From NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126141922
This gave Zak an idea. Like some comic-book villain concocting a plan to take over the world by dumping happy pills in the water supply, he wondered if it might be possible to use this molecule -- oxytocin -- to change the way people felt about the government.
Regardless of the correctness of the study, that's a terrifying thought for anyone to have. The first time I tried reading the article, I had to give up right after that part.
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.—Ludwig von Mises
Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.
"Trust hormone" is a misnomer. That is far too simplistic a way of thinking about oxytocin. This article doesn't explain what they did to get college students to give their money away. There's not enough information to separate researcher bias from facts. One of things you would expect from oxytocin is that people want to give things away more. That is entirely different from trust.
No need of sinister plots. Pick up a newspaper and you will see trust in governments is at an all time high and growing.
"Now, this is not Levi's view. From her perspective, it works top down: Governments need to be trustworthy to get people to trust them.
"If we're talking about trust in government, the most important factor is whether people believe the government is doing the job they want government to do for them," Levi says."
If government cant create trust, nothing can. It is the organisation that is the epitome of creating trust and ideological belief in itself. All the people best suited for creating its image(or destroying it) benefit greatly from keeping it well functioning, so there certainly is no incentive system for it to stop functioning.
Even the supposedly anti-government tea parties get the warm fuzzy feeling of government taking care of their security and insurance, and any organisation more extreme will be bound for obscurity due to not being profitable for the people that could be capable of achieving its goals.
Eliminating trust in government is a no go, its one thing that is impossible to do. Agorism is the only hope for liberty.
If government cant create trust, nothing can. It is the organisation that is the epitome of creating trust and ideological belief in itself. All the people best suited for creating its image(or destroying it) benefit greatly from keeping it well functioning, so there certainly is no incentive system for it to stop functioning. Even the supposedly anti-government tea parties get the warm fuzzy feeling of government taking care of their security and insurance, and any organisation more extreme will be bound for obscurity due to not being profitable for the people that could be capable of achieving its goals. Eliminating trust in government is a no go, its one thing that is impossible to do. Agorism is the only hope for liberty.
AmI supposed to trust you on this?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
NPR: [..] Zak first got interested in trust more than a decade ago after co-authoring a study that looked at trust levels in different nations and their economic stability. The study found that the higher the level of trust, the better the economic status of the nation. The work got Zak thinking more generally about different ways to manipulate trust, and so starting in 2001, Zak began spraying oxytocin up the noses of college students to see if the hormone would change the way they interacted with strangers. It did. Squirt oxytocin up the nose of a college kid, and he's 80 percent more likely to distribute his own money to perfect strangers.
[..]
Zak first got interested in trust more than a decade ago after co-authoring a study that looked at trust levels in different nations and their economic stability. The study found that the higher the level of trust, the better the economic status of the nation.
The work got Zak thinking more generally about different ways to manipulate trust, and so starting in 2001, Zak began spraying oxytocin up the noses of college students to see if the hormone would change the way they interacted with strangers.
It did. Squirt oxytocin up the nose of a college kid, and he's 80 percent more likely to distribute his own money to perfect strangers.
Standard empiricist clap-trap. Doesn't even bother to consider that mis-trust is extremely important.
A study finds that the higher the level of trust, the happier married couples are. Abused women tend to have a low level of trust.
This got Zak thinking more generally about different ways to chemically manipulate the trust abused woman have..
I believe there was a recent poll that suggested otherwise, at least in the US; I'll take your word on Europe. The immediate future still looks somewhat bleak, but it's good to see the American libertarian tradition resurging.
Eliminating trust in government is a no go, its one thing that is impossible to do.
We all made it here, didn't we? There's always a compelling argument for liberty - it just has to be individualized for each person. Education like that takes time, and sometimes people are afraid to step outside the bounds of what they've been taught since birth.
"The study found that the higher the level of trust, the better the economic status of the nation."
Correlation, not causation.
He is confusing cause and effect. It's the other way around.
From NPR: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126141922 This gave Zak an idea. Like some comic-book villain concocting a plan to take over the world by dumping happy pills in the water supply, he wondered if it might be possible to use this molecule -- oxytocin -- to change the way people felt about the government. Regardless of the correctness of the study, that's a terrifying thought for anyone to have. The first time I tried reading the article, I had to give up right after that part.
They're not too far off the mark, though they should be using the word "confidence" - as in "confidence scheme" or "confidence game" - instead of "trust." The government would be most powerful in a world full of people like Isabelle with William's syndrome (except government employees). The government would love nothing more than to squirt a magic potion up our noses that made us ignore its abuses... it would be a massive cost-saving device. NPR would no longer be needed so perhaps NPR should be worried about the technical viability of such a system.
Clayton -
Btw, a world full of trusting people could be useful to anyone, public or private, if they are not super trusting themselves. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man is king. Just saying.
Precisely. That's why it's so crucial for the government to keep the overwhelming majority of the public believing that policemen, elected officials and government bureaucrats operate on different (more noble) motives than the rest of us.
ClaytonB: That's why it's so crucial for the government to keep the overwhelming majority of the public believing that policemen, elected officials and government bureaucrats operate on different (more noble) motives than the rest of us.
That's why it's so crucial for the government to keep the overwhelming majority of the public believing that policemen, elected officials and government bureaucrats operate on different (more noble) motives than the rest of us.
I don't think they really have to work very hard at that. In fact, I think the natural tendency is to distrust anyone with a profit motive and so private institutions and their advocates struggle to tell the average joe why fear and greed (the emotions that regulate and drive the market, respectively) are more useful than caring about the so called "common good." In other words, I think it's intuitive to not trust private companies, corporations, the profit motive, rational self interest and that's probably why the people who do favor private to public tend to be in the minority. Sure, the propaganda works in favor of the government but they're already at an advantage. Don't you agree?
Yes and no. I think there are some good reasons why humans "trust" others they perceive as being altruistic and that this has played a role in human evolution. But the State is ultimately all about maintaining a dual legal standard of human behavior and aversion to hypocrisy is deeply seated in human nature. The simple question, "if it were the other way around, would it be OK?" is so basic that children comprehend and utilize it to evaluate morality. That simple question is the State's worst enemy. So, I think it's imperative for liberalism to bring the debate back to this question at all points because it directly addresses the root problem: the dual moral/legal standard which is the State. People naturally hate double-standards (hence the outrage articles on politicians flying in private jets, etc.) We just need to explain thoroughly and persuasively how it is that the State is nothing more than a gigantic justification for double-standards.
I dunno, I'm aware of the double standard but it doesn't bother me that much (it does bother me, but all things being equal, it's not at the top of my list.) Morality and laws are two totally different concepts to me. Perhaps others will be outraged when/if they realize that the state is at best amoral and at worst immoral and definitely is immune to many of the laws that would normally apply to everyone else. But it doesn't really upset me so much that I want to see the state eradicated.
I see only two possible reasons for your apathy. Either you are ignorant of what it means for State agents to act under the umbrella of a moral/legal double-standard (spend a day or two perusing police brutality videos on YouTube, you can go days without ever seeing the same video twice) or you are a moral nihilist and you just don't care how other human beings suffer at the hands of legitimized thugs.
ClaytonB: Either you are ignorant of what it means for State agents to act under the umbrella of a moral/legal double-standard (spend a day or two perusing police brutality videos on YouTube, you can go days without ever seeing the same video twice) or you are a moral nihilist and you just don't care how other human beings suffer at the hands of legitimized thugs.
Either you are ignorant of what it means for State agents to act under the umbrella of a moral/legal double-standard (spend a day or two perusing police brutality videos on YouTube, you can go days without ever seeing the same video twice) or you are a moral nihilist and you just don't care how other human beings suffer at the hands of legitimized thugs.
I think my values are a little more complex than either of these two options implies but first of all I do care. But I don't care so much that I'm going to get so angry at the state that I want it eliminated just because things like this happen. There are things I care about and things I care a lot about and police immunity, while frustrating, is not a decisive issue in determining where I place my allegiances.
Zak et al are engaging in pseudoscience. Here is something I wrote when Zak's article in 2008 Sci American came out:
For instance, some studies have suggested the neuropeptide oxytocin made people more willing to invest, without changing their opinion of the return to investment (Kosfeld et al 2005:674-675; Zak et al 2005:526). But these studies entirely ignore the fact, pointed out by physiologists (e.g. Bach-y-Rita 2001) that volume transmission, which is the only one of the mechanisms of brain function that utilizes hormones, controls primarily readyness and mood, but other functions utilize the forms of wiring neurotransmission (Agnati et al 1986). And to be “in the mood” for a specific behavior is not the behavior itself. Correlation is not causation, especially when it is already known that the brain functions by only a combination of information-transmission through (i) neuron synapstic connections (Hebb 1949; Hayek 1952; Pribram 1991), (ii) neuron cytoskeletal connections (Pribram, Yasue, and Jibu), and (iii) nonspecific volume connections (Agnati et al; Bach-y-Rita et al), if not more mechanisms yet undiscovered. If there were only volume transmission, then the Von Neumann criterion that the computation system be more plastic and reliable than any one of its parts would not be met (Von Neumann 1963). The suggestion by Zak that increase in oxytocin in the brain in sufficient quantities has direct causal capacity to improve people’s “trust” in each other, in government, or in something else, is straightforward pseudoscience.
Search the references if you want.
Also, read this: http://bacteriality.com/2008/07/05/oxytocin/
I would bet Obama and friends dousing the populace in oxytocin would actually not even work when people have to trust other entities using their own resources rather than the money the experimentor gives them for participating. Zak et al does not especially care how decision making in the brain actually occurs.