Another mind-blowing, life-changing study!

Yesterday I learned—for the first time!—that people apparently need meaningful conversation and relationships in their lives in order to be happy, well-adjusted, and free of embarrassingly bed-wetting disasters. Today I learned even more incredible secrets about this strange creature called "man", via Scientific American:

John Gowdy, an economist at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, noted that “neuroeconomics” is challenging the conventional economics view of humans as “utility maximizers” who make choices based on self-interest and reason. MRI scans show that we assess risks and rewards with brain regions that underpin fear, suspicion, empathy and other emotions, Gowdy explained, and we make choices very differently depending on how they are framed.

The psychiatrist Daniel Siegel of UCLA proposed that we all possess two innate, brain-based “maps” for responding to the world. One is a “me-map” that underpins our obsession with our own interests, but we also have a “we-map” corresponding to our concern for others.

I'm...speechless. If I understand this correctly, it means that people are motivated both by self-interest and love for others. Amazing. Why didn't Aristotle think about that? What? He did? What about Pope Benedict XVI? Yeah? Oh, alright. But could they prove it scientifically and use words like "maps"? And did they use it in order to promote the one, true, deep and abiding religious faith?

The implications of these presentations were spelled out over lunch for me and other journalists (including Scientific American’s David Biello) by Jonathan Rose, founder of the Garrison Institute and the meeting’s chief sponsor and organizer. Environmentalists must frame issues to appeal to peoples’ “we-maps,” asserted Rose, a green New York real-estate mogul.

I share the belief of Rose and others at the symposium that global warming is bad and we should do something about it. But I’ve always disliked “framing” as a strategy for influencing the global-warming debate. Framing is just spinning, and neuroframing is spinning plus brain scans.

First of all, we don’t need MRI studies to tell us that we’re emotional, complicated creatures. Moreover, many people already view environmentalists as self-righteous and manipulative. This is a framing problem that neuroframing may exacerbate. The message is that environmentalists will go to extraordinary lengths—seeking guidance from cutting-edge brain science!--to help the dim-witted public see the world in the same enlightened way that environmentalists do.

Ah, I think the author is being a bit paranoid. Who could ever imagine any environmentalists being arrogant elitists who manipulate data and people in order to promote their beliefs? Naw, that would never happen. Only Catholics, Scientologists, Mormons, and leaders of the Dharma Initiative would ever do such a thing...

Comments

[Woppodie]

I find many of the "recent findings" in many of the social sciences to be truisms restated in technojargin with conclusions which would plainly not follow if it was stated in plainspeak.

[T. Shaw]

Firm grasp of the obvious.

[Eric Thomason]

Mogul = bad

Mogul + real estate = bad

Mogul + real estate + New York = bad

Mogul + real estate + New York + Green = good