"This video might make you think twice about being liberal with your foundation in the morning"

That's like saying "This video might make you think twice about being liberal with all those clothes you put on in the morning" in a video with a year's worth of clothing on at the same time. Just because it's a lot over the course of a year, that doesn't mean it's a lot on a daily basis.

@ Ryan S

Obviously I can't address all the points you made (well I could, but it's probably unnecessary - at least I didn't find it "TL to R"). At various points in my life I have been a theist, a deist, an agnostic, and an atheist, and I would just like to point out that as an (agnostic) atheist, I do not think that all the stories of theists are intended to be literal (although a select few theists do), and I am not one of those atheists who understands their beliefs to be merely in that of a man or a “sky god”. I don’t like to oversimplify such things, in fact I have a great interest in the beliefs of various religions, the purposes they serve/d, and origins of mythology that I developed long before my atheism, or agnosticism for that matter. Perhaps your precognitive insight into my point-of-view on everything was slightly off the mark.

I do not feel shame in applying labels to my “beliefs”. It helps me to express to others in broad terms where my opinions lie if they ask without having to go into some great spiel that will quickly cause them to lose interest. I am not ashamed of holding various beliefs, but I acknowledge that they may not necessarily be true (which is more than can be said for many). Nor am I ashamed of having biases, cognitive or otherwise, as I am human and could never free myself of them if I tried – although I do like to be aware of these biases to gain better insight into how they are affecting my judgement, and perhaps minimise them if I can.

It is the consensus amongst palaeontologists that Gigantopithecus probably did exist over 100,000 years ago. This is supported by fossil evidence. The authors of this article however are attempting to claim that they are still around and have some link with folklore that mentions giants. Others have argued that bigfoot is a descendent of Gigantopithecus, however there is no evidence for such claims which are likely to be the result of efforts made by the bigfoot community to forge some links between their theories and legitimate science.

@ JCollier

What do you mean no fossils? There are indeed fossils. Or do you dispute that they belonged to Gigantopithecus?

@ Ryan S,

I'm not sure if it was your intention to add to my comment or to correct it by inferring that saccades are not handled by the vestibular system. Either way I should point out that the structures you were describing are part of the central vestibular pathways, hence why damage to the inner ear can trigger saccades.

@ Ryan S,

I wonder why you tend to turn so many topics into an attack on atheists. Is it not just as bad for theists to believe in something despite a lack of evidence and criticise atheists for their outrageous lack of belief?

I'm in the belief that agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive. There is much interpretation and debate over the definition of these terms however I am in agreement with those that claim that agnosticism addresses evidence and atheism addresses belief. In the case of claims of the existence of god/s, I don’t believe that an absence of evidence is evidence of absence as I acknowledge that such a claim is unscientific as it concerns supernatural entities, and so there is no scientific evidence for or against the existence of deities that could satisfy the issue either way. I acknowledge that the existence of supernatural deities is inherently unknowable.

In terms of belief, it is my understanding that supernatural entities by definition do not exist in the natural world, and if they do not exist in the natural world then they are not based in reality, and if they are not based in reality then they are not real, and if they are not real they don’t exist. So while I acknowledge that the existence of deities is inherently unknowable, it is my personal belief that they do not exist, so I consider myself to be an agnostic atheist. That is not the same as saying “there is no god”.

You can criticise me if you like, but are all of your personal beliefs based on tangible evidence? I should also point out that I do not care for being lumped in with the intellectually arrogant who criticise others’ beliefs. I am all for respecting a person’s right to believe in inherently unanswerable questions such as the existence of deities and the afterlife, however when it comes to questions that can be addressed by science such as specific religious claims including many of those made by creationists, I am all for criticising with the use of science and logic.

I'm not sure what neuroplasticity has to do with the topic at hand. So they weren't aware of how the brain could change and compensate after a lobotomy... And?

If you've ever been so drunk that the world seems to be spinning ever so slightly, that is because your vistibular system is temporarily impaired and your eyes are attempting to compensate via the vestibulo-ocular reflex. The result is nystagmus, a rhythmic oscillation of the eyes where your eyes repeatedly drift away from your intended point of focus and the vestibulo-ocular reflex corrects this via saccades, which are fast, jerky movements of the eye back to where you are trying to focus.

So when you are so drunk that the room appears to be spinning, that is because your eyes are jerking around.

"Fortean Times looks at the possibility that the primate wasn’t an ape, but something a bit closer to human..."

Humans are part of the great ape family so either way they would be apes.

These could only be considered to be the giants mentioned in mythology if humans had any knowledge of them when they appeared in folklore. You can't retrofit findings such as fossils of Gigantopithecus to make post hoc rationalisations claiming they are the same giants the Bible speaks of.

I like how they use the word "quantum" to sound scientific and impressive. A poor choice of words. A "quantum leap forward" would actually be miniscule.

I've gotten "Jeff" before at cafes and over the phone. It's not surprising as high frequency sounds especially, such as /s/ and /f/ can get lost in background noise particularly if somebody has even a slight hearing impairment, but I'm pretty certain I don't look or sound like a dude.

I think in the case of Anji and Tyla being "misspelled" as Angie and Tyler, it is a case of the customers spelling their own names incorrectly.

I didn't really see it as mocking the workers so much as examples of what can go wrong when you're trying to communicate in a noisy, busy environment like Starbucks. As someone who struggles to hear in background noise I doubt I'd fare any better.

I must start by correcting you in that lobotomies did not involve the removal of any parts of the brain, but the severing of connections around the prefrontal cortex (although it wasn’t an exact science – “scrambling” parts of the prefrontal cortex would be more accurate).

There is no need to hark back to the days of Aristotle, or to quote Huxley, who was no authority on neuroscience. By Freeman’s time, cognitive psychology was in the process of overtaking radical behaviourism as the “in vogue” psychological approach. There was plenty of evidence at the time that damage to different areas of the brain would cause serious dysfunction as exhibited by famous lesion case studies such as Phineas Gage and patient Tan. The debate over the existence of specialisation of specific brain structures had been gaining momentum for about 100 years prior to when Freeman was operating at his peak, and the consensus at the time was tipping in favour of this view.

You seem again to be referring to doctors rather than psychiatrists/psychologists. Of course a doctor isn’t going to work through a patient’s deep psychological problems as they are unqualified to do so. They should be making referrals for such things. The failings of doctors to provide referrals for appropriate intervention and to monitor dosage are not the failing of SSRIs, but the failure of the medical establishment due to the inappropriate implementation of SSRIs. Of course any drug that is inappropriately prescribed and used can cause harm, but that is not to say that the drug doesn’t work when prescribed and used appropriately. I know one must consider prescriptive drugs in a real life context (effectiveness) in addition to how they work in empirical clinical settings (efficacy), but the way that SSRIs are implemented can be improved upon. Obviously living on opposite sides of the world, our respective health systems will differ in their implementation of SSRIs, so I am speaking generally here.

Actually the body of empirical evidence supporting the efficacy of SSRIs derived from randomised, controlled, double-blinded clinical trials on animals and humans exceeds that of the informal observations made by Freeman and his supporters by orders of magnitude in terms of scientific rigour.

I'm not sure what you mean by "the brain matter was seen as unnecessary" as the idea of functional specialisation of brain function (that all the different parts of the brain served different specific functions) had been popular for around 100 years prior to Freeman's lobotomies.

If you intended on generalising your statement about doctors preferring to treat depression with mind-altering drugs over identifying the underlying cause to psychiatrists/psychologists, that is incorrect. Psychological research is constantly being conducted to shed insight into the potential causes of depression. Mental health practitioners also typically employ a number of methods to treat depression including investigating potential specific causes at the individual level, counseling methods such as cognitive behavioural therapy, advice relating to exercise, and in many, but not all cases, drugs such as SSRIs.

SSRIs are not addictive and typically do not lead to dependency if usage is monitored by a psychiatrist or doctor. The most common form of depression, major depression, typically takes the form of episodes that last for weeks to months, meaning the biological causes tend to go away in time. As such a good medical practitioner monitors the length of the treatment phase and reduces dosage very gradually after a few months before deciding with the patient whether it is appropriate to discontinue usage. It is true that sudden cessation of SSRIs can sometimes result in SSRI discontinuation syndrome (not to be confused with serotonin syndrome), which can have negative side effects including temporary depressive and somatic symptoms, however a very gradual reduction in dosage over the space of about 3 months minimises this risk. Suicidal ideation is a possible side effect of taking SSRIs, however it is extremely uncommon independent of the depression itself.

As for your anecdotes relating to your friends, there is absolutely no way if knowing whether the SSRIs were the cause of their worsening symptoms, however I am not surprised that it didn't help them in the long run considering that SSRIs are not intended to provide a long-term solution and shouldn't be relied upon as such.