Slashdot Mirror
Structure In Brain Linked To Varied Social Life
An anonymous reader writes "Scientists have discovered that the amygdala, a small, almond-shaped structure deep within the temporal lobe, is important to a rich and varied social life among humans. The finding was published this week in a new study in Nature Neuroscience and is similar to previous findings in other primate species, which compared the size and complexity of social groups across those species."
I'm allergic to almonds.
Get an amygdala!
I deny that I have not avoided attaining the opposite of that which I do not want.
So this explains that small, almond-shaped void space inside my head...
GET OFF MY LAWN!
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Hmmm. Isn't the amygdala the part of the brain fucked up by PTSD? Maybe that would explain why I scare off all my friends.
OK, by friends, I mean "the cashier at the supermarket" and such.
This space available.
I wonder how big my amy-whatever is. Probably missing in my brain...
I can't help but be struck by the seemingly limited amount of spatial and mathematical reasoning capabilities of many who have exceptional social intelligence. In fact, there seems to be an inverse relationship between the two traits. The evidence seems enough to even posit that there is a maximal beyond which it is impossible to expand new intelligence and thus the capacity must be split between various capabilities.
In some, the trait of sociability takes center stage whereas in others it is mathematical genius. Likewise, we see an exceptional ability of females to maximize their social circles. To whit, the mental capabilities of females and males being the same, it would seem that females would be more likely to develop large social circles and thrive within this mentally untaxing environment while males would thrive in problem solving and mental exercises requiring strenuous mental effort (such as in the hard sciences).
Taking this further, it also explains the apparent inability of many computer engineers to interact in normal social circles. With much of their brain showing traits of strong mathematical acuity, their amygdala itself is underdeveloped. Perhaps it is this unbalance that is the root cause of "geekiness".
Naturally, this is not the final word on all this, but it is an interesting step towards a more full biological understanding of character and intelligences.
My personal experience indicates that like so many things, social life is a matter of training, experience and desire. The people who have one actually make the effort and put the time into it, and unsurprisingly, get results. I'm fairly certain that geeks simply consider other things more important. I know if I want to, I can have a party every week and build up a good amount of friends. I know because I've been there, done it, and forgot to get a T-Shirt. But most of the time I simply don't care enough.
A very good (female) friend said not too long ago that keeping her social life up and running is essentially her 2nd full-time job.
Certainly brain structures make it easier for some people. Some people are just naturals, they make friends with the same ease I write a simple web-app. Evolution is great that way, giving some of us these talents and others those. But I'm afraid there will be way too many cheap cop-outs in the comments. "Ah that is why I have no friends." - no, lazybag. It is not that simple.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
That's right. There's a 1:1 correlation that Girls with big boobs have a big amygdala. Tall guys with high cheekbones and a chin you could trip over also have a big amygdala. I'm glad science has finally proved this.
it was the size of the pea brain that mattered.
Tiny correlation, can't conclude anything from it, and the media goes bananas.
Previous studies have tried to link social network size to the size of the neocortex. Through this it was estimated that humans have social networks upwards near 150 people. This was further backed up through other research.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/pphfpu3c39ee9009/
This study, however, doesn't seem to address the neocortex since they only checked for links among different subcortical structures. The journal article itself doesn't even address the neocortex. In fact the article claims to be in accord with the "social brain hypothesis" which was formulated by Dunbar who developed the idea that the neocortex could be linked to social network size, which is in complete contrast to a belief that social network size can be calculated from the amygdala in the limbic system.
So when you socialize more your amygdala gets bigger. That part of your brain is responsible for social activities. So hot girls have big amygdalas and nerdy guys have small amygdalas. At least there is one part of the brain of outgoing, social people that isn't underdeveloped. If they did anything other than chat with their friends, get drunk, and have sex they might avoid having an underdeveloped cerebral cortex. A choice between having a more developed cerebral cortex and a more developed amygdala ain't no choice at all.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
This just in!
Your brain defines your personality.
This is News at 11.
In that case, it probably also correlates with the number of friends in facebook. Since correlation is causation, we finally know why the amygdala evolved: to serve Web 2.0.
Quite seriously. "Oh, Brain part X is big/small/odd, so he has trait Y". Just because we can look past the skull now, we're no longer measuring bumps on the skull, we're measuring bumps inside. Essentially the same bull.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I dislike almond-shapes here, as the shape itself most probably has little or no bearing on the function. Why did the article mention it, at all? It makes the entire article read like something for a house-wife in the 1950s.
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nn.2724.html
Brief Communication? No reference to the concurrent larger study by the same authors?
Major parameter indicating activity - volume?
Fig 1 shows piss poor correlation that in my college physics lab would earn me a "redo".
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/vaop/ncurrent/extref/nn.2724-S1.pdf
Supp Tab 2 shows surface area (again, dubious parameter) and some kind of anchor labeling (ROI) (my guess, distances between those labels, but feel free to google it up).
Tab3 adds "mean cortical thickness" - again, integral parameter.
Size of sample is pathetic: 58 healthy adults (22 females; mean age M = 52.6, s.d. = 21.2, range = 19–83 years)
At this variation of age and God knows what other parameters, this is just plain unconvincing.
Besides all the dubious quality of this "brief communication", the results are predictable:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amygdala#Emotional_learning
"In complex vertebrates, including humans, the amygdalae perform primary roles in the formation and storage of memories associated with emotional events."
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Somehow I don't feel compelled to take this study seriously.
I thought my avoidance of social life was due to everyone being jerks. Now it is something to do with Anaglypta wallpaper? Maybe so, I have painted walls or Artex.
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Let's face it, all geeks and nerds here. Your social life is instantly determined the second you say "I work with computers" (Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz).
Also true are the words of Young MC (from Bust A Move) "Got no money and you got no car, then you got no woman, and there you are".
Take Nobody's Word For It.
... on basement dwelling species like Slashdotters?
Have gnu, will travel.
So the portion of the brain already known to be responsible for emotional response is tied to social achievements?
What next? Will they figure out that the cerebral cortex is somehow linked to getting good grades?
Being socially acute, diplomatic, engaged and engaging requires a full-on use of all faculties and senses. In most situations, maybe not taste. It is a 'live action' performance of your mind weighing and balancing sensory input, subtle cues, in a sort of dance of ideas, camaraderie and debate that is exhilarating and a bit frightening.
Perhaps that is why Turing chose the test he did, rather than asking for the solution to Fermats last theorem.