Newsweek article -interesting The Friendly Brain

[Guest guest]

The Friendly Brain

Is our biology to blame if we're not the sociable type?

Sharon Begley

Newsweek Web Exclusive

May 28, 2009 | Updated: 4:52 p.m. ET May 28, 2009

There must be something deep in the human soul that makes us blame fate, birth,

our parents and all sorts of other things beyond our control for how we turn

out, and scientists are no less guilty of this. Case in point: a study published

in the European Journal of Neuroscience this week concludes that something about

the way the brain develops from birth (or earlier) leads some of us to be people

persons—socially gregarious, enjoying the company of others—and some of us to be

more aloof.

True, the scientists hedge their bets by making the requisite acknowledgement

that people's experience and behavior might act to alter their brain structure,

something for which there is ample (and growing) evidence. (My favorites: London

taxicab drivers develop a larger hippocampus (that's the site of spatial memory,

a good thing to have to navigate London streets) and violin players develop

larger somatosensory cortexes in regions devoted to the digits of their

fingering hand. But the title of this latest bit of research tells it all: " The

brain structural disposition to social interaction. " Translation: brain

structure comes first, and the result is that you are either a warm, friendly

people person who delights in the company of others or a detached, independent,

antisocial loner.

The study itself was straightforward. Scientists led by Maël Lebreton and Graham

Murray of the University of Cambridge had 4,349 men born in Finland in 1966 fill

out a questionnaire that assesses sociability. (The men rated themselves on such

points as whether such statements as " I make a warm personal connection with

most people " and " I like to please other people as much as I can " describe

them.) A high score means a high disposition to social relationships, emotional

warmth and sociability called social reward dependence—a people person. A low

score indicates a tendency to be socially insensitive and aloof.

The scientists then analyzed MRI scans of the brains of 41 of the men. They

found associations between being a people person and the density of gray matter

in two brain regions, orbitofrontal cortex (the outer strip just above the eyes)

and the ventral striatum (deep in the center of the brain), both known to play a

key role in predicting how rewarding something will be. (A high volume or

density of gray matter is linked to enhanced cognitive or behavioral function.)

" Traits, such as being warm, affectionate, agreeable, sociable, amiable or

sympathetic . . . reflect an underlying capacity to experience reward elicited

by affiliative stimuli, " the scientists write—a capacity, that is, to take

pleasure in social situations.

While dutifully admitting that " our study cannot explain the causality behind

the associations, " the scientists speculate that the extra density of gray

matter in regions that find social situations rewarding has its roots in brain

development, " ultimately being manifested in a temperament predisposed towards

social interaction. " In other words, whether or not you're a people person is

established long before you so much as lay eyes on other people, that is, before

birth. Murray told me by e-mail that his " guess is [that the brain structure

differences are] due to genetics, though he adds, " I do think it's possible

that, once these areas develop more in certain individuals . . . and then there

is more social behavior, this could foster further growth in these regions—a

snowball type effect. "

The reason the interpretation of such results matters—that is, which came first,

the brain structure or the experience and behavior?—can be seen in early

reaction to the study. Already Websites are asserting, for instance, that " Ten

or twenty years from now this research will lead to the identification of

genetic variants for personality types and then the ability to choose these

genetic variants for their children. "

Really? Why is it not equally likely that this research and the many other

studies showing that the lives we lead affect the function and structure of the

brain will instead lead to the understanding that the brain we wind up with

reflects the choices we make about what we think and do? Thinking in a certain

way can alter the pathological patterns of brain activity behind obsessive

compulsive disorder (OCD). Meditation can increase the thickness of the brain's

cortex. In this case, it seems at least possible that engaging in lots of social

activities increases the gray matter in certain regions of the brain, rather

than vice versa. Apparently it's a whole lot easier to think that you're stuck

with the brain you're born with. It certainly lets you off the hook if, in

explaining why you're a social recluse, you can simply say, " My brain made me do

it. "

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199879

=====

[Guest guest]

Thank you, that was interesting. In other contexts, I have heard gray matter

depicted as a negative thing.

I took a psychology class in college awhile ago and proposed to my instructor

that maybe there was a gene for being shy and reserved. My husband and his

father are both this way. I'm not the most social person either and my father

is also this type. I can talk to people, but I have a difficult time reading

their body language or relating to them empathetically. I also hurt people's

feelings sometimes by being too blunt about things. If I am to be empathetic,

it must be a conscious effort because it certainly doesn't come naturally.

A really good book to help yourself or your kids build these " people skills " is

available on the web. It was required reading for one of my college courses and

probably the most valuable and useful piece I have ever read. It is called

" Emotional Literacy: Intelligence With A Heart " , by Claude Steiner.

<http://www.emotional-literacy.com/2000.htm>

-- In , " kiddietalk " <kiddietalk@...> wrote:

>

> The Friendly Brain

>

> Is our biology to blame if we're not the sociable type?

> Sharon Begley

> Newsweek Web Exclusive

> May 28, 2009 | Updated: 4:52 p.m. ET May 28, 2009

>

> There must be something deep in the human soul that makes us blame fate,

birth, our parents and all sorts of other things beyond our control for how we

turn out, and scientists are no less guilty of this. Case in point: a study

published in the European Journal of Neuroscience this week concludes that

something about the way the brain develops from birth (or earlier) leads some of

us to be people persons—socially gregarious, enjoying the company of others—and

some of us to be more aloof.

>

> True, the scientists hedge their bets by making the requisite acknowledgement

that people's experience and behavior might act to alter their brain structure,

something for which there is ample (and growing) evidence. (My favorites: London

taxicab drivers develop a larger hippocampus (that's the site of spatial memory,

a good thing to have to navigate London streets) and violin players develop

larger somatosensory cortexes in regions devoted to the digits of their

fingering hand. But the title of this latest bit of research tells it all: " The

brain structural disposition to social interaction. " Translation: brain

structure comes first, and the result is that you are either a warm, friendly

people person who delights in the company of others or a detached, independent,

antisocial loner.

>

> The study itself was straightforward. Scientists led by Maël Lebreton and

Graham Murray of the University of Cambridge had 4,349 men born in Finland in

1966 fill out a questionnaire that assesses sociability. (The men rated

themselves on such points as whether such statements as " I make a warm personal

connection with most people " and " I like to please other people as much as I

can " describe them.) A high score means a high disposition to social

relationships, emotional warmth and sociability called social reward

dependence—a people person. A low score indicates a tendency to be socially

insensitive and aloof.

>

> The scientists then analyzed MRI scans of the brains of 41 of the men. They

found associations between being a people person and the density of gray matter

in two brain regions, orbitofrontal cortex (the outer strip just above the eyes)

and the ventral striatum (deep in the center of the brain), both known to play a

key role in predicting how rewarding something will be. (A high volume or

density of gray matter is linked to enhanced cognitive or behavioral function.)

" Traits, such as being warm, affectionate, agreeable, sociable, amiable or

sympathetic . . . reflect an underlying capacity to experience reward elicited

by affiliative stimuli, " the scientists write—a capacity, that is, to take

pleasure in social situations.

>

> While dutifully admitting that " our study cannot explain the causality behind

the associations, " the scientists speculate that the extra density of gray

matter in regions that find social situations rewarding has its roots in brain

development, " ultimately being manifested in a temperament predisposed towards

social interaction. " In other words, whether or not you're a people person is

established long before you so much as lay eyes on other people, that is, before

birth. Murray told me by e-mail that his " guess is [that the brain structure

differences are] due to genetics, though he adds, " I do think it's possible

that, once these areas develop more in certain individuals . . . and then there

is more social behavior, this could foster further growth in these regions—a

snowball type effect. "

>

> The reason the interpretation of such results matters—that is, which came

first, the brain structure or the experience and behavior?—can be seen in early

reaction to the study. Already Websites are asserting, for instance, that " Ten

or twenty years from now this research will lead to the identification of

genetic variants for personality types and then the ability to choose these

genetic variants for their children. "

>

> Really? Why is it not equally likely that this research and the many other

studies showing that the lives we lead affect the function and structure of the

brain will instead lead to the understanding that the brain we wind up with

reflects the choices we make about what we think and do? Thinking in a certain

way can alter the pathological patterns of brain activity behind obsessive

compulsive disorder (OCD). Meditation can increase the thickness of the brain's

cortex. In this case, it seems at least possible that engaging in lots of social

activities increases the gray matter in certain regions of the brain, rather

than vice versa. Apparently it's a whole lot easier to think that you're stuck

with the brain you're born with. It certainly lets you off the hook if, in

explaining why you're a social recluse, you can simply say, " My brain made me do

it. "

> URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/199879

>

> =====

>