Liars and their brains.

[hardheadjarhead]

A study showing pathological liars have a different brain structure than those who don't lie pathologically:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8075



I was listening to a Daniel Robinson lecture this morning where he discusses deterministic psychology. A single calcified granuloma the size of the head of a pin in the temporal lobe can apparently can cause a person to commit criminal acts that are planned (not spontaneous) and be totally amnesic about the event in question. When the granuloma is removed surgically the behavior disappears and the person returns to normalcy.

How much control do we have over our "will?"



Regards,


Steve

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

I've always maintained that we are at the mercy of our chemistry. Not just aberrations, such as this granuloma; but, the natural pathways by which our individual chemistries are laid out has a determinative effect on our personality.

I also believe, however, that how we respond to our chemistry is where free will enters the equation. We are a holistic system: mind, body and spirit; we have some control over one via the remaining two, for the most part.

Of course, that could be the granuloma talking.


egg

 

[Andrew Green]

So... basically if we have a pathological liar, what we need to do is chop out a piece of there brain?

 

[hardheadjarhead]

Robinson addresses both sides of the issue in his lecture...its about twenty one hours, and I'm only into the third hour.

I'd posted something awhile back about a fifteen year old who had suffered head trauma from a fall off a horse. It apparently (and I use caution in applying the word "apparently") turned him into a murderous sociopath with no impulse control. Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower killer had a tumor of the hypothalamus...complicating that of course was his speed habit.

When we deal with psychology there are a host of factors influencing human behavior. Some here would disagree and suggest its a factor of self-control and choice. Is it always? Can a person who is depressed lift themselves out of the depression by merely putting on a happy face and "sucking it up?"

Bella DePaulo, quoted in the article above, supposedly was also quoted as saying "People tell about two lies a day, or at least that is how many they will admit to." I say supposedly because I can't accurately attribute it to her, having found it on a quotation site that may or may not be accurate.

In any case, is there any merit to this? Do we all lie daily? If so, at what level?


Regards,


Steve

 

[OnlyAnEgg]

Speaking for myself, yes, I tell lies periodically. Most often, they occur out of habit or self-defence and are innocent, ie: 'Yes, dear, I'll fix the dishwasher today' or 'No, I put it back, really' or 'No, that's not a pr0n site!'. There's always the white lies, 'Santa's coming tonight!'...also innocent. Big mega-lies I haven't told since I was young enough to have my Dad face me, belt in hand. In general, I have had plenty of retro-lies; by this I mean, 'I'm going to learn to play the bagpies' or 'I will never eat meat again'. To combat such things, I've learned to talk about things after the fact.

Does this mean I'm a liar? Well, as I've admitted, I am not completely truthful 100% of the time; but, I'm not destructive in the lies that I do tell.

Guess that makes me chaotic-neutral.

egg

 

[arnisador]

I have never told a lie!

Follow me around, you'd be very bored!

 

[shesulsa]

Who doesn't lie now and then, really? If someone asks me a personal question I might either give an answer that's easy and believable because I don't want to get into it ... then there's the white lies (no, that dress doesn't make you look fat) ... etcetera.

But am I a "liar?" Well ... a friend of mine ran a marathon once, but that doesn't make her an athlete.

 

[heretic888]

A study showing pathological liars have a different brain structure than those who don't lie pathologically:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8075



I was listening to a Daniel Robinson lecture this morning where he discusses deterministic psychology. A single calcified granuloma the size of the head of a pin in the temporal lobe can apparently can cause a person to commit criminal acts that are planned (not spontaneous) and be totally amnesic about the event in question. When the granuloma is removed surgically the behavior disappears and the person returns to normalcy.

How much control do we have over our "will?"



Regards,


Steve

Lots, actually.

The general problem with paradigms like this 'deterministic psychology' (never heard of it and, personally, I don't know of a single psychologist today that would agree with the assertion that our behavior and thinking is 'determined' by any one thing in particular) is that assumes the Ye Ole Cartesian Dualism of 'mind' and 'body'.

Sure, we can externally manipulate the brain (or nervous system in general) to effect correlative changes in the 'mind' --- the most well-known examples, of course, being the stimulation to the limbic system to effect intense emotions like fear or aggression.

Then again, and this is the thing many ideologists like to conveniently ignore, we can also internally manipulate the 'mind' to effect correlative changes in the brain (or body in general) --- we do this in small ways every time our 'mind' commands our body to, say, type a letter or get up and use the lavatory, but there are also overt neurological phenomena like long-term potentiation (the long-term strengthening of particular synaptic pathways as a result of learning, experience, or just good ol' readin').

A lot of people in the sciences today are so exhilirated by how the brain grounds and constrains what the 'mind' can and cannot do, that they forget the mind can turn back around and pimp-slap the brain when the squishy blob starts getting too persnickety.

Then there's the whole philosophical issue of the Myth of the Given --- where all these scienticians (i.e., followers of scientism) like to make-believe these 'objective' observations they're making about the brain are, in fact, not at every step of the way being filtered, constrained, and interpreted by background contexts (such as, say, language) underlying their own 'minds'. Ain't no such manimal as 'innocent observation'.

Sorry, folks, but one way or the other, our 'brains' are every much a product of our 'minds' as our 'minds' are a product of our 'brains'.

This is related to the similar issue of 'genetic determinism', of course, and a lot of people also haven't yet figured out the relationship between genotype and phenotype is also a lot more 'fluid' than has previously been surmised. One doesn't strictly 'determine' the other.

There is more in heaven and earth than is imagined in your philosophy, Horatio, yadda yadda yadda, etcetera ad infinitum...

Laterz.