Magnetic Personality

[Randy Reed 0]

So much for BG's assertion that morality isn't physical and implanted by God.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8593748.stmMagnets 'can modify our morality' How complex is our sense of morality? Scientists have shown they can change people's moral judgements by disrupting a specific area of the brain with magnetic pulses.They identified a region of the brain just above and behind the right ear which appears to control morality. And by using magnetic pulses to block cell activity they impaired volunteers' notion of right and wrong. The small Massachusetts Institute of Technology study appears in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. To be able to apply a magnetic field to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing Dr Liane YoungMassachusetts Institute of Technology Lead researcher Dr Liane Young said: "You think of morality as being a really high-level behaviour. "To be able to apply a magnetic field to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing." The key area of the brain is a knot of nerve cells known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ). The researchers subjected 20 volunteers to a number of tests designed to assess their notions of right and wrong. In one scenario participants were asked how acceptable it was for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knew to be unsafe. After receiving a 500 millisecond magnetic pulse to the scalp, the volunteers delivered verdicts based on outcome rather than moral principle. If the girlfriend made it across the bridge safely, her boyfriend was not seen as having done anything wrong. In effect, they were unable to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions. Previous work has shown the RTPJ to be highly active when people think about the thoughts and beliefs of others. The MIT team pinpointed the region in volunteers using a sophisticated functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) brain scan. They then targeted the area using a technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to create weak electric currents that temporarily stop brain cells working normally. In one test, volunteers were exposed to TMS for 25 minutes before reading stories involving morally questionable characters, and being asked to judge their actions. In a second experiment, volunteers were subjected to a much shorter 500 millisecond TMS burst while being asked to make a moral judgement. In both cases, the researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm - not whether they were morally wrong in themselves. Morally dubious acts with a "happy" ending were often deemed acceptable. Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, a brain expert at University College London, said the findings were insightful. "The study suggests that this region - the RTPJ - is necessary for moral reasoning. "What is interesting is that this is a region that is very late developing - into adolescence and beyond right into the 20s. "The next step would be to look at how or whether moral development changes through childhood into adulthood."

[vbnautilus 48]

Let me just clarify something before this story gets taken the wrong way, as I have seen happen in other places. The brain region that they stimulated, TPJ, is known to be involved in thinking about other people's intentions. What happened here is that they were given moral scenarios that involved understanding intentions in order to evaluate normally. So, when they are given TMS to the TPJ, they make (slightly) different judgements than normal because they are less adept at understanding the intention involved. This is not a "morality" part of the brain. It's really about what we call "theory of mind". That said, there has been a lot of work recently on the brain mechanisms for moral thinking, and there are several regions we know to be important. For instance, a recent study found that when people have damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, they make more utilitarian judgments than normal, since they aren't as swayed by their emotions. So, morality is a complex type of thought that involves many different cognitive and emotional systems. I used to do transcranial magnetic stimulation research. In addition to temporally screwing up some brain circuits, you can also activate them, for instance, make body parts twitch and stuff. Great fun.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

So what does this tell us?

[vbnautilus 48]

So what does this tell us?

The thing that TMS provides is confirmation that this brain region is really used when making these kinds of judgments. When you do a brain imaging study, you might see, for instance, TPJ becomes more active when people make moral judgements about other people's intentions. However, that activity could be some kind of extraneous side-effect of making the judgments. This experiment tells us that its not -- when you knock this area out, you actually perform worse. So you were really using it to do the task.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

The thing that TMS provides is confirmation that this brain region is really used when making these kinds of judgments. When you do a brain imaging study, you might see, for instance, TPJ becomes more active when people make moral judgements about other people's intentions. However, that activity could be some kind of extraneous side-effect of making the judgments. This experiment tells us that its not -- when you knock this area out, you actually perform worse. So you were really using it to do the task.

So it confirms what we already thought. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. If you interfere with a region of the brain, and inhibit its ability to function, you will negatively impact (or alter) the behavior controlled by that region.I mean, maybe I'm simplifying this, but it doesnt seem to groundbreaking to me.

[vbnautilus 48]

So it confirms what we already thought. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. If you interfere with a region of the brain, and inhibit its ability to function, you will negatively impact (or alter) the behavior controlled by that region.I mean, maybe I'm simplifying this, but it doesnt seem to groundbreaking to me.

It's not particularly ground-breaking. It's a very nice result, and just another step forward in the process. It got picked up by the media because it sounds really snazzy that you can interfere with people's moral judgments using a magnet.

[SuitedAces21 2,722]

While we are here, VB, have you ever read a book called 'The Physics of Consciousness'?http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Consciousnes...g/dp/0738204366I was just curious about your thoughts. I read it. Most of it went over my head, but if I remember correctly, he said that consciousness is a creation of reactions in our minds, or something. But it was more than just physical. Thats a pretty shitty explanation, but the terms were diffiuclt.It was a decent read as he put in a lot about an old lover of his who had died and how he was sure she was still out there somewhere, and that he would see her again.

[vbnautilus 48]

While we are here, VB, have you ever read a book called 'The Physics of Consciousness'?http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Consciousnes...g/dp/0738204366I was just curious about your thoughts. I read it. Most of it went over my head, but if I remember correctly, he said that consciousness is a creation of reactions in our minds, or something. But it was more than just physical. Thats a pretty shitty explanation, but the terms were diffiuclt.It was a decent read as he put in a lot about an old lover of his who had died and how he was sure she was still out there somewhere, and that he would see her again.

I have not read it, but it sounds like nonsense. I am always pretty skeptical when physicists get into the consciousness game (sorry LLY). The whole notion is usually something like: 1. Consciousness is really strange and hard to explain, 2. Quantum physics is also really strange and hard to explain, therefore 3. Consciousness probably has to do with quantum physics. If you want a more grounded notion of Consciousness, I would try reading Dennett for a really skeptical view or Damasio for a more biologically grounded view.

[Randy Reed 0]

I think the real question is if magnets can effect God's will.

[Jeepster80125 0]

I think the real question is if magnets can affect God's will.

fyp.JJJ, can I get a nitpick ruling?Or:

[Joneswilliamsc 0]

I have seen this article before. But I don't think that you I can also find it here. When I saw this I really thought to make its discussion and after all I found it here. I am really very glad to see this discussion here.

[SBriand 4]

I have seen this article before. But I don't think that you I can also find it here. When I saw this I really thought to make its discussion and after all I found it here. I am really very glad to see this discussion here.

Right here.It is here.Here.

[Roll the Bones 74]

Right here.It is here.Here.

But I don't think you I can find it here, though I am very glad.

[BigDMcGee 3,352]

So does this mean that if I wear those magnet bracelets I'm am an amoral degenerate, or is my amoral degeneracy uncorrelated to my magnet bracelets?

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Well, if God's will was to attract iron filings, then a magnet could effect his will. If you stuck a big-ass magnet on God's head, could you affect his will?Veeb, since we're turning this into an Ask VB thread, could you summarize a study I was thinking about today? The gist of it was that conservatives rate higher on a security/purity axis but weak on a fairness/privacy axis, and liberals are just the opposite. I daresay it correlates nicely not only with political views but also with religious views. Anyway, you probably know more about it and understand it better than anyone else.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

So does this mean that if I wear those magnet bracelets I'm am an amoral degenerate, or is my amoral degeneracy uncorrelated to my magnet bracelets?

Do you wear them through a skull piercing? If so, yes. If not, yes.

[vbnautilus 48]

Well, if God's will was to attract iron filings, then a magnet could effect his will. If you stuck a big-ass magnet on God's head, could you affect his will?Veeb, since we're turning this into an Ask VB thread, could you summarize a study I was thinking about today? The gist of it was that conservatives rate higher on a security/purity axis but weak on a fairness/privacy axis, and liberals are just the opposite. I daresay it correlates nicely not only with political views but also with religious views. Anyway, you probably know more about it and understand it better than anyone else.

Sounds like Jon Haidt's work. He has classified five dimensions of moral concern: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, purity/sanctity, and authority/respect. Some large-scale internet surveys he did showed that liberals rank concerns relating to harm/care and fairness/reciprocity as being the most important to them, while conservatives rank loyalty/ingroup, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity as the issues that matter to them. I agree that it fits with religious views too, especially the purity part, and of course, conservatives tend to be more religious.

[Southern Buddhist 1]

Haidt -- that's it. I couldn't remember the name. The Happiness Hypothesis. I'd even forgotten that he's working less than fifty miles from me, at the University of Virginia. Duh.Thanks to your reminder of the name, I went and found this on Haidt's home page:

Moral Foundations Theory was created to understand why morality varies so much across cultures yet still shows so many similarities and recurrent themes. In brief, the theory proposes that five innate and universally available psychological systems are the foundations of “intuitive ethics.” Each culture then constructs virtues, narratives, and institutions on top of these foundations, thereby creating the unique moralities we see around the world, and conflicting within nations too. The foundations are:1) Harm/care, related to our long evolution as mammals with attachment systems and an ability to feel (and dislike) the pain of others. This foundation underlies virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance.2) Fairness/reciprocity, related to the evolutionary process of reciprocal altruism. This foundation generates ideas of justice, rights, and autonomy. [Note: In our original conception, Fairness included concerns about equality, which are more strongly endorsed by political liberals. However, as we reformulate the theory in 2010 based on new data, we are likely to include several forms of fairness, and to emphasize proportionality, which is more strongly endorsed by conservatives]3) Ingroup/loyalty, related to our long history as tribal creatures able to form shifting coalitions. This foundation underlies virtues of patriotism and self-sacrifice for the group. It is active anytime people feel that it's "one for all, and all for one." 4) Authority/respect, shaped by our long primate history of hierarchical social interactions. This foundation underlies virtues of leadership and followership, including deference to legitimate authority and respect for traditions.5) Purity/sanctity, shaped by the psychology of disgust and contamination. This foundation underlies religious notions of striving to live in an elevated, less carnal, more noble way. It underlies the widespread idea that the body is a temple which can be desecrated by immoral activities and contaminants (an idea not unique to religious traditions). Much of our present research involves applying the theory to political "cultures" such as those of liberals and conservatives. The current American culture war, we have found, can be seen as arising from the fact that liberals try to create a morality relying almost exclusively on the Harm/Care and Fairness/Reciprocity foundations; conservatives, especially religious conservatives, use all five foundations, including Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. [Note: We are currently investigating other candidate foundations. The main contender for being a 6th foundation is Liberty/constraint, which includes both lifestyle liberty, and also negative liberty -- the freedom to be left alone by government. Liberals score higher on lifestyle liberty; conservatives on negative liberty]You can find out your own moral foundations profile at www.YourMorals.org.

I read his book a few years ago, after hearing about the work on NPR. Despite my lousy memory for his name, it is really interesting work, and I see how it undergirds religious and political positions on both sides of each issue.

[vbnautilus 48]

Haidt -- that's it. I couldn't remember the name. The Happiness Hypothesis. I'd even forgotten that he's working less than fifty miles from me, at the University of Virginia. Duh.Thanks to your reminder of the name, I went and found this on Haidt's home page:I read his book a few years ago, after hearing about the work on NPR. Despite my lousy memory for his name, it is really interesting work, and I see how it undergirds religious and political positions on both sides of each issue.

Yeah I met him earlier this year when he visited our institute. Very interesting stuff.