Having a laugh with someone whilst standing in a queue, whose name you don't even know, or see the exhilarated look of surprise and appreciation on a stranger's face when you go out of your way to help them with something, is a great feeling. It is like a drug effect.
Yes, he did, he said another source (a research paper from the journal Biological Psychiatry) views Zak's research "with skepticism". Nobody has proven Zak wrong, they just don't agree. And scientists don't agree about a lot of things. Zak might be completely full of it, but just because he has critics doesn't automatically make him wrong until the science is proven one way or the other. Which, by the looks of things, hasn't happened yet.
I love this video. Everything just makes sense. It is so true that when you are feeling ramped up on testosterone, your emotional connection with others is down. I find it interesting that testosterone and oxytocin are opposite (in effect) to each other.
Mr Zac, that was incredibly interesting and makes so much sense of things that I've wondered about! I saw something on telly (a few years ago-English) where they measured the levels of oxytocin produced during a wedding, and I'm rather guessing that was the wedding you were talking about.
I've actually been very interested in morality as of late because it came up in a debate with a very nice Christian, and I was unable to explain morality at that time. Now I have an answer for both myself and others regarding the reason we are moral, as well as a new line of research to follow!
@delatroy You miss the point completely. He's argument was that the capacity to produce oxytocin is a human faculty, but that the faculty can be inhibited by various factors (chemical, psychological, etc.). His aim is not to paint it as being a niche-specific factor in contributing to empathy and trust, but as a prima facie heuristic for gauging empathic social interaction.
Thank you! This eviscerates anything sacred or pure about a notion of higher truth. I don't disagree with research (in fact, I myself am part of oxytocin research and aging) but I at least someone recognizes the gravity of this
обожаю обнимашки!!)) видимо мой окситоцин на высоком уровне)) есть ощущение, что людям при взаимодействии со мной становится лучше им не хочется от меня уходить 😊 хоть пожилые хоть совсем маленькие детки 🥰
Why? It is just another drug. You can get the same effect by doing deeds for others. They sometimes show gratitude by offering hugs. Close physical contact can produce oxytocin of your own. The more you do, the more you produce and it is made quicker with a lower threshold. Work the food line at a shelter. Work at Habitat for humanity.
Make it yourself. Go out and meet people. Share experiences and share even the most basic of physical contact, a handshake, a brief hug, and make your own oxytocin.
No, the point of oxytocin to to reward you for good behaviour towards other people. You blatantly want to skip that process, that’s the end of civil society. Just look at drug users.
Woow!! I came here from Método CIS by Paulo Vieira from Febracis. Amazing how great is to produce confidence through people to build a better world. OGA! (The Giant Awake - O Gigante Acordou!)
11:29 No wonder men scare me sometimes and I just don't want to be around them. Too much testosterone (selfishness) and not enough oxytocin (caring). This makes total sense to me.
Yeah I’m a male but I’m glad I don’t have a lot of testosterone, I actually want more estrogen in me which is a female hormone. It just makes me a better person I feel, it makes me feel good and everybody agrees I’m a better person with female hormones
Regarding this, someone said to me: "Morality based on empathy seems to be the only testable moral system, where causes and effects are not abstract, but objectively measurable in the brain." But this is unjustifiable presumption. The first presumption is that you can't test abstract things. The second presumption is that you should be able to test morality. The third presumption is that neuron firings don't under- or over-determine one's mental world, but are like a ticker-tape for stock prices
Empathy―the ability to feel what another person is feeling―is a very important human characteristic.This is because it encourages us to treat other people with kindness.But why do some people feel more empathy than others? Scientists believe that the answer may lie in a chemical called oxytocin.This chemical is related into the blood when women are pregnant,leading them naturally to form strong bonds with their babies
I loved this talk! It's a little hard to swallow though; I always regarded morality as a social convention that varies in each culture. Maybe oxytocin would be more related to empathy, from which morality stems?
John Oliver makes some great points about science - I’d highly recommend that video to everyone! (Search “John Oliver science” - it’s about 20 minutes long. The four minute one is not impressive when compared to the whole thing.) I also want to throw out some resources for people watching this who are interested in learning more about this particular research or oxytocin in general. One main point was brought up by John Oliver - oxytocin doesn’t necessarily make you happier all the time, but it does seem to be involved with the ability for social adaptation by normalizing under- or over-active functioning Ma, Shamay-Tsoory, Han, & Zink, 2016). That might sound a little vague and dry, but it provides the foundational knowledge for a whole lot of research that goes beyond morality. A lot of the research looks at social perception or social cognition. One interesting study reports that in a game of chance with a confederate, oxytocin appears to increase envy and gloating when participants won less and more, respectively, than the confederate (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009). Perhaps, that counts as being involved with morality. For a more comprehensive picture, I’ll outline a few possible situations that I considered and try to reason through some perspectives on oxytocin research. Any error or misinterpretation that follows is mine alone. When I was reading some literature on oxytocin for a class last term, I tended to think about 3 possible interpretations of this talk. If it was not already clear, these possibilities are more conjecture than systematic literature review. Anyone who is interested in this topic is encouraged to conduct their own literature review, but I have included references to some sources. 1) Paul Zak’s findings have been appropriately interpreted in the literature. Question: What did Dr. Zak find? Answer: It’s complicated; see “Option 1” below. 2) Paul Zak’s findings have been misinterpreted in the literature (as they were in this video). Question: Has the research begun to correct itself? Answer: Outlook is good; see Ma et al. (2016); Leng & Ludwig (2016). 3) Paul Zak’s findings are the result of questionable research practices and intranasal oxytocin does not increase trust. Question: Is there evidence for this? Answer: Uncertain; for one perspective, see Conlisk (2011). Option 1 What did Dr. Zak find? Below is a quote from Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, & Fehr (2005): “Our hypothesis that oxytocin increases the trusting behaviour of investors implies that the investors in the oxytocin group (n = 29) will show higher money transfers than those in the placebo group (n = 29). In fact, our data show that oxytocin increases investors’ trust considerably. Out of the 29 subjects, 13 (45%) in the oxytocin group showed the maximal trust level, whereas only 6 of the 29 subjects (21%) in the placebo group showed maximal trust (Fig. 2a). In contrast, only 21% of the subjects in the oxytocin group had a trust level below 8 monetary units (MU), but 45% of the subjects in the control group showed such low levels of trust. These differences in the distribution of trust result in higher average and median trust levels for subjects given oxytocin (Table 1). The investors’ average transfer is 17% higher in the oxytocin group (Mann-Whitney U-test; z = -1.897, p = 0.029, one-sided), and the median transfer in the oxytocin group is 10 MU, compared to a median of only 8 MU for subjects in the placebo group.” (p. 674) What does that mean? One finding seems very interesting - if you look at the figure (not included), there’s one very important bar - the “percentage of people showing maximum trust”. It’s a lot higher for the oxytocin category. Does this reflect trust per se, or a social adaptive process of weighing financial risks and gains? The researchers interpret the phenomenon as an increase in trust because the oxytocin only seems to work when the participant invests with a person, compared to a game played with a computer. I don’t know if I’d think “if I give all my money to this computer, its randomization procedures might spit out more money” in the computer game. While the researchers may have controlled for details like this, I’d be inclined to factor in social considerations when giving my money to a person who may or may not provide a return on the investment. Do we think that this is trust? I didn’t do much research into trust, and I won’t claim to be an expert on trust or morality. I think looking at how oxytocin is involved in many different situations helps to understand a larger, more nuanced picture of the role of oxytocin. A personal summary (no citations). Oxytocin seems to increase desire for investment returns, and specifically investment behavior when there is financial risk involved with investing money through a human banker. Don’t let corporations give it to people and be skeptical if your stock broker gives you a hug! Conlisk, J. (2011). Professor Zak's empirical studies on trust and oxytocin. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 78(1), 160-166. Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673-676. Leng, G., & Ludwig, M. (2016). Reply to: improving research standards to restore trust in intranasal oxytocin. Biological Psychiatry, 79(8), e55-e56. Ma, Y., Shamay-Tsoory, S., Han, S., & Zink, C. F. (2016). Oxytocin and social adaptation: insights from neuroimaging studies of healthy and clinical populations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 133-145. Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Fischer, M., Dvash, J., Harari, H., Perach-Bloom, N., & Levkovitz, Y. (2009). Intranasal administration of oxytocin increases envy and schadenfreude (gloating). Biological Psychiatry, 66(9), 864-870. Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. (2004). The neurobiology of trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1032(1), 224-227. Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48(5), 522-527.
Reducing morality to cooperation, survival or feeding some internal reward system can only explain some very basic human behaviour, but not our notions of what is right and wrong.
@joeloud1 He's a neuroeconomist, not an economist. From wikipedia: It combines research methods from neuroscience, experimental and behavioral economics, and cognitive and social psychology.
Yes, it's mostly utilitarian, but i've arrived at it through analysis and reflection, and actually use it in practice. I also do some charitable work because i can, by donating some of my computers idle processing power to science (Folding@Home) and some money to other causes (currently SOS Children's Villages). I don't advertise this, but confronted with your comment it gives context. I'm quite cynical and emotionally reserved, but if you ask people who know me i'm a "nice and helpful guy".
I would be interested in oxytocin levels under the influence of different drugs, particularly comparing alcohol and pot, but also coffee, sugar, nicotine. Also what about different jobs, habits, etc. It would be really interesting to see if there is any connection between drinking coffee before work, or listening to a specific genre of music, stuff like this, and the economic state of a country.
Understanding something doesn't lessen it. Because emotion is caused by chemicals doesn't change it, it still behaves the same way it always has because it was always caused by a chemical. The observations our ancestors made about emotions and morality are still true, the reasons why are just different.
It has been proven that exogenous oxytocin can interact with vasopressin receptors doing the opposite effect of endogenous Oxytocin and increasing levels of anxiety, aggression and stress.
@aadrian13 It basically helps us cooperate so we can survive. If a person's oxytocin system is well-developed, they'll be more likely to be caring and giving individuals. By the experiments in this video, it looks like it makes a fairly significant difference in a person's generosity level. I agree, it will definitely not inhibit our reason of why someone values generosity, but I think instead, it will make someone value it through the rewards and feelings of giving.
It's not JUST oxytocin, it's ALL ENDORPHINS. We start to learn to secerete them (and develop appropriate circuits) when still in our mother's womb. Some people will never learn that and their circuits will fail to develop. For the lack of parental love, attention and care they migh even develop depression or schizophrenia later in life (at puberty or college age). Our future trust and morality rest in our parents' ability to truly care for us in childhood.
I absolutely agree. Working out (laughing heartily, being with people you like, eating chocolate, celebrating success...) does release endorphins. Are all the people equally predisposed to release them, though? For example those who suffer from depression as a result of being abused/neglected as children? Their circuitry for producing endorphins may be considerably underdeveloped. That’s all I wanted to say.
Interesting. I relate a lot to empathy and sharing. Have been doing both very easily since childhood. I don't think twice about giving something away, even if I could still use it. But the hugging part is tough. It is very uncomfortable. I stiffen up and only do it because I have to. So is it better to just skip that action or force it until I get used to it?
I can definitely relate to being one of those high testosterone males using my own resources to punish other selfish people while being one of the selfish people myself. Anyways, great talks, really appreciate it TED.
I think poorer countries are less empathetic because the individuals have to worry more about their and their families well being above all else. Besides being social, humans are survivalists too.
@aadrian13 it seems like the decision to make "the right moral" choice may come from previous experiences i.e. brain chemistry/neural pathways reinforced by the reward from a previous 'analogous' interaction. Moral dilemmas may arise from the fact that there is no strong oxytocin induced neural pathways and no way to establish it because of its subjective nature and maybe that's why makes us think harder.
The type of ethical system Zak utilizes in his argument is the largely-feminist "Ethics of Care." In this ethical system, it is presumed that empathy is what morality is. But there are more systems of ethics out there. One is Deontology, where a moral rule is cherished. Another is Utilitarianism, where only good "outcomes" are sought (even sometimes by anti-empathetic means). Another is Natural Law, where good outcomes are hedged via conforming action to actions commensurate with one's nature.
To have an effective shot of oxytocin we must behave positive and trustful towards other people. Moral, social behaviour stimulates oxytocin as a reward of your body. A militair in fight blocks this reward, but surviving war with his comrades ("Brothers in Arms") it makes very strong friends for life. (Often stronger than ordinary love). Measuring oxytocin in blood before and after old soldiers meet each other...
@metamorphicmuse "You've contradicted yourself " No, you've misunderstood. That was an example of a well known exception that wouldn't invalidate his hypothesis, which is what I'm trying to explain. "he neglected to mention any exceptions" Ted talks are timed not open ended. Give him some slack. I criticized his generalities as well, but as I said they don't rule out what you seem to think they do. This is not the forum for peer review level criticisms, and I ain't paying to make it one!
@metamorphicmuse Perhaps I was a little unclear as to what you meant by "research is flawed and/or incomplete. I'm living proof..." etc. What about his research were you referring to, and how exactly does an exception, which I don't believe he ruled out (if he did, what did he say to that effect?), invalidate his hypothesis? For one thing it's well known that depression can make someone more empathetic, which I sincerely doubt increases oxytocin levels. cont--
@thecaringatheist there is a clear distinction between a-moral and immoral. A-moral is without moral (or rejection of the concept), while immoral is doing the opposite of what is moral. Or were you talking about something else.
Having a laugh with someone whilst standing in a queue, whose name you don't even know, or see the exhilarated look of surprise and appreciation on a stranger's face when you go out of your way to help them with something, is a great feeling. It is like a drug effect.
I hug my dog 8 times a day. I love my poochie and my poochie loves me. I'm glad that she can make oxytocin too. Life is good.
John Oliver had some things to say about this talk
Such a good segment. Demonstrates the importance of thinking critically.
+Sritanshu Sinha Too much pseudoscience in this but when he got to the hugging part I could't stop thinking; that's The Care bears!!! ~:D~
Yes, he did, he said another source (a research paper from the journal Biological Psychiatry) views Zak's research "with skepticism". Nobody has proven Zak wrong, they just don't agree. And scientists don't agree about a lot of things. Zak might be completely full of it, but just because he has critics doesn't automatically make him wrong until the science is proven one way or the other. Which, by the looks of things, hasn't happened yet.
Doint call yourself Dr love that's what a Dr who ejaculates on his sudated patients is called- John oliver
Massage, Dancing and Praying- Yes!
This is so fascinating!! Back when TED used to be amazing to watch.
I love this video. Everything just makes sense. It is so true that when you are feeling ramped up on testosterone, your emotional connection with others is down. I find it interesting that testosterone and oxytocin are opposite (in effect) to each other.
Mr Zac, that was incredibly interesting and makes so much sense of things that I've wondered about! I saw something on telly (a few years ago-English) where they measured the levels of oxytocin produced during a wedding, and I'm rather guessing that was the wedding you were talking about.
Paul Zak , I just sent this to everybody I love and to the World. About Prayer, That was so cool. 307,950 views •
I've actually been very interested in morality as of late because it came up in a debate with a very nice Christian, and I was unable to explain morality at that time. Now I have an answer for both myself and others regarding the reason we are moral, as well as a new line of research to follow!
Thank You
Excellent! This is a real breakthrough! I wonder what effect music has on this...
8:13 - a words to live by
@1:30 "Breathe it in!!! Breathe ittttt!"
I learned a lot from this. Thank you!
You learnt a bunch of bullshit based of off an unquntifiable and unisolationable experiment
@@henrygraham1584 Exactly.
@delatroy You miss the point completely. He's argument was that the capacity to produce oxytocin is a human faculty, but that the faculty can be inhibited by various factors (chemical, psychological, etc.). His aim is not to paint it as being a niche-specific factor in contributing to empathy and trust, but as a prima facie heuristic for gauging empathic social interaction.
Thank you! This eviscerates anything sacred or pure about a notion of higher truth. I don't disagree with research (in fact, I myself am part of oxytocin research and aging) but I at least someone recognizes the gravity of this
I love it when I understand what the top comments actually are saying when I've seen the whole Ted Talk.
I'm so glad they lowered the intro volume!
Thank you science!
That was amazing!!! One of the best TED talks ever!
обожаю обнимашки!!))
видимо мой окситоцин на высоком уровне))
есть ощущение, что людям при взаимодействии со мной становится лучше им не хочется от меня уходить 😊
хоть пожилые хоть совсем маленькие детки 🥰
Me and my friend Aldous Huxley approve !!!
Please create this drug for wide use as soon as possible
Why? It is just another drug. You can get the same effect by doing deeds for others. They sometimes show gratitude by offering hugs. Close physical contact can produce oxytocin of your own. The more you do, the more you produce and it is made quicker with a lower threshold.
Work the food line at a shelter. Work at Habitat for humanity.
Make it yourself. Go out and meet people. Share experiences and share even the most basic of physical contact, a handshake, a brief hug, and make your own oxytocin.
No, the point of oxytocin to to reward you for good behaviour towards other people. You blatantly want to skip that process, that’s the end of civil society. Just look at drug users.
YES> Love this guy and his work. Met him yesterday. A kind and connected soul...
Hugs are the future...
RVE
It works I heard about hugging your kids to reduce stress years ago and something so little makes a big difference
reminds me why i subscribed to TED, love it :)
Woow!! I came here from Método CIS by Paulo Vieira from Febracis. Amazing how great is to produce confidence through people to build a better world. OGA! (The Giant Awake - O Gigante Acordou!)
i have his book and i find his ideas very interesting and logical ,i dont know why people judge him wrong.
11:29 No wonder men scare me sometimes and I just don't want to be around them. Too much testosterone (selfishness) and not enough oxytocin (caring). This makes total sense to me.
Yeah I’m a male but I’m glad I don’t have a lot of testosterone, I actually want more estrogen in me which is a female hormone. It just makes me a better person I feel, it makes me feel good and everybody agrees I’m a better person with female hormones
I'm pretty sure the difference is very small. I have a lot of testosterone, but am more empathetic than anyone I know.
Regarding this, someone said to me: "Morality based on empathy seems to be the only testable moral system, where causes and effects are not abstract, but objectively measurable in the brain." But this is unjustifiable presumption. The first presumption is that you can't test abstract things. The second presumption is that you should be able to test morality. The third presumption is that neuron firings don't under- or over-determine one's mental world, but are like a ticker-tape for stock prices
I want a hug :( I want more oxytocin!
This is the first talk where the Ted gingle didn't try to make me deaf! I love it!
This made me wanna hug somebody right now : )
Empathy―the ability to feel what another person is feeling―is a very important human characteristic.This is because it encourages us to treat other people with kindness.But why do some people feel more empathy than others? Scientists believe that the answer may lie in a chemical called oxytocin.This chemical is related into the blood when women are pregnant,leading them naturally to form strong bonds with their babies
Great speaker. This is one of those 1 in 50 ted talks that I'll really remember
This reminds me of the "Ron Gutman: The hidden power of smiling" and the "Amy Cuddy: Your body language shapes who you are" TED Talks...interesting!
I always heard that hugging it out 8 times a day would make you go blind.
@Bracerjack reading your comment spiked mine, I believe...empathy is powerful...
I loved this talk! It's a little hard to swallow though; I always regarded morality as a social convention that varies in each culture. Maybe oxytocin would be more related to empathy, from which morality stems?
Just watching the hug increased my oxytoxin, I could feel it
John Oliver makes some great points about science - I’d highly recommend that video to everyone! (Search “John Oliver science” - it’s about 20 minutes long. The four minute one is not impressive when compared to the whole thing.)
I also want to throw out some resources for people watching this who are interested in learning more about this particular research or oxytocin in general. One main point was brought up by John Oliver - oxytocin doesn’t necessarily make you happier all the time, but it does seem to be involved with the ability for social adaptation by normalizing under- or over-active functioning Ma, Shamay-Tsoory, Han, & Zink, 2016).
That might sound a little vague and dry, but it provides the foundational knowledge for a whole lot of research that goes beyond morality. A lot of the research looks at social perception or social cognition. One interesting study reports that in a game of chance with a confederate, oxytocin appears to increase envy and gloating when participants won less and more, respectively, than the confederate (Shamay-Tsoory et al., 2009). Perhaps, that counts as being involved with morality.
For a more comprehensive picture, I’ll outline a few possible situations that I considered and try to reason through some perspectives on oxytocin research. Any error or misinterpretation that follows is mine alone. When I was reading some literature on oxytocin for a class last term, I tended to think about 3 possible interpretations of this talk. If it was not already clear, these possibilities are more conjecture than systematic literature review. Anyone who is interested in this topic is encouraged to conduct their own literature review, but I have included references to some sources.
1) Paul Zak’s findings have been appropriately interpreted in the literature.
Question: What did Dr. Zak find?
Answer: It’s complicated; see “Option 1” below.
2) Paul Zak’s findings have been misinterpreted in the literature (as they were in this video).
Question: Has the research begun to correct itself?
Answer: Outlook is good; see Ma et al. (2016); Leng & Ludwig (2016).
3) Paul Zak’s findings are the result of questionable research practices and intranasal oxytocin does not increase trust.
Question: Is there evidence for this?
Answer: Uncertain; for one perspective, see Conlisk (2011).
Option 1
What did Dr. Zak find?
Below is a quote from Kosfeld, Heinrichs, Zak, Fischbacher, & Fehr (2005):
“Our hypothesis that oxytocin increases the trusting behaviour of investors implies that the investors in the oxytocin group (n = 29) will show higher money transfers than those in the placebo group (n = 29). In fact, our data show that oxytocin increases investors’ trust considerably. Out of the 29 subjects, 13 (45%) in the oxytocin group showed the maximal trust level, whereas only 6 of the 29 subjects (21%) in the placebo group showed maximal trust (Fig. 2a). In contrast, only 21% of the subjects in the oxytocin group had a trust level below 8 monetary units (MU), but 45% of the subjects in the control group showed such low levels of trust. These differences in the distribution of trust result in higher average and median trust levels for subjects given oxytocin (Table 1). The investors’ average transfer is 17% higher in the oxytocin group (Mann-Whitney U-test; z = -1.897, p = 0.029, one-sided), and the median transfer in the oxytocin group is 10 MU, compared to a median of only 8 MU for subjects in the placebo group.” (p. 674)
What does that mean?
One finding seems very interesting - if you look at the figure (not included), there’s one very important bar - the “percentage of people showing maximum trust”. It’s a lot higher for the oxytocin category. Does this reflect trust per se, or a social adaptive process of weighing financial risks and gains? The researchers interpret the phenomenon as an increase in trust because the oxytocin only seems to work when the participant invests with a person, compared to a game played with a computer. I don’t know if I’d think “if I give all my money to this computer, its randomization procedures might spit out more money” in the computer game. While the researchers may have controlled for details like this, I’d be inclined to factor in social considerations when giving my money to a person who may or may not provide a return on the investment. Do we think that this is trust? I didn’t do much research into trust, and I won’t claim to be an expert on trust or morality. I think looking at how oxytocin is involved in many different situations helps to understand a larger, more nuanced picture of the role of oxytocin.
A personal summary (no citations).
Oxytocin seems to increase desire for investment returns, and specifically investment behavior when there is financial risk involved with investing money through a human banker. Don’t let corporations give it to people and be skeptical if your stock broker gives you a hug!
Conlisk, J. (2011). Professor Zak's empirical studies on trust and oxytocin. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 78(1), 160-166.
Kosfeld, M., Heinrichs, M., Zak, P. J., Fischbacher, U., & Fehr, E. (2005). Oxytocin increases trust in humans. Nature, 435(7042), 673-676.
Leng, G., & Ludwig, M. (2016). Reply to: improving research standards to restore trust in intranasal oxytocin. Biological Psychiatry, 79(8), e55-e56.
Ma, Y., Shamay-Tsoory, S., Han, S., & Zink, C. F. (2016). Oxytocin and social adaptation: insights from neuroimaging studies of healthy and clinical populations. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(2), 133-145.
Shamay-Tsoory, S. G., Fischer, M., Dvash, J., Harari, H., Perach-Bloom, N., & Levkovitz, Y. (2009). Intranasal administration of oxytocin increases envy and schadenfreude (gloating). Biological Psychiatry, 66(9), 864-870.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. (2004). The neurobiology of trust. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1032(1), 224-227.
Zak, P. J., Kurzban, R., & Matzner, W. T. (2005). Oxytocin is associated with human trustworthiness. Hormones and Behavior, 48(5), 522-527.
Gautama Darwin fantastic!!! How nobody thought of it before?
Reducing morality to cooperation, survival or feeding some internal reward system can only explain some very basic human behaviour, but not our notions of what is right and wrong.
Paul Zak needs Tony Robbins to teach him how to catch the crowd's attention using EMOTION. Great topic, monotone lecture.
good researcher and a good showman !
thank you great video
Interesting talk about molecular interactions forming societal changes
Excellent presentation!
@Mgopro omg they did. I didn't notice because I'm so used to skipping past it. FINALLY
@joeloud1
He's a neuroeconomist, not an economist.
From wikipedia: It combines research methods from neuroscience, experimental and behavioral economics, and cognitive and social psychology.
4 years ago, i got awarded "most friendliest" in high school and i said "just follow the 8 hugs a day rule".
i should get credit for this... lol
Yes, it's mostly utilitarian, but i've arrived at it through analysis and reflection, and actually use it in practice.
I also do some charitable work because i can, by donating some of my computers idle processing power to science (Folding@Home) and some money to other causes (currently SOS Children's Villages). I don't advertise this, but confronted with your comment it gives context.
I'm quite cynical and emotionally reserved, but if you ask people who know me i'm a "nice and helpful guy".
very nice talk.
Touching research.
brilliant thanks
Brilliant--engaging--powerful!
this guy is too good
@mellamosean Exactly, the thing is what psychologists bring is not a conflicting answer to what Paul Zak brings.
Uaooo FANTRASTIC, THANK YOUUU Dr. PAUL ZAK.
Very intresting talk 👍👍
i like this alot...this made me happy
Wonderful speech! I am watching it over and over again... Maybe it's my oxytocin. :-)
I would be interested in oxytocin levels under the influence of different drugs, particularly comparing alcohol and pot, but also coffee, sugar, nicotine. Also what about different jobs, habits, etc. It would be really interesting to see if there is any connection between drinking coffee before work, or listening to a specific genre of music, stuff like this, and the economic state of a country.
omg this explains SO much... especially why women tend to be more emphatic. Wow.
Understanding something doesn't lessen it. Because emotion is caused by chemicals doesn't change it, it still behaves the same way it always has because it was always caused by a chemical.
The observations our ancestors made about emotions and morality are still true, the reasons why are just different.
See, When I hug people it's not because I'm weird. It's because it's been scientifically proven to make me happier. Yay! Great vid ^^
An excellent talk.
All we need now is to find the Higgs Boson :)
So good.
Very interesting and informative.
this is how equilibrium starts
Makes me feel sane that others think this way:)
we have a biology of trustworthiness. fascinating stuff.
Thanks for introducing the trust molecule, oxytocin.
Oxytocin Factor is a supplemental health product sold on Amazon.
I worry about supplemental oxytocin inhibiting endogenous production.
It has been proven that exogenous oxytocin can interact with vasopressin receptors doing the opposite effect of endogenous Oxytocin and increasing levels of anxiety, aggression and stress.
@aadrian13 It basically helps us cooperate so we can survive. If a person's oxytocin system is well-developed, they'll be more likely to be caring and giving individuals. By the experiments in this video, it looks like it makes a fairly significant difference in a person's generosity level. I agree, it will definitely not inhibit our reason of why someone values generosity, but I think instead, it will make someone value it through the rewards and feelings of giving.
It's not JUST oxytocin, it's ALL ENDORPHINS. We start to learn to secerete them (and develop appropriate circuits) when still in our mother's womb. Some people will never learn that and their circuits will fail to develop. For the lack of parental love, attention and care they migh even develop depression or schizophrenia later in life (at puberty or college age). Our future trust and morality rest in our parents' ability to truly care for us in childhood.
I thoroughly enjoyed this! What a great guy =) Need more research from him!
I absolutely agree. Working out (laughing heartily, being with people you like, eating chocolate, celebrating success...) does release endorphins. Are all the people equally predisposed to release them, though? For example those who suffer from depression as a result of being abused/neglected as children? Their circuitry for producing endorphins may be considerably underdeveloped. That’s all I wanted to say.
I've loved it!
Hope the next stage of the research is to measure oxytocin level of people in various countries. Want to know the result so badly.
Incredible !
Fantastic! A must see :)))
@mobubabe You can click on the time to skip the loud intro. It is really just for everyone's convenience.
How does this effect the judge/jury/plaintiff/ defendant dynamic?
Interesting. I relate a lot to empathy and sharing. Have been doing both very easily since childhood. I don't think twice about giving something away, even if I could still use it. But the hugging part is tough. It is very uncomfortable. I stiffen up and only do it because I have to. So is it better to just skip that action or force it until I get used to it?
The problem with synthetic oxytocin is that , in time, it "burns" your oxytocin receptors.
Thank you ! :)
So cool.
I really love his voice... O_O
I can definitely relate to being one of those high testosterone males using my own resources to punish other selfish people while being one of the selfish people myself. Anyways, great talks, really appreciate it TED.
Amazing!
this is very likable, it's also crazy
I think poorer countries are less empathetic because the individuals have to worry more about their and their families well being above all else. Besides being social, humans are survivalists too.
@aadrian13 it seems like the decision to make "the right moral" choice may come from previous experiences i.e. brain chemistry/neural pathways reinforced by the reward from a previous 'analogous' interaction.
Moral dilemmas may arise from the fact that there is no strong oxytocin induced neural pathways and no way to establish it because of its subjective nature and maybe that's why makes us think harder.
The type of ethical system Zak utilizes in his argument is the largely-feminist "Ethics of Care." In this ethical system, it is presumed that empathy is what morality is. But there are more systems of ethics out there. One is Deontology, where a moral rule is cherished. Another is Utilitarianism, where only good "outcomes" are sought (even sometimes by anti-empathetic means). Another is Natural Law, where good outcomes are hedged via conforming action to actions commensurate with one's nature.
Interesting... I need a hug.
Lots of hugs¬¬¬¬¬!Q!!!!!
To have an effective shot of oxytocin we must behave positive and trustful towards other people. Moral, social behaviour stimulates oxytocin as a reward of your body. A militair in fight blocks this reward, but surviving war with his comrades ("Brothers in Arms") it makes very strong friends for life. (Often stronger than ordinary love). Measuring oxytocin in blood before and after old soldiers meet each other...
I'm just here for the ASMR value.
@metamorphicmuse
"You've contradicted yourself "
No, you've misunderstood. That was an example of a well known exception that wouldn't invalidate his hypothesis, which is what I'm trying to explain.
"he neglected to mention any exceptions"
Ted talks are timed not open ended. Give him some slack. I criticized his generalities as well, but as I said they don't rule out what you seem to think they do.
This is not the forum for peer review level criticisms, and I ain't paying to make it one!
@metamorphicmuse
Perhaps I was a little unclear as to what you meant by "research is flawed and/or incomplete. I'm living proof..." etc. What about his research were you referring to, and how exactly does an exception, which I don't believe he ruled out (if he did, what did he say to that effect?), invalidate his hypothesis? For one thing it's well known that depression can make someone more empathetic, which I sincerely doubt increases oxytocin levels. cont--
@thecaringatheist there is a clear distinction between a-moral and immoral. A-moral is without moral (or rejection of the concept), while immoral is doing the opposite of what is moral.
Or were you talking about something else.