Tweaking your brain with magnets makes you LESS religious

[rug]

* Italian researchers said magnetic pulses can lessen religious beliefs
* In a study the scientists asked 14 Catholics to take part in a test on their beliefs while parts of their brain were exposed to pulses of a magnetic field
* They found exciting the brain's parietal lobe made people less spiritual
* Magnetic field was about twice the strength of an average fridge magnet

By Jonathan O'Callaghan for MailOnline
Published: 04:48 EST, 25 May 2015 | Updated: 06:36 EST, 25 May 2015

Firing magnetic pulses at the brain could reduce how religious or spiritual a person feels, a study has claimed.

The research found that 'exciting' the right-hand side of the brain, known as the parietal lobe, caused people's religious beliefs to lessen.

The study could apparently help understand the neural mechanisms behind religiousness and spirituality.
Italian researchers said magnetic pulses can lessen religious beliefs (stock image shown). In a study they asked 14 Catholics to take part in a test. Parts of their brain were subjected to pulses of magnetism. And when they re-took a test, their results were less spiritual

Italian researchers said magnetic pulses can lessen religious beliefs (stock image shown). In a study they asked 14 Catholics to take part in a test. Parts of their brain were subjected to pulses of magnetism. And when they re-took a test, their results were less spiritual

The research was carried out by Dr Cristiano Crescentini and colleagues from the University of Udine in Italy.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3093098/Tweaking-brain-magnets-makes-religious-Magnetic-pulses-increases-non-spiritual-reasoning-study-claims.html

http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Cristiano_Crescentini

The Daily Mail does Science.

[hrmjustin]

1. Lol. i will avoid magnets then.

[Hoppy]

2. Is there a part of my brain I could tweak

that would stop me thinking of sex all day long?

[BillZBubb]

3. The horny lobe?

[cbayer]

5. No, but there are other parts of you….

[cbayer]

4. This is embarrassing. I think even the author of the original paper would be embarrassed.

[struggle4progress]

6. Fuggin magnets!

[Humanist_Activist]

7. Ugh, is there any control here? Supposedly there's a...

"ghost presence" sense that people have that can be stimulated or not in some people, but whether that is a source for religious belief, I doubt it. I would say that religion is a combination of various ideas and beliefs, and our complex brains create these to try to sort out the world and each other. Without some check against reality, imagination runs wild, and hence we have these fantastical stories, myths, legends, etc. some we call fiction, others religion.

The study in the OP, sounds too simple, so I'm suspicious.

[AtheistCrusader]

8. Makes sense. Magnetic probes can render a person unable to lie.

From where I'm sitting, self deception is the heart of religion. Temporarily disable your ability to deceive...

All the sudden the experiment in this OP makes a lot of sense, doesnt it?

[rug]

9. I'd like to see the authority for "Magnetic probes can render a person unable to lie."

If that were true, the CIA would have used it in the last decade.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. Huh, thought it had been posted here.

Ability to detect deception:
http://web.missouri.edu/~segerti/1050H/docs/LanglebenGKT.pdf

Ability to suppress it:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166432811005468

Transcranial magnetic probes show use for treating depression, and more optimistically, treatment for schizophrenia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3270326/

It’s not new, related effects were first observed in 2000.

[rug]

14. The studies seem to be in the very early stages.

I'd like to compare its reliability to conventional lie detectors.

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Well, whatever the universities publish, assume the CIA is 10 years beyond it.

Works good for other DoD related technology estimates. Something like 40bn in via related black budget, and the ability to vanish research papers and other material has its benefits.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Also, conventional lie detectors are totally worthless.

Just FYI.

[rug]

21. Not totally. But completely inadmissible.

From the links you've posted, I'm not sure magnetic probes are any better in determining "truth".

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I can throw a lie detector test.

I can't throw a fMRI scan.

I can, in the language of the test equipment, clearly say to the test administrator "I am going to fuck with you every step of the way" and they will clearly receive that message and end the test.

I can't do that to an fMRI. I don't doubt that such scans will be admissible in the next 10 years or so. All research in this area has been incredibly promising.

[rug]

23. I've sat through lots of them. Very few people can "throw" a lie detector test.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. As far as I can tell, the only functional utility of a lie detector test

Is determining if the person connected to it knows anything about how the test works.

[rug]

25. The problem is it's based on extrapolations of reactions.

Pulse, blood pressure, etc. There are many things that can produce those reactions, not least of which is police interrogation. Those results are extrapolated to "normal" reactions and the operator infers deception.

I've seen people walk after the police ask them to sit through a lie detector test and they pass. But not always are they arrested if the fail.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. There's a third option beyond pass/fail

[rug]

29. Yes, and that one is also inadmissible.

[Warren Stupidity]

36. "I'd like to see the authority..."

authorities cited.

&quot ooops). Well I don't like those authorities, but now I'd better just change course..."

[rug]

38. There you go again . . . .

Do you find it difficult to deal with words as they are? Do you need to shape them into a more comforting form?

No, Warren, it's an entirely different point. Accepting there have been studies on magnetism and brains as a predictor for deception, the next question is how do those studies compare with lie detectors which measure different bodily reactions.

Got it yet?

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Also, you might want to find a better source. The Daily Mail is literally a right wing rag

[rug]

11. No shit, Sherlock.

[AtheistCrusader]

15. Were you unaware the material is real?

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/epiphenom/2015/05/you-can-make-people-less-religious-by-flicking-their-brain-with-magnetic-pulses.html

fMRI, traumatic brain injury study, plus other data on brain pathologies like depression are merging into a very interesting understanding of just how very material our brains, and our consciousness are.

I suggest you stop reading the Daily Mail though. It’s not good for you.

[rug]

17. No. I went to the University's website and didn't find anything else.

Why didn't you post it when it was published?

I would give you suggestions to improve yourself but I'm not presumptuous.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Didn't think it would be interesting in this venue.

Confirmation bias on my part perhaps.

[cbayer]

12. That was the entire point.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. I don't get it.

Especially with the recent hides in this venue for citing right wing sources. Just seems like a bad idea all around.

[cbayer]

30. Recent hides for citing rw sources? I must have missed that.

The whole point is the way this study is being reported is sensationalistic BS. As I said above, I think even the author of the study would be embarrassed.

It's just a little light hearted fun and as much as I think this is a silly news outlet, I would hardly call it a hard RW source.

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Daily mAil has been explicitly right wing since the 60's.

Frontal Nudity and harsh language warning, but this is the greatest response to DM ever.

[cbayer]

32. I've never seen a thread locked for linking to Daily Mail

particularly when the thread was explicitly to show how lame they are.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. I have. That said, the op is not obviously so.

[cbayer]

34. I dunno. I thought the OP's editorial comment made it clear.

"The Daily Mail does Science."

But maybe that's just me. I tend to look at links to scientific reports with a very jaded eye.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. DM doesn't usually link to science articles so it

i took that comment quite differently.

Why suspicious of the actual study or research? A link is a link. That's why I always drill through the reporting to the paper itself.

[cbayer]

37. Actually, the study looks ok but the investigator didn't draw all these

rather outrageous conclusions.

It was a study of 14 people. He made some observations, but it is the DM "journalist" who drew these conclusions.

I did look at the paper itself and that is why I think the DM article is embarassing.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. I'm trying to think of an occasion where the reporting matched the research.

Coming up blank over here.

Even with 'reputable' non-tabloid sources.

[cbayer]

40. Good journalism can be found in most reputable news sources.

Most of what gets reported here accurately reflects the findings of the investigators.

The whole reason that this article stands out is that it strays so far from good journalism.

I'm not sure what to make of your coming up blank.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. I see you cited many, many examples.

[mr blur]

42. Well, of course people who don't really understand any science

tend to be suspicious of it. Maybe read a bit more?

[Yorktown]

28. The Daily Mail is just complete trash.

A mix between check-out counter 'Elvis sightings' press and Rush Limbaugh nationalism.

[Kalidurga]

27. LOL