Justin Mohn, a 32-year-old Pennsylvania man, is in police custody after allegedly murdering and decapitating his father, claiming the latter was a "federal employee" and a "traitor." Before his arrest, Mohn posted a 14-minute video to YouTube in which he displayed his father's severed head, proclaiming: "This is the head of Mike Mohn, a federal

Justin Mohn, a 32-year-old Pennsylvania man, is in police custody after allegedly murdering and decapitating his father, claiming the latter was a “federal employee” and a “traitor.” Before his arrest, Mohn posted a 14-minute video to YouTube in which he displayed his father’s severed head, proclaiming: "This is the head of Mike Mohn, a federal

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        52·
        2 years ago

        Although these results suggest a link between political attitudes and brain structure, it is important to note that the neural processes implicated are likely to reflect complex processes of the formation of political attitudes rather than a direct representation of political opinions per se. The conceptualizing and reasoning associated with the expression of political opinions is not necessarily limited to structures or functions of the regions we identified but will require the involvement of more widespread brain regions implicated in abstract thoughts and reasoning.

          • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
            43·
            2 years ago

            Least chill comment I’ve seen on lemmy lol I thought I was on reddit for a second… It’s a quote from the study you posted not everyone online is trying to debate you.

              • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
                1·
                2 years ago

                Well I don’t really have a point myself, the study has a point which is emphasizing that these neural processes measured aren’t a direct representation of political opinions per se.

                I guess my only relevant opinion aligns with what they are saying in better ways in the study, to which I would add that it gets dicey whenever people’s thoughts/behaviors are reduced to something inherent about their biology. The authors of the study are putting in a good effort to avoid that reductive interpretation and explaining it very well. Biological indicators and many subsequent indicators are determined in complex ways by the conditions people are in and where they were born, etc.

            • stoly@lemmy.world
              22·
              2 years ago

              LOL he’s been going on the attack around here. This concept has broken his brain and he’s just lost it.

      • ɯᴉuoʇuɐ@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        41·
        2 years ago

        conservatives are literally, physiologically hypersensitive to fear

        I don’t have a background in psychology either, but the prefix hyper- in medical contexts usually means something is abnormally and dangerously excessive in size, amount, etc. Yet from your quote there’s no reason to conclude the on-average increased amydagla is necessarily abnormally increased. It isn’t, it’s just bigger, it’s not automatically pathological.

    • curiousaur@reddthat.com
      151·
      2 years ago

      You don’t have to have a background in psychology to read studies. It has been a topic increasingly researched lately, and the first part of their post is demonstrated by evidence in the studies.

      The conclusion about it being a mental illness is up for debate. It might be seen more as part of the human spectrum, like being gay or trans.

      • stoly@lemmy.world
        5·
        2 years ago

        The first part was actual results of studies. The second part was me being editorial.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      132·
      2 years ago

      It’s a good thing that I was able to read articles that professional psychologists wrote on the subject. But go ahead, be angry.

      • Neon 🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦🇪🇺🏳️‍⚧️🇹🇼🇮🇱🏳️‍🌈@lemmy.world
        114·
        2 years ago

        Then how about

        1. You link them when asked about your sources (or actually just link them when making such a Statement)
        2. You don’t present it as your own Opinion

        And yes, I am angry. Angry about all these self-proclaimed Experts these days who think they know everything and know more than Experts who studied this Subject for years.

        All those People who are Climatechange Experts but couldn’t even really tell you, what the Ozone-Layer exactly is.

        Or all those People who proclaim a Genocide in Gaza, but couldn’t even tell you where or how a Genocide is defined.

        If you’re not qualified, you’re allowed to just not say anything and not spew disinformation.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          32·
          2 years ago

          This is common knowledge. Your ignorance is not my responsibility. You could easily have looked it up yourself but decided to project your ignorance on us instead.

          Your anger is yours, it has nothing to do with reality. It is something you should deal with through therapy, not by going on tirades against random people on Lemmy simply because you don’t have the experience and education to understand the things that they are talking about. We do not deserve to suffer your insecurity.

          Every single example you gave has a great deal of evidence behind it. You do not like that, and this causes you pain. This is all about you.

          Also references to Mao are probably not going to help you here.

          • Neon 🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦🇪🇺🏳️‍⚧️🇹🇼🇮🇱🏳️‍🌈@lemmy.world
            14·
            2 years ago

            I don’t even know where to start

            You made an imaginary picture of me based off of two comments. Then you used that nonexistent, imaginary version of me to make up your opinon and write this Comment in which you call me “ignorant”, “insecure”, “inexperienced”, “uneducated”, and just all-round talk me down.

            So do you now understand why i didn’t believe you?

            Your Comment here is nothing more that baseless Slander and i have no Reason to assume you did any more “Research” for your previous Comment than you did for this one.

            As such i do not see the Point in continuing this Conversation with you and will stop here.

            • stoly@lemmy.world
              3·
              2 years ago

              This is so tedious that I am going to go ahead and block you. Take your fake outrage and go somewhere else.

      • Neon 🏳️‍🌈🇺🇦🇪🇺🏳️‍⚧️🇹🇼🇮🇱🏳️‍🌈@lemmy.world
        111·
        2 years ago

        I’ve fucking had it with unqualified people talking about stuff they don’t know anything about. If you don’t know anything about a Topic, you’re allowed to not say anything without spewing misinformation.

        I mean, there’s a Reason i don’t give my Opinion on Climatechange. Because i know that i am not qualified to talk about it. I know from personal experience how much university teaches you and how much you miss if you didn’t study that Subject, so i’m not giving my Opinion on a topic i didn’t study. And i expect others to do the same.

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        1·
        2 years ago

        Removed, rule 3:

        “Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (perjorative, perjorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (perjorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect!”