And what about if you took the brain of a woman and transplanted it into a man? A rich person into the body of a poor person? Would their behaviour change, or stay the same?
What about transplanting the brain of a Catholic into the body of an atheist?
These are all questions designed to dig into whether social categories depend on 'essentialism' - the folk-logic argument that items carry with them some kind of essence that defines what they are. If you think that a man's body with a woman's brain would act like a man then you are (in one interpretation, at least) an 'essentialist'.
Essentialism is interesting because it seems to be closely related to a range of spiritual and religious beliefs. It's what psychologist Bruce Hood calls "Supersense".
Now, the brain-transplant situation is a little more complicated because social categories can be driven by situations as much as brain function, but what's interesting about this new study, lead by Marcos Pereira at the Universidade Federal da Bahia in Brazil, is that they compared how responses varied in different countries.
Take a look at this figure. These show the responses from students at three of the top universities in Spain, Brazil, and England. When the bar goes above the line, it indicates essentialist beliefs (i.e. the new creature would act in a manner appropriate for its body, not its mind).
There's a couple of things to note about this study. Firstly, overall the English students were much less essentialist, on average, than the Spanish or Brazilian.
Secondly, the Spanish seem to be more essentialist about Catholicism ("cat oth") than politics ("rig lef").
They also asked the question the other way around - what would happen if you put the brain of a non-Catholic into the body of a Catholic. The results were similar, except for the English. Put this way round, the English are more essentialist (although still less so than the Spanish and the Brazilians).
In other words, for the English, a non-Catholic body becomes Catholic if you put a Catholic brain in. But put a Catholic brain into a non-Catholic body, and they are more inclined to think the result would be non-Catholic. Very odd!
In fact, this reflects a general trend. In all three countries, the students were more essentialist if it was a 'non-dominant' brain going into a 'dominant' body. A female brain put into a male body is more likely to be male than a male brain put into a female body is likely to be female.
But for me, at least, the most interesting result of this study is that the students were not particularly essentialist about Catholicism. They saw it as being more similar to politics than to age or gender. It's something you decide (or is generated by your brain) rather than something that you are as a result of birth or society.
Pereira ME, Alvaro Estramiana JL, & Schweiger Gallo I (2010). Essentialism and the expression of social stereotypes: a comparative study of Spain, Brasil and England. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13 (2), 808-17 PMID: 20977029
This article by Tom Rees was first published on Epiphenom. It is licensed under Creative Commons.
Well. It's complicated. I mean, it would really depend on the wording of the survey, but it doesn't necessarily require essentialism. If you were to transplant my brain into the body of someone who looks different from me, I would still be me (presumably, assuming that our selves are in our brains, as I am convinced they are). I would still be a disabled white woman. But, if my brain were implanted into the body of, say, a black man, I would start to have many of the experiences of a black man. I could not, having these experiences, remain unchanged. Would I become a black man? No. But I would respond to how people treat me, and I would slowly become something other than a white woman. But since my disability is in my brain, I'd certainly still be that.
ReplyDelete==In other words, for the English, a non-Catholic body becomes Catholic if you put a non-Catholic brain in.==
ReplyDeleteThis might be a typo. Are you sure that a non-Catholic body + non-Catholic brain becomes Catholic?
If you think that a man's body with a woman's brain would act like a man then you are (in one interpretation, at least) an 'essentialist'.
ReplyDeleteHmm. Why? This hypothetical person would be influenced by the hormone output from male gonads, would get used to operating male anatomy, and would be employing a male nervous system below the neck (which might be relevant for things like sex differences in pain perception or motor patterns).
Inasmuch as "act like a man" and "act like a woman" mean anything at all, I'm not sure why it's less essentialist to say that the brain wins out here, than to say that the rest of the body does. Either way you're not taking the whole package into account.
What of humeral factors? The body communicates a good deal of it's phenomenological experience through the hormones released in the blood stream. Secretions by the gut regulate mood. The sexual organs release their own host of chemicals. (And as I write this, I know the danger is in thinking that these chemicals effect upon the personality of the person. There would be no personality without these. They are the biological substrates for emotion.)
ReplyDeleteTransplanting a brain does not alter the history of life chronicled by the body, it's personality, it's way of moving. Myofascial tension, chemoreceptors, baroreceptors, all these would remain the same.
Even the heart would retain it's inherent rhythm! Atherosclerotic accumulation in the new body would influence hypertension, which would induce the emotions associated with it.
I like very much this thought experiment...
What Pale Blue Dot: Yes, I agree that this isn't a clear case of essentialism. In fact, when they asked the students for their reasoning, around 40% of those who were rationalising 'stability' (i.e. the personality remaining the same as the original body) cited "Situational pressures", defined as "Status, roles, group and collective dynamics, social environment"
ReplyDeleteHowever, 40% described internal causes ("Genes, hormones, brain,
body, personal features and psychological processes, self"). And the rest resorted to "Causal history" ("values, attitudes, common appearance").
Those arguing for change were relatively more likely to reference "internal causes" (70%), and "causal history" (25%) than "Situational Pressures" (5%).
There were interesting variations. Those who argued for stability/essentialism actually were likely to reference internal causes for age, sex and... race! This suggests that they believed racial personalities are somehow determined by the body.
Mihai: Yes, you're right - it's a typo! That should read "In other words, for the English, a non-Catholic body becomes Catholic if you put a Catholic brain in." I've fixed the text - thanks!
ReplyDeleteAnton + Sean: Yes, valid points - this isn't clear cut essentialism and, as I explained in the comment above, many of the respondents made similar arguments to the ones you made - that age and gender especially is determined by the body, rather than the brain, for sound physiological and biological reasons.
ReplyDeleteClearly the real answer in all of these cases is that you'd get diagnosed with a mental illness:
ReplyDelete"I was a black man until yesterday when scientists transplanted my brain into this body as part of some philosophical thought-experiment that went too far!"
"Nurse, increase the dosage."
As others have pointed out, the "woman's brain in a man's body" example is a particularly poor one, because we know that hormone therapy (which does not involve a brain transplant last I checked!) can alter behavior. There are similar problems -- though probably not quite to the same extent -- with the adult/child example.
ReplyDeleteThe others I think are a fair test, though of course as you yourself pointed out the black/white one has problems in terms of social expectations. But it is fair to say that all other things being equal, a brain transplanted into a body of someone with a different race would for probably almost completely retain the personality of the original brain (I'm assuming no ethnicity-associated genetic defects like sickle cell anemia or Tay-Sachs, which would fall under the "all other things being equal" category -- of course there could be ethnic trends in hormone expression or other subtle features, but I'm assuming the effects of these would be minor enough to be ignored).
Actually, now that I think about it, it's conceivable that some of the differences even in political orientation or propensity for religious belief could be due as much to hormonal differences or other subtleties as to differences in brain structure. We just don't really know for sure.
I would actually argue that the assertion that the brain is the only influencer of personality is in itself a bit essentialist-esque -- though with a scientific/pseudo-scientific spin on the essentialism. It is of course safe to say that the vast majority of personality expression is directly caused by the brain, but we know hormones have something to do with it; and moreover the nervous system is not some human-engineered system of components, each of which can be plugged into the other without changing their function. It's a holistic feedback system. It's conceivable (though admittedly I wouldn't bet on it) that changes to parts of the rest of the nervous system could have nonlinear effects on personality expression.
All of that said, I don't think it really undermines the study, since the study is comparing across cultures. I would agree that, for example, if culture A is far more likely to believe that personality is retained by the body (and not the brain) than culture B, then even if a cogent non-essentialist argument could be made in favor of culture A's position, it is probably still a safe bet that culture A is behaving in more of an essentialist way. The few pedantic outliers such as myself who will protest, "But teh hormones!", can probably be safely ignored.
"woman's brain in a man's body" example is a particularly poor one, because we know that hormone therapy (which does not involve a brain transplant last I checked!) can alter behavior."
ReplyDeleteAlter behaviour, yes, but not a sense of *identity*. Personal identity is a powerful force - if someone defines as a woman, and sees themselves as a woman, being in a mans body is not about to change that (as with transgendered people - who will identify strongly with their non-biological gender even in the absence of hormonal treatment). And identity is highly likely to be found within the brain.
With the religious argument that can also have an application - someone brought up in a strongly (say) catholic environment, who sees their beliefs as a fundamental part of who they are, is less likely to change their beliefs based on the body they are in. Someone who has chosen catholicism after thinking through many religions, or after a major life event, might be more likely to change after experiences had within their new body.
@LabRat: Fair 'nuff. My impression based on quotes like the one at the bottom of this post was that we were talking more about behavior than identity. But you raise an excellent point.
ReplyDeleteAnd what about if you took the brain of a woman and transplanted it into a man? A rich person into the body of a poor person? Would their behaviour change, or stay the same?
I think that what James said above, about the the study was comparing cultures, is the critical thing here.
ReplyDeleteI mean, there are various ways to interpret (or hypothesise) about the effects of a brain transplant. And no clear right or wrong. But it it is very interesting that the students in the different countries do seem to have different assumptions!
(at least, that's assuming that the students are representative of their cultures and that what we're seeing here is not simply a random spread of samples).
By the way, the only info the paper gives on what the subjects were actually asked is this: "Participants were subsequently asked to say if they thought that the behavior of the recipient would change or remain the same."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, for the English, a non-Catholic body becomes Catholic if you put a Catholic brain in. But put a Catholic brain into a non-Catholic body, and they are more inclined to think the result would be non-Catholic. Very odd!
Is this a typo?
Both contexts are the same except worded the opposite order. Catholic brain on non-Catholic body. Shouldn't one of them be non-Catholic brain in Catholic body?