because the unexamined life is not worth living . . .
From independent Science writer
Paul Wallis an Op Ed last summer:
"If you’ve ever been inflicted with a really selfish person, seen the pettiness and the immaturity, “small minded” is one of the more natural, if much too polite, descriptions. It seems selfish people actually do have a smaller part of the brain.
A recent study has shown that the part of the brain related to altruism reacts very differently when comparing altruistic and genuinely selfish people. The real altruist’s brain only starts reacting to expense at very high levels, where the selfish brain goes nuts well before those levels."
Science Daily:
To investigate whether differences in altruistic behavior have neurobiological causes, volunteers were to divide money between themselves and an anonymous other person. The participants always had the option of sacrificing a certain portion of the money for the benefit of the other person. Such a sacrifice can be deemed altruistic because it helps someone else at one's own expense. The researchers found major differences in this respect: Some participants were almost never willing to sacrifice money to benefit others while others behaved very altruistically.
More gray matter
The aim of the study, however, was to find out why there are such differences. Previous studies had shown that a certain region of the brain -- the place where the parietal and temporal lobes meet -- is linked to the ability to put oneself in someone else's shoes in order to understand their thoughts and feelings.
Altruism is probably closely related to this ability. Consequently, the researchers suspected that individual differences in this part of the brain might be linked to differences in altruistic behavior. And, according to Yosuke Morishima, a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Economics at the University of Zurich, they were right: "People who behaved more altruistically also had a higher proportion of gray matter at the junction between the parietal and temporal lobes."
One of the goals for the
Small Spaces etc. series was to raise awareness about the tiny house movement specifically as an alternative housing type for affordability options within Encinitas. More generally it was to demonstrate to those who see housing like their own as the only "normal" option for the community. The ability to empathize and appreciate outcomes other than yes/no, up/down, black/white, rich/poor, me/you self involvement is lost on many community people - on camera and in print. It is disheartening.
This study cited in the op ed here was an attempt to understand what differentiates these behaviors. It is vital in building community, investing in the commons and promoting resilience to be able to serve all the people. This actually includes those who don't live in a single family residence. It also includes those who desire more density for safety, value, comradery, convenience as well as those who have to leave town due to financial or employment downturns. This affects the young, the middle-aged, some with families and the elderly. This affects those who thought they were secure in a well paying job with all the health insurance they thought they might need.
The chart illustrates a bit of local background information to help clarify why this is important.
A key finding regarding housing affordability in San Diego County published by
Equinox Center Regional Dashboard showed Encinitas had the stingiest number with tiny Del Mar the only community with fewer affordable options.
With all of the speeches about how none of the General Plan Update drafts, reports, studies and strategies really give "real" affordable options, there is a stunning lack of words devoted to "real" solutions. Only the city council have offered some ideas.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS A REAL PROBLEM!
BTW - Equinox Center is moving out of Encinitas within the week. "Greener" Pastures? Great organization we can still access
via the internet.
But to return to the op ed on the brain study regarding the gray matter between the parietal and temporal lobes . . .
This part of the brain apparently reacts to values in relation to self-interest. [ . . . ] Extrapolate for a moment, and you can see some rather familiar behavioural and relationship issues. Altruistic and selfish people can find each other incomprehensible. Ask some people to help the poor or the starving, and you might as well be speaking another language. Truly altruistic people, on the other hand, seem to see nothing even mildly worrying about going into a war zone to do aid work.
Small minded? Yes, but with some obvious qualifiers. Risk and reward are also survival strategies, and this social culture doesn’t exactly encourage altruism. Quite the opposite, in fact, it encourages selfishness.
Another study found that it was possible to measure altruism/selfishness quite effectively, and it actually supports the Zurich study:
Science Daily, again:
Individuals who excel at understanding others' intents and beliefs are more altruistic than those who struggle at this task. The ability to understand others' perspectives has previously been associated with activity in a brain region known as the temporoparietal junction (TPJ). Based on these past findings, Fehr and his team reasoned that the size and activation of the TPJ would relate to individual differences in altruism.
In the new study, subjects underwent a brain imaging scan and played a game in which they had to decide how to split money between themselves and anonymous partners. Subjects who made more generous decisions had a larger TPJ in the right hemisphere of the brain compared with subjects who made stingy decisions.
The study showed a rising level of risk with decisions to give $10, $100, $1000 or $10,000 causing people quite naturally to turn away from sharing as the amounts got higher, no surprise there. What is dramatic is that the selfish proved stingy at the first $10. The altruistic might not have the $1,000 but would be willing to help raise that kind of money.
Writer Wallis explains the point of this is core research into how the brain works, like the research on left brain/right brain studies and others. His own interest is more specific. And EYNU is interested for similar reasons that lie beyond even our local political climate. The miserable behavior nationwide is a real concern and it generates a great deal of frustrated anger. My own suspicion is that this rage against corporate news stories of national poster boys for selfish behavior seeps into our community conversations.
What interests me is that we apparently have two different brain morphologies, with totally different reactions, quite unalike. There’s been a lot of talk lately about “polarization”. What seems to be happening is that the default reactions of people’s brains are geared to behaviours, and those behaviours, on the social level, are mutually exclusive.
Real altruists, like army combat medics, aid workers, and a range of other quite selfless people, coexist on the same planet, very incompatibly, with corporate sycophants, stooges, and utterly selfish people. You’d have to bolt down the altruists to prevent them risking their lives, and you have to point a gun at selfish people for them to even think about spending a cent on a charity.
Are there different types of human? One kind self-obsessed, the other almost saintlike? Historically, the answer is yes. Fearless altruists have been documented for thousands of years, as have the ultra-greedy and ultra-selfish.
Each does what they think is natural. They understand their motives and never question them. The altruists are admirable by any standards, but can be reckless and utterly uncomprehending of dangers and quite intolerant of the fears and reservations of others. They can be naïve, and assume everyone else shares their values. Their very high social value is that they actively support the survival of others.
The selfish can be utterly contemptible, despicable, and downright criminal. There’s not much to like about the selfish people, but it has to be admitted that they always find ways of surviving themselves, however disgusting. [ . . . ]
“Social” intelligence?
Society, too, is faced with a reality- Selfishness based cultures and societies historically have a very high failure rate. They’re anti-social societies. My personal usage description of selfish people is “brain blind”. They simply do not/will not see the advantages of a society which isn’t in a state of constant conflict with itself. They don’t see why it’s better to share costs, for example, rather than forcing people to pay higher prices for services.
Reading a study which indicates that they’re also physically deficient does explain quite a bit. What the brain can’t or won’t process does show the logic very effectively. Selfish people aren’t stupid about their own interests, far from it, but they’re absolute idiots objectively in any social sense. Altruists can be infuriating, and some of them refuse to address either practicalities or the sensitivities of others. [ . . . ]
As a great advocate for Small, this is one area where Big is better. If we can recruit more altruistic people into our community's civic life, educate more young people to humanist perspectives and support the mayor, council members, city staff and activists who possess flexible, inclusive thinking - we have a reason to care.
