It’s hard wired. Of course, wiring is susceptible to being damaged.
Case in point:
Researchers discover a specific brain circuit damaged by social isolation during childhood
Study in mice shows long-lasting effects and points the way to potential treatments
Date: August 31, 2020
Source: The Mount Sinai Hospital / Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Summary: Researchers have identified specific sub-populations of brain cells in the prefrontal cortex, a key part of the brain that regulates social behavior, that are required for normal sociability in adulthood and are profoundly vulnerable to juvenile social isolation in mice.
A research team from the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai has now identified specific sub-populations of brain cells in the prefrontal cortex, a key part of the brain that regulates social behavior, that are required for normal sociability in adulthood and are profoundly vulnerable to juvenile social isolation in mice. The study findings, which appear in the August 31 issue of Nature Neuroscience, shed light on a previously unrecognized role of these cells, known as medial prefrontal cortex neurons projecting to the paraventricular thalamus, the brain area that relays signals to various components of the brain’s reward circuitry. If the finding is replicated in humans, it could lead to treatments for psychiatric disorders connected to isolation.
“In addition to identifying this specific circuit in the prefrontal cortex that is particularly vulnerable to social isolation during childhood, we also demonstrated that the vulnerable circuit we identified is a promising target for treatments of social behavior deficits,” says Hirofumi Morishita, MD, PhD, Associate Professor of Psychiatry, Neuroscience, and Ophthalmology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, a faculty member of The Friedman Brain Institute and the Mindich Child Health and Development Institute, and senior author of the paper. “Through stimulation of the specific prefrontal circuit projecting to the thalamic area in adulthood, we were able to rescue the sociability deficits caused by juvenile social isolation.”
I was an only child and spent long summers just playing with my four-legged “brothers and sisters” in the country. I even had a “nanny” and played with her “kids” and I turned out just fine. Maybe I got my socialization from being with my grandparents part of the summer in the middle of nowhere, going to church with them on Sundays when I stayed with them. Whatever the case, I think I turned out OK with three month hanging out with the four-leggers, my parents and my grandparents. Plus, I had no cousins on my mother’s side and rarely saw those on my father’s side. Of course, three months, plus Winter break (four months all together) is different from what is happening now.
Also I contest the fact that we are social creatures since I tend to do better when I am not interacting with other people than when I am in their presence. It’s been that way all my life, people exhaust me and solitude is more rewarding. So NO, I would argue against it being hard wired (especially since there are plenty of other humans who were the same).
Also I contest the fact that we are social creatures since I tend to do better when I am not interacting with other people than when I am in their presence.
Snowlo Contendre, Have you not noticed that you are "socializing" right now? Have you noticed that you can speak English, which would not have been possible without having had other human involvement in teaching you?
Sure there are people who PREFER not to have much social interaction. But you are biologically a social creature who could not be communicating on a forum like this, if you had not had a bunch of critical social involvement earlier in your life.
There is a study that I saw a presentation about, years ago, that involved brain scans of very young children, that show the ravages of abuse and or neglect. And as I recall there was some evidence that the damage could be ameliorated to some extent by a consistently nurturing environment.
Below is the NORMALLY required kind of interaction for any child’s development, including their brain architecture development (and can be a healing form of interaction for those who have been damaged by neglect).
The authors refer to it to as “Serve and Return Interactions Between Children and Caregivers”.
"The architecture of the brain is composed of highly integrated sets of neural circuits (i.e., connections among brain cells) that are “wired” under the continuous and mutual influences of both genetics and the environment of experiences, relationships, and physical conditions in which children live.
Experiences “authorize” genetic instructions to be carried out and shape the formation of the circuits as they are being constructed. This developmental progression depends on appropriate sensory input and stable, responsive relationships to build healthy brain architecture.
Abundant scientific evidence demonstrates that a major ingredient in this process is the “serve and return” relationship between children and their parents or other caregivers in the family or community.
Young children naturally reach out for interaction through babbling, facial expressions, gestures, and words, and adults respond with the same kind of vocalizing and gesturing back at them. This “serve and return” behavior continues back and forth like a game of tennis or volleyball.
If the responses are unreliable, inappropriate, or simply absent, the developing architecture of the brain may be disrupted, and later learning, behavior, and health may be impaired.
A breakdown in these reciprocal, serve and return interactions between adult caregivers and young children can be
the result of a multitude of predisposing factors. These may include significant stresses associated with high levels of economic hardship, social isolation, and/or chronic disease, as well as a wide range of adult mental health impairments, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, serious personality disorders, or substance abuse involving alcohol or illicit drugs. Caregivers who are at highest risk for providing inadequate care often experience several of these problems simultaneously. Neglectful acts or patterns occur in every culture, at all income levels, and within all racial, ethnic, and religious groups."
When I worked in Early Childhood Development, I spent a lot of time, teaching parents how to connect with their young children in what was essentially the “Serve and Return Interactions” described above.
That was a great time in my career in terms of helping get the little ones’ development back on track with their caregivers.
A breakdown in these reciprocal, serve and return interactions between adult caregivers and young children can be
the result of a multitude of predisposing factors. These may include significant stresses associated with high levels of economic hardship, social isolation, and/or chronic disease, as well as a wide range of adult mental health impairments, including depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder, serious personality disorders, or substance abuse involving alcohol or illicit drugs. Caregivers who are at highest risk for providing inadequate care often experience several of these problems simultaneously. Neglectful acts or patterns occur in every culture, at all income levels, and within all racial, ethnic, and religious groups.”
Serve and Return. Never heard that phrase, but it’s spot on. I think of my latest 1 1/2 week visit with B at 15 months. It’s all about serve and return. Even him hearing a jet outside and the return from acknowledge, of if timing works out, the sprint to get outside and try to spot. Spotting it and the eye contact and expressions, or not finding that cute shrug and hand jester all young one’s seem to learn so fast - all gone, can’t find it.
Playing with blocks, or toys, same back and forth.
{Although come to think of it’s that’s what we are doing with each other Tim, it’s what a good conversation or debate is all about. But I digress.|
Playing with switches, or playing with smart phones and winding up in the wildest places and placing calls. Sure unintentional but he’s looking for that button to return something fun to him.
Half of mimicry is all about gauging reactions. When he stumbles on a move that gets all of us adults to laugh and coo and compliment, you bet it registers and before you know it, he has added awareness and timing to his repertoire. Just like every other little kid I’ve known.
Serve and Return -
The key to that is respect and attentiveness. Listen, absorb, acknowledge.
It’s a real person, not an object to project onto.
@timb When I worked in Early Childhood Development, I spent a lot of time, teaching parents how to connect with their young children in what was essentially the “Serve and Return Interactions” described above.
That was a great time in my career in terms of helping get the little ones’ development back on track with their caregivers.
Hmmm, I can see that. You’re genuine human caring comes through in the way you write, now this little piece of bio. I’ll bet you were good at at your job and made a big difference in many lives.
sree said: “This is a belief, a dogma of socialism for indoctrinating children in public schools.”
No. It is just a description about the type of organisms we are. Most all mammals are social animals. They care intimately for their young. The young tend to require nurturing of some sort from their parent/s in order to survive. And this is especially true with humans.
But that you can perceive it as a statement of “socialist dogma for indoctrinating children”, shows an intensely paranoid operation going on in your head.
Snowlo Contendre, Have you not noticed that you are “socializing” right now? Have you noticed that you can speak English, which would not have been possible without having had other human involvement in teaching you?
Sure there are people who PREFER not to have much social interaction. But you are biologically a social creature who could not be communicating on a forum like this, if you had not had a bunch of critical social involvement earlier in your life.
I don’t think that’s what is meant by socializing. Speaking English seems a little irrelevant since other animals can do it without verbal sounds.
As for biologically that’s not true. Again there are people who do better without social interaction among others. Being able to communicate on a forum like this doesn’t matter, plenty of other life forms get on just fine without that. Plus most “critical social involvement” tends to create dependent children, unlike HG societies. Modernity was a step down in terms of psychology.
It depends on the context in which this idea is used. “Social animal” is a secularist ideology to replace “children of God” to moralize human behavior.
Are there any such things in the world?
Of course, there are. You see what you want to see. Reality, as Donald Hoffman said, is an iconic interface, that mindscape of becoming who, as well as, what you are.
No. It is just a description about the type of organisms we are. Most all mammals are social animals. They care intimately for their young. The young tend to require nurturing of some sort from their parent/s in order to survive. And this is especially true with humans.
The mystery of life that includes humans encompasses all flora and fauna. Coloring the picture with liberal progressive hues and values shapes perception. This is all well and good if it helps you live a fulfilled life as long as you don't go marching down public streets insisting it is especially true for all humans.
But that you can perceive it as a statement of “socialist dogma for indoctrinating children”, shows an intensely paranoid operation going on in your head.
Yes, I am disturbed; and it is not just in my head but an annoyance that is pissing off law-abiding folks especially in the cities across America because the indoctrinated children are now fully grown and obnoxious.
Hoffman also makes the cardinal mistake of not differentiating between his consciousness/thoughts/math and the Physical Reality we are embedded within.
In fact, Donald does worse, he thinks the structure of physical reality is dependent on its interaction with our consciousness.