Topic awaiting preservation: Abnormality found in brain of habitual liars (Page 1 of 1)

Abnormality found in brain of habitual liars

I find this particularly interesting, especially how it pertains to what causes "sinful" behavior?

quote:

---

"The reduction in gray matter predisposes them to lie in the first place," he said. "The excess of white matter makes it easier for them to do it. If these liars have a 14 percent reduction in gray matter, that means they are less likely to care about moral issues or are less likely to be able to process moral issues."

---

And Violent Brains where research is showing that damage to the frontal lobes of the brain can pre-dispose someone to violent behavior.

quote:

---

The front region of the brain, termed the prefrontal cortex, appears to have a particularly strong link to violence, according to studies. One of the first indications of its importance came from the case of a railroad worker, Phineas Gage. In 1848, an explosion caused an iron rod to impale Gage?s skull, damaging the front part of his brain. Gage survived but his behavior severely changed. Once sensitive, intelligent and respectful, after the accident he became fitful, impulsive and rude.
Since that time, accumulating patient reviews suggest that damage specific to the prefrontal area ties to violent tendencies. In addition, new research hints that the behavioral changes arise even if the damage occurs early in life, when the brain is particularly flexible and adept at overcoming other types of damage. For example, one recent study reports that children who received damage to their prefrontal cortex before age seven, developed abnormal social behavior, characterized by an inability to control their frustration, anger and aggression.

---

I find these interesting advances into the workings of the brain fascinating.

what i find most fascinating about this study is that it could support my empirical conclusion that compulsive lying is hereditary.

...very interesting...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// you've given me a taste of your honey - i want the whole beehive //

A good point! If tied to a genetic defect, the possibilities are there, so it would seem.

Welcome to GATTACA.

Brave New World > GATTACA

but then, of course, you have the whole nature versus nurture and chicken or egg arguments. the report doesn't mention the ages of those involved in the study. maybe the compulsion to lie is aquired... maybe the decrease in gray matter comes from constantly forcing their brains to oppose the natural instinct of honesty.

i remember a study a while back where they discovered slight abnormalities in the brains of gay men. what came first? the homosexuality or the funny looking brain?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
// you've given me a taste of your honey - i want the whole beehive //

Scientists have discovered that abnormal people have abnormal brains? Wow. That is groundbreaking. It's almost hard to believe people are veering towards intelligent design and voting for Bush in this country.

(Edited by reisio on 10-04-2005 02:40)

Anyone who has ever had a child and expected a book of blank pages upon which to write their ideal adult's specifications, is usually sorely disappointed.

It is obvious to parents (more than most, perhaps?) that a baby, from day one, already has unique character and personal traits. As much as one might argue about the pros and cons of influences while in the womb, nobody can deny that even between siblings there are variations unaccounted-for by their developmental environment, or that express themselves so early that 'nurture' could not possibly have dictated 'nature'.

Just as one child might have a greater IQ than another, or be less creative, or have darker hair - it is demonstrably the case that genetics play a major role in the character, perception, and problem-solving capabilities of a child.

If we use different breeds of dog as an example (a rather blatant one, considering the many centuries of selective breeding that shaped their evolution) and consider that even diversely different breeds are possibly derived from the same basic ancestors, it is possible to see how different their characteristics can be, even beyond the physical form. Some breeds are undeniably more aggressive than others, and there is a broad range of variation even in the intelligence and general demeanour of different breeds.

Humans may not have been 'selectively bred', but the nature of genetic biology is such that the genes that determined certain characteristics portrayed in you for instance (the dominant genes), are not necessarily the genes, or the only genes you'll pass to your progeny anyway, so even even if every woman chose the perfect partner to father their children, or every man chose the perfect woman, there is always a path by which those dormant genes might traverse generations.

This might help make clear why some conditions that preclude the probability of reproduction (such as terminal or chronically disabling genetic diseases) still exist today, despite previous sufferers being essentially, 'removed from the gene pool'.

LaSun asked if homosexuality came before the 'abnormality'. It should be made clear that the abnormalities, specifically, were scans of areas of the brain linked to sexuality - wherein those within a gay male's brain can be shown to more closely represent the structures within a female brain than a male one. It is, as with many characteristics (whether positive or negative), at least partially linked to either a developmental (chemically influenced during pregnancy?!) or genetic pre-disposition or condition.

To extend the 'nature or nurture' argument to suggesting that your physiology can be dramatically influenced by your psychology to the point of deforming your very genetic make-up is patently absurd. To even suppose that there are some who might deviate from the norm' to an extreme that they force themselves to become physiologically altered assumes that there has to be a pre-existing difference in character to spark such a desire for deviation in the first place...

However, between the sophisticated and extremely variable nature of genetic biology, so intricate that a great number of conditions and characteristics can seemingly jump a generation (or remain dormant in a bloodline for many generations) and the fickle nature of human breeding; it surely isn't beyond the realms of plausibility that a great many 'unique' traits in humans might be attributed to their genetic make-up; beyond just their height and eye colour.

Your genetic material is amazing stuff. It has so many possible combinations that even if a majority of them simply don't 'work', there are still an incredible number of possible variables involved in predetermining your physiology, and yet, it isn't necessarily a coincidence that somene's son turned-out "just like his grandfather".

Whether he ends-up in prison, just like his grandfather, is a different story.

Just as a pitbull can be a doting family pet, humans may only expand to fill their pre-determined potentials with corresponding influences in development. Certain things cannot be easily subverted - arguably such characteristics as sexuality - but even an intelligent child can become a violent and thuggish adult if they are not given the opportunity to become all they can be, and if developmental events enhance the negative aspects of their character.
___

I just always assumed that certain things were a combination of predetermined character, and developed personality. Therefore, when two idiots have a child they may not have an idiot, but the chances are that they'll bring-up an idiot anyway - or, equally, they may both have had 'intelligence' encoded somewhere in a cryptic chromosome that they both donated to a child who will become the man to cure the common cold.

At the other end of the scale, when two well-to-do's have a child and bring him/her up in a loving home with all the opportunities to fulfill their dreams, he/she may quite plausibly be the one to murder them in a psychotic fit one night, or realise an insatiable life-long urge to play darts down the pub every night and drink beer.

In short, I've forgotten what I was on about again. I really should write this stuff down so I can remember it.

*looks up*

Oh.

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzz.....

Several months back some of these studies were covered on a TV series on the workings of the brain...very fascinating if not a bit disconcerting.

The possible 'legal' ramifications are interesting to say the least. Our legal system is based, pretty much, on what a 'reasonable person' would do in a given situation. A jury is comprised, supposedly, of 'reasonable people.'

So at some time in the future, when this 'science' is refined and accepted, 'the state' will be hard pressed to convince that jury of 'reasonable people' to convict, on charges ranging from, murder to habitual fraud when the imagery shows the, violent and conscience parts, of the accused's brain are not the same as that of a 'reasonable person.'

The Orwellian part of my paranoia goes to a future time when laws are enacted mandating brain imagery of an 'accused.' If the imagery revealed the brain of a 'reasonable person' would/should 'the state' be allowed to use that imagery as 'evidence' to support its case?

If the law madates 'yes'... how does that play against the accused's right *not* to testify if that's what he or she so chooses? How can the 'workings' of your brain not be considered testimony on your part? I just throw out the question. I have no answer.

On the flip side... if the law mandates 'no'.... imagery cannot be used, does 'no' apply to both 'the state' and the 'defence?' If it does apply to the defence then 'evidence' of dimished capacity and similar, is not admissable. And that doesn't quite wash in, what's left of my brain. =)

I think we need to get some things straight here - there is a difference between a healthy, functioning brain, and one that is not healthy, and not functioning accordingly.

We have examples of humans with handicaps, of varying sorts. It may well be, that certain forms of physical abnormality to parts of the brain result in compulsory lying and violence. Understanding this is a good thing - especially for those afflicted with such an abnormality, and do not understand why their behavior is so.

That is radically different from things (genetic and mental) that tend to make us unique and different from one another, IMHO.

I think the difference between "healthy" and "not healthy" is simply varying degrees of the same scale. I don't think there is such a thing as a cut off point between the two. We are all born with different challenges based on our genetic predispositions.

NoJive, this type of topic sends shivers down my spine when I consider how only 60 years ago there were those who began deciding who should live or die based on these types of determinations. For anyone who cannot see the parallels to that then I can only pray they do before we start down that road again.

WS, you began this thread by asking about how this all relates to "sin". Well, you know I can't resist responding to that

quote:

---

WebShaman said:

...especially how it pertains to what causes "sinful" behavior?

---

The more we learn about our bodies, the more we understand how and why we do the things we do. "Sin" is not myred so deeply in theology that it cannot be understood as to how it affects us from day to day living. A good practical definition of sin would be "anything that hurts yourself, hurts others, and/or hurts God". I think we often lose sight of this common definition when we get tied up in deep theological debates concerning sin.

Lying has the potential to hurt all three parties I mention above. The very real possibility that some people are pre-disposed to lying underscores how important it is to show people how damaging it really is so they can work against it. One thing we know is that we are able to override our genetic predispositions. If some are born with the tendency to lie, then they have to work that much harder to avoid it. If others are born with physical handicaps they have to take steps to deal with it. I see very little difference between physcial and/or mental handicaps in that regard.

Does any of that answer your question concerning sin?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

Not really Bugs, because the religous term "Sin" comes from that which is explained in Genesis - which clearly is not the case with these anomalies that I have listed.

No amount of "willpower" or training will allow one to overcome these types of defects. Most need to be medicated, to various degrees. People suffering from these physical defects cannot control their behavior in one area - be it lying or violence.

Just like an epileptic cannot stop his/her body from a seizure without medication.

Now, concerning genetic predisposition, I agree that one can override that. But what I posted is something much different than a genetic predisposition.

In that sense, there are grave differences between the two - one is controllable, and the other is not, without medication.

I agree that in extreme cases medication is necessary. Are those the only cases you were referring to? If so, then I misunderstood your point and I'm sorry.

But if those were the only cases, then what was your question about sin?

: . . DHTML Slice Puzzle : . . .

as far as i can tell, the abnormalities described in these studies were not attributed specifically to a person's genetic make up. just as in the case of Phineas Gage, where an accident caused the culpable damage to his brain, it makes sense that a number of factors - illness, environment, yes, genetics, and even repeated behaviour - could have contributed to apparent defects found in the brain.

quote:

---

Many questions still remain unanswered. For example, it?s unclear if changes in the brain are definitely a cause of violence. Perhaps they are a consequence of the emotion.

---

as for the question of sin: my understanding of sin is that it is the willful rebellion against the nature of God. in other words, in order to be a sinner, i'd have to know, according to my set of beliefs regarding God, that what i'm doing is wrong - whether i can 'help it' or not.

i know that this is going to sound like a cop out regarding the whole argument of sin, but in the absence of definitive science that can satisfactorily explain the complexities of human behaviour, i would accept that our sins will be divinely measured against what we were given to work with.

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier//

Which merely proves my point that; only the religious are sinners.

Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right.
Isaac Asimov
US science fiction novelist & scholar (1920 - 1992)

the 'religious' and those who know better... =)

--------------------------------------------
// i've got soul but i'm not a soldier//

I haven't read the whole and all but,

We had a basic neurology course in High School, which demonstrated very clearly that the brain's "shape" is tied to the psyche,
as (a poor image, but explicit) hardware to software. Meaning that the way the "chip" is built defines its possibilities. Mnesic traces were one of the fascinating topics
(the fact that your brain's structure varies with positive/negative experiences, and that positive experiences tend to reinforce some synaptic links
=> experience leads to acquiring beliefs.... as parts of your brain's structure).

Behavior was another topic: basically, all species have signals they respond to "automagically". Rabbits physically fear black spots above their heads
(the eyes of a bird of prey), for instance.

Human beings have a similar, genetic "pre-conditionning", and that is a known fact and has been a known fact for years.
Just put your finger in the hand of a newborn, he will hold it firmly and instinctively, as apes
needed that as a reflex to remain constantly stuck to mummy during their early days.

Kisses are also assumed to be an evolution of the primates pre-mastication of food: passing food from the mother to the baby, mouth to mouth contact, the first proof of love in pre-history...
Smile as well, was intended to "show one's weapons to the new acquaintance", demonstrating simpathy, or fear.
For anyone who has studied a little psychology, or anyone with some common sense, it is obvious that a smile still demonstrates either sincere simpathy or fear.

...

My point? Everyone of us is a "whole", mental and physical being.

...

Another one, about dependent personality disorder: I have lived for some time with a person affected by this disease.
One of her characteristics was to be able to lie... to herself. I didn't pay attention when she first mentionned it, but she, as an adult,
has developped mainly logical competencies (a good programmer and mathematician), but totally lacks on the emotional side,
eg. SHE IS REALLY ABLE TO LIE TO HERSELF AND INVENT EVENTS THAT HAVEN'T HAPPENED, or strongly deny the obvious, and it is compulsive.

This is further from biology, but basically, the "twist" which caused her condition was that her parents taught her not to show her emotions (you are a monster for showing us your feelings were the exact words,
talk about an education...)
so well that most of the time, she now is unable to show her own emotions to herself.

I wouldn't be surprised if her brain had evolved over time to match the above balance, or lack of balance, starting maybe from
a predisposition to these kinds of issues.

My 2.34e26r73 cents.