[null, null, null, {"document_url": "https://blametheamygdala.wordpress.com/tag/cognitive/", "unformatted_src": "https://blametheamygdala.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/women-against-abuse-picture.jpg", "src": "https://blametheamygdala.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/women-against-abuse-picture.jpg", "formatted_filename": "women against abuse picture", "rendered_width": 266, "rendered_height": 189}, null]



Here’s my original post.

Goodbye, Facebook

This started to bother me.




Copyright Jack Pemment, 2012

Author, Seeing Red




The Violence Inhibition Mechanism (VIM) 

Somatic Marker Hypothesis




Can knowledge acquisition fall into an addiction model?

The thought of being addicted to knowledge appears somewhat ridiculous, after all, knowledge acquisition is seen as laudable and a necessity for a rich and fulfilling life. Knowledge is often heralded and even worshipped by cultures the world over; indeed knowledgeable individuals are valued and seem to command a certain level of respect. Knowing more about something than somebody else can even serve to boost one’s social status, and once we realize that we can never know everything, we mandate and support the use of academic professionals for the sake of finding out more truths; truths that we can lap-up, think about and discuss without doing the cognitive fieldwork. So even now we can begin to see the craving and the use and abuse of information. In short, we just cannot do without it.

Finding out something new can often be a thrilling experience, urging you on to build-upon this thrilling piece of new information, or seeking another hit of information to reward you with the same feeling as before. If humans can rapidly learn cues and contexts that predict the availability of addictive drugs (von de Goltz; Kiefer, 2009), what is to say they are not using the same cognitive machinery to learn where to obtain another hit of information? A friend, the Internet, a book, a library, or a professor, and this exchange can often take place quickly and efficiently in the comfort of one’s own home with the use of a phone, a computer or a television. Finding a source of knowledge is in fact rewarding in itself and will quickly become highly valued and used for future acts of knowledge acquisition.

Behavior that constitutes addiction is often known to be both impulsive and compulsive. Impulsivity is marked by rapid and unintended reactions to internal and external stimuli, without regard for negative consequences. Compulsive behavior is characterized by perseveration in the face of adversity (Koob, 2009). It is not hard to see how knowledge acquisition fits both of these behaviors. Reading news headlines, texting and responding to text messages, the sudden urge to see how an entertaining plotline continues at the point of a cliffhanger, the use of social internet sites to view a status update of friends (or enemies), and waiting by a phone in the anticipation of receiving important information all represent an impulsive need to know. And as our attention is directed at receiving this information we can easily become blind to the consequences. This can range from short term foibles like automobile accidents caused by using a phone or an animated conversation with a passenger, to the long term neglect of friends, family and pets if the behavior is not moderated.

Compulsive and impulsive behavior can be seen in the light of delayed reinforcement.  When we act to obtain reinforcement, there is always a delay between the action and the outcome, and thus to control the world successfully, animals must be able to use delayed reinforcement (Cardinal, 2001). How well we control our anxiety caused by the anticipation of knowledge is the difference between compulsive and impulsive behavior; the perceived reward remains the focus, but the time allowed by the individual to achieve their goal differs in accordance with their need. This is perhaps even analogous to the neuronal rewards for sex. Instant gratification by way of masturbation provides a reward for an impulsive appetite, whereas a compulsive appetite is not bound by the need of a quick fix, even though the means of achieving the goal may have developed into an unhealthy obsession. The need to know things instantly can invoke impulsive behavior, but by contrast scholastic behavior is rife with trials and tribulations, yet the anticipatory rewards contribute to the ongoing drive for worthwhile knowledge. Many scholars fight adversity every day for publication in prestigious journals and for validation among their peers, and the best way to do this is to present a new piece of knowledge or an original perspective on an existing idea and hope that it too hijacks the reward system of the right people and satisfies their need for knowledge gratification, or at least the needs of a potential market. Despite this immense adversity, tremendous efforts are made, regardless.

There is perhaps also a difference in the quality of this gratification. Information obtained by the need of a quick fix does not require much thought, whereas those who seek to satisfy their intellect’s engage in long bouts of sustained sensory stimulation to build up their cognitive machinery to better understand the world; the satisfaction gained from this is arguably a greater reward, such as an emotional “Eureka!” moment of discovery.

Dopamine could play a role in the addiction to learning. The mesolimbic pathway delivers dopamine into the frontal cortex, the area of the brain responsible for executive functions, such as planning, forecasting and working memory. Dopamine appears to play an integral role in cognition. Stimulation of the D1 receptor in the PFC is linked to increases in the amount of NMDA receptors and could possibly play a role in NMDA receptor processes in the PFC (Wolf ; Gao, 2008). Increased activity of NMDA receptors can in turn increase AMPA receptors, resulting in long term potentiation and the strengthening of the prefrontal synapse, something that could be vital for maintaining working memory and our natural capacities for problem solving and critical thinking. The study by Wolf et al. goes on to suggest that addictive drugs like cocaine, which block the re-uptake of dopamine, could enhance NMDA receptor activity, which could in turn facilitate the neuronal plasticity that focuses behaviors towards drug-seeking. If natural levels of dopamine are high or dopamine re-uptake is naturally low or inhibited, surely neuronal plasticity could focus on behaviors that utilize the prefrontal neurons, such as working memory and learning, albeit weaker than cocaine addiction? This could present a natural addiction to learning behavior, although there is no evidence to support this claim.

High concentrations of dopamine have been linked to increased levels of endorphins (an endogenous morphine-liked compound) in the mammalian brain (Neri et al., 2008). In rats, β-endorphin has been linked to memory consolidation and memory retrieval (Barros, 2003). Endorphins are well known for the feelings of euphoria produced when they bind to opioid receptors in the brain, and so if increases of dopamine result in increases of endorphins, there could easily be a desire for the organism to replicate the behavior that caused the good feelings. If high levels of dopamine are involved in strengthening synaptic connections in the prefrontal cortex that are involved in cognition, and also producing higher levels of β-endorphin, which aids memory retrieval and memory consolidation, plus creating a mild euphoric feeling, it is not hard to see how the machinery involved in knowledge acquisition is tempting you to repeat this behavior.

I would like to suggest that the reward for learning has to be more than adaptive behavior that could promote the success of the organism. A neuronal reward system would encourage humans to learn and seek knowledge, which in turn would result in adaptive behavior, allowing for the successful cognitive evolution of the species. A biological system of addiction is perfect, as it gives the human a big push towards self-perpetuating beneficial learning behavior, even if misery and negative consequences are experienced along the way.


 


Anyone interested in psychopaths and the history of the PCL-R (Psychopathy Checklist – Revised) should definitely take a look a look at this NPR interview with Dr. Robert Hare.

I don’t know why this surprised me, but it genuinely did. I have read a number of awesome things about the PCL-R, including seeing it noted as “The international gold-standard” for determining psychopathy. The PCL-R is often used in neurobiological studies when putting together an experimental group, to then see if there are statistically significant differences in the brain between psychopaths and non-psychopaths. As the article points out, the PCL-R has also predicted high rates of recidivism of violent criminals released on parole – so it’s good at predicting re-offending.

So what could be the problem?

It turns out that Dr. Hare was always worried about members of the criminal justice system using the test, not in the least because “branding” people a psychopath is a terribly serious thing to do that will effect the rest of that person’s life. Not only does psychopathy point to differences in the brain that are permanent, but there is currently no way to rehabilitate a psychopath (training them to become non-psychopathic). The article notes a man in prison in California, Robert Dixon, who has been branded a psychopath, and he is consequently having a hard time proving he isn’t a psychopath (if he isn’t a psychopath, this will be one hell of an uphill struggle, not in the least because psychopaths are known to be compulsive liars and prone to manipulating people). There are two points to realize here; firstly, if people believe you are truly a psychopath, then your cry for justice has just been silenced, and secondly, as you have just been silenced, you are open to be abused by mental health “experts” and the state.

Hare was also terrified to see that many people in the criminal justice system were not administering the PCL-R correctly (you have to be trained and you have to be a mental health expert). However, there were also differences in scores on the PCL-R when administered by a psychologist hired by the defense (scores were lower, thus less or non psychopathic), and psychologists hired by the prosecution (scores were higher, thus more psychopathic). This has prompted Hare to only want the test administered in scientific settings, where there is no immediate consequence on a person’s life.

Check out the NPR article for more information.




I am continually interested in how our beliefs shape our behavior, if indeed they do. This notion is especially important when considering extreme behaviors such as murder and pedophilia. While it is not uncommon to discover that mass murderers seem to have been “wrapped up” in some kind of sub-culture morality or extreme political/religious ideology, we also have to bear in mind that justifications for behavior come both before and after an act. If it comes before an act, was it ideology based (i.e. ideology governed the behavior), and if the justification comes after the act, is it an excuse (i.e. a rationalizing of the act – to oneself or the public)?

In terms of learning and repeating certain kinds of motor behavior, it seems obvious that certain repertoires get set into our brains (the cerebellum plays a key role in this). But how do beliefs manifest themselves as behavior? The obvious thing to do here would be to ask, “Okay, what is a belief?” – I’m going to work with the delightfully vague definition of “something I take to be true.” And what is truth? That’s an easy one. It’s something that provides me with reinforcement.

In an immediate way, we trust our senses and take the subsequent perception to be true because they facilitate our navigation and passage through our environment, providing us with very necessary information – if these senses fail us, then they are not being true (this happens even when there are no deficits/disorders/diseases hindering the transduction of environmental stimuli). But in a conceptual sense, knowing that Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist, firstly can be reinforcing because it promotes the positive feeling that I know something, and secondly, knowing this fact can facilitate the accumulation of more knowledge around it; everything we know about Dickens fits together and is facilitated by the fact that Charles Dickens wrote Oliver Twist. Clearly, our senses and our conceptions are not always right, which tells us something very important; learning requires us to shun the potential for reinforcement, and this can be very unsettling.

Ideology, therefore, is the stream of conceptions that has provided us with maximum amounts of reinforcement – more so than any other alternatives. This is clearly why we all have different “truths” about the world. So in terms of our beliefs governing our behavior, we are clearly expecting some kind of reinforcement upon the completion of the act; even suicide and the idea of suicide can seem highly rewarding in terms of how the individual sees their life, or how they would like to be remembered by others. The more planning and thought that goes into these acts, clearly increases the likelihood of the outcome. The more thought, the more anticipation of the reinforcer. The act becomes inevitable, at least for the individual, provided no one intervenes.  This anticipation, probably leads to a behavior protocol.

After the event, however, people still turn to ideology to justify it, and if this is the case, they probably never understood why they did what they did, or they were taking pleasure in toying with the media and the public (such as David Berkowitz telling the press that his neighbor’s dog was telling him to murder), or they felt telling the truth behind their motives would not be met with much sympathy or understanding. In the first instance, confusion, it is not hard to see that we do a lot without thinking – in fact, that’s a good thing because if we had to think through every little thing we do, such as preparing food, walking to and from the store, brushing one’s teeth, or picking up a hot drink, we would never get anything done. But this doesn’t really require ideology as an explanation, unless you want to get metaphysical. This lack of explanation could also apply to serial killers and serial rapists; they do what they do because the only way they get maximum exhilaration is by committing extreme acts and engaging in excessive drug and alcohol intake; ideology as an explanation is not required here. While there is this impulsive behavior, it must also be noted that many attacks are also highly planned, which takes us back to ideology motivating behavior.

It’s easy to see why psychopaths would throw ideology at the media; the public likes a good story and the fact that they are manipulating the public while remaining in the spotlight would no doubt assuage their ego; but as this is contrived nonsense, it is not an explanation of ideology explaining the act in question. Telling the truth about the thoughts and planning that went into a killing, is simply admitting that there was ideology before the killing.

Ideology has to be present before the act for it to be used as an excuse for the behavior. If ideology wasn’t there before the behavior, then you can’t make the behavior fit one. This is important because it tells you that the act was governed by impulses and the reptilian brain, rather than the use of the frontal lobe, which is involved in planning and forecasting. This difference can tell you something about the neurology of the individual, and tell you about the kind of person you are dealing with.



