Shyness May Be Rooted in Brain Processing

[Maren]

Because their brains process the world around them in a different way, introverted or shy people respond differently to physical and emotional stimuli than other people, according to a new study.

About 20 percent of people are "highly sensitive," an inborn trait that can be seen in children who are reserved, need little disciplining, cry easily, ask unusual questions or have especially deep thoughts, explained Elaine and Arthur Aron and colleagues from Stony Brook University in New York and in China.

Link. This looks as if it could be interesting research. It would also explain why just telling some people to "get tough" or "ignore it" never seems to work.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Doesn't seem to explain why drugs don't work (or maybe they just don't work for some people).

I'd be interested in seeing IQ correlations.

 

[Maren]

Doesn't seem to explain why drugs don't work (or maybe they just don't work for some people).

I'd be interested in seeing IQ correlations.

I think the drug idea is interesting, to see how drugs interact differently depending on the way the brain processes information. It may well explain part of why certain drugs (particularly those that act on the brain) don't work or respond differently in a percentage of people.

Intelligence correlations would be interesting as well, though you have to be careful that the limitations of IQ tests don't lead to incorrect conclusions. I would think since they respond differently to information, an IQ test may not accurately assess their intelligence. It might also be interesting to find out if they learn differently than people with a brain that processes normally.

Last, I'd be curious if this is something that is genetic, if there is a gene (or genes) that causes this type of brain processing.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

Last, I'd be curious if this is something that is genetic, if there is a gene (or genes) that causes this type of brain processing.

I imagine it's a combination of both genetics and environment, which seems to be the case for brain development. As a child I was very outgoing, and I moved to a foreign country during adolescence (where I didn't speak the language), and became very shy, and have become more outgoing in early adulthood. So who knows. It's probably not a black/white answer.

ETA: Emotional intelligence tests might be more accurate indicators.

 

[DaisyDay]

"Unusual questions" - that's interesting.

 

[Billnew]

I think the drug idea is interesting, to see how drugs interact differently depending on the way the brain processes information. It may well explain part of why certain drugs (particularly those that act on the brain) don't work or respond differently in a percentage of people.

Intelligence correlations would be interesting as well, though you have to be careful that the limitations of IQ tests don't lead to incorrect conclusions. I would think since they respond differently to information, an IQ test may not accurately assess their intelligence. It might also be interesting to find out if they learn differently than people with a brain that processes normally.

Last, I'd be curious if this is something that is genetic, if there is a gene (or genes) that causes this type of brain processing.

Paxil helps with social anxiety disorder, basically shyness taken to psychosis level.
I would think medicines would help certain shy people, and would not work on others, because I do not believe all shy people are shy for the same reasons.
Shy people are smarter, because they talk less, think and read more, generally. While the average person is making small talk, the shy person is thinking about something they have an interest in, or reading.

"Unusual questions" - that's interesting.

I think this is one side effect of thinking to much. Their thinking leads them to unusual conclusions.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

I'm tired of the idea that there is a single correct way for people to act.

The fact is, people are designed to work in communities. The point of a community is that different people do different things. To facilitate doing different things you need people to think and act in different ways.

Shy people are as important part of a community as outgoing people, and for the reasons given. A community needs people who are quiet, analytical, and think things through as much as it needs people who are outgoing and sociable.

Sure the drug companies have an economic interest in promoting the idea that there is an ideal human way of behaving and that drugs can make everyone act that way.

But that isn't what humans are about.

 

[Mystman]

All the headlines of the format "character trait X may be linked to difference in brain structure/function/etc" make me go: "well, duh."

Plenty of people still think otherwise, but all the (lack of) evidence points towards an absence of the concepts of 'souls', 'free will', etc.

Meaning that every single character trait is by definition caused by differences in how our brains are wired. It's nice that they are now able to describe those differences in some more anatomical detail (makes for good ammunition against those who still believe in free will ), but all these "discoveries" are hardly shocking revelations. At least, not in "wow, I never expected this to be determined by brain structure!1!"-way.

 

[Mystman]

I'm tired of the idea that there is a single correct way for people to act.

My post is also related to this fact.

Nowadays, many people seem to have the idea that "healthy" people all have identical brains, that free will normally determines the differences in behavior, but that research such as this indicates that some behavior is caused by brain disorders, that involves a "patient" that should be pitied and/or cured.

As more human behavior will be mapped to specific wiring differences, more people will fall into this "patient" category... unless people start realizing that all behavior is due to wiring differences.

(edit: related: according to our modern justice system, "healthy" criminals use their free will to commit murder, and can be executed for their crimes. "Sick" criminals commit murders because of some fault in their brain, and will be treated as patients. This distinction is untenable. Sure, there are differences in how much a criminal's wiring differs from the norm, but every single murder in the history of the world has been committed due to the brain structure of the murderer. Executing some, while treating others, just because some murder-causing wiring patterns haven't been discovered by science yet, is a travesty of justice.)

 

[DaisyDay]

Paxil helps with social anxiety disorder, basically shyness taken to psychosis level.

Social anxiety disorder is not psychosis, more of a neurosis.

I would think medicines would help certain shy people, and would not work on others, because I do not believe all shy people are shy for the same reasons.

Of course.

Shy people are smarter, because they talk less, think and read more, generally. While the average person is making small talk, the shy person is thinking about something they have an interest in, or reading.

Shy is not Asberger's.

I think this is one side effect of thinking to much. Their thinking leads them to unusual conclusions.

Questions are the opposite of conclusions, I'm pretty sure.

 

[Mr. Ripley]

All the headlines of the format "character trait X may be linked to difference in brain structure/function/etc" make me go: "well, duh."

Plenty of people still think otherwise, but all the (lack of) evidence points towards an absence of the concepts of 'souls', 'free will', etc.

Meaning that every single character trait is by definition caused by differences in how our brains are wired. It's nice that they are now able to describe those differences in some more anatomical detail (makes for good ammunition against those who still believe in free will ), but all these "discoveries" are hardly shocking revelations. At least, not in "wow, I never expected this to be determined by brain structure!1!"-way.

Agreed, to an extent. Social anxiety only becomes a disorder when it interferes with your life. Someone who is entirely content with social anxiety is not going to seek treatment for it, nor would a doctor force it on the individual.

 

[HannahBanana]

Shy is not Asberger's.

It's "Asperger's" not "Asberger's." Also, "talking less [than the average person] and thinking and reading more [than the average person]" are not symptoms of Asperger's. It's completely possible for an Aspie to be a complete chatterbox and to abhor reading. (I was diagnosed with Asperger's 9 years ago, so you can trust that I know what I'm talking about. )

 

[DaisyDay]

It's "Asperger's" not "Asberger's." Also, "talking less [than the average person] and thinking and reading more [than the average person]" are not symptoms of Asperger's. It's completely possible for an Aspie to be a complete chatterbox and to abhor reading. (I was diagnosed with Asperger's 9 years ago, so you can trust that I know what I'm talking about. )

Oh, sorry - that was careless of me.

My point was that Asperger's (added to dictionary) has nothing to do with shyness. I would guess that people with Asperger's would tend not to care (or perhaps just be less aware) what people think of them rather than be overly sensitive. Is that true in your experience or not?

 

[HannahBanana]

Oh, sorry - that was careless of me.

My point was that Asperger's (added to dictionary) has nothing to do with shyness. I would guess that people with Asperger's would tend not to care (or perhaps just be less aware) what people think of them rather than be overly sensitive. Is that true in your experience or not?

First of all, I'd like to apologize for basically snapping at you in my previous post. It's the end of the semester, and my nerves are basically worn completely through. I hope you can understand.

To answer your question, it really depends on the individual. Some Aspies (such as myself) are overly-sensitive, while others are much more inwardly-focused, and thus, don't really notice when others insult them. I wish I could offer you a more conclusive, definite answer, but unfortunately, Asperger's Syndrome is just really hard to define, since the symptoms are so varied amongst the people who have it.

 

[Billnew]

My post is also related to this fact.

Nowadays, many people seem to have the idea that "healthy" people all have identical brains, that free will normally determines the differences in behavior, but that research such as this indicates that some behavior is caused by brain disorders, that involves a "patient" that should be pitied and/or cured.

I believe the drug companies understand this, and provide medicines that might help the psychosis, and Dr and patients decide the neurosis is worse then it is.

Social anxiety disorder is not psychosis, more of a neurosis.

Of course.
Shy is not Asberger's.

Questions are the opposite of conclusions, I'm pretty sure.

S.A.D. can be psy, but most comonly neur. (There might be another name for the psychosis, I am not a mental health nurse.)
(basically for those that don't understand the difference: Psycosis interferes with everyday life, neurosis is an inconvience, but able to survive without intervention)

If you spend all of your spare time thinking, you come up with unique questions, the conclusions are what you decide after comparing what you have thought up and having questions answered.


Shyness is not a diagnosis, it is a generic description of a quieter, less outgoing personality.
Alot of "stars" say they were shy when they were younger, I believe some might have overcome their shyness, but I have doubts for others.

Shyness could be related to a traumatic event, it could be from genetics,
it could be upbringing, or by enviromental factors(don't feel accepted in the current location)
I and my wife are shy, my youngest loves to cheer, makes friends easily, and is very outgoing. Shyness is not only genetic.

 

[seashale76]

I also want to add that being introverted is not the same as being shy. I know plenty of introverts, myself included, who aren't shy. Too much social interaction makes me tired instead of energized. I dislike the underlying assumption that extroversion is the norm here anyway. How do they know?