Exposure to Magnets Can Alter a Person's Morality

[jimmy olsen]

The Rise of the Mutants is Finally at Hand!



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36089873/ns/health-behavior/

Study: Magnets can alter morality
Research could have big implications for judges and juries

By Eric Bland
Discovery
updated 7:28 p.m. ET March 29, 2010

Magnets can alter a person's sense of morality, according to a new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Using a powerful magnetic field, scientists from MIT, Harvard University and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center are able to scramble the moral center of the brain, making it more difficult for people to separate innocent intentions from harmful outcomes. The research could have big implications for not only neuroscientists, but also for judges and juries.

"It's one thing to 'know' that we'll find morality in the brain," said Liane Young, a scientist at MIT and co-author of the article. "It's another to 'knock out' that brain area and change people's moral judgments."

Before the scientists could alter the brain's moral center, they first had to find it.

Young and her colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging to locate an area of the brain known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ), which other studies had previously related to moral judgments. While muscle movement, language and even memory are found in the same place in each individual, the RTPJ, located behind and above the ear, resides in a slightly different location in each person.

For their experiment, the scientists had 20 subjects read several dozen different stories about people with good or bad intentions that resulted in a variety of outcomes.

One typical story was about a boyfriend who leads his girlfriend across a bridge. In some versions, the boyfriend harmlessly walked his girlfriend across the bridge with no ill effect. In other cases, the boyfriend intentionally led the girlfriend along so she would break her ankle. The subjects used a seven point scale — one being forbidden and seven completely permissible — to record whether they through the situation was morally acceptable or not.

While the subjects read the story, the scientists applied a magnetic field using a method known as transcranial magnetic stimulation. The magnetic fields created confusion in the neurons that make up the RTPJ, said Young, causing them to fire off electrical pulses chaotically.

The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend's intent, said Young, and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation's outcome. The effect was temporary and safe.

When no magnetic field was applied, the subjects focused more on the boyfriend's good intentions, rather than a bad outcome. When a magnetic field was applied to the RTPJ, the subjects consistently focused on a bad outcome, rather than the intention, and rated the story as more morally objectionable.

The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects moral sensibilities. On the scientists' seven point scale, the difference was about one point and averaged out to about a 15 percent change. It's not much, said Young, "but it's still striking to see such a change in such high level behavior as moral decision-making." Young also points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.

The research could have powerful implications not just for neuroscientists, but for lawyers as well. Every day jurors are asked to weigh a person's actions against their intentions. This new study won't transform the legal field, said Owen Jones, a professor of law and biology at Vanderbilt University, but it could "enable sophisticated judgments about responsibility, harm and appropriate punishment."

"This study, and other recent studies like it, are enabling us to peer into the very brain activity that underlies and enables legal judgments," said Jones. "Understanding how legal decisions actually work is a potentially important step toward helping decisions be as fair, just and effective as they can be."

What the new research won't do is allow a jury, or even an individual, to be unwittingly manipulated to favor prosecutors or defendants. Because it was so obvious that the magnets were turned on, it is unlikely that a person or a group, like a jury, could be swayed to consider a criminal outcome instead of intent, said Young.

Magnetic fields made people judge outcomes more than intentions. Whether it's possible to do the opposite — making people focus more on intentions than outcomes — Young doesn't know.

© 2010 Discovery Channel

[Caliga]

FUN FACT: Young Seigey's favorite toy was a Magna Doodle. 

[Brazen]

...and THAT's why they call it a moral compass...
*badum tish*

[Martinus]

One typical story was about a boyfriend who leads his girlfriend across a bridge. In some versions, the boyfriend harmlessly walked his girlfriend across the bridge with no ill effect. In other cases, the boyfriend intentionally led the girlfriend along so she would break her ankle. The subjects used a seven point scale — one being forbidden and seven completely permissible — to record whether they through the situation was morally acceptable or not.

When no magnetic field was applied, the subjects focused more on the boyfriend's good intentions, rather than a bad outcome. When a magnetic field was applied to the RTPJ, the subjects consistently focused on a bad outcome, rather than the intention, and rated the story as more morally objectionable.

Maybe I am now sitting in a strong magnetic field but these two passages seem to contradict each other.

[Martinus]

...and THAT's why they call it a moral compass...
*badum tish*

Well played. 

[DisturbedPervert]

And everybody laughed at them

[jimmy olsen]

...and THAT's why they call it a moral compass...
*badum tish*

[DGuller]

One typical story was about a boyfriend who leads his girlfriend across a bridge. In some versions, the boyfriend harmlessly walked his girlfriend across the bridge with no ill effect. In other cases, the boyfriend intentionally led the girlfriend along so she would break her ankle. The subjects used a seven point scale — one being forbidden and seven completely permissible — to record whether they through the situation was morally acceptable or not.

When no magnetic field was applied, the subjects focused more on the boyfriend's good intentions, rather than a bad outcome. When a magnetic field was applied to the RTPJ, the subjects consistently focused on a bad outcome, rather than the intention, and rated the story as more morally objectionable.

Maybe I am now sitting in a strong magnetic field but these two passages seem to contradict each other.

I kind of stopped reading after this, figuring that maybe it's just too early in the morning to figure out the gist of the experiment.  Anyway, why would a boyfriend maliciously conspire to have his girlfriend break her ankle?  WTF kind of a story is that?

[Syt]

One typical story was about a boyfriend who leads his girlfriend across a bridge. In some versions, the boyfriend harmlessly walked his girlfriend across the bridge with no ill effect. In other cases, the boyfriend intentionally led the girlfriend along so she would break her ankle. The subjects used a seven point scale — one being forbidden and seven completely permissible — to record whether they through the situation was morally acceptable or not.

When no magnetic field was applied, the subjects focused more on the boyfriend's good intentions, rather than a bad outcome. When a magnetic field was applied to the RTPJ, the subjects consistently focused on a bad outcome, rather than the intention, and rated the story as more morally objectionable.

Maybe I am now sitting in a strong magnetic field but these two passages seem to contradict each other.

to figure out the gist of the experiment

It's maybe something running along these lines:

[grumbler]

One typical story was about a boyfriend who leads his girlfriend across a bridge. In some versions, the boyfriend harmlessly walked his girlfriend across the bridge with no ill effect. In other cases, the boyfriend intentionally led the girlfriend along so she would break her ankle. The subjects used a seven point scale — one being forbidden and seven completely permissible — to record whether they through the situation was morally acceptable or not.

When no magnetic field was applied, the subjects focused more on the boyfriend's good intentions, rather than a bad outcome. When a magnetic field was applied to the RTPJ, the subjects consistently focused on a bad outcome, rather than the intention, and rated the story as more morally objectionable.

Maybe I am now sitting in a strong magnetic field but these two passages seem to contradict each other.

If there were only two kinds of stories, you could argue that these were confusing taken together.  Logic would have there be four kinds of stories:  (1) boyfriend intends good, outcome good;  (2) boyfriend intends good, outcome bad;  (3) boyfriend intends bad, outcome good;  (4) boyfriend intends bad, outcome bad.   

Without the magnets, the key is motive.  With them, the key is outcome. 

That all seems pretty clear to me, even if the story is poorly written.  In the absence of facts, logic can fill in the blanks, if we actually are willing to employ logic.

[Agelastus]

It's maybe something running along these lines:

That's good. That's very good.