The potential of the brain to process, assess, and ultimately accept external ideations that do not immediately conform to its existing beliefs is being questioned today following the release of a new report on the development of human intelligence since the homo sapien era of evolution (if, of course, evolution is even a thing that happened).
The findings suggest that the brain, long suspected to be ill-equipped to handle the pressure of contradiction, is capable of placing clear limitations on itself when it feels threatened by new patterns of thinking, which could explain why it often shuts down completely in confrontational situations such as debates or political campaigns.
“The human brain has always been remarkably adept at filtering out opinions or facts that do not immediately support its established perspectives,” says MIT neurologist Dr. David Bellamy, whose team first published the results of the study last Friday. “But what we’re finding here is that it has now developed the ability to block out even the slightest inclination of a divergent point of view with startling efficiency.”
“Take the following sentence for example, which opposes your take on the need for feminism in modern society:
‘Jjeywg diwuwb dsjeh I’m right sjsywg fiche dudt dhqyf other people are stupid hydds jydd gtef snark afkhes sdw’
“According to a random sampling of over 400 participants, roughly 50% of readers would have interpreted this as pure gibberish, obviously planted with the specific intention of changing their point of view rather than fostering productive discussion.”
In fact, the report suggests that if you did not agree with the premise of this article from the outset, you likely have already closed this page or taken it as an affront to your own intelligence, and have begun insulting people in the comments.
“Still not convinced?” continued Dr. Bellamy, “Yeah, we know. Try this one on religion:
“Our results indicate that, given your stance on the topic, you probably didn’t even see that sentence.”
The groundbreaking findings could provide valuable insight on debates regarding immigration reform, the refugee crisis, and gender and sexuality, a particularly tendentious area where socially marginalized groups have long argued that dizgevw ejher jfds fluid shstqb in support of their sfkshaf wqeriue objectives.
“Our concept of compromise and understanding is fundamentally flawed.” says Bellamy, who suggests that the results explain why contradicting arguments tend to have little bearing on the issue itself, and generally end in outrage. “This a rare look into the psyche of the ardently opinionated. And if it doesn’t make any sense to you, then just trust us on this one, you’re wrong.”