After they were categorized, the researchers used Magnetic Resonance Imaging to explore structural brain differences between the groups. The liars had significantly more white matter and slightly less gray matter than those they were measured against, Raine said.
Specifically, liars had a 25.7 percent increase in prefrontal white matter compared to the antisocial controls and a 22 percent increase compared to the normal controls. Liars had a 14.2 percent decrease in prefrontal gray matter compared to normal controls.
More white matter the wiring in the brain may provide liars with the tools necessary to master the complex art of deceit, Raine said.
Lying takes a lot of effort,he said.
Its almost mind reading. You have to be able to understand the mindset of the other person. You also have to suppress your emotions or regulate them because you don't want to appear nervous. There's quite a lot to do there. You've got to suppress the truth.
Our argument is that the more networking there is in the prefrontal cortex, the more the person has an upper hand in lying. Their verbal skills are higher. They've almost got a natural advantage.
But in normal people, its the gray matter or the brain cells connected by the white matter that helps keep the impulse to lie in check.
Pathological liars have a surplus of white matter, the study found, and a deficit of gray matter. That means they have more tools to lie coupled with fewer moral restraints than normal people, Raine said.
They've got the equipment to lie, and they don't have the disinhibition that the rest of us have in telling the big whoppers,he said.
When people make moral decisions, they are relying on the prefrontal cortex. When people ask normal people to make moral decisions, we see activation in the front of the brain, he explained. If these liars have a 14 percent reduction in gray matter, that means that they are less likely to care about moral issues or are less likely to be able to process moral issues. Having more gray matter would keep a check on these activities.
How Small Fibs Lead To Big Lies
October 24, 2016 by Rebecca Hersher https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way ... o-big-lies
As they put it in the introduction to their paper:
"Many dishonest acts are speculatively traced back to a sequence of smaller transgressions that gradually escalated. From financial fraud to plagiarism, online scams and scientific misconduct, deceivers retrospectively describe how minor dishonest decisions snowballed into significant ones over time. Despite the dramatic impact of these acts on economics, policy and education, we do not have a clear understanding of how and why small transgressions may gradually lead to larger ones."
To test whether little lies led to bigger ones, the researchers had 55 people look at pictures of jars full of pennies, and asked them to tell a partner how much money was in the jar. In some scenarios, they adjusted the incentives such that people would be rewarded for lying about how much money was in the jar for example, they would get to keep the difference between what they said and what their partner said.
While that was happening, the researchers scanned the brains of about half the participants for activity in the amygdala region, known to process emotion.
What they found was that when people first started lying deceiving their partner in order to benefit themselves the amygdala showed more activity. But the more the participant lied, the less active the amygdala got.
And the magnitude of self-serving lies grew with repetition. A participant who deceived his partner for a couple pennies many times was more likely to go on to deceive his partner out of more money in later experiments.
"This experimental result is consistent with anecdotal observations of small digressions gradually snowballing into larger ones," the authors write.Notably, participants were also willing to lie to benefit their partners, but the magnitude of those lies did not grow over time.
As for the role of the emotion-processing part of the brain, the authors speculate that it may be related to the idea of moral desensitization. "People often perceive self-serving dishonesty as morally wrong," they write. "Physiological and neurological measures of emotional arousal are observed when people deceive.
Or, as another deception researcher, Sophie van der Zee at the Free University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands, explained it to the New Scientist, "When you lie or cheat for your own benefit, it makes you feel bad. But when you keep doing it, that feeling goes away, so you're more likely to do it again."
So, if there's less of an emotional response to lying, they reason, "people may engage in more frequent and severe acts [of self-serving deception]."
From the LA Weekly
Conservatives Are More Likely to Believe Lies, UCLA Research Says
Dennis Romero | February 6, 2017 http://www.laweekly.com/news/conservati ... ys-7896216
The spread of alternative facts and fake news in the United States is a downer, but this might put a smile on the faces of those who believe in truthfulness and compassion.
It turns out that Americans with conservative political beliefs tend to believe false information more than liberals do, according to a UCLA study expected to be published this month in the journal Psychological Science.
Liberals shouldn't crow too loudly, however. People at both ends of the spectrum, it turns out, are more likely to believe stories with negative outcomes, even if they're false. It's just that conservatives are "significantly" more likely than liberals to believe such info, according to the study, "Political Orientation Predicts Credulity Regarding Putative Hazards."
Liberals Don't Share or Believe Fake News As Much As Right-Wingers, Study Finds
By Chantal Da Silva On 2/6/18 http://www.newsweek.com/liberals-dont-s ... nds-800219
Fake news published in the U.S. was overwhelmingly consumed and shared by right-wing social media users, a new study from the University of Oxford has revealed.
Research from Oxford's "computational propaganda project" investigated into the sources of "junk news" shared in the three months leading up to President Donald Trump's first State of the Union address last month.
On Facebook, they found that "extreme hard-right" conservatives shared more fake news stories than all other political groups combined, while on Twitter, Trump supporters consumed the most fake news.
The future may be able to detect these lies long before a presidential candidate is elected. Here is news on one of the latest technologies,
A New AI That Detects Deception May Bring an End to Lying as We Know It
by Dom Galeon on January 9, 2018 https://futurism.com/new-ai-detects-dec ... g-know-it/
Being able to tell when a person is lying is an important part of everyday life, but it's even more crucial in a courtroom. People may vow under oath that they will tell the truth, but they don't always adhere to that promise, and the ability to spot those lies can literally be the difference between a verdict of innocent or guilty.
To address this issue, researchers from the University of Maryland (UMD) developed the Deception Analysis and Reasoning Engine (DARE), a system that uses artificial intelligence (AI) to autonomously detect deception in courtroom trial videos. The team of UMD computer science researchers led by Center for Automation Research (CfAR) chair Larry Davis describe their AI that detects deception in a study that's still to be peer-reviewed.
DARE was taught to look for and classify human micro-expressions, such as lips protruded or eyebrows frown as well as analyze audio frequency for revealing vocal patterns that indicate whether a person is lying or not. It was then tested using a training set of videos in which actors were instructed to either lie or tell the truth.
Ultimately, DARE did perform better than the average person at the task of spotting lies. An interesting finding was the feature representation which we used for our vision module, said Singh. A remarkable observation was that the visual AI system was significantly better than common people at predicting deception.
DARE scored an AUC of 0.877, which, when combined with human annotations of micro-expressions, improved to 0.922. Ordinary people have an AUC of 0.58, Singh pointed out.
What a relief it would be to be able to screen political candidates before they are elected, not to mention once they are actively in office.
Whenever I watch a newscast or read an article about Trump's supporters, I always keep in mind how their brains are wired much differently from mind. Knowing this cuts through the dialog and gives a clear picture of what is really happening. I have yet to see a newscast that brings up this subject matter. I have seen and heard every assumption by the talking heads based upon Freudian theory, to how they were potty trained, to how they were abused as children. All of this if a crock of Kimchi. Clearly it is their brain structure that drives their support and affiliation to Trump and allows them to believe his lies. No other rational thought or explanation will change this fact.