Slashdot Mirror
Personality Traits Are Linked To Differences In Brain Structure, Says Researchers (neurosciencenews.com)
New submitter baalcat quotes a report from Neuroscience News: Our personality may be shaped by how our brain works, but in fact the shape of our brain can itself provide surprising clues about how we behave -- and our risk of developing mental health disorders -- suggests a study published today. According to psychologists, the extraordinary variety of human personality can be broken down into the so-called 'Big Five' personality traits, namely neuroticism (how moody a person is), extraversion (how enthusiastic a person is), openness (how open-minded a person is), agreeableness (a measure of altruism), and conscientiousness (a measure of self-control). In a study published today in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, an international team of researchers from the UK, US, and Italy have analyzed a brain imaging dataset from over 500 individuals that has been made publicly available by the Human Connectome Project, a major US initiative funded by the National Institutes of Health. In particular, the researchers looked at differences in the brain cortical anatomy (the structure of the outer layer of the brain) as indexed by three measures -- the thickness, area, and amount of folding in the cortex -- and how these measures related to the Big Five personality traits. The study has been published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience.
So it would be nice if the summary linked to the actual study instead of the splash page for the journal. Some of the results wouldn't hurt either.
Neuroticism was associated with thicker cortex and smaller area and folding in prefrontal–temporal regions. Extraversion was linked to thicker pre-cuneus and smaller superior temporal cortex area. Openness was linked to thinner cortex and greater area and folding in prefrontal–parietal regions. Agreeableness was correlated to thinner prefrontal cortex and smaller fusiform gyrus area. Conscientiousness was associated with thicker cortex and smaller area and folding in prefrontal regions. ... Cortical thickness and surface area/folding were inversely related each others as a function of different FFM traits (neuroticism, extraversion and consciousness vs openness), which may reflect brain maturational effects that predispose or protect against psychiatric disorders.
It's like peeling the phrenological onion
I don't think that extraversion is usually defined as "how enthusiastic a person is". On the contrary, Wikipedia defines it thus:
"Extraversion is the state of primarily obtaining gratification from outside oneself.[4] Extraverts tend to enjoy human interactions and to be enthusiastic, talkative, assertive, and gregarious. Extraverts are energized and thrive off being around other people. They take pleasure in activities that involve large social gatherings, such as parties, community activities, public demonstrations, and business or political groups. They also tend to work well in groups.[5] An extraverted person is likely to enjoy time spent with people and find less reward in time spent alone. They tend to be energized when around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by themselves". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I imagine that Slashdotters, on average, have a much higher tendency to be introverted. It's not that extraverts can't be good at technical work - one could cite many examples to the contrary - just that it's easier to put a lot of time and effort into thinking if you don't have a lot of social commitments as well. But surely no one could claim that introverts necessarily lack enthusiasm. It just manifests in different ways.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Which part of the brain is responsible for modifying the configuration of the brain. You know, the one that makes cognitive behavioral therapy work. In other words, where does meta thinking happen and what parts of the brain are responsible for that? That's an INFINITELY more interesting question.
We'll make great pets
Even neuroscience is jumping on the "fast five" bandwagon. Ugh!
Look, buddy, if you want to go to war, please do so, go ahead and get shot, nobody will hold you back.
In the meantime we'll stay here and find a way to coexist, ok? I guess that makes everyone happy.
See? We're open to your ideas. And we even support you!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
We are not at all sure. But for the members of the fundamentalist quasi-religion "physicalism" it is obvious, because people must be purely physical beings in their view. That view is not based on scientific fact though, because science makes no such claim.
Incidentally, both personality and brains-structure could be caused by a third factor, making the correlation between both a secondary effect.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
The summary leaves me very concerned about the quality of the research.
agreeableness == a measure of altruism
WTF
Is this an industry term which I've never heard about?
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
It's an alternative fact that it's literally 1984.
With computers, you'll see again and again that software architecture is heavily influenced by what is easy to achieve and/or efficient for a given piece of hardware. Humans' learning naturally gravitates towards ease and efficiency, so it is hardly surprising that this shows up in the brain. The thing that is hard to show, however, is the degree to which the interplay between personality and brain-structure influences the brain's development.
John_Chalisque
The Big Five is often studied, but is a really poor personality paradigm. It's based on randomly chosen traits, it's not orthogonal, it's not complete, and it's only frequently used in research because it's essentially a research fad that refuses to die.
I'm no warmonger, but as Jefferson said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
I vote tyrants.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Yes and no. At this point in history, approximately zero of our fighting has anything to do with keeping American citizens physically safe. America has created a kind of empire. And while it is a much kinder and civilized empire than those that came before, it is still vulnerable to the classic blunders of the old style empire, e.g. the Vietnam War.
There is a Chinese saying: "To love war will ruin the nation; to forget warfare endangers everyone."
IMHO, America suffers for loving war far too much, at this point in history.
People who love war are often quick to accuse any other opinion as advocating a complete forgetting of warfare. Of course, that is just the Black-Or-White fallacy. Arguing for less war in the context of the America of today, does not mean arguing for zero wars or zero warfare.
I would take issue with your first assertion. The memory, record, and threat of our bellicose foreign interactions are a deterrent for all of our adversaries.
Historical examples of a gov't's leaders being willing to accept casualties has some positive deterrent value. But "bellicose foreign interactions" have both positive and negative deterrent value, in the case of the US.
For example, WBush made a big show of talking tough but no one ever backed down an inch in response -- he got walked all over by everyone he did not get around to actually invaded, which is really quite a long list. Furthermore, his legacy set a dangerous precedent that perhaps US military action will have nothing to do with the strategic reality and everything to do with American domestic politics. What is the point of a foreign leader backing down, when US policy is often driven by ideology and polls, which rational negotiations cannot be expected to address?