If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Philly.com)   Being "born again" linked to more brain atrophy, according to pivotal new paper from the Journal of Trolling Research   (philly.com) divider line 36
    More: Obvious, Duke University Medical Center, HealthDay News, hippocampus, spiritual practice, religions and spiritual traditions, brain atrophy  
•       •       •

7006 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 May 2012 at 1:11 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-05-01 01:44:10 PM
2 votes:
indylaw: I'd venture to guess that most atheists don't pay much attention to religious doctrine or dogma.

Pew Forum data suggests you're wrong, there. While they may think the doctrine and dogma is bull, they tend to know it pretty well. Atheists/Agnostics tend to be more knowledgeable about religion in general than Christians, and about Christian beliefs more so than most sects of Christian. (White Evangelicals and Mormons tend to know more than Atheists/Agnositics about Christianity in particular, but not religion in general.)

Generic "Nothing In Particular" may be more like what you're thinking of, however.
2012-05-01 01:21:45 PM
2 votes:
Regardless of the conclusions, this is junk science. Their protocol is laughable.
2012-05-01 01:20:54 PM
2 votes:
indylaw: Conservative evangelical protestants ("born-agains"), Catholics and atheists all have in common that they unquestioningly believe what others have told them, and so have less cause to learn and think about what they have learned. It's natural that their hippocampi would be atrophied.

WOT???
2012-05-01 01:16:59 PM
2 votes:
had98c: Those with no affiliation also showed the same shrinkage? It's go Protestant or go home? Seems pretty dubious.

Conservative evangelical protestants ("born-agains"), Catholics and atheists all have in common that they unquestioningly believe what others have told them, and so have less cause to learn and think about what they have learned. It's natural that their hippocampi would be atrophied.
2012-05-01 01:15:09 PM
2 votes:
I wonder if they plan a followup study to see if religious deconversions have any measurable effect.
2012-05-01 01:13:53 PM
2 votes:
Those with no affiliation also showed the same shrinkage? It's go Protestant or go home? Seems pretty dubious.
2012-05-01 01:13:22 PM
2 votes:
"According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again."

Hahahahahaha.....
2012-05-01 01:12:31 PM
2 votes:
There's a sucker born again every minute.
2012-05-01 03:17:17 PM
1 votes:
loonatic112358: Epicedion: I do have one quibble: religious groups (especially in the south, where this study was focused) tend to be demographically self-sorting. Non-born-again protestants tend to be your WASPy group -- wealthier/middle-class white people -- while born-agains tend to be poorer or composed of ethnic minorities (again, self-sorting generally along race lines), and southern Catholics tend to be poor Latin American immigrants.There are a lot of factors here.

yea, i'm not so sure on that


I guess Korean Americans pretty much blow your theory out the windaa. They are uber religious (many are born again evengelicals) yet highly educated and higher income per capita than even whites.
2012-05-01 02:54:11 PM
1 votes:
indylaw:
Irrational? I hold rational beliefs that are predicated on assumptions that you disagree with.

There's nothing irrational about believing that God exists. It is an assumption. It is also an assumption that the gravitational force does not reverse itself. ,You don't know that to be true, but it hasn't been disproven.


Try to avoid face-planting logic fails when you defend your rationality, sport.
2012-05-01 02:50:57 PM
1 votes:
2CountyFairs: Well, this is just as good as place as any, I suppose.

This weekend, I saw a guy that was quite a bit younger than me that I hadn't seen since I was in high school. I also met his wife, who is a nurse. Somehow during the conversation, she brought up the appendix (the human organ) and how it was useless. I say "well, it is now, but at some point it had a use." Her answer, "no, it never had a use." I say "sure it did, but it whatever it's purpose was, we evolved and no longer needed it". Her answer, "oh, you're one of those people who believe man evolved from monkeys."

I wanted to argue, but I was drunk and couldn't quite figure out which way I wanted to argue (discuss the differences between micro and macro evolution, explain to her that evolution does not mean "man came from monkeys", or just ask her if she believed that God was infalliable how it was possible that he made the mistake of creating something that doesn't have a use). Being drunk, I could not have argued anything intelligently and just kind of sat there.

When a friend took up the slack and started questioning her, she turned it into a no other life exists anywhere in the universe type of conversations. I just had to back away and let them argue.


I believe that current research suggests that the function of the appendix is to provide a safe location for helpful guy bacteria which might otherwise be lost during a bought of diarrhea. So it sill works, but is less needed in an environment with clean water and cooked food.

So next time, let your conversation flow towards nipples, on men or otherwise.
2012-05-01 02:49:55 PM
1 votes:
FTFA

"Atheism is an effect of that knowledge, not a lack of knowledge. I gave a Bible to my daughter. That's how you make atheists."

That is a great idea.
2012-05-01 02:48:11 PM
1 votes:
indylaw: So atheists have a religious affiliation?

Rather, the "None" response to the usual question about religious affiliation actually includes several sub-groups, which can be refined by more precise questioning. Only about a tenth of the "Nones" self-identify as atheist; about another roughly one-in-six self-identify as agnostic. Something vaguely like half of the "Nones" remain generically "believe in a personal god" theist. (Oddly, so do about one in twenty of those who self-identify as "atheist", which probably says something about the limits of surveys....)

If you care, you can look through Pew's 2008 Religious Landscapes Survey.

Alternately, we can go to "bald is a hair color" silliness.
2012-05-01 02:46:17 PM
1 votes:
StrangeQ: indylaw: StrangeQ: I'm sorry your ignorance(religion) has blinded you, but it has.

You can do better than that.

No point. You can't have a rational discussion with someone holding inherently irrational position.


Irrational? I hold rational beliefs that are predicated on assumptions that you disagree with.

There's nothing irrational about believing that God exists. It is an assumption. It is also an assumption that the gravitational force does not reverse itself. You don't know that to be true, but it hasn't been disproven.
2012-05-01 02:41:38 PM
1 votes:
indylaw: StrangeQ: I'm sorry your ignorance(religion) has blinded you, but it has.

You can do better than that.


No point. You can't have a rational discussion with someone holding inherently irrational position.
2012-05-01 02:40:43 PM
1 votes:
FTA: "when you feel your beliefs and values are somewhat at odds with those of society as a whole, it may contribute to long-term stress that could have implications for the brain."

This fits with other studies showing prolonged high stress is bad for the brain. Which, speaking as one whose beliefs and values have always been very much at odds with society as a whole, from me gets a big "DUH!"

Since 2006 I've taken to self-medicating with alcohol. It takes the edge off the stress, and anyway I might as well shrink the rest of my brain to match the damage from all that cortisol.
2012-05-01 02:35:56 PM
1 votes:
indylaw: StrangeQ: indylaw: StrangeQ: No, it's pretty well studied

It's an important and popular fact...

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

Link

I'm sorry, were you saying something?

Those are all articles citing the single poll which abb3w cited. By that token, it's "pretty well studied" that atheists have degenerate brains.


Well, until you can find anything proving otherwise, the fact stands. I'm sorry your ignorance(religion) has blinded you, but it has.
2012-05-01 02:23:11 PM
1 votes:
Well, this is just as good as place as any, I suppose.

This weekend, I saw a guy that was quite a bit younger than me that I hadn't seen since I was in high school. I also met his wife, who is a nurse. Somehow during the conversation, she brought up the appendix (the human organ) and how it was useless. I say "well, it is now, but at some point it had a use." Her answer, "no, it never had a use." I say "sure it did, but it whatever it's purpose was, we evolved and no longer needed it". Her answer, "oh, you're one of those people who believe man evolved from monkeys."

I wanted to argue, but I was drunk and couldn't quite figure out which way I wanted to argue (discuss the differences between micro and macro evolution, explain to her that evolution does not mean "man came from monkeys", or just ask her if she believed that God was infalliable how it was possible that he made the mistake of creating something that doesn't have a use). Being drunk, I could not have argued anything intelligently and just kind of sat there.

When a friend took up the slack and started questioning her, she turned it into a no other life exists anywhere in the universe type of conversations. I just had to back away and let them argue.
2012-05-01 02:22:30 PM
1 votes:
indylaw: Respectfully, that survey (and it's unclear to me whether the participants were chosen at random or whether they were participants who chose to take the test and were therefore self-selecting)

Covered in the methodology. Essentially: no more self-selecting than the typical Gallup response.

I'd note, this looks like seeking reasons to justify discounting the source of dissonant information.

indylaw: deals with knowledge of basic religious facts or facts about things peripheral to religion (like application of the Establishment Clause).

Er? Sentence fragment unclear.

However, the breakdown is more or less: Five questions on the Old Testament; two on the New Testament; two on variant Christian doctrines; three on figures in Christian history; two on Judiasm; three questions on Mormon history/teachings; two on Islam; two on Buddhism; two on Hinduism; one on Greek mythology; two on the definitions of atheism and agnosticism; and four on (as you note) the role of religion in public life.

Also, several nonreligious topics, not counted in the above score.
2012-05-01 02:11:40 PM
1 votes:
loonatic112358: there's plenty of protestants in colors

As I said, this study was focused in the South, where religious groups still tend to self-segregate.

The question of religion in the South is itself nearly a question of socio-economic status (bringing with it access to healthcare) and race.

The non-born-again Protestants they're referring to are probably by bulk United Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, and possibly Episcopalian, which in the South are mostly middle to upper class, and mostly white. If you do just about any study where "middle-class and up white people" is a group, you're probably going to find they outperform the other groups.
2012-05-01 02:00:18 PM
1 votes:
loonatic112358: it's not like i'm required to make sense now is it

Not with a username starting "loonatic", you're not.

indylaw: There are undoubtedly some atheists, Catholics and even evangelicals that do study and think about the arguments for and against their beliefs.

Trivially true. The more interesting question is about the relative ratios.

indylaw: As for sociological data? No, I'm not a trained sociologist, nor am I at a school where I have access to social science journals.

There's more than a little out there on the web in Open Access stuff, and from research groups like Pew and the like, if you've an amateur interest. The GSS also has a web-interface available to play with; though it's not too relevant to that particular question, it's useful for a lot of others.

indylaw: Admittedly I have nothing but anecdotes and experience.

The aforementioned Pew data and the Altemeyer/Hunsberger study suggest that your andecdotes and experience may be the result of confirmation bias influenced selective recollection, and/or your local environment not corresponding to a representative sample of the US.
demotivators.despair.com


tortilla burger: This looks to me like a set of completely random data.

It may end up not being worth a hill of Jelly Beans.
Still, somewhat interesting in the meanwhile, until further work gets done.

Gyrfalcon: It's true. I have studies.

The doodle on your lunch napkin is not exactly what is normally meant by a "study".

Epicedion: I do have one quibble: religious groups (especially in the south, where this study was focused) tend to be demographically self-sorting.

Probably worth trying to control for in a followup study, yes.
2012-05-01 02:00:12 PM
1 votes:
indylaw: had98c: Those with no affiliation also showed the same shrinkage? It's go Protestant or go home? Seems pretty dubious.

Conservative evangelical protestants ("born-agains"), Catholics and atheists all have in common that they unquestioningly believe what others have told them, and so have less cause to learn and think about what they have learned. It's natural that their hippocampi would be atrophied.


Well if that's not a troll, I don't know what is.
2012-05-01 01:53:57 PM
1 votes:
lacydog: I was working a temp job to put myself through this 6 weeks of unpaid training recently, and the last day I spent with a born again Christian. About 2 hours in to the 10 hour shift, he asked "Are you a churchgoer"? Like an idiot, I told him no. When he asked why, I told him it was because I was an atheist.

He looked downright shocked, and spent a good portion of the rest of the day asking me about it and whether I'd like to go to church with him sometime.

I think Jim Cornette said it best (referring to born again and noted complete asshole Shawn Michaels): "I've noticed that people start talking to god when nobody else wants to farking talk to them anymore"

That being said, I have a good friend who's a BA, and she's fine to me about it. And there are some people that, for whatever reason, are absolutely made better by converting (like ex-addicts). So while I don't hate most born again folks, I generally try to avoid them. Much like Jehovah's Witnesses.


As an alcoholic and addict I'd have to disagree with that. Addicts and alcoholics who become all god-happy and born again are hardly better, sure they're not drunk or high but they are just as obnoxious as when they were. Being "born again" usually makes them think that god has got their back and nothing will go wrong ever again. As soon as they relapse (most of us will more than once before we finaly sober up) they swing over to either "I hate god", or "god hates me and wants to punish me". They are always looking for a magical answer to their problems and rarely take resposibility for themselves.
2012-05-01 01:53:03 PM
1 votes:
abb3w: indylaw: I'd venture to guess that most atheists don't pay much attention to religious doctrine or dogma.

Pew Forum data suggests you're wrong, there. While they may think the doctrine and dogma is bull, they tend to know it pretty well. Atheists/Agnostics tend to be more knowledgeable about religion in general than Christians, and about Christian beliefs more so than most sects of Christian. (White Evangelicals and Mormons tend to know more than Atheists/Agnositics about Christianity in particular, but not religion in general.)

Generic "Nothing In Particular" may be more like what you're thinking of, however.


Respectfully, that survey (and it's unclear to me whether the participants were chosen at random or whether they were participants who chose to take the test and were therefore self-selecting) deals with knowledge of basic religious facts or facts about things peripheral to religion (like application of the Establishment Clause).
2012-05-01 01:47:22 PM
1 votes:
Fark that, they don't get an excuse for believing in nonsense.
2012-05-01 01:42:19 PM
1 votes:
abb3w: This does leave the question of whether that's typical of the more specific Atheist and Agnostic sub-categories. Still; not exactly happy news for the godless heathens.

I do have one quibble: religious groups (especially in the south, where this study was focused) tend to be demographically self-sorting. Non-born-again protestants tend to be your WASPy group -- wealthier/middle-class white people -- while born-agains tend to be poorer or composed of ethnic minorities (again, self-sorting generally along race lines), and southern Catholics tend to be poor Latin American immigrants.

There are a lot of factors here.
2012-05-01 01:40:55 PM
1 votes:
abb3w: I wonder if they plan a followup study to see if religious deconversions have any measurable effect.

If you become an atheist proseltyzer, your brain becomes much too big for your skull.

It's true. I have studies.
2012-05-01 01:37:22 PM
1 votes:
Doesn't really surprise me. Maintaining that level of cognitive dissonance 24/7 must give the brain a good workout.
2012-05-01 01:37:18 PM
1 votes:
I was working a temp job to put myself through this 6 weeks of unpaid training recently, and the last day I spent with a born again Christian. About 2 hours in to the 10 hour shift, he asked "Are you a churchgoer"? Like an idiot, I told him no. When he asked why, I told him it was because I was an atheist.

He looked downright shocked, and spent a good portion of the rest of the day asking me about it and whether I'd like to go to church with him sometime.

I think Jim Cornette said it best (referring to born again and noted complete asshole Shawn Michaels): "I've noticed that people start talking to god when nobody else wants to farking talk to them anymore"

That being said, I have a good friend who's a BA, and she's fine to me about it. And there are some people that, for whatever reason, are absolutely made better by converting (like ex-addicts). So while I don't hate most born again folks, I generally try to avoid them. Much like Jehovah's Witnesses.
2012-05-01 01:30:42 PM
1 votes:
So we read this...

According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again.

Then they say this...

"One interpretation of our finding -- that members of majority religious groups seem to have less atrophy compared with minority religious groups -- is that when you feel your beliefs and values are somewhat at odds with those of society as a whole, it may contribute to long-term stress that could have implications for the brain," Amy Owen, lead author of the study and a research associate at Duke University Medical Center, said in a Duke news release.

So in terms of a religious debate, this information is meaningless. Got it.
2012-05-01 01:30:21 PM
1 votes:
Phony_Soldier: fickle floridian: or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage

I love how people keep missing this part "or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage".

LOLs


Read the entire article. The folks who experience Hippocampal shrinkage are those that underwent a "born-again" type experience. It didn't matter if it was coming to Jesus, Bhudda, or saying "FSCK IT THERE IS NOT GOD."

Once you decide to throw out any past experience and formulate all future conclusions on a made up set of doctrines (and it doesn't matter whose they are) you cease to exercise the "learn from experience" part of the brain.

And the brain scans reflect that.
2012-05-01 01:29:18 PM
1 votes:
Also,

A lot of recovering alcoholics become born agains.
Ethanol shrinks your brain.

Bam, science
2012-05-01 01:27:31 PM
1 votes:
Evil Twin Skippy: Corporate Self: Regardless of the conclusions, this is junk science. Their protocol is laughable.

Comparing the results of a brain scans on people over time from a cross section of backgrounds? I'll bite, where's the whole in that logic?


These people's lifestyles? Their habits? Drug use? Existing medical conditions? Ethnicity? Genetic disposition? Age? Controls?

I could go on ...
2012-05-01 01:23:46 PM
1 votes:
fickle floridian: "According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again."

Hahahahahaha.....


The best Trolls know how to piss off both sides of an argument.
2012-05-01 01:20:18 PM
1 votes:
Born-again Christians are also 74.3% more likely to use IE as their browser.
2012-05-01 01:16:16 PM
1 votes:
Yup, Conservatives are dumb as hell. Didn't need any research to figure that out. Just have a conversation with your local conservative...
 
Displayed 36 of 36 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report