Michael Gazzaniga: The Criminal Brain
Michael S. Gazzaniga is a professor of psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, where he heads the new SAGE Center for the Study of the Mind. He is one of the leading researchers in cognitive neuroscience, the study of the neural basis of mind. In 1961, Gazzaniga graduated from Dartmouth College. In 1964, he received a Ph.D. in psychobiology from the California Institute of Technology, where he worked under the guidance of Roger Sperry, with primary responsibility for initiating human split-brain research. In his subsequent work he has made important advances in our understanding of functional lateralization in the brain and how the cerebral hemispheres communicate with one another. Gazzaniga's publication career includes books for a general audience The Social Brain, Mind Matters, and Nature's Mind. His most recent book Who’s In Charge investigates the question of free will in light of current neuroscience.
Michael Gazzaniga: So let’s say brain science in 15, 20 years really understands why a certain population of people, say psychopaths, behave the way they do. OK, we know it, we got it. And let’s say we have figured out a treatment for them. So you got the psychopath. He has done the crime. We hold him responsible. Now we’re at the decision. Do we treat him or put in the slammer? Right, because we now know if we can treat him they’re back to the normal population, they’re back doing normal things again. Does that satisfy in us the sense of justice that should be done to this person? Does that satisfy our built in sense of retribution, which I think humans have in spades? Can people live with the fact that somebody who carried out a crime against their family or their body or their property is just simply fix the guy so he doesn’t do that stuff anymore - or do they want this other component and does that other component?
That is the discussion we should be having. We shouldn’t be confusing the fact that someone with a slight or even a serious brain disorder, are they responsible or not. We should have the legal category in our country, which we don’t: guilty but insane, not not guilty because insane. We should get the responsibility issue clear and then as a society we have to decide well what are we going to do about that person and just think how interesting it gets.
I think our time would be better spent trying to sort that out because I think down the pike there will be treatments. There will be more effective treatments. The reason why it isn’t a burning issue now is because none of our so-called treatments or rehabs or what have you are that great. The recidivism rate just sits there around 63% no matter what you do. So there is just isolation of just put people in institutions of one kind or another.
I think by clearing up this responsibility question we focus on the real question of what does our society decide to do about this person and that’s a tough one.
Directed / Produced by
Jonathan Fowler & Elizabeth Rodd
So you got the psychopath. He has done the crime. We hold him responsible. Now we’re at the decision.
Young people could even end up less anxiety-ridden, thanks to newfound confidence
- The coronavirus pandemic may have a silver lining: It shows how insanely resourceful kids really are.
- Let Grow, a non-profit promoting independence as a critical part of childhood, ran an "Independence Challenge" essay contest for kids. Here are a few of the amazing essays that came in.
- Download Let Grow's free Independence Kit with ideas for kids.
We must rethink the "chemical imbalance" theory of mental health.
- A new review found that withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants and antipsychotics can last for over a year.
- Side effects from SSRIs, SNRIs, and antipsychotics last longer than benzodiazepines like Valium or Prozac.
- The global antidepressant market is expected to reach $28.6 billion this year.
Or is doubt a self-fulfilling prophecy?
Philosophers like to present their works as if everything before it was wrong. Sometimes, they even say they have ended the need for more philosophy. So, what happens when somebody realizes they were mistaken?
Sometimes philosophers are wrong and admitting that you could be wrong is a big part of being a real philosopher. While most philosophers make minor adjustments to their arguments to correct for mistakes, others make large shifts in their thinking. Here, we have four philosophers who went back on what they said earlier in often radical ways.
The future of learning will be different, and now is the time to lay the groundwork.
- The coronavirus pandemic has left many at an interesting crossroads in terms of mapping out the future of their respective fields and industries. For schools, that may mean a total shift not only in how educators teach, but what they teach.
- One important strategy moving forward, thought leader Caroline Hill says, is to push back against the idea that getting ahead is more important than getting along. "The opportunity that education has in this moment to really push students and think about what is the right way to live, how do we do it and how do we do it in a way that doesn't hurt or rob the dignity of other people?"
- Hill also argues that now is the time for bigger swings and for removing the barriers that limit education. The online space is boundary free and provides educators with new opportunities to connect with students around the world.