by Mirjam HollemanAdolphs (2001) provides a review of current understandings of social cognition and where it is mapped in the nervous system. Which biological functions - or “specific neural structures, genes, and neurotransmitter systems” (p. 231) - are involved in social cognition? What role does social cognition and perception play in other cognitive processes such as communication, motivation, memory and emotion? And more importantly: how can this interplay be mapped in terms of neurological processes in the brain?
Adolphs (2001) defines social cognition as “the ability to construct representations of the relationship between oneself and others and to use those representations flexibly to guide social behavior” (p. 231). Before describing the neurological systems that have been shown to be involved in in social cognition, the article begins by introducing theories on the evolution of social cognition. Both the physical and the social environment in which humans operate can be unpredictable, and “many factors change rapidly over time” (p. 231). Cognitive functions that allowed our ancestors to apprehend complex patterns that could make one’s environment somewhat more predictable proved advantages. However, “compared to the physical environment in general, the social environment is more complex, less predictable, and, critically, more responsive to one’s own behavior (this applies already to the broadest and most primitive social relation—that between predator and prey)” (p.231). Some theorists claim that it is predominantly the complex “social environment” that has spearheaded our species’ cognitive evolution. Two things about this discussion on the evolution of social cognition struck me, in comparison to the neuroanthropological perspective we have been exposed to thus far in this class: 1. The ontological separation between the ‘physical’ and the ‘social’ environment. 2. The presentation of ‘social cognition’ as a thing, a finished product, that evolved over time and is now imprinted on our brains somewhere. MacKinnon & Fuentes (2012), in our reading for today, present how our social and ecological worlds are intertwined. In the construction of a social-biological niche, “the social-biological ecologies of human populations are modified by social behavior; [this social behavior] is in turn affected by the pressures of those same social-biological environments” (p. 77). From this neuroanthropological perspective, the social and the physical environment are not two separate variables that exist independently of one another, and independently shape(d) social cognition, but rather continuously feed back into each other, and continuously inform and reshape our social brains, as well as our (social and physical) environments. The “evolution is of social cognition” is not something that happened in the past, but is rather an ongoing process, continuously being shaped by, and shaping, the socio-biological niche. What furthermore struck me about the search to identify where ‘social cognition’ is located and when and where it interacts or overlaps with other or ‘non-social-cognition,’ was the assumption of an ontological divide between social vs. ‘other’ cognition. From a neuroanthropological perspective, all cognitive processes, from the way we walk, talk, think, and make decisions, are informed by social or cultural interactions, and thus steeped in social cognition (see also my commentary on Larry Monocello’s post from 1/19/2016, this blog). Social cognition guides all our behavior, not just “social behavior.” Adolphs (2001) comes to this same conclusion from a purely neuroscientific perspective, when, by the end of the article, it becomes clear that social cognition affects such a wide area of the brain (the amygdala, right somatosensory cortices, prefrontal cortices), and its processes are tied in with so many different cognitive functions (motivation, emotion, communication, sensory perception and association, and movement), that questions emerge about the “domain specificity of social cognition” (p. 236). Can social cognition really be studies as separate from other or “non-social” cognition (p. 237)? And what is unique about human cognition, compared to other primates? Is it to be found in social cognition? Adolphs (2001) concludes the article with the acknowledgement that “answers to these questions will require inputs from multiple disciplines […] our understanding will also require a better operationalization of what is to count as ‘social’ and better ways of measuring social behavior” (p.236). What I have hoped to highlight with my review, is the input that the field of neuroanthropology could offer in this regard. The “integrated and holistic perspectives” [that anthropology offers] force us to think of sociality in a new light – not as an independent category but as an [integrated and] interrelated aspect of a generated niche” (MacKinnon & Fuentes 2012: 77). References: Adolphs, Ralph. "The Neurobiology of Social Cognition." Current Opinion in Neurobiology 11, no. 2 (2001): 231-39. MacKinnon, Katherine C., and Augustin Fuentes. "Primate Social Cognition, Human Evolution, and Niche Construction: A Core Context for Neuroanthropology." In The Encultured Brain: An Introduction to Neuroanthropology, edited by Daniel H. Lende and Greg Downey, 67-102. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2012.
11 Comments
Jake Aronoff
1/26/2016 03:31:11 pm
I found this to be a very insightful post with well needed reflection on how we conceptualize our environments and brains. MacKinnon & Fuentes provide a quote (79, credited to Barton 2006: 231, "Primate brain evolution: Integrating comparative, neurophysiological, and ethological data.) "The neocortex is necessary for many cognitive functions but sufficient to none. It is therefore misleading to view the neocortex as the "cognitive" part of the brain." Just as there is considered to be a "cognitive" part of the brain, there is also the assumption of a "social" part of the brain. As you mention, many parts of the brain are involved and interact to produce supposed separated cognitions. I think this touches on degeneracy, as Mason addresses it from biological systems theory, in which we tend to falsely assume one discrete structure performs one discrete function when that is not always the case. Perhaps this continuous assumption finds root in Western reductionist thinking, in which the way to understand something is to break it down into its individual parts, understand each part, and put them all back together in order to understand the whole. However, as Robert Sapolsky has said in his abundance of wit that this is good for fixing clocks, but not as good for understanding human behavior.
Reply
Mirjam Holleman
1/26/2016 06:49:43 pm
“this divide between the material and social environment certainly needs to be addressed, especially as you highlight the fact that we are continuously evolving within it.”
Reply
Edward Quinn
1/27/2016 07:09:21 am
This post does a good job of pointing out some of the problems with neuroscientific perspectives on social cognition. Yes, it’s true that social cognition is difficult to isolate and measure, but does that mean that we shouldn’t even try to do it? While it is useful to point out some of the problems with a neuroscientific perspective on social cognition, it is even more useful to give some solutions to the the observed problems.
Reply
Edward Quinn (2nd post)
3/1/2016 10:09:35 am
This week focused on primate social cognition. This area of study is important because we need to understand the human brain as a product of evolution. Our evolutionary past has great bearing on our cross-cultural attempts to study the enculturation of the nervous system precisely because the brain is so malleable while we are learning all the knowledge that is culture. Given my own personal research interest in inequality and how it plays out on a physiological level in adults, this is an important idea to keep in mind. Thoughtful consideration of the cultural environment and its impact on the neurological development of the adults I hope to study will be useful in considering human variation in physiology. I think this is important to consider at multiple scales: regional, subcultural (as we did with the martial art capoeira or taijutsu), etc. It may also be beneficial to consider things like social status and how that may differentially impact enculturation of the nervous system.
Reply
Jake Aronoff (2nd Post)
3/1/2016 11:17:27 am
I think it is interesting that you mention studying bonding in your first post and social inequality in your second. Perhaps these could be reconciled into a research question? For example, mothers of lower SES likely cannot afford to miss much work after giving birth. Therefore, in comparing mothers of different SES, perhaps the time alloted to mother-child bonding is affected by SES and therefore leaves some physiological (or even behavioral) mark. Maybe oxytocin levels could be examined? Though it would also be important to keep in mind the warning noted by Dunbar & Shultz of trying to explain bonding with one biomarker. However, this could be an interesting avenue of research.
Paige Ridley
1/27/2016 08:28:59 am
It is so important that we take the time to realize how cognition works and how it plays a part of our everyday lives. The environments of which we live in play a significant role in our niche construction. Mackinnon and Fuentes defined “as the modification of the functional relationship between organisms and their environment by actively changing one of the factors in that environment. Social living was noted as encompassing the cognitive development environment along with social resources. It is important not to focus on the mere size of the social group, but its level of social complexity.
Reply
Paige Ridley
3/1/2016 08:55:44 pm
In my pervious post I mention that the environments of which we live in play a significant role in our niche construction after watching the videos of Flying Anne I feel this idea holds true. Anne has Tourette’s which in turn causes her to have tics. This changes Anne’s environment and how she is portrayed in the eyes of others when in fact she is trying to adapt to their “normal environment” in a social manner. Having Tics is more than just having to lick everything multiple times, its apart of Anne and she has embraced the fact that all of her mannerisms deal with Tourette’s and how it affects her body. Each person’s social niche is constructed in a way that is ideal for them within a given period.
Reply
Michelle Bird
1/27/2016 09:33:41 am
I think you did a great job pointing to some of the holes in neuroscientific study of social cognition and showing how neuroanthropology could help bridge some of the gaps, particularly in answering some of the questions regarding the significance between "social" and "non-social" behaviors that are arising as research in this area progresses. I agree with Edward and Paige in that we should continue studies even with the present difficulties, because a lack of understanding cannot be corrected without an abundance of accurate information - it's my opinion that the retarding effect of the complexity of mammal social cognition's evolution should not be viewed a hindrance on discovery, but rather as a means to comprehend much more than just the ways in which we (and our ancestors) interact(ed) with one another and the environment, such as determining what neurological processes occur when decisions are made and how that process can affect another area of behavior entirely.
Reply
Michelle Bird 2nd Post
3/2/2016 08:42:15 am
Primate social cognition is an area of study that has the potential to reveal a plethora of information about the connection between social intelligence and adaptive success. Evidence exists of neurological remodeling via the social interface, where primate neurocomplexity can emerge both under direct selection and as a byproduct of physiological and behavioral adaptation. We basically learned that participating in a social group shapes a primate’s neurological function, and it affects behavior, such as a change in leadership resulting in less aggressive behaviors among all of the members of a group. The changes in social behavior can be measured: the volume of the neocortex, for example, increases as sociality does. Knowing that social interaction can shape brain function, this area of neuroanthropology could help illuminate the importance of early-childhood socialization and education, and assist in determining the best methods by which to educate a child.
Reply
Mirjam Holleman
1/28/2016 06:03:14 pm
An interesting thought that came up during our class discussion that I'd like to add: Social cognition is also a mechanism by which we adapt, not merely something that evolved as an adaptive strategy.
Reply
12/27/2021 01:45:29 am
i like this article, it has a lot of info i need to know, thanks for sharing
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis blog is group authored by Dr. DeCaro and the students in his ANT 474/574: Neuroanthropology. Archives
April 2019
Categories |