Caltech Scientists Find First Physiological Evidence of Brain's Response to Inequalit

Mise

isle of lucy
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
28,669
Location
London, UK
y

http://media.caltech.edu/press_releases/13327

Well worth the read:
Spoiler :
Caltech Scientists Find First Physiological Evidence of Brain's Response to Inequality

Brain images during money-transfer experiments show "rich" participants prefer to see others get financial windfall


PASADENA, Calif.—The human brain is a big believer in equality—and a team of scientists from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Trinity College in Dublin, Ireland, has become the first to gather the images to prove it.

Specifically, the team found that the reward centers in the human brain respond more strongly when a poor person receives a financial reward than when a rich person does. The surprising thing? This activity pattern holds true even if the brain being looked at is in the rich person's head, rather than the poor person's.

958-both_saggital-1_medium.jpg

This saggital fMRI view of the brain shows activity in both the ventromedial prefrontal cortex and the ventral striatum.
[Credit: Elizabeth Tricomi/Rutgers University]

These conclusions, and the functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that led to them, are described in the February 25 issue of the journal Nature.

"This is the latest picture in our gallery of human nature," says Colin Camerer, the Robert Kirby Professor of Behavioral Economics at Caltech and one of the paper's coauthors. "It's an exciting area of research; we now have so many tools with which to study how the brain is reacting."

It's long been known that we humans don't like inequality, especially when it comes to money. Tell two people working the same job that their salaries are different, and there's going to be trouble, notes John O'Doherty, professor of psychology at Caltech, Thomas N. Mitchell Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at the Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience, and the principal investigator on the Nature paper.

But what was unknown was just how hardwired that dislike really is. "In this study, we're starting to get an idea of where this inequality aversion comes from," he says. "It's not just the application of a social rule or convention; there's really something about the basic processing of rewards in the brain that reflects these considerations."

The brain processes "rewards"—things like food, money, and even pleasant music, which create positive responses in the body—in areas such as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC) and ventral striatum.

In a series of experiments, former Caltech postdoctoral scholar Elizabeth Tricomi (now an assistant professor of psychology at Rutgers University)—along with O'Doherty, Camerer, and Antonio Rangel, associate professor of economics at Caltech—watched how the VMPFC and ventral striatum reacted in 40 volunteers who were presented with a series of potential money-transfer scenarios while lying in an fMRI machine.

For instance, a participant might be told that he could be given $50 while another person could be given $20; in a second scenario, the student might have a potential gain of only $5 and the other person, $50. The fMRI images allowed the researchers to see how each volunteer's brain responded to each proposed money allocation.

But there was a twist. Before the imaging began, each participant in a pair was randomly assigned to one of two conditions: One participant was given what the researchers called "a large monetary endowment" ($50) at the beginning of the experiment; the other participant started from scratch, with no money in his or her pocket.

As it turned out, the way the volunteers—or, to be more precise, the reward centers in the volunteers' brains—reacted to the various scenarios depended strongly upon whether they started the experiment with a financial advantage over their peers.

"People who started out poor had a stronger brain reaction to things that gave them money, and essentially no reaction to money going to another person," Camerer says. "By itself, that wasn't too surprising."

What was surprising was the other side of the coin. "In the experiment, people who started out rich had a stronger reaction to other people getting money than to themselves getting money," Camerer explains. "In other words, their brains liked it when others got money more than they liked it when they themselves got money."

"We now know that these areas are not just self-interested," adds O'Doherty. "They don't exclusively respond to the rewards that one gets as an individual, but also respond to the prospect of other individuals obtaining a reward."

What was especially interesting about the finding, he says, is that the brain responds "very differently to rewards obtained by others under conditions of disadvantageous inequality versus advantageous inequality. It shows that the basic reward structures in the human brain are sensitive to even subtle differences in social context."

This, O'Doherty notes, is somewhat contrary to the prevailing views about human nature. "As a psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist who works on reward and motivation, I very much view the brain as a device designed to maximize one's own self interest," says O'Doherty. "The fact that these basic brain structures appear to be so readily modulated in response to rewards obtained by others highlights the idea that even the basic reward structures in the human brain are not purely self-oriented."

Camerer, too, found the results thought provoking. "We economists have a widespread view that most people are basically self-interested, and won't try to help other people," he says. "But if that were true, you wouldn't see these sort of reactions to other people getting money."

Still, he says, it's likely that the reactions of the "rich" participants were at least partly motivated by self-interest—or a reduction of their own discomfort. "We think that, for the people who start out rich, seeing another person get money reduces their guilt over having more than the others."

Having watched the brain react to inequality, O'Doherty says, the next step is to "try to understand how these changes in valuation actually translate into changes in behavior. For example, the person who finds out they're being paid less than someone else for doing the same job might end up working less hard and being less motivated as a consequence. It will be interesting to try to understand the brain mechanisms that underlie such changes."

The research described in the Nature paper, "Neural evidence for inequality-averse social preferences," was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the Human Frontier Science Program, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, and the Caltech Brain Imaging Center.

A few quotes for the TL;DR crowd:
"We now know that these areas [of the brain] are not just self-interested," adds O'Doherty. "They don't exclusively respond to the rewards that one gets as an individual, but also respond to the prospect of other individuals obtaining a reward."

...

This, O'Doherty notes, is somewhat contrary to the prevailing views about human nature. "As a psychologist and cognitive neuroscientist who works on reward and motivation, I very much view the brain as a device designed to maximize one's own self interest," says O'Doherty. "The fact that these basic brain structures appear to be so readily modulated in response to rewards obtained by others highlights the idea that even the basic reward structures in the human brain are not purely self-oriented."

The idea of "fairness" in society has always seemed to be a primative drive to me -- something that comes "from the gut". You know whether something is fair or not before you really have time to think about it; it's only in the marginal cases where you have to apply some sort of logic or philosophy. The evidence above suggests that a natural aversion to inequality is also something that's hardwired into our brains -- something that we've evolved, in order to function better as a society, and for humanity as a species to survive and thrive.

A common criticism of left wing politics is that it runs against human nature; that humanity is innately self-interested and self-serving, and therefore political or economic systems that attempt to address inequality run contrary to human nature and are doomed to fail. The above research seems to suggest that attempts to address inequality run very much in line with human nature, and are a natural consequence of our human desire to be treated fairly.

For many of us, this will come as no surprise. For others, I expect much handwaving and waffling about how this is meaningless or how it doesn't "prove" anything or how Regan killed Stalin, etc ;)
 
There you have it, the debate is over. Science favours Marxism-Leninism.
 
Maybe the brain is just so incredibly disgusted at the poor people getting money, even moreso than their joy in getting more money. Afterall the point is to make sure you stay ahead of the rabble.
 
Socialism, communism all this left-wing utopia "we are all equal" doesn't work. Get over it.
 
Some medieval communist line reads:


  • "NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta#cite_note-UKStatute-5
Down with that rubbish!
 
There you have it, the debate is over. Science favors small government.
 
It's a good thing to know that the non-charitable libertarians are mentally disabled. :goodjob:

Ulyaoth said:
Maybe the brain is just so incredibly disgusted at the poor people getting money, even moreso than their joy in getting more money. Afterall the point is to make sure you stay ahead of the rabble.
No. If you read the report there, it said that the brain feels guilty when you have more money than poor people, and that you obtain more utility when you know a poorer person received money than when you do.
 
What I read in that article was that they measured reactions in the brain when certain people were given money. Said nothing about feeling guilty.
 
All humans toe the line between what is good for the individual, and what is good for society as a whole.
 
What I read in that article was that they measured reactions in the brain when certain people were given money. Said nothing about feeling guilty.

Missed these parts:

What was surprising was the other side of the coin. "In the experiment, people who started out rich had a stronger reaction to other people getting money than to themselves getting money," Camerer explains. "In other words, their brains liked it when others got money more than they liked it when they themselves got money."

...

Still, he says, it's likely that the reactions of the "rich" participants were at least partly motivated by self-interest—or a reduction of their own discomfort. "We think that, for the people who start out rich, seeing another person get money reduces their guilt over having more than the others."

That's certainly not "disgust" over poor people getting money.

Of course, with regards to the OP, it doesn't say anything like "human nature favors a particular ideology," just debunks the claim that a desire for fairness is against human nature. You can, of course, be a capitalist and care about fairness.
 
Didn't see that second part, but do they know for a fact that that brain activity means guilt?

It's the most probable non-altruistic explanation for why a rich man would feel more happier if a poor person receives money than himself?
 
Why must this issue not only be politicised, but pre-emptively strawmanned, parodied and concern trolled? :rolleyes:
 
Why must this issue not only be politicised, but pre-emptively strawmanned, parodied and concern trolled? :rolleyes:

I don't see any double logins posting?
 
NOTE: I never said it favoured a certain ideology. I do think, though, that a political system should recognise that we all, as Truronian said, "toe the line between what is good for the individual, and what is good for society as a whole." A political system that denies this isn't going to work very well.
 
Interesting article, but as it says inequality aversion has been pretty firmly established in behavioral studies. 'Ultimatum' and 'Dictator' games are examples that spring immediately to mind; I'm sure you've heard of them. The latter is especially pertinent; it involves a participant being given a certain amount of money and being asked whether they want to split it with a partner. There is no benefit to splitting it. Nevertheless, the majority choose to split it (at a certain proportion). The fact that such behaviour is in evidence seems to require some sort of specific brain activity. Logically that was established by these economic experiments; this experiment doesn't really tell us anything new about human psychology, it rather refines our understanding of the neurobiology. Given that one finds similar behaviour amongst primates (I.e inequality aversion) it seems hard to suggest that such behaviour is not hardwired.

Having said that, I don't think 'right wing politics' suggests any such thing. Some rather less cogent right wingers may do so, but that's hardly surprising; every movement has members who don't really understand that movement. All we are saying by calling human nature 'inequality averse' is saying that human nature contains some element of altruism and some moral instinct. This seems self-evident and to reject it seems a lot like rejecting morality. Given most right wingers believe that right wing policies will benefit society that seems somewhat contradictory.

Rather, 'Right wing politics' (at least, if we're talking about economics) suggests that a significant proportion of human behaviour is egoistic. Consequently people will respond to incentives; things which benefit them. Right wing politics doesn't reject the idea of altruism but rather says that a purely altruistic society is implausible, given that human nature is also very much self-interested. From that right wing economics is built, more or less.

As I see it, this experiment cannot really be construed as supporting either conception of human nature. Left wing politics asserts that man is altruistic (or can become altruistic) enough for socialist policies to succeed. For our purposes 'altruism' can also mean the psychological benefits of giving away ones income exceed the material benefits of keeping it. I doubt socialists would seriously assert man is not also self-interested; they'd just say that he is proportionately more altruistic (or can become so). On the flip side, a right winger might say that man is too self-interested for socialist policies to work. In proportion, man is egoistic.

This experiment doesn't distinguish between either position because neither position (when expounded intelligently) deny the existence of altruistic behaviour. What we really want to do is quantify exactly how altruistic/egoistic human nature is, and how malleable (either way) it is. For that, I expect the aforementioned behavioral experiments are a lot more useful than neurological experiments. After all, it is behaviour we are really interested in.
 
I wasn't aware that inequality aversion was shown to occur in primates - thanks for the info. I thought the argument was over whether it was nature or nurture (i.e. a response to social conditioning), but if primates show the same inequality aversion then yeah, it would seem to prove that it's hardwired.

My point about right vs left politics, though, was more that a political system should recognise, as you say, that rejecting the primacy of inequality aversion seems a lot like rejecting morality. So a political system that does not address inequality in society is a political system that lacks moral integrity; and, further, to put forth economic or social policies that actually make inequality worse is explicitly immoral.

I certainly wasn't arguing for a communist state, or anything like that. And I certainly recognise that "people respond to incentives" is basically true. I just think that, if the basis for inequality aversion is as primitive (though not necessarily, as you're emphasising, as strong) as the basis for demanding that criminals be punished or that children be taken care of, then a society that doesn't address inequality is just as deficient as a society that doesn't punish crime or doesn't take care of its young.
 
Mise said:
So a political system that does not address inequality in society is a political system that lacks moral integrity; and, further, to put forth economic or social policies that actually make inequality worse is explicitly immoral.
I don't think you can get that from these studies. That seems to be pushing quickly into is-ought territory; just because there are intuitions of fairness doesn't mean people ought to act on them. What these studies do is prove that these intuitions exist and debunk the "fairness is against human nature" morons, which considering the large numbers of said people on the internet, is an empirical relief.
 
Back
Top Bottom