-
Contents
- Mystery Meteorite: The case for (and against) a rock from Mercury
- Hard Times for Theorists in a Post-Higgs World: The Large Hadron Collider’s big success leaves no clear avenue for new physics
- In the Eye of the Tiger: Global spread of Asian tiger mosquito could fuel outbreaks of tropical disease in temperate regions
- subscribe
- give a gift
- renew
- RSS Feeds
- email alerts
- Digital Edition
- Podcast
- Past issues
-
Contents
- Cool Jobs: Moved by life: Biologically inspired robots travel — naturally
- Infection time: Disease is more severe when it hits in the morning, at least in mice
- Explainer: Our bodies’ internal clocks: Biological clocks determine hunger, sleepiness and other daily rhythms
Web edition: January 21, 2013
Print edition: February 9, 2013; Vol.183 #3 (p. 18)
People with damage to a specific part of the brain entrusted unexpectedly large amounts of money to complete strangers. In an investment game played in the lab, three women with damage to a small part of the brain called the basolateral amygdala handed over nearly twice as much money as healthy people.
These women didn’t expect to make a bunch of money back, an international team of researchers reports online the week of January 21 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Nor did they think the person they invested with was particularly trustworthy. When asked why they would invest so generously, the volunteers couldn’t provide an answer.
The results suggest that normally, the basolateral amygdala enables selfishness — putting the squeeze on generosity.
Citations
J. van Honk et al. Generous economic investments after basolateral amygdala damage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Published online the week of January 21, 2013. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1217316110.
Please alert Science News to any inappropriate posts by clicking the REPORT SPAM link within the post. Comments will be reviewed before posting.
Changes in brain tissue can cause one to have feelings different from what he would have had, in the same circumstances, before the change..
..but it's misguided to take that to mean that such determines human behavior:
Unlike the lower animals, humans are able to *think* about the context before they choose what to do.
Although that work - on the conceptual level - is how we manage to live and thrive as other than hand-to-mouth, it remains that that work is volitional.
If a person chooses not to do that work, then his behavior IS determined by his emotions -- but if he does, then emotions affect decisions only in making one more partial to some alternatives than others.
And although that can be a powerful force, it isd not determinative.
By that analysis, my conclusion is that the woman wasn't (very good at) thinking about what would be best for her in fact.
You must register with Science News to add a comment. To log-in click here. To register as a new user, follow this link.