The Biology of Morality
Pederasty is awful. That may go without saying, but we've seen a few dangers of going without saying this past week. It's down among the lowest of our possible human behaviors, damages countless lives for years after its acts and is immensely challenging to our society's structures and our personal human reactions to it. It's awful. I've spent the past week intermittently weeping, playing with my children, hugging my family and trying, trying to figure out some things I can do about this going forward. At the moment, I haven't gotten very far, but today I stumbled across this TED talk I thought might be an interesting (if not directly helpful) sidebar to a few of the attendant issues in this pederasty scandal.
It's by a professor at Claremont Graduate University named Paul Zak, whose bio describes him as a 'pioneer in a new field called neuroeconomics.' He's been researching a human protein-like molecule called oxytocin. In his talk, he walks through a few of his team's experiments and their conclusions that this molecule is closely correlated to trust, empathy & morality decisions, and that it can be raised and lowered with a few simple behaviors. Here is the 16-minute video, and I've got a few crude notes after the jump.
The first experiment:
But I'm also a skeptic. I don't want to just ask people, "Are you trustworthy?" So instead I use the Jerry Maguire approach to research. If you're so virtuous, show me the money. So what we do in my lab is we tempt people with virtue and vice by using money. Let me show you how we do that. So we recruit some people for an experiment. They all get $10 if they agree to show up. We give them lots of instruction, and we never ever deceive them. Then we match them in pairs by computer. And in that pair, one person gets a message saying, "Do you want to give up some of your $10 you earned for being here and ship it to someone else in the lab?" The trick is you can't see them, you can't talk to them. You only do it one time. Now whatever you give up gets tripled in the other person's account. You're going to make them a lot wealthier. And they get a message by computer saying person one sent you this amount of money. Do you want to keep it all, or do you want to send some amount back?
And its results:
That's not what we found. We found 90 percent of the first decision-makers sent money, and of those who received money, 95 percent returned some of it. But why? Well by measuring oxytocin we found that the more money the second person received, the more their brain produced oxytocin, and the more oxytocin on board, the more money they returned. So we have a biology of trustworthiness.
In the second experiment, Professor Zak tells a story of getting conned while working as a High School gas station attendant and notes that his teams 'found, testing thousands of individuals, that five percent of the population don't release oxytocin on stimulus. So if you trust them, their brains don't release oxytocin. If there's money on the table, they keep it all.'
When he notes that
there are other ways the system can be inhibited. One is through improper nurturing. So we've studied sexually abused women, and about half those don't release oxytocin on stimulus. You need enough nurturing for this system to develop properly.
I though of pederasty victims and how their biology may be forever changed. I also recognize that may sound a little strained. And when he says 'Also, high stress inhibits oxytocin. So we all know this, when we're really stressed out, we're not acting our best,' I thought of BSD last week.
He goes on a bit with some additional experiments they performed in Korea and New Guinea and includes some results that indicate our oxytocin levels even spike when using social media. And he wraps it all up with a corny, but very possibly useful summary: that the easiest way to spike our oxytocin levels is by giving hugs.
I still don't know what I'm going to do to help improve the safety of our children going forward or what I will do if confronted by suspicions of danger, but I'm pretty sure it's already begun with awareness. And I'm damn sure it's going to involve togetherness. Pederasty is everyone's problem and we'll have to solve work through it together. So for now, as I have every day of the terrible past week, I'm gonna go ahead and grab this low-hanging fruit and dish out & accept a few more hugs.
Aww, look at you. You created a Fanpost! Any content from a premium site that requires a subscription will be deleted once we catch wind of it. If you simply want to share a link, quote, or video, please consider using Fanshots instead. Thanks.
16 comments
|
5 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Nice job, brother.
This is why I sent you the email I sent you. Because I need this for what I want to do.
The Grand Experiment will never die.
by ReadingRambler on Nov 15, 2011 11:49 PM EST reply actions
Somebody once said.....
“A Hug delights and warms and charms. It must be why God gave us arms.” Reach out and hug someone!
"The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."
by DerryPharmer on Nov 16, 2011 12:10 AM EST reply actions 1 recs
I just wanted to say that I'm excited to see something from you posted. Haven't even read it yet.
@JPosnanski - I saw a girl crying tonight. When I asked why she said: "Because everybody lost."
#OccupyESPN
This was interesting, just as I suspected.
I thought your third paragraph from the bottom was interesting, if only because I’m not sure it’s something we can “solve together.” Or solve at all, for that matter.
@JPosnanski - I saw a girl crying tonight. When I asked why she said: "Because everybody lost."
#OccupyESPN
by Adam Collyer on Nov 16, 2011 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
Last paragraph, I mean.
@JPosnanski - I saw a girl crying tonight. When I asked why she said: "Because everybody lost."
#OccupyESPN
by Adam Collyer on Nov 16, 2011 12:46 AM EST up reply actions
J-tot's back?
Well, I’ll be dipped in dogsh*t.
Howdy, partner.
What the hell just happened?
by Pete the Streak on Nov 16, 2011 6:39 AM EST reply actions
Interesting stuff jtot
Trying to figure out what to do going forward. I have learned so much in the last two weeks about what to do if I suspect something and about how emotional this issue is. I coached youth sports for 25 years and never knew some of the info I now know. Coaches got training all the time but it rarely, if ever, addressed what to do if you suspect something, it was more about being careful in certain situations. I actually think I would like to do something about making the public more aware of what they can do when they just suspect something. There are anonymous ways of reporting that can at least get someone to look at a situation. Things I didn’t know about until recently. This subject never came up in school when I was a child except relating to “watch out for strangers”. Its definitely not only the strangers we need to have our children aware of.
My grammer skills need improved.
unfortunately in most cases like this
strangers are the least of your concerns.
by The JuggerNitt on Nov 16, 2011 11:31 AM EST up reply actions
In general
I think in general it makes people uncomfortable to talk about behavior as derived from chemical reactions, instead of a conscious adherence to (or deviation from) a set of principles, maybe because the latter is easier to reason about when you’re dealing with a black box. But even just this year we’ve spent quite a bit of time discussing CTE and the tau protein and its ravaging effects on retired players’ behavior. Certainly we have a long way to go yet in understanding the brain.
by gumbercules on Nov 16, 2011 4:30 PM EST reply actions 1 recs
I think if it boils down to chemical reactions
then people have a harder time defining actions as good or evil (and then they also have to face the possibility of their OWN chemistry changing)
by The JuggerNitt on Nov 16, 2011 8:33 PM EST up reply actions
Some light general reading on this topic for your weekend:
Damasio, A. R. (2005). Descartes’ Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. London: Penguin.
Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). The Ethical Brain. New York: Dana Press.
Joyce, R. (2006). The Evolution of Morality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Gregg, R. B. (1984). Symbolic Inducement and Knowing: A Study in the Foundations of Rhetoric. Columbia, SC: University Of South Carolina.
Lakoff, George & Johnson, M. (1980) Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
de Waal, F. B. (2006). Primates and Philospophers: How Morality Evolved. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
I prefer to let this material speak for itself rather than characterize the content. However, I will say that this is a good survey of research which has for me completely undermined the modernist paradigm of cognition and experience that we’ve been trapped within for the last several centuries. In some places these authors challenge one another, which is a good thing, lest we get caught in another faulty world view.
Finally, I’ll just add that Gregg was a Penn Stater who passed in 2001 (Speech Communication) and that Lakoff tends to be politically loaded (although his views do not compromise the research). Frankly, any work by Lakoff is helpful with The Political Mind having been clearly written for a lay audience.
I get to go to a convention and talk about this shit this weekend. I would instead prefer to talk football on BSD.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Oh, and jtot; nice job here.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Addendum II
The Damasio book was originally published in 1994 — this citation is for the Penguin reprint.
"The limits of my language mean the limits of my world" -- Ludwig Wittgenstein
Wow, thanks Sublime
This is very provocative:
which has for me completely undermined the modernist paradigm of cognition and experience that we’ve been trapped within for the last several centuries.




























