| | The basic question then seems to be whether people who are internally happy are easier to get along with, and to trust; and to have that trust rewarded. - I would NOT say that is the basic question... not regarding this article.
- I'm not sure what "internally" happy is. Internal/external don't match up well for me as adjectives of "happy."
- Ignoring the "internally" thing, clearly happy people are easier to get along with - I don't find that to be much of a question.
- Trust of another is a product of applying reason, usually to a history of experience, to judge the character of the person. The alternative is blind faith, delusion or some form of emotionalism and they are all blind to actual character.
---------------
Another psychotropic chemical, one we have a better lay-person's grasp of, is alcohol. I'm sure that it would be easy to do empirical studies of the "trust" issue after two drinks, four drinks, etc. Would anyone be surprised to find that people self-reported as happier after two drinks? Would anyone be surprised that they were more "trusting"? Of course, after say, six cocktails, the study might show a certain portion of the subjects began to be harder to get along with, even bellicose, and a few would become downright paranoid. Does anyone think that any of these results dictate actual "trust" - that is a reason-based appraisal of another's character traits?
---------------
I find that much of modern science is really psuedo-science because they are attempting to bridge the brain-mind difference by ignoring it. They have dropped the realm of concepts, of meaning, of epistemology, in favor of genes, chemicals, and/or external stimuli. They have adopted the implicit assumption that humans don't have volition and that hard determinism is the rule of the day.
This article talks about trust as a major component of what is alleged to be a scientific article, but doesn't define it. (They offer instead a "measurement" of "trust" as a willing transfer of money from the first subject to the second, the tranfer of some money back from the second subject to the first as a measure of "trustworthiness"). In the TED lecture he says that in nations with higher levels of trustworthyness, there are more transactions and therefore greater prosperity. Well, he calls himself a neuroeconomist! I guess that is not a discipline that considers the portion of trust that is lodged in the legal or cultural structures and traditions of their environment. Too bad his study doesn't allow us to just put oxytocin in the water supply of N. Korea and all of a sudden see them rise to great heights of prosperity. He mentions that in males oxytocin only appears during sex and only lasts for about 3 minutes. Wow! Males reach a height of trustworthyness for 3 minutes at a time and during sex?!?! By now I hope that people reading this are thinking what I was thinking - he shouldn't be using the words "trust" or "morality" - he is talking about a state of heightened suggestibility or euphoria that is chemical in nature and can get people in big trouble.
---------------
The man acutally says, "Oxytocin causes trustworthiness." Well, so much for making choices based upon reasoning done regarding abstract ideals and values to determine what is a virtue and then choosing to practice that virtue in ones life with a measure of integrity. Noooo, just snort some oxytocin and you are instantly "trustworthy" (for 3 minutes).
The ultimate measure of "trustworthiness" was found in those subjects who gave away ALL of the money received. So, I guess for this man, who sees morals as all in the molecules, a totally "trustworthy" person is one who will give all of his stuff away. (Does it sound like I don't really trust him?)
He goes on to say that oxytocin is the "moral molecule" not just the "trust" molecule. People gave away more, and were more empathetic. He should call it the "altruism" molecule but that differentiation requires that we see words like "moral" and "altruism" as having meanings as opposed to just chemical-induced behavioral differences.
Next he is saying that high testosterone males are selfish. So the message here is that a moral system has already been chosen (By who? Blank out. By what standard? Blank out.) Now we only need to find the chemical triggers that activate moral/immoral behaviors. Are we at the place yet where we are required to snort some oxytocin every day, and where we require a certain amount of chemical castration if our testosterone is deemed to high?
----------------
I don't like coming on like the Grinch who destroys happiness. There is a brain-mind connection and the more we can know about that, the better off we are. Happiness is really a long-term phenomena - not a momentary feeling. I'm all for euphoria and I can find nothing wrong with adding that to my list of desireables... give me more. But happiness is a product of good decisions and effort put forth over time. I can see the two as related and wouldn't be surprised to learn that happy people are also more likely to be experiencing euphoria at any given moment. We are still a long, long ways from understanding how the mind makes choices and how they are implemented on the electro-chemical plane of the brain. Throwing out the realm of ideas isn't helpful.
|
|
