I initiated this project in the spring of 2009 at Notre Dame, so it is wonderful to see it come to fruition. Here is the opening to my original Hub Proposal:

Students today can share their personal lives on online sites like Facebook and MySpace. They do not have a comparable site for their academic lives. Through the creation of the Notre Dame Hub, students will be able to share their research and artistic creations, reflect on what they are learning, and discuss new ideas and opportunities.

The Hub will offer that through a centralized online architecture, a core group of students in charge of managing the site and handling editorial responsibility, a faculty advisory group, and content created by students from across the Notre Dame campus.

To get a full description of the Hub Project, including downloading the Hub proposal and examples of the Hub in action, head over to the full PLoS description of the Notre Dame Hub.

My research interests fall into three broad areas: neuroanthropology, medical anthropology, and applied social science. Most of my long-term research has focused on substance use and abuse, including the neuroanthropology of addiction, risk and preventive factors for drug use, and the cultural moderation of substance use.

In recent years I’ve broadened that focus to include research on alcohol use, video games, stress, and PTSD. I might also develop a project on frontotemporal dementia. I have also done work on breast cancer and embodiment, new media & technology, and public anthropology. I use both quantitative and qualitative methods, and advocate combining theory-driven work with community-based research.

You can read more about my projects on the Neuroanthropology PLoS site. And here is my departmental website, where you can access my CV. If you want to contact me, please send me an email at dlende at usf dot edu.

The USF anthropology department emphasizes both theory and applied work within anthropology, and uses an interdisciplinary approach in training and mentoring students. Here is a condensed excerpt from the Department’s Mission:

Anthropology is the comparative and global study of humanity which addresses all aspects of human experience. We are committed to understanding global diversity through community-based applied research that is holistic and interdisciplinary.

Here is one of the main things to emphasize about our graduate program:

The Graduate Program at USF aims to develop creative scholars and scientists who will apply their knowledge and skills to contemporary human problems.

The graduate program has both biological and cultural tracks, and includes a concentration in biocultural medical anthropology. You can see my syllabus for my course on Biocultural Medical Anthropology here. You can also get a dual degree, with an MA in anthropology and an MPH in public health.

Click here for information on how to apply to the USF anthropology program. And here is information on financial assistance and scholarships. Applications are due December 15th, 2010.

I advocate that graduate students find both good mentors and a department that broadly fits their interests. The USF anthropology faculty has a range of expertise and interests that are a great complement to what I do.

Faculty specializations include medical anthropology, human biology, urban policy and community development, educational anthropology, media studies, ethnic policies and heritage, economic development, immigration, archaeology, cultural resource management, gender, environment, applied linguistics, and archaeological science. Geographic specializations emphasize the Caribbean, Latin America, United States, and Sub-Saharan Africa.

You can find out more about the major research themes of the department here, including biocultural dimensions of health and illness, material culture, community identity and heritage, communications and education, sustainability and development, and the social and cultural construction of race, ethnicity and gender.

USF includes a range of departments and affiliations that also complement what the anthro faculty and I do. USF Health includes programs in medicine, nursing, and public health. There is a strong department of psychology, a concentration in neuroscience research, and a broad array of other excellent programs in the College of Arts and Sciences.

Locally USF has affiliations with the Florida Mental Health Institute, the Moffitt Cancer Center, and the Veterans’ Hospital.

Please email me at dlende at usf dot edu if you have questions!

First off, I wanted to ask the question, what do professors out there think? Can peer-review be open sourced? Is online work getting any credit, or is it still all about traditional peer reviewed articles?

The prompt for this is an article in the NY Times: Scholars Test Web Alternative to Peer Review

The grueling process of subjecting work to the up-or-down judgment of credentialed scholarly peers has been a cornerstone of academic culture since at least the mid-20th century.

Now some humanities scholars have begun to challenge the monopoly that peer review has on admission to career-making journals and, as a consequence, to the charmed circle of tenured academe. They argue that in an era of digital media there is a better way to assess the quality of work. Instead of relying on a few experts selected by leading publications, they advocate using the Internet to expose scholarly thinking to the swift collective judgment of a much broader interested audience.

The Shakespeare Quarterly is leading the charge over in the Humanities. They handled the open comment process through Media Commons Press, which has the tagline: “Open Scholarship in Open Formats.”

The larger point comes later in the article, and it’s one I hope to hear people’s opinions about:

Today a small vanguard of digitally adept scholars is rethinking how knowledge is understood and judged by inviting online readers to comment on books in progress, compiling journals from blog posts and sometimes successfully petitioning their universities to grant promotions and tenure on the basis of non-peer-reviewed projects.

Ms. Blum argued that student writing exhibits some of the same qualities of pastiche that drive other creative endeavors today — TV shows that constantly reference other shows or rap music that samples from earlier songs.

In an interview, she said the idea of an author whose singular effort creates an original work is rooted in Enlightenment ideas of the individual. It is buttressed by the Western concept of intellectual property rights as secured by copyright law. But both traditions are being challenged.

“Our notion of authorship and originality was born, it flourished, and it may be waning,” Ms. Blum said.

She contends that undergraduates are less interested in cultivating a unique and authentic identity — as their 1960s counterparts were — than in trying on many different personas, which the Web enables with social networking.

Based on her research with Notre Dame undergraduates, Blum published an enticing book in 2009, My Word!: Plagiarism and College.

Professors are reminded almost daily that many of today’s college students operate under an entirely new set of assumptions about originality and ethics. Practices that even a decade ago would have been regarded almost universally as academically dishonest are now commonplace. Is this development an indication of dramatic shifts in education and the larger culture? In a book that dismisses hand-wringing in favor of a rich account of how students actually think and act, Susan D. Blum discovers two cultures that exist, often uneasily, side by side in the classroom.

Relying extensively on interviews conducted by students with students, My Word! presents the voices of today’s young adults as they muse about their daily activities, their challenges, and the meanings of their college lives… Blum suggests, the real problem of academic dishonesty arises primarily from a lack of communication between two distinct cultures within the university setting. On one hand, professors and administrators regard plagiarism as a serious academic crime, an ethical transgression, even a sin against an ethos of individualism and originality. Students, on the other hand, revel in sharing, in multiplicity, in accomplishment at any cost.

Back in 2009, Susan wrote about her work in an article Academic Integrity and Student Plagiarism: a Question of Education, Not Ethics in the Chronicle of Higher Education. Susan outlined the two main approaches to preventing plagiarism, a moral one generally using honor codes and a disciplinary one requiring greater enforcement by faculty and staff.

Traditional efforts by administrators to prevent plagiarism fail for a number of reasons. For starters, students have only a vague sense of what is meant by the moral quality termed “academic integrity.” Also, rules about intellectual property are in flux.

In addition, our notion of the originality of utterance as the product of the unique, isolated, authentic self had its peak in the 1960s and 1970s. Students today have been immersed in a culture that revels in trying on different personae and sharing freely. There is no inviolable connection between words and the self that produces them. Students are not wedded to the integrity of their own writing and do not necessarily assume that others are either.

Moreover, students are mostly focused on success and achievement, a bottom-line mentality that has helped them gain admittance to the highly selective institutions that are, in fact, trying to enforce the norms of academic citation. If students pursued education for its own sake — as do most professors — they would try to produce academic work that increases learning and to model their behavior on their professors’. But many students don’t especially value the process of classroom learning — so, in fact, any process will do.

She outlines a series of practical steps to increase academic integrity by reducing plagiarism and improving students’ approach to citing others. She concludes:

Treating academic integrity as a constellation of skills, taught largely through the long apprenticeship of higher education, is the most promising approach for getting students to follow the rules of academic citation, and the one with the least likelihood of providing a shortcut. That means teaching students what academic integrity involves, why professors value it, and how exactly to carry it out.

Not your grandad's boot camp!

Kezia Kamentz dropped me an email and shared that last year’s Boot Camp went really well: “great teachers, a small but very diverse group of students, and a varied set of teaching methods.” Kezia said that they would love to have some anthropologists on board, and I know that there’s a few of you out there. Kezia writes:

Through a combination of lectures, break-out groups, panel discussions and laboratory visits, Boot Camp participants will gain an understanding of the methods of neuroscience and key findings on the cognitive and social-emotional functions of the brain, lifespan development and disorders of brain function. Like last year’s faculty, the 2010 Boot Camp faculty consists of leaders in the fields of cognitive and affective neuroscience who are committed to the goal of educating non-neuroscientists.

For more information.

Compulsion III by Sandra Doore

Here are all the student posts from this year in the order I put them up. As a group they’ve already proven popular, getting attention from a range of high-power sites and social networks. That’s great, and well-deserved!

Below I also outline how I approached this project with my students. If you want to incorporate something similar into your teaching or comparable work, feel free to use and/or adapt these guidelines. Of course any suggestions or alternative approaches are always appreciated. Leave a comment below or email me at dlende at nd dot edu

The List

Why Do They Do It? Portrayals of Alcohol on Facebook and MySpace

Gambling and Compulsion: Neurobiology Meets Casinos

What’s the Dope on Music and Drugs?

Tobacco Worse Than Cocaine?

Caught in the Net – The Internet & Compulsion

Lights, Camera… Alcohol?

Confessions of a Shopaholic

Can Videogames Actually Be Good For You?

The New Performance Enhancing Drugs

These nine posts join the eight from last year, which went from understanding brain imaging to the differences between men and women drinking on campus – those were rounded up in Why A Final Essay When We Can Do This?

All these posts came out of my class ANTH 20220 “Alcohol and Drugs: The Anthropology of Substance Use and Abuse.”

I divide students into groups of four to work on posts. I explain the topics broadly quite early in the semester, then have students write down their top three choices. I form the groups based on students’ choices.

The basic order of work over the semester is: (1) a general in-class presentation on the topic; (2) a first draft of their post, with an emphasis on developing a concrete argument and specific focus for their writing; (3) two more rounds of revisions, where they both improve the quality of the writing and add in images, links and further research; and (4) some editing/revisions by myself to make sure each post reaches its potential.

Unlike last year, this year students did an in-class presentation on their assigned topic. That was helpful for everyone, for me to give feedback as necessary, for groups to get started on their work, and for students to give some impromptu reactions. The presentations were generally broad. I discussed with the groups, either in class or by email, how their presentation was coming along.

For the presentation itself I emphasized the need to do something engaging (make it fun!), to provide some in-depth coverage of their specific topic (as they were things that I wouldn’t necessarily cover – they were in charge of everyone’s learning that day), and to aim to provoke discussion for the class as a whole after their presentation.

Now onto the first draft. From the general presentation the students had to develop a specific focus and a concrete argument. What did they want to share with the world? That was the basic question they had to answer for themselves.

I also provided students with this basic format for writing a blog post (so feel free to use it): (a) The Hook, those opening lines that grab the readers’ attention in some way; (b) The Argument, something that invites the person to keep reading, usually by indicating what this post will do or cover; (c) Main Points, where there are a set of issues or specific points that the post will cover (generally the main body of the post); and (d) The Finish, generally some sort of pay-off for the reader who makes it that far – a rhetorical flourish or something extra that helps close the piece with some flash.

Their revisions normally emphasized three things: improving each aspect of the basic format, deepening the ideas and research for the post, and taking advantage of what an online environment can do much more effectively than a final essay – images, video, links, and so forth. I provide a lot of written feedback and suggestions while also encouraging students to keep developing what they want to say to a wide-ranging audience.

The final step is getting the posts from the students’ electronic copy onto Neuroanthropology.net. This is my chance to provide some further light editing, as well as at times include other research articles or links that I might recall and/or find. Though I do guide the students through how I want their final submission to look, at times they forget obvious things – like including links that work outside the university’s system. So it’s a little bit of work to get their document onto WordPress in a way that looks like a professional final product.

So that’s how we did it. As always the students did a great job!

Also for your reference, here are the relevant sections from the syllabus:

Working in groups of four, students will take charge of developing and delivering a polished, entertaining and insightful presentation on their assigned topic. Each presentation should accomplish four things: (a) provide some basic overview of the topic at hand, (b) develop an argument or analysis utilizing both background research and the students’ own research, (c) give us a sense of how this particular topic plays out in everyday life, and (d) make us have fun.

These presentations should be at least 20 minutes long, and each student in the group must speak before the class. Students will be expected to engage in Q&A after their presentation; the presentation will also serve as the impetus for further in-class discussion, something presenters should bear in mind as they develop their multimedia extravaganza.

Here are the presentation topics and dates:

Jan 29: Movies & Alcohol
Feb 5: MySpace/Facebook & Alcohol
Feb 12: Internet & Compulsion
Feb 19: Video Games & Compulsion
Feb 26: Shopping & Compulsion
Mar 5: Smoking & Compulsion
Mar 26: Gambling & Compulsion
Apr 9: Music & Drugs
Apr 16: Cognitive Enhancers & Compulsion

To stimulate class discussion, students who are not presenting will bring in a one page summary and brief analysis of their own favorite example of the topic at hand.

The blog will build off the student presentation. Each group will work over the course of the semester to develop a post for the Neuroanthropology blog: http://neuroanthropology.net . Students will be expected to do significant library research on their particular topic and to draw on insights from their presentation, class discussions, and our readings and lectures. Developing a specific focus for the blog post is a crucial task – without that focus, the post will not engage readers. To help that process along, students will submit an initial draft (April 14th) and a second draft (April 28th) of their blog post. The final post is due May 7th at 12:30 and has a 1500 word limit.

Blog posts rely on good writing, additional media (such as images and videos), and links. All three elements are necessary for a successful post. Very high standards will be held for the final draft, as what each group writes will be posted on a public website. Your blog entry could very easily be read by hundreds or even thousands of people. The most successful post from the last class has been read by 2500 people! To see what previous students did, see this link: http://neuroanthropology.net/2008/05/09/why-a-final-essay-when-we-can-do-this/

Barry Bonds elevated his game to the next level with “the clear” and “the cream”, shattering legendary records in the process. Are scientists, students, and other academics about to do the same?

While stars such as Barry Bonds and Jason Giambi continue to defend themselves against their alleged use of performance-enhancing drugs, a new debate over the use of a different kind of performance-enhancing drug has begun to rage in the scientific world.

Cognitive enhancers like Adderall and Ritalin have commonly been used as a treatment for behavioral disorders such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. However, these drugs are now becoming popular “performance enhancing” substances for healthy individuals trying to gain a competitive edge by boosting their overall cognitive function.

Henry Greely, a Stanford Law Professor, advocates for unrestricted availability of these drugs, claiming the enhancers will level the “cognitive playing field” and spark a new era of increased innovation. But Greely and other advocates fail to recognize the severe personal and societal consequences that such availability would generate, looking instead to a pharmaceutical solution that would, in the end, cause more problems than it would solve.

How They Work

Ritalin and Adderall have been on the market since the 1960s to treat conditions like ADD and ADHD (Center for Substance Abuse Research, 2005). While the specific mechanisms of these disorders have yet to be fully elucidated, cognitive enhancers have been successful in controlling or mitigating symptoms in patients. Ritalin (methylphenidate) and Adderall (dextroamphetamine) both inhibit dopamine reuptake, allowing dopamine signals to remain active for longer periods of time (Jones, Joseph, Barak, Caron, & Wightman, 1999). Provigil (modafinil), an alternative to the potentially addictive dopaminergic drugs, operates in similar fashion, but instead blocks reuptake of the neurotransmitter norepinephrine.

The increased neurotransmitter activity induced by these drugs stimulates many areas of the brain (see right), including the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for a person’s ability to focus and strive toward a specific goal. This stimulation theoretically counters fragmented synaptic signaling in the brain, one suspected cause of ADD and ADHD.

While these drugs increase focus and concentration for people with attention disorders, they can also increase prefrontal cortex stimulation among people without such disorders (Devilbiss & Berridge, 2008). The increased ability to focus and concentrate on specific tasks is clearly of great social utility. These benefits, however, are not without negative consequences; numerous side effects including hallucinations, headaches, nausea, and depression have been documented.

How They Are Being Used

A growing number of healthy Americans are using cognitive enhancers in an attempt to gain a mental edge in our competitive society. The popularity of these drugs is rapidly increasing in many areas of society and has become particularly prevalent among corporate executives, academics, and college students.

An article in the January issue of TIME Magazine describes a high-level executive who uses Adderall to “continue the lightning pace and constant multitasking his job requires” (Szalavitz, 2009). Since receiving the prescription from his doctor, he says he has been better able to maintain his high level of performance, a development he attributes to his use of cognitive enhancing drugs.

The TIME article also addresses the rising use on college campuses (Szalavitz, 2009). Studies have found that 7% of college students have used a cognitive-enhancing drug for non-medical purposes, and on some campuses up to 25% of students have used enhancers to aid studying. Unsurprisingly, usage rates are higher at prestigious institutions, where students feel the need to keep pace in an overly-competitive academic atmosphere. Taking a cognitive enhancer the night before a final can help you focus for an extra hour or two, and many students believe that hour may mean the difference between an A and a B.

Improving academic achievement, however, is a complex issue—popping pills may not be the cure all for low grades. Studies have shown the association between sleep and learning; shorting on sleep to study may still lead to lower grades even with cognitive enhancers (Curcio et. al, 2006).

Among the scientists polled in a Nature study conducted in 2008, nearly 20% reported having used cognitive enhancing drugs for non-medical purposes (Maher, 2008). The most popular motivation was the desire to increase concentration, with other reasons including increasing focus, counteracting jet lag, and other miscellaneous responses. Interestingly, over half of the respondents reported experiencing negative side effects yet still continued taking the drugs.

Arguments FOR Use with the General Population

Stanford Law Professor Henry Greely is a leading proponent for making cognitive enhancers available to the general population. In his hotly-debated article in Nature, he argues that research into the benefits of the use of cognitive enhancers among the healthy population should be explored. Greely claims that the term “enhancement” has been marred by its comparison to athletics, saying “better-working brains produce things of more lasting value than longer home runs” (Greely, 2008).

In one of his main points, Greely argues that using a cognitive enhancer is analogous to any other practice intended to improve mental function, such as sleep, nutrition, and exercise. Just as these practices provide cognitive enhancement, so would the use of drugs like Adderall, Ritalin, and Provigil. These drugs have the potential to be very beneficial, and “we should welcome new methods of improving our brain function,” says Greely.

Greely further contends that cognitive enhancers may potentially “level the playing field,” allowing disadvantaged students to overcome educational gaps. Take the example of standardized tests like the SAT, which many colleges like Notre Dame use in evaluating applicants. These tests have been shown to be statistically biased against African Americans, Hispanics and other ethnic minorities (Freedle, 2008). It is possible that the use of cognitive enhancers could help them overcome this bias, promoting greater acceptance rates of minorities at prestigious universities. Used in this way, the drugs would be elevated beyond the individual desire to gain a competitive edge, and be employed as a tool to remove educational barriers, a significant cause of socioeconomic inequality.

Research focusing on the use of cognitive enhancers by healthy individuals is sparse. Greely recommends that studies in the area of cognitive enhancement be developed in order to build a knowledge base concerning usage patterns, benefits, and associated risks of these drugs. These studies could then be employed in developing an informed legal policy aimed at preventing coercion and mitigating the potential for abuse.

In a recent New Yorker article entitled Brain Gain, Margaret Talbot presents a more moderate defense for the legalization of cognitive enhancers. Talbot compares the use of cognitive enhancers to elective cosmetic surgery—both are personal choices, with inherent risks and benefits, designed to enhance particular attributes.

While not as far reaching as Greely’s assertions, Talbot’s arguments against a ban on cognitive enhancers focus on practicalities; cognitive enhancers are already in wide circulation and are being used responsibly among academic and business professionals. While cognitive enhancer use may not be ideal, Talbot argues that people should be allowed, after being informed of the risks and benefits, to make their own decisions about enhancement of their minds and bodies.

Argument AGAINST Use with the General Population

While many support Greely and Talbot’s positions, they are not without opposition. Our arguments against popular use of cognitive enhancers stem from ethical, medical, and social concerns. We believe that promotion of cognitive enhancers in the manner described by Greely is irresponsible and neglects the more fundamental issues at the root of the problems he addresses. Talbot, while more moderate than Greely, still fails to consider the social and cultural consequences of widespread usage.

Among the many troubling aspects of cognitive enhancers are the potential negative side effects. Little is known about the long term effects of these drugs, and many of the documented short term side effects would likely affect healthy users as much as those with disorders. Imagine getting a headache from taking Provigil when you are trying to prepare for an exam the next day. In this case, the drug you are using to improve your cognitive ability is ultimately hindering it.

More serious side effects such as depression and insomnia, while not fully understood, can cause severe harm to someone who would not have otherwise developed these conditions. The striking recent instance (April 22) of a young boy hanging himself while taking ADHD meds and other incidents like it raise significant questions about the safety of these drugs, especially among people for whom the drug is a luxury and not a necessity.

Also, because Ritalin and Adderall act on the mesolimbic dopamine system, the pathway commonly associated with addictive substances such as cocaine, users run the risk of developing a dependency or becoming addicted (Volkow, Fowler, & Logan, 2009). Addiction is a high price to pay for using a drug that provides limited benefits.

Of further concern is the likely inevitable consequence that widespread use of cognitive enhancers would lead to intense social pressure and even forms of coercion. It is already clear that some executives feel these substances are necessary to remain competitive. More students at competitive universities would likely be pressured to use these drugs when they see other users getting better marks. General availability of cognitive enhancers in our society could easily make these drugs a necessary component for success rather than an optional boost.

Furthermore, the disparity that Greely proposes would be overcome by cognitive enhancers may instead be exacerbated. The financial means that are required to obtain these substances restricts their availability to those who can afford them. Look back at the earlier example of ethnic minorities using cognitive enhancers to improve SAT scores. Traditionally these minority groups are also economically disadvantaged and would lack the means necessary to acquire these drugs.

The real benefactors from widespread availability would be the rich, who already perform better on standardized tests. Promoting the use of cognitive enhancers would likely serve to widen the already significant divide between socioeconomic groups. Reducing the disparity within a population cannot be accomplished by using cognitive enhancers; the drugs would only reinforce the present socioeconomic barriers.

Talbot, on the other hand, places too much emphasis on personal freedom as a justification for legalization, glossing over the social and cultural implications sure to follow from widespread usage. Within her own article she recounts the story of a poker millionaire who made his fortune with the help of cognitive enhancers. His use of these substances was an isolated personal choice but had social consequences as well, allowing him to gain an unfair competitive advantage over the other players.

Justifying cognitive enhancement in the academic and business worlds on the basis of individual freedom ignores the social consequences of unfair neurological advantages in the extremely competitive context of these cultures. Cognitive enhancer legalization cannot be framed in a purely individual context; legalization will have widespread social consequences.

Conclusion

Greely and others are right in asserting that the debate over cognitive enhancers is not entirely analogous to baseball’s steroid scandal. Cognitive enhancers do provide significant long term mental benefits and arguably some social benefits. However, as we have argued, these benefits are outweighed by the physical side effects and social ramifications that such use would entail.

Moreover, any suggestion that these drugs could level the playing field fails to account for the complexities inherent in such problems. Issues like educational disparity and social pressure to boost achievement demonstrate these complexities and are fundamentally socioeconomic and cultural problems. Throwing drugs at these issues will not bring resolution. Rather a cultural- and sociological-based approach is best suited for this task. While we recognize the benefits of these cognitive enhancers, their use should be restricted to the treatment of cognitive disorders.

Bibliography

Center for Substance Abuse Research. (2005, May 2). Ritalin. Retrieved April 10, 2009, from http://www.cesar.umd.edu/cesar/drugs/ritalin.asp

Curcio, G., Ferrara, M., & De Gennaro, L. (2006). Sleep loss, learning capacity and academic performance. Sleep Medicine Reviews , 323-337.

Devilbiss, D. M., & Berridge, C. W. (2008). Cognition-Enhancing Doses of Methylphenidate Preferentially Prefrontal Cortex Neuronal Responsiveness. Biological Psychiatry , 626-635.

Freedle, R. O. (2008). Correcting the SAT’s Ethnic and Social Class Bias: A Method for Reestimating SAT Scores. Harvard Educational Review , 1-43.

Greely, H. (2008). Towards responsible use of cognitiveenhancing. Nature , 702-705.

Jones, S. R., Joseph, J. D., Barak, L. S., Caron, M. G., & Wightman, R. M. (1999). Dopamine Neuronal Transport Kinetics and Effects of Dopamine. Nournal of Neurochemistry , 2406-2414.

Maher, B. (2008). Poll Results: Look Who’s Doping. Nature , 674-675.

Szalavitz, M. (2009, January 6). Popping Smart Pills: The Case for Cognitive Enhancement. Time.

Tansey, B. (2008, December 8). Experts urge wider use of brain-boosting drugs. San Francisco Chronicle.

Volkow, N. D., Fowler, J. S., & Logan, J. (2009). Effects of Modafinil on Dopamine and Dopamine Transporters in the Male Human Brain: Clinical Implications. Journal of the American Medical Association , 1148-1154.

Darcia Narvaez is associate professor of psychology at Notre Dame and executive director of the Notre Dame Collaboration for Ethical Education.

Triune Ethics: The Neurobiological Roots of Our Multiple Moral Personalities

By Darcia Narvaez, Ph.D.

Triune Ethics is an interdisciplinary theory whose goals are to link moral psychology to affective neuroscience, help explain individual differences in moral functioning, and suggest some initial conditions for moral development. It is also an approach that can be linked to social relationships, conditions and situations, thus providing a biosocial view of moral action.

Three types of ethics can drive human morality, as I outline in this 2008 paper on neurobiology and our multiple moralities (pdf). These are based on different affectively-based moral stances that persons can take: one oriented to security (the Ethic of Security) and focused on self-preservation through safety, and personal and ingroup dominance. Another is oriented to emotional engagement with others (the Ethic of Engagement), particularly through caring relationships and social bonds. The third I call the Ethic of Imagination, which is focused on creative ways to think and act socially. While these labels are not all inclusive, they do seem to capture three different ways of co-existing with others in the social landscape.

Each ethic has neurobiological roots that are apparent in the biological structures and circuitry of the human brain. Triune Ethics theory derives its structure from MacLean’s (1990) Triune Brain theory which proposes three basic formations in the human brain that reflect ancestral relations to lower-order species. Anatomically and biochemically, the three formations reflect the evolution of reptiles, early mammals, and late mammals.

Although the theory is on its face simplistic in separating brain structures from one another, in fundamental ways animal and human research support MacLean’s basic theory (Panksepp, 1998). Accumulating research in affective neuroscience not only confirms the general thrust of MacLean’s triune brain theory, but points out the critical importance of early experience in gene expression in emotional circuitry (e.g., Champagne & Meaney, 2006), personality formation (Schore, 1992; 1994), and cognition (Greenspan & Shanker, 2004).

Animals have not only evolved brain functions that facilitate learning but have “psychobehavioral potentials that are genetically ingrained in brain development” as “evolutionary operants” (Panksepp, 1998, p. 55). These operants are inherited emotional command systems that help animals (and their ancestors) behave adaptively in the face of life challenges.

Three Moral Systems: Security, Engagement, Imagination

I propose that three distinctive moral systems have evolved from our ancestors, propel human moral action on an individual and group level, and have etiologies that are influenced by early and critical period experiences. According to MacLean (1990), the first formation is the reptilian or R-complex (shared with an extinct reptile, the therapsid), which resides at the base of the forebrain, seated on top of the motor cortex, and relates to several forms of behavior in mammals, including territoriality, imitation, deception, struggles for power, the maintenance of routine, and following precedent.

The Ethic of Security is based primarily in these instincts which revolve around survival and thriving in the moment. Subcortically-driven instincts for seeking (autonomous exploration) and emotional circuitry for fear and rage when autonomy or safety is thwarted are systems shared with all animals (Panksepp, 1998).

The security ethic is oriented to physical factors in two senses. First, it maintains physical survival through self-protection and exploration. Second, the security ethic is attendant to physical flourishing through status enhancement (hierarchy or pecking order) and ingroup loyalty (purity). Self-protective behaviors and values protect the life of the individual and the ingroup. One learns to secure oneself and one’s group against the competition or an “enemy”.

When the security ethic is explicitly triggered by personal or group threat, tribalism predominates, rivalry and the pecking order are stressed, and mob behavior can be set in motion (MacLean, 1990) as we become part of a super social organism:

“The superorganisim is often a vile and loathsome beast. But like the body nourishing her constituent cells, the social beast grants us life. Without her, each of us would perish. That knowledge is woven into our biology. It is the reason that the rigidly individualistic Clint Eastwood does not exist. The internal self-destruct devices with which we come equipped at birth ensure that we will live as components of a larger organism, or we simply will not live at all.” (Bloom, 1995, p. 325)

Prone to ruthlessness and attaining one’s goal at any cost, the security ethic reflects Simone Weil’s view, “Evil when we are in its power is not felt as evil but as a necessity, or even a duty.”

This ethical orientation fits with the received view of human nature, that we are violent, self-interested, and hierarchical, like our cousins, the chimpanzees. But the received view is veridical only under certain conditions, when ecological circumstances (person x situation interaction) increases perceived threats to “tribal’, “clan” “troop” or in-group safety. Triune Ethics accounts for this variation in “human nature.”

The second brain formation, identified by MacLean (1990) as central to mammalian functioning, brought about three signatory sets of behavior that did not exist in evolutionarily prior species: nursing and maternal care, audiovocal communication between mother and offspring, and play. What MacLean calls the neo-mammalian brain, the limbic system and related structures, is the seat of emotion, personal identity, the memory for ongoing experience, and the sense of reality and truth.

These form the foundation of the Ethic of Engagement. For example, play, found only in mammals, promotes harmony and sociality. Sexual functioning radiates from the earliest to the latest brain structures. In mammals, genital display is a precursor to determining cooperative or aggressive interaction, behavior that both Darwin and MacLean consider to be foundational for altruism.

According to Loye (2002), the capstone to Darwin’s theory of evolution was the emphasis on moral sensitivity as the most important driving force in human evolution. Finally published in 1974, Darwin’s private notebooks set forth a theory of moral agency as a culmination of his theory of natural selection (Loye, 2002). In these notes Darwin argues that “the moral sense” arises from the sexual, parental and social instincts that have evolved in mammals generally but especially in humans.

According to Darwin’s notes, the moral sense gives rise to the golden rule and the second commandment given by Jesus, to ‘love your neighbor as yourself.’ The Ethic of Engagement is rooted in these mammalian emotional systems that drive us towards intimacy. The functionality of these systems, however, are co-constructed by the environment during an extended childhood.

Within psychology the development of mammalian emotional systems in the first years of life are captured by Bowlby’s attachment theory, which is strongly influenced by ethological considerations. Attachment is fundamental to the functioning of the Engagement Ethic. Bowlby (1988, 1969) identified the hunter-gatherer context of our ancestors during the Pleistocene era as “the environment of evolutionary adaptedness,” when an infant’s processes for forming attachments and completing brain development evolved.

This is also where we can see the flourishing of evolved human morality that Darwin identified. Hewlett & Lamb (2005) summarize the type of child care in hunter-gatherer communities, most of which are peaceful (Knutson, 1968): “young children in foraging cultures are nursed frequently; held, touched, or kept near others almost constantly; frequently cared for by individuals other than their mothers (fathers and grandmothers, in particular) though seldom by older siblings; experience prompt responses to their fusses and cries; and enjoy multiage play groups in early childhood” (Hewlett & Lamb, p. 15). Brain-building experiences are embedded in attachment relationships (Schore, 1994). Recent research has shown that initial experiences with the caregiver are deeply imprinted in the brain, helping form the neurobiological structures for a lifetime (Weaver, Szyf, Meaney, 2002).

The damage caused by lack of proper infant nurturance is old but oddly forgotten news. It was initially tested in monkeys by Harlow (1958). Monkey infants reared without physical social interaction (touching, holding, playing) experienced brain damage and were violent and socially impaired as adults. These monkeys were not deprived of nourishment, nor of other social sensory stimulation—they could smell, see and hear other monkeys (sensory deprivation was systematically tested).

Children raised under similar conditions, as in orphanages, display the similar impaired behaviors (Spitz, 1965). In a study of Romanian orphans, when cuddled by their adoptive parents, they fail to generate the same soothing hormones as normal children when cuddled by their parents (Nelson et al). In these cases, the lack of physical touching and rocking by a caregiver has deleterious effects on brain development. Mason and Berkson (1975) found that a rocking artificial “mother” (a fur-draped plastic bottle on a rope) alleviated the depression and autistic-like behaviors that would otherwise develop in socially isolated monkeys. Inadequate care leads to deficiencies in the genetic expression, hormonal regulation and system integration that lead to sociality (Weaver et al, 2002).

Sadly, modern childbirth, childcare and social systems build brains that are incomplete resulting in, I propose, personalities that are less socially engaged. There may be a “goodness-of-fit” between expectable environments and optimal development. Darwin’s account of moral evolution appears to have been foiled by modern culture and societal practices.

According to MacLean (1990), the third brain area is the neomammalian, referring to the neocortex and thamalic structures to which the neocortex is connected. It reaches its greatest size and complexity in humans. Focused primarily on the external world, the neomammalian brain provides the capacity for problem solving, memory and deliberative learning.

The third ethic, the Ethic of Imagination, links more to these recently evolved parts of the brain, particularly the prefrontal lobes. The latter are the seat of executive functioning and are not fully developed until the early or mid-twenties (Giedd, Blumenthal & Jeffries 1999) and may be damaged by behavior choices made in the final phase of development during the college years (Bechara, 2005).

The Ethic of Imagination is the source of our deliberative reasoning and imagination, which respond to the intuitions and instincts of the other ethics, able to countermand instincts with “free won’t” (Cotterill, 1999). Although humans have evolved to favor face-to-face relationships and have difficulty imagining those not present (such as future generations), the prefrontal lobes provide a means for a sense of community that extends beyond immediate relations. Humans are at their most moral when the ethic of engagement is linked with the ethic of imagination.

Emotions and Moral Action

Throughout the brain, emotional systems are placed centrally in order to dynamically interact with more evolved cognitive structures and lower level physiological and motor outputs. As a result, there is no emotion without a thought and most thoughts evoke emotion. Further, there is no emotion without a behavioral or physiological outcome. “Emotive circuits change sensory, perceptual, and cognitive processing, and initiate a host of physiological changes that are naturally synchronized with the aroused behavioral tendencies characteristic of emotional experience” (Panksepp, p. 49).

According to a hybrid model of emotional functioning, many of the emotional component systems in the brain come together as a function of learning: “…emotions are learned states constructed during early social development from more elemental units of visceral-autonomic experiences that accompany certain behavior patterns” (p. 44-5, Panksepp, 1998). The basic neural-emotion systems “generate an animal’s egocentric sense of well-being with regard to the most important natural dimensions of life” (ibid, p. 48). These systems provide the animal with potential solutions to basic issues of survival (how do I stay intact? How do I get what I need? How do I keep what I need? How do I get and keep social supports?).

The three ethics are present in behavior, at least partially, from a young age, although deliberative moral reasoning lags far behind (this is not surprising since most of what we know is tacitly held; Keil & Wilson, 1999). Not only do the three ethics interact they each have a dispositional aspect (“trait-like”), based on developmental experiences, and a situational aspect (primed by context). So, for example, if childhood established healthy brain development (as manifested in secure attachment and functional empathy components), the person is able as a matter of course to reach out to others in empathy when they are in distress.

In contrast, a person can have a foundational sense of insecurity, based on early childhood experiences of unmitigated distress, that drives their view of the world, as in attachment disorders. This foundational sense of insecurity may thwart feelings of empathy. Moreover, when a family or culture is focused on threat, individuals and groups may focus on the security ethic, suppressing the engagement ethic.

From a personological viewpoint, Sylvan Tomkins (Demos, 1995) offered concrete depictions of biosocial effects on personality. He suggested that early socialization sets up life orientations that the individual subsequently applies to many domains throughout life. The “ideo-affective posture” developed from early experience represents a socialized “set of loosely organized feelings and ideas about feelings” (Tomkins, 1965, p. 74) which resonate with particular organized ideologies, attracting individuals to particular viewpoints. A warm, supportive childhood leads a person to orient either to an open, accepting posture (“humanistic”) while a harsh, restrictive childhood leads to a defended, rejecting posture (“normative”) towards people and towards life experiences in general.

Personality and Ethical Orientation

One might speculate on the characteristics of a person dominated by a particular ethic. A person dominated by the Ethic of Security likely has a “stressed brain” formation from trauma or neglect; poor attachment and bonding; lack of early embodied experience with reciprocity in social interactions; little sensorimotor memory for loving intimate interactions; compromised social abilities; domination by a defended, rejecting ideo-affective posture (Tomkins); some basic needs not fully or regularly met in childhood (e.g., Competence, Autonomy/Control, Belonging, Trustworthy world); and feelings of anger and contempt more accessible than positive feelings. Behavior is more ruthless and focused on self advantage covertly or overtly; they have a narrow ingroup orientation and value loyalty, hierarchy, control, purity (of self and of ingroup), freedom to seek (“liberty”). The engagement ethic is minimized and the imagination ethic is hijacked for security interests.

An interesting example of the security ethic in ascendance is a report that 90% of members of an evangelical congregation left after the pastor began to preach an inclusive rather than an exclusive message, saying that the whole world would be saved not just those of their brand of faith (National Catholic Reporter, 2005). When a security ethic is a cultural norm, inclusivity is an unwelcome message.

A personality dominated by the Ethic of Engagement has strong attachment; sensorimotor memory for reciprocity and emotional intersubjectivity; strong empathic responses in mirror neurons; an open, accepting ideo-affective posture (Tomkins); feelings of empathy more accessible than feelings of anger. Primary values include compassion and tolerance. The security ethic is minimized and the imagination ethic is used for sociable ends.

A personality dominated by the Ethic of Imagination, under a state of calm and engagement, considers outgroup members as deserving of full respect and rights, as well as empathy; is able to conceptualize alternative social systems, think impartially about moral problems and counteract harmful instincts and intuitions with “free won’t” (Cotterill, 1999). However when threat is high and engagement low, a personality dominated by the imagination ethic will likely focus on maximizing safety and dominance, be prone to negative attributions, focus on ‘being strong,’ avoid emotional expression and respond to his/her worst instincts and intuitions.

A particular ethic can be primed by the situation or other triggers. The engagement ethic may, for most people, require an environment characterized by safety, caring and belonging (indeed children in caring classrooms tend to be more prosocial) whereas the imagination ethic may also require surrounds that promote hope and transcendence. The prevailing ethic likely will influence sensitivities to stimuli, preferred reasoning, susceptibilities (fallacies), motivations and goal direction, shifting perceived social affordances.

Conclusion

In summary, I propose that there is a neurobiological substrate to moral personality evident from research on early epigenetic imprinting on brain structure and “wiring,” and the effects of emotional co-regulation or its absence (Greenspan & Shanker, 2002; Schore, 1992; 1994). The three neurobiological brain systems that underlie the three ethics may signal the features of development and lived experience that yield optimal functioning.

One might consider these three ethics as goals for human optimization. First, children develop a sense of security through intersubjectively-safe and nurturing rearing which designs a “morally-prepared” brain. Second, a child develops a sense of engaged enactive participation in social life, rooted in sensorimotor sensibilities for justice (Lerner) from extensive experiences of reciprocity and social exchange. Third, children are provided opportunities to engage the imagination for good ends. Caregivers provide in situ modeled and guided training of prosocial perception/action (enactive learning).

Each person is built from a myriad of intelligent systems, from the biochemical reactions of the limbic system, to the neuronal networks that compete to win when stimuli are processed. The virtuous person is able to coordinate and focus the systems. Exemplar moral personality may require more than these basic pieces, such as imagination beyond the everyday; deep attachment to an inspiring caring person (or divine being) translated to deep concern for others; and a sense of calm, certainty or faith.

Addendum

In Descent, Darwin identified the moral sense as the driving force of human evolution. But what is happening to human evolution now that evolutionarily-normative childbirth and child rearing no longer take place? Based on U.S. childrearing practices and on the neurobiological evidence even years ago, Prescott (1996) came to the conclusion that most children in the USA are susceptible to Somatosensory Affectional Deprivation (SAD), a condition related to depression, violent behavior, and stimulus seeking.

In fact, suicides and depression have increased dramatically in 5-14 year olds in recent decades. Youth violence is flaring up across the country in 2006. Drug use is rampant across age groups. Affectional bonds are frayed. For example, a 2006 study found that only half of those surveyed have a confidant (compared to 75% 25 years ago; MacPherson, Smith-Lovin, Brashears, 2006).

Affectional bonds are integral not only to a flourishing individual but to a flourishing society. As Prescott put it, “the influence of the environment seems to be imprinted on the structure of the brain, which, in turn, shapes the environment” (1996). Now we have evidence that this is indeed so (e.g., Weiner, Szyf, & Meaney, 2002). Szyf & Meaney have found differences in gene expression based on maternal care. Rats with high-caring (high licking) mothers had more active versions of a gene that encodes a molecule called glucocorticoid receptor protein. Glucocorticoid, a hormone produced in response to stress, needs to be switched off so the individual doesn’t get over stressed. The receptor protein in the hippocampus dampens further synthesis of the protein, but only in rats with high-caring mothers. Rats with little maternal care have a weaker feedback system, resulting in more anxiety and heightened responses to stress. These poor parenting styles are passed on from one generation to the next.

The natural flow of childhood established over thousands of years (e.g., natural childbirth, breastfeeding for several years, free play) has been deracinated by institutionalized medicine, consumerism, adult self-preoccupation and a culture of violence and fear– conditions that promote the security ethic and hijack the imagination to focus on survival and power, as in Dr. Strangelove, Orwell’s 1984 and Dos Passos’ USA. In the absence of intense social pleasure, individuals have learned to derive as much if not more pleasure from objects than from other people. A society of individuals who are emotionally and socially deficient will be hard pressed to empathize with distant others or imagine ways to get along with those who hold different worldviews. Instead they may think nothing of using violence to solve interpersonal and inter-societal problems.

Selected References

Armour, J.A. (1991) Anatomy and function of the intrathoracic neurons regulating the mammalian heart. In I.H. Zucker and P. Gilmore, Eds. Reflect control of the circulation. Boca Raton, FL CRC Press. 1-37.

Armour, J.A. & Ardell J. (1994). Neurocardiology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bandura, A. (1999).Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review.

Bechara, A. (2005). Decision making, impulse control and loss of willpower to resist drugs: a neurocognitive perspective. Nature Neuroscience 8, 1458 – 1463. 

Bloom, H. (1995). The Lucifer principle. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.

Bowlby, J. (1988) A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York: Basic Books.

Bronfenbrenner,  U. (1979).  The ecology of human development.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carter, C. S. (1998). Neuroendocrine perspectives on social attachment and love. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23 (8), 779–818.

Darwin, C., 1871/1981: The Descent of Man, Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.

deMause, L. (1995). Tbe History of Childhood. New York: Psychohistory Press.

Demos, E. V. (1995). Exploring affect: The Selected writings of Silvan S. Tomkins. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

de Waal, F. and Lanting, F. (1997). Bonobo. The Forgotten Ape. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Fiske, ST (2004). Social beings: A core motives approach to social psychology. New York: Wiley.

Frankl, Viktor E., (1963). Man’s Search for Meaning. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Gibbs, J. (2003).  Moral development and reality. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Giedd, J.N., Blumenthal, J., Jeffries, N.O., et al. (1999). Brain development during childhood and adolescence: a longitudinal MRI study. Nature Neuroscience, 2(10): 861-3.

Greenspan, S.I., & Shanker, S.I. (2004). The First idea. Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press.

Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 8, 814-34.

Hammond, K.R. (2000).  Judgments under stress. New York: Oxford.

Harlow, H. (1986). From learning to love. New York: Praeger.

Heartmath Research Center (2001). Science of the heart: Exploring the role of the heart in human performance. Boulder Creek, CA: HeartMath Institute.

Higgins, E.T., King, G.A. & Mavin, G.H. (1982).  Individual construct accessibility and subjective impressions and recall.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 35-47.

Kahneman, D. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality.
American Psychologist, 58:9, 697-720.

Keil, F.C., & Wilson, R.A. (1999). Explanation and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Kekes, J. (1990). Facing Evil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Krebs, D. L. (in press). The evolution of morality. In D. Buss (Ed.), Evolutionary psychology handbook. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Loye, D. (2002). The moral brain. Brain and Mind 3: 133–150, 2002.

MacLean, P.D., 1973: A Triune Concept of the Brain and Behavior, University of Toronto Press: Toronto.

MacLean, P.D., 1990: The Triune Brain in Evolution: Role in Paleocerebral Functions, Plenum:  New York.

Mason, W.A. and Berkson, G. (1975). Effects of Maternal Mobility on the Development of Rocking and Other Behaviors in Rhesus Monkeys: A Study with Artificial Mothers. Developmental Psychobiology, 8, 197-221

Mikulincer, M. & Florian, V. (2000). Exploring individual differences in reactions to mortality salience: Does attachment style regulate terror management mechanisms? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 509-523.

Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P.R., Gillath, O. & Nitzberg, R.A. (2005). Attachment, Caregiving, and Altruism: Boosting Attachment Security. Increases Compassion and Helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89 (5), 817–839.

National Catholic Reporter (2005). Membership plummets after pastor preaches whole world will be saved. Vol. 42 (7), p. 3.

Panksepp  J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience. New York: Oxford University Press

Peterson, C., & Seligman., M. (2004). Character strengths and virtues. New York: Oxford.

Perry, B.D., Pollard, R.A., Blakely, T.L., Baker, W.L., & Vigilante, D. (1995). Childhood trauma, the neurobiology of adaptation, and “use-dependent” development of the brain: How “states” become “traits.” Infant Mental Health Journal, 16, 271-291.

Pierce, J.C.(2002). The biology of transcendence. South Paris, ME: Park Street Press.

Pollak, S.D. & Perry, B. Early Neglect Can Hinder Child’s Relationships. Nov. 21-25, 2005, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Prescott J.W. (1996). The Origins of Human Love and Violence. Pre- and Perinatal Psychology Journal, 10 (3), 143-188.

Schore, A. (1994). Affect regulation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Staub, E. (2003). The psychology of good and evil: Why children, adults, and groups help. and harm others. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Bruenewald, T.L., Gurung, R.A.R., & Updegraff, J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend and befriend, not fight or flights. Psychological Review 107, 411-429.

Tomkins, S. (1965). Affect and the psychology of  knowledge. In S.S. Tomkins & C.E. Izard (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and personality. New York: Springer.

Uvnas-Moberg, K. (1998). Oxytocin may mediate the benefits of positive social interaction and emotion. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 819-835.

Weaver IC, Szyf , M, Meaney, MJ (2002) From maternal care to gene expression: DNA methylation and the maternal programming of stress responses. Endocr Res 28:699.

Wismer Fries, A.B., Ziegler, T.E., Kurian, J.R., Jacoris, S. & Pollak, S.D. (2005). Early experience in humans in associated with changes in neuropeptides critical for regulating social behaviour. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 102, 17237-17240.

Poor people have I.Q.’s significantly lower than those of rich people, and the awkward conventional wisdom has been that this is in large part a function of genetics. After all, a series of studies seemed to indicate that I.Q. is largely inherited. Identical twins raised apart, for example, have I.Q.’s that are remarkably similar. They are even closer on average than those of fraternal twins who grow up together.

If intelligence were deeply encoded in our genes, that would lead to the depressing conclusion that neither schooling nor antipoverty programs can accomplish much. Yet while this view of I.Q. as overwhelmingly inherited has been widely held, the evidence is growing that it is, at a practical level, profoundly wrong.

Kristof cites Richard Nisbett’s new book Intelligence and How to Get It: Why Schools and Cultures Count. I covered some of Nisbett’s work in the post IQ, Environment and Anthropology, and Jim Holt gave a strong review of the book recently in the NY Times. The publisher’s home page simply says that this book is a “bold refutation of the belief that genes determine intelligence.”

From the damning research of The Bell Curve to the more recent controversy surrounding geneticist James Watson’s statements, one factor has been consistently left out of the equation: culture…

World-class social psychologist Richard E. Nisbett takes on the idea of intelligence as something that is biologically determined and impervious to culture— with vast implications for the role of education as it relates to social and economic development. Intelligence and How to Get It asserts that intellect is not primarily genetic but is principally determined by societal influences.

Well, not quite. As Kristof notes, “While I.Q. doesn’t measure pure intellect — we’re not certain exactly what it does measure — differences do matter, and a higher I.Q. correlates to greater success in life. Intelligence does seem to be highly inherited in middle-class households, and that’s the reason for the findings of the twins studies: very few impoverished kids were included in those studies. But Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia has conducted further research demonstrating that in poor and chaotic households, I.Q. is minimally the result of genetics — because everybody is held back. ‘Bad environments suppress children’s I.Q.’s,’ Professor Turkheimer said.”

First, for those interested in understanding IQ measures, I strongly recommend Greg’s posts Girls Closing Math Gap? Troubles with Intelligence 1 and The Flynn Effect: Troubles with Intelligence 2. In the first post, Greg takes on the idea of “natural” differences in male/female math ability, discusses problems with how IQ gets measured, and discusses how the “changing status of women seems to correlate pretty strongly with the math gap.” In the second post, Greg discusses James Flynn’s work on the steadily rising IQ scores seen around the world, what intelligence actually means, and how best to measure it.

Turning to the inequality side, Kristof’s point is that on a level-playing field genetics can become a primary factor in IQ scores. But just like low-quality nutritional environments can lead to stunting of physical growth, so too can unequal environments stunt the growth of brain function and intellectual growth, as we’ve written about before in Poverty Poisons the Brain and Poverty and the Brain: Becoming Critical.

Eric Turkheimer has a recent paper with K. Paige Harden and John Loelin entitled, Genotype by Environment Interaction in Adolescents’ Cognitive Aptitude (pdf). Using 839 twin pairs from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds, the paper shows that “Shared environmental influences were stronger for adolescents from poorer homes, while genetic influences were stronger for adolescents from more affluent homes.” In an accompanying press article, Turkheimer says “[This research] suggests that if you’re going to work with people’s environment to try and increase IQ, then the place to invest your money is in taking people in really bad environments and making them OK, rather than taking people in pretty good environments and making it better.”

Better outcomes are also a concern for Kristof. He notes that Nisbett “strongly advocates intensive early childhood education because of its proven ability to raise I.Q. and improve long-term outcomes.” The Milwaukee Project showed that in a randomly assigned study, “By age 5, the children in the program averaged an I.Q. of 110, compared with 83 for children in the control group. Even years later in adolescence, those children were still 10 points ahead in I.Q.”

Nisbett also pushes a simple idea: “tell junior-high-school students that I.Q. is expandable, and that their intelligence is something they can help shape. Students exposed to that idea work harder and get better grades. That’s particularly true of girls and math, apparently because some girls assume that they are genetically disadvantaged at numbers; deprived of an excuse for failure, they excel.”

For more on these types of interventions, see Nisbett’s recent op-ed Education Is All In Your Mind. The one thing I would add is that motivation needs to work hand-in-hand with opportunity. Working harder to no effect, with little sense that one’s effort will lead to a better outcome, is pernicious.

Kristof has addressed education and intelligence in other columns, which I also recommend. He wrote about DC schools and the reform efforts of Michelle Rhee in Education’s Ground Zero. Earlier he argued for education as our number one national priority, and a needed focus for both stimulus money and for making the US globally competitive. And in Raising the World’s IQ he discussed the environmental side of generating change, in this case the importance of iodized salt. I’d add lead to that as well, which even at low levels is linked to lower IQ scores.

A great topic, of course! Maybe a tad ambitious (!), but just the sort of question you want kids to ask. So I was excited to show off my Internet skills and get him hooked into some sites to help explain the brain to a growing boy. Paul outlined a bunch of them in his post Brain School.

But none of them did the trick! My son wasn’t particularly interested in them, the explanations and graphics didn’t always seem accessible, and I came away a little frustrated with the state of neuroscience for kids on the internet.

We had better luck at the local library, so I’m detailing the four most useful books below. If there are other books you like, please leave a comment! It would be great to build a resource. And if there is a great Internet site out there that your kid really hooked into, then tell us about that too.

Here are the boosk with Amazon links:

Anita Ganeri (2003). Your Brain. Gareth Stevens Publishing and part of the How Your Body Works series.
-This book was short, with vivid illustrations and language that my son got – it was the one he drew on the most to get the basics down for his presentation.

HP Newquist (2004). The Great Brain Book: An Inside Look at the Inside of Your Head. Scholastic Reference.
-A more encyclopediac book, covering history, evolution, the brain itself, treatment and more. It’s more text oriented, but does have good illustrations. Amazon plugs it for ages 9-12, but the School Library Review says Grade 7 and beyond.

Michael DiSpezio (2004). How Bright Is Your Brain? Amazing Games to Play with Your Mind. Sterling Publishing.
-It gets info across using kid-friendly drawings, but also focuses on activities kids can do to help understand their brains. Definitely some fun ones, and a good way to introduce some ideas about experiments.

Steve Parker (2006). Control Freak: Hormones, The Brain, and the Nervous System. Raintree.
-This book has more photos and focuses on what the brain does. Good stuff on the senses and movement.