Café Philos: an internet café

Some political bloggers are having fun with a study published Sunday in the journal Nature Neuroscience.

The study finds evidence the brains of liberals and conservatives function differently. It appears liberals have brains that adapt to sudden changes a bit more readily than do the brains of conservatives. Naturally, liberal bloggers are spinning the study one way while conservatives are spinning it the other. Each side wants to show how the study "proves" folks on their side of the fence are superior thinkers. But neither the liberal nor the conservative bloggers that I read are discussing one of the most interesting implications of the study -- that humans may have evolved innate perspectives or prejudices.

The study was conducted by political scientist David Amodio and his colleagues at New York University. They recruited 43 subjects for the experiment and began by asking each subject to rank his or herself on a scale for political views. One end of the scale was "extremely liberal" while the other end was "extremely conservative".

After the recruits ranked themselves, they were directed to sit before a computer screen and press one of two buttons depending on whether they saw an "M" or a "W". Each time they saw a letter, they had only half a second in which to respond -- nothing like a little pressure to think fast.

Eighty percent of the time (400 out of 500 instances) they saw the same letter. This was to encourage them to expect that letter. "You keep seeing the same stimulus over and over, so when the opposite stimulus comes on it's always a surprise," said Amodio.

When the less common letter appeared on the screen, the people who identified themselves in the conservative half of the scale pressed the "usual" button 47% of the time instead of switching to the correct button. In comparison, the "liberals" achieved the slightly lower error rate of 37%.

Up until this point, nothing about the study was surprising: There have been dozens of studies showing a strong link between political persuasion and certain personality traits. "Conservatives tend to crave order and structure in their lives, and are more consistent in the way they make decisions. Liberals, by contrast, show a higher tolerance for ambiguity and complexity, and adapt more easily to unexpected circumstances (Source)." But Amodio's study is unique because he performed electroencephalogram (EEG) scans on the brains of his subjects while they were performing their task -- thus discovering significant differences in the way the brains of liberals and conservatives were operating.

Liberals had slightly over twice as much activity as conservatives in a region of the brain called the anterior cingulate cortex. Some scientists think that area of the brain acts as a mental brake by helping the mind recognize "no-go" situations where it must refrain from the usual course of action. They refer to that function of the anterior cingulate cortex as "conflict monitoring".

According to Amodio, "The neural mechanisms for conflict monitoring are formed early in childhood," and are probably rooted in part in our genetic heritage. "But even if genes may provide a blueprint for more liberal or conservative orientations, they are shaped substantially by one's environment over the course of development."

It seems to me Amodio's overall take on his experiment is in line with what most other scientists are saying these days: Genes may predispose us to certain thoughts and behaviors, but environment still plays a major role in how we think and act. But if genes predispose us to certain inclinations, then how and why did those genes evolve?

As luck would have it, Ed Yong has a post on the evolution of personality differences over at Not Exactly Rocket Science that sheds considerable light on the question of how and why personality differences (and by extension, political preferences) might have evolved in us. Basically, it turns out that certain personality traits most likely evolved as ways of answering the age-old question, "Should I have kids now or later?" At first blush, there might not seem to be much of a relationship between reproduction, personality differences, and political preferences, but do check out Ed's article for insight into how those things might be linked.

I think the important thing to realize here is that "liberal" and "conservative" tendencies evolved in us because both tendencies increase our biological fitness -- depending on the circumstances. If one or the other were inherently superior, then natural selection, working over millions of years, would have resulted in that one particular tendency being the only tendency humans have. Either we would all be "liberals" or we would all be "conservatives". But that didn't happen because both liberal and conservative personalities have advantages.


UPDATE: Cognitive Daily has an illuminating critique of the study here. I think it should be read in conjunction with Ed's article, however, because I don't think Cognitive Daily's critique of the "Left-wing/Right-wing" study amounts to an refutation of the notion there may be significant and inherent differences in the way liberal and conservative brains operate.


References:

Homo Politicus: Brain Function of Liberals, Conservatives Differ

Political Affiliation Could All be in the Brain (New Scientist)

Study Finds Left-Wing Brain, Right Wing Brain (L.A. Times)

This morning I wish to make a prediction: In the not too distant future, science will increasingly confirm the notion of a few scientists today that humans are hard wired for mystical experiences.

I figure it's just a matter of time at this point before today's sophisticated research techniques uncover neuro-pathways in the brain associated with mystical experiences. Why? Because mystical experiences are a cross-cultural and cross-historical phenomenon that seem upon study to be significantly distinct from mere insanity. Since they are found in all cultures and times that we're aware of, the experiences must have some innate basis in the brain. And since they are significantly distinct from madness, they most likely are associated with their own neuro-pathways, rather than representing a dysfunction of some sort.

Of course, once those pathways are discovered, some people will speculate the Judeo-Christian God put those pathways there so we could know Him. I can see quite a few problems with that line of speculation, but it's bound to make the covers of Time and Newsweek anyway. That's just how we are.

More importantly, would the discovery of a neuro-pathway for mystical experiences eventually lead to "enlightenment on demand"? I'd be willing to bet "yes".

But if everyone's enlightened, just what the hell are we gonna do with all the out of work bimbo talk show hosts?

Perhaps the best way to understand the role certain neurochemicals play in our thinking and feeling is to get drunk.

Not only is that without a doubt the very best way to understand the role of those neurochemicals, it is surely the most fun way. So go ahead! Have a few glasses! By drinking yourself into a senseless stupor while reading this, you will prove to all the world how admirably dedicated you are to understanding neurochemistry.

As you drink, you will notice that alcohol changes both the way you think and the way you feel. That observation should rightfully astonish you. If it doesn’t, you are not yet drunk enough. Have another!

It should astonish you because the common wisdom is that thinking and feeling are two very separate things. On the one hand we have thought. On the other hand, we have emotions. And some say the two shall never meet. Yet, here we have evidence that a single substance – alcohol – changes both thinking and feeling. Thinking and feeling not only meet in alcohol, but they get married.

Now, your astonishment at that revelation can only increase beyond all bounds once you reflect that it’s an actual physical substance producing the changes in your thinking and feeling. The way that works: There are neuroreceptors at various locations in your body that are specifically receptive to alcohol. When molecules of alcohol latch onto those neuroreceptors, you begin to think and feel in the ways you are currently experiencing if you’ve taken my wise advice and have been drinking as you read this.

Certain neurochemicals do precisely the same thing that alcohol does. Those neurochemicals have receptors at various locations in our bodies, and when they latch onto those receptors, those neurochemicals change both the way we think and the way we feel.

Good examples of neurochemicals that change both how we think and how we feel are oxytocin, testosterone, and the cortisols. Of course, by now, you should have drunk enough that you’d be inclined to amiably agree with me even if I said cat litter was a good example of a neurochemical that changes both how you think and feel.

So what does all this mean? Allow me to suggest that your last thought before passing out might be this: Since at least some emotions change both thinking and feeling, it is wrong to assume those emotions are mere feelings alone. Rather, we must believe them to have a cognitive aspect as well. And perhaps that cognitive aspect can best be described as a way of perceiving, a way of looking, a focus, or a perspective.

When we have sex, our bodies release certain neurochemicals that cause us to bond with the person we have sex with.

For instance, our bodies release oxytocin. Oxytocin is a neurochemical that does a number of things in humans, but it should be noted here that it is addictive. That is, oxytocin is as much of an addictive substance as is alcohol or nicotine.

Most people readily describe the emotional effects of oxytocin as having "a warm and fuzzy feeling towards someone". If you gave someone a shot of pure oxytocin, they would experience a rush of warm and fuzzy feelings, among other things.

So what does all this mean? It means that when you have sex with a person, your body releases an addictive chemical that you come to associate with that person. If you cease having sex with that person, you will be able to go a few days with no problem. Then the withdrawl symptoms will set in and you will yearn for him or her (you are really yearning for more oxytocin, but your mind doesn't know that).

This pattern is why so many couples break up, are happy with their break up for a few days, and then plummet into yearnings for each other. Not realizing that they are chemically addicted to each other, they think their yearnings mean they are in love with each other. So, they get back together again. Only to face the same problems that caused them to break up in the first place.

The moral of the story, if there is one, is this: Be careful who you sleep with. If you sleep with them often enough, whether inside marriage or outside of marriage, you will become addicted to them. That is especially true for women: Estrogen multiplies the bonding effect of oxytocin.

I am not making an argument here for restricting sex to marriage, but rather am merely saying that sex has consequences we don't always think about, but should. Sex, after all, is something that evolved in us not just for procreation, but (at least in humans) also for bonding us to each other.

When I was going to school some 30 years ago, a friend of mine was working on artificial intelligence for the government. The two of us were both night owls and so we fell into the habit of discussing everything under the moon with each other.

One night, I asked him whether a thinking computer would have emotions. "It would be too intelligent for emotions", he responded. "How's that?", I asked. "Emotions are undeveloped thoughts.", he said, "The computer would think too fast for it to have much in the way of undeveloped thoughts."

Thirty years ago, the notion emotions amounted to nothing more than "undeveloped thoughts" was certainly not exclusive to my friend. Psychologists of the time barely studied emotions, focusing instead on behavior and cognition. Most of those psychologists, if asked, would have told you that emotions interfered with thinking.

The idea that emotions interfere with thinking goes far back in Western Culture. At least as early as the ancient Greeks and Romans, people thought feeling was inferior to thinking, and thought emotions were at odds with clear thinking. When you have a prejudice that deeply rooted in your culture, it's no wonder the psychologists of 30 years ago still clung to it.

All that seems to be changing now. Recently, psychologists and neuroscientists have discovered emotions as a subject of study. And some of the early results are astonishing to anyone familiar with the idea that emotions interfere with thought. According to Jonah Lehrer:

When [Antonio] Damasio first published his results in the early 1990s, most cognitive scientists assumed that emotions interfered with rational thought. A person without any emotions should be a better thinker, since their cortical computer could process information without any distractions.

But Damasio sought out patients who had suffered brain injuries that prevented them from perceiving their own feelings, and put this idea to the test. The lives of these patients quickly fell apart, he found, because they could not make effective decisions. Some made terrible investments and ended up bankrupt; most just spent hours deliberating over irrelevant details, such as where to eat lunch. These results suggest that proper thinking requires feeling. Pure reason is a disease.

Of course, it will take quite some time before the culturally ingrained notion that emotions interfere with thought is discarded by most people in favor of a more sophisticated model based on research. For one thing, there are ways in which the old model is true enough. Everyone has experienced a time or two when a strongly felt emotion impelled them to act rashly. And because there is some truth in the old model, it will take a long time before that model is replaced. Yet, we now know it's overly simplistic to say emotions are merely at odds with clear thinking.

This morning, I'm a bit confused after reading a letter to the editor published in The National Post (of Canada).

The author of the letter is Don D. Wallar, and he holds a Masters in Neurochemistry. Mr. Wallar wants to argue against naturalism, which is the philosophical position that only nature exists. That is, nothing supernatural exists. And Mr. Wallar specifically wants to argue against the notion, "there is no mind or soul independent of the brain; all thought and behaviour is purely the result of neurochemical synapses in the brain."

Now, when I'm on a first date, I often make a point of telling my new friend that I'm much more fascinated by epistemological naturalism than I am interested in ontological naturalism. The point, of course, is to impress her with how many big words I know. It seems to work, because my dates are so impressed by my droning on about the various naturalisms that they never go with me on second dates. And that's how I avoid the horrible troubles associated with extended romances.

Consequently, I really perked up this morning when I sighted Mr. Wallar's letter, for I immediately grasped that it might provide me with juice for initiating an engaging conversation at one of those tender moments after the dinner, and after the movie, when I'm back at my date's apartment and she's just dimmed the lights.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wallar's letter left me more confused than intellectually armed.

That's because Mr. Wallar argues in his letter that naturalism is untenable because it leads to our denying the existence of free will. He says:

There are serious scientific and philosophical reasons why physical [i.e. ontological] naturalism cannot be tenable. One philosophical argument is based on the idea of free will.

Human beings are known to exhibit what is known as libertarian freedom, that is, they can literally choose between bona fide options... A or B.

If all thought and behaviour are indeed only the result of the biochemistry of the brain, then free will cannot exist, and all we have left is pure determinism.

Furthermore, any concept of moral obligation and responsibility is also nonsensical if determinism is true. But we do not live this way because we do not believe this way. [stuff in brackets mine]

Here's something my old philosophy professor taught me shortly before he taught me how to practice safe sex by engaging my dates in philosophical conversations at strategic moments in order to deter them from pursuing their base romantic desires: "One cannot legitimately argue that something is false merely on the grounds that if, it were true, one wouldn't like the consequences of it's being true."

Applied here, that means Mr. Wallar cannot legitimately argue that ontological naturalism is false simply because there can be no free will if it's true. Yet, it seems to me this morning that is precisely what Mr. Wallar is doing in his letter. He's urging us to reject ontological naturalism on the sole grounds that, if we accept it, we have to discard any dear notion we might have that our wills are free. And that's confusing me.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding his point, but is that the best grounds he wants to offer us for rejecting ontological naturalism? "It can't be true because we don't like what it implies"?

But there's another possibility. Having said all that, I think it's possible that Mr. Wallar is actually arguing:

1) Ontological naturalism implies no free will.

2) But we have libertarian freedom of choice (i.e. we can choose between options).

3) Libertarian freedom of choice is the same as free will.

4) If we have free will, then ontological naturalism is false.

5) We have free will.

6) Therefore ontological naturalism is false. False! FALSE!

That's a different argument than the first one. Yet, if that's what he's arguing, then the trouble is premise #3 is wrong. Contra the premise, libertarian freedom of choice does not actually imply free will.

You can see that when you think of how a computer works. A computer can be programed to choose between options. That is, a computer has libertarian freedom of choice, which is the ability to choose between options. But a computer certainly does not have free will. Hence, there is no precise equivalence of free will and libertarian choice.

Of course, if premise #3 is wrong, then the conclusion that ontological naturalism is false does not follow from Mr. Wallar's argument. Instead, we have to go back to square one, and find other grounds on which to argue either for or against ontological naturalism.

I'm still confused though. I really don't know which argument he's making in his letter. If I had to bet, I'd lay money on the second one, because that's the stronger argument. But it seems to me it could just as easily be the first argument that he's really making. Maybe it's just me. Maybe I need to quit reading arguments against naturalism so early in the morning.

At any rate, what do you think of Mr. Wallar's argument? Do you buy into it? Do you reject it? Would you like to go on a first date?

Some things are easy to predict. For instance: Basic human nature is no more likely to change on its own over the next 1000 years than it has changed over the previous 1000 years. Which is the same as saying it won't change unless we intervene in our own nature through genetic engineering or some other means.

On the other hand, some things are very difficult to predict. Anyone who can accurately predict which inventions will catch on with the public next year, or the year after, has a fortune waiting for them. Corporations will pay that much to reliably know which products will be successful, and just how successful they'll be. Many people are willing to take a guess for $50,000, but who can say for certain?

I myself try to stay clear of predicting anything that's not a sure thing. So, while I'm willing to bet that humans will still fall in love 10,000 years from now, I won't risk saying where the stock market will be in 10 days. Today, though, I'm going to break my rule and make a prediction that is somewhat more iffy than, "humans will still have symmetrical body plans centuries from now." I'm going to predict the future of neuroscience over the next 100 years.

If you are not familiar with what's happening in neuroscience, my predictions might seem immodest to you. Nevertheless, here they are:

First, by the end of this century, neuroscience will be the new physics and the new biology. That is, neuroscience will supplant physics and biology as the primary knowledge base drawn on by people trying to answer such questions as: "What is human nature?", "What is our place in the universe?", and even, "What is the meaning of life?" Physics and biology won't go away entirely, but they will become secondary in importance to neuroscience when it comes to those sorts of questions.

Second, neuroscience, in conjunction with other sciences and technologies, will create consumer technologies that are today the stuff of science fiction. Technologies that allow folks to read minds, predict someone's actions moments before they act, mentally control everything from appliances to computers, and perhaps even defend oneself.

Third, neuroscience will become militarized. Not only will it be used to do such things as allow airmen to fly superfast aircraft from the ground, but it will also be used to create weapons that disrupt an enemy's thoughts and feelings.

Last, at some point during the century someone will come up with a reliable way to create mystical experiences in people. Whether that will be through a pill or through a machine, I refuse to predict. But there will be "enlightenment on demand" as a sort of ultimate consumer product.

Those are my four modest predictions for neuroscience. They are no more than guesses, of course, and you should know that I stole most of them from things I've been reading over the past five years or so. I don't claim to be original about most of my predictions. I only claim to be a good thief.

Regardless of whether I'm right or wrong about any of these things, it's pretty certain neuroscience will become an increasingly important field. Anyone who is interested in quickly learning the basics of the science now has a wonderful opportunity to do so. Mike Cole at the blog, Neurevolution, is this month running a daily series of concise and clear posts, each on a crucial principle or discovery in the field. The series is very much worth reading.

Some new research funded by the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience is downright shocking. It shows that when men look at sexy photos, they actually look first at the model's face -- and they spend more time looking at her face than do women looking at the same photo.

Researchers hypothesized women would look at faces and men at genitals, but, surprisingly, they found men are more likely than women to first look at a woman's face before other parts of the body, and women focused longer on photographs of men performing sexual acts with women than did the males.

Both sexes spent about equal amounts of time looking at the model's genitals.