Scientific Examinations of Human Nature

[mikeralls]

One of the hardest things about being a good writer is creating realistic characters. Do do that you really need an incredibly intuitive empathic mind, and/or you need to spend significant time thinking about how you view humans and why they do the things they do.

I think literature, and personal examination can be great paths toward this, but as I am a scientific person, I also think it's important to look at what science knows or is learning about human nature.

For example, Steve has often said that hate is fear turned outside (or something like that). Alliteratively, that sounds nice and plausible. However, scientifically it appears to not be the case. According to a recent study, hate actives parts of the brain that overlap with parts activated by love, but does not activate the amygldala which is activated by fear.

www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003556

---
In this work, we address an important but unexplored topic, namely the neural correlates of hate. In a block-design fMRI study, we scanned 17 normal human subjects while they viewed the face of a person they hated and also faces of acquaintances for whom they had neutral feelings. A hate score was obtained for the object of hate for each subject and this was used as a covariate in a between-subject random effects analysis. Viewing a hated face resulted in increased activity in the medial frontal gyrus, right putamen, bilaterally in premotor cortex, in the frontal pole and bilaterally in the medial insula. We also found three areas where activation correlated linearly with the declared level of hatred, the right insula, right premotor cortex and the right fronto-medial gyrus. One area of deactivation was found in the right superior frontal gyrus. The study thus shows that there is a unique pattern of activity in the brain in the context of hate. Though distinct from the pattern of activity that correlates with romantic love, this pattern nevertheless shares two areas with the latter, namely the putamen and the insula.

.
.
.


It is important to note that the pattern revealed is distinct from that of other, closely related, emotions such as fear, anger, aggression and danger, even though it shares common areas with these other sentiments. Thus, the amygdala which is strongly activated by fear (Noesselt et al. 2005 [9], Morris et al. 2002 [10], Hadjikhani et al. 2008 [11]) and by aggression (Beaver et al., 2008 [12]) was not activated in our study. Nor were the anterior cingulate, hippocampus, medial temporal regions, and orbitofrontal cortex, apparently conspicuous in anger and threat (Denson et al. 2008 [13]; Bufkin and Luttrell 2007 [14]; McClure et al. 2004 [15]), evident in our study. It would thus seem that, though these sentiments may constitute part of the behaviour that results from hatred, the neural pathways for hate are distinct.
--

Now what can we take away from this as writers?

One possible position is just to reject it and not allow it to influence your depiction of humans in love or hate. Anyone take that position? (It's OK if you do, I just would like to know why?)

Thoughts?

[Argent'horn]

I think this is interesting, but not conclusive. It could easily be that the centers activated by fear are so unpleasant that they trigger a response (hatred) that ameliorates these reactions, so that even if the neurophysiology is distinct, Steve's view could easily be correct in terms of cause and effect, namely that fear leads to hatred as a less unpleasant state.

[Steven Barnes]

I think it is necessary to have a point of view about human nature, and be prepared to defend it--in essence, a piece of fiction is an argument about the nature of reality and human nature. I stand by my comment "anger is a mask over fear" because it makes sense, and has been a 100% useful approach to dealing with human beings. I wouldn't know how to jibe that with the research you quoted, or even if said research disproves my position--merely that anger and fear activate different parts of the brain. That could mean a number of different things.

[mikeralls]

Fair enough. But let me ask you, can you conceive of anyway that science _could_ prove you wrong on this? Or is it a non-falsifiable hypothesis?

[Steven Barnes]

Not sure about that. I suppose if you found anger issues that bore no relation to anything someone was fearful of, that would disprove it...but it wasn't intended as a comment on the neurophysiology of fear, rather as a practical approach to dealing with and understanding negative emotions. It's difficult to "prove" any number of things in the realm of psychology. I would suggest you might want to think of it as a useful lie, rather than a scientific truth.