Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Find 'Altruistic' Center of the Brain 223

davidwr writes "A team of researchers at Duke University published a paper linking the brain's posterior superior temporal cortex to altruistic behavior. The BBC also picked up the story. If confirmed this has applications in neurology, psychology, child-rearing, and a host of other domains. From the BBC piece: 'Using brain scans, the US investigators found this region related to a person's real-life unselfish behaviour. The Duke University Medical Center study on 45 volunteers is published in Nature Neuroscience. The participants were asked to disclose how often they engaged in different helping behaviours, such as doing charity work, and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Find 'Altruistic' Center of the Brain

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:44PM (#17711618)
    I'm sick of being altruistic while selfish bastards get all the money.
    • Better yet- this could be the key to a new version of communism. Only those with well-developed altruistic brains need apply to be Alphas or Betas in our brave, new world.
      • by nizo ( 81281 ) *
        So can we look forward to forcing some people to get "selfish bastard" tatooed on their forehead? It would certainly make life easier for panhandlers, and making them ADA compliant for blind people would be interesting.


        Best of all however we should make all political candidates demonstrate that THEY aren't selfish bastards.

        • Best of all however we should make all political candidates demonstrate that THEY aren't selfish bastards.

          Bingo. Since Brave New World by Alex Huxley seems to be no longer required reading in high school (Politicians in that book are "Alpha citizens", Bureaucrats are "Betas", workers are "Gammas", and "Deltas" are outcasts living out in the hinterlands), you captured my meaning exactly. Only altruistic individuals should be allowed to become elected officials, and selfish bastards should be the Deltas,
    • I'm sick of being altruistic while selfish bastards get all the money.
      Why are you complaining? Now that you know which portion of your brain you have to get a doctor to remove your altruism problem should be easily fixed. A glorious career for you as a selfish, greedy, backstabbing bastard is practically assured to follow!!!
  • by UbuntuDupe ( 970646 ) * on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:44PM (#17711644) Journal
    This just seems like a very roundabout, tenuous way to find the altruism center. They used an extremely unreliable method -- survey responses -- and then had people play a computer game they *know* is pretend, which would just show how altruistic they are in fake scenarios, which isn't really altruism, just like my willingness to slaughter demons in Doom doesn't show a real "willingness to resort to violence".

    Much cheaper way to accomplish the same thing:

    -Scan Ayn Rand's brain (Peikoff would be a fine subsititute today if you need a living one).
    -Compare to an average human's brain.
    -Look for the most striking difference.
    • by MillionthMonkey ( 240664 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @01:01PM (#17711918)
      I'm being evaluated for a medial temporal lobectomy for epileptic seizures.

      I'll let you guys know if I wake up after the surgery to find that I'm altruistic on my left side only. Or maybe I won't care about keeping you informed anymore; I figure it's 50-50.
      • by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @01:20PM (#17712190) Homepage
        I'm being evaluated for a medial temporal lobectomy for epileptic seizures.

        I'll let you guys know if I wake up after the surgery to find that I'm altruistic on my left side only.


        Heh. The image this conjured was of you giving a homeless person a dollar with your right hand, while simultaneously giving them the finger with your left.
      • by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Monday January 22, 2007 @01:24PM (#17712266) Homepage Journal
        Man I wish I knew someone who was having brain surgery. It would be so much fun to speak gibberish to them when they wake up, and then when they start screaming just say, "aww man don't worry I am just messing with you". Yeah I just know they would love that.
        • Ha ha, yeah, real funny. Never do that to someone just recovering consciousness from a brain trauma. I would totally fall for something like that.

          You don't even need much of your brain working to be able to wake up and talk to people. It can take a week for your judgment and facilities to come back.
    • by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @01:31PM (#17712370) Homepage
      The whole claim is built on a suspect modularist model, by which one finds a "center" for everything. High-level behaviors may correspond with certain activations in certain regions in neuro-typical people, but that's by no means the same thing as finding an "x" center, either. It could be that what is being activated is responsible for something far simpler - such as facial recognition, or even the production of affect - but that the altruistic behavior per se is considerably more distributed. The remarkable plasticity of brain function suggests that this search for "x" centers is fraught with problems.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • by Dunbal ( 464142 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @01:12PM (#17712076)
      they will throw themselves on a grenade to save a comrade's life five years hence.

            And tell me what's wrong with throwing a comrade on the grenade to save your own, uhh, nevermind...
    • But at least they're working on it. Perhaps we may one day see a cure for altruism.
    • I doubt just by playing a game a person can give any sign of whether or not they will throw themselves on a grenade to save a comrade's life five years hence.

      Actually, you know the games that they give people to play to test whether video games make people violent? They just used those and reversed the results.

      Interesting game idea. Think "Grand Theft Auto" type of thing, where you walk around and have a choice between giving money to homeless person or kicking him, etc. Might be fun--if nothing else, to see how low a score you could get.

  • by phorest ( 877315 ) * on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:51PM (#17711740) Journal

    Tasks requiring the perception of agency activate the posterior superior temporal cortex (pSTC), particularly in the right hemisphere

    Wow, that is one informative article. I can't wait for the countering study that concludes the 'Greed' center of the brain has been found just opposite the posterior superior temporal cortex and there is big fight on the opposite left side of the brain in the soon to be named 'AynRandian degenerative temporal cortex'?

    end:sarcasm
    • You think it is funny now. I expect there will be a drug in 10 years that will end cronic Jirks. Peace on earth via. Niceguyendidrex [tm] $100 a pill. Take 3 times a day. Where only the rich can afford to be nice.
  • by D-Cypell ( 446534 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:51PM (#17711748)
    ...and were also asked to play a computer game designed to measure altruism.


    Surely one of the CIV series right?

    Subjects heard shouting phrases such as... "AAAAHA, Taste my ICBM you Iroquois scum", where marked down! ;)
  • by Rob T Firefly ( 844560 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:52PM (#17711766) Homepage Journal
    That was really great of them to do this study and share it with us. They didn't even have to do that!
  • by Anonymous Coward
    responsible for altruism, and immediately patented it.
  • Sample size == 45? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by turly ( 992736 )
    And they're able to state this from a sample size of 45?

    Jesus Christ. I mean, their shoe-size is as likely to correlate to altruism.

    • by Dunbal ( 464142 )
      And they're able to state this from a sample size of 45?

      I'm waiting for the other study that will demonstrate that what they have indeed found is that people who lie on surveys to seem to be altruistic, and who pretend to be altruistic in computer games, have more activity in that area of the temporal lobe...

      Unfortunately neurophysiology is one of those areas in science where observing the evidence can in fact alter the results... everyone willing to participate i
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Vellmont ( 569020 )

      And they're able to state this from a sample size of 45?

      I'm getting a bit tired of this criticism. It really depends on what they're trying to measure if the sample size is statistically significant. If you were an alien from the planet Zenon, you wouldn't need a large sample size of humans to determine there's two sexes. You would need a far large sample size to find trans-gendered people. Obviously because the two different sexes occour in equal numbers (so a small sample is very likely to contain bot
  • Ayn: Nooooooooooooooooo!
  • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • Unselfish behavior? (Score:3, Informative)

    by XNormal ( 8617 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @12:58PM (#17711872) Homepage
    This behavior is still selfish.
    It's just collectively selfish instead of individually selfish (at least statistically).

    • I find this observation fatuous. What "self" are we talking about, then?

      It's adaptive, yes. Just about every aspect of any organism that's made it this far is adaptive. That's not the same thing as "selfish."
      • by spun ( 1352 )
        Selfish in the same sense as Dawkin's book, The Selfish Gene [wikipedia.org] .
        • But genes don't have brains. People do. I understand Dawkins' metaphor, that humanity, and all species, are epiphenomena of the mechanist processes of evolution. I think he overstates his case. You may as well discuss the "selfish quark."
          • by spun ( 1352 )
            No, because quarks have no mechanism that we know of for expressing behavior that generates more quarks. Genes, like brains, are complex systems of multiple interacting feedback loops, capable of taking information from the environment, procesing it, and expressing behavior based on internal and external conditions. They are also capable of self-reproduction. One can't say the same thing about quarks.

            I think the point that the GP post was trying to make was quite similar to the point Dawkins was making. Gen
    • Basically because they benefit from the other person. It's the same reason we see heroism as a great thing. Other person is heroic, we benefit.

      I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's just worth considering the motivation people have for encouraging altruism, heroism, patriotism etc etc.

       
    • Well, everything can be called selfish to some degree. We all do what we want to do. If something had no return, we wouldn't do it.

      The only reason I ever do anything nice for anybody is because it makes me happy to see them happy.
      • The only reason I ever do anything nice for anybody is because it makes me happy to see them happy.

        From Forbes' coverage [forbes.com]:

        People may not perform selfless acts just for an emotional reward, a new brain study suggests.

        Instead, they may do good because they're acutely tuned into the needs and actions of others.

        "Perhaps altruism did not grow out of a warm-glow feeling of doing good for others, but out of the simple recognition that that thing over there is a person that has intentions and goals. And therefore, I might want to treat them like I might want them to treat myself," explained study author Scott Huettel, an associate professor of psychology at Duke University Medical Center, in Durham, N.C. ... For decades, psychologists and neuroscientists have puzzled over the tendency of humans to engage in altruistic acts -- defined by Huettel's group as acts "that intentionally benefit another organism, incur no direct personal benefit, and sometimes bear a personal cost." [emphasis mine]

        In plain English, the part of you responsible for selfish behavior is not the same as the part of you responsible for altruistic behavior. Altruistic people really are helping others to help others rather than to just feel good about themselves or get something in return. I'd recommend reading the entire Forbes article on it, it's a pretty good read.

    • by Jerf ( 17166 )
      Doesn't "collectively selfish" strike you as a bit oxymoronic?

      I'm perfectly happy with altruism stemming from a wise recognition that you are affected by the people and society around you. It's quite clear a lot of people aren't that wise and we all suffer for it; that they also suffer doesn't make it any more or less moral.

      In fact, I'd reject the implied definition of altruism you (and several Slashdot posters) seem to be offering, which seems to be some sort of self-harming action that helps nobody and ca
  • "linking the brain's posterior superior temporal cortex to altruistic behavior."

    I want a posterior superior temporal cortex!
  • by Baldrson ( 78598 ) * on Monday January 22, 2007 @01:01PM (#17711916) Homepage Journal
    Thus the posterior superior temporal cortex should be the target of many evolutionary arms races [wikipedia.org] seeking to gain or prevent extended phenotypic [wikipedia.org] control of altruistic behavior.
  • by RyoShin ( 610051 ) <<tukaro> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday January 22, 2007 @01:09PM (#17712036) Homepage Journal
    If confirmed this has applications in neurology, psychology, child-rearing, and a host of other domains.
    How about politics?

    If this can be proven to be accurate, perhaps it can be used on politicians before an election to see just how much good they actually intend to do for the public.

    Or would the machine not be able to handle negative values?
    • I think a test for an Authoritarian personality [wikipedia.org] might be more useful. Sort of like Doug Adams notion that anybody who wants to be president is unqualified to be so.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by m0rph3us0 ( 549631 )
      What if doing things that are altruistic are bad for the country? Altruism usually fails to recognize the misallocation of resources it is doing because it is "good", and thus makes everyone worse off. See Steel Tarrifs, Medicare, Welfare.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by RexRhino ( 769423 )
      The most vicious and dangerous people in the world are true believers trying to do the right thing. The corrupt and greedy usually have limits - they just want to get rich quick and that is that. The people willing to engage in true stupidy, cruelity, and destruction, are the people who are convinced they are doing the right thing.
      • Sure, but I think all you're saying is that people who doubt what they're doing are less dangerous then those who don't question what they do.

        That said... I'm not sure that your statement is really true, I think it really comes down to what they believe in. If someone is kinda-sure they want to shoot me and take my money, I think they're dangerous. If they're convinced that they don't want to do any violence (say like Gandhi) I'm not too concerned, he doesn't seem like a real dangerous fellow.
        • If they're convinced that they don't want to do any violence (say like Gandhi) I'm not too concerned, he doesn't seem like a real dangerous fellow.

          Gandhi was actually pretty much a racist, and a potentially violent one at that. Don't believe the white-washed Disney version of history people give you about Gandhi. His views about africans are probably more extreme and hateful than David Duke.

          http://www.trinicenter.com/WorldNews/ghandi4.htm [trinicenter.com]
          • Ah, could be... I guess my point was that someone who believed in non-violence wholeheartedly would probably be better then someone who sort of believed in using violence to rob me, all things being equal.
        • Despite his non-violent rhetoric, Ghandi's political activities caused a tremendous amount of sectarian and racist violence, which he was never able to control.

          A better example of your point would be some of the Tibetan Bhuddists - if you REALLY REALLY piss them off, they will douse themselves in gasoline and (carefully, with due consideration for bystanders) IMMOLATE THEMSELVES! Take that, you opressors, guess we showed you what for!

          Yeah, I don't worry much about those guys getting out of control.
          • Thank you... that would be better example... I mean except for the pollution and using up our fossil fuels an all :)
    • Simple solution: Cauterize certain neurons to segregate the non-altruistic portions of the brain.
  • Heal it? (Score:2, Funny)

    by EctoRaist ( 607289 )
    Ok, how can you heal that cancer out?
  • Here's a link to the Duke University press release: Activation of Brain Region Predicts Altruism [dukemednews.org]

    BTW: Is this an altruistic link? <grin>

    • No. Your brain anticipates the imminent arrival of karma which, according to my sources [wikipedia.org] caused salivation even before you clicked the "submit" button.
  • Moo (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Chacham ( 981 )
    This is so reidiculous.

    The Duke University Medical Center study on 45 volunteers is published in Nature Neuroscience.

    45 volunteers?

    Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans, there is enough multiplicity as it is, there was bound to be *some* congruence. Seriously, they are making predictions from 45 people?!?!

    On top of that, they are volunteers?

    Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their t
    • On top of that, they are volunteers?

      Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their time...

      Good point. And another group should be forced to participate at gunpoint.
      • On top of that, they are volunteers?

        Umm, in a study on altruism, there would have to be (at least) two separate groups, one which was paid, and one that donated their time...


        Good point. And another group should be forced to participate at gunpoint.


        Back when I attended the Big U, one of the requirements for completing any Psych classes was to have participated in at least one psych study. A humanities minor was required for graduation, and if you picked Psych you had to be a lab rat. Typically this occurr
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans

      Clearly you are unfamiliar with statistics or you'd never make such a ridiculous claim. Firstly, statistical analysis is agnostic about its subject matter. Whether or not its about "brain scans" or predicting the weather has no bearing on what's a good sample size. Secondly, you measure whether or not a sample size is good enough by looking at the statistical significance, not the absolute size of the sample. In an extreme case, if

    • Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by radtea ( 464814 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @02:36PM (#17713384)
      While it is true that we are born selfish...

      What on Earth does this mean?

      We are social primates, and therefore have evolved a variety of reciprocal-aid mechanisms in our behaviour. We are more likely to show helping behaviour toward our closer kin, but because we also (as a species) practice exogamy (breeding outside our kin group) rather vigorously we have a tendency to show helping behaviour toward anyone or anything that even looks remotely like us.

      When raised in sufficiently violent, unloving circumstances that tendency may never be developed, but contra Freud it is not repression of our nature that makes us humane (anymore than feral, asocialized humans behave humanely) but rather a nurturing, loving and secure upbringing.
      • "What on Earth does this mean?"

        I'm going to guess you are not a parent.

        My child is the most selfish being I've ever met. Ever since he was an infant he's clearly acted as if the world revolves around him. All hours of the night he would make noise and wake the whole house without even having a clear need. For all I could tell he just found that he was awake and wanted us to be awake too. He's three now and while he's gained the ability to communicate his desires they still mostly revolve around him. Su
    • Re:Moo (Score:5, Insightful)

      by venicebeach ( 702856 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @03:02PM (#17713754) Homepage Journal
      Firstly, 45 is not enough for a statistical analysis involving brain scans, there is enough multiplicity as it is, there was bound to be *some* congruence. Seriously, they are making predictions from 45 people?!?!
      IAAFR (I am an fMRI researcher) and I can say without reservation that this comment is blatantly incorrect. As with any statistical analsysis, you take into account the variability in the data when making statistical tests. You have some idea of what to expect based on chance alone, and you must exceed that by a tremendous amount. With fMRI we tend to be excessively conservative with statistics, since we do a statistical test at every voxel in the image acquired -- it takes very high levels of statistical parameters to be accepted as a significant result.

      45 subjects is actually a very large sample for an imaging study (fMRI is very expensive). Most studies use 12-16 people.

      As for the term "volunteers", anyone who participates in research in the U.S. is a volunteer. We cannot and should not force people to participate in research studies. The term volunteer does not mean they were not compensated for their time.
      • by crush ( 19364 )

        45 subjects is actually a very large sample for an imaging study (fMRI is very expensive). Most studies use 12-16 people

        Your point about the statistical tests is well-taken. But the above quote has /nothing/ to do with whether the statistical tests were sufficient or adequate. The significance of a test isn't affected by how much it costs or how bad other people's analyses are. Their work either fails to fit some null hypothesis or doesn't.
        • My point was that it is possible (and typical) to achieve statistical significance with a much smaller sample size. Given the cost, you tend not to collect more subjects than necessary.
  • This whole body of research linking brain function to behavior is fascinating, but it's not hard to picture a scenario where it could be used to manipulate people. Imagine choosing job applicants based on this analysis in order to save on compensation costs. Or denying someone a promotion because their brain scan shows they're working only for themselves. "Sorry, Bob, you're just not a team player. It says so right here on these lab results!"
    • Sorry, Bob, you're just not a team player. It says so right here on these lab results!"

      Actually...

      Sorry Bob... you're such a fucking puss that you're going to be walking around asking how everyone's day is and trying to get money for charity runs and girl scout cookies. We need a ruthless son-of-a-bitch whose going to get shit done. You understand our predicament don't you Bob?
  • "Of all the nonsense that twists the world, the concept of 'altruism' is the worst. People do what they want to do, every time."

    -- Jubal Harshaw, Stranger in a Strange Land
    • Jubal is the man. "My dear, I used to think I was serving humanity... and I pleasured in the thought. Then I discovered that humanity does not want to be served; on the contrary it resents any attempt to serve it."
    • That's a non-sequitur. Since when does altruism = not doing what you want? If you *want* to help people without any expectation of personal gain, does that mean you're not being altruistic?

      You might be suggesting that people who want to help others receive pleasure from doing so, and in that sense they are really motivated by the expectation of satifaction. But then you'd have to explain *why* helping others produces pleasure... which brings us back to the point of identifying the area of the brain invol
  • by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Monday January 22, 2007 @02:03PM (#17712884) Journal
    Is it still altruism if you do something to advance the colony? What if it is because you identify the colony as an extension of yourself? Those who believe in altruism as a natural thing might be inclined to jump on this selfless bandwagon. I see no reason to believe that this region of the brain is associated with anything more than base functions of social and group interaction. If you identify yourself as part of a group then actions to benefit that group are merely selfishness on another level.

    Furthermore, in a general sense, helping others is merely promote self interest. Say you are nice to people at the office and help them out whenever possible. When you take these actions there may not be a specific self interest in mind at the moment but you are aware that you are building goodwill toward yourself that may benefit you when you in turn need help.
    • by E++99 ( 880734 )

      Is it still altruism if you do something to advance the colony? What if it is because you identify the colony as an extension of yourself? ....If you identify yourself as part of a group then actions to benefit that group are merely selfishness on another level.

      No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with th

      • "No one identifies AS MUCH with the group than they do with their actual selves. (unless they've been brainwashed by a cult or something) So If you sacrifice of yourself for the benefit of the group, it IS altruism, even if you identify also with the group. The marine who was just awarded the medal of honor for throwing himself on a grenade, saving his unit at the cost of his life, did not do it out of self-interest."

        You bring up a poor example to make your case. Anyone who has been in the military can tell
    • Agreed. The main question is the timeline for benefits. The ability to delay gratification. The recognition of others as posessing independant choice you'd best consider. Kids are an obvious example in both senses.

      Even Ayn Rand ["The Virtue of Selfishness"} said "The better the mind, the longer the range [of planning]".

      Predators [noncooperators]mot certainly exist. In a balanced cycle with their prey.

    • Those who believe in altruism as a natural thing

      There really is no question as to whether altruism is a natural thing. It certainly is. The question is how much of it is genetic and how much of it is memetic.

      One may argue that memes are not natural--but since they are observed in animals, that's a tough argument to make.
  • ... the studies findings were just formally retracted when it was discovered that the cells composing the alleged "Altruism" center of the brain - were in fact only exhibiting this response in an honest effort to make the researchers feel better about themselves...
  • We're from the USO, let us attach this little box to your head, then we can discuss your donation.

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...