BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Laboratory >

Liars' Brains Are Different

  
 
Quantum
13:19 / 01.10.05
News today about brains- Pathological liars have 22-26% more white brain matter than non-pathological liars.

"White matter transmits information and grey matter processes it. Having more white matter in the prefrontal cortex may aid lying, the researchers said"
"The findings are in line with previous studies which showed children with autism are less capable of lying than other children. " from BBC


Dr Cosmo Hallstrom, a consultant psychiatrist in London, told the BBC: "The issue is always how much of our behaviour is under voluntary control and how much is innate. The finding of brain abnormalities lends weight to the idea that a strong component of such difficulties may well be beyond voluntary control at least in part."

I can't help it! It's the litle white cells!
 
 
quixote
23:38 / 01.10.05
I saw a report on some research a while back (blanked on the author and title, so can't supply a link) showing that people who were really good at detecting lies clued in on the microseconds of delay before a lie. Apparently, telling the truth requires less thought, so it happens ever so slightly faster.

These findings agree with that completely. Better communication between brain cells will enable you to "get the story straight" faster than the slow folk, and increase your chances of getting away with it (at least initially). More success, I would think, would lead to more use of lying. Result: "compulsive" liars.

A computer analogy would be CPU vs bus width. Liars have 4-bit CPUs (=less grey matter), not much good for figuring out what's actually going on, but high-bandwidth buses that enable them to write the nonsense out really fast. Other people, who aren't politicians, have 64-bit CPUs combined with slower buses. We're still dithering about all the implications, while the others have a PR campaign put together and booked on every TV station in town.

The problem with using brainscans to find the liars, I think, is that the significance of any given lie varies. Somebody might have loads of white matter, be a marvelous social liar, and yet never lie about what matters because of her/his principles.
 
 
daynah
10:03 / 04.10.05
Get... out of my brain... you stupid scientists!!

But maybe why studying this and, more importantly, the fear of these tests publically available, is a bad thing is for another topic.

But isn't being a pathological liar like... a scale? I lie more than some people but not as much as others. So how can 'Liars have 22% more white mass than normal people' or whatever. That just can't work out, there's no... line like that. How did they decide what was deceitful and manipulative behavior? And what about people who are, say, in a lifestyle where they have to lie every day? Do they "develop" this mass?

Why do they call it a brain "abnormality"? Using words like that, people are going to blame their "poor little white mass dominated brains." And boy and I boiled over this... "The finding of brain abnormalities lends weight to the idea that a strong component of such difficulties may well be beyond voluntary control at least in part."

That's like saying because guys have testosterone they can't help but jump and rape me.

Nope, boys and girls, I do believe that as long as our bodies are in the range of what nature decided to create as the majority and normal (and that 22% increase of white brain mass, because that part of the population is so large, is included) has control over themselves, their actions, and, should I say it?, their destiny.

It is 6:58 and the Dr. Hallstrom has helped in the process of me loosing all faith in the psychiatric field.
 
 
Ganesh
10:49 / 04.10.05
It's hardly fair to get pissy with Dr Hallstrom on the basis of that one, extremely qualified comment ("lends weight", "idea", "component", "may", "in part") - or, for that matter, to generalise it to the entire "psychiatric field". I agree with you that there's no easy cut-off line between 'liars' and 'non-liars' but, in the field of psychological research, it's necessary to attempt to quantify this stuff somehow. Sure, humans observing other humans' behaviour will always include elements of subjectivity and can never be fully standardised, but I'm not sure scientists are "stupid" for attempting to do so.

From that comment, I suspect he's talking about statistical abnormalities ie. a minority of individuals have grey/white matter ratios that deviate from the norm.

Your rape anology is leaky, as Hallstrom's not saying "liars have no voluntary control over their behaviour"; he's saying, "it's possible that some of their behaviour may be less under voluntary control than formerly supposed" - and it's perfectly reasonable for him to make this speculation based on the evidence before him. The fact that it doesn't accord with your personal interpretation of "what nature decided to create as the majority and normal" in no way invalidates his comment.

Don't put words in the bloke's mouth, please.
 
 
Jack Vincennes
11:08 / 04.10.05
Ganesh, have you read the original article? Just asking since you're the only person (that I know of) on the board who's likely to have access to the British Journal of Psychiatry from work, and I'm interested in how the subjects were chosen. The articles that Quantum linked to seemed rather vauge on that count, but I'm sure there must have been more to the selection criteria than 'men and women of untrustworthy reputation' and I'm interested in what it was.
 
 
Ganesh
11:34 / 04.10.05
No, I haven't read the full paper yet: it's in the October issue which hasn't been delivered yet, and I'm not at my work computer so can't access the online version. From what I do know, the sample group is quite small. There seems to be acknowledgement that it's very much a pilot study, and much more research is needed in this area.
 
 
daynah
17:53 / 04.10.05
Though my words may have been emotional, I'm stickin' by them. Hormones that go through me a few days before my period, if I had no ability to reason and think through my actions, could cause me to act more emotionally. But I'm still a human being. I still have control over my body. Within a normal range, hormones cannot be blamed with making someone act a certain way. It's still that person's fault. They have control.

I'm not sure if I can fully express to you how much statements like this bother me.

Even more so, how much it will bother me when, inevitably, someone will try to say that people shouldn't have to "fess up" to their actions because something is "different" about them. For example, off the top of my head I'm not sure what the exact words are (I can't be blamed, my brain's different. I have basilar migraines.) but I believe I read somewhere many a few years ago that somewhere in the frontal part of the head the part of your brain that makes people "double think" an action before they do it isn't as active in either murderers or serial killers.

And some people were trying to say that because of that, those people shouldn't be blamed for their crimes and thus shouldn't be punished.

Nope. Shoot 'em. Lock 'em up. Whatever.

And what happens if people like this study? What happens if some CEO lies and then says, "Oh but no... I'm a pathological liar. I can't help it. See? Look at these studies!" And those CEOs will have the money to make a good case about it too.

And, actually, I'm going to be majoring in biology and minoring in psychology. I'm going to be working on stuff like this (differences in brains), but more on intelligence. The same thing is gonna eventually come up, I think, in my life time. I'm gonna find something that smart people have that dumb people don't have so much of. But I'm going to be really careful not to say it like that, so that no one ever tries to excuse themselves out of something because of a physical difference "that they can't help."

You can stop yourself from murdering someone, you can stop yourself from lying, you can make yourself smarter. Your DNA tells you what you're going to be like when you start out but we all have to be careful with studies like these that they don't turn people into sloths and make people think, "Oh, well, I'm destined to be a liar! I can't help it! No use trying to stop it and better myself!"

...Grr. Stomp feet. Pout in corner. Blame the extra platelets in my blood that have been found to make people act more immature.
 
 
Ganesh
20:12 / 04.10.05
Okay. Battling straw men it is, then.

So... you're saying those "stupid scientists" should never even try to research human behaviour, then, because somebody somewhere might attempt to use their findings to deflect responsibility for their actions?
 
 
Ganesh
20:21 / 04.10.05
The same thing is gonna eventually come up, I think, in my life time. I'm gonna find something that smart people have that dumb people don't have so much of. But I'm going to be really careful not to say it like that, so that no one ever tries to excuse themselves out of something because of a physical difference "that they can't help."

How about calling it 'psychic vampirism'. That'd be nice and subtle.

My point: the fact remains that you've rather overgeneralised and overblown one clinician's perfectly measured speculative comment on the findings of one perfectly valid research study, based on your own fear that someone somewhere might attempt to use those findings to evade legal/moral responsibility for their actions.

It might happen. That in itself is not a reason not to carry out the research in the first place, and it's not a reason not to make tentative comment on the findings.

It is 22:18 and you've helped in the process of me loosing all faith in people whose online names begin with 'd'.

(Do you see what I did there?)
 
 
daynah
22:22 / 04.10.05
So... you're saying those "stupid scientists" should never even try to research human behaviour, then, because somebody somewhere might attempt to use their findings to deflect responsibility for their actions?

Nope. I'm not sayin' that at all. I'm hoping that people that are in a position were many blindly follow them would choose their words a bit better.

(Do you see what I did there?)

Yup. You went after me directly while I mocked someone else, right after you pulled up another topic to throw in my face. Sweet.

You can keep quoting the "stupid scientists" part all you want. I seriously fear that when I'm an adult, I may have my MRIs (that I've already had done, so they can just look through my past medical records) glanced over when I apply for a job, and thus not hire me... citing danger to the work force (not enough activity in the frontal lobe from the EEG) or unfit ethically (too much white mass).

People also move from this kind of stuff to eugenics, then to unethical eugenics. I don't like the first step.
 
 
Ganesh
23:21 / 04.10.05
Nope. I'm not sayin' that at all. I'm hoping that people that are in a position were many blindly follow them would choose their words a bit better.

Let's have another look:

"The issue is always how much of our behaviour is under voluntary control and how much is innate. The finding of brain abnormalities lends weight to the idea that a strong component of such difficulties may well be beyond voluntary control at least in part."

He's positively larded his comment with qualifiers! It's going from this carefully worded speculation to your fatuous rape analogy that's "stupid" in its hyperbolic overextension. Generalising from a couple of sentences to the entire "psychiatric field" then puts the cherry on the cake.

It's you who ought to watch your logical fallacies here, I fear.

You can keep quoting the "stupid scientists" part all you want.

Cheers, will do.

I seriously fear that when I'm an adult, I may have my MRIs (that I've already had done, so they can just look through my past medical records) glanced over when I apply for a job, and thus not hire me... citing danger to the work force (not enough activity in the frontal lobe from the EEG) or unfit ethically (too much white mass).

And I expect Dr Hallstrom will be right there, cackling maniacally LIKE TEH NAZZI HE OBVIOUSLTY IS!!111!!!!!!

People also move from this kind of stuff to eugenics, then to unethical eugenics. I don't like the first step.

The first step would be carrying out the research in the first place. The fact that there exist interested parties with dodgy agendas is not a reason to avoid studying biological correlates of human behaviour, or commenting on the resultant findings.
 
 
daynah
23:41 / 04.10.05
And I expect Dr Hallstrom will be right there, cackling maniacally LIKE TEH NAZZI HE OBVIOUSLTY IS!!111!!!!!!

I never stated that that was Dr. Hallstrom's purpose.

The first step would be carrying out the research in the first place. The fact that there exist interested parties with dodgy agendas is not a reason to avoid studying biological correlates of human behaviour, or commenting on the resultant findings.

You're good at debating, that's nice and fine and dandy. It's really sweet of you to continuously turn what I say around back to what you want me to say, because it's easier to poke at. I'm not against the research. I'm worried about what could come from it quite easily. None of which is Dr. Hallstrom's fault directly.

And Dr. Hallstrom can put in all the modifiers in the world. "such difficulties may well be beyond voluntary control" is what people will latch on to. Just like you, all people only listen to what can benefit them.
 
 
Ganesh
00:03 / 05.10.05
What's his alternative, then? Avoid any sort of comment at all, however reasoned, measured, qualified - simply because somebody (stupid) somewhere will say, "ahhh, he's saying it's okay to rape people if you've got white brain cells"?
 
 
Ganesh
00:05 / 05.10.05
Glad to hear you're not blaming Dr Hallstrom directly, though, merely the "stupid scientists". If they're not "stupid" for carrying out the research, are they "stupid" for talking about it?
 
 
Jack Vincennes
07:38 / 05.10.05
People also move from this kind of stuff [denying jobs] to eugenics, then to unethical eugenics. I don't like the first step.

I think that the comparision to autism mentioned in at least one of the articles above is a useful one; people aren't likely to not get a job because they are autistic, but because maybe their interactions with other people aren't always so good, or maybe because they have trouble focussing on a task when it's not specifically something they want to do. Neither of which are particularly desirable qualities in the workplace, autism isn't tested for. So why do you think that testing for being a pathological (rather than just ordinary) liar is more likely than testing for autism? Surely after you embezzle your first £1bn you're going to be looked at somewhat askance by any financial institution for whom you apply to work. I'm not sure that denying people jobs is even a step from identifying differences in brain make up (wrong term I think -at work, will correct later), let alone a step to eugenics.
 
  
Add Your Reply