Neuro-Cooperation
Ian Goddard
Emory brain imaging studies reveal biological basis for human
cooperation
Functional MRI scans have revealed a "biologically embedded" basis
for altruistic behavior, with several characteristic regions of the
brain being activated when players of a game called "Prisoner's
Dilemma" decide to trust each other and cooperate, rather than
betray each other for immediate gain, say researchers from Emory
University. They report on their study in the July 18 issue of the
journal Neuron, published by Cell Press.
For many years, evolutionary biologists, behaviorists, economists
and political scientists have attempted to understand why
cooperation exists between human beings, even though that
cooperation may not result in a direct or immediate reward. This
unselfish behavior called "altruism" is almost uniquely a human
trait.
Up until now, almost all brain imaging experiments that have studied
the social brain have done so by exposing subjects to static 2-D
images inside the scanner. "This study represents an attempt to
learn about the social brain by scanning people as they are engaged
in a true social interaction," said James K. Rilling, Ph.D.,
principal investigator in the Emory study, who is currently serving
a postdoctoral fellowship at Princeton University. In the Fall of
2003, Dr. Rilling will return to Emory as a faculty member with a
joint appointment in the Center for Behavioral Neuroscience (CBN)
at Emory University School of Medicine and the Emory University
Department of Anthroplogy.
In two separate experiments, the researchers used fMRI to scan the
brains of 36 women while they played the "Prisoner's Dilemma Game,"
a decades-old model for cooperation based on reciprocal altruism.
Two players independently chose to either cooperate with each other
or not (defect), and each was awarded a sum of money that depended
upon the interaction of both players' choices in that round.
In the first experiment, 19 subjects were scanned in four game
sessions designed to observe neural function during cooperation
and non-cooperation during both human interactions (social) and
interactions with a computer (non-social). The results of the first
experiment revealed different patterns of neural activation
depending on whether the playing partner was identified as a human
or a computer. In the second experiment, 17 subjects were scanned
during three game sessions, focusing specifically on human
interaction.
Mutual cooperation was the most common outcome in games played with
presumed human partners in both experiments, even though a player
was maximally rewarded for defecting when the other player
cooperated. During the mutually cooperative social interactions,
activation was noted in those areas of the brain that are linked
to reward processing: the nucleus accumbens, the caudate nucleus,
ventromedial frontal/orbitofrontal cortex and rostral anterior
cingulate cortex.
"Our study shows, for the first time, that social cooperation is
intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of
pressures to the contrary," said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D.,
co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory
University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and
Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the
altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either
genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during
childhood and adolescence."
"Reciprocal altruism activates a reward circuit, and this activation
may often be sufficiently reinforcing to override subsequent
temptations to accept but not reciprocate altruism. This may be
what motivates us to persist with cooperative social interactions
and reap the benefits of sustained mutual cooperation," said Dr.
Rilling.
"The combination of game behavior and functional brain imaging also
provides a unique paradigm to explore the neural basis of social
behavioral disorders such as autism, drug addiction and sociopathy,
that are characterized by deficits in social reciprocity, impulse
regulation, or social reward processing," adds Clint Kilts, Ph.D.,
co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry at Emory. "It
defines the most complex form of the human genesis of a social bond.
It may help us define why wars are fought and loves are lost."
###
The study was sponsored by the Markey Center for Neurological
Sciences Fellowship, National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA),
National Institutes of Mental Health (NIMH) and National Alliance
for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD). Other Emory
researchers involved in the study were David A. Gutman, Thorsten R.
Zeh, and Giuseppe Pagnoni, Ph.D.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Goddard : http://users.erols.com/igoddard
"To lengthen thy life, lessen thy meals." Benjamin Franklin
Caloric Restriction: http://users.erols.com/igoddard/cr.htm
john...@charter.net
> intrinsically rewarding to the human brain, even in the face of
> pressures to the contrary," said Gregory S. Berns, M.D., Ph.D.,
> co-investigator and associate professor of psychiatry in the Emory
> University School of Medicine Department of Psychiatry and
> Behavioral Sciences and member of the CBN. "It suggests that the
> altruistic drive to cooperate is biologically embedded-- either
> genetically programmed or acquired through socialization during
> childhood and adolescence."
This statement is made from the common, flawed perspective that altruism
exists and that cooperation is not in the individual's best interest. It's
fascinating to see that, in humans, cooperation is rewarding on a
physiologic basis, but this does not prove that true altruism even exists.
Survival of the species is in the interest of the individual.
Ian Goddard
IAN: Seems to me that the authors of the study misuse the
term "altruism," as when they say "the altruistic drive
to cooperate." Virtually all noncoercive activity in a
free market involves cooperation (people agreeing to work
together toward some goal), and thus is cooperative. Yet
virtually none of that activity is necessarily altruistic.
The American Heritage dictionary give us this: "Altruism :
Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness."
I tend to agree with the nonexistence of altruism but from
the view that when people do care for others, it comes not
from an denial of self, but an expanded definition of self.
In that respect, "self" is the central focus of all action.
Ian Goddard : http://users.erols.com/igoddard
"The smallest minority on earth is the individual.
Those who deny individual rights cannot claim
to be defenders of minorities." Ayn Rand
Kenneth Collins
let's see, first, i don't see it as an 'earthshaking' Q., but i do see
"altruism" as having existence.
and i see it as transcendant stuff, born in experience.
the potential is in-there, innately, but whether or not it's manifested
derives in experience that enables one to 'see' that this or that, with
respect to another, is the Same-Stuff that's negatively-impacted their own
existence, and, so, having gained the necessary insight, through experience,
one performs work on behalf of the other, in order that the other be spared
the 'negative' stuff.
NDT's view of the mechanism for such is discussed in AoK, Ap7.
in my own case, though, there is some 'selfishness' in-there. i want to be
able to 'hold-my-head-up', but, really, when the demands of it get-Brutal,
one just doesn't 'give a damn' about the "inclination-of-one's-head".
at such 'times' it's all just a Savage struggle, and i'm going to make it to
that Child 'come hell or high-water'.
there's an activation of inverting biological reward, inherent, during these
'times' when one is working 'in mid-air', and this inverting biological
reward surely has a lot to do with making it possible. it provides a
temporary 'foundation' - something to 'hold-on-to' - even in the midst of
being 'in mid-air', but, in and of itself, the inverting biological reward
is insufficient be-cause the Thermodynamics, inherent, are =expensive=.
it's very-much a Life-or-Death thing that's bigger than my own Life. it's
like i "can't Live" if that Child can't Live, so, in order to Live, i work
on the Child's behalf.
there's some selfishness in-there, i admit, with respect to my own
being-able-to-Live.
yeah, i'd like to not have to 'worry' about being able to feed and shelter
myself. but i've not been able to find a way to earn a living through my
research, and i'm going to keep-on with it, anyway, while Life remains in-me
(looks like, without the archives i've kept. "oh well.' i've fond memories
of when i could carry everything i needed in my Midshipman's laundry bag,
the loss of the archives would be a =LOSS=, but maybe i'll get back to being
sufficient in my laundry bag :-)
i think the underpinning Rational is probably 'invisible' to folks who've
not lived the progenitor stuff.
it's one of the reasons it's 'hard' - one 'seems crazy' to folks with
respect to whom the progenitor stuff is 'invisible' :-)
"oh well."
anyway, perhaps you can imagine... it's not stuff i enjoy probing too
deeply. have to [and wnat to] just do it, regardless, so it's one of the
things that i've left at the 'level' it's presented at in Aok, Ap7, which is
sufficient [there's nothing un-accounted-for. folks can 'spin' it ad
infinitum, but the same can be done with anything 'psychological'. pinning
it down in terms of energy-consumption pretty-much Pinns-if-Down.
a "meta-motor-dominant" ["meta-active] information-processing 'state'.
ken [k. p. collins]
Eudaimonus
"Ian Goddard" <igod...@erols.mom> wrote in message
news:3d35e5d2....@news.erols.com...
> Functional MRI scans have revealed a "biologically embedded" basis
> for altruistic behavior, with several characteristic regions of the
> brain being activated when players of a game called "Prisoner's
> Dilemma" decide to trust each other and cooperate, rather than
> betray each other for immediate gain, say researchers from Emory
> University. They report on their study in the July 18 issue of the
> journal Neuron, published by Cell Press.
The Prisoner's Dilemma is not an example of altruism. It is a misnomer to
call it such.
What is the Prisoner's Dilemma? Consider the following matrix
1) A tells on B, B tells on A. A get 10 year, B gets 10 years
2) A tells on B, B doesn't tell on A. A gets 1 year, B gets 20 years
3) A doesn't tell on B, B tells on A. A gets 20 years, B gets 1 year
4) A doesn't tell on B, B doesn't tell on A. A and B each get 5 years
As you can see, it is in the interest of both, that neither tell, but if one
of them tells, it's in the interest of the other to tell. Since each side
has no control over the other, each will conclude that they should tell,
lest they get cought holding the bag, which leads to lesser situation for
both than if they had both not told.
This is a question of cooperation, and holding people to implicit
agreements. It's an answer to the question "Why don't people defect from
such agreements all of the time?" When one realizes that society as such,
is one such situation (defecting from society may benifit the criminal, but
that logic applies to everybody, and if everybody were a criminal, all the
criminals would be worst off than if they were not criminals).
However, it is an misnomer to call such behavior "altruistic" as it's basis
is fundamentally selfish.
As the doctor said "This may be what motivates us to persist with
cooperative social interactions and reap the BENIFITS of sustatined mutual
cooperation" (emphasis mine).
John H.
explain the panorama of human behaviour? This is akin to believing that
evolution, the most complex known process, can be seen through a cliche:
survival of the fittest. Sure, evolution explains everything, I like to see
it explain the bombardier beetle but anyway back to altruism ... .
I have no idea why the evolutionary principle of self preservation excludes
once and for all the possibility of altruism. Yes, it does suggest we act
primarily for our own good and the survival of the species but why
specifically does that exclude the possibility of altruism?
Eg. If you prove that evolution, by simple extrapolation, can determine all
possible human behaviours then I might be inclined to believe you . There is
no warrant in the argument:- evolution is about survival of the
species-therefore altruism cannot exist.
Evidence of altruistic behaviour is usually dismissed on the grounds of
psychobabble. ie, one imputes that the person performed altruistically for
some hidden motive, some 'real' reason for their actions. That may well be
true but until such time that such hidden motives can be unequivocally
demonstrated there is no argument, merely the possibility. The whole
approach reminds me of that dreadful psycho history, interpreting human
behaviour in terms of Freudian analysis, now its evolutionary psychology,
and in between, Adler, Jung, Watson, Skinner, Maslow, Wilbur, ... . They
were all wrong in their extrapolations but I am now expected to believe that
evolutionary psychology has got the psychobabble right. The fun part of this
is watching someone with their precious all-embracing theory of human nature
go into any number of conceptual contortions to prove their daft argument.
We see that a bit round here.
My neighbour, wealthily retired, spends her time saving injured animals that
she knows are doomed in this neighbourhood anyway. She keeps trying to save
other species, no group selection principle there. Evolutionary theory
suggests she should spend her time caring for her grandchildren, making more
money to secure their future, but she wastes her time and money saving
animals rather than obeying her genes. (As Pinker notes in "How the Mind
Works": I decided long ago I didn't want children and if my genes don't like
that too bad.) She does it because she likes animals. Before I start
imputing other motives to her, I just have to remember all those other
models of human behaviour that claimed to be able to explain everything.
(eg. you really just want to fuck your mother) Evolution is real but there
are plenty of things it still cannot explain, altruism included. Dammit last
I heard they were still arguing about Group or phenotype or genotype as the
loci of selection.
I have never been able to understand why so many people have helped me, and
I can assure you they were well aware there was no kickback and I aint got
kids either nor do I contribute so where's the evolutionary argument there,
wasting their resources on an essentially no return investment? Gee, maybe
its because people can be kind, no other reason than that. Look around,
you'll see that everyday. If you can't then that's something very sad about
your culture.
John H.
<john...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:ujc4m7p...@corp.supernews.com...
Kenneth Collins
reflects what's in Abe Lincoln's comment, "I shall try to correct errors
when shown to be errors, and I shall adopt new views so fast as they appear
to be true views... and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed
personal wish that all men everywhere could be free."
so, in the vein, you've opened-up (at least within me :-), i'll state,
plain, that evolution does =not= derive in 'survival of the fittest', but,
rather, in the efforts of everything that Lives to 'climb' the energy
gradient that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T]. the 'survival of
the fittest' notion is 'just' a short-shrift 'view' on the WDB2T thing.
i go out late at night to Pray the Rosary. sometimes, it's raining, and like
your friend who rescues cats, i rescue earth worms that've strayed onto the
driveway at my Father's Home.
there's 'selfishness' in-it, 'cause i'm thinking, "Now, go, and do your work
in the soil.", and that'll help grow whatever it is that grows where the
rescued worms will do their work.
but there's more to it. in taking this action, i'm 'climbing' the WDB2T
gradient, myself.
"altruistic"?
yes, in terms of the fact that i'll probably not receive any return on my
'investment' of energy-expended, but, in the Same-Stuff, applied in general,
surely some of the energy i expend comes-back-to-me, and surely, some of it
with 'compound-interest'.
the worth, inherent, becomes most-obvious when one studies cases in which
the correlated stuff is 'absent'. such usually occurs at 'boundaries'
that're created with respect to groups' familiar stuff.
folks 'move away from' doing the WDB2T-correlated thing across such
experientially-defined 'boundaries'. the 'rationale', inherent, is
short-sighted. it 'senses' the energy gradient that is WDB2T as being
Precious, but Mis-takes such in behaviors manifested, and, thereby, moves
itself down on the WDB2T gradient, rather than up, be-cause, in 'moving away
from' assisting folks on the other 'side' of the experientially-defined
borders in =their= 'climb' of the WDB2T gradient, they induce those others
to 'move away from' rendering assistance in their [fisrt group] own climb of
the WDB2T gradient. when this happens, what could otherwise be, is
'devoured'. practically all the energy available for expenditure is wasted
in 'just' maintaining the status quo in which the artificial [with respect
to WDB2T] 'boundaries' are Erroneously 'honored' more than the stuff of
Life, which is the 'climbing' of the energy gradient that is WDB2T.
that's why i save the worms.
the =generalized= approach is the only one that works.
Cheers, John, ken [k. p. collins]
John H. wrote in message ...
Kenneth Collins
integrated.
"Altruism" is nothing less than Lof-of-Truth, taken-Pure.
"Altruism" =Sees= Truth, and =Acts= upon that which it Sees.
'come hell or high water'
the only Problem, inherent, is as is discussed below, the 'See-ing' derives
in experience, and most-often, 'comes-up-short' at artificially-delimited
experiential 'boundaries'.
"Altruism" is =HUGELY= +* Stuff.
so Survival-Foundation-al that it tends to be 'invisible'.
folks 'move away from' it.
making all sorts of 'excuses', in the name of this or that, but, in
actuallity, in the name of 'moving toward' that which has become
[merely]-familiar within their own experience.
YIKES!
k. p. collins
Kenneth Collins wrote in message ...
Kenneth Collins
>integrated.
>
>"Altruism" is nothing less than Lof-of-Truth, taken-Pure.
should've been:
"Altruism" is nothing less than Love-of-Truth, taken-Pure.
'moving toward' Truth.
i know, i know... "What is truth?"
that which is mapped by the one-way flow of energy from order to disorder
that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T], with respect to which there
is no physical to the contrary.
our nervous systems are functional be-cause they're 'engineered' in accord
with WDB2T.
they 'blindly' and automatically 'seek' to 'climb' the energy gradient that
is WDB2T, via TD E/I-minimization.
the only problem is the 'blind'-automation, which is removed through an
understanding of how and why nervous systems process information via
'blindly'-automated TD E/I-minimization.
there's no 'magic' in-it. the understanding, itself comes to physically
exist within nervous systems in the form of physically-real microscopic
trophic modifications ["biological mass"; AoK, Ap5] within nervous systems.
but what the understanding does seems like 'magic'.
lifts folks up above experientially-defined 'boundaries', and all the
Savagery deriving in their actually-nothing-ness.
anyway, it wasn't actually a "YIKES!". it was a "Flash!!!+++***"... just the
annotation that i use in my notes to signify recognition of this or that
'implosion' in my own understanding.
sometimes, my love (or lof :-) of play 'sneaks-up' on me.
Sorry.
k. p. collins
Kenneth Collins
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/health/psychology/23COOP.html
quoting from the article:
"portraits of the brain on hugs"
:-)
ken [k. p. collins]