Liberals Tell Us How They Perceive Their Environment

From this article:

“According to some liberals, when Mitt Romney spoke of his “five boys” in Wednesday’s debate, he really wasn’t talking about his five sons. Some claimed he was engaging in racist “dog whistle” code while calling Obama a “boy,” Twitchy reported Friday.”

This is interesting, because it gives a window into the Liberal mind. A Liberal, facing a Black American in a debate, believes in their heart that if they said “5 boys” to the man, it would work like a silent dog whistle, and upset him in a way which would be significant and helpful to their cause. Yet like a silent dog whistle, no-one would know or notice it, but their target. Liberals innately assume the amygdala hijack is real and it works this way, because they experience it regularly – and this is how it works.

Now I doubt a regular, non-narcissistic Black American, even raised in the heart of the south during racist periods would respond reflexively, in this way, to what Romney said. Sometimes, “my boys” is just a folksy phrase. However a Liberal, looking at the Black American’s circumstances, (and projecting their liberal psychology upon them) thinks they would, because it is what the Liberal would do.

Think about that. To a Liberal, you could use a phrase as innocuous as “5 boys” in a sentence describing your five children, and it would be expected for the Black American to freak out inside.

You cannot understand the Liberal mind, or what transpires in a debate with one, without understanding how overly sensitive the Liberal amygdala is to the most subtle of stimuli. It is constantly parsing words, seeing hidden meanings, and looking for something to freak out about. Is their defective amygdala unable to effectively prioritize the importance of incoming stimuli? (One of the key roles the amygdala plays.) Does it see everything as being equally important, regardless of real importance?

Of course “5 boys” was an amygdala hijack, but it was so, because it was targeted at the narcissist’s subconscious demands to be shown deference, be respected as a leader and source of wisdom, and not be out-grouped as a liar or child (or laughed at by the crowd). By saying Obama was just like one of his children, lying again and again, Romney made Obama look, socially, to the crowd, like a lying child instead of a revered leader. The laughter of the crowd only enhanced the effect.

Disregard those demands so blatantly, and you will trip their amygdala, and produce a physiological effect similar to what a Conservative would feel hanging from a building ledge by two fingers, five stories up. Oddly enough, as the article shows, many Liberals recognized “5 boys” as an amygdala hijack, with many tweeting about it immediately after. However they seem to have trouble spotting just why it was a hijack, perhaps because they weren’t in Obama’s shoes when it was delivered.

I hope Romney has more amygdala hijacks ready for the next debate. If so, they should focus on ridicule, denigration of ability, and powerlessness, and be delivered in the most amused mood possible.

Until then, good luck, Congressman Ryan.