MIT Scientists Incept Mice With False Memories

Director Christopher Nolan’s (of Batman and Inception) fame has a distinct fascination for memory, a theme he frequently explores in his films. In 2000’s Memento, protagonist Leonard Shelby suffers from a real (but extremely rare) condition that disallows him from making new memories. He remembers his childhood and his past but exists solely in a short-term memory present tense that fades after a minute or two, only to be erased and replaced again and again. In the film his wife is brutally raped and murdered. Unable to experience the tempering effects of time and psychologically incapable of moving on, he lives with a constant and fevered desire to catch her killer.

He frequently burns possessions of her in an attempt to gain some sense of closure, but these memories he tries to create never stick. He dispiritedly utters one of my favorite lines of the film:

“I can’t remember to forget you.”

Recently scientists at MIT may have found a way to replace memories or to erase them altogether.

Publishing in Science, a team of researchers claim to have created false memories in mice. The team was able to condition mice to behave fearfully in an environment that was different than the one in which they had actually been exposed to electric shocks.  The study, performed by Steve Ramirez, Xu Liu, et. al., could fundamentally alter our understanding of the physical, neuronal aspects of memory function. The team also speculates that this research could be used to literally turn memories on or off, a revolutionary idea that many people likely find liberating and terrifying in equal measure.

To train the mice, the researchers first had to locate a specific memory in their brains. In this Ted Talk, Liu and Ramirez detail how they were able to identify the specific cells responsible for a memory. When a mouse was put into a new environment, its brain would light up with neuronal activity. Liu explains that when these cells are activated, they leave behind a “footprint” that makes it possible to track their activity and put a sort of neuronal bookmark on them. Using a technique called optogenetics, the team was able to install an artificial “switch” that lets them literally turn these brain cells on or off by shooting them with laser pulses.

To summarize the complicated and detailed experiment: Individual mice were put into a new environment, a blue box. The neurons responsible for creating the memory of the blue box were traced and made to activate in response to pulses of light. The mouse was then put into a different new environment, a red box. While in the red box, the researchers administered mild electric shocks to the mouse while activating the cells responsible for remembering the blue box. The mouse was, in effect, being reminded of the blue box while being shocked in the red box. Then, the mouse was put back into the blue box, where it fearfully responded as if that were the environment it was conditioned to fear, despite the fact that the mouse had no historical reason to be afraid of the blue box.

Conditioning

The scientists very literally Incepted a mouse with a false memory that made it afraid of an environment it had no reason to fear.

In addition to being able to turn a memory on, Liu and Ramirez maintain that they can also turn it off, and even believe it will be possible to customize and edit memories in the future. These alterations can be viewed as a controlled version of the way our minds naturally distort our recollections, which is one reason why eyewitness testimony is so fundamentally flawed—our brains are famously prone to misremembering. This groundbreaking technology could change one of the most important aspects of being human: the obviously profound relationship we all have with our past.

The possibility of erasing bad breakups or the sources of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, to creating new versions of our old selves, can be both an invigorating horizon of opportunity as well as the introduction to an Orwellian nightmare, depending on both the individual involved and what memories are being tinkered with.

One of my fundamental beliefs is that every human being fully owns themselves and may do anything to their body they wish, with the important caveat that they alone are responsible for their actions. The idea of a third-party deleting or installing memories is of the utmost abhorrence. However, for better or for worse, I believe that individuals should be allowed to selectively modify their own past as they see fit, despite all the inherent troubles of getting the rest of the world to go along with the story you’ve created. (Imagine having to tell everyone to never bring up an ex before you get your memory of him/her erased…and how that totally wouldn’t work.)

I like to focus on this research as being a way for mankind to better understand memory and the neuronal processes in the brain. However, the idea of erasing or manipulating memories is interesting and does create a fundamental paradox. If I change my own recollections, my perception of the past that created my personality and worldview will have been altered by a person that I no longer fully recognize or accept as truly being “me.” The person who altered their memories would in a very real psychological sense no longer be the person that had the memories changed in the first place.

So who would you truly be? The Before or the After?

On a humorous note that I simply couldn’t pass up, writing about this story has brought up one of my favorite moments from Seinfeld. In the show, Jerry Seinfeld is dating a cop and is nervous about taking a lie detector test. Jerry asks George Costanza, the consummate and ubiquitous teller-of-fibs, for advice. George, absolutely deadpan, gives his counsel:

“It’s not a lie….if you believe it.”

Indeed.

 

Sources:

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6144/387

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23447600

http://tedxboston.org/speaker/ramirez

 

 

A Note on the Top 1%: Psychopaths or Superhumans?

 

A few days ago, we looked into the coming rise of a new species being developed by the technocrats; it’s nigh. Spectacular as this notion is, as it turns out, the next stage in human development has already arrived, interlaced inconspicuously amongst us, as though “They Live” were a documentary.

Doesn't anyone have a goddamn stick of gum?!

Doesn’t anyone have a goddamn stick of gum?!
http://www.releasedonkey.com

You see, everyone loves a good ethnic slur, but under our thin veil of cultural, linguistic, economic, and pigment differences, it’s understood that we’re all one collective unity of mankind. Hi, brothers and sisters. So with the utmost love and respect for all y’all round the globe (minus Canada, America’s ceaseless punchline), we can all join hands in an orgy of discrimination against the one group that’s not like the others. Proudly, I’ll stand on my soapbox of an anonymous keyboard and proclaim something we’ve all long suspected, but never voiced: “yuppies aren’t human.”

…Literally… Let me explain

If there’s one thing I’d gleaned from my last stint in the psych-ward (like you didn’t suspect), it’s how, like an uncured slab of beef, the lines between mental illnesses, unfortunately, are neither cut nor dry (consider the utter failure of the DSM). A great deal of consensus, however, stands in the psychologist community to where these muddied lines can be drawn, and the word “psychopath” is not a term bandied lightly, folks. A psychopath, apparently, is not always the image immediately drawn to mind of some knife wielding pariah, glazed in dried mustard and animal-semen (gross), prowling the subway adorned only in a single strategically-placed pool-floatie, who passes the day lobbing “Jesus saves” paper-airplane pamphlets at jaded urbanites. Nah, he’s probably wearing a silk tie, Gucci perhaps.

Psychopaths, in fact, while occasionally criminal masterminds, are masterful social chameleons, often indistinguishable from the crowd. Preconceived notions blown. A new theoretical analysis suggests that psychopathy is not merely a mental disorder, though, but rather the psychopath is a separate new sub-species of human altogether, a new animal. No joke. Sure, Patrick Bateman may lob revving chainsaws upon fleeing call-girls, but he wasn’t human, so it’s copacetic.  Evolution, it seems, just won’t take a day off. Psychopathy is categorized with traits of:

 

  • glib and superficial charm
  • grandiose (exaggeratedly high) estimation of self
  • need for stimulation
  • pathological lying
  • cunning and manipulativeness
  • lack of remorse or guilt
  • shallow affect (superficial emotional responsiveness)
  • callousness and lack of empathy
  • parasitic lifestyle
  • poor behavioral controls
  • sexual promiscuity
  • early behavior problems
  • lack of realistic long-term goals
  • impulsivity
  • irresponsibility
  • failure to accept responsibility for own actions
  • many short-term marital relationships
  • juvenile delinquency
  • revocation of conditional release
  • criminal versatility

To sum all that up, psychopaths (henceforth redubbed Homo PsychopathiusTM) are highly-intelligent, calculating, manipulative machines of self-interested ambition, lacking the capacity for conscience due to the inability to feel emotion. They are a manifestation of the cliché wolf in sheep’s clothing as a predator in white-collar work clothes, and these things aren’t human.

With an untappable spigot of raw uninhibited self-interest at its disposal, Homo Psychopathius often rises to the top of whatever organization/ field it sets its aim at. They are natural visionaries, innovators, and leaders of men, so it just makes sense that, statistically, the career with the highest propensity for psychopathy is nothing less than the CEO.

Over the last few decades, as you’ve undoubtedly noticed, the global power regime has shifted reigns from the uber-nation to the empire-corporation being the vaster colossus of influence. Our ruling class, then, are the highly-competent next stage in evolution, being more adapted for the major-leagues without the nuisance of those silly outdated oddities called feelings. Further still, note this list of the top ten careers Homo Psychopathius are found in, not forgetting the psychopath, more often than not, is at the forefront head of his field:

 

1. CEO
2. Lawyer
3. Media (Television/Radio)
4. Salesperson
5. Surgeon
6. Journalist
7. Police officer
8. Clergy person
9. Chef
10. Civil servant

Wait! Wait! Wait! Holy shit! What are you saying?

This thing is smarter than you, vastly more driven to power. It controls the companies you work for; it represents your legal system, decides what news you hear, tells you what to consume (down to a science), holds your life in its hands, arrests your deviants, propagates your religions, and it dominates your politics… oh yeah, and cooks your food (never trust a guy with a set of personally engraved knives, I guess).

We’re not alarmist here. Rather, I propose a happy compromise over this news: as successful as these things have proven themselves to be, rising to the apex of society, I offer that we humans dutifully permit this new animal to take the reins (cause it already has) as the new dominant species of the planet. You win, psychopaths. Game over. Anyway, our outdated human machine doesn’t mind serving as the structural base for your mighty overlord will. We’re more suited for playing Minecraft, masturbating, and following your orders. It’s kinda what we’re good at. If it’s not overly presumptuous of me to assume the diplomat between our 2 great peoples, let me be the first of my kind to say, “I vow my allegiance. All hail the morlocks! (I’m on board, guys. Eat someone else’s kids.)”

Fellow sapians, kinda brings the whole “Occupy Wall Street” thing into a new light, huh? Looks like the X-Men comics had it right all along: the 1% with all the powers really were the next stage of human evolution.

Take it; leave it; use it as an excuse to embrace your inner asshole.

Either way, let the hate mail commence.

 

 

 

Sources:

Wondergressive: The Singularity is Nigh Upon Us

I’m Here To Chew Bubblegum

Ari Shaffir: The Amazing Racist

Wondergressive: Impossible to Distinguish Sane from Insane

Wondergressive: You Might be a Psychopath

CBS: DSM New Psych Bible

People Claiming to be Jesus

Psychopath: a New Subspecies

Patrick Bateman

Psychopathy List

PubMed.gov: Genetic Risk for Psychopathy in 7 Year Olds

PubMed.gov: Corporate Psychopathy

Psychopathy and the CEO

Corporate Psychopaths and Global Financial Crisis

Corporate Psychopaths: Bullying and Unfair Supervision

MSN: 10 Sneaky Care Dealer Tricks

Who Runs the World: Global Corporate Control

Minecraft

Morlock

Occupy Wall Street

Impossible to Distinguish the Sane From Insane

One of the most important criticisms of psychiatric diagnosis is the Rosenhan experiment, which was an experiment orchestrated by David Rosenhan in 1973.  In these experiments, completely sane people faked hallucinations in order to gain access to mental hospitals in an attempt to show that “psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.”

In the study, the fake patients, three women and five men, kept written records on how 12 different hospitals in 5 different states were generally operated and also how they were personally treated.

The experiments began by each of the fake students making appointments at the hospitals and describing voices and words that they heard in their heads.  They provided “a false name and job, but all other details they gave were true including general ups and downs of life, relationships, events of life history and so on.”

After being admitted to the hospital, they acted exactly as they would in the outside world, participating in activities and regularly talking to patients and hospital staff in a friendly, jovial manner.  They also immediately told the staff that they felt fine, and no longer heard voices or felt the slightest bit depressed.

The sane patients were in the hospitals for 7 to 52 days, with an average of 19 days of admittance.  Their objective: to be declared sane and get out of the hospitals by their own devices.  This is where things get interesting.

First, none of the patients were detected by the doctors or staff at the hospitals as being normal or sane, while many of the clinically insane patients spotted their sanity immediately.  In fact, 35 out of 118 patients publicly voiced thier suspicions regarding the fake patients.

Second, normal behavior was viewed as symptoms of their illness.  Writing notes on the staff (which they did openly as the staff took no interest in the subject matter of the writing) was considered ‘writing behavior,’ and showing up early for meals was labeled as “oral-acquisitive syndrome,” rather than simple boredom.

Here are the results of the staff’s behavior toward the fake patients:

Response Percentage making contact with patient
Psychiatrists Nurses
Moves on with head averted 71 88
Makes eye contact 23 10
Pauses and chats 2 4
Stops and talks 4 0.5

Next up, the researchers flipped the study on its head and lied to hospital staff, telling them that one or more sane patients would be admitted to the hospital.  The staff was to rate each patient on a 10-point scale as to the likelihood of them being a fake patient.
The results:

Number of patients judged 193
Number of patients confidently judged as pseudo patients by at least one staff member 41
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist 23
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist AND one other staff member 19

The psychiatrists at these hospitals failed miserably at recognizing insanity, as well as sanity.

Rosenhan notes that the “experience of hospitalization for the pseudo patients was one of depersonalisation and powerlessness. Powerlessness and depersonalisation were evident in the ways in which the patients were deprived of many human rights such as freedom of movement and privacy.  Medical records were open to all staff members regardless of status or therapeutic relationship with the patient and personal hygiene was monitored and many of the toilets did not have doors.  Some of the ward orderlies would be brutal to patients in full view of other patients but would stop as soon as another staff member approached.”

Anyone that has ever taken a look at the DSM knows what a joke modern day psychology and generalized labeling has become.  According to the DSM, everyone is clinically insane and requires very similar if not identical treatment.  As Rosenhan urged so long ago, “instead of labelling a person as insane we should focus on the individual’s specific problems and behaviours.”

We could also strip society of senseless laws and restrictions that halt progress and use something that has been proven to work.  Time tested, and safe, what could be better?

Psychiatrists Cannot Distinguish the Sane From Insane

One of the most important criticisms of psychiatric diagnosis is the Rosenhan experiment, which was an experiment orchestrated by David Rosenhan in 1973.  In these experiments, completely sane people faked hallucinations in order to gain access to mental hospitals in an attempt to show that

psychiatrists cannot reliably tell the difference between people who are sane and those who are insane.

In the study, the fake patients, three women and five men, kept written records on how 12 different hospitals in 5 different states were generally operated and also how they were personally treated.

The experiments began by each of the fake patients making appointments at the hospitals and describing voices and words that they heard in their heads.  They provided

a false name and job, but all other details they gave were true including general ups and downs of life,  relationships, events of life history and so on.

After being admitted to the hospital, they acted exactly as they would in the outside world, participating in activities and regularly talking to patients and hospital staff in a friendly, jovial manner.  They also immediately told the staff that they felt fine, and no longer heard voices or felt the slightest bit depressed.

The sane patients were in the hospitals for 7 to 52 days, with an average of 19 days of admittance.  Their objective: to be declared sane and get out of the hospitals by their own devices.  This is where things get interesting…

First, none of the patients were detected by the doctors or staff at the hospitals as being normal or sane, while many of the clinically insane patients spotted their sanity immediately.  In fact, 35 out of 118 patients publicly voiced their suspicions regarding the fake patients.

Second, normal behavior was viewed as symptoms of their illness.  Writing notes on the staff (which they did openly as the staff took no interest in the subject matter of the writing) was considered ‘writing behavior,’ and showing up early for meals was labeled as ‘oral-acquisitive syndrome,’ rather than simple boredom.

Here are the results of the staff’s behavior toward the fake patients:

Response Percentage making contact with patient
Psychiatrists Nurses
Moves on with head averted 71 88
Makes eye contact 23 10
Pauses and chats 2 4
Stops and talks 4 0.5

Next up, the researchers flipped the study on its head and lied to hospital staff, telling them that one or more sane patients would be admitted to the hospital.  The staff was to rate each patient on a 10-point scale as to the likelihood of them being a fake patient.
The results:

Number of patients judged 193
Number of patients confidently judged as pseudo patients by at least one staff member 41
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist 23
Number of patients suspected by one psychiatrist AND one other staff member 19

The psychiatrists at these hospitals failed miserably at even remotely being able to tell the difference between sanity and insanity.

Rosenhan notes that the

experience of hospitalization for the pseudo patients was one of depersonalisation and powerlessness. Powerlessness and depersonalisation were evident in the ways in which the patients were deprived of many human rights such as freedom of movement and privacy.  Medical records were open to all staff members regardless of status or therapeutic relationship with the patient and personal hygiene was monitored and many of the toilets did not have doors.  Some of the ward orderlies would be brutal to patients in full view of other patients but would stop as soon as another staff member approached.

Anyone that has ever taken a look at the DSM knows what a joke modern day psychology and generalized labeling has become.  According to the DSM, everyone is clinically insane and requires very similar if not identical treatment.  As Rosenhan urged so long ago,

instead of labeling a person as insane we should focus on the individual’s specific problems and behaviours.

We could also strip society of senseless laws and restrictions that halt progress and use something that has been proven to work.  Time tested, and safe, what could be better?

 

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

http://www.bonkersinstitute.org/rosenhan.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagnostic_and_Statistical_Manual_of_Mental_Disorders

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2012/09/26/can-lsd-help-cure-depression/

https://wondergressive.com/2012/09/14/the-benefits-of-psilocybin-magic-mushrooms/

You Might be a Psychopath; Psychological Catch 22

In this TED talk from Jon Ronson the destruction of the field of psychology and strange answers to the psychopath test are discussed. Set to eerie music and unsettling visuals this talk is intriguing to say the least. It also brings up many important questions. Is the psychopath test a catch 22? Is everyone a psychopath?

Ronson says that Scientologists are trying to destroy psychology. Scientologists claim it is a pseudo-science that can’t be trusted. Their evidence? A man, Tony, who feigned insanity at his criminal trial to be placed in a lush cozy hospital for the mentally ill instead of jail. Their assertion is that he faked too well, and now can’t get out. It’s an incredibly insteresting look at mental illness and the abnormal behaviors of the human race.

“Tony said that it’s a lot harder to convince people that you’re sane than you’re crazy”

“You know they’re always looking for nonverbal cues to my mental state. But how do you sit in a sane way? How do you cross your legs in a sane way? It’s just impossible!” Tony says that one of the points on the psychopath check list is not feeling remorse, but if you say you feel regret and remorse, the psychologists claim you are being cunning and manipulative, which is another one of the points on the psychopath check list. He was caught in this catch 22 for fourteen years before the psychologists decided it was safe to release him into society, decidedly still a psychopath.

Ronson goes on to discuss capitalism and the characteristics presented in successful capitalists.

“The reason why is because capitalism at its most ruthless rewards psychopathic behavior. The lack of empathy, the glibness, cunning, manipulative. In fact capitalism perhaps at its most remorseless, is a physical manifestation of psychopathy.”

This video may get you worrying about your mental state, but I wouldn’t fret too much about it. All human behavior is relative.