Historical and Neurochemical Influences on Decision Making

           

On November 5th, Dr. Joe Vukov facilitated a discussion that focused on the idea of philosophy-based biology that related to making decisions. By covering this article, Dr. Vukov brought to light a new angle that tackled the theories of neurochemical and historical influence on decision-making. During the seminar, students were able to engage with one another on their own beliefs and where the foundation for their ideologies lied. During the discussion, the term historical variability was brought up and defined as an idea of free will and autonomy. It stated that our morals and beliefs came from historical ideas outside of our control. We want to believe that our beliefs about morality, religion, politics, etc. are deeply personal but can often be attributed to the social climates and historical influences perpetrated through our environment. There is a counterargument to this belief that our environment dictates our thought processes and it comes in the form of neurochemicals. Neurochemical vulnerability states that our judgments and decisions align directly with the neurochemical environment in our brain. When the levels of our neurotransmitters fluctuate, it is said that our thought processes are affected and our actions differ in course. People can then use the excuse that their neurochemical composition dictated their unwarranted actions rather than their actual beliefs. The number of neurotransmitters present or not present in your brain is mostly out of your immediate control. Humans do not have the luxury to reflect on how we would have acted if our neurochemical levels were adjusted to a specific range. Even the cultural and historical background information that we are given throughout the course of our lives is also out of our control. We cannot go back and place ourselves in a time period and change a course of events. However, we are able to reflect on our own ideologies and change biases and invalid information that was presented to us. This can be done through what Dr. Vukov called the symmetry response. Through this response we are able to sort through the behaviors we want to hold onto and the ones we must let go of through historical variability. This same method would not work for neurochemical variability since you cannot choose to have keep the version of you that has more serotonin and throw away the version of you that may be lacking serotonin. Even though it is interesting to see how humans act under certain neurochemical conditions, it is not justifiable to base someone’s actions solely on their brain’s chemistry. There are many factors that play into decisions that people make whether they are virtuous or not. 

            Similarly, in the article “The Problem With Believing What We’re Told”, Gary Marcus and Annie Duke, delve deeper into the idea of historical variability and provides methods to help us all become better skeptics. The two authors first provide information on a study by Daniel Gilbert in which he asked undergraduates students to go through a series of information that was marked true or marked false. He then tested them to see if they could differentiate between the true facts that were given and the false ones. He found that the students did well at remembering which facts fell under each category. However, when a distraction was added participants were seen to say that false information on the list was actually true. Marcus and Duke also touch on the subject of believing what we receive through our scenes. They talk about how before the development of language, humans used their 5 senses to explain their experiences and often did not question them. We have now developed the human language as a sense in a modern-day context which makes it more open to being exploited and manipulated. 

            One form of manipulation uses credibility through pictures that are accompanied by false information. When pictures are attached people can be easily diverted into thinking that the headline of an article might be true. The example that was given included people having a picture of a giraffe with an article titled “the only mammal that can’t jump”. Even though there are other mammals that cannot jump, since there is a picture it may disrupt previous knowledge and you may not be able to recall other mammals that can also not jump. Information can also be manipulated through emotional tactics such as using words with strong connotations such as “hate” and “destroy". There was a study done on information spread through Twitter that contained this tactic of emotional manipulation. These kinds of false tweets that dug into the emotion of the users garnered more attention and had more engagement than true stories. This exploitation is seen to feed on the gullibility and vulnerability of the users. It takes our own collective effort in order to combat these kinds of manipulative behaviors. We have to ask ourselves to question what is true, take extra time to do the research, and engage in activities that will help up become more critical thinkers. We must be more aware of what we choose to engage with online and challenge the views of people we meet in our day-to-day lives. 

            In both discussions, the idea of historical variability is seen as something that should be challenged and not taken very literally. Learning the fundamentals about a topic can be very important but going deeper into research on the validity can help you avoid false information. They both bring up the argument that we are more susceptible of believing that things are true when first presented with it since we are more likely to think people will not manipulate us. Both articles want us to question and debunk the information that is handed to us regardless of the source. There have been many instances in which information has been blindly followed such as those pertaining to the Mozart effect and theories surrounding vaccinations. These prove that it is important to go beyond the words of one or a few people and find our own converging or diverging evidence. 

            Even though Marcus and Duke’s article did not touch on the idea of influential neurochemical signals, that conversation is still important.  The manipulation of this ideology should also be taken into consideration. There are some cases where neurotransmitters can affect emotions that can then go on to affect actions but it is not a valid excuse for someone’s behavior. There are multiple factors that come together in order to produce one action and cannot be blamed on one kind of methodology. It is interesting to learn more about the effects of neurotransmitters on the brain and how we can develop these theories to come up with better treatments for those who suffer from the side affects of them. When discussing how impactful it can be on mental illnesses, the research on neurochemical influence holds some internal validity. Both historical and neurochemical variability are important in their own regards when it comes to decision making but ultimately the true act of decision making relies on a combination of many inside and outside stimuli. 

Crockett, M. Neurochemical modulation of moral judgment and behavior. Retrieved from: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/13j3ka06799we8d/AAC42kDptMQDUl8DHYjSF_Pia/(11.05.19)%20-%20Joe%20Vukov?dl=0&preview=Crocket_Morphing_Morals.pdf. 

Duke, A., Marcus, G. The problem with believing what we’re told. (2019, August 31). Retrieved from: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-problem-with-believing-what-were-told-11567224060?mod=searchresults&page=1&pos=11.