25. Individual Differences

TL;DR

The single most humane idea in behavioral biology is "it's not him, it's his disease" - separating a person's essence from the biology driving their behavior. Society applies this cleanly to epilepsy but fails with schizophrenia, learning disabilities, and normal brain variation. As the science advances, the line between "them and their disorders" dissolves into "us and our individual differences."

Transcript

Stanford University. OK. Good. Thank you for notching me once more. OK. So various organizational things, now that we are here in the last gasp. One thing is, make sure you go online, fill out the online evaluations. The other various review stuff. The TA's are giving a review tomorrow from dawn until 3:30. What time are you guys starting? 1:30. 1:... Read More

Key Insights

• The recurring question behind explaining any behavior is often "whose fault is it?", which drives directly into frontal-cortex issues of volition, culpability, and free will rather than pure scientific curiosity.
• "It's not him, it's his disease" is described as a huge landmark transition from 500 years ago, when epileptic seizures were treated as demonic possession and flailing during a seizure counted as assault and battery.
• Society is spectacular at separating person from pathology in epilepsy but lousy at it elsewhere; a seizure that breaks something today carries no legal responsibility, unlike 500 years ago.
• The John Hinckley case shows the limit of this reasoning: the jury ruled "it's not him, it's his disease" over his paranoid schizophrenia, but the country reacted with apoplexy that he was getting away with it.
• Learning disabilities and dyslexia are still frequently mislabeled as "lazy" and "stupid" by parents, teachers, and counselors who cannot draw a line between a person's essence and their biological constraints.
• The class's central punchline is that as more domains get studied, the field stops being "the biology of them and their disorders" and becomes "the biology of us" - which makes people anxious as it hits close to home.
• Schizotypal personality is reframed as one extreme of a normal human axis, not a disease; consulting astrologers or attending Star Trek conventions isn't pathology, though it shares genetics with schizophrenia.
• The person sitting next to you has a different frontal cortex than you, and that variation explains ordinary individual differences - shyness, all-nighters, personality - not just serial murderers versus everyone else.

Questions & Answers

Q: What does 'it's not him, it's his disease' mean?

It is the principle of drawing an absolute line between the essence of who a person is and the biological events, like the action potential storms of a seizure, that produce a behavior. Sapolsky calls it a huge landmark transition from 500 years ago, when epileptics were burnt at the stake for supposed demonic possession. Most people in this country got trained in this thought around 1900, and he describes it as defining of everything good about our culture, though we apply it inconsistently across different disorders.

Q: How was epilepsy treated 500 years ago versus today?

Five hundred years ago an epileptic seizure was explained as demonic possession, producing what Sapolsky calls a staggering, heartbreaking history of treatments. If someone flung their arms during a seizure and struck another person, it was treated as assault and battery in most Western European countries, with a demonic underpinning. Today that is a ludicrous idea: a person having a seizure who strikes or breaks something is not held legally responsible, because society learned to separate the person from the disease.

Q: Why is the John Hinckley case an example of society's limits?

John Hinckley, a floridly paranoid schizophrenic, tried to kill Reagan in the 1980s. A wise jury of remarkably unsophisticated people concluded "it's not him, it's his disease" and placed him in a psychiatric hospital instead of prison. But the country reacted with apoplexy, with editorials and senatorial bloviating that he was getting away with it. This showed an utterly limited ability, even among powerful people, to draw a line between who Hinckley is and the dopamine abnormalities in his brain.

Q: How does this material change views on free will?

Sapolsky ran a quick survey and found a number of students finishing the class less wedded to the notion of free will than when they started. He argues that no single factoid does it, but all the material together is a hugely complicating issue for notions of free will, vulnerability, and culpability. These notions are built around the question of why a behavior occurred and the lurking follow-up of whose fault it is, which the biology steadily undermines.

Q: What is schizotypal personality and why isn't it a disease?

Schizotypal personality is reframed by Sapolsky as not a psychiatric disorder but one extreme of a single axis of normal human behavior. Consulting astrologers or attending Star Trek conventions are not psychiatric diseases. Yet it has a sensed biology, sharing the same genetics found in the fuller loaded version of schizophrenia itself. It lets us imagine a continuum between us and our quirky obsessions versus them and their schizophrenia, rather than a hard category boundary.

Q: Why does the frontal cortex matter for individual differences?

Beyond dramatic cases like Phineas Gage or disinhibited murderers with damaged frontal cortex, Sapolsky stresses that the person sitting next to you simply has a different frontal cortex than you do. This ordinary variation makes a difference not in explaining serial murder, but in who has it together with studying, who pulls an all-nighter, who is too shy to speak up. It brings the term frontal disinhibition out of the realm of pathology and into normal personality.

Q: What is the main punchline of Sapolsky's final lecture?

The central point is that as more and more information accumulates in behavioral social biology, the field stops being the biology of them and their disorders and becomes the biology of us. The comfortable boundary between them existing in a separate category and the rest of us dissolves into individual differences, quirks, and idiosyncrasies. When this gets close to home, many people become very anxious and skittish, because the subtleties erase the reassuring line between normal and abnormal.

Q: Why does society struggle to separate person from disease?

Sapolsky argues we are spectacular at this with epilepsy but lousy in other domains. With schizophrenia, powerful people reacted furiously to the Hinckley verdict. With learning disabilities and dyslexias, parents, teachers, and guidance counselors still reach for concepts like lazy and stupid, which have a long, well-maintained history in American education. Even at criminal trials, most states cannot accept that someone with no frontal cortex is not a biologically normal human, showing how hard the line is to draw.

Summary

This video discusses various neuropsychiatric disorders and explores the implications they have on our understanding of individual differences and human behavior. The speaker highlights the challenges in drawing a line between the essence of a person and the abnormalities or variations in their biology. He also emphasizes the need to recognize that these disorders are not limited to "them" but are part of the broader human experience.

Questions & Answers

Q: What has been the focus throughout the video?

The focus throughout the video has been on understanding the causes and implications of various neuropsychiatric disorders, as well as the challenges in defining the essence of a person and their behaviors.

Q: What is the underlying question often asked when addressing abnormal behavior?

The underlying question often asked when addressing abnormal behavior is "Why did this behavior occur?" However, there is often an implicit question of "Whose fault is it?" that is also present.

Q: How has society historically viewed abnormal behaviors?

Historically, abnormal behaviors were often attributed to demonic possession or other supernatural causes. This led to individuals being stigmatized, persecuted, or punished for their behavior.

Q: What is the role of the frontal cortex in addressing questions of culpability and volition?

The frontal cortex plays a crucial role in questions of culpability and volition. It is responsible for decision-making, impulse control, and ethical considerations. Understanding how the frontal cortex functions helps us better understand the reasons behind certain behaviors and the extent to which individuals have control over them.

Q: How has our understanding of epilepsy evolved over time?

Our understanding of epilepsy has evolved significantly over time. In the past, epilepsy was often attributed to demonic possession or other supernatural causes. However, now we understand that epilepsy is a neurological disorder characterized by abnormal electrical activity in the brain. Consequently, individuals with epilepsy are not considered responsible for their actions during a seizure.

Q: How does society view individuals with schizophrenia and their behaviors?

Society often struggles to draw a clear line between the essence of a person with schizophrenia and the dopamine abnormalities in their brain. This can lead to misunderstandings, stigmatization, and a lack of recognition for the biological constraints individuals with schizophrenia face.

Q: In the context of learning disabilities, why do people often fail to draw a line between the biology and the person?

When it comes to learning disabilities, many people fail to draw a line between the biology of the disability and the person due to a lack of understanding or awareness. This can lead to misconceptions and harmful labels, such as laziness or stupidity, rather than recognizing the biological constraints individuals with learning disabilities face.

Q: How does the speaker envision the future of behavioral and social biology?

The speaker envisions a future where we need to consider that many behaviors and abnormalities are part of the biology of "us" rather than just "them." As our understanding of behavioral and social biology progresses, we will encounter more individual differences and variations that challenge the traditional concept of normal versus abnormal.

Q: How does the speaker address concerns of losing our uniqueness and individuality?

The speaker argues that even if science were to explain everything about human biology and individual differences, it would not take away from the wonder or power of our experiences and emotions. He also highlights the infinite complexity of life and the realization that there will always be more questions and unknowns to explore.

Q: Why do scientists not have the potential to explain everything inadvertently?

Scientists do not have the potential to explain everything inadvertently because every answer they discover leads to new questions and complexities. Haldane's quote, "Life is not only stranger than we imagine. Life is stranger than we can imagine," illustrates that there will always be more to learn and discover, making a complete explanation of everything impossible.

Takeaways

The understanding of neuropsychiatric disorders and individual differences is constantly evolving. We need to move away from viewing these disorders as separate from ourselves and recognize that they are part of the broader human experience. Exploring these disorders challenges the notions of culpability, free will, and individual uniqueness. While science may continue to uncover answers, there will always be more questions and mysteries to explore, ensuring that our understanding of human behavior and biology remains complex and wondrous.

Summary & Key Takeaways

• The lecture opens by revisiting the course's central question of why a behavior occurs, noting that lurking beneath it is usually "whose fault is it?" This barrels back into frontal-cortex themes of volition, culpability, and free will, and a survey shows many students now feel less wedded to free will than when they started.

• The core landmark idea is "it's not him, it's his disease," contrasted with burning epileptics at the stake 500 years ago for supposed demonic possession. Society applies this cleanly to epilepsy but fails with schizophrenia (the Hinckley case), learning disabilities, and dyslexia, where labels like lazy and stupid persist.

• As behavioral biology expands, the boundary between "them and their disorders" and "us and our differences" collapses into individual differences and quirks. Schizotypal personality and the fact that everyone has a slightly different frontal cortex show normal variation, not pathology, making people skittish as the science hits close to home.