Limbic system

The hypothalamus’ role in how calorie restriction delays aging

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals

This 2015 Portuguese rodent study showed the underlying mechanism to explain why restricting calories delays aging.

A calorie reduction of 20 to 40% increased production of a normally occurring molecule (neuropeptide Y) in the hypothalamus part of the limbic system. The increased amounts of the molecule stimulated autophagy (the breakdown and recycling of cellular components) in hypothalamic neurons.

“Because both hypothalamic autophagy and neuropeptide Y levels decrease with age..modulation of hypothalamic neuropeptide Y levels may be considered a potential strategy to produce protective effects against hypothalamic impairments associated with age and to delay aging.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/13/E1642.full “Neuropeptide Y stimulates autophagy in hypothalamic neurons”

A study of visual perception that didn’t inform us about human conscious awareness

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain ,

This 2015 Vanderbilt study with a Princeton reviewer stated that they found “compelling evidence” related to:

“How the brain begets conscious awareness.

Identifying the fingerprints of consciousness in humans would be a significant advancement for basic and medical research, let alone its philosophical implications on the underpinnings of the human experience.”

Let’s begin with the “conscious” part of the study’s conscious awareness goal. A summary article of 105 studies entitled Evolution of consciousness: Phylogeny, ontogeny, and emergence from general anesthesia that I curated found:

“The core of human consciousness appears to be associated primarily with phylogenetically ancient structures mediating arousal and activated by primitive emotions.”

The current study ignored the evolutionary bases of human consciousness and didn’t include any limbic system and lower brain areas. The researchers’ biases were further indicated by the statement from their press release:

“Focal theories contend there are specific areas of the brain that are critical for generating consciousness, while global theories argue consciousness arises from large-scale brain changes in activity.”

The researchers were in the “global” camp of this unnecessary divide.

Let’s next examine the “awareness” part of the study’s conscious awareness goal. The subjects were 24 students in a visual perception experiment that used fMRI. The visual events that were perceived went into the “aware” bucket and the others into the “unaware” bucket.

The study’s subject selection criteria and experiment seemed a little odd for developing “compelling evidence” related to “how the brain begets conscious awareness.” By equating visual perception with awareness, the researchers excluded the contributions of other senses and methods of awareness.

Would it follow from the study’s methodology that blind people can’t be consciously aware?

The supplementary material showed that 7 of the 24 subjects’ results for one experimental condition, and 12 – half – of the subjects’ results for another condition were excluded because they apparently had problems reporting confidence in their visual perception. I wonder why the reviewer agreed that it was appropriate to discard half of the subjects’ experimental results?

Whatever else it was that the study found, the researchers didn’t reach their goal of developing “compelling evidence” related to “how the brain begets conscious awareness.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3799.full “Breakdown of the brain’s functional network modularity with awareness”

A study on online cooperation with limited findings

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain ,

This 2015 Cambridge/Oxford study found:

“Global reputational knowledge is crucial to sustaining a high level of cooperation and welfare.”

Basically, the subjects learned how to “game” a cooperative online game, and the researchers drew up their findings.

To me, the study demonstrated part of the findings of the Reciprocity behaviors differ as to whether we seek cerebral vs. limbic system rewards study, the part where the cerebrum was active in:

“Reputation-based reciprocity, in which they help others with good reputations to gain good reputations themselves.”

The current study ignored how people’s limbic system and lower brain areas may have motivated them to cooperate.

I didn’t see how excluding people’s emotional involvement when cooperating with others improved the potential reach of this study’s findings. Doesn’t a person’s willingness to cooperate in person and in online activities usually also include their emotional motivations?

The findings can’t be applied generally to cooperative motivations and behaviors that the researchers intentionally left out of the study. The study’s findings applied just to the artificial environment of their experiment, and didn’t provide evidence for how:

“Cooperative behavior is fundamental for a society to thrive.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/12/3647.full “The effects of reputational and social knowledge on cooperation”

This post has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.

Epigenetic DNA methylation and demethylation with the developing fetus

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Brain development, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Hypothalamus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Oxytocin, Serotonin , ,

This extremely dense and informative 2014 UK summary study provided details about genomic imprinting:

“An unusual epigenetic process in that it is heritable and results in autosomal gene expression according to parent of origin.”

Several notes of interest:

  • Figure 3 had a fascinating sketch of how the fetus caused the mother’s hypothalamus to:

    “Determine forward maternal planning by directing/orchestrating maternal physiology and postnatal maternalism to synchronize with development of the fetus.”

  • Figure 4 followed up with a flowchart of how – with a female fetus – coexistence of three matrilineal generations in the pregnant female (her, the fetus, and the grandmother’s influence on the developing fetus’ ovarian oocytes) enabled intergenerational forward planning.
  • The study briefly noted significance of genomic imprinting on male sexual behavior, where, if processes didn’t proceed normally at this early stage of a male fetus’ development, could result in suboptimal adult behavior that didn’t change with experience.

F4.large

I’ll quote a few other unrelated passages that caught my eye.

“Reproductive success of mammals also places a considerable burden on matrilineal time and energy, with some 95% of mammalian female adult life committed to pregnancy, lactation, and maternal care.

Offspring that receive optimal nourishment and improved maternal care will be predisposed to develop a hypothalamus that is both genetically and epigenetically predisposed to this same type of good mothering.

The fetus controls its own destiny in times of acute starvation, especially in the last trimester of pregnancy, by short-term sacrifice of its placenta to preserve resources critical for brain development.”

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/22/6834.full “Genomic imprinting, action, and interaction of maternal and fetal genomes”

This post has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.

Epigenetic DNA methylation of the oxytocin receptor gene affected the perception of anger and fear

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Anterior cingulate cortex, Brain development, Brain hemispheres, Cerebrum, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Oxytocin, Thalamus ,

This 2015 Virginia human study:

“Reveals how epigenetic variability in the endogenous oxytocin system impacts brain systems supporting social cognition and is an important step to better characterize relationships between genes, brain, and behavior.”

The researchers did a lot of things right:

  • They studied a priori selected brain areas, followed by whole brain analyses;
  • Their subjects were carefully selected

    “Because methylation levels have been shown to differ as a function of race, we restricted our sample to Caucasians of European descent”

    but they didn’t restrict subjects to the same gender;

  • They acknowledged as a limitation:

    “A lack of behavioral evidence to reveal how these epigenetic and neural markers impact the overt social phenotype.”

One thing on which I disagree with the researchers is their assessment of what needs to be done next. Their news release stated:

“When imagining the future possibilities and implications this DNA methylation and oxytocin receptor research may have, the investigators think a blood test could be developed in order to predict how an individual may behave in social situations.”

Nice idea, but the next step should be to complete the research. The next step is to develop evidence for how the oxytocin receptor gene became methylated.

The subjects had a wide range of DNA methylation at the studied gene site – from 33% to 72% methylated!

Why?

At the same gene site:

“There was a significant effect of sex such that females have a higher level of methylation than males.”

Why?

Given these significant effects, why was there no research into likely causes?

Aren’t early periods in people’s lives the most likely times when the “Epigenetic modification of the oxytocin receptor gene” that “influences the perception of anger and fear in the human brain” takes place?

Wouldn’t findings from research on the subjects’ histories potentially help other people?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3308.full “Epigenetic modification of the oxytocin receptor gene influences the perception of anger and fear in the human brain”

If you had a disease, would you agree to treatment where you became a lab rat?

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Limbic system, Thalamus ,

This 2015 Czech research studied individual neurons in an area of the limbic system of Parkinson’s disease patients. The findings corroborated several findings of previous research, such as:

“We confirm the importance of the subthalamic nucleus as a hub within the limbic circuitry involved in both emotional valence and arousal processing as in two functionally and spatially segregated systems.”

This statement summed up the study for me:

“Several factors could affect our results and reduce the inferences that can be drawn with regards to the physiology of emotional processing and the role of the subthalamic nucleus in the limbic circuits.

One such factor is that the study was conducted with Parkinson’s disease patients, who are known to have a widespread central nervous system pathology and to experience problems in emotional processing.”

The current study referenced The amygdala is where we integrate our perception of human facial emotion study, which similarly used the opportunity of patients with electrodes implanted for deep-brain stimulation to study individual neurons in the amygdala. However, a design difference was that the amygdala study had healthy control subjects in addition to patients, which led to fewer potential limitations on their findings.

Also referenced was a summary study entitled Exploring emotions using invasive methods: review of 60 years of human intracranial electrophysiology. Despite excluding studies of decision making, reward processing, learning, mood disorders, and pain experiences, it didn’t demonstrate that 60 years of experiments using implanted electrodes in the brains of people with epilepsy had substantially advanced science, other than confirming what fMRI and animal research had shown.

I’m not sure how I would feel if I had a disease where the physicians treated my symptoms in such a way that I became a lab rat for research that wasn’t groundbreaking. Do people with epilepsy and Parkinson’s disease have treatments available that factually resolve the underlying causes?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/10/3116.full “Distinct populations of neurons respond to emotional valence and arousal in the human subthalamic nucleus”

Neural plasticity trumps genetics in the hippocampus part of the limbic system

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Memory , ,

This 2015 rodent study used a genetic strain of mice that was bred to not express a gene that enabled long-term memory in the hippocampus. The mice were not memory-impaired, however, due to their brains’ neural plasticity.

The researchers found:

“Deletion of genes in organisms does not always give rise to phenotypes because of the existence of compensation.

The current work provides an example of how a complex brain system may adjust to the effects of gene deletion to recover function.”

The Early human brain development can be greatly modified by environmental factors study showed even greater plasticity in another part of the human brain where the people faced much larger obstacles than gene deletion.

I view this finding as a cautionary tale to reference any time a study comes out stating that A and B genes are found to cause X and Y symptoms or behavior. Researchers don’t have enough evidence in 2015 to unequivocally describe what rodent brains are capable of, much less human brains.

The researchers implied how they kept faith in their work with the phrase:

“The compensatory mechanism is imperfect and does not fully restore cGKII-dependent function.”

Is perfection the standard to which their research is also held?

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/10/3122.full “Network compensation of cyclic GMP-dependent protein kinase II knockout in the hippocampus by Ca2+-permeable AMPA receptors”

Why do we cut short our decision-making process?

gettingwell4 5+ stars Premium, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Dopamine, Limbic system, Memory, Neurochemicals, Serotonin , , ,

This 2014 Zurich study found that people adapt their goal-directed decision-making processes in certain ways.

First, the researchers found that the subjects usually acted as though the computational cost of evaluating all outcomes became too high once the process expanded to three or more levels. Their approach to a goal involved developing subgoals. For example, for a three-level goal:

“Level 3 was most frequently decomposed into a tree of depth 2 followed by a depth-1 tree.”

A level 3 tree had 24 potential outcomes (24 outcomes = 3*2x2x2) whereas a level 2 tree followed by a level 1 tree had 10 potential outcomes (10 outcomes = 2*2×2 + 1*2).

Second, the subjects memorized and reused subgoals after their initial formation. The researchers found that this practice didn’t produce results significantly different than the optimal solutions, but that could have been due to the study’s particular design. The design also ensured that the subjects’ use of subgoals wasn’t influenced by rewards.

Further:

“It is known that nonhuman primate choices, for instance, depend substantially on their own past choices, above and beyond the rewards associated with the decisions. Similar arguments have been made for human choices in a variety of tasks and settings and have been argued to be under dopaminergic and serotonergic control.”

Third, ALL 37 subjects were unwilling to evaluate decisions that had initial large losses, even if they could see that the path to reach the optimal solution went through this loss outcome! The researchers termed this behavior “pruning” and stated:

“Pruning is a Pavlovian and reflexive response to aversive outcomes.”

The lead author relied on a previous study he coauthored to elaborate on the third finding. One statement in the previous study was:

“This theory predicts excessive pruning to occur in subjects at risk for depression, and reduced pruning to occur during a depressive episode.”

The current study’s subjects were screened out for depressive conditions, though. They were somewhat conditioned by the study design, but not to the extent where their behavior could be characterized as Pavlovian responses.

Fourth, the subjects’ use of larger subgoals wasn’t correlated to their verbal IQ.

So, what can we make of this research?

  1. Are shortcuts to our decision processes strictly a cerebral exercise per the first and second findings?
  2. Do we recycle our decision shortcuts like our primate relatives, uninfluenced by current rewards?
  3. Or is it rewarding to just not fully evaluate all of our alternatives?
  4. Do all of us always back away from decisions involving an initial painful loss, even when we may see the possibility of gaining a better outcome by persevering through the loss?
  5. Is it true that we excessively cut decision processes too short – such that many of our decisions are suboptimal – when we’re on our way to becoming depressed?
  6. Are we overwhelmed when depressed such that we don’t summon up the effort to cut short or otherwise evaluate decisional input?

Let me know your point of view.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/10/3098.full “Interplay of approximate planning strategies”

Losing track of what are symptoms and what are causes with serotonin and stress

gettingwell4 0-1 star Wasted resources, Limbic system, Neurochemicals, Serotonin, Stress, Thalamus ,

I’m starting to appreciate just how far down the rabbit hole researchers can go when they focus on symptoms and ignore causes.

This 2014 Duke study found that low-serotonin mice were more susceptible to stress than normal mice.

Okay so far, except that the study used transgenic mice that only had 20-40% of normal serotonin.

Humans most often develop low-serotonin symptoms for causes other than genetics, such as a second-order result of being subjected to childhood maltreatment and stress.

Use of the low-serotonin-due-to-genetics mice may have misdirected the researchers to lose focus that their ultimate task was to find ways that their research can help humans. If helping humans was the researchers’ focus, it may have occurred to them to show how stress caused “something” that caused low serotonin.

A second finding was that following exposure to stress, the low-serotonin mice didn’t respond to a standard antidepressant, fluoxetine. SSRI medications usually act to increase serotonin transmission, i.e. treat the symptom of low serotonin.

Stress was again not viewed as a cause of “something” that caused low serotonin. Stress was viewed as the reason that the medication didn’t work.

If helping humans was the researchers’ focus, it may have occurred to them that humans may not need medication to treat the low-serotonin symptom if the “something” that stress caused that keeps the low-serotonin symptom in place was removed.

A third finding was that inhibiting the lateral habenula area (proximal to the thalamus) with a drug relieved some depression-like behavior of the low-serotonin mice.

Okay, but one of the researchers went on to say:

“The next step is to figure out how we can turn off this brain region in a relatively non-invasive way that would have better therapeutic potential.”

Would everything would be fine if the low-serotonin mice just stopped displaying symptoms such as the depression-like behavior? Why no focus on causes, no forward thinking that maybe humans wouldn’t want part of their limbic system that performed many other functions to “turn off” just to suppress a symptom?

The researchers apparently didn’t realize their situation viz-à-viz the rabbit hole, as they circled back to the initial finding to develop a fourth finding – a possible reason that low-serotonin mice were more susceptible to stress was because a signaling molecule, β-catenin, wasn’t produced in a pathway that may be involved in resilience.

The news coverage added one more researcher quote:

“If we can identify what’s both upstream and downstream of β-catenin we might be able to come up with attractive drug targets to activate this pathway and promote resilience.”

If we treat a third-order symptom, the signaling molecule, everything will be alright?

Which leads me to ask:

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/8/2557.full “Brain 5-HT deficiency increases stress vulnerability and impairs antidepressant responses following psychosocial stress”

Is it science, or is it a silly and sad farce when researchers “make up” missing data?

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Brain development, Epigenetics, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Stress , , ,

This 2014 French study was a parody of science.

The researchers “made up” missing data on over 50% of the men and over 47% of the women! All to satisfy their model that drove an agenda of the effects of adverse childhood experiences.

As an example of how silly and sad this was:

  • Two of the seven subject ages of interest were 23 and 33 consecutively, and
  • One of the nine factors was education level.

If I was a subject, and wasn’t around to give data at age 33 and later, how would the researchers have extrapolated a measurement of my education level of “high school” at age 23?

I’m pretty sure their imputation method would have “made up” education level data points for me of “high school” for ages 33 and beyond. I doubt that the model would have produced my actual education levels of a Bachelors and two Masters degrees at age 33.

Everything I said about the Problematic research on stress that will never make a contribution toward advancing science study applied to this study, including the “allostatic load” buzzword and the same compliant reviewer.

Studies like this both detract from science and are a misallocation of scarce resources. Their design and data aren’t able to reach levels where they can provide etiologic evidence.

Such studies also have limiting effects on how we “do something” about real problems, because the researchers won’t be permitted to produce findings that aren’t politically correct.

http://www.pnas.org/content/112/7/E738.full “Adverse childhood experiences and physiological wear-and-tear in midlife: Findings from the 1958 British birth cohort”

Dr. Arthur Janov interview on his 2011 book Life Before Birth: The hidden script that rules our lives

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brain development, Cerebrum, Cortisol, Epigenetics, Limbic system, Lower brain, Neurochemicals, Primal Therapy, Stress, Telomeres , , , , , ,

Dr. Arthur Janov’s 2011 book “Life Before Birth: The hidden script that rules our lives” describes problems that start in the earliest parts of our lives, when epigenetic changes due to trauma in the womb affect our development.

“The science has changed. When I first started out 44 years ago, there was nobody who could understand it, or agree, especially the professionals. Now all, or a great deal of the current research, is backing up everything I say.

I’m saying that this therapy is really a matter of life and death now. I should probably start at the beginning and say that there’s trauma in the womb. We need to set back the clock so that we take account of trauma that occurs while our mother is carrying that has lifelong consequences for how long we live, for example. There’s a current research study that shows that as you get more traumatized in the womb, your life expectancy is much shorter.

When you get rid of the childhood pain that happened way back when – and there are ways to do it – you will live much longer. So truly, a proper therapy now is a matter of life and death. Not only because your life expectancy is shorter when you have trauma, but you get sick earlier, you have diabetes, Alzheimer’s, all kinds of diseases on your way to your death, which makes life very uncomfortable.

But that’s just part of what we do. The idea is that we found a way to take the pain out of the system, going all the way back. And what we’re finding is that pain starts way, way earlier than we thought.

I used to think that the greatest point was the birth trauma. Well that’s no longer true. Way before the birth trauma there are traumas from the smoking mothers, the anxious mothers, the depressed mothers, that have lifelong effects on the baby, the offspring.”

“https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbUhjZhpEyct”

This post has somehow become a target for spammers, and I’ve disabled comments. Readers can comment on other posts and indicate that they want their comment to apply here, and I’ll re-enable comments.

Research on brain areas involved when we imagine people, places, and pleasantness

gettingwell4 2-3 stars Required further work, Amygdala, Beliefs, Brain hemispheres, Cerebrum, Hippocampus, Limbic system, Thalamus ,

This highly jargoned 2014 Harvard study was on how people imagine that they’ll feel in the future.

One of the researchers was an author of:

I was surprised that this study also didn’t ignore the limbic system to the point to where the researchers wouldn’t even bother to measure important areas.

Limbic system areas that process people were different than those that process places. For example, the data in Table S4 showed that the subjects’ left amygdala and hippocampus were more activated when simulating future familiar people, whereas their right hippocampus was more activated when simulating future familiar places.

The researchers may have improved the study’s findings if they were informed by studies such as the Hippocampus replays memories and preplays to extend memories into future scenarios, which found that “place” cells in the CA1 segment of the hippocampus preplay events that imagine future scenarios of:

“Novel spatial experiences of similar distinctiveness and complexity.”

Such information may have helped to disambiguate one of the study’s findings in Table S5, that both sides of the subjects’ hippocampus were more activated than other brain regions when simulating both familiar people and places.

The researchers got a little carried away in broadly attributing most of the study’s findings to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. For example, the data in Table S6 showed that the thalamus was more activated when the subjects anticipated positive pleasantness, but not when negative effects were anticipated.

We know from Thalamus gating and control of the limbic system and cerebrum is a form of memory that this is normally how the thalamus part of the limbic system actively controls and gates information to and from the cerebrum. Their data showed thalamic gating in operation:

  • Active when passing along pleasantness to cerebral areas, and
  • Passive when blocking unpleasantness from cerebral areas.

Also, I didn’t see how the researchers differentiated some of their findings from a placebo effect. For example, Using expectations of oxytocin to induce positive placebo effects of touching is a cerebral exercise found:

“Pain reduction dampened sensory processing in the brain, whereas increased touch pleasantness increased sensory processing.”

This was very similar to the above finding involving the thalamus.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/46/16550.full “Ventromedial prefrontal cortex supports affective future simulation by integrating distributed knowledge”

Dr. Arthur Janov Book Expo America 2008 Interview

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain, Primal Therapy , ,

“Our therapy is centered on needs.

As we grow up we have different kinds of needs.

The need right after birth is be touched.

The need at birth is to have a good birth with oxygen, etc.

Then it’s to be held, to be listened to, and so on.

For each of the needs that are not fulfilled, there’s pain.

And it’s registered on different levels of the brain.

What we have found a way to do is to go back down into the brain and take those pains out of the system.

So you don’t have to take pills to stuff it back.

What we do is, little by little, take the pain out of the system that is based on not-fulfilled needs.

So that’s basically what Primal Therapy is about.”

What is Primal Therapy by Dr. Arthur Janov

gettingwell4 4-5 stars Advanced knowledge, Brainstem, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain, Primal Therapy , , , ,

“We have needs that we are all born with.

When those basic needs are not met, we hurt.

And when that hurt is big enough, it is imprinted into the system.

It changes the system, our whole physiologic system.

What our therapy does, it goes back to those early brains, those hurt brains, and relive the pain, and get it out of the system.

Because meanwhile, that pain is being held in storage, and just waiting for its exit, so to speak.

So Primal Therapy is a way of accessing our feeling brain, and down below even the feeling brain, to the brainstem, to get to all of the hurts that started very early in our lives.

And bring them up to consciousness for connection and integration.

It is a very systematic therapy, by the patient.

The patient decides when he comes and when he leaves and how long he stays.

There’s no 50-minute hour anymore.

It’s the feelings of the patient that determine when he stops.”

If a study didn’t measure feelings, then its findings may not pertain to genuine empathy

gettingwell4 < 0 Detracted from science, Beliefs, Cerebrum, Limbic system, Lower brain

This 2014 UK study tried to show that empathetic actions were very context-dependent. It mainly studied causing overt pain to another person.

The lead researcher stated:

“We were interested in quantifying how much people care about others, relative to themselves. A lack of concern for others’ suffering lies at the heart of many psychiatric disorders such as psychopathy, so developing precise laboratory measures of empathy and altruism will be important for probing the brain processes that underlie antisocial behavior.”

The researchers didn’t provide direct evidence of genuine empathy – the subjects’ emotions of sensing and sharing the emotions of another person.

The study was designed to cause sensations of pain and draw conclusions about empathetic feelings. The subjects’ limbic system and lower brains were never measured, however.

Why did the researchers decide to only infer these feelings and sensations from actions and reports? Why wasn’t this inferred evidence confirmed with direct measurements of the brain areas that primarily process feelings and sensations?

  1. At no time during the experiment did the subjects see or hear or touch the person whom they caused pain. Wouldn’t it be difficult for the subjects to feel authentic empathy for a disembodied presence?
  2. We’re informed by the Task performance and beliefs about task responses are solely cerebral exercises study that it’s inaccurate to characterize subjects’ task responses as feelings.
  3. We know from the Problematic research: If you don’t feel empathy for a patient, is the solution to fake it? study that people’s cerebrums are easily capable of generating a proxy for empathy.

This study’s findings concerning empathy involved inauthentic empathy – the non-feeling, cerebral exercise, faking-it kind.

http://www.pnas.org/content/111/48/17320.full “Harm to others outweighs harm to self in moral decision making”