The Friendly Brain

Astromama I think you missed the point of the article and your rebuttle is too simplistic. The questions being asked now are more complicated than nature vs. nurture. The question answered here is can you alter your social skills or other skills by engaging in behaviors that physically alter the structure of your brain. The answer in some of the cases is yes (see the taxi drivers and violinists). And although we begin to develop our personalities shortly after being born there is evidence that events in our lives can change how those traits manifest by altering the physical structure of the brain (MRIs combined with questioning psychopathic serial killers). You mention children and their early personalities. If you were to start beating your children at intervals that are not predictable I am sure you would notice a change in their personalities, showing that the personality traits are not as stable as you are indicating.

She wrote this article as over the last 20 years if the question of "nature vs nurture" has not already been shown to be heavily weighted in nature's favor. Study after study has demonstrated that we are born with a certain set of personality characteristics. Our experience, behavioral training etc. can shape our personality traits to varying extents, but as anyone who's ever had a child knows, each of us begins to manifest our individual personalities only days after being born.

42 men. From 1 country. And they based this on people's perceptions of themselves (we all know how accurate that is). Um, anyone else wondering if maybe these results are a bit unreliable?

Thank you for callling them out on this. While I haven't read the actual studies as a scientist it always irritates when to paraphase sherlock holmes scientists start to twist the facts to match the hypothesis as opposed to changing the hypothesis to match the facts.

And isn't it ironic that an institution that owes it's very existence to the First Amendment would censor my last comment?

That bleeped out word is: b*tches, BTW

And just to add to what gelucas said: "Are our brains to blame if we're condescending journalists with poor ethics who use inflammatory headlines to try to sell stories?"

"Or are we just stuck up ***?"

What is wrong with not being a 'socialite'? If not for loners and thinkers, we wouldn't have a lot of the inventions we have. Of couse, some scheming extrovert came along, stole the ideas and profitted from them, but such is the curse.

QUIT CONDEMING INTROVERSION AS A DISEASE! I'm glad my brain was developed before I was born, and didn't have to developed later through social interaction.

Where I work, it is typically the people spend the most time flittering around the office chatting with everyone instead of doing work who are most often in trouble with management. They are the ones who tend to break rules in the name of doing favors for their friends and in doing so usually end up creating a larger mess for the group as a whole to deal with. Ironically, those who are best at making friends also seem to be best at making enemies as well - they encourage others like them while badmouthing the people who don't give them the social high they're looking for.

So now I'm confused. Why is the capable half of society required to explain their social reclusion? Are we supposed to apologize for not feeding other people's addictions?

I think the title to this article should have been "Is our brain to blame if we ARE sociable?"

Where I work, it is typically the people spend the most time flittering around the office chatting with everyone instead of doing work who are most often in trouble with management. They are the ones who tend to break rules in the name of doing favors for their friends and in doing so usually end up creating a larger mess for the group as a whole to deal with. Ironically, those who are best at making friends also seem to be best at making enemies as well - they encourage others like them while badmouthing the people who don't give them the social high they're looking for.

So now I'm confused. Why is the capable half of society required to explain their social reclusion? Are we supposed to apologize for not feeding other people's addictions?

I think the title to this article should have been "Is our brain to blame if we ARE sociable?"

Alright all you introverts it is time to get together and stand up for your rights!!!! Apparently there is something to "blame" if you are not an extrovert. Oh yeah we are introverts so we don't do that. Guess we will have to continue listening to the extroverts spout off about how wrong we are. I guess we will have to just take our potshots as individuals. Here's mine. Frankly I found the author to be as ugly as the slant in her article!

This study completely overstates the role of genetics in personality. MRI studies tell you how aspects of brain structure are *linked* to traits such as sociability, but tell you absolutely nothing about where those differences in brain structure came from.

More relevant is what twin studies say about the genetic basis of personality. Twin studies tell you about genetics because identical twins share 100% of genetics. Twin studies show time and time again that about 50% of differences in personality is due to genetics. The other 50% can be attributed to environment.

So, environment plays a far greater role in personality than this study - and the researchers - suggest.

Could this be the vindication that I've been seeking? I'm so tired of people telling me to be more of a people person. From childhood on all I've heard is 'go make friends.' This is not something that I wish to do. I've got three (3) siblings; one brother and two sisters. Only one of my sisters is a 'people' person; we others are socially aloof.
That does not mean that we are criminals, animal abusers or drug addicts! For me, I just don't feel that comfortable with a group of strangers trying to make nice. Seems kinda phony to me.

I am not all that social why ? Have you seen some of the other people on this planet ? Yikes I would rather be alone.

AMEN! to NeoBlackdog!! Being less socially dependant is not a curse. Not all humans are pack animals and loners are not criminal. Social confidence or maturity sometimes is evident in our ability to not NEED social interaction as much as the average bear.

Thank you sooooo much for classifying me as an aloof, detached, anti-social loner..... Makes me feel like I have a lot in common with old Ted Kazynsky. If people would learn to be a little less "socially dependent" then maybe more folks would think for themselves rather than following the herd over the cliff as our society seems to be doing.

What this article fails to take into account is how much life experience colors social interactions. When I was younger I found it easier to be comfortable around strangers, but at 47 my life experience -- much of it bad -- has taught me to be extremely guarded around people I don't know well. Trusting others has hurt me both physically and emotionally, so it's very hard for me to do that. I'm pretty sure my brain structure had been altered because of what's happened to me, that when I was younger whatever area of the brain that governs human interaction and trust was very different. Is there any study which examines that idea?

is this an editorial, or a news story? It is clear of the 'journalist's' opinion on this subject will all of the weighted words that she uses.

"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.'"

There's a hook? I find the assertion that it's necessary to be the social butterfly more than a bit annoying. After all, the "people person" is characterized as having "social reward dependence." Another word for dependence is addiction. Not such a rosy picture now, is it?

Nearly all of the great advances in human science, technology, and thought were made by individuals who did not display "social reward dependence." Perhaps the herd ought to take notice of this.