Two days ago, on October 21, researchers from University College London published a study showing a link between the size of one's social network and the structure of certain areas of the brain.
From the article's abstract: "quantitative variation in the number of friends an individual declares on a web-based social networking service reliably predicted grey matter density in the right superior temporal sulcus, left middle temporal gyrus and entorhinal cortex." These regions have all been previously associated with social functions. The right superior temporal sulcus shows up often in autism studies due to its role in perception. The left middle temporal gyrus helps in reading social cues, and the entorhinal cortex works with memory navigation.
Social network size was gauged by a series of self reported questions asked to a sample of 125 university students in London, students of a generation that grew up with the Internet. fMRIs documented the brain structures. Increased gray matter density in the amygdala, an emotional center, was directly linked to having a large online network, while the other regions mentioned showed an increase related to both real life and virtual networks.
However, the study does not establish causality. It only determined the existence of a link, but cannot say whether the social activity leads to the increased density or whether people born with a variations in those brain regions are more likely to exhibit the corresponding behaviors documented in the study. So, an important next step will be to see whether the structures change over time and continued interaction over social networks...which will help to answer the question of whether the Internet is actually changing our brains.
Media perspectives on the study: from BBC, DigitalSpy, Afro, the PowerRetail Blog, and Times Colonist - a wide range of genres.
The last of the above links shows Oxford Pharmacologist Baroness Susan Greenfield pontificating about social implications of the study that she finds disturbing. She cites other studies that show a link between the changed brain structures and attention and behavior problems. And the kicker - evidence of decreased empathy in adolescents who frequent online social networks. She tells the story of a 15-year-old girl who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend to win a bet discussed on Facebook. Dozens of people saw the posts and knew of his attentions, but did nothing - a Chronicle of a Death Foretold situation. And just as that novel demands, for this incident, too, we have to ask the question of whether the society at large should be held as responsible as the homicidal boyfriend.
Greenfield comes to the conclusion that the root of the empathy problem lies in the weakened link between action and consequence in online forums. She invokes the Greeks and wonders how they would piece this development in with their frequent analyses of the human condition.
In my opinion, the study poses a number of incredibly rich questions without easy answers, that experts will continue to bat around as interpretations flow in. But I agree with Greenfield that the situation requires continual and expanded study and monitoring. As she suggests, it's not something we can wait around 10 or 20 years to analyze when the brains in question have grown up. These are the people who have the world in their hands, so the question becomes one of not just the human condition, but our responsibility for the caretaking of our species and the environment surrounding us.
From the article's abstract: "quantitative variation in the number of friends an individual declares on a web-based social networking service reliably predicted grey matter density in the right superior temporal sulcus, left middle temporal gyrus and entorhinal cortex." These regions have all been previously associated with social functions. The right superior temporal sulcus shows up often in autism studies due to its role in perception. The left middle temporal gyrus helps in reading social cues, and the entorhinal cortex works with memory navigation.
Social network size was gauged by a series of self reported questions asked to a sample of 125 university students in London, students of a generation that grew up with the Internet. fMRIs documented the brain structures. Increased gray matter density in the amygdala, an emotional center, was directly linked to having a large online network, while the other regions mentioned showed an increase related to both real life and virtual networks.
However, the study does not establish causality. It only determined the existence of a link, but cannot say whether the social activity leads to the increased density or whether people born with a variations in those brain regions are more likely to exhibit the corresponding behaviors documented in the study. So, an important next step will be to see whether the structures change over time and continued interaction over social networks...which will help to answer the question of whether the Internet is actually changing our brains.
Media perspectives on the study: from BBC, DigitalSpy, Afro, the PowerRetail Blog, and Times Colonist - a wide range of genres.
The last of the above links shows Oxford Pharmacologist Baroness Susan Greenfield pontificating about social implications of the study that she finds disturbing. She cites other studies that show a link between the changed brain structures and attention and behavior problems. And the kicker - evidence of decreased empathy in adolescents who frequent online social networks. She tells the story of a 15-year-old girl who was murdered by her ex-boyfriend to win a bet discussed on Facebook. Dozens of people saw the posts and knew of his attentions, but did nothing - a Chronicle of a Death Foretold situation. And just as that novel demands, for this incident, too, we have to ask the question of whether the society at large should be held as responsible as the homicidal boyfriend.
Greenfield comes to the conclusion that the root of the empathy problem lies in the weakened link between action and consequence in online forums. She invokes the Greeks and wonders how they would piece this development in with their frequent analyses of the human condition.
In my opinion, the study poses a number of incredibly rich questions without easy answers, that experts will continue to bat around as interpretations flow in. But I agree with Greenfield that the situation requires continual and expanded study and monitoring. As she suggests, it's not something we can wait around 10 or 20 years to analyze when the brains in question have grown up. These are the people who have the world in their hands, so the question becomes one of not just the human condition, but our responsibility for the caretaking of our species and the environment surrounding us.
That is a really interesting study. I never really thought about the link between one's social life and the structure of the brain. It will be really interesting to see further studies and how the brian may be, or may not be changing accoding to the different types of social interactions over time. I also wonder if there are any studies conducted on people who do not have access to the internet or people who did not grow up in the internet era. I do agree that this is a subject that should be further studied in order to have some understanding of the negative consequences that changes in our brains may have.
ReplyDeleteI wonder whether this study would yield different results if replicated from another culture. The results seem fairly generic, but they may also say something about cultural backgrounds.
ReplyDeleteI also wonder whether the given observation is something we can use to our advantage. If there is causality, social networks may decrease empathy, but perhaps there is a constructive wiring going on elsewhere in the brain. I do not mean to downplay the importance of empathy, but I hope that we can make the best of our current situation.