken and that requires a new way of thinking.

My post #1 under the topic Economic Inequality: The Singularity, Pitchforks And Torches Will No Longer Be Able To Stop The 1%, expresses my sentiment of a loosing battle with the wealthy as they become more and more entrenched in their control of the technology, and hence, economic inequality.
The coming Quantum Computer Revolution with its associated subjects of the Singularity, will make it impossible to stop the 1% with the outdated modes of pitchforks and torches. The 1% will obviously own the superior computers and robotics. They will gain the ability to hide on the internet never to be caught.
It is obvious only the very rich will be able to afford the Quantum Computers ushering in the Singularity. The following is a quote I found from PC World.

"D-Wave last year introduced the second-generation quantum computer called D-Wave Two which has a “list price north of $10 million,” according a research note from financial firm Sterne Agee on Wednesday. The note had a picture of a D-Wave Two with a list price of $15 million.
I have done a scientific study (Ha...just kidding) by asking my friends if any of them have the means to afford a Quantum Computer and the answer was a resounding "No." Actually, many did not even know what a quantum computer was let alone Kurzweil's concepts on the future of technology.

With access to the fastest and most sophisticated computers in conjunction with changed laws in their favor, the rich will be able to hide in the internet with their Quantum Computers making the decisions for them. We will not be able to catch-up to them as they continue to upgrade and expand their technology nor will we be able to even locate them. Just try poking a pitchfork at your computer and see what happens.
I build upon this again in my post #6,
The Creation Of New Laws Developed From And In Response To The Coming Singularity Will Favor The Rich. This Will Create A New Class Of Inequality And Precipitate Increased Human Rights Abuse Disproportionately Upon The Poor. The Initial High Costs Of The Neurological And Technological Brain Adaptions Will Be A Major Factor Contributing To This New Form Of Inequality.
I frame this narrative with the following two prominent mechanisms,
Unfortunately, because the creation of new laws is mostly based upon past actions, it almost always lags behind technological developments. As we draw closer to the Singularity, this time differential between past actions and the creation of new laws may very well decrease due to new technology in the legal arena itself. But overall, in absolute terms, it will take more time to develop these laws. This is because the new laws will need to be developed in some ratio to the exponentially accelerating new technology being developed. One can envision a legal system not capable of keeping up with the dizzying array of new social implications needing regulation and control. Of course there will be technological developments in the legal arena itself to aid in the processing of this technological onslaught. But one can see a scenario where even the new legal technology will be overwhelmed at some point. With an absolute increase in time needed to process the new technology, forms of human rights abuse will multiply against those individuals least capable of defending themselves.

Perhaps worse yet, the initial inability of the poor to merge with the new technology due to prohibitive costs will create a new form of inequality; it is an inequality of technological fitness. In contrast, those who can afford to be integrated and augmented with the new high priced technology will transcend a mere biological survival of the fittest to a new form of survival whereby the most technologically integrated individuals become the most fit. This is regardless of their genetic background. Moreover, because the new laws will favor those at the top of the economic pyramid, those at the base will be subject to more crushing human rights abuses than those at the top even if it is just periods of time. And granted, the unit price of the technology will eventually come down as it did with computers and cell phones, but it still makes opportunities ripe for abuse during these transition periods. Still, there may be unforeseen consequences not matching past behaviors that could also propagate abuse. Like the stock market, past behavior may no longer be predictive of future events. If we are really changing neuronal behaviors, will our old models of predicting future behavior hold up in the new reality?
From: Ray Kurzweil Predicts Three Technologies Will Define Our Future
By Sveta McShane and Jason Dorrier
Written Apr 19, 2016
This is the last in a four-part series looking at the big ideas in Ray Kurzweil's book " The Singularity Is Near."

Of all the technologies riding the wave of exponential progress, Kurzweil identifies genetics, nanotechnology, and robotics as the three overlapping revolutions which will define our lives in the decades to come. In what ways are these technologies revolutionary?

The genetics revolution will allow us to reprogram our own biology.
The nanotechnology revolution will allow us to manipulate matter at the molecular and atomic scale.
The robotics revolution will allow us to create a greater than human non-biological intelligence.

Once again the most fit, now meaning those individuals who can afford the new technologies, are more likely to survive and one can bet their last dollar that some form of a predator to prey relationship will evolve between the unequal economic classes.
A new direction of thought and action created by the technological singularity will require a new direction of thought and action on our part to survive in this new reality. I continue on to share by stating,
Let there be no doubt, the single most important aspect we are really battling for here is to control the future—our future—for the good of the whole. Will we control it or let the wealthy elite control our destiny? Make no mistake; what happens here will determine the outcome of humanity. Whoever controls the Singularity will control the future—will it be us or them?

Regarding the words, "Whoever controls the Singularity will control the future", the word control implies some form of active intent. One only has to look at the modern day corporate players of Apple, Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and other key players at the top of the corporate pyramid to see the level of active control they employ to promote their interests. Their intent is for world domination at least realistically in their their respective fields to control the future. They actively appropriate large amounts of capital and talent to ensure their future technological dominance. A quest to maximize profits and continue growth marches lockstep with a corporate fiduciary duty regarding such matters for their shareholders. This is an active intent to control the future.

The above four powerful mechanisms, although not exhaustive in scope and breadth as there are many more mechanisms, are too much for us to surmount and we will be conquered and eventually destroyed by the elite's economic inequality unless we begin to think and act differently.

Janebird21 ends her post in the work I am referencing with a sequence of what if? statements,
Instead of welfare programs What if policymakers looked at fair taxes and wealth distribution. What if that 1% paid their share of taxes and this was redistributed? What would the human race look like and what doors would open to us if we could change all the brains of a population for the better? What if wealth redistribution was the catalyst for the next step in human evolution.
Unfortunately these are based upon the same old rigid thoughts and actions that have gotten us into the predicament we find ourselves in today. Although they are compassionate and noble, they are nonetheless antiquated and ineffectual. Rather, I present the following set of what if statements as a guiding light to get at and solve the root cause of the problem:

1) What if everyone was to recognize economic inequality as the real problem at hand and not the fractured and disparate set of problems individuals and organizations are currently trying to solve?

2) What if all of these various individuals and organizations were to shift the focus of their attention and resources to solving the problem of economic inequality first as a bold unified step towards answering our common threat?

3) What if everyone in the 99% was to actively support the development and implementation of the Economic Inequality Rating App (EIRA)?

We now have the choice of creating a fair and just world for ourselves, or experiencing Orwell's boot in our collective face,
If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever. George Orwell
We are our own worst enemy when we allow these antiquated mechanisms to control our lives. The old rules of activism must be supplanted with a new mindset. The clock is ticking. Wake up and embrace a more advanced activism; rise up to the power of FirstRateCrowd's EIRA.
Times Referenced: 0

Posted on: » Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:23 pm #29

Posts: 31
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 7:19 am

Re: Brain Structure Drives The Consequent Effects Of Economic Inequality

Post by MaureenCarter » Tue Mar 05, 2019 3:23 pm

Thank you Doctor A for clarifying why past activist rules of engagement regarding economic inequality with the 1% are impotent at best. Your articulation and clarity as to the mechanisms holding the 99% in bondage is refreshing to see. I too have similar thoughts as to why my activism is not working and will not work in the future to solve our dilemma.

I recently had an email exchange with a friend of mine who is a top expert in genomics related to the production of cancer chemo medications regarding the usefulness of philosophy. Here is the article in question:

The New Yorker
Annals of Thought
January 7, 2019 Issue
The Philosopher Redefining Equality
Elizabeth Anderson thinks we’ve misunderstood the basis of a free and fair society. By Nathan Heller ... g-equality

My friend is a staunch supporter of philosophy in general and especially of the philosophical work put out by the main protagonist in the article. On the other hand, I see it as inefficient and a running around in mental circles but certainly not sufficient in any significant manner to solve the problems of economic inequality. Oh sure, maybe it can give insight into the scientific process and work synergistically with it or some clerk on a congressional oversight committee would like to throw these thoughts into a bill to bolster their position, but is it really doing any good? My overall thoughts are much more aligned with the views Doctor A mentions. A new paradigm is needed.

Do not misconstrue what I am saying. It is not just philosophy, it is also the science itself. In fact, it is just about everything we are doing which is wrongly directed. We are our own worst enemy when we allow antiquated mechanisms to control our lives. The old rules of activism must be supplanted with a new mindset. The clock is ticking.

For me it is an exercise in philosophical mental masturbation with clever thoughts and words that misses the mark. The science too is putting the cart before the horse. A new cancer cure with philosophical underpinnings will be almost useless if the wealthy block its use. Rather, let us put first things first and create a new paradigm to stop economic inequality.

All of the cancer cures guided by philosophy will not stop the growing list below of what economic inequality is doing to us. To win, we must know our enemy and then attack it otherwise it will be just business as normal which is a loosing proposition.

Let us stop chasing after the glittering fools gold of science, philosophy, or other similar standard models of interacting with the world and realize the enemy at hand; the wealthy elite with their powerful mechanisms to maintain economic inequality are the enemy. I would rather see the salaries and resources of these standard model organizations put to better use by funding the EIRA to stop them. It is the only new insturment I know of that is truly capable of stopping the mechanisms used by the elite from crushing us forever.

Wars (increased)
Terrorism (increased)
Life expectancy (decreased)
Math and literacy (decreased)
Climate change (increased)
Infant mortality (increased)
Homicides (increased)
Imprisonment (increased)
Teenage births (increased)
Trust (decreased)
Obesity (increased)
Mental illness (increased)
Drug addiction (increased)
Alcoholism (increased)
Social and work mobility (decreased)
Impact of money in politics (increased)
Pollution (increased)
Women's rights (decreased)
Racism (increased)
Food Insecurity (increased)
Loneliness (increased)
Times Referenced: 0

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests