From the University of Oregon comes this: A psychologist and two economists have conducted a study that proves that we, as good little citizens of the regime, are made happy by the extraction of our wealth in the form of taxes. In fact, this particular form of theft sets off the firing of the little happy centers in our brains.
Researchers found that two evolutionarily ancient regions deep in the brain – the caudate nucleus and the nucleus accumbens – fired when subjects saw the charity get the money. The activation was even larger when people gave the money voluntarily, instead of just paying it as taxes. These brain regions are the same ones that fire when basic needs such as food and pleasures (sweets or social contact) are satisfied.
…”The surprising element for us was that in a situation in which your money is simply given to others – where you do not have a free choice – you still get reward-center activity,” said Ulrich Mayr, a professor of psychology. “I don’t think that most economists would have suspected that. It reinforces the idea that there is true altruism – where it’s all about how well the common good is doing. I’ve heard people claim that they don’t mind paying taxes, if it’s for a good cause – and here we showed that you can actually see this going on inside the brain, and even measure it.”
…The study, Mayr said, reflects the balancing act that every society must face. “What this shows to someone who designs tax policy is that taxes aren’t all bad,” he said. “Paying taxes can make citizens happy. People are, to varying degrees, pure altruists. On top of that they like that warm glow they get from charitable giving. Until now we couldn’t trace that in the brain.”
Accordingly, when your neural activation centers aren’t “lighting up” at the thought of funding the state’s wars or its redistribution agenda, you are an “egoist.” Orwell, hello?
{ 14 comments }
Doesn’t this just prove that forced redistribution is not necessary since people are naturally charitable?
Anyway, this sounds like a pavlovian conditioned response, not an instinct.
…the three researchers also cited evidence of some people achieving spontaneous orgasms while being mugged. This has given rise to a debate on the, until now, ignored social utility of thieves and burglars…
Cheers!
This is more evolutionary psychology nonsense. I’ve never seen junk science so readily adopted by intelligent people as they have with evolutionary psychology (EP). There is nothing you can not prove with EP, including its opposite, and there is no way to disprove any nutty idea EP comes up with. It strikes me as very similar to the eugenics movement of the early 20th century.
How can you disprove eugenics RogerM? Eugenics and Social Darwinism trailed off due to queasiness of most people. But technically speaking people can be bred for enhanced attributes as humans have successfully bred better, stronger plants and animals through selective breeding. Personally I tend to wonder how much stronger and robust Spartan warriors should be from some 300 odd years of their selective breeding. Then again passive-eugenics has been more-or-less kinda practiced over the millennia with high social status been put on certain attributes of blokes and shielas such that they make heaps of money, have greater financial security and, tradionally, have more babies (or then again their babies were more likely to survive), thereby making sure the best genes can get first place into the next generation.
Unbelievable. I was actually laughing when I read it. Amazingly, it is not a joke. I could quote everything Karen De Coster quoted. But this is zombie comedy:
…”The surprising element for us was that in a situation in which your money is simply given to others – where you do not have a free choice – you still get reward-center activity,”
Great point, TLWP. The problem with eugenics in general is not the science, but the ethics of applying it by force. The same may very well be true of these findings.
I already commented on this story in another blog, Small Dead Animals. Stripping aside the humor in that post, I made the point that the subjects were given the hundred bucks. A more accurate match to life conditions would have been making the subjects work for the money they had received, and then seeing how they react to seeing part of their earnings go off to the food bank.
I wonder, were they looking for a response when they told the subject, “You know that hundred bucks we promised you for this study? We’re gonna give it to this guy instead.” If the amygdala didn’t light up like a Christmas tree, the subject was probably a Communist anyway.
Really I suppose there is some merit to this. Something has to explain why the average person I have discussions with still insist that there MUST be some form of social safety net, even as I have proven that even the perceived threadbare safety net we have is unsustainable. I can only assume that what is getting activated is the abstract notion of “there but for the grace of God go I”. The notion that someone in need is getting supported fires the imagination and the subject puts themselves in the receiving end of charity, and it’s all good.
But the brain in this case mostly presented with the upside without full comprehension of the costs or sustainability. The brain does seem to default to prime emotions in many cases. It takes rationality to navigate life and instruct behavior.I don’t think anyone is saying that our deep rooted pleasure responses should guide our behavior, much less connect it with the States’ machina of power and force. If and when that is the case, I shall make my appointment for the eternal dirt nap.
The modern form of psychology, sociology, and anthropology are, simply put, elitist slop.
There’s no substance to any of this.
I hear people tell me they don’t mind paying taxes, too, and it drives me wild. I think I mind them not minding.
The findings in the post STILL militate against taxes. Did you notice where it said that people get GREATER pleasure from giving voluntarily?
So, I say, abolish those involuntary taxes and let people get real, deeper pleasure from giving voluntarily.
Good study.
N Joseph Potts hit the nail on the head. In fact, the most notable thing is how the article mentions that truly voluntary giving results in the most pleasure, and then ignores it in favor of a long argument in favor of taxes.
The researchers have slipped into an error in extrapolating to taxes. Their conclusion only applies to taxpayers who have rationalised themselves into accepting the government’s forcible taking (“give or else”) as their own free giving. Sure, this makes them more content with their lot, and that in turn is a brainwashing mechanism that makes a lot of people accept their own subjection. The philosophical flaw of the brainwashing is, that they have to accept that what governments do is actually good, or they couldn’t keep believing that they were being charitable by proxy – and that in turn means it is easier for governments to keep on screwing up, since voters find it hard to accept that they themselves weren’t responsible.
But it simply doesn’t apply to people who have not made that rationalisation. We less self-deceiving people simply don’t buy into the ideas that we are giving freely, that what the extracted funds finance is automatically good, or that we are responsible for what is done in our name just because we are fleeced for it.
I think Mr. Lawrence is right. One of the reason the governement can extract all these taxes is because of a false moral argument. People are brainwashed to think paying taxes is good. If a majority of people thought that taxes were evil, it would be impossible for the governement to extract that much because of the high price of compliance.
Comments on this entry are closed.