Bizarre how liberals equate empathy ( trust) with morality, just as they demonize vengeance ( testosterone ).
The Biblical formula "Love mercy, do justly, walk humbly before God" is a much better (if uncomfortable) balance. E Sent from my iPhone On Apr 29, 2012, at 10:33, [email protected] wrote: > > > > WSJ > > April 27, 2012, 7:48 p.m. ET > The Trust Molecule > > Why are some of us caring and some of us cruel, some generous and some > greedy? Paul J. Zakon the new science of morality— and how it could be used > to create a more virtuous society. > > Could a single molecule—one chemical substance—lie at the very center of our > moral lives? > > Research that I have done over the past decade suggests that a chemical > messenger called oxytocin accounts for why some people give freely of > themselves and others are coldhearted louts, why some people cheat and steal > and others you can trust with your life, why some husbands are more faithful > than others, and why women tend to be nicer and more generous than men. In > our blood and in the brain, oxytocin appears to be the chemical elixir that > creates bonds of trust not just in our intimate relationships but also in our > business dealings, in politics and in society at large. > > Known primarily as a female reproductive hormone, oxytocin controls > contractions during labor, which is where many women encounter it as Pitocin, > the synthetic version that doctors inject in expectant mothers to induce > delivery. Oxytocin is also responsible for the calm, focused attention that > mothers lavish on their babies while breast-feeding. And it is abundant, too, > on wedding nights (we hope) because it helps to create the warm glow that > both women and men feel during sex, a massage or even a hug. > > Since 2001, my colleagues and I have conducted a number of experiments > showing that when someone's level of oxytocin goes up, he or she responds > more generously and caringly, even with complete strangers. As a benchmark > for measuring behavior, we relied on the willingness of our subjects to share > real money with others in real time. To measure the increase in oxytocin, we > took their blood and analyzed it. Money comes in conveniently measurable > units, which meant that we were able to quantify the increase in generosity > by the amount someone was willing to share. We were then able to correlate > these numbers with the increase in oxytocin found in the blood. > > Later, to be certain that what we were seeing was true cause and effect, we > sprayed synthetic oxytocin into our subjects' nasal passages—a way to get it > directly into their brains. Our conclusion: We could turn the behavioral > response on and off like a garden hose. (Don't try this at home: Oxytocin > inhalers aren't available to consumers in the U.S.) > > More strikingly, we found that you don't need to shoot a chemical up > someone's nose, or have sex with them, or even give them a hug in order to > create the surge in oxytocin that leads to more generous behavior. To trigger > this "moral molecule," all you have to do is give someone a sign of trust. > When one person extends himself to another in a trusting way—by, say, giving > money—the person being trusted experiences a surge in oxytocin that makes her > less likely to hold back and less likely to cheat. Which is another way of > saying that the feeling of being trusted makes a person more…trustworthy. > Which, over time, makes other people more inclined to trust, which in turn… > > If you detect the makings of an endless loop that can feed back onto itself, > creating what might be called a virtuous circle—and ultimately a more > virtuous society—you are getting the idea. > > Obviously, there is more to it, because no one chemical in the body functions > in isolation, and other factors from a person's life experience play a role > as well. Things can go awry. In our studies, we found that a small percentage > of subjects never shared any money; analysis of their blood indicated that > their oxytocin receptors were malfunctioning. But for everyone else, oxytocin > orchestrates the kind of generous and caring behavior that [ not every ] > every culture endorses as the right way to live—the cooperative, benign, > pro-social way of living that every culture on the planet describes as > "moral." The Golden Rule is a lesson that the body already knows, and when we > get it right, we feel the rewards immediately. > > This isn't to say that oxytocin always makes us good or generous or trusting. > In our rough-and-tumble world, an unwavering response of openness and loving > kindness would be like going around with a "kick me" sign on your back. > Instead, the moral molecule works like a gyroscope, helping us to maintain > our balance between behavior based on trust and behavior based on wariness > and distrust. In this way oxytocin helps us to navigate between the social > benefits of openness—which are considerable—and the reasonable caution that > we need to avoid being taken for a ride. > > Consider a real-life experiment that I conducted with a bride named Linda > Geddes. A writer for the British magazine New Scientist, Linda had been > following my research and thought it would be fun to see if the emotional > uplift of her wedding would alter the guests' levels of oxytocin. > > I arrived at the venue, a Victorian manor house in the English countryside, > with a 150-pound centrifuge and 70 pounds of dry ice. I unpacked my > equipment—syringes, 156 prelabeled test tubes, tourniquets, alcohol preps, > Band-Aids—and got to work. The plan that I'd worked out with Linda was to > take two samples from a cross section of the friends and family in > attendance—one draw of blood immediately before the vows and one immediately > after. > > After all the blood had been drawn, I slipped out with my test tubes nestled > in their cushion of dry ice. It took two weeks for the samples to arrive at > my California lab via FedEx, but the results showed just what we were hoping > for: a simple snapshot of oxytocin's ability to read and reflect the nuances > of a social situation. > > The changes in individual oxytocin levels at Linda's ceremony could be mapped > out like the solar system, with the bride as the sun. Between the first and > second draws of blood, which were only an hour apart, Linda's own level shot > up by 28%. For the other people tested, the increase in oxytocin was in > direct proportion to the likely intensity of their emotional engagement in > the event. The mother of the bride? Up 24%. The father of the groom? Up 19%. > The groom himself? Up 13%…and on down the line. > > But why, you may ask, would the groom's increase be less than his father's? > Testosterone is one of several other hormones that can interfere with the > release of oxytocin, and the groom's testosterone level, according to our > blood test, had surged 100%! As the guests admired Linda in her strapless > bridal gown, he was the alpha male. > > Our study at the wedding had demonstrated just the kind of graded and > contingent sensitivity that allows oxytocin to guide us between trust and > wariness, generosity and self-protection. Should I feel safe and warm and > cuddly in this crowd, or do I have to be on guard? Or maybe it is a situation > in which the best outcome results from oxytocin dominating in one person and > testosterone driving the other. > > It is the sensitivity of oxytocin in its interaction with a range of other > chemical messengers that helps to account for why human behavior is so > infinitely complex—and why the bliss of the wedding day (and night) is often > hard to maintain. (Consider the old joke about the guy who couldn't > understand why his wife was unhappy. "I told you that I loved you when I > asked you to marry me," he said. "I don't see why I need to tell you again.") > > But there is a larger payoff from this research: After centuries of > speculation about human nature and how we decide what is the right thing to > do, we at last have some news we can use—empirical evidence that illuminates > the mechanism at the heart of our moral guidance system. So what can we do to > shift behavior a bit more toward the expression of oxytocin and thus improve > the workings of our entire society? > > The experiments I have conducted show that many group activities—singing, > dancing, praying—cause the release of oxytocin and promote connection and > caring. As social creatures, we have created activities that prompt the > expression of oxytocin in order to foster connection to others. In fact, > those who release the most oxytocin when they are trusted are happier and > healthier because they have richer social lives. > > Even the sort of "social snacking" that happens through Twitter or checking > out a friend's Facebook page can prompt an oxytocin surge. But the real > criterion for success is whether these online activities complement more > substantial personal connections. Does this form of communication foster > human bonds or does it foster anonymity and abstraction to the point of > cutting off empathy? > > Another approach to tune oxytocin release is to seek exposure to people > outside our own families or cultural and geographic "tribes." There are solid > evolutionary reasons why our species developed the tendency to be wary of > those whose physical appearances or behavioral patterns are different from > our own. For millions of years an individual's social world was limited > almost entirely to her village and tribe, and outsiders were, for good > reason, considered a threat until proven otherwise. Yet research has shown > that this suspicion is malleable, and it fades with exposure. > > With worries on the rise about the country's cultural and political > divisions, some bottom-up boosts of oxytocin, based on face-to-face > interaction, could help. It might take the form of a domestic > student-exchange program, allowing kids from the big cities and small-town, > rural kids to get to know one another. The revitalization of urban life, with > its varied and crosscutting relationships, is a step in the right direction, > too. One city going in the opposite direction is Washington, D.C., where > fraternizing across party lines—once the norm—is nearly unheard of these > days. Acrimony on Capitol Hill reflects, in part, these oxytocin-starved > relationships. > > A few years ago, I began warning visitors to my lab that before they left, I > was going to give them a hug. This scares some people, but I've found that my > slightly eccentric announcement changes the depth of the conversation, making > it more intimate, more engaging and more valuable to us both. I suspect that > by forecasting a hug, I'm also signaling how much I trust the person, so I'm > inducing a release of oxytocin in their brains. Those people, in turn, will > connect better to others and treat them more generously. Nothing grander is > required for a virtuous circle to begin. > > -- > Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community > <[email protected]> > Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism > Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org -- Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community <[email protected]> Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
