Battle for the Mind
The above is the title of a book by William Sargant also mentioned below in relation to 'conversion syndrome' referring to a state of mind where beliefs can radically alter - or be altered. I was thinking of another book 'The Mind Possessed: from Ecstacy to Exorcism' which he wrote long before Ecstacy had any relevance for social drugtaking and mass dancing. Interestingly he writes of shamanic practices, drumming, frenetic dance etc. in relation to ecstatic conversion of beliefs. Some people have been critical of his work and I don't want to get into that controversy here. The back cover blurb for 'Battle for the Mind' reads
'The object of this remarkable book is twofold: To explain how people can be switched to arbitrary beliefs absolutely opposed to those previously held - the science of brainwashing! In detail, and with the aid of fascinating photographs, the author describes the methods used to achieve these ends by politicians, priests, psychiatrists and police forces the world over.' There's no mincing words there, neither does William Sargant in the book. He could easily have played down how effective the methods can be.
He knew what he was talking about from a clinical point of view, and also as an anthropological observer through visiting many countries observing customs and rituals. Briefly at this stage I quote from p.79:
'... those who wish to disperse wrong beliefs and undesirable behaviour patterns and afterwards implant saner beliefs and attitudes are more likely to achieve success if they can first induce some degree of nervous tension or stir up sufficient feelings of anger or anxiety to secure the person's undivided attention and possibly increase his suggestibility.' He goes on to explain that, although one might use a model of slow and reasoned belief change, the reality is that it happens a lot faster which suggests a different dynamic.
He goes on to explain how questioning or interrogation can work subtly with the outcome that eventually the person being questioned feeds back to the questioners the theories swimming round and about him.
Sargant was writing from the late 1950's to early 1970's, which explains some of his attitude and terminology.
See also the previous article on 'Physiology/psychology and the brain' regarding work by Dorothy Otnow Lewis and a colleague into some effects of brain damage on mental functioning
. . . . .
Next to arrive on my bookshelf was 'The Unquiet Mind' with William Sargant describing various approaches he attempted with patients, the research of the time, and his own search to find what was appropriate, 'real' or 'right' within his role.
He describes the dilemma that he and colleagues faced over the McNaughton Rules relating to criminal responsibility, and the state of mind of some people accused of violent crime. He writes of a young man who stabbed his mother while mentally confused. Extensive testing revealed abnormal brainwaves from very low blood sugar through his not recently having eaten. The jury took his mental state into account.
Other people in the legal system did not fare so well and some were sentenced to death. Severe abnormalities in brain functioning and behaviour can occur in people with a pre-existing condition who drink large quantities - not necessarily alcohol. Plain water in sufficient quantity can put someone over the edge, and brainwaves can be tested before and after taking in liquid.
There is much more and Sargant's books are inexpensive and easily obtainable.
In the following section 'Are you a skeptic?' I mention the inefficacy (or worse) of certain medication for instance for schizophrenia and depression. William Sargant points out that in some cases people would probably not have survived without some appropriate medication.
I believe I am right in thinking that he felt medication would eventually help with many more kinds of problem, rather than people becoming involved in psychotherapy. I can't help thinking that environment and the way people are treated matter a great deal.
Conversion syndrome
Dr William Sargant wrote on the phenomenon of conversion to religion or way of thought, and suggested it occurred a lot easier if there was high excitation of an area in the brain. In a TV interview some years ago he joked that he would not wish to attend a particular ritual or event as he 'did not want to get converted'.
Does this have relevance for large crowds, rallies, congregations, pop concerts, or even some individual or small-group practices like meditation or ritual? Can we change our own psychological reality? Can reality really get changed, or does how we perceive things change? Can someone else change us against our inclination? How would they benefit? Would we!
If about half of us have a 'religious gene' and half not, where does that leave half of us? any of us? all of us? 'in real terms'?
Will there always be some split in belief or perception which divides us humans into camps, as if somehow we have to seek differentiation? Maybe this is where the 'hissing & splitting' comes in, mentioned by Speakofthedevil in his Blog.
If someone goes in for meditation, or has a feverish illness and senses things differently, do they actually become different? If tragedy knocks harshly on your door, are you necessarily the same person afterwards? I feel we can get changed by things, sometimes so that there is no 'going back' completely. The speaker on cults and 'deployable agents' mentioned above, suggested a need to accept that people may not be able to go right back as they were before joining.
Before closing, a note about a public lecture that was held at the London School of Economics on 'Why is it Always 'Us' and 'Them': on the natural history of thinking through groups' by Professor Lawrence Hirschfeld. I couldn't make it to the lecture so looked his name up and with luck and a fair wind this Link will take you to some information on his work. The LSE holds free public lectures in term-time, see www.lse.ac.uk/events
Physiology/psychology and the brain
From the end of July 2008 and through much of August ITV Channel 5 television in the UK showed a series of programmes, each showing about 4 people who had suffered some change in brain functioning through things such as accident, stroke, illness, being struck by lightning. I only saw the last few but pasted below is text from the Channel 5 website for the first episode.
The last episode was about OCD - Obsessional Compulsive Disorder. A moving section was about two men, one in the US and one in England, who each suffered a stroke after which they became compulsive painters of pictures. Each felt very alone but it was arranged for them to meet, it meant so much to them and it seemed like they were brothers and no longer alone. Another man became a compulsive piano player in middle life after (I think) being struck by lightning. None of these people had any inclination to these things beforehand.
Doctors working in the field described human behaviour as a mixture of activity and inhibition. If something happens to prevent the usual inhibitory processes, there is then a perpetual need to perform some activity or behave in a certain way with nothing to intervene. It may be possible to use some form of cognitive exercise to recognise better when a situation is likely arising. Some people manage to adapt to their 'new self' to some extent but it does seem clear there has been a fundamental change from the 'old self'. Some of those affected manage to work around it for themselves, or with expert help or support from friends and family.
I'll just mention Alzheimers Disease here. One of my uncles appears to have developed this at around age 45 and it can happen at any age. For the last few months at work he went in and fiddled with his pen. He was pretty clever and could still write a brilliant letter - but only when 'in the mood' for it. The rest of the time he just sat around, sometimes in mental hospitals and sometimes at home.
Hopefully one day there will be medication that is more helpful, and I believe breakthroughs are being made for this and other illnesses previously thought hopeless. For most families this is devastating and some people get by better than others. It is as if the soul has gone, leaving the body. With some illnesses it can seem as though the body or mind has been taken over, destroying relationships as well.
Some of the books on the Books section deal with this subject. Sometimes people's lives and personalities change dramatically with devastating effects for them and those around them. Dorothy Otnow Lewis in 'Guilty by Reason of Insanity' details her work with a colleague that physical examination of people who carry out murder or violent crime often shows they have suffered significant relevant brain trauma. (Note: See 'Battle for the Mind' article later in the Blog on some work by William Sarjant about how certain conditions, including whether someone has had food or drink, can have a significant effect on their mental condition, actions or memory.)
Work by Dorothy Otnow Lewis and her colleague also looks at the phenomenon of different personalities operating within the same individual and, in some States in the US, filmed episodes of personality 'switching' goes towards mitigating some of the sentence. The theory behind this is that the individual cannot be held responsible for certain periods in their lives when another personality part was uppermost to the exclusion of the 'real person' in court.
I think this has implications for all of us and takes me back to a point I made earlier about profiling. Obviously profiling can be very relevant and useful, the idea that certain types of personality or some experiences affect us so that perhaps much later on we carry out an extreme act. When we watch CSI or 'Criminal Minds' we see the loose ends being tied up in a meaningful way, like a children's story. But what if we can't see that and there is no apparent sense? Does that make it senseless? There's a lack of continuity or an incongruity - in our minds - but maybe there is not in the mind of the person affected and it makes good sense to them. Can we necessarily hold them 'responsible'? Would we be, if we could only see all the reasons for something we cannot explain?
We may think things like this only happen if someone is on certain medication or has taken hallucinatory or other drugs or just alcohol. People working with those who have suffered extreme psychological trauma in their developing years report this also has physical effects on parts of the brain with far-reaching consequences which these days can show on an MRI scan.
So we can't rule out brain trauma whether we know what actually happened or not. Nor can we rule out psychological trauma or PTSD. Nor can we rule out behaviour which we may see no valid reason for - because it may be that we literally just cannot see it.
'Fiddles, Cheats & Scams'
ITV series of 3 programmes August/September 2008
Article from 'The Guardian' Monday January 19 2004:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2004/jan/19/insurance.business
Insurer introduces psychological tests to prevent fraud
Insurance giant AIG has become the latest group to introduce psychological testing in a bid to cut down on fraudulent claims, it emerged today.
The US group, which operates in 130 countries, is piloting the system on motor and travel insurance claims that it believes may be fraudulent.
It has employed Absolute Customer Management, which uses an interview technique developed by criminal psychologists in the US and used in Holland by psychologists working with children, to look into any suspicious claims.
Staff at Absolute ask claimants to talk them through the claim, analysing the language they use, the level of detail they give and the emotions they display.
The group's centre in East Grinstead, West Sussex, looks into claims for 15 insurers and banks, including Fortis and esure. It handles around 400 claims a month with a collective value of £1.5m, and estimates that 30% of the claims it looks into are potentially fraudulent.
An AIG spokeswoman said: "We are convinced that the vast majority of our policyholders are honest. We are evaluating this new method on less than 1% of the claims we receive."
Car insurer Admiral recently said the use of lie detectors had led to a quarter of policyholders withdrawing claims over vehicle theft.
Britain's biggest mortgage lender, HBOS, uses voice stress analysis technology to try to detect if people are lying when lodging claims under household insurance, while Highway Insurance a syndicate of Lloyds of London, has been using it to detect fraud on motor insurance claims for more than a year.
The Association of British Insurers estimates that fraud on motor and household insurance costs the industry more than £1bn a year.
- - - - - - -
And taking things even further!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/nov/20/neuroscience.science
'The brain can't lie'
Brain scans can reveal how you think and feel, and even how you might behave. No wonder the CIA and big business are interested.
By Ian Sample and David Adam
The Guardian,
Thursday November 20 2003
Earlier this year, a group of American students volunteered their brains for a cutting edge neuroscience project at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. The research used a technique that could watch their brains at work as they made decisions. At first glance, this seems nothing extraordinary: brain-imaging tools have been used routinely for years to assess damage caused by stroke, to hunt for brain tumours, and even identify the grey matter associated with language, love and memories. But this study was different. As each volunteer took their turn to slide into the coffin-like cylinder of the scanner, sticky fluids were squirted into their mouths. As unlikely as it sounds, the students were using multimillion pound medical equipment to take the Pepsi challenge.
Read Montague, the neuroscientist behind the Baylor experiment, is not alone in pushing the boundaries of neuroscience beyond the clinical. In recent years, a growing number of researchers have used brain-imaging equipment to try to reveal our innermost thoughts and feelings in less conventional "social neuroscience" experiments. As well as brand loyalty and consumer choice, neuroscientists are probing violent tendencies, moral reasoning, feelings of love and trust, and notions of justice. Just this week, researchers claimed to have used a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to identify brain activity associated with racial prejudice.
While standard MRI machines like those still found in many hospitals take a snapshot of the brain, functional MRI is newer and more powerful because it takes lots of these snapshots one after the other, revealing how thoughts unfold over time. But the trend for using fMRI to probe social and behavioural issues is prompting some scientists to ask big questions about where this may all lead. Could it only be a matter of time before neuroscientists have techniques that can reveal secrets we would rather keep tucked under our skulls? According to some leading scientists, this isn't a paranoid over-reaction. "The CIA has been interested in fMRI for years as a means of doing lie-detection tests," says Bob Turner, an fMRI expert at University College London. After all, he says: "The brain can't lie."
As scientists unravel the links between how the brain looks and how it functions, some believe we will also be able to use images of the brain to see how people will behave. "There's no scientific distinction between prediction and understanding how the brain works," says Stephen Smith, associate director of the Centre for Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging of the Brain at Oxford University.
The suggestion that brain scans could reveal not just our future health, but the intricacies of our personalities and how we might behave in a given situation, is unsettling enough to some scientists that they want legislation to stop brain-scan records falling into the wrong hands. "We're starting to get detailed information from these brain-scan experiments and soon people are going to be able to use it to predict an individual's behaviour," says Paul Glimcher at the Centre for Neuroscience at New York University. "That information has got to be proprietary to the individual."
The explosion in social neuroscience has been driven by the tumbling cost of scanning equipment. Brain scans used to be the preserve of medical and clinical experiments, because they relied on complex, expensive technology such as positron emission tomography (PET), which was only available in a handful of places. PET scanners, which rely on radioactive tracer materials, cost about £3m to buy and a single scan can cost as much as £2,000. In contrast, a new fMRI machine costs about £1.5m, and each scan works out at about £400.
The fMRI machines are essentially giant, powerful magnets that are used to detect the tiny magnetic fields carried by the hydrogen atoms in water (or blood). They allow a very detailed 3D map of blood flow to be built up, and in the head, blood flow means busy neurons. Studying which regions of the brain need the most blood tells scientists where the most thinking is going on. (The original MRI technique is identical to that used by chemists called nuclear magnetic resonance but the name was changed as it was thought nobody would want to be scanned by a machine with "nuclear" in its title).
As the scanners shifted from being an expensive piece of kit for specialist neuroscientists to a practical tool for anyone with the will to work it, the scientific questions the technique was used to investigate snowballed.
Three years ago, scientists at University College London used fMRI to investigate the essence of love. They recruited people who confessed to being hopelessly in love with their partners and showed them a series of photographs of people they knew, one of which was their partner. Although brain activity was different in each individual, the researchers found that in every case, four specific regions of the brain lit up each time they saw the one they loved. The researchers announced that they had discovered the brain's common denominator of romantic love.
A year later, Joshua Greene and colleagues at Princeton University in New Jersey studied how people solved moral dilemmas. In one test, volunteers were scanned while they were asked whether they would push a person in front of a speeding train if it meant saving the lives of five others. Unsurprisingly perhaps, the question caused a flurry of activity in parts of the brain linked with emotion, leading the researchers to conclude that such moral quandaries may not be solved purely by logical reasoning, but also by emotional reactions.
The technique has also been used to delve into the murky question of how we judge people. Last year, Ray Dolan's team at the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience in London used fMRI to see how people judged the trustworthiness of strangers. Volunteers were shown a series of faces and asked to judge whether the person was trustworthy. The researchers found that a region of the brain called the amygdala and two other parts of the brain flickered more intensely when people were shown the faces of people they thought would not be trustworthy.
But according to some scientists, such studies are the tip of the iceberg. The better fMRI systems become, and the more adept scientists get at extracting information from them, the more they will be able to piece together the neural circuits that make us who we are.
One emerging field is that of "neuro-economics". At the Center for Neuro-economics at Claremont Graduate University in California, Paul Zak is using fMRI to study how people assign value to certain products and make choices about what they buy. "If I ask you why you made a certain decision, you might not really be sure," he says. "But what if I can look directly into your brain and see how you reached that decision? That's what we want to be able to do."
Slowly, he says, researchers are homing in on the neural circuits that are activated when we make decisions - our likes and dislikes or, for example, how much different people value cigarettes over other items. Know that, and you can start feeding the data into policies such as how you tax products, says Zak. "If you know how much people value something, you can work out at what point a price hike will stop people buying it," he says.
Zak says fMRI stands to make a big impact in what has been dubbed "neuro-marketing". As an example of how fMRI might be used, Zak proposes a company that wants to increase its sales of milk. One way it might is to gather a group of people who like milk and scan them as they drink a glass. Some of the regions of the brain that buzz with activity might be triggered by any drink, but others may be triggered only by milk. Find other stimuli that trigger these regions of the brain and it could help you work out what it is that makes milk enjoyable, says Zak. Suppose objects from your childhood made those regions of your brain flicker. It might be that milk was evoking a sense of nostalgia, reminding you of when you got milk at school.
"If it turned out that milk was pleasurable to drink because it evokes memories of your childhood, you could market it as 'good when you were a kid, great when you're an adult'," he says. It's just an idea, and we're not there yet, but Zak says this is not pie-in-the-sky stuff. "A couple of years ago there was a lot of hostility to this kind of research, but now people are realising there's potential in it. Of course there will be a lot of crappy studies, but done properly, it allows us to get answers to questions we could never get before."
At Glimcher's lab in New York, progress is being made into understanding how the brain allow us to make certain decisions. Using fMRI scans and another technique that measures the activity of single neurons, Glimcher has recreated in a computer the neural programs
that monkeys use to make decisions in a simple financial game. "Their behaviour is quite erratic and very similar to that of humans, but the program predicts what they will do to about 95% accuracy. It's spooky," he says. Ultimately, says Glimcher, neuroscientists should be able to use techniques like this to work out what a person will do in a specific situation, such as what he or she might buy when they walk into a shop.
At least one company, the BrightHouse Institute for Thought Sciences, in Atlanta, has been set up to exploit brain scans to inform marketing strategies. Instead of using focus groups, it is trying to use scans to tell companies what people think of their products and commercials.
Not everyone is convinced of the approach though. Donald Kennedy, the Stanford University-based editor of the journal Science and one of America's most eminent scientists, says: "You could just ask people what they think."
While Glimcher concedes that using brain scans to predict behaviour is a long way off, the progress is such that we should think about the implications, he says. "It raises serious philosophical questions, because it reduces us to a machine, but there's also a huge moral issue." Who should be allowed access to our brain scans, if they can reveal so much about us, he asks. "Within 10 years, we will need legislation that protects brain-scan information in the same way genetic information is protected," he says.
If using brain scans to predict specific behaviour is not on the cards, using them to judge if we will suffer from mental disease later in life is. Studies have shown that fMRI scans can be used to reveal early signs of multiple sclerosis and even go some way to predicting who might be most susceptible to dementias such as Alzheimer's. "For severe mental illness and dementias it is a serious proposition," says Sean Spence, a psychiatry researcher at Sheffield University. "There are changes in their brain before they begin to lose their memory. It's quite conceivable people could use that."
Stanford's Kennedy says it is the potential to use scans to predict people's health that is a concern. "I'm worried about fMRI scans being preserved after they have been taken," he says. "There's a push to prevent genetic information being used by companies for adverse selection, and at least equal protection should be given to brain scan data."
Glimcher says legislation banning access to people's brain scans should be drawn up to keep the data private before it's too late. "It's only a matter of time before the insurance companies come calling," he says. "It is going to happen and it's a big issue. It has to be dealt with soon."
See the full article at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/nov/20/neuroscience.science
- - - - - - -
From Channel Five website seach for 'My Strange Brain'
My Strange Brain - Tackling difficult neurological conditions
This new documentary series explores unusual neurological conditions. The first instalment profiles four people with different disorders that affect their memories and sleeping patterns. One woman was struck down by a virus that has erased all her recollections of the last 20 years, while another woman is unable to record new memories. The film also meets a man who loses his muscle tone every time he experiences heightened emotions.
You may also like...
|
