New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Immorality and Twitter

The other week headlines were crying out that Twitter, the microblogging platform, makes us immoral, but the study on which the claim was made did not mention social media. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

The other week saw people climbing the walls of the “twittersphere” with some claiming that Twitter—the brief blogging platform—makes us immoral.

The controversy was a good example of the danger of popculture references when explaining science. You’ve got to make sure it’s accurate in these days of Susan-Boyle-instant-stories.

The research in question, published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that emotions of compassion and admiration are triggered deep within the brain, where anger and fear resides. The study also found that the brain takes four to six seconds longer to process compassion for social pain, than for physical pain.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


This is where Twitter comes in: Any so-called painful Tweets may literally arrive and disappear too fast for our brain to register the appropriate deep-felt emotion. Or so claimed some press coverage. Facebook and Twitter may thus make us bad people; instant messaging makes us mean, the headlines read. To be sure, the original “leap” to Twitter came from the university’s own press release. (The reference has since been removed.)

Blogs erupted: Neurocritic, Language Log, Bad Science, and others, all posted pieces correcting the hype. Because of a research embargo, the actual paper was released to journalists a week before release to the public and other scientists. And the paper makes zero mention of Twitter or social media. It’s most interesting finding, in fact, is that the neural source for such complex emotions is well below the cortex, and thus far from the influence of “cultural artifacts.”

Which sort of says it all, doesn’t it?  Tweet, tweet. 

—Christie Nicholson

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe