Q: "What happens when Harvard scientists use a brain scanner to look for the devil inside?"
A: Michael Hutchence rises from the dead.

The English Major: Q: "What happens when Harvard scientists use a brain scanner to look for the devil inside?"
A: Michael Hutchence rises from the dead.

See? No good can come from this.

Every single one of us has the devil inside!

tsalaroth: The English Major: Q: "What happens when Harvard scientists use a brain scanner to look for the devil inside?"
A: Michael Hutchence rises from the dead.

See? No good can come from this.

Visual evidence of the devil inside.

I'm fairly certain that Happy Bunny is in my head flipping off the MRI technician.

Proof Intel is really Hell?
Such unhappy looking employees.

I'm definitely one of those "Grace" people. I've found things before (Tiffany's ring, wallet full of cash and cards, etc) and I never thought about just keeping it without doing all I could to find the owner.

No Walter Bishop reference?

/fail
//Fringe will return when the Yankees win
///Sox fan
////my slashies are soaking wet

So, wait, I'm confused...does this mean that tinfoil is the evolution that the devil uses to keep God from letting the doctor MRI your brain waves?

Zoinks! 2009-11-04 05:09:44 PM
Every single one of us has the devil inside!

Thanks. Now I can go in peace.

They find an overrated band?

What about people that found the wallet and returning it never crossed their minds? Sociopaths?

This study proves just jack.

kth: This study proves just jack.

Prove, no. But it is evidence that humans are predisposed to ethical behavior. It's hardly the only piece of evidence. Consider, for example, the fact that, during WWI, 42% of soldiers did not fire their weapons at the enemy (How We Decide, Jonah Lehrer). Seriously. Artillery and aircraft provided a different element to the war- when you don't see that you're killing someone, you don't feel the same instinctive restraint.

Modern military training focuses on desensitizing people to their internal ethical voice.

And it makes sense. Humans are social animals, evolved to depend on the society we form. Actions which break the bonds of society negatively impact our own chances for survival.

I'm just here for the INXS references.

My ex is getting a brain scan?

Zoinks!: Every single one of us has the devil inside!

came here to say this.

t3knomanser: kth: This study proves just jack.

Prove, no. But it is evidence that humans are predisposed to ethical behavior. It's hardly the only piece of evidence. Consider, for example, the fact that, during WWI, 42% of soldiers did not fire their weapons at the enemy (How We Decide, Jonah Lehrer). Seriously. Artillery and aircraft provided a different element to the war- when you don't see that you're killing someone, you don't feel the same instinctive restraint.

Modern military training focuses on desensitizing people to their internal ethical voice.

And it makes sense. Humans are social animals, evolved to depend on the society we form. Actions which break the bonds of society negatively impact our own chances for survival.

I was (clearly inexpertly) making a reference to the show Will and Grace. "Just Jack" (jazz hands) was the one-man show their friend performed.

/I fail.

kth: Will and Grace.

Ah. The only thing I know about that show is that it existed. I'm a bad person for sit-com references.

Is this magical "brain scanner" an fMRI? Because that would be about as scientific as a mood ring.

I'd love to see the model for the study. I guessing alot of the "honest" people on the coin-flip question had no less inclination to cheat, but were more inclined to believe they would be caught. Just my own opinion, of course. But I'd like to see that they allwoed for that before reporting that some people are just inherently more honest than others (implying that dishonest people bear less responsibility for their actions).

Benevolent Misanthrope: I'd love to see the model for the study. I guessing alot of the "honest" people on the coin-flip question had no less inclination to cheat, but were more inclined to believe they would be caught. Just my own opinion, of course. But I'd like to see that they allwoed for that before reporting that some people are just inherently more honest than others (implying that dishonest people bear less responsibility for their actions).

That would suggest they engaged in a decision making process and exerted control, i.e. Will. The article says they didn't take additional time or engage the control structures in their brains, thus they exhibit Grace.

I'm inclined to think the two are coupled. That is at some point the Gracious people engaged in the process you described (Will) when encountering temptation. After enough repetition, Will became habit, or Grace as the researchers describe it.

Its noteworthy point out the theological definition of Grace

- "the free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God"

It depends on how you understand God, but this is seems somewhat different than a habit.

Cucullen: Benevolent Misanthrope: I'd love to see the model for the study. I guessing alot of the "honest" people on the coin-flip question had no less inclination to cheat, but were more inclined to believe they would be caught. Just my own opinion, of course. But I'd like to see that they allwoed for that before reporting that some people are just inherently more honest than others (implying that dishonest people bear less responsibility for their actions).

That would suggest they engaged in a decision making process and exerted control, i.e. Will. The article says they didn't take additional time or engage the control structures in their brains, thus they exhibit Grace.

I'm inclined to think the two are coupled. That is at some point the Gracious people engaged in the process you described (Will) when encountering temptation. After enough repetition, Will became habit, or Grace as the researchers describe it.

Its noteworthy point out the theological definition of Grace

- "the free and unmerited favor or beneficence of God"

It depends on how you understand God, but this is seems somewhat different than a habit.

and you've tied this back to Will and Grace. Awesome.

duckpoopy: Is this magical "brain scanner" an fMRI? Because that would be about as scientific as a mood ring.

Supposedly, yes, it was an fMRI - care to explain what's wrong with that?

There's another HUGE HUGE hole in this study, as far as I can tell after a cursory read-through of the paper and methods text. Here's the thing: Anyone with a working short term memory would make the decision about whether they're going to cheat all at once at the beginning, not each damn coin flip, so the ongoing brain scans throughout the process would not show delays for decision making at each possible choice point; the people who chose not to cheat at the beginning will not revisit that decision every single damn time the experimenters think they might have an opportunity to do so.

At best this study's results might show that people are capable of choosing to ignore (or temporarily turn off) their dishonest tendencies. Counter to the conclusions the authors seem to have designed their experiment to "prove", it does not even come close to demonstrating a disjoint between moral behavior and conscious decision making.

Will is a straw man. The signature described for the "will" hypothesis is a load of bull (pausing? really? as if I'm going to sit and debate in my head every coin flip whether I want to lie.). To reiterate, you'd make the decision at the beginning of the series, then you'd stick with it. This has a lot more to do with confirming what is already widely known about human decision making - once somebody make a choice (whether voluntary or not) the tendency is to stick with it.

I hope these morons have their all their grant proposals turned down for the next decade.

You learn what regret is?

LewDux: You learn what regret is?

Only the Last Unicorn can do that.

rdyb: - once somebody make a choice (whether voluntary or not) the tendency is to stick with it push it as far as you can.

FTFY

Like trying to convince people the article is bunk because you disagree with one of the parameters that defines an unquantifiable aspect of the hypothesis?

"We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a saltshaker half-full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of uppers, downers, laughers, screamers... Also, a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether, and two dozen amyls. Not that we needed all that for the trip, but once you get into a serious drug collection, the tendency is to push it as far as you can."~HST

Fano: Only the Last Unicorn can do that.

Drive the red bull into the sea?


no not that one

Zoinks!: Every single one of us has the devil inside!

I always thought the line was "Every single woman has the devil inside"

Which seemed pretty accurate to me.

Haven't read thru all the comments yet so smeone may have already brought this up. This seems like a bullshiat study. People's honesty or dishonesty is very much tied to their upbringing, or at least their awareness of what is right or wrong as far as morality or ethics is concerned.

Also the $50 now or $60 in a month is pretty stupid. So if I wait a month I can get a whole whopping $10 more? fark that ,give me the 50. A better experiment would be $50 now or $150 2 months from now.

rdyb: duckpoopy: Is this magical "brain scanner" an fMRI? Because that would be about as scientific as a mood ring.

Supposedly, yes, it was an fMRI - care to explain what's wrong with that?

There's another HUGE HUGE hole in this study, as far as I can tell after a cursory read-through of the paper and methods text. Here's the thing: Anyone with a working short term memory would make the decision about whether they're going to cheat all at once at the beginning, not each damn coin flip, so the ongoing brain scans throughout the process would not show delays for decision making at each possible choice point; the people who chose not to cheat at the beginning will not revisit that decision every single damn time the experimenters think they might have an opportunity to do so.

At best this study's results might show that people are capable of choosing to ignore (or temporarily turn off) their dishonest tendencies. Counter to the conclusions the authors seem to have designed their experiment to "prove", it does not even come close to demonstrating a disjoint between moral behavior and conscious decision making.

Will is a straw man. The signature described for the "will" hypothesis is a load of bull (pausing? really? as if I'm going to sit and debate in my head every coin flip whether I want to lie.). To reiterate, you'd make the decision at the beginning of the series, then you'd stick with it. This has a lot more to do with confirming what is already widely known about human decision making - once somebody make a choice (whether voluntary or not) the tendency is to stick with it.

I hope these morons have their all their grant proposals turned down for the next decade.

To be fair, sketchy research involving fMRI and an immediate jump to philosophical/ethical conclusions doesn't seem to be uncommon.

In addition to the stuff you pointed out, there is a very real concern that the "decision" to cheat was made before even the first flip, before they sat down, before they signed up for the experiment. Even that's assuming people make moral decisions at all. They even mention in the paper how such an automaticity in what they consider immoral behavior would appear in their results as "Grace".

Their response is pure hand-waving.

We note that this hypothesis, though analogous to the Grace hypothesis, is distinct from the Grace hypothesis because it applies to dishonest behavior rather than honest behavior.

No, no it does not. It would in fact show up in your results exactly the way they came out. You conclude that removal of temptation is the stronger factor in "honest" decisions. This is more consistent with people being amoral than any of your babble.

/You would think this kind of research would be getting the axe after Harvard's financial mishaps.
//And you would be wrong I guess.

LadyHawke: I'm definitely one of those "Grace" people. I've found things before (Tiffany's ring, wallet full of cash and cards, etc) and I never thought about just keeping it without doing all I could to find the owner.

I found a baby's bottle of milk on the floor in the grocery store today. I had no desire to take it for myself or drink from it, and I immediately took it to the customer service counter. A minute later I passed a lady with a crying child who looked confused. When I asked if she lost a bottle of milk and she said yes, I told her I left it at customer service. What does that say about me?

/it says I don't want to drink from a kid's bottle that's been laying on the floor. Gross.