Adolf Tobeña Dept. of Psychiatry and Forensic Medicine. Institute of Neurosciences. School of Medicine. Campus of Bellaterra, 08193-Barcelona. Autonomous University of Barcelona. Spain.

INDEPENDENTIST COMMUNION: NEUROPSYCHOLOGY OF NATIONALIST GREGARIOUSNESS

ANOTHER CONJECTURE ABOUT ORIGINS OF RECENT SECESSIONISM IN CATALONIA?...

NO!!!!...

- Emotional: DISTRUST, CONTEMPT

- Economical: PARASITARIAN TAXATION

- Politics: HUNGER OF POWER AND STATUS - Indoctrination: CAPTIVE MASS MEDIA

- Soccer: EMULATION OF BARÇA SUCCES - Social Networking : EUPHORIC XENOPHOBIA

- Context: SCOTLAND, EUROPEAN CRISES

- Oportunity: SPANISH WEAKNESS …..

% VARIANCE??

FRACTURE LINES:

SPAIN’S EXTREME FRAGILITY…: NEAR BANKTRUPCY, 2008-2012…

OPPORTUNITY PERCEIVED BY SOME LOCAL ELITES AND MIDDLE CLASSES TO REACH AND EXERCISE UNDISPUTED POWER…

RECENT CATALONIAN PRESIDENTS:

FROM CORRUPTION QUARRELS WITHIN PARLIAMENT (3%!!) AT 2005…, TO PLEBISCITARIAN CLAIMS AT 2012…..!!!!

Enthusiasm, Communion!! World’s records in human chains and mass + flags demonstrations!!!

CATALAN ELECTIONS NOVEMBER 2012

Total votes: 3.657.450 Absentist: 1.600.000 Nul + White: 85.000 Secessionist Parties: 1.800.000 Parties against secession: 1.750.000

REFERENDUM ESTIMATE: > 2.600.000 positive for Independence …, = / > 50%!!

POLARIZED POSITIONS: Good citizens vs. Bad citizens

- In favor of selfdetermination: “DEMOCRATS” (“Right to decide”…) - Against selfdetermination: “ANTIDEMOCRATS” (“Rights derive from accepted norms”…) - In favour of Independence: “PATRIOTS” (“Sobiranistes”, “Secesionistes”, “Independentistes”….) - Against Independència: “TRAITORS ANTICATALANS” (“Unionistes”, “Botiflers”, “Feixistes”…)

Esteban J, Mayoral L and Ray D, (2012), Science, 336, 858-865.

WHY CATALONIA…, …AND NOT WALES, BRITTANY, TIROL, CORSICA , BAVARIA, PADANIA, GALIZIA OR THE CANARY ISLANDS?..

‘docility’: receptivity to social influence, is an evolved instinct that has survived

and permeated the human population to serve important evolutionary purposes. Docile people have the intelligence and motivation to learn quickly from social information. Docility allows people to believe large numbers of propositions without any direct proof. Docile individuals are also more adept at social learning, making them more able to acquire knowledge, skills and ‘proper behaviors’ i.e. the values, goals and attitudes that are useful in overcoming environmental obstacles, thus contributing to fitness of human populations. So, according to Herbert Simon (1990), a genetic predisposition to imitate others has evolved which serves a social purpose in encouraging socially constructive empathy and altruism, helpful in overcoming dissent and conflict, though Simon’s analysis is problematic because it does not allow that such conformism might also precipitate tyranny and oppression

Herding psychology:

(Gregariousness) - Congregation - Obedience - Conformity - Persuassion - Imitation….

Raafat M, Chater N and Frith Ch (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 10, 420-428

Raafat M, Chater N and Frith Ch (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 10, 420-428.

Herding psychology: (Gregariousness) - Congregation - Obedience - Conformity - Persuassion - Imitation….

Raafat M, Chater N and Frith Ch (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 10, 420-428

Religious Hooliganist

Nationalist

MULTIPLE VARIETIES OF GREGARIOUSNESS

Raafat M, Chater N and Frith Ch (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 10, 420-428.

Relevant for Neuroscience Enquiries

FROM CONFORMITY TO OBEDIENCE AND INDOCTRINATION - Duets - Small groups - Bands, Clans - Tribes, Nations - Sects, Religions - Secular Ideologies - Brands…

Thoughts, values, behaviors…

(from trivial to serious and meaningful)

Raafat M, Chater N and Frith Ch (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 10, 420-428.

Berns G et al (2005), Biological Psychiatry, 58, 245-253.

Berns G et al (2005), Biological Psychiatry, 58, 245-253.

CONFORMITY X (SEM) Error rates Baseline: 13,8 % (2%) Group wrong: 41% (5%) Computer wrong: 32% (4%)

At debriefing 56,8% Ss indicated that on some trials they were not sure about the answer and decided to go with the majority (44,8% for the computer), and 3,4% said they were sure they had the right answer but decided to go with the group (3,4% for computers)

Berns G et al (2005), Biological Psychiatry, 58, 245-253.

Berns G et al (2005), Biological Psychiatry, 58, 245-253.

Klusharev V et al (2009) Neuron, 61, 140-151

Klusharev V et al (2009) Neuron, 61, 140-151

Klusharev V et al (2009) Neuron, 61, 140-151

Shestakova A et al (2013), SCAN, 8, 756-763.

Shestakova A et al (2013), SCAN, 8, 756-763.

Campbell-Meiklejohn DK et al (2010) Current Biology, 20, 1165-1170.

Campbell-Meiklejohn DK et al (2010) Current Biology, 22, 4, R122-R124.

Klusharev V et al (2011), The J. Neuroscience, 31, 33, 11934-11940

Klusharev V et al (2011), The J. Neuroscience, 31, 33, 11934-11940

Edelson M et al (2011), Science, 333, 108-111

Edelson M et al (2011), Science, 333, 108-111.

Edelson M et al (2011), Science, 333, 108-111.

Edelson M et al (2011), Science, 333, 108-111.

Edelson M et al (2011), Science, 333, 108-111.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Talor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Talor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Talor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Talor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Talor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Taylor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Taylor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Muchnick L, Aral S and Talor SJ (2013) Science, 341, 647-651.

Herding psychology:

(Gregariousness) - Congregation - Obedience - Conformity - Persuassion - Imitation….

Raafat M, Chater N and Frith Ch (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 10, 420-428

FOLLOW, IMITATE AND HELP COMRADES: THE BIASING INFLUENCE OF PAROCHIALISM

Nature, 456, 326-327, 20 Nov. 2008.

Sambanis N et al (2012) Science, 336, 805-808.

FROM INGROUP FAVOURITISM TO PAROCHIAL ALTRUISM: FROM TAJFEL TO FHER

Bernardt H et al (2006), Nature, 442, 912-915

Punishment patterns in the “Third party punishing game” played by 195 individuals (17-60 years old) from Papua-New Guinea small societies. The third party (C) spends money (KINA) on punishing dictators for violations of egalitarian sharing (around 5 Kina).

Punishing was much higher at ABC (three players from same group) or BC (recipient and third party comrades), than when either the third party (AB) or or the recipient (AC) were outsiders.

TPP GAME: THREE PLAYERS

A: Dictator ABC: all belong to the same group

B: Recipient AB: dictator/recipient from the same group

C: Third-Party AC: dictator/third party from the same group

BC: recipient/third party from the same group

Baumgartner Th et al (2012) Human Brain Mapping, 33, 1452-1469

Baumgartner Th et al (2012) Human Brain Mapping, 33, 1452-1469

Baumgartner Th et al (2012) Human Brain Mapping, 33, 1452-1469

Baumgartner Th et al (2012) Human Brain Mapping, 33, 1452-1469

Hein G et al (2013) Neuron, 68, 149-160

Hein G et al (2013) Neuron, 68, 149-160

Epstein RP, Israel S, Chew SH, Zhong S and Knafo A (2010), Neuron, 65, 831-844.

Herding psychology:

(Gregariousness) - Congregation - Obedience - Conformity - Persuassion - Imitation….

Raafat M, Chater N and Frith Ch (2009) Trends in Cognitive Sciences,13, 10, 420-428

MOLECULAR VECTORS OF ALTRUISTIC PAROCHIALISM

STRONG ALTRUISTS

- Punish defectors or violators of social norms directly and at a personal cost

- Reject unfair offers despite detriments for themselves

- Punish unfair interactions at a cost when observing them as neutral/noninvolved third parties

- Invest on strangers at a risk of losing goods or opportunities

On economic games (at Lab or in the Field) with strangers

MORALISTIC

AGRESSION

SAMARITARIAN

BEHAVIOR

+ +

Not involving reciprocity or image-scoring (reputation)

Clan breakers: Jumping above Parochial Ingroup/Outgroup Barriers!!!

NEUROGENETICS OF STRONG ALTRUISM

- Rejection of unfair offers at the ultimatum game (UG) carried genetic effects (40% heritability), in a study with 658 Swedish twins (71 DZ pairs vs. 253 MZ pairs) (Wallace B et al, 2007, PNAS, 104, 40, 15631-34)

- These Swedish twins along with an American sample from a large twin gathering, invested on strangers at the trust game with heritabilities

ranging from 0.2 to 0.32 (Cesarini D et al, 2008, PNAS, 105, 10, 3721-26)

- Ebstein’s group at Israel showed an association between large fund allocations in the dictator’s game with AVP1a vasopressin receptor gene long repeat polymorphisms (Knafo A et al, 2008, Genes, Brain and Behavior, 7, 3, 266-275); and DRD4 variants with selfreported altruism (Bachner-Melman R et al (2005), Molecular Psychiatry,

10, 333-335).

- Robbins group at Cambridge, UK, found that disrupting 5-HT function via tryptophan depletion increased rejection to unfairness at one-shot UG (Crockett MJ et al, 2008, Science, 320, 1739). High basal testosterone levels also induces retaliation towards unfairness in the same game (Burnham TC, 2007, Proc.R. Soc..B, 274,

2327-30).

Baumgartner Th et al (2008), Neuron, 58, 639-650.

Brain regions showing stronger activations in the placebo vs.oxytocin group

Subjetcs treated with oxytocin (intranasal sprays) did not change their trusting behavior after knowing they had been betrayed (50% trials), and brain threat- asessment regions did not react, accordingly.

DISRUPTING TRUST BETRAYAL REACTIONS WITH OXYTOCINE: PAROCHIALISTS VS. TOLERANTS???...

Tobeña A (2009), NYAS Annals, 1167, 5-15.

De Dreu CKW et al. (2010), Science, 328,1408-14012

Stallen M et (2012) Psychological Science, 23, 11, 1288-1292

DeDreu C (2012) Hormones and Behavior, 61, 419-421.

De Dreu C et al (2011) PNAS, 108, 4, 1262-1266.

De Dreu C et al.

a. Low threat b. High threat morphs samples

Choi JK and Bowles S (2007) Science, 318, 636-640

First demonstration – in a long range evolutionary simulation – that altruistic and parochial* (sectarian, ethnocentric, tribal..) alleles could have evolved by promoting war between groups…

Parochialism is a new word for the notion of Ethnocentrism that scholars have used for more then a century.

Choi JK and Bowles S (2007) Science, 318, 636-640

Interactions between 20 groups (N=26 members), with opportunities to trade, no contact or war, depending on the frequencies of typological features due to 2 alleles (A/NA; P/T) at two different loci, giving 4 types: PA (parochial altruists), TA (tolerant altruists), TNA (tolerant selfish), PNA (parochial selfish). Simulation ran for 50.000 generations. B (Left) the only stable populations were dominated by parochial altruists (frequent wars: PATRIOTS); and tolerant selfish (profiting trade: MERCHANTS). Right: the proportions of wars depending on the frequency of PA.

A/NA: altruist/nonaltruist allele

P/T: parochial/tolerant allele

PA

TNA

“Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups bet selfish groups. Everything else is commentary” DS Wilson and EO Wilson (2007) Rethinking the theoretical foundations of sociobiology, The Quarterly Review of Biology, 82, 4, 327-348.

Efferson Ch, Lalive R and Fher E (2008), Science, 321, 1844-1849

Carter TJ, Ferguson MJ and Hassin RR (2011) Psychological Science, 22, 8, 1011-1018.

Carter TJ, Ferguson MJ and Hassin RR (2011) Psychological Science, 22, 8, 1011-1018.

Once participants arrived at the lab, they completed a task that they were told concerned the ability to discern the time of day that a photograph had been taken. They were presented with four photographs of buildings and asked to estimate whether they thought each photograph had been taken during the morning, afternoon, or evening. For participants randomly assigned to the flag-prime condition, two of the four photographs had American flags in them (on flag poles or hanging from the front of the building). For participants in the control condition, the flags were digitally removed. After this task, participants completed a short (eight-item) version of the political belief survey used in Experiment 1; responses were made on a 7-point scale.

Carter TJ, Ferguson MJ and Hassin RR (2011) Psychological Science, 22, 8, 1011-1018.

Keep alert against Emotional/Feeling automatisms and conformity manipulations!!

MILGRAM EXPERIMENTS 60’s

Yale University Lab: “Effects of punishment on human learning/memory”

- Paired-words lists rehearsing, till high % correct.

- Lapse.

- Test: errors followed by shocks of increasing intensity.

- E: experimenter; S: subject; A: Learner (actor).

- Subjects recruited from the community (paid or nonpaid, man/women…).

60/65% Subjects apply maximum intensity shocks (Warning: “Life Danger!!”)

15-20% stop at high intensity

15% refuse to continue, at moderate intensities, and drop, infuriated.

Slater et al (2006), PLoS One, 1, 1, e39.

Six from the twenty three (26%) participants on the visual condition, stopped delivering shocks before the end of 20 shocks series: 3 gave 19 shocks, and 18, 16 and 9 shocks were given by one person each

…… IF IRRELEVANT AND REMOTE SCOTLAND MAY DECIDE ITS FUTURE AS A COUNTRY …

…WHY WE CANNOT DO THE SAME???..., ….as every soul knows that we gather and celebrate dancing the most beatiful folkdance on the planet,…and we live at the core and most precious of Earth paradises?....

DIVINE INDEPENDENTISTS?

Esteban J, Mayoral L and Ray D, (2012), Science, 336, 858-865.

WHY CATALONIA…, …AND NOT WALES, BRITTANY, TIROL, CORSICA , BAVARIA, PADANIA, GALIZIA OR THE CANARY ISLANDS?..

Autonomous/individuallistic versus obedient/herding thoughts and decisions???...

Distinctive Biotemperamental Vectors..!!

A Research project for the Institute of Neurosciences UAB???.....