Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

[B. de Corbin]

Make of this what you will, you witches...

The Neuroscience of Witches

[Thrudr]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

"To begin with the obvious, witches are women." I will bring my witch stepfather the news...
Always so amusing when non-Pagans explain the core of witchcraft :P

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

"To begin with the obvious, witches are women." I will bring my witch stepfather the news...
Always so amusing when non-Pagans explain the core of witchcraft :P

witch (n.) Look up witch at Dictionary.com
Old English wicce "female magician, sorceress," in later use especially "a woman supposed to have dealings with the devil or evil spirits and to be able by their cooperation to perform supernatural acts," fem. of Old English wicca "sorcerer, wizard, man who practices witchcraft or magic," from verb wiccian "to practice witchcraft" (compare Low German wikken, wicken "to use witchcraft," wikker, wicker "soothsayer").

[Herbert]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

If that article isn't the worst bogus psuedo-science I've ever read, I don't know what is.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

If that article isn't the worst bogus psuedo-science I've ever read, I don't know what is.

Really? Which bits?

Personally, I think justifications for the power of juju based on quantum-crap, pyramid power, and ancient astronauts is "the worst bogus pseudo-science I've ever read."

But I'm a sucker for footnotes linked back to peer reviewed journals...

[Herbert]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

Well, I never make it past the first paragraph of most of those type things, so I can't really have been said to have read them. I might have been a bit hyperbolic, but still. Relating everything to 'neuroscience', no evidence of a scientific study, etc. Terrible form.

Mod note: Please use only the default colour. Changing the colour makes it hard to read on certain themes. Thank you!

[thalassa]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

Its absolutely not a scientific study, its an article in Huffington Post... And as such, it wasn't bad article. There were some problems with it--but its in a format that is basically an editorial, so that is forgivable.


But really, if you look at witchcraft as a social phenomenon and then look at the neuroscience of the social phenomenon, he's not wrong in his conclusions as a historical social average. Witchcraft is the tool of the opressed--it subversive by nature, to give powerless people agency in areas where they have little or no power. Just because we've made it something else doesn't change it historically.

Which he clearly talks about right here: "It is important to emphasize that we are speaking here of the evolution of the human brain over eons, which is the product of the traditional roles of males and females in a struggle for survival in the wild, and we are speaking of population averages. Today human beings enjoy diverse varieties of interpersonal relationships in a very different environment. Technology has given women control over their reproductive ability and expanded opportunities for women. While drawing these general conclusions, it is important to remember that everyone's brain is different. However, every biologist knows well that sex is the hub of animal behavior and the driving force for evolution."

[Tylluan Penry]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

St. John's wart ??? Really? I wonder where it was...

That said it was gloriously vague... 'in prehistoric times,' I mean, WHICH prehistoric times are we talking about? And where?
As for the ergot poisoning...
Yes, there were references, but they were barely related to the subject matter for the most part. If I were marking it, the words 'Must try harder' would probably have sprung to mind.

- - - Updated - - -

Something I wanted to add but had to go away and check I still had the document first... one of the problems with claims of witchcraft (whether we claim it for ourselves or accuse someone else of doing it) is that we can be mistaken. I have a fascinating article from a journal claiming that one reason for the witchcraft trials in various areas was a complete misunderstanding of the effects of certain plants upon animals. Fascinating read - if anyone would like me to send it to them, please pm me with your email address and I'll gladly send it over.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

Well, I never make it past the first paragraph of most of those type things, so I can't really have been said to have read them. I might have been a bit hyperbolic, but still. Relating everything to 'neuroscience', no evidence of a scientific study, etc. Terrible form.

The author is, actually, a well known neurobiologist, Dr. Douglas Fields, so it's not surprising that he launched his Halloween blog post with neuroscience

- - - Updated - - -

Something I wanted to add but had to go away and check I still had the document first... one of the problems with claims of witchcraft (whether we claim it for ourselves or accuse someone else of doing it) is that we can be mistaken. I have a fascinating article from a journal claiming that one reason for the witchcraft trials in various areas was a complete misunderstanding of the effects of certain plants upon animals. Fascinating read - if anyone would like me to send it to them, please pm me with your email address and I'll gladly send it over.

I've also read that it was a land-grab plot.

I imagine it was a few things mixed together...

[Herbert]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

Huh, no surprise about that then. Still, I like my articles with unbiased studies attached, rather than off the wall speculation by someone who I'm certain is generally competent, but knows relatively little about what he's writing.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

Huh, no surprise about that then. Still, I like my articles with unbiased studies attached, rather than off the wall speculation by someone who I'm certain is generally competent, but knows relatively little about what he's writing.

Well... it is gonna depend on what one takes as "real knowledge."

There is the archaeological study of witchcraft, which is one thing, the historical study of witchcraft, which is another, the study of witchcraft legends/stories/myths/literature, which is again different, and the religious history of witchcraft, which is yet another another... and they don't match up real well... no, not at all...

[Briton]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

That was the quality of writing I expected from the Huffington Post.

[B. de Corbin]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

That was the quality of writing I expected from the Huffington Post.

Huff Post is actually pagan-friendly.

[magusphredde]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

*checks supply cabinet, altar, library ... hmmm witch

*checks shorts ... hmmm ... no witch ...

Oh yeah ... wizard ... heh heh heh

[Munin-Hugin]

Re: Witches, chicks, and your brain on juju

I can't day o read the ENTIRE article, but I read quite a bit of it before I had to go on to doing other things. But he's sort of onto something in what he was saying, and his arguments for such are well laid out and can find support in archeological and anthropological research. Another aspect of it that I'm not sure many have noticed is that it is about women and empowerment, and was written by a MAN. That right there is something to be taken into consideration as a leap forward in and of itself.

And as to the reference to witches being female, take a look at the Norse myths. Seidr was practiced by women, and could be looked at as a type of magic and witchcraft for that culture. Odin had to sacrifice much to learn of it, showing that it is something natural in women, but men (and even a god, at that!) had to struggle to gain that knowledge. So in a way, even myths can be used to support his case, as well.