I suspect that this is something
very important. Skip the rest of the
brain. This is the switch box for
emotional coding, or at this point we can presume that is true. Why this is important is that it is my
opinion at least that our entire decision making is done through emotional
loading. This is the principle reason it
is so difficult to undo a bad conception in the real world even in the face of
mounting evidence. Objectivity and
balance only comes after the emotional outburst on confronting the changing
facts on the ground.
I am sure that the above
conjecture may well be violently opposed by those who have bought into another
specialist dogma. As an aside, in my
manuscript titled ‘Paradigms Shift’ I introduce a whole range of new
conceptions. What I found intriguing is
that my sample audience all had the same reaction. They agreed and enjoyed all of the material
until they hit a specific topic that they thought themselves well versed on. At that point the rejection was
palpable. It was different for every
reader.
Everyone has a large emotional
loading attached to material they trained on and studied. Rejecting that, however dated is difficult
and few are truly ready for it.
For now we discover that this
switch box tracks our social network in particular, but also strongly suggests
that my argument that the natural village size is properly around 150. I would like to revisit that idea. The data suggests that key individuals
develop the social networking capacity that in fact links the rest in terms of
their own capacity.
This means that we need to design
of virtual community in terms of a range of sub social networks to fully
understand it. Obvious when one thinks
it through, but only after one sees the data.
Amygdala at the centre of your social
network
A larger emotion-processing brain
centre is linked to a bigger circle of friends.
Janelle
Weaver
The size of your amygdala (circled) indicates
the extent of your social network. Brad
Dickerson
How many
friends do you have? A rough answer can be predicted by the size of a small,
almond-shaped brain structure that is present in a wide range of vertebrates,
scientists report today in Nature
Neuroscience.
The
researchers studied the amygdala, which is involved in inter-personal functions
such as interpreting emotional facial expressions, reacting to visual threats
and trusting strangers. Inter-species comparisons in non-human primates have
previously shown that amygdala volume is associated with troop size, suggesting
that the brain region supports skills necessary for a complex social life1.
On the
basis of these past findings, psychologist Lisa Feldman Barrett of Northeastern University
in Boston , Massachusetts , wondered whether a larger
amygdala size allows some humans to build a richer social world.
Barrett's
team measured the amygdala volume in 58 healthy adults using brain images
gathered during magnetic resonance imaging sessions. To construct social
networks, the researchers asked the volunteers how many people they kept in
regular contact with, and how many groups those individuals belonged to.
They
found that participants who had bigger and more complex social networks had
larger amygdala volumes. This effect did not depend on the age of the
volunteers or their own perceived social support or life satisfaction, suggesting
that happiness is not the underlying causal factor that links the size of this
brain structure in an individual to their number of friends2.
"We'd
all predict this relationship should be found, but [the authors] did it in a
very smart way by ruling out other variables," says cognitive
neuroscientist Kevin Ochsner of Columbia
University in New York City . "That's why I think this
paper is going to end up being a citation classic, because it demonstrates the
relationship in a way that gives you confidence that it's real," he adds.
Brain teaser
But it's
still a mystery how the amygdala contributes to social networks. Perhaps the
structure's response to faces, emotions or emotional memories influences
whether someone decides to develop and maintain relationships, says Brad
Dickerson, a cognitive neuroscientist at Massachusetts General Hospital in
Boston, who helped lead the study.
It's
likely that social behaviour relies on a much broader set of brain regions,
Dickerson says. In the future, the team will use functional neuroimaging
approaches to determine the relationship between patterns of brain activity in
an individual and the size of social groups to which they belong.
Another
important question is whether a big amygdala is a cause or a consequence of
having a large social network. "In the end, it's probably some of
both," Ochsner says. "But you first had to establish that the
relationship really exists before you could address those critical
questions."
·
References
No comments:
Post a Comment