Growing a Bigger Brain with a Larger Social Network

The bigger your social network, the bigger your brain - well, at least your amygdala.

But is having a bigger amygdala better? One research team's speculation:


"In the context of our findings, Striedter’s “large equals well-connected” rule suggests that humans with a larger amygdala with denser connectivity might be better equipped to seek out, learn about, and coordinate appropriate neural and behavioral responses to multifaceted visual information that allows people to develop and maintain a larger, more complex social network."

Actually the data about having a larger vs. smaller amygdala is still unclear. It may be that more than size, other markers or indicators will be important for sorting out benefit (for instance, in some instances larger amygdala are seen in autism, but in healthy adults, "agreeableness" seemed to correlate with larger amygdala as well.

To calculate your social network, fill out the Social Network Index here. If you want to figure this out using your Facebook statistics, check here. The SNI reflects "how many people you see or talk to on a regular basis including family, friends, workmates, neighbors, etc."


Amygdala and social network size
Supplementary information social network
Social media picture

Hot Seat Learning - Why Testing is Not All Bad

In medical school, I had a great Radiology teacher who loved putting students in the hot seat. A scan would be put on the light box, and he would rap a chair at the front of the lecture hall and call down a student to read an Xray or CT scan in front of a class of 200 students. Still gives me the willies thinking about it - as well similar flashbulb memories involving my old Neurology chairman.

Obvious such methods could be abusive, but without a doubt, I know prepared more than I would have knowing that I would be tested, and remembered more in the panic of the seat (I still remember some cases), than if I had been permitted to blissful doze off to the drone of lecturers. It was important to test then - because sooner than we realized it, we'd be in charge of people's lives.

The New York Times now has an article titled To Really Learn, Quit Studying and Take a Test based on recent research from Purdue.

Researchers "...found that students who read a passage, then took a test asking them to recall what they had read, retained about 50 percent more of the information a week later than students who used two other methods (e.g. like concept mapping) ... 'I think that learning is all about retrieving, all about reconstructing our knowledge,' said the lead author, Jeffrey Karpicke, an assistant professor of psychology at Purdue University. 'I think that we’re tapping into something fundamental about how the mind works when we talk about retrieval.' "

Karpicke has other studies on studying efficiency.

Testing at its best is:

- Test and Re-Test - retesting improves retention, not one-time only testing. So if re-testing rarely occurs in the classroom (i.e. quiz then test on same material), students should practice quizzing themselves, do practice problems, and correct their work in order to learn from their mistakes.
- Quiz Me: Retrieve, Don't Just Elaborate Elaborative study may be necessary for students with memory difficulties (mnemonics, acronyms, etc.), but in a pinch - having to retrieve information will be a better strategy for committing information to long term memory
- Effort + Retrieval are Good If students had to struggle a bit before comprehending a sentence, they were more likely to remember it later (even though they would not recognize the struggle being any benefit)
- Repeated Re-testing and Avoiding the 'Mastery Illusion' When Karpicke studied effect studying, repeated re-testing was a effective strategy, but many students succumbed to the 'mastery illusion' putting away materials (i.e. they thought they 'knew') before they had really filed information into long-term memory.

It's kind of surprising seeing such practical educational information in a journal such as Science, but it's good they published it. In our home, we've found that quizzing to study is essential for our kids as they have headed into high school years. Besides benefits to long-term memory in general, testing practice is good for personal learners who remember personal events of testing with flashcards with Mom, Dad, or bro vs. practice alone reading notes, and testing practice is often very valuable for inductive learners who need to see how information is applied to a particular situation or case before they really understand how new knowledge fits in with what they already know.

For those who want resource links to help with self-testing, we use http://www.flashcardexchange.com (also have the Mental Case app for cards to be loaded on an iPhone), outside test book like SAT subject books, especially if they might have to take those tests eventually when applying to college.

Now that time has elapsed, I have a greater appreciation for hot seat testing even if I was the one on the spot. The format of this sort of testing allowed for a lot of re-testing before real testing came around - and because everyone came under-fire, there weren't any shaming victims (a playful/humorous attitude of the professor definitely helped - this was definitely a forte of my Radiology professor, Dr. Ross). I don't know if this sort of practice is still common at schools any more - and while I admit it might seem draconian, it's interesting to know a little more why it worked.

Picture credit:cohdra

The Charisma Effect

"I was told I was selected class speaker because of my deep voice, my "charisma", and the work I had done in the community. There was no mention of my academic work..." - Charles Harper, MDiv Yale University

Recently we had the pleasure of talking to Diane Hanbury King, one of the great teachers (60+ years) in the history of dyslexia. When asked about particular gifts or talents she noticed in her students with dyslexia, without skipping a beat, she answered, "Charisma."

This would not be the only time we'd hear about charisma. Dr. Julie London of the Cass Business School also told us that she often noticed that the highly successful dyslexic CEOs that she met in her research and mentoring program had charisma.

The origin of the word charisma apparently comes from the Greek word kharisma for favor or divine gift. Without a doubt, there is something to charisma - and it does seem to be a gift, although there are many sides to the gift, and hence this post.

Dyslexics don't have a monopoly on charisma, of course, but it is a real phenomena and dyslexics (as well as non-dyslexics) of all ages can show charisma. Charisma by itself seems to have lots of advantages, but also potential disadvantages especially in the setting of learning obstacles like dyslexia.

The presentation is often very different depending on whether high or normal levels of charisma are present. When a student is very charismatic, they don't seem to have the struggles that more ordinary-c students might have. The reason they don't is because all or most of their teachers love them. Every report card showers them with "a pleasure to have in class", and so it may not matter if they have a 504 or IEP, they'll get whatever they need anyway because their teachers want to help. Parents may be exasperated, though because they really might not be able to read or write or do math, and if something isn't done, these students can take big falls with standardized tests. These students tend to do very well with a little extra support though - because once the problem is identified and their network takes over, friends, teachers, neighbors, etc. will come out of the woodwork to help them.

From Psychology Today's take on charisma: "Charisma is, in fact, just short of magic: It's a rare quality by common in figures who inspire devotion. "Charismatic people are essentially brilliant communicators," says Ronald Riggio, professor of leadership and organizational psychology at Claremont McKenna College in California. One of the few researchers to have taken a hard look at this mystical quality, Riggio believes it consists of overlapping components such as expressivity, sensitivity, control, eloquence, vision, and self-confidence."

Charisma is still too complex a phenomenon from which to get a precise read from the biological point of view, but a recent research study designed to look at what happens when test subjects are favorably inclined toward a person ("I like him"), found that it's the the posterior cingulate and amygdala (both emotional centers) that gets activated.

Not surprisingly, there's a lot of interest in searching for charismatic CEOs. To read about another charismatic dyslexic CEO, check out this Business Week article on Cisco's John Chambers.

Charles Harper
Magnet picture

From Passive to Active Learners - Consumers to Creators

With the explosion in social media, some educators are hoping that students will transform from being passive consumers of media to critics and creators, but others remain doubtful.

"... American students are slipping even further in math, science and reading against international competition. The 2009 Program for International Student Assessment results are in, and they’re not pretty. Fifteen-year-old U.S. students rank: 25th out of 34 countries in math, 17th in science, and 14th in reading. Students from South Korea, Finland, and Shanghai beat American students in math. Finland, Japan, and South Korea won in science, and South Korea, Finland, and Canada were the best in reading.

Maybe US students and their families need to wake up about all this. A student can be parked behind a book or in front of a computer, but little may be going on upstairs. The pot needs to be stirred. Maybe students in other countries are be hungrier for success.


If you really want to work your brain, your learning should be active and not passive. Some students are able to do this on their own (make their learning active), while others...well, not. 


Active learning may mean asking questions, challenging assumptions (a little provocation may be good),  drawing connections between existing information, and yes doing something with the information and making something yourself.

Check out this study that looked at differences in fMRI activation with passive vs. active listening. In the active listening trials, participants not only listened to a story, but they had to reflect on it in order to answer comprehension questions. It really does make a difference. A lot more activity going on - some of this is due to analyzing questions, retrieving details and associations triggered by the story, and deciding on answers.

For a look at the frontal workout associated with creative story generation, check out the fMRI shown below.