Personality Traits Are Linked To Differences In Brain Structure, Says Researchers (neurosciencenews.com) 212
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.
Actual study (Score:5, Informative)
So it would be nice if the summary linked to the actual study [oup.com] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actual study (Score:5, Insightful)
So what this study actually does indicate is the areas of the brain that you exercise the most grow the biggest, whilst other areas shrink. It does not indicate why that change is originally trigged which is far more likely to be triggered in the cerebellum and temporal lobe, which will induce activity changes due to genetic biases (these thought preferences the cause certain parts of the brain to grow due to being repeatedly exercised). So a lack of an autonomic empathic response will cause many areas of the brain to shrink due to lack of activity whilst other areas grow, due to singular focus of the narcissist (those affected by a lack of an autonomic empathic response). Never forget diet and environment for also causing major cerebral differences and social biases ie lead poising in the majority of the US population, some worse than others, with a resulting high crime rate and a bias to anti-social politics (through use in fuels, lead water pipes and a love of firing lead at gun ranges).
Re: (Score:3)
"So what this study actually does indicate is the areas of the brain that you exercise the most grow the biggest, whilst other areas shrink."
The study doesn't mention 'exercise' as a factor in changing your personality after birth: the brain you are born with affects the personality you exhibit in life, and that's it.
Re: (Score:2)
"the brain you are born with affects the personality you exhibit in life, and that's it."
I wonder how you got that idea, and what happened to environmental shaping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is according to the study.
Re: (Score:3)
The study doesn't mention 'exercise' as a factor in changing your personality after birth: the brain you are born with affects the personality you exhibit in life, and that's it.
That's reading too much into this study. The idea that brain you have is what you're stuck with was the state of neuroscience when I went to college in the late 70s, but remember this was before researchers could image a brain in a living subject. Extrapolating from the lack of recovery of people with spinal cord injuries the belief was that nerve cells just didn't grow or multiply in an adult -- and they certainly didn't change function. Now we know from imaging studies and from clinical histories of br
Re: (Score:2)
I like the correlation to "thickness" neurotics have it, open creative agreeable people don't.
---------
Your wise man doesn't know how it feels to be thick as a brick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"So it would be nice if the summary linked to the actual study [oup.com] "
'This page can't be reached'
Re: (Score:2)
Time to dust off my phrenology calipers! Of course, now it looks like I'll have to remove the skull before performing any measurements...
Re: (Score:2)
If your read about the study, what they've got is a correlation between brain features and Big5 personality features, they don't even hint in the direction of biological determinism ("our personality may be shaped").
But don't be surprised if they start adding brain scans to
Phrenology TNG (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
So, should I consider a career in retrophrenology?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, I'm certainly willing to maintain a little skepticism, but your argument seems to be that because the shape of the skull isn't correlated with the function of the brain, then the shape of the brain also isn't correlated with the shape of the brain. I'm not sure that's a logical leap. There's at least a little more reason to think brain structure affects brain behavior.
Re:Phrenology TNG (Score:4, Funny)
There's at least a little more reason to think brain structure affects brain behavior.
In fact, it is fairly trivial to demonstrate that altering the brain structure (e.g. with a knitting needle) changes behavior.
Re: (Score:2)
In 1974 a psychiatrist wrote a book on brain shape and personality dysfunctions. Dr Durfee was my psychiatrist. My ears were only a little crooked.
Crooked ears and the bad boy syndrome: Asymmetry as an indicator of minimal brain dysfunction
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
Extraversion (Score:5, Interesting)
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/... [wikipedia.org]
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.
Re:Extraversion (Score:5, Interesting)
I imagine that Slashdotters, on average, have a much higher tendency to be introverted
And I believe you would be right but the difference between introverted and extroverted thinking models has nothing to do with outward interaction with people in the world. I'm a solid introvert (INTJ to be precise) and yet I have used my introverted thinking to reverse engineer many of the extroverted types thought process, so much in fact that when I interact with them, they can't tell I'm not one of them. What does that make me? I almost always get INTJ on the Myers Briggs, occasionally INTP but I can socialize much better than a lot of extroverts. I will admit, it does make me tired though. :)
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot socialize, you can blend in. I can tell 'cause I'm the same. I can easily blend into any crowd, but nine out of ten times this is actually stressful for me because I don't fit because I fit, I fit because I make myself fit. That's not exactly socializing...
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot socialize, you can blend in. I can tell 'cause I'm the same. I can easily blend into any crowd, but nine out of ten times this is actually stressful for me because I don't fit because I fit, I fit because I make myself fit. That's not exactly socializing...
It's not blending it's beyond that. I know what you mean by that. I can negotiate and interact and get results. I can gain favor with extroverts for reasons that only extroverts would know. I'm not a sociopath but I know how they do what they do. A sociopath implies that I have no conscience and would use this knowledge for malevolent purposes. I'm quite the opposite in terms of objectives. I use "mind hacking" for good. Essentially I've reversed the extrovert thinking down to a flow chart which is
Re: (Score:2)
I too am an introvert and can do well for short periods. But, can you sustain it? A week long vacation with a group of extroverts? I know for me that I would be way to exhausted after the first day while the extroverts would literally be high off the energy of the group.
Re: (Score:2)
I too am an introvert and can do well for short periods. But, can you sustain it? A week long vacation with a group of extroverts?
It depends on whether I'm compelled to do so. I can force myself to focus to do that but if there is no particular reason to do that, why bother?
Re: (Score:2)
Good, evil, definitions... You use it for a goal that you define. Per definition, a goal that you have is intrinsically good. Nobody goes and wants to do evil.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Extraversion (Score:4, Insightful)
[Extroverts] tend to be energized when around other people, and they are more prone to boredom when they are by themselves
I can socialize much better than a lot of extroverts. I will admit, it does make me tired though. :)
IMHO, this is the key bit -- introverts can often thrive in social activities, but they need their alone time to recharge eventually. For example, after a few hours of theatre rehearsals etc., I usually want to go home, while the others want to go to a bar or something. It's tricky because at that point I wouldn't mind a pint myself, but I've already used up my social energy for that day.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, this is the key bit -- introverts can often thrive in social activities, but they need their alone time to recharge eventually. For example, after a few hours of theatre rehearsals etc., I usually want to go home, while the others want to go to a bar or something. It's tricky because at that point I wouldn't mind a pint myself, but I've already used up my social energy for that day.
Exactly! And wouldn't you agree solitude is your blissful time [youtube.com] when you can think clearly and contemplate things? That is my favorite time and when I am most energized. That is the true sign of introverted thinking and there is nothing wrong with that.
Re: (Score:2)
INTP here, and I (think anyway) I do quite well socially. The difference is that I find the experience draining, and NEED lots of time to myself.
I have an adult son who a firm "E", but actually doesn't feel he's that great at it, and has bad issues with social anxiety. He spends way more time alone than I do.
The "E" vs "I" thing is mostly to do with what kind of environment you naturally prefer to be in. It says nothing about which ones you are good at.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One might define introvert as "someone who spends their time taking personality inventories online"...
Re:Extraversion (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a two-way street, actually. Extraverts don't just siphon the good stuff away from everyone around them; they also dump their bad stuff on everyone around them.
An introvert makes his own good and deals with his own bad and neither siphons nor dumps on everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
extroverts/communism (take the good from others and dumping their problems on others too)
vs.
introkverts/capitalism (work and suffer for your own gain, keep your own suffering to yourself too).
Re: (Score:2)
Many introverts are perfectly capable of extroverted interaction and even enjoy it. The real determinant is if you find it energizing or tiring. The introvert finds it tiring and so enjoys it in smaller and/or less frequent doses.
Re: (Score:2)
After the party on Friday, do you wonder who's throwing the Saturday party of do you prefer a night at home?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that extraversion is usually defined as "how enthusiastic a person is".
I was skimming posts to see if someone posted about the "agreeableness (a measure of altruism)"...who makes this shit up?
Is this next to Bears Shit In the Woods study... (Score:2, Redundant)
... on the library shelf?
So brain structure affects personality, who knew??
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you expect there to be bear shit in the woods does not in any way reduce the amount of information you can learn about the bear's life from looking at its shit.
I say that as somebody who spends a lot of time off-trail in the woods, and sees a lot of bear shit.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he is that old. No one is that old.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better question (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Analysis mode. Suspend all affect.
Do you ever question the nature of your reality?
Re: (Score:2)
Analysis mode. Suspend all affect.
Do you ever question the nature of your reality?
Of course. I am a big fan of people who ask the same questions like Daniel Dennett for example. There are many super smart people investigating the nature of consciousness like Dennett, Max Tegmark, David Chalmers and many others. It will be interesting to see what they find out! There are some really awesome TED Talks about different points of view but we still don't have any conclusive answers.
Re: (Score:2)
What we don't know is the extent to which
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but first you'll need to know your parameters. Otherwise, you'll be wasting your time on a wild goose hunt. It's like wanting to travel to space before we have a fundamental understanding of gravity. Or even have the formula for gravity.
I let the experts in the field of consciousness research define that.
Oh jeez! (Score:4, Insightful)
Even neuroscience is jumping on the "fast five" bandwagon. Ugh!
Re: (Score:2)
Simplistic models allow you to publish a lot because you do not need to actually understand anything. Neuro-"science" is pretty non-scientific already, just read "Neural Correlates of Interspecies Perspective Taking in the Post-Mortem Atlantic Salmon" where some actually competent neuroscientists explain how many of the great results other have are basically meaningless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It does. If you do not mind that the core of your study is nonsense. May still get you a PhD though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It may be that the less your research leans on an "understanding," the more able to uncover unexpected results you are.
It may also be that the expected results have usually already been found by somebody else.
If you want to expand understanding, isn't measuring things you don't understand exactly what is needed? And wouldn't tainting that with your existing "understanding" only be introducing harmful bias?
I'm sure there is a good argument against oversimplification, but that wasn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
The philosophical discussion is nice, but I take it that you have not reviewed lots of papers that actually were complete bullshit because of too simple models. The problem is that "scientists" (often just PhD students) are pulling simplistic models out of their behinds left and right and then build great constructs on top of them. That is not a philosophical problem, that is a very real-world one.
Incidentally, in modern science, without understanding you will not discover anything, because the combinatoric
Re: (Score:2)
To clarify, my comments were literal.
Getting all hand-wavy and dismissive by calling it philosophy doesn't change the discussion of scientific bias at all.
You're claiming apriori knowledge of the value of studies, and that is just hogwash.
Re: (Score:2)
Your comments cannot be literal as they do not reference concrete objects. Seriously. Also, maybe you have noticed that not all science is statistical studies?
Re: (Score:2)
These are the type of researchers I admire. Incidentally, do you know "Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman"? Deeply insightful and funny as well in a somewhat similar venue.
Re: (Score:2)
It reduces the experience of travel to a checklist, and wildlife to a parade-type show.
Reductionism.
You touched upon the very heart (pun semi-intended...) of something that may be profound.
The flaw with modern atheistic science worship is that it's too reductionistic and doesn't offer any answers or meaning only a description, like a checklist, of life.
The scientific method is absolutely crucial and extremely valuable.
The body of knowledge gained through the scientific method is absolutely priceless.
The scientific community is full of brilliant people doing a lot of good work.
But the
Chicken or Egg (Score:2)
Are we sure that our personality comes from our brain structure? Or does our brain grow to that structure as our personalities mature during childhood?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. You may well be able to only measure secondary effects and not the thing itself. That makes the cause extra-physical and the effect physical. In fact, most of modern physical research deals with things that are not directly observable, i.e. it is unclear whether what gets "observed" actually exists or whether something else is at work.
Also, one core principle in Physics is repeatability of experiments. If you have free will in there, Physics does not really apply anymore. (Which is why physicalists c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't need to be chicken/egg it could instead by like the two sides of a coin, ying and yang, or Ohm's law where there are different measurable aspects of what is really a single and inseparable thing.
But if we're trying to be sciencey, it is pretty obvious that the chicken egg comes before the chicken, and was laid by the proto-chicken who does not have the recombination of genes that are in said egg. This remains true regardless of where you draw the line between the species chicken, and pre-chicken.
But what is cause and what is effect? (Score:2)
What they have is a correlation. It can be that personality causes brain structure, brain structure cause personality and that both are caused by a third factor. It is also possible that the people were this correlation is high are P-zombies and that the whole research is meaningless.
Incidentally, the 5-trait model is overly simplistic and only captures stereotypical people well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can, for example, very well have p-zombie variants that only have specific personality traits and have a very small number of real people with the same. You could then still not identify the p-zombies, but if, say all but one of the entities having that profile are p-zombies, the research would still be meaningless.
WTF? (Score:3)
agreeableness == a measure of altruism
WTF
Is this an industry term which I've never heard about?
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreeableness
Not saying I agree with it, but apparently a field of study around "Big Five" personality traits has emerged, and within that structure, 'agreeableness' does equate to altruism.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Correlates to" is not the same as "equate to". There are other factors listed under agreeableness, and of course it's entirely possible to have these traits to different degrees, even wildly different degrees.
Furthermore, the word "agreeable" existed before psychology appropriated it. It's ridiculous when uppity botanists try to claim strawberries not only aren't berries but aren't even fruit; it's even more absurd to pretend that the English language takes dictation from the flavor-of-th
Just like with computers (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Big Five is problematic (Score:2, Insightful)
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 say a lot of things (Score:2)
I have a very good brain.
Why is it not titled other way around? (Score:2)
If some study finds left hand/right structural differences are very different for 500 tennis players and it was linked to whether they were left handed players or right handed players, would you conclude "people born with big right hands become right handed players and those who were born with big left hands become left handed players"?
"Says researchers"? (Score:2)
My 6 year old kid would not make this sort of egregious grammatical mistake. But he's not a moron.
Re: (Score:2)
You might not even understand the difference between a grammatical error, and a failure to utilize your preferred style guide.
Re:Let me guess... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see where I would possibly contradict you.
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime we'll stay here and find a way to coexist, ok?
Unfortunately, wanting to coexist with others doesn't mean that others will want to coexist with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Refuge (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
The blunder of the Vietnam War you point to is misplaced. That war was created by the US for ulterior motives having to do with China. One's lens of that part of history is distorted if they think in terms of victory in North Vietnam being a prerequisite for American victory and attainment of American goals in that region. It was specifically not t
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
What makes you think we don't have a bad grasp of science today? Certainly, a hundred years from now, someone like you will make a similar comment.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? What's your Ph.D in, sarcasm?
Re: (Score:2)
Having an open mind doesn't mean you have to allow any kind of idiocy in.
Are you sure about that? What if humans don't have a sensory organ for this "idiocy" thing, whatever it is? In that case you might have to "allow... in" everything that you want to gain enough experience with to even measure, much less characterize.
Re: (Score:2)
Who classifies assholes?
The people who control the border. Duh.
Re: (Score:2)
As with any club, the ones already inside do.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, you deny any science not based on established science? Also, those who are inside would remain inside regardless of their asshole-ness. Meaning, any science based on established bad science would still be in.
Re: (Score:2)
I deny science that is none, if that's what you mean.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yes, depending where the sun appeared to be when you were born affects the structure of your brain."
As interpreted by a coding scheme which is two thousand years of earthly precession (that's one whole constellation) out of date, and which for no particular reason omits two of the constellations through which the sun appears to pass.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it is the size of a pea are you pea brained (able to hold contradictory ideas at same time)?
Ability to doublethink is highly valued in the legal profession and in politics.
Add duckspeak to the mix, and you have the perfect lawyer and politician all rolled into one.
Re: (Score:2)
Seeing both aspects of a Necker Cube simultaneously could be an indication of hyper-savantism, or so I have read...
Literary references/jokes aside, the human capacity and propensity to develop certitude in the face of little to no relevant information is a hindrance to acquiring knowledge and understanding. Allowing multiple competing theories to occupy space in your head concurrently is a much better strategy.