- cross-posted to:
- usa
- atheism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- usa
- atheism@lemmy.ml
Link to original study for curious folks with access to it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2322399121
Link to original study for curious folks with access to it: https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2322399121
knowing that this leads to areas fraught with serious, serious issues… one could say the twins have similar levels/types of “brain damage”. careful treading required.
The nature vs nurture debate is on a scale. While twins might share the same predilection for religiosity due to their genetics, upbringing plays a huge part as well, which is why Squid’s researcher is careful to qualify the answer with ‘in general’. There’s also the concept of neuroplasticity which means damage to the relevant networks does not necessarily doom one to permanent deficits in the associated neural functions. The brain can often recover or adapt post injury.
Considering this, the research is useful in that it allows professionals to predict areas in a patient’s behaviour that might need therapies to return to normal, guidance to set expectations, or as an indicator of damage should sudden related and unexplained behaviour changes occur. It ofc also adds to the body of evidence that associates these parts of the brains with various functions.
More to your comment: You’re right. This needs to be considered carefully because there is a long troubled history with labels in neuropsychology becoming misnomers and insults. For example the terms ‘moron’ and ‘idiot’ used to be an official diagnosis once up on a time.
Hence my saying it’s structural. I mean I suppose the brain damage could have happened in the womb because the mother was a substance abuser or something, but I think it’s more likely that certain structures in parts of the brain, which can either be natural or caused by brain damage, increase religious fundamentalism.