CRYING IS EXTREMELY WEIRD.

CRYING IS EXTREMELY WEIRD.

When someone starts crying, most people completely lose their train of thought. Perhaps your own hostility is lessening and you feel compelled to treat them better, or perhaps you feel like you have to go into problem-solving mode to get them to stop. And the reason for that is that crying modifies our bodies. Tears are a real psychological deception. But only if they are real, as phony ones force your brain to react very differently. This is what transpires when you smell, see, or hear someone crying. Babies are expert manipulators; they will make you want to take care of them constantly. If only they could accomplish it with their endearing giggles rather than their incessant sobbing.

Babies are not able to cry with tears immediately after birth as it takes a few weeks for them to develop the ability to produce tears. However, the sight of a crying infant can still elicit a specific response in the brain, different from the response triggered by a teary-eyed adult. A study conducted in The Netherlands and Italy compared the reactions of women without children when looking at pictures of tearful infants and adults. The researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to observe the brain activity of the participants while witnessing the crying individuals.

The findings revealed that infant tears generated a stronger response compared to adult tears. This "stronger response" was observed in the regions of the brain responsible for processing visual images, which were more active when participants viewed pictures of infants crying. The researchers suggested that crying babies should be given more attention than crying adults. Additionally, the images of infant tears also activated the somatosensory cortex of the participants' brains, which is associated with processing physical sensations like pain.

This suggests that the sight of infant tears may evoke a strong emotional response, motivating individuals to take action to alleviate the baby's distress, beyond the impact of their piercing screams. A baby's cries can instill fear in anyone about to board a long-distance flight. This is understandable from an evolutionary perspective, as infants rely on others for assistance. Similarly, someone who is losing a fight naturally wants it to end. Interestingly, tears can also play a role in this. Research has shown that the mere sight or smell of tears can have an impact on our emotions.

A study conducted by universities in Israel and the US found that sniffing someone else's tears can reduce aggression by almost half, but only in specific circumstances. In this study, women collected tears from their own cheeks while watching sad movie scenes, which were then compared to salt-water that had rolled down the same cheeks. Male participants were then asked to enter an MRI scanner to observe their brain's response to either real or fake tears while undergoing an aggression assessment. It is worth noting that all the tears came from women, and the participants being tested for aggression were all men, which may reinforce gender stereotypes.

However, let's keep this limitation in mind. Moving on to the aggression test, after settling into the MRI scanner, the participants played a competitive online game involving money. The researchers also informed them that their opponent would be another human. They were actually competing against an algorithm that was designed to play unfairly and occasionally take money from the player. This could definitely anger someone. However, instead of waiting for the player to become extremely angry and flip the table, the researchers measured aggression by determining how much revenge the participants sought in the game. Specifically, they had the option to deduct money from their opponent's winnings, even though they wouldn't benefit from it.

They simply didn't want the rude algorithm, which they didn't realize was not another human, to receive that money. By comparing the total number of times a player chose to deduct their opponent's winnings to the total number of times the algorithm provoked the player, the researchers were able to calculate a player's "aggression metric". The aggression metrics for the men who smelled genuine tears were, on average, a significant 43.7% lower than the aggression metrics for the group that smelled fake tears.

However, it is uncertain whether we can conclude from this result that smelling someone's tears generally reduces aggression. However, we have not yet discussed the MRI aspect. During the study, the players were inside a large scanner, allowing scientists to continuously monitor how their brains reacted to tears and how those tears influenced aggression. The results showed that when the participants smelled real tears, the part of their brain responsible for detecting smells sent more signals to the amygdala, which helps regulate aggression, instructing it to calm down. The researchers went even further by conducting experiments with cells in a dish, exposing them to tears to understand how tears initiate a decrease in aggression.

They tested 62 different smell receptors and identified four that were highly sensitive to tears. Surprisingly, tears have a scent, and the brain processes this scent in the same region as it does for odors. Additionally, some of the odor receptors are connected to the brain region associated with aggression. So, does this mean that I should secretly introduce tears into my friend's reed diffuser when we gather for a board game night to avoid his confrontational cousin? Well, it might be worth a try, but further research is needed.

Tears have various effects on us, not just suppressing negative responses. In addition, they also promote positive emotions. A research conducted by New York University and Harvard Medical School discovered that individuals tend to trust others more when they observe tears streaming down their face. Surprisingly, these conclusions were derived from a series of game-playing activities. The first game involved participants taking on the role of a merchant in a world where 10 cents holds significant value.

They had to decide whether or not to invest this amount in a farmer who would use the money to grow food, potentially resulting in a profitable return for the merchant. There were three possible outcomes: if the merchant chose not to invest, they would end the game with 10 cents; if they invested and received the farmer's output to sell, they would have 15 cents; but if they invested and never saw the farmer again, they would receive nothing. Although this game may not sound particularly enjoyable, it was still considered more favorable than playing Monopoly.

It is important to note that the farmer in question was not an anonymous figure; their facial expression played a crucial role. Participants were shown silent videos of a person with a neutral face, either with tears or without, and were informed that this person represented their farmer. Ultimately, more participants chose to invest in the crying farmer rather than the stoic one. To gain a deeper understanding of this result, the researchers also had the participants rate the farmer on various factors. And farmers who were crying were considered to be sadder, which is understandable, but also more trustworthy, which is a bit strange. The level of trustworthiness was more closely related to investments than sadness. However, it is peculiar to associate trustworthiness with tears.

To investigate if people simply felt sorry for the crying farmers, another experiment was conducted. In this alternate version of the game, participants were fund allocators instead of investors. They had to give away the money, and it was only a matter of who they chose to give it to. Unlike the previous game, where participants had the potential to earn 15 cents or nothing, in this game they knew they wouldn't receive anything. Therefore, this game tested altruism more than the first one. Surprisingly, tears did not significantly influence the participants' decision to allocate funds.

They generally gave the same amount of money to both those who cried and those who didn't. In this scenario where there was no chance for a payout, the trustworthiness rating was not associated with tears. In other words, tears do not seem to have a universally altruistic effect. The context, including the type of relationship one has with a person, plays a significant role. Now, after learning about the various ways crying can be used to manipulate people, you may be concerned that someone will use this power against you.

However, it turns out that these benefits cannot be forced because many people can easily detect fake crying. A research conducted in Portugal and the UK discovered that our brains react in distinct ways to genuine crying compared to fake crying. Initially, the researchers gathered audio recordings of individuals either genuinely recalling distressing experiences and shedding real tears, or pretending to cry while maintaining complete control of their emotions. Subsequently, they observed the brain activity of participants as they listened to these crying recordings using electroencephalograms (EEGs) instead of MRI scanners mentioned earlier.

This allowed them to understand the neural processes occurring in their minds. EEGs provide researchers with various measurements based on the electrical activity in the brain. In this particular study, the researchers found that genuine crying resulted in a significantly higher output compared to fake crying when examining the overall brain response. However, there was also a distinct pattern in the EEG readings that indicated fake cries were much more pronounced. It is important to note that just because an EEG can detect these differences, it does not necessarily mean that one's conscious mind can easily identify deception solely based on someone's cries.

Nevertheless, if an individual trusts their ability to distinguish between authenticity and falsehood, their brain can assist in guiding them in the right direction. It can process the visual stimulus of a crying infant, prompting a protective response, or evaluate the visual or olfactory cues of someone in distress, leading to a more relaxed and trusting demeanor in order to offer assistance. However, one's innate instincts prevent manipulation by liars using tearful deception. Therefore, tears can be seen as a force for good rather than evil.