by Alex Boese
Could this be how bullfights of the future will be fought, with brain-control devices implanted in bulls to prevent injuries to the matadors? It might lead to a drop in ticket sales, but it could also save lives. However, there’s no need to wait for the future. Such technology has existed for decades. The ability to use brain chips to stop bulls was first demonstrated by Yale researcher José Delgado in 1963.
Delgado was a Spanish-born researcher who accepted a position at Yale University’s School of Medicine in 1950. Over the next two decades he became one of the most visible members of a generation of researchers who pioneered the science of Electrical Stimulation of the Brain (ESB).
ESB involves using wires implanted inside the skull to stimulate different regions of the brain. Such stimulation can produce a wide variety of effects, including the involuntary movement of limbs, the eliciting of emotions such as love or rage, or the inhibition of appetite and aggression. To its critics, it has always smacked of Orwellian mind control, but its defenders insist this is a misconception, pointing out that it’s difficult to predict exactly what will happen when a specific region of the brain is stimulated. Nor is it possible to control thoughts or complex forms of behavior.
Delgado’s great innovation was to invent an ESB chip with a remote-control unit. He called the chip a stimoceiver. It allowed him to study subjects as they moved around in a natural way, free of cables dangling from their heads. Even though TV remote controls were not yet in widespread use during the 1960s (and were the size of a brick), this was the metaphor he used to describe his invention:
The doors of a garage can be opened or closed by pushing a button in our car; the channels and volume of a television set can be adjusted by pressing the corresponding knobs of a small telecommand instrument without moving from a comfortable armchair . . . These accomplishments should familiarize us with the idea that we may also control the biological functions of living organisms from a distance. Cats, monkeys, or human beings can be induced to flex a limb, to reject food, or to feel emotional excitement under the influence of electrical impulses reaching the depths of their brains through radio waves purposefully sent by an investigator.
With the stimoceiver, most of Delgado’s experiments followed a similar pattern. He would stimulate different regions of a subject’s brain and then observe what happened. He described much of this research in his 1969 book Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. One of his more sensational experiments involved a monkey called Ludy. By pressing a button, he caused her to perform a complex sequence of actions that included turning her head to the right, standing up, circling to the right, climbing a pole, descending to the floor, uttering a growl, threatening a subordinate monkey, and then returning to the monkey group in a peaceful manner. She performed this behavior twenty thousand times in a row.
Delgado could use his remote-control unit to manipulate human subjects just as easily as animal ones. He made one patient repeatedly clench his fist against his will, until the man said, “I guess, Doctor, that your electricity is stronger than my will.” Anxiety, rage, and love could also be dialed up on command. He rigged up a knob that he used to increase or decrease the amount of anxiety a female patient experienced. He pressed a button and caused another patient to fly into such a rage that she hurled a guitar across the room. Yet another patient violently shredded sheets of paper even as she moaned, “I don’t like to feel like this.” Other patients were luckier and got to experience the love button. When stimulated in this way, two patients became so overwhelmed that they expressed a desire to marry the researcher. One was a thirty-six-year-old woman. The other was an eleven-year-old boy.
But the experiment that Delgado will forever be remembered for is his time in the bullring. It took place in 1963 at a bull ranch in Cordova, Spain. He implanted electrodes into the brains of “brave bulls”—bulls that were known for their aggressive tendencies. He then tested the effects of ESB on these creatures. He found he could make the bulls turn their heads, lift one leg, or walk around in a circle. In addition, “vocalizations were often elicited, and in one experiment to test the reliability of results, a point was stimulated 100 times and 100 consecutive ‘moo’s’ [sic] were evoked.”
As a final test, Delgado got into a ring with one of the bulls. He stood by the side of the arena and waved a red cloth at the beast. The bull began to charge. When it was mere feet away from him, Delgado pressed a button and the bull abruptly stopped. Delgado admitted to worrying that the stimoceiver might choose that moment to malfunction, but everything worked perfectly. Delgado suggested the stimulation caused a sudden inhibition of the bull’s aggression, but other researchers argue it probably simply caused the bull to turn sharply to the side, frustrating the animal’s ability to charge. Delgado has acknowledged this may have been the case. Whatever the stimoceiver did, it worked.
The media gave Delgado’s bull experiment widespread coverage—including a front-page story in the New York Times—making him an instant scientific celebrity. However, rival brain researchers were less impressed. Elliot Valenstein, a professor at the University of Michigan, criticized Delgado, claiming, “His propensity for dramatic, albeit ambiguous, demonstrations has been a constant source of material for those whose purposes are served by exaggerating the omnipotence of brain stimulation.”
During the 1970s and ’80s ESB came under attack from those who feared it would be used to create a totalitarian state of mind-controlled zombies. Funding dried up, and Delgado moved back to Spain, where he focused on noninvasive methods of brain research. However, during the twenty-first century, interest in ESB has revived, thanks to advances in computers and electronics, as well as to the recognition that brain chips can offer enormous therapeutic benefit to patients suffering from disorders such as epilepsy, Parkinson’s disease, depression, or chronic pain.
Scientists have also been reviving the research tradition, started by Delgado, of designing remote-controlled animals. John Chapin, a professor at the State University of New York in Brooklyn, has designed a camera-equipped, remote-controlled rat that he hopes will be able to help rescue workers find survivors in rubble piles after earthquakes and other disasters. A Chinese researcher made headlines in 2007 with a remote-controlled pigeon, and there have been reports of the Pentagon funding research into the creation of a remote-controlled shark that could be used to track boats without detection. Fisheries have even been investigating the possibility of inserting neural implants into farmed fish. The fish could be allowed to roam free in the ocean and then, with a push of a button, be called back to be harvested. But, of course, it is the scientist who can create a remote-controlled dog with a “fetch beer” button, who will doubtless become the first ESB billionaire.
Delgado, J. M. R. (1969). Physical Control of the Mind: Toward a Psychocivilized Society. New York: Harper & Row.
CHAPTER SIX
Mating Behavior
The public has long maintained a gossipy interest in the sex lives of scientists. Muckraking biographers whisper that Isaac Newton may have died a virgin, that Nikola Tesla was devoutly celibate, that Albert Einstein had a mistress, and that Richard Feynman was a ladies’ man. However, for much of history scientists steadfastly refused to develop a countervailing interest in the sex lives of the general public. Writing in 1929, the psychologist John Watson bemoaned the lack of scientific knowledge about sex: “The study of sex is still fraught with danger . . . It is admittedly the most important subject in life. It is admittedly the thing that causes the most shipwrecks in the happiness of men and women. And yet our scientific information is so meager. Even the few facts that we have must be looked upon as more or less bootlegged stuff.”
In the decades following Watson’s complaint, scientists did begin to undertake serious studies of human sexuality. The most famous researchers in this field were Alfred Kinsey, William Masters, and Virginia Johnson. However, even as attitudes toward such work grew less restrictive, the research remained more
descriptive than experimental. As late as 1989, the psychologists Russell Clark and Elaine Hatfield observed that “until recently, scientists have had to rely almost exclusively on interviews and naturalistic studies for their information [about human sexuality]. Only recently have researchers begun to conduct laboratory experiments.”
Happily for us, while experimental studies of the mating behavior of humans may have been taboo throughout much of the history of science, there definitely were some—and in recent years the number has increased to quite a few. As you might expect, such experiments can be relied on to provide riveting reading.
1. ATTRACTION
Arousal on a Creaky Bridge
People who cross the Capilano Suspension Bridge do so very carefully. The narrow, 450-foot-long bridge, located just outside of Vancouver, British Columbia, is built of wood and wire cables. It has the unnerving tendency to sway, wobble, and creak in the wind, giving the impression it might flip over at any moment. For those standing on it, this would result in a 230-foot plummet onto the rocks below.
In 1974 an attractive woman approached single young men as they were crossing the bridge. Coyly gripping the low handrail to keep her balance, she asked if they would be willing to participate in a psychology experiment. She told them she was investigating “the effects of exposure to scenic attractions on creative expression.” Once they agreed, she showed them a picture of a woman holding a hand over her face and asked them to write a brief, dramatic story about it. They did this while standing on the bridge, rocking in the wind, trying not to think about the drop below.
When they were done, the interviewer smiled and thanked them. Then, as though on the spur of the moment, she suggested they call her to learn more about her research. She wrote down her name, Gloria, and phone number on a scrap of paper and handed it to them.
Thirteen of the twenty men she interviewed later called. It was clear they weren’t interested in her research. They were interested in her. But the woman wasn’t on the bridge fishing for dates. Nor was she there to explore the relationship between creative expression and scenic attractions. That was just her cover story. The true purpose of the experiment was to explore the link between fear and sexual arousal.
The experiment had been designed by two researchers, Donald Dutton and Arthur Aron. They hypothesized that men would find the interviewer more attractive, and thus be more likely to call her, if they met her in a fear-inducing environment such as the Capilano Bridge.
To confirm their theory, the researchers next had the woman approach men in a calmer environment—as they were relaxing on a park bench. She offered the same explanation, “This is a psychology experiment . . . ” and again gave out her name and number. This time she identified herself as Donna.
Under these conditions, only seven of twenty-three men later called. Not a bad response rate—these were still young guys, after all—but not a terrific one. The content of the stories written by each group also showed a marked difference. The men on the bridge wrote stories containing far more erotic imagery. They seemed to be highly aroused by the encounter. These results suggested the existence of a link between sexual arousal and fear.
The experimenters had guessed fear would enhance sexual arousal because of the concept of “misattribution of arousal.” When we’re in a situation that prompts strong emotions, this theory suggests, we often mistakenly attribute those feelings to the person we’re with, rather than to the situation. So if you’re on a suspension bridge two hundred feet off the ground, your senses will be on high alert. Your heart will beat faster. Your palms may grow sweaty. Your stomach will wind into a knot. If an attractive woman (or man) then approaches you, you associate your feelings with the person. You think you’re falling in love, when in reality you’re just afraid of falling.
Would-be Romeos can take advantage of this insight. Scare your date! Take her to a horror movie, for a ride on a motorcycle, or on a stroll across a creaky suspension bridge. Just remember that ideally you want her to be frightened by the situation, not by you.
Dutton, D. G., & A. P. Aron (1974). “Some Evidence for Heightened Sexual Attraction under Conditions of High Anxiety.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 30 (4): 510–17.
The Hard-to-Get Woman
Are women who play hard to get more desirable? Popular wisdom says so, as do many romance columnists. No less an authority than the Roman poet Ovid wrote, “Easy things nobody wants, but what is forbidden is tempting.” Elaine and William Walster, of the University of Wisconsin, decided to put the idea to the test with the aid of a woman willing to play alternately hard or easy to get. Since she interacted with a lot of men in her profession, she seemed like the perfect guinea pig. She was a prostitute.
The experiment occurred at her place of business—a brothel in Nevada. The procedure was as follows: When each client arrived at her room, she mixed him a drink. Then she delivered the “experimental manipulation.” Half the time this involved playing hard to get. She would tell her client, “Just because I see you this time it doesn’t mean that you can have my phone number or see me again. I’m going to start school soon, so I won’t have much time, so I’ll only be able to see the people that I like the best.” Then she proceeded to get to work.
The other half of the time, in the easy-to-get condition, the prostitute skipped the lecture and got right down to business.
The experimenters measured the clients’ desire for the prostitute in a variety of ways. They asked her to rate how much each guy seemed to like her, and they recorded the amount of money paid by the clients and the number of times during the following month the men returned.
When all the data was collected, the results were clear. The hypothesis that a hard-to-get prostitute would be more desirable was flat-out wrong. Clients were far less likely to return after being warned off. Apparently men who visit prostitutes don’t like them to be too fussy.
In subsequent experiments conducted at a dating service, the researchers corroborated that these results applied to all romantic interactions, not just to prostitute-client relationships. Men, despite what romance columnists say, do not like women who are uniformly hard to get. What they do like, the Walsters figured out, are women who are selectively hard to get—who are cold and standoffish to all the other guys, but warm and receptive to them. So what the prostitute could have said to ensure repeat business was, “I won’t have much time because I’m going to start school soon, so I’ll only be able to see the people I like the best. Which means I’ll always have time for you.” However, this strategy has not yet been experimentally confirmed.
Walster, E., G. W. Walster, J. Piliavin, & L. Schmidt (1973). “ ‘Playing Hard To Get’: Understanding an Elusive Phenomenon.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 26 (1): 113–21.
Love at Last Call
Country music has doubtless made numerous contributions to the advancement of science, but it seldom has played a role as prominently as it did in James Pennebaker’s study of mating psychology in bars. Pennebaker was listening to Mickey Gilley’s classic song “Don’t the Girls All Get Prettier at Closing Time,” and he wondered, “Is that true? Do the girls really get prettier?” Determined to find out, he assigned teams of his students to visit bars near the Charlottesville campus of the University of Virginia one Thursday evening in 1977.
The two-member teams entered the bars at three separate times—nine o’clock, ten thirty, and midnight. They approached both male and female bar patrons who appeared to be alone, explained they were conducting a psychology study, and asked the patrons to rate the attractiveness of the other occupants of the bar on a scale of one to ten.
Gilley, it turned out, was right. Men did rate the women as more attractive as closing time neared. Likewise for the women’s ratings of the men. But attractiveness ratings for members of the same sex decreased. (Evidently the teams visited heterosexual watering holes.)
Pennebaker suggested these results demonstrated “reactance theory
”—as our time to make a decision lessens, we react by panicking and thinking all the choices look pretty good. So as bar patrons run out of time to decide whom to go home with, all possible romantic partners begin to seem equally compelling. However, Pennebaker conceded the results could also be an effect of increased alcohol intake skewing people’s judgment as the night progressed. This is popularly known as the beer-goggle phenomenon.
Pennebaker’s methodology and reasoning seemed sound, but subsequent attempts to replicate his study produced mixed results. A 1983 study obtained similar results at a blue-collar country-and-western bar in Georgia, but not at a college bar. A 1984 study in Madison, Wisconsin, entirely failed to replicate Pennebaker’s results. It found that ratings of perceived attractiveness declined as closing time approached, especially the ratings women gave to men. Nor did alcohol intake appear to have an effect on ratings.
In 1996 a study in Toledo, Ohio, attempted to resolve these disparate findings by asking more specific questions of bar patrons. It found the closing-time effect did exist, but only for people who specified they were single. People in a relationship apparently did not feel the same pressure to lower their standards as the minute hand neared last orders, because they knew they didn’t need to make a choice. They were already taken, so to speak. The researchers warned, “One important implication of these findings is that those who should be discriminating in choosing a partner (i.e., those not in a relationship) may make unwise and later regrettable choices.” This doesn’t come as news to all the battle-scarred veterans of the late-night dating scene.