Altruism in the News

[william.scherk]

I posted this on SOLO a couple of days ago. I imagine some are cogitating deeply on it, but none so far have commented. The study authors quoted in the science reporting are generally agnostic as to what their findings reveal -- but the findings do offer interesting sidelights on the Objectivist notion of emotions. Here 'altruism' (seemingly well-defined in the work, if not in its methodology) meets all the speculation by Ramachandran and others (wth reference to empathy/mirror neurons).

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

A study out of Duke University is making world media rounds today, with some outlets going for the gusto:

"Belief in People Presages Altruism," blurts PsychCentral (link repaired); "Are you a giver? Brain scan finds the truth," exults Scientific American; "Why Do Good? Brain Study Offers Clues," says the Washington Post.

I'm sure this study will garner some reaction from the Objectivist world (me, I'm hoping for Diana Mertz Hsieh).

Here's the abstract of the 'Brief Communication' "Altruism is associated with an increased neural response to agency" as it appears in Nature Neuroscience.

Here's the full text of the Duke press release (link), with a google newslist link down below for the absolute junkies.

WSS

Duke University Medical Center researchers have discovered that activation of a particular brain region predicts whether people tend to be selfish or altruistic.

"Although understanding the function of this brain region may not necessarily identify what drives people like Mother Theresa, it may give clues to the origins of important social behaviors like altruism," said study investigator Scott A. Huettel, Ph.D., a neuroscientist at the Brain Imaging and Analysis Center.

Results of the study appear Sunday, Jan. 21, in the advance online edition of Nature Neuroscience and will be published in the February 2007 print issue of the journal. The work was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Altruism describes the tendency of people to act in ways that put the welfare of others ahead of their own. Why some people choose to act altruistically is unclear, says lead study investigator Dharol Tankersley, a graduate student in Huettel's laboratory.

In the study, researchers scanned the brains of 45 people while they either played a computer game or watched the computer play the game on its own. In both cases, successful playing of the game earned money for a charity of the study participant's choice.

The researchers scanned the participants' brains using a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), which uses harmless magnetic pulses to measure changes in oxygen levels that indicate nerve cell activity.

The scans revealed that a region of the brain called the posterior superior temporal sulcus was activated to a greater degree when people perceived an action -- that is, when they watched the computer play the game -- than when they acted themselves, Tankersley said. This region, which lies in the top and back portion of the brain, is generally activated when the mind is trying to figure out social relationships.

The researchers then characterized the participants as more or less altruistic, based on their responses to questions about how often they engaged in different helping behaviors, and compared the participants' brain scans with their estimated level of altruistic behavior. The fMRI scans showed that increased activity in the posterior superior temporal sulcus strongly predicted a person's likelihood for altruistic behavior.

According to the researchers, the results suggest that altruistic behavior may originate from how people view the world rather than how they act in it.

"We believe that the ability to perceive other people's actions as meaningful is critical for altruism," Tankersley said.

The scientists suggest that studying the brain systems that allow people to see the world as a series of meaningful interactions may ultimately help further understanding of disorders, such as autism or antisocial behavior, that are characterized by deficits in interpersonal interactions.

The researchers are now exploring ways to study the development of this brain region early in life, Tankersley said, adding that such information may help determine how the tendencies toward altruism are established.

C. Jill Stowe, a decision scientist in Duke's Fuqua School of Business, also participated in the research.

More and more media blurts on the study.

Edited January 26, 2007 by william.scherk

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

William,

I saw a mention of this study in passing on Drudge Report (a good place for headlines). I was going to post something, but I didn't have time to read it properly. I don't like to post links to articles like that without reading them. Now you have this very good series of links.

I have some thoughts about species drives that I have been trying to align with Objectivism. Empathy and the urge to help another member of the species, especially one in distress (as an emotional drive, not a philosophical policy) are pre-wired and I am glad to see studies starting to show just where these drives increase activity in the brain (specifically the posterior superior temporal cortex—pSTC, as given in one article, or posterior superior temporal sulcus as given in another—and frankly, these are technical terms that do not mean much to me without an illustration—I merely know that this is a region of the brain).

I found an interesting quote in the Washing Post article you linked to (Why Do Good? Brain Study Offers Clues). (btw - Your first link does not work.)

"The general function of this region is that it seems to be associated with perceiving, usually visually, stimuli that seems meaningful to us -- for example, something in the environment that might move an object from place to place," he explained.

This type of perception would have allowed humans' more primitive ancestors to quickly pick out a potential threat -- a crouching lion, for example -- from amid a mass of less important stimuli.

I find it horrible that altruism is the term these researchers used rather than something like "pro-species urge." They muddy the understanding of the study that way. A biological urge (or reaction) is not a chosen ethics.

I can certainly see the logic of a brain activity relationship in primitively identifying threats and primitively interacting positively as a member of a group—and I see both as survival-related. I wonder if this brain region shows increased activity in sexual attraction. As pure speculation, I bet it does. I also speculate that this brain region goes into high gear during crowd participation when it is whipped up.

I found it interesting that this drive was not considered as an emotion proper, but to me it sure looks like it is some kind of affect. The Washing Post article even cited a standard manner of describing one emotional reward—a "warm-glow feeling of doing good for others"—as if this were the main emotion involved. It did not state this outright, but I perceived a strong implication of that understanding.

It will be exciting to see further studies—ones that will lead to drugs and treatments. Like the same article said:

Another expert said the Duke study raises even more questions than it answers.

"It's a really interesting study," said Paul Sanberg, director of the Center of Excellence for Aging and Brain Repair at the University of South Florida College of Medicine, in Tampa. "It would be really interesting, now though, to see if people who had damage to that [brain] area were much less altruistic."

Huettel said he's pondered that possibility. "For example, we don't know if people who are sociopaths, or people who are autistic, might show differences in this region," he said. "It's a good question, but we don't have data that shows anything one way or another. This is just a jumping-off point."

Sanberg said the study also showed only an association between heightened pSTC activity and altruism, not a direct cause-and-effect relationship. "That needs further study," he said.

btw - Happy belated birthday!

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I find it horrible that altruism is the term these researchers used rather than something like "pro-species urge." They muddy the understanding of the study that way. A biological urge (or reaction) is not a chosen ethics.

"Altruism" is a term that has been used in biology already long before Rand even was born, and not as a "chosen ethics". So there isn't any reason for the scientists to change that usage while some philosophers might get confused.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

"Altruism" is a term that has been used in biology already long before Rand even was born, and not as a "chosen ethics". So there isn't any reason for the scientists to change that usage while some philosophers might get confused.

Dragonfly,

I have no problem with that, so long as the meaning is clear—that we are discussing a biological phenomenon, not a philosophical system of ethics. I should say that I find the word horrible for discussing this issue with Objectivists. Rand did a damn fine job on overkill.

Michael

[Charles R. Anderson]

It is not surprising that benevolent feelings toward others are commonly part of our evolutionary inheritance. In fact, for reasons I have argued elsewhere, this is to be expected. What matters to us rationally is whether we are free to choose how and when we wish to express any benevolent feelings we may have. I will point out that many people, including Objectivists, are inclined to equate benevolence with altruism, which hardly need be the case. The rational man will find many reasons to be benevolent, which do not actually translate into sacrificing his best interest. What he demands is that no one else force him to sacrifice his best interest or relieve him of the judgment of when, how, and if he might choose to exercise a benevolent action.

One of the things that needs to be looked at carefully in this study is whether there is some confusion about rational benevolence and sacrificing one's own interests. How careful have the investigators really been in resolving this difference?

The fact that differences in activity in a part of the brain exist among people with respect to still another set of perceptions of life is still another reason to point to the critical importance of individuality. We are not of a universal nature and hence it is essential that men live in a society that allows them to define their own interest and chose how they will live their own individual life.

Another recent study pointed out that there are also widespread differences between people in the number of expressions of certain genes which seem to affect behavior. The earlier popular knowledge that most genes were of sets that varied little did not take cognizance of how often segments were repeated. The number of repeats turns out to be important and here there is much variability. Again, the importance of individuality is supported, which should make it clear that different individuals should be expected to have different values and a rational society should allow them the freedom to pursue those values.

So, we have every reason to demand Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as we seek to rationally live the individual life we each have.

[studiodekadent]

Ahh, the conflation of "good for others" and "bad for self" continues!

Basically every academic study of altruism done by evolutionary psychologists and MRI-monkeys screws up the definition of altruism. The reason that altruism cannot be academically modelled is simple: What makes something altruistic or not is not in what is valued (say, others happiness) but WHY it is valued. I find seeing other human beings in misery and pain to be difficult to cope with. Like all humans I empathize. That does not mean helping people out of sufferring is altruism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Charles,

I want to speculate some here. Please take this as nothing more than speculation.

I wonder if this brain reaction is the same when we believe strongly in serving a value outside of our own interests: a "cause." Here I do not mean "self-sacrifice," which is the philosophical premise Rand correctly identified and fought. I mean using the self to serve something different than the self, not necessarily in a sacrificial manner. "Others in need" in this instance is merely one possibility.

I see a strong urge in people to do this in many cases. And I sometimes see physical transformations that accompany this. For example, I have often observed a physical "aura" or expression on the faces of highly religious Protestants that could be called innocent (or in a derogatory manner, "goody two-shoes"). They have turned over their lives and hearts to Jesus. (This, of course, means their "moral minds.")

People do this when they follow a charismatic leader in a crowd (especially when that crowd turns into a mob). They can be convinced to do horrible things in a mob, thinking that this is the good, that they would never do on their own. Lynching a man comes to mind. But crowds and followers do good things too. You can see a glow or sparkle in the eyes of a person in the thrall of a crowd or discussing a person he worships.

A certain type of Objectivist does this with Rand. Ironically, these people devote their lives to "protecting" and preaching Objectivism and Rand instead of other more selfish interests. One could argue technically that Objectivism and Rand constitute their selfish interests, but you know the type I mean. These people are more at home denouncing people than producing works. Their fundamental interest in life has literally been handed over to the service of another.

I wonder if this part of the brain becomes active with these social "causes" (and the wide array of other ones like specific charities and organizations—even certain ways of facing sports and arts and other fields). I don't want to call this "social metaphysics," because that term has come to mean something derogatory, but if brain scans start identifying active parts of the brain where this urge is seated, this certainly will be the metaphysics of an "extra-selfish" human social drive. The easily observed emotions and facial expressions that accompany a person in the thralldom of a "cause" point to this.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Well I watched reruns of Beavis and Butthead and they said people act in their own self-interest all the time even if they shamelessly self-sacrifice, huh-huh, huh-huh.

I think those guys inseminated evolutionary psychology. Huh, he said "inseminated," Beavis...huh.

And then there's the Jesus Gene<tm>. That might offer some explanation for this horrible, grounds-for-tribal-banishment-from-O-World behaviour.

I never met a pedigreed altruist that I liked. They smell like feet and bad cheese.

But Seriously, Folks<tm>...

This evolutionary psychology stuff is just getting started. We already got the empathy mechanism. That was enough to make a man throw the world off his shoulders...

Nice to see you back, Mr. Scherk Sherk Shark Sherque. Even though you aren't nice to Victor. That's OK, he's an artist, he's used to regular beatings and withdrawals of affection.

Edited January 29, 2007 by Rich Engle

[william.scherk]

Nice to see you back, Mr. Scherk Sherk Shark Sherque. Even though you aren't nice to Victor. That's OK, he's an artist, he's used to regular beatings and withdrawals of affection.

Right. Thanks, Rich. For more on this edge-of-altruism research, there is an interview with the lead author published at Science Daily:

Interview: Why we help others

-- and here's an old drawing of mine that illustrates what I feel about altruism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Oh God,

I should have guessed the man's an artist!

Scratch him hard enough and I bet you even find a musician!

Woe is us...

Michael

[Addicted2learn]

What I found interesting is it is the part of the brain that reacts more or less to visual stimuli. I wonder if this has any coorelation to the fact that as a society, we are spoon fed acts of altruism as a good thing. From cartoons to movies to the media, selfish is bad -selfless is good. My curiosity lies with the possibility of the brain being triggered by the video games. Visual stimuli triggering visual memories.