Slashdot Mirror


Magnetism Can Sway Man's Moral Compass

Hugh Pickens writes "Discovery News reports that scientists have identified a region of the brain which appears to control morality and discovered that a powerful magnetic field can scramble the moral center of the brain, impairing volunteers' notion of right and wrong. 'You think of morality as being a really high-level behavior,' says Liane Young, a scientist at MIT and co-author of the article. 'To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing.' Young and her colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging to locate an area of the brain just above and behind the right ear known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ), which other studies had previously related to moral judgments. Volunteers were exposed to transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) for 25 minutes before reading stories involving morally questionable characters, and being asked to judge their actions. The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves. The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects' moral sensibilities and on the scientists' seven point scale, the difference was about one point, averaging out to about a 15 percent change, 'but it's still striking to see such a change in such high level behavior as moral decision-making.' Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality, and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."

586 comments

  1. Ooh Ohh Mr. Kotter I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Take it to your nearest prison and turn it on in reverse!

  2. Potential abuse of research? by hipp5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How long until this is used as a defense in court?

    1. Re:Potential abuse of research? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm guessing that the "Your Honor, I had a giant morals-scrambling magnet pressed against my head at the time" defense should be pretty easy to confirm or deny...

      Now, as for the broader use, yeah, this research does indeed suggest that, for instance, somebody with a tumor or lesion in the area that the researchers were scrambling might well be "insane" in the sense of having impaired moral cognition, without overt psychosis or anything similarly dramatic. That isn't really "abuse" though. That's an enhancement of our understanding how how the brain works.

      However, I'm not sure that the "Yup, I have a permanently defective capacity for moral cognition" defense would be something that you would pursue unless you, in fact, do. Indefinite commitment to a secure psychiatric facility isn't exactly a walk in the park, even compared to prison.

    2. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      My guess is shortly after it shows up on House M.D.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
    3. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shhh the scientists are holding this research for when the cops find the dead hooker in the back of their car

    4. Re:Potential abuse of research? by spun · · Score: 4, Funny

      Thanks for that link! For years now I've been hearing people talk about house this, house that, and I thought, "When did house music make a big comeback?" Now, thanks to your informative link, I know that House is a TV show.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:Potential abuse of research? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

      Legitimately? Many decades. This research shows that there indeed is some sort of modular physiological aspect to our conception of morality. But beyond that, it tells us almost nothing about how it might affect behavior in a legal sense. In the future this kind of research will require a fundamental change in our judicial system, but not yet. Now if we are talking about quack defenses, I bet someone has already tried it. Sadly the lack of scientific knowledge in jurors and judges makes it such that they are unlikely to be able to understand the issue beyond the false experts and fancy lawyer talkin'.

    6. Re:Potential abuse of research? by commodore64_love · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>> "Your Honor, I had a giant morals-scrambling magnet pressed against my head at the time"

      That's what she said.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    7. Re:Potential abuse of research? by dkleinsc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't you mean "How long until this is used in the military?"

      The military, by necessity, trains people to commit what are generally immoral acts such as killing people or blowing up someone else's house. I wouldn't be surprised to see them very interested in tools to make that piece of the training easier to accomplish, even if it involves very expensive tools.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    8. Re:Potential abuse of research? by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It doesn't sound like a sound defense. Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example. Whether you're talking about Druids, Christians, Jews, Hindus, any religion, none have any injunction against smoking pot. Smoking pot harms no one. The marijuana laws were passed by lies (see the propaganda movie "Reefer Madness"). Laws are subjective; they are NOT based on morality. Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.

      What confuses me, (and I RTFA just because it did confuse me, and TFA gave no answer) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present?

      The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?

    9. Re:Potential abuse of research? by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      Not only that, House is a man! I know it confused me too.

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    10. Re:Potential abuse of research? by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      Sadly the lack of scientific knowledge in jurors and judges makes it such that they are unlikely to be able to understand the issue beyond the false experts and fancy lawyer talkin'.

      The cynic in me assumes this is on purpose. People who are "dumbed down" are easier to control. Pretty sad really. We are living in a country where the general population shuns scientific advances in favor of religion and faith. /my opinion

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    11. Re:Potential abuse of research? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I wouldn't be surprised to see them very interested in tools to make that
      > piece of the training easier to accomplish, even if it involves very
      > expensive tools.

      Unfortunately, they don't need them. Social approval is far more powerful than any magnet. What your social reference group does is _right_.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    12. Re:Potential abuse of research? by __aamnbm3774 · · Score: 1

      how long until the Military starts experimenting on this!

    13. Re:Potential abuse of research? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's important to note that the research focused on moral judgements about the *intentions* of actions, not on the actions and outcomes themselves. So, a person with a disrupted brain might not see a problem with wanting to steal a car, but they can still fully grasp the weight of actually stealing the car. Since moral judgement is lost on some people anyway, the normal effects of punishment should still be as effective, with or without disruption via magnetic field. Ergo, using this as a defense is about as probable as getting in front of the judge and saying "well no one was there to tell me *not* to steal it, your honor".

    14. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      'Ees a Prince!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    15. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hemp was used around the world as a strong and durably fiber in rope and fabric. It grew wild in most of the US. DOW chemicals invents and patents nylon. Within a few short years, marijuana was illegal and half the US covered with herbicide to to stamp out this "terrible weed". The war on drugs was a fabrication designed for the profit of a single powerful company.

    16. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      About as long as it takes to get into a joke. For example, "A man walks into a bar with a giant super powerful magnet. He goes home with all the girls and the utensils too."

    17. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Sulphur · · Score: 1

      scientists are holding this research for when the cops find the dead hooker in the back of their car

      To say nothing of the research electromagnet hiding in plain sight.

    18. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      True, but this kind of social conditioning is still a major part of the training and takes its time. I guess the military would jump on a technology that shortens the process. However, I don't think that this kind of transcranial stimulation is what you need for that - the effect is after all short-term.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    19. Re:Potential abuse of research? by agw · · Score: 1

      how long until the Military starts experimenting on this!

      How long until we find out the Military has been using this long since! There, corrected that for you.

    20. Re:Potential abuse of research? by vlm · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.

      Cheat in a game of Solitaire? Its "wrong" to cheat, but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result?

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    21. Re:Potential abuse of research? by JustinKSU · · Score: 1

      "Magnetism Can Sway Man's Moral Compass".

      WTF! Women are immune?

      Damn it! There goes my chances with...

    22. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, House is a man!

      And apropos to the topic, House is a man with a scrambled moral compass.

    23. Re:Potential abuse of research? by BattleApple · · Score: 3, Funny

      Well, you see judge, I was really busy that day and I had to sign the contract while I was getting an MRI of my head.

    24. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What kind of name is "House" anyway, especially for a doctor?

      Is there a dentist out there named "Garage", or an airplane pilot named "Lawn"?

    25. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If cotton and other natural textiles were also made illegal, I would be with you. Unfortunately, your reasoning doesn't pass a very simple sniff test.

      At least you didn't trot out the "it's a plant, so they can't tax it, man" bullshit. That's my least favorite hippie reason that weed is illegal.

      It was racism, ignorance, and a power grab. No complicated conspiracies. This isn't exactly hard to find out, so there's no reason to get all anti-corporate about it even though the temptation is strong. This isn't a very nice fact to trot out in our current "the government is the best nanny ever" environment, but too bad. Real is real, the government abuses power even worse than corporations. Sorry, hippies.

    26. Re:Potential abuse of research? by cmiller173 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>> "Your Honor, I had a giant morals-scrambling magnet pressed against my head at the time"

      That's what she said.

      No, She said "Your Honor, he had a giant morals-scrambling magnet pressed against my head at the time"

    27. Re:Potential abuse of research? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.

      You can't possibly be serious. There are lots of examples but an easy one is driving without wearing a seatbelt.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    28. Re:Potential abuse of research? by gambino21 · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's morally wrong to cheat in a game of solitaire. Unless of course you are in some kind of solitaire competition where you cheating would cause another person to lose when they shouldn't have.

    29. Re:Potential abuse of research? by gambino21 · · Score: 1

      Why would it be morally wrong to drive without a seatbelt? It's against the law in many places, but that doesn't make it morally wrong.

    30. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what about high-stakes solitaire? I'm not sure if such a thing exists, but if there was money on the table, cheating would be wrong and cause harm, no? I'm grasping at straws here.

    31. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      an airplane pilot named "Lawn"?

      Yes, and his surname is Dart.

    32. Re:Potential abuse of research? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.

      Back to your earlier point - quite frankly, adultery, if the other party never finds out. No one's harmed here.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    33. Re:Potential abuse of research? by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?

      Steal an iPOD
      Sell your vote
      Do nothing when you hear about bad things being done-- like a gay friend of yours sleeping with a married man.
      Never pay for music from artists that make above minimum wage but download their songs anyways.

    34. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Odeen · · Score: 0

      Driving without a seatbelt is not morally wrong if you're doing it on your own private island. Causing other people to take time out of their lives to scrape you off the asphalt and sew you back together, all while having my taxes and/or health insurance premiums pay for it _is_ morally wrong. Stopping traffic for hours while you're being scraped off the asphalt is morally wrong. Seatbelts, as much as they are for your benefit, are also for the benefit of everyone else.

    35. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's supposed to be a play on "Holmes" (as in Sherlock).

    36. Re:Potential abuse of research? by benjamindees · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Causing other people to take time out of their lives to scrape you off the asphalt and sew you back together, all while having my taxes and/or health insurance premiums pay for it

      See what I mean? People lose their shit along with all sense of causality whenever driving without wearing a seatbelt is mentioned. I would even guess that this guy is in the majority.

      And by the same argument, people like this shouldn't leave the house without wearing a helmet, for the benefit of everyone else of course.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    37. Re:Potential abuse of research? by vlm · · Score: 1

      Why would it be morally wrong to drive without a seatbelt? It's against the law in many places, but that doesn't make it morally wrong.

      Wearing a seatbelt is a public declaration that someone doesn't care if everyone else has to pay more for their health care costs after their accident. Sort of like "threat of conspicuous consumption of everyone elses money". It is, to some extent, a zero sum world, and we have a moral obligation not to decide to waste each others money. To a limited extent, its like the "tragedy of the commons" argument, look at me, I declare I will take way more than my "fair share" of the common healthcare resources. I'm gonna lay in the hospital bed, just so you can't, ha ha ha.

      You can pig out in private, abuse drugs in private, not exercise in private, but theres no way to "not wear a seatbelt" in private. Its a pretty aggressive in-your-face statement to everyone else about how much the driver respects the contents of everyone else's wallet. Antisocial.

      Is it a major moral crisis? No. Does there need to be a law? No. But it is at least a minor moral failing.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    38. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is not morally wrong to cheat at a game of solitaire; it is morally wrong to cheat a person. That is- tricking someone into a deal that they think is even and you know to be slanted your way.

    39. Re:Potential abuse of research? by orasio · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.

      Back to your earlier point - quite frankly, adultery, if the other party never finds out. No one's harmed here.

      Risk is potential for harm.
      Adultery puts your partner in risk of STDs, or loss of property, if you conceive a child. I know that condoms do exist, but the risk is non-zero.

    40. Re:Potential abuse of research? by jeffmeden · · Score: 2, Informative

      Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...

      Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument. Both of these things are pure opinion, it is trivial to argue both in either direction.

      And, fwiw, the moral dilemmas they posed were of the lines of "sally and alice are at a chemical plant. alice gives sally a cup of coffee and in it she puts what she thinks is sugar but it's really poison. was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?" vs "sally and alice are at a chemical plant. alice gives sally a cup of coffee and also adds some poison to it while sally thinks it only has sugar in it. was alice wrong in giving the coffee to sally?" And so on and so forth in various ways that include the poison working and the poison being ineffective, in either the malicious or the benign scenario. These approach the issue of doing harm vs intending to do harm, for outcomes that are either benign or harmful, which illustrates the extent at which someone is willing to classify something as "wrong" depending on the intent AND the outcome.

    41. Re:Potential abuse of research? by laron · · Score: 1

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?

      I heard about that on the radio today. One of the scenarios was something like: A wants to poison B, but uses a harmless substance by mistake. Was A's behavior immoral?
      Apparently the test persons with he "disabled" brain part judged only the outcome (no harm done), not the intention.

      [snark] Persoanlly I think it depends on whether you consider incompetence to be immoral or not [/snark]

      --
      "Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master."
    42. Re:Potential abuse of research? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      It's not physical risk but betrayal of trust that makes it immoral. Otherwise hobbies like skateboarding are also immoral and that doesn't make sense.

    43. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.

      Really? What about attempted murder?

      The study compares scenarios like this: you're in the break room at a chemical plant and pour your friend some coffee and put some "sugar" in it:

      1) In one case, you got the powder from the sugar jar and quite reasonably believed it was sugar, but it was actually poison, and your friend dies.

      2) In the other case, you got the powder from a poison jar and were trying to kill your friend, but the powder was actually sugar and your friend lives.

      Most adults consider #1 unfortunate in outcome but morally OK because of intent, and #2 fortunate in outcome but morally wrong because of intent.

      Those who are unable to comprehend intent (young children, people with brain damage, and experimental subjects with that part of their brain temporarily shut down with a powerful magnet) judge these scenarios the opposite way -- they look at morality only by the outcome, not the intent.

    44. Re:Potential abuse of research? by J3llym4n · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to disagree with you here and saw that laws are at least in part based upon morality. You give the example of smoking pot as not being immorral. One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs. There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs which leads to crime (note that I'm not arguing whether these claims are suppoted by any reliable evidence or not just what is claimed). Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime and is therefore immoral because it harms others in society (once again I'm not arguing for the evidence just linking the moral and legal arguments). The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland. So I'd say that things that are considered immoral are often then made illegal which means that morality does have an effect on legality.

    45. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Arguably, when buy drugs you *generally* are supplying some sort of violent criminal element thus making it immoral. I suppose it's no worse then buying clothes made with near (actual?)-slave labor though.

    46. Re:Potential abuse of research? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      I remember the tobacco companies quietly publishing reports that smoking lowers overall government costs due to earlier deaths. Does that make not smoking immoral too because you're brazenly going around costing everybody more money? Also, could your assumption that not wearing a seatbelt results in more money being spent be wrong for similar reasons?

      Personally I don't think utilitarianism should be the basis of morality.

    47. Re:Potential abuse of research? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Oh man, thank you. That's exactly what I was hoping for. There is so much crazy in this post, it's amazing.

      I like how you start out with the assumption of "common healthcare resources", as though we mine healthcare from a hole in the ground or something.

      And then, it would be okay not to wear a seatbelt in private, like doing crack or abusing puppies or something, but doing so in public is just a slap in your face. Respect my authoritay!

      Of course, let's just bypass the fact that you shouldn't even be able to see whether another driver is wearing a seatbelt or not, if you're really paying attention to your driving.

      And I'm robbing you by not wearing a seatbelt, that's rich. The driving, that's fine. Crashing, you apparently have no problem with that. In fact, I like how it's kind of just assumed that crashing will happen. But it's the lack of seatbelt that really costs you money. And it costs you money because, I guess, when you wreck into me, it might cost you more to pay for my healthcare? That's your argument?

      Because, I mean, clearly you don't seem to have any kind of problem with taking money out of anyone else's wallet. Your entire post is pretty much predicated on the assumption of "common resources" and insurance and whatnot. It's just that, I guess you're just concerned that we take the least amount of money from others as possible, or something? So, I mean, helmets too then I guess?

      But I really like how you give the impression that it's the seatbelt that is the lynchpin in the entire highway full of one-ton objects travelling at 80 mph. Without the seatbelts, the entire thing would come crashing down into a bloody mess of mangled bodies requiring healthcare "resources" taken directly from your wallet.

      Sounds like you could use a magnetic headband. But then again, letting you wear one would probably just amount to an aggressive, in-your-face insult showing how little you care for everyone else's right to the shared magnet resources. What to do.. what to do...

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    48. Re:Potential abuse of research? by MtHuurne · · Score: 1

      Is that cheating or applying a house rule? When playing a game, you don't necessarily have to play by the book, as long as all players agree on the rules. In the case of Solitaire, "all players" is you.

    49. Re:Potential abuse of research? by spun · · Score: 3, Informative

      And "Wilson" is "Watson." There are many more parallels with the Sherlock Holmes series, according to the creators of "House."

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    50. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm.

      That smells like a tautology. If you judge something to be morally wrong based on whether or not it causes harm, then all morally wrong things will, by stipulation, cause harm.

      But values are relative. Is it immoral to eat meat? Do you think that causing harm to animals doesn't qualify as "causing harm?"

      Is it immoral to cause harm to yourself? What if smoking pot causes harm to the self, by destroying the lungs. Would that be immoral? What if other people suffer as a result of the harm you cause to yourself (like emotional anguish felt by loved ones, or higher insurance premiums shared by everyone because of your higher medical costs)?

      Is it immoral to buy goods that were made in sweat shops? Does forcing people to work 20 hours a day for too little money to buy food cause harm? Does refusing to buy products from developing countries (who need the income from exports, and who cannot progress beyond the need for sweat shops without it) cause harm? If either option causes harm, making it logically impossible to avoid picking one, are you just morally wrong no matter what you do?

      Adultery is immoral (and harmful),

      You don't think this may be a bit circumstantial? If both members of a marriage are the type who like to swing, and they both agree to swing, and they only swing with people who know they are married and have no problem with this....is it still morally wrong?

      If two people don't want to get married, and take precautions against disease and unwanted pregnancy, is their mutually-consensual sex morally wrong?

      I don't think so. Some religious teachings might say so. Some people who do not like to swing and who are intimidated by the thought that anyone would ever want to swing (or who have some very immature ideas about how human emotions actually work) might think so. But there are plenty of happily-married swingers who don't think so.

      Does it cause harm? No more so than forcing someone to remain celibate because his/her spouse has lost all interest in sex causes harm (and that DOES cause terrible emotional anguish and potentially can ruin a marriage).

      Morality isn't always as simple as we would like it to be.

    51. Re:Potential abuse of research? by selven · · Score: 1

      Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.

      Wait, isn't breaking one's marriage vow a contract violation? Or is that whole part of law screwed up beyond repair by now?

    52. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are misinterpreting the verb tense. The question is whether they "caused" (did cause) actual harm as presented, not whether they "caused" (could cause) harm.

    53. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by the same argument, people like this shouldn't leave the house without wearing a helmet, for the benefit of everyone else of course.

      That sounds more like a slippery-slope fallacy to me.

      Leaving the house is not nearly as dangerous or publicly-impactful as driving on the freeway. Since the activity, and the risk to others, is different, the level of moral obligation is also different.

    54. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Nyder · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like a sound defense. Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example. Whether you're talking about Druids, Christians, Jews, Hindus, any religion, none have any injunction against smoking pot. Smoking pot harms no one. The marijuana laws were passed by lies (see the propaganda movie "Reefer Madness"). Laws are subjective; they are NOT based on morality. Adultery is immoral (and harmful), yet there's no law against it in my state.

      What confuses me, (and I RTFA just because it did confuse me, and TFA gave no answer) is what kinds of moral delimmas did they present?

      The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?

      All i know is i got to the smoking pot part and well, um, what?

      oh ya, smoke pot!

      good advice.

      --
      Be seeing you...
    55. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?

      How about attempting to cause harm, unsuccessfully? Is that morally better or worse than actually causing harm, but accidentally?

    56. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you should not drive a car without a helmet? Already modded someone Tim S.

    57. Re:Potential abuse of research? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      It doesn't sound like a sound defense. Moral judgements have nothing to do with legality; there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example.

      Mmmm... If can prove that you were forced to commit the crime under duress or under influence that was not of your choosing, then you usually won't be convicted.

      Like assaulting someone after going under anethesiea and coming too during a panic at a hospital for example.

      Actually a good anecdotal story, there was a guy at my old job who had an epileptic attack and hit a few people and cops and paramedics, they had to tackle him and hold him down and put a wallet in his mouth, but they didn't charge him because... Well... He's epileptic. Its what happens.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    58. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Tromad · · Score: 1

      If you cheat you are violating the trust of others, which does cause psychological harm, although the harm only comes if they find out about the cheating.

    59. Re:Potential abuse of research? by orasio · · Score: 1

      I thought it was implicit.
      _Lying_ about having sex with others is immoral, not the act itself. Lying to your significant other about skateboarding would also be immoral, I think it does make sense.
      If your couple was ok with you having sex with the next door neighbour, I don't see why that would be immoral.

    60. Re:Potential abuse of research? by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Risk is potential for harm.

      Well then, if the potential for harm is how we judge morality, then EVERYTHING is immoral.

      I can't think of a single thing a human being can do that could not in some conceivable way have a risk.

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    61. Re:Potential abuse of research? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      there's nothing immoral about smoking pot, for example.

      In your opinion. I disagree. (I don't drink either, and that's perfectly legal.)

    62. Re:Potential abuse of research? by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      Cheat in a game of Solitaire? Its "wrong" to cheat, but nothing bad could possibly happen as a result?

      If you're 'cheating' in solitaire, you know you're cheating. It sounds to me like a contradiction in terms, or a redundancy. Can I 'steal' from my wallet if I take out some bills?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    63. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      No, they just don't have a moral compass to begin with...

    64. Re:Potential abuse of research? by StrategicIrony · · Score: 1

      If you look at the propaganda of the day, it was actually strongly focused against Mexican migrant workers, who were the largest profile users of the day and (just as today in some circles) regarded to be a blight on the American countryside.

      I agree the DOW Chemical line is probably not the primary cause (even if it might have been a small contributor).

    65. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Just answer these questions in your own minds and in your own hearts.
      Most importantly, answer these questions honestly.

      1. You're walking along a country road. It's a beautiful spring day. As you walk along, you notice that up ahead in the distance, lying in the middle of the road in the dirt, is a tiny baby sparrow. Both its wings are broken. You have... a hammer.

      2. You're a medical student in your final year of study. It's a very very important year for you. Because of the economic climate, you've been forced to live with your grandmother. She's a tattoo artist - with Parkinson's disease. Every time she makes you a cup of coffee she shakes so much it froths up the milk on top, which is something you can't fucking stand. You have... a hammer.

      3. You're a young and upwardly mobile merchant banker. Your girlfriend has just fallen pregnant. You think a child at this point in your career could be detrimental to your future career prospects. You have... a coathanger.

      4. You are an arctic explorer. For the past six months you've been travelling through the arctic waste. It has been a period of intense isolation and loneliness for you, devoid of contact with any other human being. On this particular day you're walking along a stretch of beach some eight kilometers in length. At the far end of that beach, basking itself on a broad, flat rock there's a beautiful, white, baby seal. As you approach you notice that its eyes are like two deep, brown pools. Its fur is as fresh and as clean and as white as the driven snow around it. It is an unsurpassed beauty and splendor between man, beast and nature. You have... an erection.

    66. Re:Potential abuse of research? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Depends on who pressed the magnet to your head.

      I think the court would treat it the same as intoxication.

    67. Re:Potential abuse of research? by shentino · · Score: 1

      One's attitude towards the law/authority is probably a moral judgement itself however.

    68. Re:Potential abuse of research? by drkim · · Score: 1

      Not suprizing considering that Doyle based the Holmes character on a medical doctor named Bell.

    69. Re:Potential abuse of research? by hitmark · · Score: 1

      just to play devils advocate for a bit, what other plants providing natural fibers can be confused with a "drug"?

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    70. Re:Potential abuse of research? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      So why *is* it morally wrong, if it doesn't cause harm ?

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    71. Re:Potential abuse of research? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Back to your earlier point - quite frankly, adultery, if the other party never finds out. No one's harmed here.

      That's like saying that stealing five bucks from my wallet isn't immoral as long as I don't miss it. I've been the victim of adultery, and let me tell you, there is little that is less harmful.

    72. Re:Potential abuse of research? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more Jeeves and wooster... I mean its the same funny man and straight man routine. Put house in England and add tea and your done.

      House/Wooster: "It appears this man as a incurable horrible disease, sucks to be him!"
      Wilson/Jeeves: "Indeed."

    73. Re:Potential abuse of research? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Smoking pot harms no one... Adultery is immoral (and harmful)...

      Thank you for neatly disproving your own argument. Both of these things are pure opinion

      Just like it's my opinion that the sky is blue at noon when the sun is shining. I can point to harm adultery causes, you can't point to any harm smoking pot causes.

      However, intent and outcome do matter. If Sally thinks the poison is sugar, she hasn't done anything wrong; mistakes aren't immoral. If she knows she's poisoning somebody there can be no argument that that IS wrong.

      If, otoh, both parties are OK with the other screwing around, I don't see how you could classify that as adultery.

    74. Re:Potential abuse of research? by kalirion · · Score: 1

      How many times has the "Your honor, I only killed him because alcohol impaired my judgment" defense worked in court?

    75. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Wearing a seatbelt is a public declaration that someone doesn't care if everyone else has to pay more for their health care costs after their accident.

      By that reasoning, refusing to wear a seatbelt does cause harm. So again, please provide an example of something that is morally wrong but does not cause harm.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    76. Re:Potential abuse of research? by spun · · Score: 1

      Ah, Jeeves and Wooster, what a funny series. Hugh Laurie is a top notch actor, and Stephen Fry is a comic genius of course. It also helps that the books are some of the best satire ever written.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    77. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Imprisonment causes much greater harm than smoking pot ever could. Therefore marijuana prohibition is immoral.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    78. Re:Potential abuse of research? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      One of the arguments against it is that it could cause mental health problems in later life

      A fallacy that has not been demonstrated by any reputable study.

      and of course smoking it will cause damage to your lungs.

      You don't have to smoke it, eating it is as effective.

      There are also the claims/arguments that smoking pot leads to harder drugs

      It's the drug laws themselves that cause this; people who sell other drugs also sell pot.

      Considering the potential for these harmful effects would it not be immoral to smoke it because it firstly increases medical care costs to you AND others in society

      A recent study showed that cigarette smokers who also smoke pot have a far lesser incidence of cancers than those who only smoke tobacco, and a statistically insignifigant lower cancer rate than nonsmokers. Which brings up another point -- if smoking pot is immoral, cigarette smoking would be far more immoral since it kills almost every user, yet it's completely legal.

      And, even if there were harm associated with pot smoking (which I've never seen evidence of, scientific or otherwise), how is harming yourself immoral?

      ...as well as costs incurred fighting any associated crime

      There is no associated crime incurred with potsmoking. We're not talking about heroin here, nobody steals to support a "pot habit".

      Here's a hint: the partnership for a drug-free America is about as biased a source as you can get. They flat out lie. Their web site says pot causes cancer, despite the fact that not only do studies show it doesn't, but may even prevent cancer in those who only smoke pot, and lowers the incidence of cancers in cigarette smokers.

      The other example you gave was adultery which, while not illegal in your state is still illegal in several countries around the world, mostly Islamic and according to wikipedia still technically illegal in Michigan, Wisconsin and Maryland.

      Which begs its own question, if it's illegal in one state but not another, how can it have anything to do with morality if law is based on morality?

    79. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, moralizing is harmful. And therefore immoral.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    80. Re:Potential abuse of research? by Full+Metal+Jackass · · Score: 1

      I thought the same from the summary. What is morally wrong that doesn't cause harm? But having read the article, I think that the distinction was between actions that caused harm and actions intended to cause harm:

      "The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend's intent, said Young, and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation's outcome."

    81. Re:Potential abuse of research? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      I'm curious as to why you think smoking pot is immoral?

    82. Re:Potential abuse of research? by pugugly · · Score: 1

      I downloaded music to my stolen iPod, then sold my vote to a party determined to make that legal.

      Whatchu gonna do about it? Huh!

      Ya, dat's wut' I thought!

      Pug, da rebel.

      (Hey, all my tunes wuz wiped by a large magnetic field!)

      --
      An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
    83. Re:Potential abuse of research? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Lack of proper education in three-value logic, I'd guess.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    84. Re:Potential abuse of research? by rdnetto · · Score: 1

      So, there were 2 girls and a cup...

      --
      Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
  3. Ah that's it, is it by andrea.sartori · · Score: 1

    This would explain an awful lot of things.

    --
    Mostly harmless.
    1. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Yep, we're just meat puppets with enough brain complexity to fool us into thinking we're special.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Danathar · · Score: 1

      I choose to be a meat puppet over a vegetable or fungus puppet anyday

    3. Re:Ah that's it, is it by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Yes ... for one thing we now know that the magnetic fields in Amsterdam and Bangkok are way out of kilter.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    4. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pyramids, magnetic fields, all that New Age crap was true after all???

    5. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Znork · · Score: 1

      Considering the efficiency of sound waves at swaying man's moral compass I'm not sure this really changes much. With the rates indicated by various Milgramesque experiments, simply appending 'that's an order' may be a far more effective way of disabling someone's moral compass than pointing fancy-shmancy TMS equipment at them.

    6. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      SARAH PALIN WILL NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOU.

      Who knows what might happen after you zap her with that magnet-gun....

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    7. Re:Ah that's it, is it by ircmaxell · · Score: 1

      I wonder if some researcher will see this result, and do an analysis of crime rate to magnetic field strength (it does vary in place to place) to try to determine if there's a correlation... Actually, now that I said that, I would like to see the results of such a study. Not that I expect any relation whatsoever, it'd be interesting to see if there was...

      --
      If a man isn't willing to take some risk for his opinions, either his opinions are no good or he's no good
    8. Re:Ah that's it, is it by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except Milgram showed that a few people are completely immune to coercion by authority. This equipment will probably work on anyone.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      No kidding. The "alterna-health" idiots will be dining out on this one press release for fucking years.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    10. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Nadaka · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahah! This conclusively links em fields to the phenomenon of em sensitivity lawsuits. The EM fields remove the "sensitives" moral compass and allows them to fake symptoms for financial gain through lawsuits without feeling guilty.

    11. Re:Ah that's it, is it by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > Except Milgram showed that a few people are completely immune to coercion by
      > authority.

      Milgram used no coercion.

      > This equipment will probably work on anyone.

      But it won't make them follow your orders. "Here's a gun. I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll take it and kill that guy." "No, that would be wrong." "Put this helmet on." "Ok." "Now again, I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll kill that guy." "Naw. Too much trouble. I'll just kill you and take the money." BAM!

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    12. Re:Ah that's it, is it by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      Unless there are some serious magnetic anomalies out there, it'd be very surprised to see any effect(though subtler effects, like discovering that humans have some vestiges of the magnetic navigation ability that certain other species possess, wouldn't shock me).

      A trans-cranial magnetic stimulation setup uses a fluctuating magnetic field(and a powerful one, a couple of Teslas, say), to induce currents in the brain, which is modestly conductive. The earth's magnetic field, by contrast, is in the 30-60 microtesla range, with very limited fluctuation. Huge difference in both intensity and ability to cause inductive effects.

    13. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Zot+Quixote · · Score: 0

      Read Deepak Chopra's latest 12 volume series, 'Is Santa really Satan? How the Norty Pole is corrupting your personal fields'

    14. Re:Ah that's it, is it by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      But it won't make them follow your orders. "Here's a gun. I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll take it and kill that guy." "No, that would be wrong." "Put this helmet on." "Ok." "Now again, I'll pay you $10,000 if you'll kill that guy." "Naw. Too much trouble. I'll just kill you and take the money." BAM!

      Okay when the fuck did Emeril show up in this analogy?!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Degausser by Danathar · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow...all those years of double daring my data center colleagues to put the hand electric de-gausser to their forehead and turn it on for 30 seconds might have more of an effect than I anticipated.....

    1. Re:Degausser by Danathar · · Score: 1

      I'm trying REAL hard to remember if I ever took that dare myself...

    2. Re:Degausser by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Forget the degausser - I guess this is what screwed me up... 18.8 Tesla, baby, 18.8 Tesla...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    3. Re:Degausser by VorpalRodent · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think you're on to something. The phenomenon of the BOFH is simply the result of being surrounded by hard drives and other magnetic materials. The actions do not cause any physical harm, though most would consider it immoral.

      ...or maybe users are just idiots.

      --
      Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
    4. Re:Degausser by FireofEvil · · Score: 1

      Probably scrambled your memory.

    5. Re:Degausser by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 1

      Wow...all those years of double daring my data center colleagues to put the hand electric de-gausser to their forehead and turn it on for 30 seconds might have more of an effect than I anticipated.....

      Yup. Big effect.

      Today we call them politicians.

      --
      Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    6. Re:Degausser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Clearly you haven't kept up on his exploits; he's maimed and killed many people.

    7. Re:Degausser by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnetism Can Sway Man's Moral Compass when the magnet is held right over the head with both arms by a attractive female scientist with a low cut shirt

    8. Re:Degausser by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      But that is an inclusive OR. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    9. Re:Degausser by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you release the BOFH from his unnatural surroundings he will grow a beard and long hair, buy a mid 20th century Volkswagen and follow freak folk bands around the country. We mustn't allow such a tragedy to occur to our fellow admins.

    10. Re:Degausser by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      If that is an inclusive OR, you’re right. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  5. Ohs Noes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cue the "nazis wore headphones" brigade in 3... 2... 1....

  6. How long before Tiger Woods just blames magnetism? by Gomer79 · · Score: 1

    It wasn’t my fault I fooled around honey they all had a magnet so I couldn’t tell it was wrong. Honest!

    --
    My user ID is a palindrome!
  7. Oh, yeah? by gbutler69 · · Score: 1

    I TRIPLE-DOG-DARE ya!

    --
    Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
    1. Re:Oh, yeah? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

      gbutler created a slight breach of etiquette by skipping the triple dare and going right for the throat.

      --
      Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  8. Better put on your.... by fudoniten · · Score: 1

    ...Tin foil hat!

    So, how long will it be before somebody uses the "Power Lines" defense in a murder case?

    1. Re:Better put on your.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...Tin foil hat!

      Won't do any good. You will need a Mu-metal hat.

    2. Re:Better put on your.... by Anarki2004 · · Score: 1

      I suppose that has nothing to do with Korn or Deftones, eh?

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    3. Re:Better put on your.... by Mikkeles · · Score: 1

      'The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.'

      So how were the behaviours objectively determined to be morally wrong? On what basis is any non-harmful behaviour immoral?

      It appears to me that the volunteers were more appropriately judging the morality of the behaviour.

      --
      Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
  9. New excuse. by Samphis · · Score: 1

    The degausser made me do it.

    1. Re:New excuse. by pclminion · · Score: 1

      It's only an "excuse" if you would have committed the act anyway, or if you deliberately subjected yourself to it. If I spike your soda with LSD and you flip out and kill somebody, do you really think you should be completely culpable for that act?

      If somebody wants to raise this as a defense or mitigating factor in court, then let them. Luckily we have judges and juries who sort through these things instead of applying blanket rules. I seriously doubt that this effect, even if real, could ever cause a little old lady to become a serial killer, though.

    2. Re:New excuse. by plague3106 · · Score: 1

      No, but only because you didn't knowingly take the LSD. If you took the LSD of your own free will and killed someone, jail you go.

  10. The difference? by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves

    Short of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics, what's the difference?

    1. Re:The difference? by khallow · · Score: 4, Informative

      A lot of activities and mental states which do not harm people are considered morally wrong. For example, homosexuality, coveting and envy, pride, "thoughtcrime" in the novel, 1984, etc.

    2. Re:The difference? by DdJ · · Score: 1

      Sometimes, the difference is simply luck.

      You have two snipers. Both intend to shoot blameless strangers in a parking lot. One is very good and hits their target. The other is inept and misses.

      Are they both morally wrong?

      Apparently, if I understand the assertion, folks without the magnetic manipulation would consider both "wrong". But folks who have had the magnetic treatment would have increased odds of judging the inept sniper to be blameless, since no actually harm occurred.

    3. Re:The difference? by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      I argue that if nobody is harmed, it's not immoral. Stupid perhaps (like eating cyanide), but not immoral.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:The difference? by WNight · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So they've invented an irrationality filter?

    5. Re:The difference? by Applekid · · Score: 1

      Apparently, if I understand the assertion, folks without the magnetic manipulation would consider both "wrong". But folks who have had the magnetic treatment would have increased odds of judging the inept sniper to be blameless, since no actually harm occurred.

      "Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel prize for attempted chemistry? Do they?"

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    6. Re:The difference? by khallow · · Score: 1

      I argue that if nobody is harmed, it's not immoral. Stupid perhaps (like eating cyanide), but not immoral.

      You're trying to argue that some things are right and others wrong? That's ethics.

    7. Re:The difference? by gibson042 · · Score: 0

      The difference is what divides murder from attempted murder.

    8. Re:The difference? by LBDobbs · · Score: 1

      A lot of activities and mental states which do not harm people are considered morally wrong. For example, homosexuality, coveting and envy, pride, "thoughtcrime" in the novel, 1984, etc.

      That list is considered morally wrong by SOME people under SOME belief systems.

    9. Re:The difference? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except that isn't the difference they are referring to.

      They are referring to the following cases:

      1. Driving recklessly outside a school at dismissal time, but not hitting anyone.

      2. Driving recklessly outside a school at dismissal time, and hitting someone.

      Most people (though not all...) would consider both cases morally equivalent. It's not the hitting someone that is the immoral action, it's the placing them in danger in the first place.

    10. Re:The difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about taking pictures of someone without their knowledge or consent, but never sharing them?

    11. Re:The difference? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ... and your argument would be wrong (no offense). Imagine a friend who is about to be killed. You could kill the would be killer and save your friend or you could let the scenario unfold naturally. Either choice causes harm by either allowing the death of a friend or causing the death of the killer. Even solid consequentionalists like Mill argued that when given a choice between actions, the moral road is not merely to minimize suffering but also to maximize happiness. Given for any choice that an action is either moral or not moral (law of the excluded middle), if two possible actions both yield no suffering or harm, then the moral choice is the action that then maximized happiness.

      Again, that's if you believe all that utilitarian garbage. What consequentionalist ethics does not address is the "accidental moral choice" where an unintended consequence makes an immorally intended act moral. Imagine that you see an enemy on the street and you go to puch him in the face. You miss and knock out a guy who has your enemy held up at gunpoint. In effect, you've saved your enemy's life even though the intent was to cause harm. Clearly, this cannot be a moral act. By example, one can understand that purely reviewing the consequences of an action cannot define that action moral or immoral.

    12. Re:The difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is eating cyanide not harmful?

    13. Re:The difference? by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

      Mod up for reminding us of the (oft confused) difference between morality and ethics.

    14. Re:The difference? by corbettw · · Score: 1

      You might want to get an MRI. Sounds like you have a lesion on your right temporo-parietal junction.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:The difference? by Pinky's+Brain · · Score: 1

      The EV of the action is still harm until all the evidence of the action is wiped out, which in practice will be never ... statements like "never sharing them" (and "never abusing knowledge from them" and "never exposing the fact they were taken to the victim") are unrealistic.

      To take something equally unrealistic to make my point ... If we could observe aliens with similar lifespans as our own through a telescope from 100s of lightyears away, then voyeurism would not be substantially immoral IMO.

    16. Re:The difference? by radtea · · Score: 1

      A lot of activities and mental states which do not harm people are considered morally wrong.

      .. by fascist nutjobs.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    17. Re:The difference? by adisakp · · Score: 1

      A lot of activities and mental states which do not harm people are considered morally wrong. For example, homosexuality, coveting and envy, pride, "thoughtcrime" in the novel, 1984, etc.

      If you RTFA, the experiment is very different. It wasn't about "subjective" moralities like the ones you are mentioning where there may not even be a risk of physical harm.

      Allowing someone to do things you know to be dangerous was not considered wrong unless the person was actually hurt. For example, someone with their brain scrambled might think it was OK if kids were playing Russian Roulette as long as no one actually died.

      Basically, it made people make judgements only on the outcomes rather than on the whole act itself. If a person came out of the situation OK, then it wasn't "wrong".

    18. Re:The difference? by Anarki2004 · · Score: 1

      I found myself asking the same thing

      --
      The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
    19. Re:The difference? by CorporateSuit · · Score: 1

      That list is considered morally wrong by SOME people under SOME belief systems

      Or, as the study suggests, people with fully-functional brains.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    20. Re:The difference? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      A lot of activities and mental states which do not harm people are considered morally wrong. For example, homosexuality, coveting and envy, pride, "thoughtcrime" in the novel, 1984, etc.

      So basically, you are arguing that applying strong magnetic fields to the head improve sanity and make one more ethical by removing all kinds of crap reasons for hating one's neighbour.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    21. Re:The difference? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      In other words, it has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with the ability to imagine possible outcomes of the situation and their probabilities.

      Did they test problem-solving ability immediately afterwards? If that's also impaired, that would be further evidence that it's imagination that's impaired here.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    22. Re:The difference? by Pawnn · · Score: 1

      Son, haven't I told you to stop playing with those magnets?

    23. Re:The difference? by Blue+Stone · · Score: 1

      >A lot of activities and mental states which do not harm people are considered morally wrong. For example [...] coveting [...] envy, pride [...]

      Say whut? You really think pride doesn't harm?

      Pride: "An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit." Essentially you think you're better than other people. And so you act and talk like that's the case, and in the process, you trample on people who're 'less worthy', to one extent or another. How is that NOT going to involve causing harm to others, and by extension, oneself?

      Envy: "A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another."
      How is that going to end in anything but something negative?

      Same with coveting: "To feel immoderate desire for that which is another's." Yeah, that always ends well.

      The very reason these things are considered immoral (though I'm not exactly sure I'd call them that) is because the are the causes of harmful actions; the seeds of behaviours that do not end well; that cannot end well if they are acted on.

      Unless you mean that thinking them doesn't *directly* and immediately cause harm, by the very act of thinking them? But nobody ever meant they were immoral/harmful in that way.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    24. Re:The difference? by notionalTenacity · · Score: 1

      volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves

      Short of a Doctorate of Philosophy in Ethics, what's the difference?

      I find it a little scary that the difference isn't apparent. For example, it's morally wrong to put poison in someone's food, even if it later turns out they are immune to the poison and it doesn't cause them any harm. Its morally wrong to try and blow up a building, even if no one else ever finds out, and you fail in the attempt, because you made a mistake. These are two clear cut - if simple - situations of actions that don't cause harm, but that are morally wrong in themselves. Now, you do have to be very careful making legislation which criminalises acts that don't cause obvious harm - in case you end up with thoughtcrime-esque laws. But that is a separate point from the clearcut issue that concrete actions can be very morally wrong, while not resulting in harm.

    25. Re:The difference? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I argue that if nobody is harmed, it's not immoral

      sure, but many people don't think that way. Some people consider masturbating immoral.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    26. Re:The difference? by westlake · · Score: 1

      A lot of activities and mental states which do not harm people are considered morally wrong. For example, homosexuality, coveting and envy, pride, "thoughtcrime" in the novel, 1984, etc.

      I don't think it would be difficult to prove that being driven by greed, pride and envy can have very dangerous consequences in the real world. That is, at least, the argument made here in every other post about Microsoft and Bill Gates.

           

    27. Re:The difference? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      In effect, you've saved your enemy's life even though the intent was to cause harm. Clearly, this cannot be a moral act. By example, one can understand that purely reviewing the consequences of an action cannot define that action moral or immoral.

      But the intent of an action can never be objectively determined, so its morality cannot be determined either.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    28. Re:The difference? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      > I don't think it would be difficult to prove that being driven by greed,
      > pride and envy can have very dangerous consequences in the real world.

      Yes. Just look at the consequences of the actions of every single person on the planet.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    29. Re:The difference? by h4x0t · · Score: 1
      The story given is not:

      1. Driving recklessly outside a school at dismissal time, but not hitting anyone.

      2. Driving recklessly outside a school at dismissal time, and hitting someone.

      But instead:
      1. Driving without intending to hit a child and doing so.

      2. Driving with the intent of hitting a child and failing to do so.

      Most people would consider it more morally wrong to intend harm. The area of the brain being blasted is considered to be responsible for the determination of others' intentions. This experiment gets people confused on intent and default to the one that caused harm being more morally in the wrong.

    30. Re:The difference? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Pride: "An excessively high opinion of oneself; conceit." Essentially you think you're better than other people. And so you act and talk like that's the case, and in the process, you trample on people who're 'less worthy', to one extent or another. How is that NOT going to involve causing harm to others, and by extension, oneself?

      Having the emotion or pride doesn't imply that you "trample" on people, literally or figuratively.

      Envy: "A feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another." How is that going to end in anything but something negative?

      What's missing here is that these emotions can spur someone to positive actions that benefit others. For example, pride can spur me to do a better job. Or envy can spur me to work (in the process benefiting others) to get the thing which I covet.

      Unless you mean that thinking them doesn't *directly* and immediately cause harm, by the very act of thinking them? But nobody ever meant they were immoral/harmful in that way.

      The Ten Commandments provide a clear counterexample for envy. And pride is often considered the "deadliest" of the deadly sins.

    31. Re:The difference? by khallow · · Score: 1

      That list is considered morally wrong by SOME people under SOME belief systems.

      A statement which is obviously consistent with what I said.

    32. Re:The difference? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Your example doesn't contradict the parent, considering you immediately break the "If" part of the "If then".

      Also, your case assumes harm to the individual, not net harm to some greater group/entity (society, the world, etc). It seems to me like the distinction is important.

    33. Re:The difference? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      In other news, strong magnetic fields can cure idiotic notions of morality!

    34. Re:The difference? by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Great example.

    35. Re:The difference? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      Completely agreed on the second part. However, the grandparent stated that an act is morally justified if it causes nobody harm. By this, I am infering that GP means if a given act to cause any individual harm, then it would be immoral.

    36. Re:The difference? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      I would agree with this, also. Kant had issues in his appeal to intent based ethics in the first forumlation of his theory that an action is moral if it was performed in accordance with one's duty to Good Will. Personally, I don't believe in either intent based or consequentionalist based ethics. Nonetheless, the example still demonstrates the concept of accidentally moral acts.

    37. Re:The difference? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      Also, sorry about the lact of clarity. The conditional at the end of my first paragraph was meant as a separate thought. There were basically 3 types of scenarios I was attempting to demonstrate (1) No available action that excludes harm, (2) multiple options that exclude harm, and (3) accidental ethics or unintended consequences that may or may not cause harm.

    38. Re:The difference? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It tastes like delicious marzipan.

    39. Re:The difference? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Article specifically says intent was not a variable in the situation, the variable was harm occurring.

      That the experiment messed with "intent detection" means if no harm occurred why would anything be morally bad in the action?

    40. Re:The difference? by h4x0t · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      One typical story was about a boyfriend who leads his girlfriend across a bridge. In some versions, the boyfriend harmlessly walked his girlfriend across the bridge with no ill effect. In other cases, the boyfriend intentionally led the girlfriend along so she would break her ankle....

      The confusion in the brain made it harder for subjects to interpret the boyfriend's intent, said Young, and instead made the subjects focus solely on the situation's outcome.

      The magnetic pulse makes it so the subject fails to consider intent as a variable. This was only one story of the "several dozen" given in the test. Others, such as the examples given in the NPR report, include non-intentional harm compared to failed intentional harm.

  11. What does this mean for MRI scans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, does this mean down the road someone can go into an MRI as an altruistic philanthropist and come out a Robert Pickton and blame the MRI scan?

  12. So... by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 3, Funny

    So it isn't just a bad cliche when in the movies the bad guys always run a car salvage/crushing yard with the big electromagnet cranes.

    1. Re:So... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It does explain a lot. Like that previously baffling scene in Steven Seagal's Out for Justice when the bad guy smokes a bunch of crack cocaine to get himself psyched up for his night of murder and mayhem, and then rubs his head against a giant magnet.

      Seagal must have learned something in The East about this a long time ago.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    2. Re:So... by Jazz-Masta · · Score: 1

      The US Army will be buying millions of magnets to put in army issue helmets.

    3. Re:So... by jd · · Score: 1

      There isn't any space on their refrigerator to keep them, though.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  13. Not going to RTFA; explain? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.

    What distinction are they making between the two? There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    1. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.

      So, people who held such a view might analyze the situation the same way, regardless of the applied magnetic effects.

      Ah, control groups. So useful.

    2. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by adonoman · · Score: 1

      There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.

      But those philosophies are only held by people with too much magnetic stimulation.
      I am a bit confused about his correlation disclaimer. Is he saying it's possible that people who had the less judgmental morality caused the magnetism? Or that some external factor caused them to become more judgmental and more likely to get their brains magnetized? It seems to me that unless they were lazy and didn't do any proper controls (which would be trivial in this case - just don't turn on the machine), that applying magnetism cause the moral swing. But then, maybe that's why I didn't go to MIT. Perhaps someone can elucidate what I'm missing.

    3. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by SOdhner · · Score: 1

      Short answer is that they are less likely to try and take intentions into account. If you don't warn someone that the door they're about to open is booby-trapped but then the bomb is a dud... well, no harm no foul. Whereas without the scrambling we would still say it is wrong to not warn someone about that whole immenant death thing.

    4. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The particular example I heard was: a person pours a cup of coffee for their friend, but puts some powder in it before serving. Here are two scenarios:

      1) The person believed the powder was poison and intended to poison their friend, but it turned out to be sugar and no harm was done, or
      2) The person believed the powder was sugar and intended no harm, but it turned out to be poison and the friend was made sick.

      Many people would agree that the action in the first case is immoral, despite the fact that no harm was done, and that the action in the second case is morally innocent if unfortunate. In this experiment, they found that people subjected to the particular magnetic effect on the RTPJ would tend to consider the first case innocent as well, since nothing bad actually happened.

    5. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1, Troll

      No action is morally wrong (or right) in and of itself.

      That is just absurd.

      Actions are not, cannot be, moral nor immoral without a subjective interpretation. There simply is no objective standard of morality.

      Article is a dud on morality; its human perception or consciousness which is being altered.

      A human may have a subjective notion that some act is immoral 'in itself' and this subjective notion is a false representation of reality.

      What this magnetic field seems to do is to restore a more accurate appraisal of reality to the human being...

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    6. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely. In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm.

      Tripe like this, apparently.

      I'm beginning to wonder whether we should let these researchers continue their morally ambiguous research.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    7. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      I was wondering the same thing.

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    8. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Many people would agree that the action in the first case is immoral, despite the fact that no harm was done, and that the action in the second case is morally innocent if unfortunate.

      Good illustration. Thanks! I'd thought they were drawing a line between "immoral" actions and "harmless" actions, not between "immoral" and "worked out OK on accident".

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    9. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Baron+von+Leezard · · Score: 1

      Mod up parent. I was going to point out the same thing. How the heck could this not be causation?

    10. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.

      What distinction are they making between the two? There are philosophies that would hold the two ideas as identical.

      My room mate is like that. He proposed the following interesting question.

      You are driving a train. By the hypothetical powers that control this scenario, the main track ahead goes over a bridge and the bridge so happens to be out. There are 3 passengers on your train. If you let the train go off the rail by your inaction, they will die. Your other option, is to switch the track up ahead. However, some fiendish fiend has tied a woman up on the tracks, like those cliche western movies.

      Now, it is impossible to stop the train in time. Do you

      A) Let 3 passengers and yourself die by the tragic hands of Fate, keeping a clear conscience?
      B) Murder the lady knowingly, knowing that you have spared the lives of 3 others?

      Now that you have decided your answer, defend your point from scrutiny.
      After that - consider these altered scenarios:

      The lady is replaced with a friend of yours. The passengers are strangers. And Vice Versa.
      Suppose you chose B, but were to die along with the lady but the passengers would live.
      Suppose the person or the group of people you decide to save were Convicted Murderers, would that alter your decision?

      I have learned more about my friends from this social experiment than any other night of crazed drinking.

    11. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by radtea · · Score: 1

      He proposed the following interesting question.

      You must have mistyped something, as you didn't follow this up with any interesting question, but rather with a hypothetical scenario that has so many bells and whistles it is completely useless for anything other than pointless wanking. Depending on the precise construal that individuals put on the various open-ended and unspecified aspects of your extremely abstract and under-specified, complex hypothetical they will respond in completely different ways even if they happen to share identical value systems.

      I'd love to see an intersting question. Incredibly complex, extremely abstract, hypotheticals masquerading as concrete thought experiments do not count as such.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    12. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      In this case, while it would be absurd to say that there could be reverse causality where the decrease in morality could cause a magnetic field in the area of the brain they are studying, it would not be absurd to state that the magnetism against that area of the brain causes something else which causes the drop in moral understanding. Outside the context of the cause in the middle, the magnetism itself would not cause the change in moral understanding. At least that's the way I am reading it. Overall, I think such a disclaimer should precede all scientific and statistical conclusions, as there is never true proof of causality.

    13. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Of course morality causes magnetism. I know for a fact strong moralism repels me!

    14. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by yali · · Score: 1

      Here's a link to the journal article [pdf].

      Notwithstanding the summary and press reports, what they actually did was show that the subjects relied less on the actor's mental states and instead just considered harmful consequences. For example consider this scenario (this is one of several scenarios from the actual study):

      Janet and her neighbor are kayaking in a part of the ocean with lots of jellyfish. Janet's neighbor asks her if she should go for a swim. It is not safe to swim in the ocean, because the jellyfish sting and their stings are fatal. Because Janet read information that said the ocean's jellyfish are harmless, she believes that it is quite safe to swim in the ocean. Janet tells her neighbor to go for a swim. Her neighbor does, gets stung by jellyfish, and dies.

      In different versions of the scenario, Janet either did or did not know that the jellyfish were dangerous, and her actions either did or did not cause harm. Several other scenarios were used that varied in the same ways. After reading each scenario, the subjects rated the actor's moral culpability.

      What the study showed was that after TMS stimulation, subjects based their moral judgments more on whether harm was done than on whether the actor knew that her actions would be harmful.

    15. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      What is interesting is the unspoken assumption that we should value the lives of strangers as much as we value the lives of friends. That is not really how it works.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    16. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      So, people who held such a view might analyze the situation the same way, regardless of the applied magnetic effects.

      Ah, control groups. So useful.

      Sweet. Wish I had mod points.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
    17. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by MMatessa · · Score: 1

      The supporting information [pdf] document is free and contains all of the scenarios used in the study.

    18. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I put a gun to your head and pull the trigger. It jams. No harm, no foul, right?

    19. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by vertinox · · Score: 1

      What distinction are they making between the two?

      Easy. Morals (in the western world) does not always equate causing harm or preventing harm.

      I mean, there is the issue of thou shalt not lie. I mean if you lie about something not being dangerous and someone gets hurt because of it, then that is about harm.

      But lets say someone calls you up and asks you how's the weather, and you lie about it, then no one is going to usually die over that.

      Also lets take a lot into consideration about gambling or say polygamy. Most people have moral offense to either, but they aren't exactly causing the deaths of people on a grand scale (or at all really).

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    20. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      What the study showed was that after TMS stimulation, subjects based their moral judgments more on whether harm was done than on whether the actor knew that her actions would be harmful.

      I'm still not seeing a moral judgement except in the heads of the 'experimenter'. It just seems that its the experimenters who are interpreting a certain perception of reality as moral or immoral and effectively putting words in the subjects minds.

      Based on what I've read of this it really isn't clear how this is a 'morality' thing at all.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    21. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's also a TED talk that breifly explains the distinction.

    22. Re:Not going to RTFA; explain? by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Easy. Morals (in the western world) does not always equate causing harm or preventing harm.

      That's another way of saying that moralism is irrational. If moralism doesn't correspond to harm, it's entirely irrelevant and worthless.

      But lets say someone calls you up and asks you how's the weather, and you lie about it, then no one is going to usually die over that.

      And it's also not immoral. Might even be good for a laugh.

      Also lets take a lot into consideration about gambling or say polygamy. Most people have moral offense to either

      And those people are being irrational. If they push their morals on other people, then they are causing harm, and therefore acting immorally.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  14. AHH by wedsxcrfv · · Score: 1

    OH SHIT! *puts on tinfoil hat*

    1. Re:AHH by PhxBlue · · Score: 1

      ... which might help you if aluminum were at all piezomagnetic. :)

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
  15. More fascinating by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

    More fascinating, at least to me, is the area of the brain that works against "ends justify the means".

    FTS:

    The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm — not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.

    I don't know if this has been known before, but the fact that there's an area of the brain that judges actions as moral apart from their consequences is fascinating. It makes sense to judge actions based on known outcomes, but what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?

    --
    I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:More fascinating by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      but what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?

      You have a better chance of getting laid by the bimbos in Philosophy 101?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:More fascinating by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Well obviously. I took that as a given.

      But besides that, presumably we had this moral center before we had Philosophy 101.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    3. Re:More fascinating by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?

      Being able to guilt others into raising your illegitimate children, aka "religion" or "politics".

      But it's not "being moral" so much as the tendency to infer intentionality where there is none, or conflating indifference with harmful intent.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    4. Re:More fascinating by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      But besides that, presumably we had this moral center before we had Philosophy 101.

      Obviously there have been analogs to Philosophy 101 since the dawn of human time.

      So maybe it just helped Thag get laid by the cave-woman bimbos during ooga-ooga-campfire-philosophy-exposition-seminar?

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    5. Re:More fascinating by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?

      The members of your tribe are statistically better off because of it, and therefore your genes are likelier to survive?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    6. Re:More fascinating by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      There's a huge evolutionary advantage to being able to consider possible consequences and their likelihood before you take an action. If there's some advantage to not causing harm then there's an advantage to being able to judge whether your action is likely to cause harm, without having to try it out and see.

    7. Re:More fascinating by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It makes sense to judge actions based on known outcomes, but what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?

      Um because at the time you have to make a moral choice, just like any other choice, all outcomes are abstract. If you make a choice that ends up causing harm, you can't go back and re-do the choice. You must consider the potential for harmful outcomes, not their actuality because you won't know that until after the fact.

      That's why they used things like -- you let your girlfriend walk across a bridge you know is unsafe and could collapse, but she makes it. Was that moral? At the time the choice was made, the girlfriend's survival was not guaranteed and you were putting her at risk, and thus most people said that was an immoral choice.

      But with the magnet, they said, "well, she lived, so it was okay".

      Similarly they asked people to compare the morality of trying to deliberately poison someone, but failing, vs accidentally poisoning them for real. At the time you make the decision to deliberately poison, the outcome is abstract but the intent is to harm, so clearly that is immoral. Magnet-ificated people said that was okay, but accidentally poisoning someone is immoral.

      Which is why I agree with some of the other people that it isn't clear if what's being affected is morality, or the abstract reasoning ability required to put yourself in the shoes of a person deciding whether or not to poison someone who can't know that they will fail, and obviously doesn't want to.

      But as far as the advantage of being moral in the abstract? It's because that's the only kind of morality that has any utility at all.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:More fascinating by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      abstract... (morality is) the only kind of morality that has any utility at all.

      That's not even empirically correct.

      If you're particularly stupid or incompetent, you would be much better off simply not poisoning people out of actual morality rather than trying to poison someone and failing. In fact, that's more of an ethical question even. But the vast majority of people would probably be better off being completely, actually moral, in other words doing whatever it is that the majority of their society do and believe is correct, which is probably something along the lines of poisoning people from other tribes. And in fact this tends to be borne out by observation.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    9. Re:More fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was not the question. The question was, why would there be an advantage to considering morality apart from "known outcomes" such as the tendency to cause harm.

    10. Re:More fascinating by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      That's not even empirically correct.

      It's as empirically correct as the non-existence of time travel.

      But the vast majority of people would probably be better off being completely, actually moral, in other words doing whatever it is that the majority of their society do and believe is correct

      Which is all based on abstract reasoning and considering the hypothetical consequences of your actions, not a post-facto evaluation of whether or not your action resulted in a good or bad result (no matter how society judges good and bad outcomes). This is the distinction being made.

      Morality is what happens at the time when you make the decision and the future is inherently a hypothetical, not afterwards when the result is known for certain. Hence abstract, as in "abstract reasoning".

      Re-read the example scenarios I mentioned from the study if you still don't understand what I'm talking about.

      probably something along the lines of poisoning people from other tribes.

      That's simply an example of how what is considered moral can vary, and is immaterial to the discussion.

      If it is considered moral for you to kill your enemy, then deciding to try to poison them is the moral choice in that context -- even if you fail. Your tribemates would praise your moral behavior even as they chided you for your failure.

      If you decide not to kill them, yet somehow manage to accidentally do it anyway, your decision was still the immoral one. In that case you would probably hide the fact that you had made that choice from your tribemates, who would no longer be impressed if they knew you had intended to spare the enemy.

      See the difference? If this study had been conducted in such a society, the people affected by the magnets would have said that the second situation was the more moral one, even though the decision itself went against the morality of the tribe. They were no longer reasoning about morality in the abstract, but solely based on the concrete consequence.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:More fascinating by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      Which is all based on abstract reasoning and considering the hypothetical consequences of your actions, not a post-facto evaluation of whether or not your action resulted in a good or bad result (no matter how society judges good and bad outcomes). This is the distinction being made.

      I don't think it is. You're just distinguishing between pre- and post-facto judgement, not moral judgement and judgement based on outcomes.

      the fact that there's an area of the brain that judges actions as moral apart from their consequences is fascinating. It makes sense to judge actions based on known outcomes, but what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?

      The assumption has mostly been that morality is a social construct, and that individuals (pre-)judge actions based on their consequences and then compare those consequences to whatever their socially accepted morality may be. This study seems to indicate otherwise, that there is in fact a short-circuit that tells people to judge actions in a way that is not at all based on consequences.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
    12. Re:More fascinating by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I don't think it is. You're just distinguishing between pre- and post-facto judgement, not moral judgement and judgement based on outcomes.

      You keep referring to outcomes and consequences, but there are two kinds of outcomes. There are known outcomes which are in the past, and there are hypothetical outcomes that are in the future and thus unknowable.

      The very concept of a decision (moral or otherwise) means you are deciding what to do, meaning it has not been done yet, meaning that if you are considering outcomes, you must necessarily be considering hypothetical outcomes.

      Which is exactly what unmagnetized people in this study were doing -- considering hypothetical outcomes from the vantage of not being able to foresee the future.

      The assumption has mostly been that morality is a social construct, and that individuals (pre-)judge actions based on their consequences and then compare those consequences to whatever their socially accepted morality may be.

      Replace "consequences" with "probable consequences" to properly reflect the kind of consequence that must be considered because you can't know the future and that's exactly right.

      This study seems to indicate otherwise, that there is in fact a short-circuit that tells people to judge actions in a way that is not at all based on consequences.

      Absolutely not. In every case, magnetized or not, the people were judging morality based entirely on consequences.

      The scenario where you send your girlfriend across a dangerous bridge was only considered immoral because of the hypothetical, probable outcome that the bridge collapses and she gets hurt or killed. Otherwise nobody would have thought that situation was immoral. :P

      The fact that you are told that she makes it across safely is immaterial to the moral decision. As the unmagnetized people understood but the magnetized people did not, at the time the decision was made, you could not possibly know that she would make it across safely. The knowledge available at that time said the bridge was dangerous. You decided to knowingly put her at risk. That is an immoral decision, based on the hypothetical outcome.

      Same with attempted murder. Any normal person can see that attempting murder implies a hypothetical outcome of someone dying, and it is because of that outcome that the normal people said attempted murder was immoral. However the magnetized people were incapable of placing themselves in that hypothetical situation of not knowing the future. They were only able to consider the known, post-facto outcome which the unmagnetized people could intuitively see was irrelevant.

      Outcomes were the deciding factor in both cases. Pre- vs post- is exactly the difference between the two cases. Known vs hypothetical outcomes. Abstract vs concrete thinking.

      Here, let's conduct a quiz:

      1) You decide to shoot your mother in the face with a shotgun for overcooking your dinner. Was this decision moral or immoral?

      2) You decide to shoot your mother in the face with a shotgun for overcooking your dinner. Despite your extensive efforts to ensure that this happens, your gun jams and your mother lives. Let me be perfectly clear, in case it is somehow not obvious, that you could not possible know this would happen and certainly did not want or expect it to. Was this decision moral or immoral?

      If your answers to these two questions are different, please check the area around you for powerful magnets. :P

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    13. Re:More fascinating by benjamindees · · Score: 1

      The study itself (or the article at least) makes several leaping assumptions that are not indicated by the data, which consists of basically a 15% change in the responses to some fairly complex, contrived scenarios. You've added at least a half a dozen more unfounded assumptions involving inferring thought processes and such, along with some rather poor comprehension of the questions asked in the experiment.

      Add in the completely subjective nature of morality, and overall I'm not impressed with your analysis, which frankly I find to be facile, uninteresting, and likely wrong.

      --
      "I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
  16. Ummm, sample size? by musicalmicah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A one-point difference on a seven-point scale among only twenty volunteers? Doesn't smell very solid to me.

    1. Re:Ummm, sample size? by allawalla · · Score: 1

      Statistics are a wonderful thing... barring bad design or the possibility that they repeated the experiment until they got a good result, inferential stats says it is a solid result. If anything, seeing an effect with small N suggests that it is more likely to be actually significant instead of just statistically significant.

    2. Re:Ummm, sample size? by musicalmicah · · Score: 1

      Statistics are a wonderful thing... barring bad design or the possibility that they repeated the experiment until they got a good result, inferential stats says it is a solid result. If anything, seeing an effect with small N suggests that it is more likely to be actually significant instead of just statistically significant.

      That doesn't make sense to me -- though I'm no statistician. But doesn't a smaller N mean less significance? If I take your second statement to the extreme (N=1, the smallest N you can get), you are reduced to an anecdote. Maybe you could elaborate a bit more?

    3. Re:Ummm, sample size? by jd · · Score: 1

      Magnets don't smell. Unless they're on fire.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Ummm, sample size? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Your nose doesn't know much about stats, hey?

    5. Re:Ummm, sample size? by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      I'm not really sure what you mean by "actually" significant vs "statistically" significant, and that might be where my confusion comes from, but I don't really follow this line of reasoning. I'd think your results are far less likely to be significant with a small N. Let's say, for sake of argument, that I want to know if blowing on dice before rolling creates luckier rolls (we'll arbitrarily define that to mean "higher"). If my procedure is to have a control where I roll N times and measure the results, and an experiment where I blow on the dice first and roll N times and measure the results, would you say there is a flaw in my design? Presuming that you would not, would you say, if N is small, and I see a significant effect, that my results are likely to be "actually" meaningful?

      Sure, I'm cheating a bit. We know there is no "actual" effect at all, so *any* observed effect is not an "actual" effect, and yet we are more likely to see an effect for a smaller value of N since dice rolling only tends to its mean when repeated many times.

    6. Re:Ummm, sample size? by Tromad · · Score: 1

      Pharmaceuticals are approved on the same premise, it doesn't matter how effective it is, only that it is more effective than placebo. 20 is low but if they did the stats right your argument isn't with the study, it is with the mathematics behind statistics.

    7. Re:Ummm, sample size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a statistically significant result (p=.05 for instance) is as telling after 5 flips as after 40... however you have a higher chance of successfully detecting a small deviation with more flips than you do after a few. I was using actually significant to mean that it was a large effect that actually meant something.

    8. Re:Ummm, sample size? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why on earth do comments like this get upmodded?

      Next time, please consult a basic undergraduate statistics textbook before commenting about hallucinatory smells.

    9. Re:Ummm, sample size? by Labcoat+Samurai · · Score: 1

      a statistically significant result (p=.05 for instance) is as telling after 5 flips as after 40...

      Errr.... I guess it *can* be if the observed result is sufficiently huge. Like if you flipped heads all 5 times, I suppose you get a p value of.... what? .03-ish? If you flipped heads 4/5 times, we've already got a large effect, but our p-value is only ~.16

      Your observation, ultimately, is that, if you observe statistically significant results with a low sample size, you had to observe a large effect to do so, and the extrapolation is that observing a large effect increases the likelihood that there is an actual large effect.

      That's reasonable. I had mistakenly taken you to mean that the results were less meaningful if you measured more, and I failed to see how you could get anything but more confidence from increased measurement. You were saying the results were less meaningful if you *had* to measure more to see statistical significance

  17. Mod parent early by davidwr · · Score: 1

    OMG!!! PONIES!!??? *checks calendar* *not quite April 1*

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  18. Tinfoil is now inadequate by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

    Mu-metal is the new preferred material for protective headwear.

    1. Re:Tinfoil is now inadequate by jd · · Score: 1

      Superconductors repel magnetic fields, so all you really need to do is stick your head in a bucket of liquid nitrogen.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Tinfoil is now inadequate by egcagrac0 · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea! Protection from magnetic fields, and air conditioning!

      It's like a trifecta!

  19. **AA by burkmat · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Anyone care to venture a guess when the RIAA will buy every single black van and large electromagnet within 100km of Washington for... "marketing" purposes?

    1. Re:**AA by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Not necessary, few in DC have any morals anyway.

  20. Military use, ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I see a future where they'll have strong electromagnets embedded in military helmets, to ease everyone through the more morally dubious adventures overseas. Of course, in order to invent the helmet, you'd have to be already morally compromised, which would require an existing helmet... Or just a psychopath.

    1. Re:Military use, ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Already in use in Congress.

    2. Re:Military use, ahoy! by digital+photo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You don't need to be a psychopath to do something that is immoral if you are convinced it is moral or right.

      Ie, if the helmet demonstrated an ability to reduce PTSD and anxiety/conflict on the battle field, it would be morally responsible to do so, as it would represent an improvement in military morale as well as better post-military life transition.

      The fact that it also impacts one's moral judgement might be good/bad depending on how one sees the situation. Ie, are soldiers' conflicted emotions causing a delay in reaction time? Is this resulting in more lives lost? If the helmet were to reduce reaction times and also reduce loss of life, then the use of said helmet would be moral.

      It all depends on the perspective....

    3. Re:Military use, ahoy! by greyhueofdoubt · · Score: 1

      War has fewer gray zones than the movies would have you believe. Trust me, you don't need a magnetic helmet to shoot, or shoot back, when you feel your life is in danger.

      The only 'morally dubious' situations I ran across in Iraq look like child's play compared to what I have to deal with here in the real world. Over there, it's nature, red in tooth and claw- here, it's "I keep waiting for you to ask me how my day went"-type b.s., or deciding how to deal with a friend who screwed up at work (should I say something? If I don't, I'm implicitly condoning his behavior! If I say something to the boss, I'll be his enemy... If I just say something to him personally, he'll think I'm being condescending...)

      When your life is not on the line, stuff gets complicated. War... war is not very complicated. Dulce bellum inexpertis.

      -b

      --
      No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
  21. Innocent by reason of magnetism by Danathar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Your Honor it was not my fault. The Earth's magnetic field in a fit of anomalous abnormally high activity a half-hour prior to the robbery compromised my frontal lobe's capacity to allow me to understand what I was going to do was wrong......

  22. The difference between 'might' and 'did' by spun · · Score: 4, Informative

    The difference between 'likely to cause harm' and 'did cause harm.' In one question, they asked if it was morally wrong to let your girlfriend walk across a bridge you knew was dangerous, even if she made it to the other side safely. Magnetized folks thought, 'well she made it across, it's morally okay' while other people were more likely to think it was wrong even if she was unharmed this particular time.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I wonder if that really means morality was affected, rather than abstract thought. At various stages of childhood brain development, it's difficult to imagine hypotheticals. Perhaps the part of their brain that envisions "could have beens" was disrupted, so they thought "she made it across safely, therefore that's the only possible result."

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by spun · · Score: 1

      Very interesting. That could very well be the case here, I think.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by starfishsystems · · Score: 2, Informative
      The BBC article seems to characterize these test subjects as unable to correctly assess risk.

      That's cognitively quite different from assessing risk but not caring. On the basis of what's been presented here, I don't see any data which support the claim that moral reasoning is diminished in these subjects.

      It turns out that the problem is not in the research, but in oversimplification by the news media. If you want a more accurate idea of what's going on, take a look at the original papers by Young et al. For example:

      Participants even judged attempted harms (e.g., attempting, but failing to poison someone) as more permissible than accidental harms (e.g., accidentally poisoning someone).

      --
      Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
    4. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The BBC article seems to characterize these test subjects as unable to correctly assess risk.

      That's cognitively quite different from assessing risk but not caring. On the basis of what's been presented here, I don't see any data which support the claim that moral reasoning is diminished in these subjects.

      It turns out that the problem is not in the research, but in oversimplification by the news media. If you want a more accurate idea of what's going on, take a look at the original papers by Young et al. For example:

      Participants even judged attempted harms
      (e.g., attempting, but failing to poison someone) as more permissible than accidental harms (e.g.,
      accidentally poisoning someone).

      In that example, risk is quite accurately assessed. In the first case, no one was harmed, thus, no risk. In the second case, accidental though it was, someone was harmed and there was obviously risk.

      I'd call that a failure of moral reasoning. Young even uses the phrase 'moral reasoning' multiple times for names of his papers, on the very page you link to.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      The fact that there was no harm doesn't mean there was no risk. You simply can't look backward like that to make judgments on probability.

      If you roll a die and it comes up 6, would you then retroactively say there was a 100% chance it would come up 6?
      Does pulling the trigger and living mean that Russian Roulette is not risky?
      If you run out into traffic and manage not to get run down, does that mean what you did was safe (ie, not risky)?

      Judging a decision by its outcome rather than by its process is a common error, but an error none the less.

    6. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by spun · · Score: 1

      If I roll a 6 on a die, the risk of me rolling a 1 is zero. I've rolled a 6, not a 1. And that seems to be the problem in this experiment. The girlfriend made it over the bridge, therefore the chance of her sustaining injury is zero, therefore the risk is zero. Yes, it's faulty reasoning, that is the whole point of the experiment.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the first case, no one was harmed, thus, no risk.

      I think you're a bit too close to magnet right now.

    8. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by spun · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'm illustrating the thought process of the magnetized subjects. I thought that was obvious from the context one line below where I say "I'd call that a failure of moral reasoning."

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by ZuchinniOne · · Score: 1

      I think there is a good chance you are right. The TPJ is a part of the brain where visual and somatosensory information are integrated. It is also implicated in helping to create a mental representation of yourself and the space around you.

      There doesn't seem to be a good reason that "morality" would be there.

      In fact if anything you'd expect some type of moral compass in either the frontal lobe or the amygdala. But the TPJ is mostly a multisensory abstraction region.

    10. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep using that word, risk. I don't think it means what you think it means.
      Risk is not harm, but rather the probability of harm. You have a much greater probability of poisoning someone if you're trying to poison them than if you're not trying to.
      So, no, the test subjects did not accurately assess risk in the above example.

    11. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So conduct the exact same experiment with different questions like non-moral financial "could have beens".
      "Fred invested all of his money into one stock and got 100% return. Bill invested gradually with dollar cost averaging using a fixed percentage of income and got a 35% return. Whose strategy is more sound?

    12. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by spun · · Score: 1

      In the hypothetical example, the person has crossed the bridge, so in a simplistic moral sense, there is no risk. Risk only applies to future events. The test subject is unable to put themselves in other people's shoes, to see that there was a risk from their perspective.

      But perhaps that indicates a failure to imagine oneself in the past. Then again, aren't these all still examples of different types of failures of moral reasoning? There were more examples given, as well, this wasn't the only question asked.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      The action they're referring to in the question, though, was done before the girlfriend crossed the bridge. To make your analogy sound, say you had to bet on whether it would be a 1 before you roll the die. Then once the 6 comes up, the risk at the time you placed the bet was still non-zero, so there was risk.

    14. Re:The difference between 'might' and 'did' by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Fred's, since he was using insider trading.

  23. Alcohol by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field.... morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many.

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:Alcohol by rutabagaman · · Score: 2, Funny

      Just stop pouring those beers in your ear and you'll be all right.

      --
      (insert witty/esoteric/dumb quote here)
    2. Re:Alcohol by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is that why the earth keeps pulling me to the ground when I drink?

    3. Re:Alcohol by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Beer must have an extremely strong magnetic field.... morality goes out the door whenever I consume a few too many.

      How strange. All I get is a good, relaxed feeling and a buzz.

      Are you sure it's the beer and not you?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Alcohol by O-Deka-K · · Score: 1

      Yes. Beer does make people more attractive.

  24. The real results of the experiment by Captain+Spam · · Score: 5, Funny

    After months of grueling research bombarding test subjects with all manner of loud and annoying electromagnetic devices and being told to lie just right so that the readings aren't disrupted at all, the test subjects all said they wanted to kill all the researchers in a variety of gruesome ways and didn't have any moral conundrum with doing so. As there were no noticeable flaws in the experiment, the researchers concluded that magnetism can sway the moral compasses of human beings. Case closed!

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    1. Re:The real results of the experiment by kundziad · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of an old joke about Russian scientists. Here it goes:

      Russian scientists decided to do an experiment on a fly. They put it on a table and asked it to walk. The fly walked as expected. Then they cut off one of its legs and asked to walk again. The fly walked, but obviously a little but more slowly. They repeated the procedure, and when the fly had half of its legs cut off it was only crawling on the table. When they removed all of its legs, it stopped reacting to calls to walk. They wrote down their conclusion: fly lost its hearing upon having all the legs removed.

  25. Good news! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    So, if I can just convince my date to climb into an MRI machine, I can finally score with her!

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Good news! by ClosedSource · · Score: 1

      No, just the machine.

    2. Re:Good news! by UziBeatle · · Score: 1

      Great. I had a MRI this morning. Cost 650 American
      play dollars. I have a back problem we are looking into...

        So I get home pop a couple tabs of hay fever med with
      pseudofedrin included. I had to sign for that ..
        THen I popped open a fresh bottle of brandy and started sipping
      that. Caught a nice buzz about the time I stumbled across Slashdot
      and saw this article.

        It might explain the sudden urge I have to engage in slutty behavior.
        MRI + psycho active drugs. Fuck ya, I'm going on a killing spree.
          After I slut it up though.
          Or, I may forgo the killing spree and just go on a forum troll run.
            Fuck ya.
          I got my excuse.

      --
      Something between the lines jumps out and bites your arm off. Soltan Gris / London
    3. Re:Good news! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      You mean I can score with the machine, or the machine can score with her? Either way, you're anthropomorphasizing the MRI, and they HATE it when you do that!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:Good news! by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      It only affects morals, not taste. What you need to do is to fill her with beer.

    5. Re:Good news! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      But, if that affects her taste, then she'll... taste like beer!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    6. Re:Good news! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Umm, if you're male, it's not called, "slutting it up." Instead, it's called, "emulating my idols Tiger Woods and Jesse James!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    7. Re:Good news! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      It only affects morals, not taste. What you need to do is to fill her with beer.

      We're talking about a slashdotter and a date.

      Clearly what he needs to do is fill her with air.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  26. and this is why canada is more liberal than the us by circletimessquare · · Score: 3, Funny

    canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion

    so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative

    so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  27. I think this works for radiation too... by rutabagaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it would certainly explain why there are so many rude cell phone users :-)

    --
    (insert witty/esoteric/dumb quote here)
  28. Morality? by neostorm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality, which is "Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another"?

    Maybe they're interpreting "harm" differently.

    1. Re:Morality? by Tekfactory · · Score: 1

      Oh, that's your idea!

      Its been around for a while, you might have phrased it differently, more ambiguously with like 5 too many words.

      From the TFS you'd probably go from;

      "And it (probably) harm none" to "And it (didn't) harm none"

      A slight err away from the side of caution more than you're used to, OSHA would not approve.

      So when do we expect to see big magnets as accessories to CEO and Board of Directors Chairs?

    2. Re:Morality? by gibson042 · · Score: 0

      the researchers believe that TMS interfered with subjects’ ability to interpret others’ intentions, forcing them to rely more on outcome information to make their judgments

      Unless you believe that attempted (but failed) murder is morally permissible, this study is still relevant to you.

    3. Re:Morality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So when do we expect to see big magnets as accessories to CEO and Board of Directors Chairs?

      Oh, they've been there for a while now. Along with politicians' chairs, of course.

    4. Re:Morality? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality, which is "Do whatever you want as long as you bring no harm to another"?

      I hope you mean "as long as to the best of my knowledge it will bring no harm". As in, you decide if something is moral *before* doing it and seeing what the outcome was.

      I mean I'm assuming you don't think it's moral to line the sidewalk outside your house with claymore mines, as long as nobody actually triggers them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    5. Re:Morality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My only question is, Who gets to decide whether your intended actions are going to bring harm to another? You or them?

      Let me know when you get that one figured out.

    6. Re:Morality? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Is the opposite true? All harm to another in immoral?

      Now you can begin to think about this finding.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Morality? by lbates_35476 · · Score: 1

      So how do you feel when someone breaks in line in front of you? They bring you no harm, but I'd be willing to bet that you get upset because it is morally wrong.

      And, unless you are a vegetarian, you narrow your definition of "bring harm to another" to only humans?

      And if you are not a vegetarian, I'd bet that even you get angry if you see someone being cruel to an animal. But wait, you then you have to redefine "harm" (killing for food is not harm, but cruelty is).

      I contend that you haven't thought your "idea of morality" all the way through. Morality isn't "what you decide", it is in the very fabric of the universe and was put there by the Creator.

      Your definition is an attempt to make yourself the center of the universe (you'll be the judge of what is moral). Original sin began because man (and woman) tried out this exact same "thought process". I know God said not to, but eating the apple couldn't possibly bring any "harm to another" now could it? Look where that got us.

    8. Re:Morality? by patfla · · Score: 1

      "as long as you bring no harm to another". Which would imply that harming yourself, as part of whatever you want to try, is OK. I mean, "I'm going to bear the responsibilities - right?"

      Umm, I've always had a problem with this. It assumes an atomized social existence. My assumption is that when someone harms him or her self, they usually harming someone else as well.

      If you're a husband and a father and you kill yourself in a car crash (let's say because you were drunk) you haven't harmed the family the depends on you?

      Whatever happened to:

      "Therefore, send not to know
      For whom the bell tolls,
      It tolls for thee."

      So let me see - in the current dispensation we want to believe simultaneously that a) we're socially atomic and b) all beings on the planet are connected by a web of life and if you touch it at any point there's a ripple effect that spreads outwards.

    9. Re:Morality? by robot256 · · Score: 1

      Sure, why not? All harm to another is immoral. That's the fundamental (and fundamentally ignored) premise of many religions. And why do we ignore it? To justify things like war and torture and genocide and slavery and frivolous lawsuits, which for some reason seem like an awfully good idea to an awful lot of people at some points in time.

      So basically, moral relativism is as much a part of human nature as morality in the first place. Anyone who tells you to always be moral and not harm anyone hasn't gotten around to the bit where you're supposed to "release the infidels from their worldly suffering" and bring them all their sheep when you're done with it.

    10. Re:Morality? by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      What does this mean for someone like me, who lives life by my own idea of morality

      Don't get the area of your brain above and behind your right ear near any strong oscillating magnetic fields?

      I'm not sure what you're asking here. If you're to believe the results of the experiment (which sound rather iffy) it would indicate that our brains are wired in some manner for morality. Your brain likely isn't any different on the macro-scale, though you may not have a typical rule set that others have.

      --
      AccountKiller
    11. Re:Morality? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Why would you let others influence your morality just like that?
      It isn’t exactly your morality, when you copy someone else, is it?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  29. But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can magnets impact my moral choices? Isn't my soul supposed to do that? Is my soul a magnet? Maybe free will is magnetic. Or MAYBE, just maybe, those things don't exist except as concepts in the human mind.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 3, Funny

      That reminds me:

      Spider: So this Zealot comes to my door, all glazed eyes and clean reproductive organs, asking me if I ever think about God.

      So I tell him I killed God. I tracked God down like a rabid dog, hacked off his legs with a hedge trimmer, raped him with a corncob, and boiled off his corpse in an acid bath.

      So he pulls an alternating-current taser on me and tells me that only the Official Serbian Church of Tesla can save my polyphase intrinsic electric field, known to non-engineers as "the soul."

      So I hit him. What would you do?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by wolfsdaughter · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

      --
      "Are they made from real Girl Scouts?" ~Wednesday Addams
    3. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by characterZer0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe, just maybe, the soul and brain are connected.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    4. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain? Doesn't that render the term meaningless? Isn't the soul supposed to be a transcendental component, which is by definition rather not to be influenced by a mere magnet?

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    5. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, strong magnetic fields can disrupt the soul?

    6. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      free will

      I don't think that term means what you think it means...

    7. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can a Slashdotting impact whether a website is accessible or not? Isn't the webmaster supposed to do that? Are webmasters all Slashdot editors? Or maybe, webmasters don't really exist!

      Because obviously, nothing can ever be under the influence of two different things.

    8. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What the parent is saying is that there is no such thing as soul.

      There is consciousness, there is our mind, there is the unconsciousness and it is all part of our physical self.

      Why is this a revelation?

    9. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      If our moral choices are influenced even in part by random environmental influences, the soul can not fairly accrue 'karma' or any kinds of merits or demerits for the actions taken by the individual. The random environmental influences must take part of both the blame and the credit for our actions, in which case, why do we even bother with the concept of free will and a soul? Why not admit there is no real 'self' at all?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      It isn't a revelation. People just hate the implications.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    11. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain?

      Why? What makes you jump to the conclusion that because two things are connected, therefore one must be caused by the other - and specifically that you get to choose which one that is?

      Connected does not mean "causal".

      If the "soul" (if it exists) is connected to the brain, and the magnet interferes with this connection, why is it surprising that behaviour also changes?

    12. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by EdZ · · Score: 1

      magnets

      The summary irritates me. TMS isn't just sticking a big magnet next to the brain and hoping for the best. It's very focused, in the same way that an MRI scan is. A big magnetic field next to your head will not influence your moral decisions in the same way that waving a laser on a CD will not magically produce music.

    13. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by feepness · · Score: 3, Funny

      So, strong magnetic fields can disrupt the soul?

      I've always been told I have an iron will...

    14. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      What do you think I think it means, then, smart guy?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    15. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Car analogy time!

      If our Toyota is influenced even in part by random uncontrolled acceleration, blah blah blah, the driver doesn't really exist.

    16. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      We get that. It makes no difference.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    17. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What meaning has the term "connected" if there is no causal dependency between the connected things whatsoever? If, as you say, the magnet interferes with the connection between soul and brain, then this connection is demonstrably physical - and by extension, also the soul, which, then, in other words, is just an emergent property of the brain.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    18. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Bakkster · · Score: 1

      If our moral choices are influenced even in part by random environmental influences, the soul can not fairly accrue 'karma' or any kinds of merits or demerits for the actions taken by the individual. The random environmental influences must take part of both the blame and the credit for our actions, in which case, why do we even bother with the concept of free will and a soul? Why not admit there is no real 'self' at all?

      Alternatively, the correct definition of "soul" doesn't take into account either the concept of 'karma', fairness, or both.

      Specifically with respect to the 'fairness' of morality, there was only a 15% change under this very unlikely stimulus. One might argue that if a 15% change in your morality affects your decisions significantly adversely, you weren't that moral to begin with.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    19. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      Close, but let me fix it for you: If our random uncontrolled acceleration has even a slim chance of being the cause of our crash, we should not be held completely liable for that crash.

      I'm not saying that this research proves that the soul does not exist. I'm saying something far stronger than that. I'm saying, this research proves the very concept of the soul as repository of merit and demerit for individual actions is meaningless.

      In short, I'm saying that this research proves that God can not fairly judge your soul upon your death. If moral choices can be influenced by the environment, then our own moral choices are unfathomable and random. If a 'bad connection' between the soul and the mind can screw up the best intentions of the soul, the soul is useless.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    20. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by marianomd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The brain is just an antenna that connects our soul in other dimension to the physical world as we know it. If you interfere the antenna, the soul is disconnected and the body works in offline mode.

    21. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Isn't the soul supposed to be a transcendental component, which is by definition rather not to be influenced by a mere magnet?

      It's been said to be influenced by mere diet, or simply by seeing someone naked. Souls are easily altered.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    22. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      How can a hypothetical God judge us for our choices, if our choices can be screwed up by a 'bad connection?' Maybe I was going to make the right choice, but a damn supernova sent a magnetic pulse through my head. I'm sorry, but it just seems laughable.

      Why do we need to imagine a God like that? And why do we need to imagine a soul? To make us feel better. To make us feel that there is balance. But if there is no separation between self and other, if there is no duality, there is no imbalance to correct.

      In any case, it does not matter how unlikely the stimulus, this research proves how ludicrous absolute concepts like 'good' and 'evil' really are. If the connection between soul and mind is anything less than 100% perfect, there are NO moral absolutes.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    23. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by genner · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What meaning has the term "connected" if there is no causal dependency between the connected things whatsoever? If, as you say, the magnet interferes with the connection between soul and brain, then this connection is demonstrably physical - and by extension, also the soul, which, then, in other words, is just an emergent property of the brain.

      Your brain is physically connected to your foot.
      Does this make your foot an emergent property of the brain as well?
      Better take it out of your mouth and check.

    24. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      That's kinda my point - what is the meaning behind the concept of "soul" as a transcendental, allegedly immortal entity, if "mere diet" or seeing a naked person alters it? What makes it different from my brain? Why, after applying Occam's razor, is it supposed to be still there? The whole standpoint is somewhat outlandish.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    25. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      My brain is a physical object that I can detect. So is my foot. Not so much my alleged soul. There is a demonstrable connection between my foot and my brain, working in both directions. My brain can tell it to move, stepping into a shard of glass tells my brain that something went wrong. How again is this equivalent to the problem here? Following your argument in the context of the GP post would mean that my "soul" is as physical and as real and as demonstrable in its existence as my foot. The distance between my foot and my mouth is sufficiently large, thank you very much.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    26. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by genner · · Score: 1

      Close, but let me fix it for you: If our random uncontrolled acceleration has even a slim chance of being the cause of our crash, we should not be held completely liable for that crash.

      I'm not saying that this research proves that the soul does not exist. I'm saying something far stronger than that. I'm saying, this research proves the very concept of the soul as repository of merit and demerit for individual actions is meaningless.

      In short, I'm saying that this research proves that God can not fairly judge your soul upon your death. If moral choices can be influenced by the environment, then our own moral choices are unfathomable and random. If a 'bad connection' between the soul and the mind can screw up the best intentions of the soul, the soul is useless.

      ...or you can just choose to not screw up your moral compass with magnets. Unless someone is forcing them on you there's still a moral choice.
      Really this isn't any different than large quanities of alcohol....which can do far more damage to your morality. If someone gets drunk and kills a man he's still responsible for his actions.

    27. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obviously the soul is affected by magnetism.

    28. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      This research has nothing to do with free will. Free will doesn't free you from the confines of reality. If reality dictated that you have a B-field generator permanently strapped to your head, and you also happen to have knowledge of this research, it would be irrational for you *not* take those facts into consideration in determining whether you can make proper ethical judgments.

      More fundamentally, an *improper* moral judgment presumes the ability to judge, which presumes free will.

      A determinist can never convince anyone of anything, as the concept of conviction is genetically dependent on the concept of choice.

    29. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      You cannot demonstrate it, so it must not exist?

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    30. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Their core sense of morality still existed---the desire to avoid causing harm to others---and even if that were your only moral tenet, assuming you were sufficiently intelligent to figure out what would and would not cause harm, that would be enough by itself. Thus, this in no way invalidates the concept of the soul as a repository of merit and demerit for actions.

      What changed was not the sense of morality, but rather the ability to judge the intentions of other people, and more specifically, whether the participants tended to judge others based on their intentions or the actual outcome of their actions. More to the point, they were more critical of the morality of a situation when subjected to the field, not less. That's precisely the opposite of what the folks in this discussion thread are implying. It doesn't cause people to be less moral. It causes them to be more judgmental towards others (and possibly themselves) and less forgiving.

      Second, by your logic, the very concept of a body as a repository of merit and demerit for individual actions is meaningless. If a magnetic field can cause a person to behave immorally, how then can we impose the death penalty? How, then can we even put people in prison? The answer, of course, is that magnetic fields (at least in this experiment) didn't cause people to be less moral, but rather the exact opposite.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    31. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      I assume non-existence until I get at least some demonstrable facts that hint at existence.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    32. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      If someone is schizophrenic though, they aren't held liable for their actions. Weird, huh? I mean, do people have free will or don't they? It sure seems like there are a lot of gray areas, don't you think? Alcohol and drugs can screw up your moral compass, now magnetic fields? What if a supernova creates a magnetic pulse that makes me forget its wrong to kill someone?

      Unless the proposed soul-mind connection is 100% reliable, the entire idea of a soul is philosophically worthless.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    33. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "If our moral choices are influenced even in part by random environmental influences..."

      I'm a bit curious on something even more basic that the synopsis mentioned. It seemed to say if an action harmed no one, it could still be judged as immoral. How can that be?

      I thought morality ONLY came in to choice of whether or not an action caused harm to someone...usually giving you something good due to or in spite of their pain.

      Can someone list an immoral act that causes no harm to anyone else???

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    34. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Bakkster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How can a hypothetical God judge us for our choices, if our choices can be screwed up by a 'bad connection?' Maybe I was going to make the right choice, but a damn supernova sent a magnetic pulse through my head. I'm sorry, but it just seems laughable.

      From a Christian viewpoint (sorry, not informed enough to give you any others), by setting the bar for morality high yet still being gracious. In other words, everyone is a sinner, but everyone can be forgiven through Jesus. So, it doesn't matter if you're 99.999% moral or just 85% moral, you're still not good enough by your own merits.

      From the more Jewish standpoint, judgments were frequently reduced for those who were tricked or otherwise not aware of their sins. Check Genesis 20 for an example of someone (king Abimelech) who had been tricked into sinning and was forgiven because of that. And even here, Abraham (the one doing the tricking) was allowed to return to grace with repentance.

      In any case, it does not matter how unlikely the stimulus, this research proves how ludicrous absolute concepts like 'good' and 'evil' really are. If the connection between soul and mind is anything less than 100% perfect, there are NO moral absolutes.

      I disagree. There can be actions which are good or evil. There can be people which are good or evil. There does not need to be (nor is there) 100% correlation between the two (good men performing only good actions, and vice-vers-a).

      So this research may show how unlikely it is for people to be absolutely good or evil, from both the Christian and Jewish viewpoints this is entirely consistent (and commonly referenced). I'm not sure about any other religions or dogmas.

      --
      Write your representatives! Repeal the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics!
    35. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Conviction is a feeling, it does not come from logic, it drives logic to find supporting evidence and spin a plausible story.

      A determinist knows they are part of an unending chain of cause and effect, and the cause of 'communicating an opinion' can have the effect of 'convincing someone of something.'

      The mind seeks to create a logical and self consistent story for our actions. If a random magnetic impulse can change my mind, and my mind is primed to create a self consistent story about itself, of course it would interpret that random impulse as originating inside itself. So, how can I know it was me that made any of my decisions?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    36. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      In my opinion, there is no such thing as absolute morality. For any given scope, there is an absolute morality, but there is always a larger scope.

      The idea of merit and demerit, good and evil, come from the belief in a self that is essentially separate from reality. If reality is divided, it can get out of balance. But we naturally desire fairness and balance, that is genetically advantageous for the species. So, we invent myths that restore balance, in our own heads at least. But it does not solve the initial problem of dualistic, self oriented thinking.

      That problem can only be solved by letting go of false duality and realizing there is no self in here, nor a universe out there because there is no in here and out there, and 'self' and 'universe' both are just concepts or arbitrary labels.

      We do not need the concepts of self, good, and evil to have a moral society. In fact, because they are false concepts, they do not do what they purport to do, in fact, they create just the opposite of a moral society.

      To put it into Christian terms, when we operate under the influence of false concepts like good, evil, the self, and free will, we have eaten the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil, and attempted to usurp God's place. It is not our place to judge because we are not omniscient. But that is what we do, to our self and to everything in God's creation, every day of our lives, unless we learn to live without self.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    37. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood the premise. If you knew a bridge was unsafe, would it be moral to let your child walk across it? What if you let your child walk across, knowing full well they could fall to their death, but they did not fall? Was that immoral, even though no harm came of it this particular time?

      This was one of the experimental questions asked. Magnetized people thought the choice was moral because the child was not harmed. Non magnetized people tended to look at the potential for harm and decide that it was immoral.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    38. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      That's kinda my point - what is the meaning behind the concept of "soul" as a transcendental, allegedly immortal entity, if "mere diet" or seeing a naked person alters it? What makes it different from my brain? Why, after applying Occam's razor, is it supposed to be still there? The whole standpoint is somewhat outlandish.

      The soul is the thing that is you that can be immortal. It's not something observed, it's something said to ease our fear of death. Convince yourself that the piece of you that makes you you will go on after your body has broken down and died, and you'll stop moping around and come help with the harvest.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    39. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think your reading a tad more into this then you should. A lot more work I imagine would need to be done on this, and even then, do you really think this is going to prove anything? Do you really think that one experiment is going to suffice to disprove thousands of years worth of beliefs?

      This proves that you can do something that causes an interesting effect. Reminds me of an article I read on electricity. In the 1800s people thought that you could use this to bring people back to life. I mean, using electricity on cadeavers caused them to move on their own accord, how much further could it be to make them start talking and thinking etc on their own?

      Turns out there was something else going on. I wouldn't latch onto this experiment quite yet as something to yell from the rooftops QUITE yet (and judging by your massive amount of replies in this thread, something you feel you have a vested interest in)

    40. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain? Doesn't that render the term meaningless? Isn't the soul supposed to be a transcendental component, which is by definition rather not to be influenced by a mere magnet?

      Dunno. But if consciousness is physical and consciousnesses are interchangeable, does Noether's theorem imply the immortality of the soul?

    41. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Oh man! I had a epiphany about this the other day while thinking about the Chinese Room. The man in the room doesn't know Chinese, but the book DOES know Chinese. But it's not the book, or the pages, or the ink that knows Chinese, it's the pattern in the book that can be process in the real world. There is where the intelligence lies.

      So usually I've scoffed at the whole mind-body dualism group, and I still do, but this is the epiphany I had: The mind is a pattern of neurons, synapses, and whatnot which is being held by the brain. Just as software absolutely exists in the real world as pattern of magnetic inequalities on a metal platter, the mind exists on the hardware that is our brains. It's not that the mind and body are one and the same, the mind exists within the brain.

      I'm pretty sure that the "soul" is similarly a subset of the mind. A portion of our mind deals with thinking kittens are adorable and another section deals with being at peace with reality or something like that.

      So while I agree that the soul is a concept in the mind, I'd have to say that it still exists. You know, as much as the ego, id, or the mind itself does. As a config of the brain.

      Of course, if you want to get new-agey and out there, you can also realize that the brain is a configuration of cells, which are a configuration of atoms, which are a configuration of... uh... ferengi bartenders or something.

    42. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by skywire · · Score: 1

      And _The Brothers Karamazov_ is merely an emergent property of ink and paper.

      --
      Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    43. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      You've just outlined my current nondualist hypothesis: things such as ego, id, mind, and soul are emergent properties of the complex interactions of substrates such as neurons, atoms, and ferengi bartenders.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    44. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Souls are "supposed to be". But magnets and subjects ARE. Reality 1, souls still 0.

    45. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 1

      It's obviously an artificial construct (wathan) accidentally invented by an intelligent (though non-sentient) alien species. Obviously, once the wathans granted them sentience they saw it as their moral duty to install wathan-generators on all planets likely to develop life.

      Duh.

    46. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your soul - I prefer conscience - makes a decision based on? the analysis the mind does. The zone in the brain that does the analysis has been discovered, and maybe -just maybe as you say, but i say it seriously- the decisions originate there. Difficult to prove: you'd have to reverse engineer the impulses in every synapse and then demonstrate they have no external influences. Problem, if you describe the interactions with equations which have different possible results, that is, if you can't predict what will mechanically happen inside the brain, there is room for something else to interfere with reality, thus voiding the analysis. Else you are trading faith in supernatural things with the faith that the assumptions made in your research are correct, which makes the battle between science and religion a war of religion.

    47. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by tolkienfan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In what way can it be said to exist if it has no physical manifestation and has no measurable effect on the world, and can not be detected in any way whatsoever?

    48. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      Can another person determine whether said subject is in "online" mode or "offline" mode?

    49. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      Why, that sounds as silly as an entire planet made up of just one really big river.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    50. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by tolkienfan · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't.

    51. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by oztiks · · Score: 1

      Well you've heard of the saying "Magnetic Personality" ... who would of thought!

    52. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Depending on whom you talk to, that would be called the Silver Cord. It's binds the physical (brain) with the metaphysical (soul). Basically, our body is controlled like a puppet and we are the puppet masters. But if the physical world cuts a few of your strings, communication may not be conveyed in the manor that the soul desired. But again, this is pure speculation and falls under spirituality/faith.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    53. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Tromad · · Score: 1

      It isn't, but at this point our understanding of everything you mentioned is barely above "it is the soul." We are still in the dark ages with our understanding of psychology.

    54. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "or you can just choose to not screw up your moral compass with magnets"

      No you can't, and by using the word "compass" you even gave yourself a hint as to why you can't.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    55. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by h4x0t · · Score: 1

      Careful friend, you are getting dangerously close to some sense there. Better take a shower.

    56. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Kagura · · Score: 1

      Why? His post was silly.

    57. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by shentino · · Score: 1

      I prefer to think of it more as the spirit is a supernatural electromagnetic entity that has heavy influence over the neurons of the brain.

      Considering the topic I wouldn't be surprised if free will was implemented via quantum mechanics.

      Of course, alcohol can interfere with this influence just as easily as magnets can.

    58. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by t_ban · · Score: 1

      Or MAYBE, just maybe, those things don't exist except as concepts in the human mind.

      It exists where?? To pursue your line of thinking, we have nothing but neurons and electricity. The human mind doesn't exist, except as a concept in the... hmmm, methinks we've fallen victim to circularity.

      - t.

      --
      First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win. -Gandhi
    59. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by eh2o · · Score: 1

      TMS is just the modern equivalent to what they used to do with lesions (i.e., intentional brain damage with a scapel or a hot iron). The summary is just very badly written... its not morality that is disrupted by magnetism, its the brain.

    60. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by MacAnkka · · Score: 1

      "How can magnets impact my moral choices? Isn't my soul supposed to do that?"

      Humans have known for a large part of their history that certain chemicals and diseases can affect the behaviour of humans. Now we know magnets can do that, too. It's a great find in a scientific sense, but it doesn't really pose any new moral questions that haven't been asked before. Replace "magnets" in your question with alcohol, drugs, brain diseases or medication and you might see that people have been asking the same question ever since religion was invented.

    61. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      "How can magnets impact my moral choices? Isn't my soul supposed to do that?"

      Humans have known for a large part of their history that certain chemicals and diseases can affect the behaviour of humans. Now we know magnets can do that, too. It's a great find in a scientific sense, but it doesn't really pose any new moral questions that haven't been asked before. Replace "magnets" in your question with alcohol, drugs, brain diseases or medication and you might see that people have been asking the same question ever since religion was invented.

      And they haven't come up with a satisfactory answer yet. Of course we could replace magnets with any number of other environmental influences and ask the same questions. That's kind of my point.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    62. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      Morality is an emergent phenomenon of the brain, so it is disrupted too. The important thing to remember here is that the experimenters pointed the magnets at a certain place, expecting that to result in moral changes, based on what we theorize about brain structure. And they were right.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    63. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      Emergent phenomenon. Look it up.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    64. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by JimFive · · Score: 1

      If our moral choices are influenced even in part by random environmental influences, the soul can not fairly accrue 'karma' [...]

      Fairly? How long have you been under this delusion that life is fair?
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    65. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by brian0918 · · Score: 1

      You deny that you have free will, but your notion of what constitutes "free will" is not something anyone is asserting. It is a strawman.

      Free will doesn't allow you to escape reality. Your mind doesn't exist *in* your brain - it *is* your brain. Any modification to your brain modifies your mind, and can certainly impact your ability to reason. Whether the damage is done with a bullet, an axe, or a disruptive magnetic field, makes no difference.

      It would be absurd to demand - as you do - that in order for one to be considered to have "free will", one's mind must be capable of making the same choice regardless of the damage done to the brain. That is not free will - it is magic.

    66. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I have an innate sense of fairness and a desire to uphold justice and equality. So when things aren't fair, I feel it. And when I feel something, I point it out. That's one of our strength's as a species. The world may not be fair, but we can make it more so.

      You know who the phrase "life isn't fair" is for? Losers who have given up trying to make it fair.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    67. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by computechnica · · Score: 1

      PROVE IT!!

    68. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      You deny that you have free will, but your notion of what constitutes "free will" is not something anyone is asserting. It is a strawman.

      Free will doesn't allow you to escape reality. Your mind doesn't exist *in* your brain - it *is* your brain. Any modification to your brain modifies your mind, and can certainly impact your ability to reason. Whether the damage is done with a bullet, an axe, or a disruptive magnetic field, makes no difference.

      It would be absurd to demand - as you do - that in order for one to be considered to have "free will", one's mind must be capable of making the same choice regardless of the damage done to the brain. That is not free will - it is magic.

      But that's exactly the idea many religions promulgate about the self, the soul, and free will. Most people are dualists, they think of the self as something separate, not arising from conditions that create and support it.

      As most people understand the concept, 'free will' boils down to 'I could have made a different choice.' Regardless of whether the world is deterministic or not, if free will is an aggregate thing, a conditioned thing, then it can not be an uncaused cause. Any 'cause' originating from the will is merely an effect of conditions. And therefore, 'you' couldn't have made a different choice. If were conditions were different, a different choice would have arisen, but that's not how most people see it.

      I believe there is no self separate from the constantly changing conditions creating and supporting that self. The self is not a root cause, or a definite and unchanging thing. It's just a label, a concept that at best only roughly matches reality.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    69. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by V+for+Vendetta · · Score: 1

      Isn't the soul supposed to be a transcendental component, which is by definition rather not to be influenced by a mere magnet?

      What the TFA doesn't make clear: the moral behaviour aka "soul" isn't influenced by the magnet. It's influenced by the magnet's soul ... ;)

    70. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was insightful?

    71. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by JimFive · · Score: 1

      "Fairness" is just a euphemism for "I didn't get my way".

      In your previous argument, you are claiming that your soul cannot be judged because the deck is stacked against you. So what? If the flying spaghetti monster wants to judge you based on actions outside of your control, it will do so, and the fact that you consider it "unfair" is irrelevant. (N.B. it would actually be quite "fair" as long as everyone is being judged by the same criteria. What it would not be is "just".)

      If you want to make the world (by which you seem to mean human society) more just and equitable, you are certainly free to try, but it is probably best to start from the way the world actually is, not from some ideal world that is "fair".
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    72. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      Fairness is NOT just a euphemism for 'I didn't get my way.' According to recent research in economics and game theory, most people will attempt to act fairly even when there is no benefit, or even harm, to them. Fairness is a felling, an analog circuit in the brain, optimized by evolution to produce cohesive and functional social groups.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    73. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by JimFive · · Score: 1

      Why do I want to yell "Fallacy of Ambiguity" at you?

      In the post I initially responded to you were arguing that there can't be a soul as a repository for karma because, since it can be influenced magnetically, it wouldn't be fair. Which is equivalent to saying "I don't like it, therefore it can't be true". I responded, flippantly to be sure, that there is no Law of Physics that says the universe has to treat you in a way that you consider fair.

      Now, you are arguing that fairness is an evolved emotion that enables people to create social groups. This is certainly not the sense in which you used "fair" in your original post. I would probably consider this usage of "fair" to be equivalent to empathy.

      As for: "Fairness is NOT just a euphemism for 'I didn't get my way.'" Listen to how people use the word and it most certainly is. The fact that you don't like how the word is used is neither here nor there.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    74. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      Well, How about this, then? If there is a God and he has set up a world where there is such a thing as an immortal soul, but the connection between the soul and the mind can be disrupted by a magnetic field, then God is a dick, and fuck him right in the ear. I think that better captures my sentiments in the matter, and I hope it makes things clearer for you.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    75. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by JimFive · · Score: 1

      If there is a God [...] then God is a dick,

      You won't see me disagreeing with that.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    76. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by spun · · Score: 1

      Anyway, this was all a tangent, when fairness wasn't really a major point of mine. But it does enter into the discussion about morality, because the sense of fairness is one of the basic subsystems of our innate morality. See below for some experiments done recently that show fairness is an innate sense, and that most people are not, in fact, selfish.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictator_game
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimatum_game

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    77. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by genner · · Score: 1

      "or you can just choose to not screw up your moral compass with magnets" No you can't, and by using the word "compass" you even gave yourself a hint as to why you can't.

      Hold a magnet to a compass and it stops pointing north. Hold a magnet near the right spot of the brain and it messes with inhibitions. If you want either toi work right DON'T HOLD A MAGNET TO IT! Seems like a choice to me. The study never suggests that the earths magnetic field or any natural source is enough to effect the brain.

    78. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Hahaha. Welcome to religion. You're thinking ethics, not morality. Some ethical schools of thought ask if harm was caused in order to judge whether an act was ethical.

      Morality is a term for an artificial set of arbitrary rules, some of which, under some cultures, align with harm (example: punching a bystander in the face = immoral and causes harm), but many of which are 100% arbitrary. Example: harassing gay people = moral to Westboro Baptist Church, but causes harm. Example: masturbating = immoral to many nuts (including some Christians and other religions), but obviously harmless.

    79. Re:But... But... My soul! My free will! by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Why does the soul have to be either completely separate or only an emergent property of biology?

  30. How long till it's built into helmets? by Colin+Smith · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Very useful feature that.
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:How long till it's built into helmets? by radtea · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very useful feature that

      What, a 15% increase in focus on actual outcomes rather imputed intent based on extremely abstract (and in fact utterly impossible) hypothetical situations? What would that be useful for, exactly?

      The questions the ask are full of magical reasoning: someone walks over a bridge you "know to be unsafe". What on earth does "unsafe" mean in this context and with what degree of certainty to you "know" it to be so? Does "unsafe" mean "everyone who walks over the bridge will die? Apparently not, because the magical question stipulates that it is crossed safely. So maybe this is just showing up a more literal frame of mind, that rejects the obviously bogus set-up information in favour of the factual outcome information.

      Personally, I'd like to investigate the morality of researchers who pretend to investigate moral reasoning by using extremely abstract, underspecified, self-contradictory hypotheticals as the basis for their work.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    2. Re:How long till it's built into helmets? by goodmanj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What, a 15% increase in focus on actual outcomes rather imputed intent based on extremely abstract (and in fact utterly impossible) hypothetical situations? What would that be useful for, exactly?

      Hand out "end justify the means" helmets to all of the soldiers you command, and you'll get less backtalk and desertion when it comes time to burn villages, rape children, and gun down peaceful protesters for the glory of the republic.

    3. Re:How long till it's built into helmets? by broken_chaos · · Score: 1

      What, a 15% increase in focus on actual outcomes rather imputed intent based on extremely abstract (and in fact utterly impossible) hypothetical situations? What would that be useful for, exactly?

      Soldiers.

    4. Re:How long till it's built into helmets? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      "for the glory of the republic"

      Hmm, I'm thinking the republic would have issues with the soldiers actions and then vote/act accordingly. That's why it works.

    5. Re:How long till it's built into helmets? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

      If you think a republic is proof against tyranny, you might want to re-read your Roman and French history.

    6. Re:How long till it's built into helmets? by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      A republic setup definitely has it's problems but for now it's the best system we have.

  31. Moral on different parts of Earth. by brunokummel · · Score: 1

    Considering the variations on magnetism on the surface of Earth, I wonder if the differences of moral in different regions of the globe has anything to do with the variation on the magnetism on the planet.

    if it has, i'm getting out of here, unless of course a big earthquake fixes the problem!!

    --
    What is best in life? To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of their women.
  32. Morality or empathy? by DdJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the MIT article: "they found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions".

    They don't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types. They're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else's internal state.

    What it sounds like to me is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.

    1. Re:Morality or empathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "What it sounds like to me is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch."

      The great irony is that the vast majority of Aspergers sufferers are more ethical then the general population.

    2. Re:Morality or empathy? by royler · · Score: 0

      either way, just a few more steps down to the dollhouse.

    3. Re:Morality or empathy? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      citation please.

    4. Re:Morality or empathy? by infinite9 · · Score: 3, Informative

      What it sounds like to me is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.

      (I have Asperger's Syndrome)

      AS is so much more than this. It causes 100 little problems that all add up to making your life suck.

      From my own personal experience I know that people with AS have trouble reading facial expressions because they're never looking at people faces. This is because eye contact is uncomfortable (i'd call it more like creepy, or heebee-jeebees, it still happens to me). Because it's uncomfortable, they never learn to read it. I've started forcing myself to look at facial expressions in an attempt to read people's eyes. I'm slowly starting to be able to do this.

      As other examples, my gait is subtly wrong. I have a hard time identifying the source of certain emotions. And I'm sometimes not to good at reading the positions of my arms and legs.

      I think it's more than just a magnetic switch. I think it's a biochemical problem that causes development problems that propagate throughout your life.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    5. Re:Morality or empathy? by 0xdeadbeef · · Score: 0

      Eye contact making you uncomfortable is not a symptom of Asperger's, it is a symptom of insecurity.

    6. Re:Morality or empathy? by DdJ · · Score: 1

      And a headache is not a symptom of brain cancer, or blunt force trauma, or stuffed sinuses. It's a symptom of a hangover.

    7. Re:Morality or empathy? by neltana · · Score: 1

      Can it be any citation? Because finding an apropos one is proving to be difficult.

    8. Re:Morality or empathy? by ignavus · · Score: 1

      From the MIT article: "they found that the subjects' ability to make moral judgments that require an understanding of other people's intentions".

      They don't appear to have claimed a general change to moral judgments of all types. They're saying that people were less able to make moral judgments that involved modeling someone else's internal state.

      What it sounds like to me is, someone found humanity's Asperger switch.

      You are almost right. The researchers on this project (who have spoken at TED talks) mention that it is about juries, not criminals. It is how we judge other people's behaviour, not how we choose to act ourselves.

      People with Asperger's syndrome typically have difficulty understanding feelings (their own and other people's), but not difficulty making moral judgments, as far as I am aware.

      So not the Asperger's switch. The jury's switch, however.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    9. Re:Morality or empathy? by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Huh uh uh huh huh huh, he said ass burgers uh huhu huhuhuhuh

    10. Re:Morality or empathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not Asperger's, that's called faux Asperger's, a disease that many in silicon valley believe they are stricken with thus allowing them free reign to be assholes.

    11. Re:Morality or empathy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I have Asperger's Syndrome)

      Let me guess: you're self-diagnosed.

    12. Re:Morality or empathy? by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      any reasonable study showing the aspies are more ethical...

      I'm in the "euthenise everyone who has or claims to have Aspergers, since it's just a matter of time before they go on a killing spree" camp, so something from a well respected journal would do better to counteract my irrational bias.

  33. Helm of Opposite Alignment by Zan+Lynx · · Score: 4, Funny

    So this is how you make a Helm of Opposite Alignment!

    Lawful Evil, here I come!

    1. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I guess this also explains Magneto.

    2. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      More like the +10 Helmet of Relatavistic Morality.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    3. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

      Reletivism, whether cultural, individual, or otherwise, is a set of philosophical proposals that there are multiple acceptable and competing ethical evaluations based on whatever criteria the reletavist is using (culture is the most common). In the research given, it is not the case that the researchers are concluding that there are multiple acceptable moral values for a given action, but rather that forces can manipulate the expected response. If nothing else, all of the subjects were consistent in their answers and that consistency was purely consequentionalist with no appeal toward reletive ethics whatsoever. I've looked at a few of your posts before deciding whether to respond and after seeing you go after this reletivisim idea a few times, I felt compelled to seek some clarification.

    4. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by Philosinfinity · · Score: 1

      Sometimes it helps when I spell relativism right.

    5. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      I really wish there was an "awesome" mod. I guess I could mod it insightful. It wasn't really funny. There have been lots of times I've wanted to mod something "awesome" and just don't know how to categorize it. Maybe next time I'll use informative.

    6. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by diesel66 · · Score: 1

      Lawful Good, here I...

      Nah, fuck it.

      --



      eleven plus two / twelve plus one
    7. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      That's epic loot from Dungeons and Discourse.

    8. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by ShakaUVM · · Score: 1

      That's one of my favorite web comics of all time. I got the Dungeons and Discourse t-shirt. =)

      But yeah, it seems like the "switch" is not really turning off people's moral compass, like the summary suggests, but rather that people are using a different benchmark to judge actions, the old consequentialist vs. intentionalist debate. Both approaches are valid, and incorporated into our legal system. So it's not like these people became psychopaths or something, it just sounds like perhaps they weigh the factors differently.

      In any event, it's not like just a random magnetic field is being applied - these sorts of things can isolate parts of the brain to be shut down, so it shouldn't be any surprise at all that the brain arrives at different calculations. Framing it as a "low level" calculation as the summary does is misleading.

    9. Re:Helm of Opposite Alignment by LongearedBat · · Score: 1

      Ah, that explains Magneto's sense of morals.

  34. Interesting... by tool462 · · Score: 1

    So we truly do have a moral compass.

    I wonder if it is orientation dependent. If I face north, am I less likely to punch somebody in the face?

    1. Re:Interesting... by Anon1072 · · Score: 1

      Only if they're south of you.

  35. Hello DARPA grant... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so in the future if military brain implants ever become common we now know a target area where there is some useless tissue that can be removed...

  36. Sharks with frigging evil beams? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

    Seriously, did anyone else hear the summary in the voice of an old-style B-movie narrator, complete with over-the-top sound effects? This might have creepy implications, one battery powered implant and a bit of training and you could turn anyone into an assassin. But what would happen if you did something heinous, and then turned the implant off? Granted, it seems like this only affects people's ability to judge moral intent, the article doesn't mention anything about losing your morality altogether. Although, the flip side of not being able to judge moral intent might be to do stupidly evil things without being able to intuitively understand the consequences? But the subjects judged the moral outcomes accurately based on the consequences, so perhaps this is just a form of artificially induced utilitarianism? Also, they mention "theory of mind", but before you get all worked up this probably does not correspond to any neurological effect of the autism spectrum... Or perhaps any common naturally occurring brain abnormality?

    --
    Emotions! In your brain!
  37. Well, the ethical self-referential question is: by vikingpower · · Score: 1

    is this good ? or is it bad ?

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Well, the ethical self-referential question is: by dominious · · Score: 1

      um..just wear this helmet first and then you can think about it....

  38. implications by roman_mir · · Score: 1

    Implications are interesting:

    1. An army of morally removed individuals, everyone gets an electromagnet attached with a mora-meter, the computer adjusts the necessary dose based on the current situation. So now we see a woman and a child on the battlefield, mora-meter is reading 7.8 on the M-Scale, there is the target of opportunity right behind them and no time to react. Increasing the field strength. Mora-meter is at 1.89. Directive: shoot through the civilians. Outcome: 1 target down, 2 civilian casualties.

    2. Cchecking the computer, the audience is reading a collective 6.5. Increasing the m-field strength. The meter is at 2. And god said: stone the homosexuals.... Increase the m-field. Pass the collection plate.

    1. Re:implications by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Guess you missed the part in the summary where it said subjects judged actions based on whether or not they caused harm.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:implications by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      There is a summary? I just read the title.

  39. Not morality, superstition by Angst+Badger · · Score: 1

    The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves.

    Sounds like researchers found the seat of superstition, not morality. The volunteers judged actions on the basis of their actual consequences instead of religious mumbo jumbo. That's not just an interesting finding, it's progress. Maybe science has found a way to get the Pope to spend more time protecting children and less time forgiving child rapists.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:Not morality, superstition by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      Wow, RTFA. Heck, read the other slashdot comments, they highlighted exactly some of the questions that were asked.

  40. Doesn't change much by digitaldrunkenmonk · · Score: 2, Informative

    A small change in moral response, and even then, it isn't as if they turned off the moral center. Looks like they just caused the subjects to focus on the effect of the action than the reasons behind it. It's almost like they muffled some of the higher reasoning functions behind morality and changed the focus from "The person's action resulted in [x], though he didn't mean it to" to "The person's action resulted in [x]".

    They didn't kill morality; they hastened the response to a morally vague event. Black and white, no grey.

    1. Re:Doesn't change much by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

      They didn't claim they killed morality. They just showed that it had an effect, however small. This means alot in science.

    2. Re:Doesn't change much by digitaldrunkenmonk · · Score: 1

      It does mean a lot in nueroscience, true, but when it comes to courtrooms, I don't think it'll change much.

      The precedent is pretty bitchin', seeing as they altered the brain with magnets, but realistically? I don't think it changed anyones moral scale (what they view as immoral vs moral) rather than gave them tunnel vision (only seeing the result rather than the cause).

  41. In other news... by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    "In other news, scientists discover that repeatedly standing in close proximity to magnetic imaging equipment while it is in use degrades the scientist's ability to determine the moral implications of their testing. More at 11."

  42. I'm sure I've seen this before by Risha · · Score: 1
  43. What about the age? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't say about the age of the volunteers but I'd wager they're all students with no real life experience, I'd like to see them try this with older people, that had their morals tested and tried over the years, all the students have is the theory of what is right and wrong, but with no life experience to reinforce it. Aside from that I'm curious how this affects cops, criminals or others that have their morals tested heavily over the years, without significantly changing their path.

  44. April Fools? by Accersitus · · Score: 1

    Is it April first already? Sounds like someone got their date wrong.

  45. if memory serves ... by Gitcho · · Score: 2, Funny

    i remember hearing about something one could drink that would achieve similar results ... with the added benefit of making everyone look better ...

  46. SARAH PALIN WILL NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOU. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your signature says:

    SARAH PALIN WILL NOT HAVE SEX WITH YOU.

    She will after I take off her tinfoil hat and put a magnet up against her head!

  47. Full Moon by wzinc · · Score: 1

    Now we need to find-out why more crime, etc happens during a full moon.

    1. Re:Full Moon by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Better light.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  48. Also in the news.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress just ordered all floors on Capitol Hill to be replaced with strong magnets.

  49. Cash Works Too by Rob+Riggs · · Score: 1

    Have those MIT eggheads studied the effects of massive amounts of cash on the moral compass of humans? Is the magnetic susceptibility correlated to the amount of cash required? It would be nice to know just how much I'll need to offer going into the deal. Probably worth a Nobel in economics, that one.

    --
    the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
  50. Money by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    So money must be magnetic?

    --
    Rick B.
  51. Never make a decision in an MRI machine? by syousef · · Score: 1

    I still wonder if these researchers got something wrong in their method/technique because you'd think we'd have noticed changes to people's morality in hi B fields before.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:Never make a decision in an MRI machine? by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should read the article. If you were to do so you might learn that the magnetic field involved is an AC field of specific intensity, frequency, waveform, and orientation applied to a specific part of the brain.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  52. Implications for detection? by izomiac · · Score: 1

    Discovering that morality is localized is rather amazing. I wonder if this knowledge will eventually be used to determined how active that area is (fMRI?) to quantize a person's integrity. So, for example, to become a judge someone must score above a certain level. Or, more scarily, criminals might undergo forcible treatment to enhance this area. OTOH, this raises the question of whether someone has the right to be immoral or if we as a society can exclude the selfish "cheaters" that get ahead by being anti-social.

    I'd imagine the first line of business would be to turn this into some pseudoscientific rubbish that an employer can use to vet job applicants. There's certainly precedent.

  53. oblig Lost by llamafirst · · Score: 2, Funny

    How long until this is used as a defense in court?

    At the very least, for the folks on the TV show "Lost" we could explain away their crazy behavior -- the magnetism is outrageous there and messed with their minds!

    "THE SMOKE MONSTER TOLD ME TO DO IT AND IT JUST SEEMED *RIGHT*!"

  54. Where's the 'ON' switch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So the magnetic field applied to this region *only* turns our morals "Off"? Okay maybe "Down" on the volume button would be a better analogy...

  55. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by marcobat · · Score: 1

    you seem to think that North America = USA + Canada = the entire world

  56. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

    I have a gravimagnetic monopole but unfortunately gravimagnetism is so weak I'm too embarrassed to show it off to my friends. "There, can't you sense that? A spinning force... it feels like you should start dancing... no, huh?" I just keep it in a drawer.

    My friends run the political spectrum although only half are even familiar with gravimagnetic dipoles, much less monopoles.

  57. Moral compass doesn't point north by tpstigers · · Score: 1

    This whole study strikes me as being rather foolish. Did they change anyone's morals? No. They just slightly altered their responses, which shortly thereafter returned to baseline. I'm more inclined to think this had nothing at all to do with morals and everything to do with volunteers who were slightly confused because of the magnetic fields that had been run through their brains.

    1. Re:Moral compass doesn't point north by Moridineas · · Score: 1

      I know it's slashdot and asking to RTFA is too much, so... "When subjects received TMS to a brain region near the right TPJ, their judgments were nearly identical to those of people who received no TMS at all."

  58. cause and reson by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the end of the article:
      "Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."

    I can confirm that i never have experienced that, when doing moral judgement, suddenly a magnetic field is applied just behind and above my ear.

  59. Sharks with frigging amoral beams? by davidwr · · Score: 1

    There, fixed that for you.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:Sharks with frigging amoral beams? by Securityemo · · Score: 1

      The movie executives would throw that one right out the window. Like the "human batteries" in the Matrix series? Yeah, in the original script that was a form of distributed organic computing, combined with the machines (actually quite nice?) take on morality by not actually wiping out the human race, but imprisoning them in a dreamworld instead.

      --
      Emotions! In your brain!
  60. "Moral center" or just "center"? by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What did they do to distinguish scrambling of moral judgement from simple scrambling of judgement? Seems to me that people who are simply having trouble thinking clearly are likely to make these mistakes. Someone whose ability to think at all is impaired might very well assert that the guy who let his girl walk across the unsafe bridge was blameless because they lost track of the fact that he knew it was unsafe.

    --
    Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    1. Re:"Moral center" or just "center"? by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

      Well, they use controls...

    2. Re:"Moral center" or just "center"? by Seor+Jojoba · · Score: 1

      I agree and would mod you up if I could. Run the same set of tests again but pinch the subject on the arm every 5 seconds. The subjects will be a little agitated and distracted and maybe give similar results.

  61. That explains the movie Sunshine by GPLDAN · · Score: 1

    I saw Sunshine last night. Danny Boyle's 2007 Sci-Fci movie about a crew that is heading to the sun to fire a nuke into it, to restart it.

    Without spoiling any more than the preview gives away, as the ship approaches the sun the crew starts getting a little... weird. Ok, a lot weird. It's an okay movie, but the change in behavior isn't really ever explained. Maybe this is the pseudo-scientific rationale....

  62. As explained on NPR this morning by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Person A accidentally breaks five tea cups while cleaning. Person B purposefully breaks one tea cup.

    Most people would say that B's actions were "more wrong" than A's.
    People who had their RTPJ disrupted said that A was "more wrong" because of the extent of the damage.

    Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.

    --
    There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    1. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      well your morality is fine and all as long as "someone" isn't being dereferenced to me, if it is, trying to poison and failing is better than accidentally poisoning.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    2. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it affects people's ability to understand intentions.

      How is this the same as their "moral compass"? They still knew not to do things that harm others.

    3. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Being negligent is morally wrong too. If you can't exercise the care necessary to do something correctly, you shouldn't do it at all.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    4. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      So, I guess you never do anything because you can never guarantee that you will "exercise the care necessary to do something correctly" every single time in all things. To do attempt to do anything would be morally wrong because you could never guarantee you would do it perfectly and to fail is, by your own statement, morally wrong.

      The subjects of the test were saying literally "no harm, no foul". During the experiment, they believed it was not wrong to try to kill someone if you failed.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    5. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Oh sure, mistakes happen. Breaking 5 dishes in one sitting isn't a mistake. Either you're being careless, or you have parkinsons. In the former case you're obviously negligent. In the latter, you probably shouldn't offer to do the dishes at all. I just don't think the dishes question is a very good one.

      The other question, concerning poison is a much better question and illustrates the point very well.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Another example they gave was that people with their RTPJ disrupted would say that accidentally poisoning someone was worse than attempting to poison someone and failing.

      That’s a bad example. Someone dying IS worse.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    7. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Unintentionally and unknowingly killing someone is a worse act than trying to kill someone and failing? An accident is a worse act than a deliberate attempt?

      I disagree.

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    8. Re:As explained on NPR this morning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For the poisoned, it is. For the net health of a society/tribe/community, it is. What do you want now, a moral or a healthy society?

  63. Franz Mesmer, by idontgno · · Score: 1

    is that you?

    I smell an uptick of premature April Foolery. Or a damn fine Ig Nobel candidate.

    --
    Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
  64. *Quickly changing* magnetic fields by neonleonb · · Score: 2, Informative

    TMS works by using quickly-changing magnetic fields to induce electric fields and neural firing. After 25 minutes of this, the neurons in that region are thoroughly worn out and don't function right for a while (see research on "temporary lesions").

    This isn't about magnetic fields in general, just about very strong, quickly-changing ones applied to this one spot for a long time. This is among the most sensational writeup I've ever seen, and it totally misrepresents the point.

    1. Re:*Quickly changing* magnetic fields by vlm · · Score: 1

      TMS works by using quickly-changing magnetic fields to induce electric fields and neural firing.

      So, if instead of blasting "yer moral compass" (ha ha) you blasted the area responsible for vision or hearing, what would you perceive? Can it be modulated around a couple Hz or so?

      And, can you buy one of these TMS things cheap? And is it portable enough to take to a rave? I smell a business opportunity forming. Either that, or a really bad idea forming. Not sure which yet.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  65. Causation by Gorath99 · · Score: 1

    Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another.

    Now, now. I think we can all agree that this is strong evidence for lack of morality causing magnetism.

    1. Re:Causation by JWyner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Designed experiments *attempt* to establish causation. They don't necessarily do so, as they can (and often do) establish instead a causal link via a secondary system.

      In this case, for example, the actual research article states that the researchers believe the magnetic fields disrupt the ability for the subject to properly evaluate the intentions of the story protagonist, thus altering the outcome of their moral evaluation. This is different from fundamentally changing the subject's underlying moral framework.

      Thus, the current study does show a causal link, but only between magnetism and perception, not a causal link between magnetism and morality.

      By the current logic, if I throw a brick at your face and you stopped walking, I could then argue that bricks thrown at faces cause legs to cease functioning...


      ....prepares to be buried for daring to argue with the reductionists...

      --
      "Owning a computer is like having your very own TV -- with a built in radio!" - Ed Helms
    2. Re:Causation by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Bravo.

    3. Re:Causation by PatDev · · Score: 1

      While I see your point, I find this refreshing. It is a nice change of pace to *not* see a study immediately claiming causation where it is possible that none exists. I've seen too many studies causing that X causes Y by applying treatment X to a group of subjects otherwise predisposed to Y, then claiming that the elevated proportion of subjects showing Y demonstrates that X causes Y.
      And while this is a designed experiment, I think they are making the non-causal point because the brain is a complex and relatively poorly understood organ. We don't really even know all the variables, so we obviously can't control for them all. Causality is a likely explanation, but I don't know if we can say so with statistical significance.

    4. Re:Causation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actual peer-reviewed studies very rarely claim causation without a good foundation, because no reviewer on the planet would let such a thing slide.

      Popular media articles tend to misrepresent actual studies. Slashdot editors tend to grossly misrepresent popular media articles. And by the time you get to the peanut gallery of "correlation is not causation!" claims by slashdot readers who wouldn't know science if spanked them in the ass while wearing pasties and fuck-me pumps, you're basically screwed.

  66. It gave them clarity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It allowed them to see through all the BS socially-constructed notions of right and wrong to something tangible and impactful: the causing of harm.

    Sounds like more people should have this done.

  67. Different Interpretation by sonnejw0 · · Score: 1

    The right temporo-parietal lobe junction is well known as the language integration area. The article states these people had this region of their brain, known otherwise as Wernicke's area, altered by magnetic fields, and then READ A STORY and were asked to make a moral judgment on it. This sounds a lot more like auditory processing to me, and I'll give more reason. Individuals with an infarction in this region of the brain are classically unable to note emotional changes in individuals based on speech cues.

    It seems most likely (Occam's Razor) to me, that these individuals had their auditory association areas monkeyed with, and ended up being less able to pick-up emotional cues in the reader's voice, which have remarkable amounts of data in regard to the transmission of information. To these people in the experiment, the reader might have sounded like a drab and boring reader, and to the controls the same reading may have been filled with emotional information. These emotional cues are powerful motivators to come to a consensus opinion even among people of disparate moral backgrounds.

    I did not read any more of the article than that, it is feasible to control for some of these aspects or to use a different experimental design to confirm the hypothesis, but I would be very careful in claiming that this is some sort of moral core of the brain. It's also been shown that magnetic fields caused agitation, and agitated people are less likely to be compassionate. I suffer from relatively constant pain from migraines and some other things, and I know most people think I'm a jerk when they first encounter me, but I am just less tolerant of people complaining (I'm actually fairly empathic and empathetic, which makes it even worse to have lousy people near me).

    1. Re:Different Interpretation by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

      The article states these people had this region of their brain, known otherwise as Wernicke's area

      Nope, Wernicke's area is located superior temporal gyrus.

    2. Re:Different Interpretation by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 1

      Whoops, forgot a word there. Guess my Broca's area isn't working.

  68. Really? by digitalcowboy · · Score: 1

    This is what passes for "science" at MIT now? (We already know that anything can pass for a headline at /.)

    The researcher himself, as quoted in the story summary on Slashdot, debunks what the Slashdot headline advertises.

  69. Another reason by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    Perhaps those who had a helmet on giving them a very strong magnetic zap in the brain started thinking...

    "Hey, this could be dangerous. But I feel okay, I guess it's fine"

    Which influenced their reasoning through the morality of possible danger scenarios.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    1. Re:Another reason by Aksimel · · Score: 1

      Or do people who would agree to something like having their brains zapped have a different sense of morality in the first place?

  70. More Intentions than "Morality" by baKanale · · Score: 1

    From the sound of it the magnetic field didn't render people immoral monsters, but impaired judgement, making the subjects judge the actions of others based on the results of those actions, rather than their intended results. In other words, "murder" and "involuntary manslaughter" would be considered equal offenses, while "attempted murder" would be on par with "taking a walk in the park on Sunday".

  71. This is why I hate science journalism by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Read the article from MIT, not the other sources. You'll notice a distinct difference. I hate to see good research get misrepresented.

    The non-MIT articles makes grand claims that are NOWHERE in the real research. The "journalists" makes large claims about the existence of a "moral center" of the brain. The actual study and the MIT summary gives a much more restrained and accurate description. It shows that temporary disruption of TPJ interferes with the complete normal process which draws upon many areas of the brain.

    Let's use a train analogy to get away from car analogies.

    In order for a train to go from A to B, there must be intact railing the whole way. If we alter a section of the track and derail the train, it does NOT prove that the removed section is the train transportation center of the railroad track. It is essential, but it is only part of the process. The disruption of this area of the brain only shows that it is essential in the complete processing of moral judgement, not the center itself. I'm not talking down this research, only the journalistic representation of it.

  72. Re:Homosexuality ? by khallow · · Score: 1

    That might explain in part why I included it on a list that includes other such moral judgments, some with extremely negative connotation.

  73. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by jwietelmann · · Score: 1

    Actually, earth's magnetic field is stronger the closer you get to the poles. So, according to this, Texans are morally superior to Canadians. That Canadians tend to be liberal, and Texans conservative, would seem to imply that conservatism is the morally superior ideology.

    WARNING: Above statements are intended for humor and satire only, and do not intend to make any actual political statements about anything. Individuals having an axe to grind, and lacking a sense of humor, should take proper precautions by navigating to either FoxNews.com or the Huffington Post, where they can discuss politics as emotionally and obnoxiously as they wish.

  74. How do you explain Alaska then? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Alaska is closer to the North Pole than a lot of the largest Canadian cities, but it certainly isn't very liberal. And their politicians are among the most immoral around. Here's a recent example.

    1. Re:How do you explain Alaska then? by svtdragon · · Score: 1

      Clearly the answer is that they spend too much time with animals, so their moral compasses get confused. Refer to the principle called "animal magnetism".

  75. Coming To Terms by mindbrane · · Score: 1
    It's first necessary to define one's terms, isn't it? What is meant by morality.

    "Morality (from the Latin moralities "manner, character, proper behavior") is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous. Morality has three principal meanings"

    "In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by people. For the most part right and wrong acts are classified as such because they are thought to cause benefit or harm, but it is possible that many moral beliefs are based on prejudice, ignorance or even hatred. This sense of term is also addressed by descriptive ethics."

    Virtue is a concept addressed across the board from the first big boys on the block like Buddha, Confucius and Socrates, but it's a tricky subject. I had to find my own way on this one because there seemed to be endless gradations and seepage of morality into ethics and ethics into morality. My own moral compass operates from animal behaviour, my animal behaviour. I consider morality to derive directly from our basic drives or instincts. My morality goes to things like Fight-or-flight response. Ethics, like aesthetics, deals with abstractions from instincts.Lex Talionis is the granddaddy of morality and goes to things like the Code of Hammurabi.

    I'm not sure morality can be tested in a lab because labs tend to require restricted environments that are artificially impoverished or supplemented in ways that vitiate the results.Today much of neuroscience looks like neo-crypto-phrenology. And moral values tend to speak to concepts of law and there the test of reasonableness holds sway, but does it in the jungle?

    --
    ideopath @ play
  76. There's an (Android) App For That by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's an Android App "Moral Compass" For That. Disclaimer - I wrote the thing while under the influence of a magnetic field.

  77. Re:How long before Tiger Woods just blames magneti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who doesn't find this meme amusing?

    I had family members randomly confiding in me that week, "Ohh, did you hear about Tiger Woods?" No, I didn't, and I still don't give a shit. I know he cheated on his wife, that's it; I don't know the names, how many mistresses, or what happened after. I know he was considered the best golfer in the world, a sport I care nothing about, and his promiscuity has no impact on that.

    So, please, do us a favor and STFU about Tiger Woods. I don't care about his sex life. I would not care if he was found dead tomorrow, either.

  78. Save the GOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now we just need to keep magnets away from the GOPs. It really does explain a lot.

  79. Management by kirill.s · · Score: 3, Funny

    I misread the headline as:
    Management Can Sway Man's Moral Compass

    And thought... now how is that news? :)

  80. LHC by unusualHoon · · Score: 1
    I, for one, am worried about the guys at the LHC. They're surrounded by electromagnets strong enough to bend beams of electrons moving near the speed of light into a circle! That's bound to turn anyone into a flaming ass!

    Soon enough they'll quit the experiments and start threating the Higgs to show it self.

    "Get out here HIGGS! I KNOW you're in there. SHOW YOUR UGLY FACE!"

  81. Moral compass? by mevets · · Score: 1

    Maybe the tea party logo should be a great big magnet....

    1. Re:Moral compass? by jameskojiro · · Score: 1

      Ummm.... Hate to break it to you but the Magnetic Field basically induced "Relitavistic Morality" in the subjects. The other side of the political spectrum (liberals, Socialists) is big on Relivavstic Morality. The Tea Party people are more people of "Absolute Morality", That is they are stiff on their Moral Compas because the rod they shoved up their rears and would ascribe someone's actions as bad even if they don't hurt anyone. The Hippie people of the other side of the spectrum, would argue that if no one was hurt then the law doesn't matter.

      Abortion rights for example, The Tea Parties are mostly Anti-Abortion, because they view killing as wrong and they are inflexible on it. They are even against drugs like RU-486 even though they terminate the fetus when it still is very much a clump of cells. They are inflexible about terminating the Preganancy when the fetus is still a undefritiated mass of cells, this is the Trap of Moral Absolutism.

      The Pro-Choice side views the fetus as an optional inconveince to the mother and view it is her choice, her morality on if to terminate the pregancy or not. They view a fetus of 1 week vs. one of 8 months as the same "mass of cells". So they view termination of a fetus as not murder, so when killing a fresh newborn would be considered murder, but when aborting the same fetus one hour before that would not be... Even when we know that the fetus is pretty much the exact same thing. Their Morality of what constitutes murder is moraly relative as when it is done. There have been some thought on the left that infanticide should be legalized on these same grounds, pushing the limit to past birth... This is the Trap of Relative Morality.

      The Common Sense usually is found somewhere in the middle of both extremes....

      So I think the Tea Party Logo Should be some material that is Anti-Magnetic.

      --
      Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
    2. Re:Moral compass? by mikechant · · Score: 1

      The Pro-Choice side views the fetus as an optional inconvenience to the mother and view it is her choice, her morality on if to terminate the pregnancy or not. They view a fetus of 1 week vs. one of 8 months as the same "mass of cells". So they view termination of a fetus as not murder, so when killing a fresh newborn would be considered murder, but when aborting the same fetus one hour before that would not be...

      This is a gross distortion of the typical pro-choice view. Very, very few people who would characterise themselves as pro-choice support abortion in the third trimester, or at any point beyond where the fetus is potentially independently viable (in the area of 24 weeks, maybe a bit less), apart from cases where the mother's life is in immediate danger etc.
      Countries with fairly 'liberal' abortion regimes such as the UK typically have limits such as 20-24 weeks, and in practice the vast majority are performed well before these limits.

    3. Re:Moral compass? by mevets · · Score: 1

      Spelling aside, I took it from the article that the magnet caused confusion, so the subjects could only cling to the most obvious, least nuanced understanding; thus the tea party crack.

      The stereotypes of all walks evoke and reject 'means justify ends' as it suits their bias.

  82. Correlation... by marcosdumay · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."

    Yea, right, because not questioning people may cause a strong magnetic field around one's head... People are so fast to jump to conclusions based on correlation, why did the news report that it is just a correlation when there is no way* it can't imply causation? Looks like some uninformed journalist just read the wikipedia article on logic falacies.

    * Except for a flawed study, but that possibility is always present, and not directly related to the measured correlation..

    1. Re:Correlation... by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "...why did the news report that it is just a correlation when there is no way* it can't imply causation? Looks like some uninformed journalist just read the wikipedia article on logic falacies."

      This brain-glitch exists only in the Slashdot summary. The actual article says exactly the opposite.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  83. Re:Homosexuality ? by ricosalomar · · Score: 1

    Morality != ethics

  84. Re:Homosexuality ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I agree with you. Homosexuality should not be looked down upon or considered wrong.

    On the other hand, to consider beliefs again homosexuality outdated or "very old goat herder" is a bit unreasonable and shows your biases. Cultures/religions are against homosexuality for cultural evolution reasons, more or less the same reason why Catholics are against birth control: it is to the advantage of the culture/religious group to have more children (and therefore out-breed competitors), so they hold beliefs that increase the number of children their followers will have. Their beliefs might be hateful, but they aren't stupid.

  85. I, for one, welcome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    our new magnetic overlords.

  86. Causation by dcollins · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Young points out that the study was correlation; their work only links the RTJP, morality and magnetic fields, but doesn't definitively prove that one causes another."

    What is it with Slashdotters' completely fucked-in-the-head understanding of correlation vs. causation? The article says exactly the opposite of this summary!

    "Recent fMRI studies of moral judgment find fascinating correlations, but Young et al usher in a new era by moving beyond correlation to causation," says Sinnott-Armstrong, who was not involved in this research.

    And that was completely obvious without even needing to see the article anyway. This is a designed experiment. Designed experiments establish causation. (See Weiss, Introductory Statistics 7E, p. 22, et. al.) Obviously a person's moral judgements aren't causing the magnet that you're switching on-and-off to work. For chrissake.

    --
    We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  87. TED talk by slinches · · Score: 2, Informative

    There's a TED talk from last year on this subject from the lead researcher, Rebecca Saxe.

    --
    Knowledge Brings Fear
  88. And where do you hold a cell phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... sounds like it's *just* *that* *spot* near the ear.

  89. TED by intercept · · Score: 1

    Here's a really interesting TED Talk about this type of stuff: http://www.ted.com/talks/rebecca_saxe_how_brains_make_moral_judgments.html

  90. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your theory fails when you get to Florida. Especially the Miami region...

  91. If this is the case by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    How does this jive with the idea that morality can come only from a divine being? Can EMI prevent the angel on my shoulder from talking to me?

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
    1. Re:If this is the case by John+Hasler · · Score: 1

      Angels _are_ magnets.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  92. I can vouch for this... by darthnoodles · · Score: 1

    I'm a chick magnet and thus chick have no morals when they're around me.

  93. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your assertion that south pole = conservative is based on flawed logic.

    In truth, the southern states are further from either pole, since the US does not cross the equator. Now, if you said that those in Argentina were more conservative than those in Mexico, that would be interesting to see...

  94. I knew it! by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    Boobs are filled with ferrofluid

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  95. One of the scenarios from TFA by alex_guy_CA · · Score: 1
    "For example, subjects were asked to judge how permissible it is for a man to let his girlfriend walk across a bridge he knows to be unsafe, even if she ends up making it across safely. In such cases, a judgment based solely on the outcome would hold the perpetrator morally blameless, even though it appears he intended to do harm."

    Posted here incase you are curious and did not want to bother with TFA

  96. Re:How long before Tiger Woods just blames magneti by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    Good for you, you don't care about something. No one cares about that fact. The circle is complete. Ommmmm.

  97. So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So... what you call "soul" is nothing but an emergent property of your brain?

    Why? What makes you jump to the conclusion that because two things are connected, therefore one must be caused by the other - and specifically that you get to choose which one that is?

    Connected does not mean "causal".

    If the "soul" (if it exists) is connected to the brain, and the magnet interferes with this connection, why is it surprising that behaviour also changes?

    Because, if the soul-mind connection can be interefered with, that negates the moral purpose of the soul as repository for merits and demerits caused by good and bad actions. If your bad actions can result from a bad connection, then the soul (and the self) should not accrue the demerits, bad karma, stains, evil, or whatever you want to call it. Because if they did, then I could go to hell for walking under a strong magnet.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by Lobachevsky · · Score: 1

      But the soul may be repentant of the actions the body is doing if the connection is truly degraded (or altogether severed). Judgement on the soul may therefore not be bad if it turns out the body carried forth evil _despite_ the wishes of the soul. I look at this as a software/hardware problem. You don't yell at the software programmer for a bug in his software when the memory stick goes bad or there's a cpu bug. Yes, the software may behave improperly, and, yes, the software may therefore do "bad" things (send cars hurling into brick walls, crash planes, meltdown nuclear reactors). But if the cause is faulty hardware, like a cpu bug, you don't judge the programmer as a nitwit.

      P.S. I'm an agnostic who is interested in theology and mythology. (You can love reading and learning about Zeus, and contemplate his personality and powers, without believing he is real! I see religion as fanfiction.)

    2. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by toastar · · Score: 1

      Wow, This sounds like last nights voyager, except it used borg nano probes rather then magnets.

      http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/Repentance_(episode)

    3. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by characterZer0 · · Score: 1

      Think X windows.

      If the client (the soul) sends correct data to the server (the brain), but the server is broken (due to magnets), the client was correct and its data is presumably correct, but the display is screwed up.

      If the client is the one that gets judged (the karma), then there is no problem.

      --
      Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
    4. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      Then moral agency means nothing unless we consider ALL influences. We can't just say, "They did it, they are guilty.' We need to know the entire state of the universe to make a moral judgment. Which makes the concept of the soul philosophically useless.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    5. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by badran · · Score: 1

      So now there is a loophole for the believers....

      And a good business idea for the smart..

      Start selling Supper Magnet Tin Foil Hats, which will insure that the Soul (TM) would stay clean while the wearer can screw the world...

    6. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Agencies that attempt to punish people for their bad actions don't need to consider these things, though. It really doesn't matter where the failing is in a criminal that causes him to commit a crime, merely that he did it and this means we have to consider preventing this criminal from committing any more crimes for a period of time. Ultimately, I think we're going to discover that nearly all crime originates either in a bug in the hardware or a FEATURE of the hardware. (males commit way more crime because many of the crimes they commit increase their chances of reproduction)

      Obviously, if humans have souls, then a cosmic authority would need to consider all influences, like you suggest, to determine accurate moral judgments.

    7. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by AlamedaStone · · Score: 1

      Then moral agency means nothing unless we consider ALL influences. We can't just say, "They did it, they are guilty.' We need to know the entire state of the universe to make a moral judgment. Which makes the concept of the soul philosophically useless.

      You had me at...

      Wait, no... you lost me.

      --
      "All these years believing you're the signified monkey, only to find out you're just a big hunk of nobody cares."
    8. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      What if crime is cause by a feature in the hardware exploited by a bug in the software?

      In any case, I agree completely, we can create a workable moral framework that does not spring from any idealistic abstractions, but from an understanding of cause and effect.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    9. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      The soul is considered to be the primary causative agent of the self. If it is not, in fact, a primary cause but just a loosely coupled factor, then what is the purpose of a soul? It causes nothing with any certainty, and therefore it will not accrue merit or demerit and should not be judged. Philosophically, what is it for?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    10. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by aclarke · · Score: 1

      Because, if the soul-mind connection can be interefered with, that negates the moral purpose of the soul as repository for merits and demerits caused by good and bad actions. If your bad actions can result from a bad connection, then the soul (and the self) should not accrue the demerits, bad karma, stains, evil, or whatever you want to call it. Because if they did, then I could go to hell for walking under a strong magnet.

      Maybe you should consider a religion where one's good or bad actions are not the key influencers of one's eternal destiny--Christianity, for example.

    11. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Frankly, that's repugnant to me. The God of Christianity strikes me as evil. If he exists, I'm afraid I'm going to have to refuse to have anything to do with him. I'll suffer my eternal punishment in silence, because I don't deal with FUCKING TERRORISTS, okay?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    12. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      I think we're simply trying to discern the contents of Russell's teapot at this point. Turtles all the way down and all that.

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    13. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by oztiks · · Score: 1

      So you can use the excuse in court ...

      "Your honor, at the time of the crime, my clients brain was experiencing technical difficulties as bunch of kids with a horseshoe magnet we're DoSing the back of his head. I'd like to admit Article B in to evidence which are server logs clearly displaying that my client's soul had significant packet loss to and from his body during time of the aforementioned incident"

    14. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > We need to know the entire state of the universe to make a moral judgment.
      WE need to. Many religions say complete justice is in the domain of their god and only their god. You just said that too.
      Some religious men take upon themselves the right to judge others? Do they follow their own religion? "Do not judge, and you will not be judged; and do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; pardon, and you will be pardoned."

      And "philosophical usefulness" is a metric only if the world obeys to (some) philosophical system. Cult of philosophy, cool.

    15. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by aclarke · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      What exactly was repugnant to you in my post? I was merely trying to subtly make the point that if you were referring to Christianity in your original post, you had the theology wrong.

      This time I'm making the point more clearly.

      Possibly you were referring to other religions. In Islam, for example, it is taught that a follower's good deads will be weighed against his bad deeds after death. While there are aspects of this in the Bible and I don't want to discount this, one of the central theses of Christianity is that one is saved by trusting in Jesus' sacrifice, rather than attaining a certain level of "goodness" or avoiding a certain level of "badness".

    16. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Right, well, that's the problem, isn't it? I'm just evil from birth in your religion, and nothing I can possibly do can make up for that except begging forgiveness from the guy who set me up to fail.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    17. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Actually I'm saying that we as earthlings cannot determine if an action is moral or immoral. This is because we do not have the knowledge that would be needed. In the past, we THOUGHT there was such a thing as morality, but we didn't know about evolution or how the neural hardware makes decisions or anything else. Turns out, we were wrong.

      However, we can come up with a practical system for dealing with actions that are destructive to other individuals or to society. Such a system needs to be based upon research as to what actually reaches the local minima for crime versus the cost of fighting crime. (that is, we have to determine the cost of fighting crime versus the cost of the crime, and find the point on the graph that costs society the least). Criminal punishment should not be intended for 'revenge' : punishment should only be used if it is determined through research to actually reduce crime.

    18. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by Tromad · · Score: 1

      If there is indeed a god, even a christian god, it is entirely plausible that man's writings about him have little to do with him. I actually find your comment to be just as hilarious as fundamental Christianity. "Oh, you exist, well fuck you!" strikes me as just as silly as the literal interpretation of Genesis.

    19. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      So now there is a loophole for the believers....

      And a good business idea for the smart..

      Start selling Supper Magnet Tin Foil Hats, which will insure that the Soul (TM) would stay clean while the wearer can screw the world...

      Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. I found a place where the context of that quote has relevance to the discussion. I believe you all owe me an internet now.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    20. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      When I speak of philosophical usefulness, I'm trying to express an idea about thinking itself. In our lives we encounter many concepts and ideas and we put together a mental map of the world. We need to continually evaluate our own mental maps. We need to look at our ideas, how consistent they are with each other and reality as we perceive it. That is what 'philosophical usefulness' means to me.

      I try not to judge IRL but I just realized, Slashdot is my guilty little outlet for being judgmental. Damn it, that means I'm going to have to be nicer to all you fucks.

      "Complete Justice" is just a hack, too. Another ego rationalization, a philosophically bankrupt concept. You want justice? You better start making it, right here and now, because there's no guy in the sky to make it all right in the bye and bye.

      Justice is just another feeling. We have it because we are social creatures and it is genetically advantageous for us to have a sense of it. Because justice, fairness, and reciprocity work better than their opposites. But justice does not exist outside our mental constructs.

      That's my theory, anyhow. I'll probably have to refine or even change it completely as I get hold of new information, but it's the best I've got right now.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    21. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, well, that's the problem, isn't it? I'm just evil from birth in your religion, and nothing I can possibly do can make up for that except begging forgiveness from the guy who set me up to fail.

      Loss is built into the conservation laws of thermodynamics.

      If you could trivially undo your choices (undo a choice at zero energy cost), would a choice really have meaning? By all accounts, the universe seems to be constructed so that nothing can be undone with zero energy cost.

      Have you considered the possibility that this is the only way the game can be rigged without making it a rote development of fate? Have you considered the possibility that error makes us free?

    22. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      I was trying to convey something about our mental models of the universe, rather than the unknowable itself. If it's turtles all the way down, what does that mean for our ideas of self, free will, the soul, good and evil, and so forth in that vein.

      Some people find a mental map of the world that they like and choose to look no further, taking it on faith that their map is 'true.' If it's turtles all the way down, there is no truth but that. And this, right here right now. Which means we should keep looking at this, and comparing our mental maps to this, and not take anything on faith.

      It means that to me, anyhow.

      So, this experiment seems to show that fundamental parts of what we conceive of as ourselves can be altered by external stimuli. No big news to anyone who follows the cognitive sciences. Heck, we can point that thing at another part of your head and make you see God. So what? Well, it means that what we think of as 'self' is not a thing unto itself, a separate actor walking volitionally across an impassive stage of a universe.

      And if we are not willing ourselves around a universe that exists simply as a stage, a backdrop for other selfish actors, then we are not what most of us seem to think we are. If we are not separate, then how are we different from an avalanche or a hurricane? What is volition if it is only a conditioned thing? What is will if it only exists due to the causes and conditions that create and support it? If will is not a separate thing, then what most of us think when they think 'me' is just plain wrong.

      Heck, if it's turtles all the way down, then will and self are also turtles all the way down. We are not riding on the backs of turtles, we're just more turtles. It may well be turtles all the way up, too. But we are the top turtles I've seen, and I've looked.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    23. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      Right, well, that's the problem, isn't it? I'm just evil from birth in your religion, and nothing I can possibly do can make up for that except begging forgiveness from the guy who set me up to fail.

      Loss is built into the conservation laws of thermodynamics.

      If you could trivially undo your choices (undo a choice at zero energy cost), would a choice really have meaning? By all accounts, the universe seems to be constructed so that nothing can be undone with zero energy cost.

      Have you considered the possibility that this is the only way the game can be rigged without making it a rote development of fate? Have you considered the possibility that error makes us free?

      Yes, I've considered those things, but then I thought to myself, time's directional arrow does not apply to the laws of physics as we understand them, they run in reverse just as well as they do forward. Why do we see things in terms of time anyhow?

      Because we are just frames in a movie. It wouldn't even matter what order the frames were shot in, we would have to experience them in this particular order because we aren't outside, watching.

      We really have no way of knowing, from inside the movie, what exactly it is or how it works. We can't know if it is predetermined or not.

      In any case, your argument is flawed. Plenty of things can be undone with zero energy cost. Look up the word adiabatic. Conservation laws are derived, rather than fundamental laws, and they really only deal with static states, moments in time, not continual flow.

      We don't know if the universe is predetermined or not. Certainly, our best theories say it is. The quantum wave function is deterministic. But we don't know, and we can't, for certain.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    24. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      It's more, if you exist, and if you are actually anything like these clowns say you are, fuck you.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    25. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      We have neural hardware for morality. We manipulated it with magnets. Some of it, at least, was basically where we thought it would be.

      We have a sense of justice, fairness, and reciprocity. We have empathy. Well, most of us have these things because it is genetically advantageous to have them, even if a few of our species don't. Justice, fairness, and reciprocity work, species that have a sense of these things have an advantage, they can work together and learn from each other.

      Oh, and what you wrote. On the same page now, I think. Society needs to acknowledge and encourage the moral sense that most of us have, while explaining logically why doing these things benefits even a completely selfish individual to those who don't have the innate senses.

      I believe that we have two basic psychological modes, the feast mode and the famine mode. Based on game theory and economic experiments, it seems that most people will try to be fair and equitable with others even when it costs them nothing to be completely selfish. And most people will instinctively punish unfairness in others, even if that hurts them dearly in the game. The experimental games I'm thinking of were played in poor regions, for the equivalent of months worth of salary.

      But if everyone around them is being unfair, and unfairness can not be punished, most people will resort to being unfair and selfish themselves. Most people. Just as we have a few sociopaths, who can not help being selfish, we have people who can not help being fair, equitable, and good. Slightly more of them than the selfish type, if I remember correctly.

      Some theorists speculate that after we settled down and started farming for the first time, climate change hit us in a big way. Before, the psychological impact of such an event would be minimized as groups migrated from affected areas more easily, and the resulting population pressures were dissipated through low level endemic warfare, which is in some ways more of an extreme sport, gaining the winners a wife and a place in society, and the losers a life with less optimistic chances and perhaps some disfiguring or even crippling injury. Death was rare, but it didn't need to be common to reduce population pressures enough.

      After we settled down and started farming, things were different when climate change hit. Whole advanced and specialized societies stayed until their surpluses ran out, and then descended on their more fortunate neighbors with organized desperation. And famine causes birth defects, no myelin sheaths for the babies. At least a generation of brain damaged kids was raised by severely PTSD parents. And thus, famine mode was locked into our brains. Everybody grows up starving for something, to this very day. Or so the theory goes.

      And so we have a society where everybody grows up feeling desperate and selfish, to some extent. Which makes being selfish the only logical option unless the majority of people suddenly decide to play nice again. The cure seems to be gorging ourselves until we're convinced we're not starving anymore. Let's hope the planet can take that.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    26. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Congratulations, you are now a Calvinist

    27. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by shentino · · Score: 1

      Depends if the soul itself was responsible for being the first link in the chain of causation that lead to the interference in the first place.

      This is why you get off fairly light if not completely if someone spikes your drink with ethanol than if you chug down a beer.

    28. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      I think you're missing the point. Evolved behaviors aren't morality. We've evolved behaviors that are sometimes moral by our artificial standards, sometimes not. And we have no reference points, so we cannot determine morality as mere mortals. A lot of your post has various misunderstandings about evolution, such as genetic memory and other things.

    29. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by raynet · · Score: 1

      Sure we can determine what is moral and what is immoral. I decide what is moral and immoral, and so do you. And we are both right. Now, if we live in a society where we are depended on each other, we need to negotiate on what morals we agree upon. Ofcouse this means there is no innate right or wrong, but why should there be.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    30. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      Where did I say anything about genetic memory? I'm talking cultural memory. And morality, as I said and these experiments confirm, is a feeling, created by an analogue circuit in the brain. We can and do determine what is moral, by our standards, which are the only ones that matter.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    31. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by spun · · Score: 1

      Calvin didn't understand emergent phenomenon. So no, I'm not really.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    32. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by ShooterNeo · · Score: 1

      Because a lot of people do believe there are innate rights and wrongs, and use this belief to force laws on the rest of us that have no basis in actuality as to right and wrong.

    33. Re:So God will punish me for a bad connection? by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      I wonder if there is a way to have a room that is all magnetified so that people entering it become blithering idiots and fall to the floor in convulsions. Then you could decorate it with voodoo mumbo jumbo and call it the 'inner sanctum'. I'm sure someone could come up with a way to make money off of that.

      --
      ...
  98. Magneto! by h3llfish · · Score: 1

    I always thought that Magneto's "magnetic personality" power was stupid. How does having control over electro-magnetism give you control over other people's actions? Stupid! Or is it?!? Next they'll publish a story about radio-active spiders and their numerous health benefits...

  99. Re:Homosexuality ? by schon · · Score: 1

    Cultures/religions are against homosexuality for cultural evolution reasons, more or less the same reason why Catholics are against birth control: it is to the advantage of the culture/religious group to have more children (and therefore out-breed competitors)

    OK, tell that to the Samoans.

  100. TMS is a *really* powerful magnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got my masters in Cognitive and Neural Systems a few years ago and we worked with TMS-derived data. TMS is a *really* powerful magnet placed directly on your skull. It can induce seizures. It can make you temporarily lose various other abilities like the ability to speak or the ability to see colors. This is not a low-grade magnetic field. It was also hard at the time for researchers to control exactly which brain region they were knocking out, though this may have improved since then. The research is interesting because they've demonstrated that this area of the brain modulates morality, but the magnetic fields to generate such a disruptive effect would have rather noticeable effects (like being inside a giant MRI machine) if they were present at longer range.

  101. We're only now learning to interpret brain signals by Orga · · Score: 1

    We now have electrode setups that can interpret signals from the brain to control computer inputs, it is simply a matter of time before we're able to not only read, but write. This experiment is crude, like taking a piece of graphite and smearing it onto the right upper edge of a piece of paper. I envision soon after we perfect the reading of the signals we'll gain enough understanding to be able to influence and write those signals as well, with a fine point pen. Repeat offenders no more... addictions? no more. Reading slashdot at work? oh boy.

  102. more human than human by Speare · · Score: 1
    Morality or Empathy? Where are all the Voigt-Kampff references?

    You're in a desert walking along in the sand when all of the sudden you look down, and you see a tortoise, it's crawling toward you. You reach down, you flip the tortoise over on its back. The tortoise lays on its back, its belly baking in the hot sun, beating its legs trying to turn itself over, but it can't, not without your help. But you're not helping. Why is that?

    Voigt-Kampff questions from Blade Runner

    --
    [ .sig file not found ]
  103. Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation by mick129 · · Score: 1

    It's not just "a magnetic field" which was used in this study, it's TMS. TMS uses a strong magnetic field to induce an electrical current inside someone's head, similar to direct stimulation using electrodes but without all the surgery. There is a electromagnetic "paddle" held next to the skull in a specific orientation so that the electrical current will be in the intended spot in the brain.

    Also, TMS has no special relationship with the brain area which affects moral judgement. TMS can be used to stimulate any area and often the effect is disrupting the function of that area. So with some good aiming you can inhibit speech, distort vision, etc.

    The "magnets == amoral judgement" bit is just silly.

    --
    Move along, no sig to see here.
  104. Time to put on ... by arielCo · · Score: 1

    our MU-METAL HATS!

    --
    This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
  105. OP got it wrong. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    OP stated: "The researchers found that when the RTPJ was disrupted volunteers were more likely to judge actions solely on the basis of whether they caused harm -- not whether they were morally wrong in themselves."

    No, according to TFA, that is not what they found. There was nothing about something being "morally wrong in itself".

    Rather, the experimental subjects tended more to judge a person's actions based solely on outcome, rather than the intent, whereas control subjects were more willing to judge based on a person's intentions, even if the outcome was negative.

    That is not the same thing at all. There was nothing about an action being morally right or wrong "in itself". That would be religion, not morality.

    However, the experiment did seem to leave out one common real-world situation. In the experiment, the person was either completely unaware of a possible bad outcome, or caused the bad outcome on purpose. Apparently they did not include the case where the person's intentions are good, and the the person reasonably should have known (but for some reason did not) that the outcome would be bad.

    I have seen an awful lot of well-meaning people do a lot of bad things, when they really should have known better but somehow did not. Especially in government. But then, in the case of government I question whether it was really ignorance, or just pretense.

    ---
    "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." -- U.S. Justice Louis Dembitz Brandeis

  106. brilliant by circletimessquare · · Score: 0

    mod parent up, you betcha

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  107. My alter ego... by TheSpatulaOfLove · · Score: 1

    When I'm in the Northern Hemisphere, I'm a pretty nice guy. The problem begins when I cross the equator - The further south I go, the bigger a douchebag I become!

  108. Business Potentional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens in Vegas, Stays in Vegas!

  109. technobabble by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    So, strong magnetic fields can disrupt the soul?

    Souls are resonant magnetic fields that exists as hyper-complex harmonics within the earth's own field. Their patterns are altered by moral choices made during their localized anchoring to ephemeral material matrices with sympathetic resonance, and so when the cohesion of the materials is lost they flow back in geomagnetic currents, up in the case of virtue, and cycling back through the icy poles to the crushing heat of the core for sinners.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  110. Re:Perfection by Anarki2004 · · Score: 1
    --
    The teachers will crack any minute, purple monkey dishwasher.
  111. Re:How long before Tiger Woods just blames magneti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You would have a point, but for the fact that we are on Slashdot, and I know for a fact 95% of the people here don't care about Tiger Woods. Just like Brittany Murphy or Anna Nicole. Billy Mays was at least notable for his character.

    Lol, I didn't even know Bernie Mac was dead until I searched to remember Anna's name.

  112. Re:Homosexuality ? by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

    Homosexuality is only wrong in an historical socio cultural specific context. For example, while some group at some point of history considered it "neutral" some other condemned it. Furthermore from the biological and psychological point of view, as far as I udnerstand , you mostly DO NOT CHOSE your sexuality.

    These points can be equally applied to pedophilia, and the first one to incest and probably beastiality as well. Will you be so quick to condemn our society's widespread disapproval of those practices?

    This is not to equate homosexuality with the others--they're all quite different--except in the sense that it is not the norm. I think out of the ones above, homosexuality is the most deserving of legitimate status since it is generally practiced between consenting adults. This is a far stronger argument than "it's cultural!" and "you can't choose!" because those arguments fail when it comes to other sexual practices.

  113. We already know... by HikingStick · · Score: 1
    We already know that a litany of things can affect a person's moral judgment, including:
    • lack of sleep,
    • other causes of fatigue
    • excessive stress
    • excessive alcohol consumption,
    • narcotics/other controlled substances,
    • chemical imbalances in the brain, and
    • temporarily induced changes in body chemistry (i.e., being near a really hot guy/gal).

    [That last one is only partly tongue-in cheek.]

    Why should we be surprised that magnetic fields can do the same thing?

    --
    I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
  114. Re:More fascinating - risk vs cost by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It makes sense to judge actions based on known outcomes, but what's the evolutionary advantage to being moral in the abstract?

    It's not abstract. Consider the judgement being one of risk vs actual cost. An example is you cross the street and
    mistakenly cut it very very close but you don't get hit. Do you want to do that again? Why not, you survived...

    So the judgement is to the "risk" involved, not just whether you survive the experience...

    Another example:

    Cramer Defends His Citi Call, Says He "Has No Idea Really How Citi Is Doing"
    Tyler Durden on 12/18/2009 11:03 -0500

    http://www.zerohedge.com/article/cramer-defends-his-citi-call-says-he-has-no-ide
    +a-really-how-citi-doing

    Cramer's comment is:

                    The main thing is the stupidity of the critics who keep
                    calling it a bad deal. A bad deal is one that breaks print,
                    not one that goes up after.

                    Make judgments only about whether you make or lose money.
                    That's what you can try to control. The rest is dross
                    ginned up by people who need something to write or talk
                    about.

    This is terrible advice. If you make a trade with huge risk but
    luck out and come out a profit it's good? So plunk down all your
    capital on some number on roulette -- if it comes up it was a good
    idea, right?

    Risk matters and should be considered in the decision of what is a
    good trade or not. Even if the actual trade turns out to be a loss.
    [Although a loss which exceeds the original estimate of risk
    indicates that the risk in the trade wasn't really understood].

    PS: Remember, Cramer is the one who just lucked out on blowing up
            his hedge fund. This indicates he would do it again (at least
            until his luck runs out, at which point he won't have the money
            to do it again)...

  115. Re:How long before Tiger Woods just blames magneti by The+End+Of+Days · · Score: 1

    I still have a point, even if you can prove 100% of people don't care about Tiger Woods.

  116. TMS is brain stimulation not just a magnet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    TMS - transcranial magnetic stimulation is an extremely high magnetic field used to suppress function in an area of the brain. In research, TMS is used to map areas of the brain by "knocking out" an area and testing the subjects to see what function is now missing. This is no simple magnet but a carefully designed system to inject a significant amount of magnetism into the brain. The careful design is necessary to inject the magnetism beyond just the outer surface of the brain. This technique is approved for treating depression when typical drugs are not working.

    Mayo Clinic: http://www.mayoclinic.org/transcranial-magnetic-stimulation/?mc_id=comlinkpilot&placement=bottom

    By the way, the field is so high the patient wears hearing protection due to loud snapping noise from the system.

    Sadly, Discover could have done better with just a google search on TMS.

  117. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by sorak · · Score: 1

    canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion

    so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative

    so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!

    Or you could just encourage Southerners to read more </ducks>

  118. Re:How long before Tiger Woods just blames magneti by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, you didn't. I knew that people care not for my opinions. As they don't yours. So your point was irrelevant. But if my post clued in the OP and prevented just one more occurrence of this shitty meme, then my job here is done.

  119. Pah. by jd · · Score: 1

    The CERN physicists play with 100T magnets. Which seem to be located in Switzerland. Under the bank. Hmmm.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    1. Re:Pah. by Danathar · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure "Play" would be an accurate description...

  120. Putting a tin foil hat.. by propus · · Score: 1

    takes a whole new meaning..

  121. In Before... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All the quack Enquirer-ad-product people start hocking 'Love Magnets'...

  122. Obvious usage in marketspeak by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, powerful magnets WILL be part of our new future combat helmets! 10% more dead bad guys (tm) guranteed!

  123. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by Culture20 · · Score: 1

    you seem to think that North America = USA + Canada = the entire world

    Did your silly Canadian schools teach you differently? Repent of your ways or be sent to Mexico!

  124. permanently remove the subjects' morals by Kanasta · · Score: 1

    " The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects' moral sensibilities "

    I think they mean " The scientists /don't think/ they permanently removed the subjects' moral sensibilities "
    If ever there was a question about ethical experiments...

    1. Re:permanently remove the subjects' morals by Grim+Leaper · · Score: 1

      " The scientists didn't permanently remove the subjects' moral sensibilities "

      I think they mean " The scientists /don't think/ they permanently removed the subjects' moral sensibilities " If ever there was a question about ethical experiments...

      Perhaps the scientists tried it out on themselves first... The magnetism made them do it!

  125. Was general reasoning impaired? by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    I can't find any information on one key question: was "moral reasoning" the ONLY mental process affected? Or was cognitive ability in general impaired?

    After all, if you interfere with my ability to think clearly by blasting me with loud noises, giving me mind-altering drugs, or electrocuting me every 10 seconds, I will have difficulty making complex moral decisions... but I'll also have difficulty remembering multiplication tables.

    A better experiment would mix in the moral choice questions with other questions to test general memory, sensory, language, and deductive skills. If all of *those* are similarly impaired, you haven't learned anything but "messing with the currents in peoples' brains makes it hard for them to think."

  126. More importantly ... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

    an area of the brain just above and behind the right ear known as the right temporo-parietal junction (RTPJ), which other studies had previously related to moral judgments

    ... do you hold your cell phone to your left ear, or your right ear? It would be interesting to correlate road rage, for example, with whether the person spends more time with their cell phone clued to the right side of the head, and also whether incidents of road rage are declining with laws against cell phone use while driving.

  127. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by marcobat · · Score: 1

    I am in mexico :-)

  128. Dude, stop making stuff up. by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Cultures/religions are against homosexuality for cultural evolution reasons, more or less the same reason why Catholics are against birth control: it is to the advantage of the culture/religious group to have more children (and therefore out-breed competitors), so they hold beliefs that increase the number of children their followers will have.

    That's a justification you just pulled out of where the sun don't shine. Don't talk as if it counts as knowledge.

    The most famous known case of a society that tolerated or encouraged homosexual behavior is pederasty in ancient Greece. Older men took younger men as lovers, in addition to marrying women. This pattern, BTW, recurs all over the world. The marginalization or acceptance of same-sex relationships is orthogonal to reproduction.

    As to the second point, you're presumably not telling us that the Catholic Church adopted their birth-control policies as a calculated move to boost their numbers, but rather, that they have such large numbers because they adopted that policy in the distant past. However, knowledge of effective birth control didn't really exist in Europe until the late 20th century, and Protestant churches used to have similar prohibitions until then. So, your explanation requires us to uncover some sort of pre-20th century church that both allowed its members to practice birth control, and even more, whose members actually knew how to achieve it effectively.

    Not to mention that the Catholic Church is historically notorious for having a serious anti-sex attitude and all but telling people not to have sex.

  129. And one more point... by Estanislao+Mart�nez · · Score: 1

    Cultures/religions are against homosexuality for cultural evolution reasons, more or less the same reason why Catholics are against birth control: it is to the advantage of the culture/religious group to have more children (and therefore out-breed competitors), so they hold beliefs that increase the number of children their followers will have.

    Islam doesn't forbid contraception, and it is growing faster than Christianity.

  130. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by Nyder · · Score: 1

    canada is near the north pole, while the usa is closer to the south pole. the more south you go in the usa in fact, the more conservative the opinion

    so clearly north pole=liberal, south pole=conservative

    so i will now invent my colossal magnetic northern monopole, hide it in an office tower in dallas texas, and forever alter politics towards the forces of reason and morality! and screw up navigation compasses everywhere!

    lol, fail.

    --
    Be seeing you...
  131. Magneto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sort of scientifically explains Magneto's moral decisions.

  132. paranoia on /. by dominious · · Score: 1
    Noone mentioned this?
    Control factor

    and then I looked up...cell phone towers...major power transmission network..they can control the whole city.

  133. "The ends justify the means" by slodan · · Score: 1

    I don't think any of those things are immoral. Fortunately, they don't use subjective things like your examples in morality research. What the OP and you both ignore is that intentionality is very important in moral decisions. It is why we have the phrase, "The ends justify the means," and why most people have an uncomfortable reaction to the phrase—often it isn't true.

    1. Re:"The ends justify the means" by khallow · · Score: 1

      What the OP and you both ignore is that intentionality is very important in moral decisions.

      That observation is irrelevant to the issue of whether things can be morally wrong without causing harm or not. After all, a person who acts with intent to cause harm isn't performing a harmless, morally wrong act. That is why I ignored it.

      Second, morality is subjective. That is why they have morality research in the first place.

  134. Now think about this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...all the magnetic fields we pass through in our daily, technologically advanced, modern lives...

  135. How is this different than beer? by wrencherd · · Score: 1

    Doesn't this just mean that strong magnetic fields can induce current which impairs the functioning of the brain, in a way similar to alcohol and other intoxicants?

    The use of intoxicants--including non-chemical ones--can develop into addiction, the very definition of which seems to include a "loss of moral compass".

  136. Re:and this is why canada is more liberal than the by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    then what say you about mexico?

  137. Morality & Harm by Cassander · · Score: 1

    I can't think of anything that's morally wrong that doesn't cause harm. Did I read the wrong FA?

    I was beginning to wonder if I had a magnet on my head because I can't think of anything morally wrong that doesn't cause harm either. Glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks this way.

    I suspect religion may be the real culprit here, because that's the only place I can think of where things that cause no actual harm are called morally wrong.

    On that note, did we just stumble across the area of the brain responsible for religion/magical thinking? Can many of the world's problems be solved with mandatory magnetic hats?

    You also said:

    Adultery is immoral (and harmful)

    I contend that is not necessarily always the case. Open relationships can and do work. The main practical problem with adultery is the dishonesty that typically surrounds it, and that indeed causes harm, which in that case makes it immoral, but adultery doesn't necessarily have to be dishonest or harmful.

    --
    Knowledge != Intelligence
    1. Re:Morality & Harm by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      There were a couple of replies to my comment that did actually explain it. The magnets make you ignore intent; they thought accidentally poisoning someone was immoral, while unsucessfully attempting to poison someone was not immoral.

      Too bad TFA sucked so bad.

  138. the title should read by barry_allen · · Score: 1

    "Magnetism Can Alter the Left side of the brain" Thats where the frontal lobe is located and where reasoning and logic come from. Thats what helps us choose right from wrong. Sounds like MIT researchers reversed the brains polarity.

    --
    Ere many generations pass, our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe. - Nikola Tes
  139. I hear you. Sad people don't correlate with EMF. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea I have had bad posture and all kinds of things at odds with interacting with people that don't appreciate my attention to details. I have the opposite of what many might sense as ADD/ADHD and Aspergers at the same time. It happened about 6 years ago when I was given vaccines all at once to "catch-up" with what they said I was behind on getting. They gave me MMR, Polio, Flu Shot, and a couple others and it amounted to tripple the vaccination that I was supposed to get in such durration. Within a month, my heart stopped twice and I was compelled by impulses that I was surrounced and being yelled-at by a drill instructor pissed-off at me. For the next couple years, my math skills suffered and I left the computer repair business. My health took a hit with my Immune System nearly giving-out, and just because of that I've gotten all kinds of Candida imbalance and yeast infections just from touching anything without gloves, and every cold and flue virus has hit my four times in the year rather while everyone else at the most gets twice. I've blacked-out half a dozen times, and when I've defended people from causing physical harm to anyone I know, a slight bump on the shoulder sends me to the sand despite being a foot taller(6'8") and 250 pounds of fitness.

    I will not sue the HMO that did this to me, and I will not advocate any procedure other than to get your nutrition and 30 minutes of oxygenation and aerobic activity with lymphnode massage therapy. Doctors kill 15 million people every year just from medication mistakes and don't get a ticket from OSHA, yet they send USDA after all the organic farmers and non-GMO'd heirloom plantations that grow actual food for good will.

    My health has gotten so bad that I've decided to live on the sea in my boat, and I can't afford even the 300 a month for a marina slip. I do my computer consulting work by satellite on the boat and it barely gets me by with maintenance and necessaries on this craft. I don't know why people don't correlate EMF cell-phone damage to this story's topic of mental state modification by Magnetism, but I must say that the trend of Slashdot is verry little to do with the Scientific Method. I can't use Cell Phones because my Immune System is fragile enough that the EMF from the Phone a couple feet from me causes acne and fungal infections to begin taking root: it suppresses the immune system, so I use a satellite dish on the boat hull with some stabilizers for when I can deploy it on a nearby marker for a stable link. My health has only improved because I'm in a cleaner environment for my immune system to rebuild itself, and I have an excellent view of the Catalina Island Channel and have been able to get aquainted with the woman of my dreams since seeing her 15 years ago at the same highschool but this time she is receptive to a nerd after becoming a nerd herself (she hates jocks now, finally).

    In some ways, I don't know what to say because it's worked-out for the better. But for others not as fortunate as me, and I'm the McGuyver that just barely got by on a shoe string, I hope someone bombs every f*cking doctor office in a HMO. They are nothing but a bunch of drug dealers, and if you are injurred they always bring up a non-disclosed form they say you or I waived liability to. Compensation for damages is not good enough. It's not the vaccine that kills people, it's the delivery mechanism and the GMO'd vaccine virus itself: if they don't want everyone get sick at the same time, then let me pick a week of the year where I can get sick when I'm ready somewhere else. If the vaccine is a nail, they're hitting it into my head with a sledge-hammer for Christ's sake. Let me get sick on my own.

  140. Annoying article by Mudd+Guy · · Score: 1

    The primary PNAS article is pretty annoying IMHO. One of the main purposes of publishing research is to describe the methods so that others can reproduce it. In the Materials and Methods section, the only description of the fields applied refer to using 70% intensity setting of a commercially available product, the Magstim SuperRapid, which does not even appear on the manufacturer's website. Also, the orientation of the field is described only by referring to the orientation of the handle of the device. I would expect a published article to describe the actual field intensity, orientation, and some description of field geometry.

    Guessing that the SuperRapid is equivalent to the Rapid, they are applying 70%*3.5 Tesla = ~ 2.5 Tesla. Holy cow, that's a lot. For comparison, Earth's field is 0.0005 Tesla.

    I assume that no one really cares what happens when you apply these kind of fields to the brain given that one doesn't experience anything like this in normal situations. Is the point that we can learn about brain function by poking it in various ways, and this is just a good way to poke it?

  141. that explains everything! by JRHelgeson · · Score: 1

    Boobs are magnetic - that explains everything then.

    --
    Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
  142. futurama... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "She'll be coming around the mountain when she comes. I'll kill you amy. She'll be coming..."
    Futurama - series 1 episode 2

    Guess it won't just be Bender singing folk songs when a magnet is placed on his head.

  143. Misleading by Metasquares · · Score: 1

    This article is misleading, suggesting that any old magnetic field can alter someone's morality.

    In reality, transcranial magnetic stimulation temporarily disrupts part of the brain. It can blind you, cause you to lose feeling in parts of your body, or cause temporary aphasia (not the sort of thing you'd generally like to be subject to given that we don't understand exactly how functions are localized within the brain). All that this demonstrates is that it can alter one's ability to reason out a person's morality as well. This is not necessarily even a specific response - for all we know it could be disrupting the subjects' ability to empathize with the characters or understand the story altogether.

    It is however somewhat interesting that the behavior elicited when the TMS was applied became more utilitarian than deontological - one philosophy is not necessarily better than the other. I'd question whether their morality was impaired at all. Perhaps it was the morality they had been conditioned to accept that was disrupted. The "memory" of their moral training, so to speak.

  144. Moral judgment? Why not just all judgment? by Vellmont · · Score: 1

    The article says they only asked them moral judgment questions. How do you we know that reasoning skills in general weren't affected? If the person couldn't reason through the situation as well they'd be more likely make the "wrong" choice.

    --
    AccountKiller
  145. Alternate exlaination. by mjwx · · Score: 1

    When I'm in the Northern Hemisphere, I'm a pretty nice guy. The problem begins when I cross the equator - The further south I go, the bigger a douchebag I become!

    Your level of douchbaggery remains the same, the further north you travel the more the level of douchbaggery in others around you increases, thus yours becomes less noticeable.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  146. If a half truth is a lie..... by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    ... how many lies is there in three 1/4 truths?

    "To be able to apply (a magnetic field) to a specific brain region and change people's moral judgments is really astonishing."

    1. TMS is not a magnetic field. It is a strobing of a field building up then collapsing, essentially it is Z number of magnetic fields, each lasting a few milliseconds, where Z equals X seconds times Y pulses per second. The collapsing fields dump energy into the neurons' axons. This has the effect of electroshock, except the target is a small area, not the whole brain.

    2. If a magnetic field applies to a specific brain region did something, a magnetic field applied to the whole head would also. There is nothing in the brain that can tell when a part of the brain is being stimulated vs. the whole thing. Thus, someone in an MRI would have the same reaction. OTOH, they'd have a reaction to everything it were possible to instigate via external stimulation.

    3. TMS doesn't change anything to anything else. It disrupts the region it is focused on, and sends it into a seizure state to where it cannot function. Thus TFA is not about changing someone's morals, it is about incapacitating the brain region with which a person makes such decisions, eliminating that part from the overall process. The result is amoral, not different morals. This far more trivial effect has been shown many times by applying TMS to various frontal areas, most notably the orbitofrontal.

    Anything the brain can do, TMS can make it unable to do for a few seconds to minutes. TMS is focal electroshock. But not so focal that it can differentiate between small neighboring areas. Thus if you zapped the motor strip to incapacitate the thumb, the very near by region controlling the neck would likely get hit, and they'd lose the ability to keep their head upright.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  147. TMS is ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Transcranial (through the skull) Magnetic _STIMULATION_ .

    TNS is designed to muck things up, and it's already known that it will disable (or excite) the parts of the brain that it's pointed toward.

    It's interesting that if you muck up the part they pointed to, you get an effect selective for moral judgments, but to believe that one couldn't affect moral judgments by mucking about in the brain is to believe in dualism.

  148. Man's Polar extremities. by aqk · · Score: 0

    We are now marketing a morally magnetic set of underclothing.
    It has been tested:
    see! - Volunteers were exposed to transgroinial magnetic stimulation!
    and the polarity reversing was shockingly demonstrated.
    i.e. - Our underwear WORKS!
    The subsequentially teabagged transgroined are now fully compliant with America's moral majority.

    When your feet hurt, your whole body knows it. But you can be relaxed and comfortable even if you are on your toes all day, thanks to Nikken insoles!
    As well, Nikken introduces RAM Technology. RAM (radial-axis magnetism) Technology features small magnetic spheres in groups of six!
    ON SALE NOW!

  149. Libertarianism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It doesn't sound like it's scrambled any moral compasses to me. How can something be immoral if it doesn't cause harm?

  150. So can I use a magnet to pick up by nuckfuts · · Score: 1

    girls in a bar?

    And should I use a bar magnet because I'm in a bar, or a horseshoe magnet because I'm hoping to get lucky?

  151. Mageneto Anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder Magneto is a bad guy...

  152. Pedophilia is a different ballpark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Homosexuality is legal and NOT morally wrong as long as it is between consenting adult. Ephebophilia is also considered OK in most country (15/16 years old limit) as teenager that age are consdiered responsible enough to ahve sex and sexual decision, pedophilia on the other hand is considered wrong because the kids do not have the moral and intellectual capability to take such decision. equating pedophilia and homosexuality is making a very bad argument.

    1. Re:Pedophilia is a different ballpark by FiloEleven · · Score: 1

      If you had the capability to read the complete post, you would see that that's pretty much what I wrote. You're really on a hair-trigger, aren't you?

  153. What about... by carvalhao · · Score: 1

    ... 25 minutes of cellphone on the right ear?

  154. Should read "Magnetism makes people more rational" by Draque · · Score: 1

    Having read through that, all I can think is that the magnetism made people more rational. It said that after the treatment, people were more likely to base morality solely on whether an action caused harm. To me, that is entirely reasonable. If something causes no harm, we have no basis to call it immoral other than some personal preference without citing some higher power (which again, I see as irrational).

  155. Re:I hear you. Sad people don't correlate with EMF by spacedx · · Score: 1

    Mods, please +1 funny

  156. Anonymous Coward by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for Congress to get busy passing a law banning people from holding their cell phones to their RIGHT ears with a BIG fine if they are seen doing so and a ODUBLE BIG fine if they are seen doing so while on a smoke break

  157. Actually, on further reflection by pugugly · · Score: 1

    The big question is what were peoples opinions about their decisions after the magnetic field was removed?

    I ask because I've had experience with people that have had mental disorders that were treatable with the proper drugs, and it has always fascinated me - when people were on the medicine, they were fine. When they were off the meds, they were irrational.

    The really interesting thing is that, once back on their meds, they will recall their actions while off the medication as having been perfect rational and justifiable at the time - the brain will rationalize the past behavior, even though it is other wise okay now.

    So, does *that* happen in this instance - do people, once no longer under the influence of the field, realize they were making a bad decision, or do they rationalize it?

    Pug

    --
    An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
  158. Summary's misleading about the intent of the study by Rarzipace · · Score: 1

    The summary and the beginning few paragraphs of all three articles seem to be trying to draw attention with some misleading descriptions of what the experiment discovered. What they describe studying was not the ability to act morally, but to judge morality of a hypothetical scenario after the fact (i.e. with known outcomes). It might indicate the possibility of an effect on the ability to judge the morality of one's actions before performing them, but it doesn't really tell you what. Moreover, the only portion of morality judgment it seems to affect is the consideration of intent. Essentially, they're saying people in their experiment no longer cared what an actor in their hypothetical scenarios was trying to do, but what happened. So, if you're trying to hurt someone and you fail, that's cool, but if you're trying to help someone and end up breaking their arm, that's not cool. It doesn't really have anything to do with the "inherent" moralness of an action, but only of the outcome. So if you're saying, "My philosophy is if doesn't hurt anyone, it's cool to do", then as long as you successfully manage to never actually hurt anyone, a person affected by this alleged phenomenon would be cool with you, too. If, however, you're doing something that shouldn't hurt anyone as far as you know but, for whatever reason, ends up doing so, then they would judge it to be wrong.

  159. Congressional Morals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, so how big is the magnet under Capitol hill?