People with a busy social life 'have bigger amygdala'
BBC, 26 December 2010 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-12061489
The original article:
Amygdala volume and social network size in humans.
Bickart KC et al., Nat Neurosci. 2010 (Not open access; I haven’t read it regrettably.)It does make sense: the amygdala is associated with emotional processing in response to peripheral and visual stimuli; the visual processing such as facial recognitions is prerequisite of social life; social networking online in particular demands constant visual processing of photos, figures and symbols, coordinated and presented with touches of personal tastes, often in evocative manners of human emotions of some sorts. It could well be an innate tendency of the brain to favour enhanced utilisation of the parts relatively developing as the activities involved are perceived as more pleasurable and rewarding, reinforcing such activities. As expected, Facebook is now the third most visited site online following Google and Microsoft:
According to research group comScore, the social network Facebook has taken third place on the global web audience rankings. GNT, 30 December 2010.
http://us.generation-nt.com/facebook-comscore-audience-web-news-2658031.html
Facebook, Twitters, YouTube, iTunes’ Ping etc... we could see the bright side of all these in that the media allow communications among individuals who are alike, or opposed in some argumentative cases, regardless of their background. Such integrations undoubtedly facilitate learning processes whilst constantly eliciting novel ideas, as well as providing opportunities for cross-cultural assessment and behavioural observations on various kinds.
Amygdala in fears and anxiety
The amygdala is also responsible for affects such as fears and anxiety. The lateral nucleus of the amygdala (LA) is known to involve in fear conditioning, and the central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) participates in affective aspects of pain modulations which are independent of tissue injury. If the highly sociable individuals are to have larger amygdala, they are also expected to respond well, or possibly being hypersensitive, to the elements inductive of such affects.
Broadly defining, two possible explanations could be proposed to explain how the size of amygdala may associate with the keenness to socialise:
1) The larger amygdala has been developed as a consequence of compulsive social networking in highly social individuals; this in turn may consequent in increased fears and anxiety responses which are unfortunate accidental by-products;
2) The pronounced amygdala in highly sociable individuals is their innate property; in fact, social networking is evolved as a surviving skill, driven by their fears and anxieties, in attempt to minimise a sense of insecurity and their vulnerabilities to exogenous dangers or causes of threats.
The latter seems to make a better sense to me intuitively and logically. Although extended networking may increase a risk of containing some enemies and backstabbing traitors within, that could be counteracted by tightening bonds with trusted allies, who help watching out for potential causes of troubles. Taking the risk and managing a larger social group makes them appear more confident, reliable individuals, thereby gaining more backing of their fellows. To enhance and maintain close ties, one may need to actively reinforce sufficient connections - ending up spending more time in social networking, often accompanied with some struggles to defeat separation anxieties.
The fears and anxieties are therefore possible driving forces in compulsive social networking. If so, some pharmaceutical industries might be interested in selling anxiolytics to set free such IT-networking addicts from their desk/laptops and mobile devices when the situation becomes somewhat disabling, or having deteriorating effects on the other aspects of their lives such as jobs and family life etc.; but that is a very expensive way of dealing with such issues. What vitally required could simply be a good reassurance within a smaller, practically manageable group of closely encountering people who provide appropriate support to one another as needed, with a sense of integrity to communities or groups operating at local levels.
Do people with solitary attribute have smaller amygdala then?
Supposing the above hypothesis (i.e. anxiety facilitates social networking) is varied, I would like to state that the reverse case (i.e. loners have smaller amygdala) may not necessarily be true. Because one could possibly be conditioned to become a solitary being, who prefers to keep distances from the rest. Such individuals indeed often maintain high levels of anxiety, likely to be suffering from affective disorders to some degrees. Nevertheless, s/he prefers isolation because s/he has learnt from series of experiences that the others are: intrinsically selfish, egoistic, exploiting, manipulative, untrustworthy beings which cause nothing but troubles and harm upon them; and/or tiresome companies who rarely see through points besides. Such loners may find comforts in abstract entities, and in endearing feelings to certain person in distance, probably idealised, in attempt to maintain an optimistic belief in goodness still existing in human nature somewhere, as such thoughts provide a strong sense of hopefulness and purposes in life.
Hence it may not necessarily be true that unsociable ones are generally insensitive being with underdeveloped limbic regions of amygdala. It is, however, plausible that to some degrees their LA and CeA regions might have been neuroanatomically desensitised, or the associated cortical connections may have been loosen, by own protective mechanisms in responses to the unbearable quantity of affective pains, induced by traumatic communications and/or by lost communication with loved ones due to demise, neglect, or rejection.
Sociable or solitary, whichever the category anyone of concern or yourself may belong, we should be reminded of the plasticity of out brain. The living brain could modify connections within, as neuronal networks may rewire as necessary. Any affective states are in particular transient in nature. Humans are highly adaptable to virtually any environment, after all.
