July 04, 2008
My Amygdala, My Self
Intrigued (and alarmed) by the new science of “neuromarketing,” our correspondent peers into his own brain via an MRI machine and learns what he really thinks about Jimmy Carter, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bruce Springsteen, and Edie Falco.
Jeffrey Goldberg in The Atlantic:
My friend Bill Knapp, who is a Democratic political consultant and, as such, a man whose devotion to a coherent set of liberal-centrist policy ideas does not waver, at least in public, suggested that I have my head examined, in order to determine whether I was neurologically wired for liberalism or conservatism. My wife asked, with a disconcerting level of enthusiasm, whether this was actually possible.
“Not only is it possible, but I have the perfect person to do it,” Bill said (I’m permitted to quote him because the Goldberg seder is on the record). He told us that a neuroscientist named Marco Iacoboni, who directs UCLA’s Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Laboratory (it sounds even better in the original German), could scan my brain while showing me images of famous politicians. My brain’s response to these pictures, as recorded by a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine, would uncover my actual inclinations and predispositions by sidestepping the usual inhibition controls that can make focus-group testing unreliable.
I was hesitant, for two reasons. First, I believed that I already possessed a superior grasp of my brain’s division of labor: 30 percent of my brain is obsessed with the Holocaust; an additional 30 percent worries about my children; 10 percent is reserved for status anxiety; 7 percent, The Sopranos; 4 percent, Kurds; 2 percent, Chinese food; and so on. I reserve approximately 6 percent, on good days, for The Atlantic.
In addition, I think about sex, and the New York Yankees.
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 11:57 AM | Permalink










Comments
Check out the Neurophilosophy scienceblogger's take: "Neuroimaging is only just moving toward multivariate analysis...so we're still a very long way away from any real understanding of how hundreds or thousands of modules act in parallel and in concert to generate behaviours..."
Further links to discussion of the Atlantic article and others are in the post linked above.
Posted by: ck | Jul 4, 2008 12:46:44 PM
Wow, what an idiotic article. The function of the MRI here seems to be identical to the rather less expensive crystal ball used by fortune-tellers.
Making up some plausible explanations for why someone's amygdala lights up upon seeing pictures of people whose identities and relationship to the subject are known to the researchers -- particularly when the mark (er, "subject") is right there giving you feedback on your guesses -- is not science, or even pseudo-science. It's just plain old fortune-telling.
The fact that the same "reading" is interpreted in the article to mean two or three mutually contradictory things -- depending on what the subject has to say about that specific photograph -- is pretty conclusive evidence that this technique has zero predictive power, right?
Posted by: Picador | Jul 4, 2008 2:27:16 PM
Post a comment