MIT Study: Magnetic manipulation of the sense of morality

[BurtWorm]

This is a fascinating finding--that a region of the brain is associated with imposing a moral template on situations where an actor's intentions are harmful, even if no harm is actually done. We use the faculty associated with this brain when making judgments about another person's moral character and behavior. It reinforces the idea that the brain has a very concrete influence on human morality, i.e., that the way our brain is built determines what we view as moral or immoral actions or intentions. And this in turn reinforces the notion that morality has to be a social construct--and a fairly flimsy one at that. If we were all missing this region of the brain, intention would probably less important a criterion in our judgment of other people. We would be more concerned about what they do than what they think. Not that that would be better than our present view of morality. But it's almost frightening how dependent our present view is on the health of tissue and a network of nerves.




http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2010/03/magnetic_manipulation_of_the_sense_of_morailty.php?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+scienceblogs%2FYsBw+%28Neurophilosophy%29

Category: Neuroscience
Posted on: March 30, 2010 3:05 PM, by Mo

WHEN making moral judgements, we rely on our ability to make inferences about the beliefs and intentions of others. With this so-called "theory of mind", we can meaningfully interpret their behaviour, and decide whether it is right or wrong. The legal system also places great emphasis on one's intentions: a "guilty act" only produces criminal liability when it is proven to have been performed in combination with a "guilty mind", and this, too, depends on the ability to make reasoned moral judgements.

MIT researchers now show that this moral compass can be very easily skewed. In a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, they report that magnetic pulses which disrupt activity in a specific region of the brain's right hemisphere can interfere with the ability to make certain types of moral judgements, so that hypothetical situations involving attempted harm are perceived to be less morally forbidden and more permissable.

Liane Lee Young of MIT's Department of Brain and Cognitive Science and her colleagues asked participants to make moral judgements about different variations of a number of scenarios. One of these involves Grace and her friend having a cup of coffee during a tour of a chemical plant. In one version of it, she puts what she rightly believes to be sugar into her friend's drink; in another, she puts what she believes to be poison, but what is actually sugar, into the drink; in the third variation, Grace puts poison into the cup, thinking it is sugar, and her friend dies; and in the final variation, she knowingly puts poison into the drink.

These scenarios differ in the beliefs underlying Grace's actions and in their outcome. Most of us would agree that she acts "wrongly" by poisoning her friend in the fourth variation of the scenario. She was also wrong in the second, because although the outcome was neutral, she attempted to cause harm to her friend. On the other hand, most would agree that she was not wrong in the unfortunate scenario in which she unwittingly poisoned her friend. Although her act was guilty, her mind was not - it was not her intention to kill.

The researchers used an experimental technique called transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) to disrupt activity in the right temporoparietal junction (RTPJ), a region of the brain located just behind the ear which has previously been implicated in understanding the behaviour of others. In the "offline" condition, the participants received low frequency (1 Hz) magnetic pulses to the RTPJ or to a nearby control region for 25 minutes before reading the moral scenarios and making judgements about them. In the "online" condition, higher frequency bursts lasting half a second were applied while the participants read and judged the scenarios.

In both experiments, TMS applied to the RTPJ but not to the control brain region was found to impair the participants' ability to make sound moral judgements in some cases but not in others. Judgements of scenarios involving intentional harm or no harm were unaffected, but the scenarios in which one character attempted unsuccessfully to harm another were judged to be more morally permissible. In other words, disrupting RTPJ activity significantly reduced the influence of belief on the participants' judgements, so that they relied purely on the outcome of the scenarios, rather than on the intentions or motives of the character.

The authors conclude that the RTPJ is specifically required for attributing beliefs to others, or is part of a network containing a number of brain regions are jointly necessary for belief attribution. The RTPJ appears to be strongly connected to other brain regions implicated in various aspects of social cogntition, including attributing mental mental states to others. More evidence comes from another study by the same researchers published in the journal Neuron last week, which shows that moral judgements are also impaired patients with damage to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Alternatively, perturbing RTPJ activity may have disturbed other cognitive functions, such as attention - it lies near a network known to be involved in attentional switching, but is anatomically distinct from it.

Whether or not these findings extend to real world judgements remains to be seen. They may, however, have implications for autistics, who are thought to be incapable of inferring the mental states of others. Young and her colleagues hypothesize that autistic children and adults will exhibit deficits in the types of moral judgements used in this study, and are now testing this prediction. Interestingly, children up to the age of 6 years rely mainly on the outcomes of actions to make moral judgements, and tend to judge those who hurt somebody accidentally as being naughtier than someone who attempts to harm another but fails. This may be related to the late maturation of the RTPJ, and is another topic worthy of further investigation.

[ixion]

1. we are mostly water and empty space, held together by a common frequency

so it makes sense that magnetism would affect us.

[BR_Parkway]

3. The TeaBaggers must be living too close to the high voltage lines

because their is definitely something disrupting their brainwaves.

In all reality, the implications of this study are somewhat frightening when you consider weapons that might be developed around it - a ray to turn on the 'other side' to make them morally against fighting back? And not just military situations either.

Ok, time for some fresh tinfoil, this is getting a little tight

[Xipe Totec]

2. Manipulation is too strong a word. I would say impairment

In fact in the quote above, they never use the term manipulate again; they use impair.


One could just as easily say that you can use a bullet to the head, to manipulate a person's consciousness.

[fascisthunter]

6. .

[BurtWorm]

7. He uses "impair" only once and in relation to a study of another brain region..

He also uses "disrupts" and "interferes." The effect is temporary in this study, so it's not actually serious impairment. But the stimulus seems to have the same effect in different subjects.

[Xipe Totec]

9. But manipulation implies control, rather than lack of control

You can't use this gizmo to give people better moral judgment, you can only use it to impair their moral judgment.

[BurtWorm]

10. Is it "impairing" judgment to leave intention out of the consideration when no harm is done?

I don't think the answer is so easy.

[hedgehog]

4. On the other hand - there has long been a recognition that when the brain

is damaged, the person is not responsible for his/her actions. It is a common belief (though not universal) that the person is more than brain and body. That's why we have the insanity defense and why we discount hurtful words from the sick (ex Alzheimer's patients).

Manipulation of the brain system by magnetism is merely a more subtle form of surgery. It may be used one day to heal or to be a type of lobotomy depending on the morality of those in power.

[fascisthunter]

5. there is so much we just don't understand yet, but what we have discovered so far is amazing

the brain is just amazing, and the possibilities seem endless.

[Cirque du So-What]

8. The myth of 'free will' has already bee shown to be chemically-influenced

and 'holy' experiences can be induced by stimulating specific areas of the brain, now we find that 'morality' is nothing more than a chemical construct. Day by day, it's becoming more difficult for organized religions to foist their dogma upon a gullible audience. Some will still fall for their mumbo jumbo, but at least scientific findings are proving them wrong, so the truth is making inroads among more-reasonable people.

[Ozymanithrax]

11. It becomes easier for a few rational people to put religion aside...

But it has not become more difficult for anyone to foist a dogma on others. Most people will never see this information, and many of those who do will simply shrug and say god is the answer. Religion, like the poor, will always be with us, for simlar reasons.