Stefan Molyneux’s youtube channel is an endless stream of entertaining brilliance, as seen here:
I came across this quote from him a while back, and it really twisted my brain around as I pictured being a liberal and hearing it:
I always try to examine things in the context of amygdala. What lever is something pressing, how is it triggering aversive stimulus, how is it violating expectations, why is it being flagged, and on and on.
This argument is interesting, because it first says to the leftist mind that they support something they oppose. That begins to link their position to the emotions triggered by the idea they oppose, namely owning guns. That will trigger the amygdala which will focus the leftist mind upon it, and the leftist will try to immediately deny it to gain relief.
The argument then progresses to an airtight case that they do in fact support everything they claim to oppose, cementing the emotional linkage with logic and triggering the amygdala. Leftists do support gun ownership – by the state. That will attach aversive stimulus in the leftist mind to the idea of supporting gun control. Molyneux then subtly out-groups the leftist by portraying government as the enemy of all, and associating the leftist with supporting this out-group. This will slip past right-leaning ideologues, but it hits a leftist right between the eyes. Leftists are extremely conscious of any social association that could lead the conflict with the group. Finally, the end of the argument carries a subtle air of intellectual superiority, over having corrected the leftist’s misperception, as it subtly implies that supporting gun control makes an individual appear stupid. All of that attaches further amygdala activation and aversive stimulus to the concept of being in support of gun control.
It is an incredibly brilliant argument, only made more so by the fact it seems to flow forth freely, without any need to try and technically assemble it.
I think it is useful to take these arguments made by the naturals and deconstruct their effects on the amygdala, in the hopes that understanding their effects technically may help reconstruct other arguments like this in the future.
