Hi Raquel,
this is a nice occasion to talk to you by email (even though our tables
are two meters distance ;). Herewith my contributions to the discussion:
1. *Do you see pertinent the triad "genotype-phenotype-sociotype"?*
Yes, it is a missing link of the chain --which was really missing!
*2. Is there a species average on the number and classes of bonding
relationships?*
I think that more than an average, it's a threshold in the
relationships. There is a healthy level of relationships that one needs
in order to feel socially ok and "full". Above that threshold you feel
overwhelmed by the amount of efimeral relationships (feeling lonely
surrounded by people), and you can not keep all that amount of contacts
--it happens with the ICT (facebook, twitter...). And below that
threshold you need more relationships in order to feel ok.
*
3. Is face-to-face conversation our fundamental way to actualize social
bonds?*
Yes, face to face is the fundamental way to create social bonds due to
the action of many more "socializing tools": laughter, gestures, facial
expressions... These behavioral tools help our brain to strengthen the
social bonds. Besides our brain is evolutionary used to interpret those
tools and associated behaviors, as they have been incorporated into our
brain structures thousands of years ago, while the artificial channels
have appeared very recently and our brains have not assimilated them yet
(could they compite with the face to face communication? I don't think so!!
*4. And what about the New Technologies relationships? Are they a
surrogate or a helpful tool? Both?*
New technologies are part of the solution, but also are part of the
problem. In some cases they are beneficial as they allow one to be in
contact with people at the other side of the world (Skype, whatsapp...).
However, if one utilizes the ICT as a substitute of the traditional way
to maintain social relationships, the result is that one will fell alone
surrounded by an ephemeral on line virtual crowd. A balance has to be
found, but ICT can never replace face to face!!
*5. Is loneliness exacerbated in contemporary societies?*
Yes, after the industrial revolution and the migration from villages to
cities in early industrialized countries (right now taking place in new
industrialized big countries like China and India), the social
relationships and family&friendly bonds are massively broken producing a
painful loneliness for the people in the suburbs of the new mega-cities.
Ruined sociotypes in mass! Compounded with that, the ephemeral
relationships via new technologies are making societies become more and
more fragmented and solitary. Those easy on line relationships
commercially promoted may be really frustating, as witnessed in those
successful junk TV programs --see for instances the MTV reality "Catfish".
These are my on line opinions!!!!
Best,
Jorge
El 27/09/2013 13:31, Raquel del Moral escribió:
*_THE SOCIOTYPE: SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS AND BEYOND_
Raquel del Moral */
/(Bioinformation Group, IACS)*
*
Some years ago in one of the FIS sessions
(https://webmail.unizar.es/pipermail/fis/2006-March/001309.html),
Pedro pointed at the triad "genotype-phenotype-sociotype" and
emphasized the importance of a structure of social bonds around the
individual. Precisely by developing further the Sociotype concept, as
a new construct that describes both the structural & dynamic aspects
of the individual's relationships, I am advancing a PhD Thesis. Also
supported by a Ministry of Science and Innovation's biomedical
project, our group is carrying out an empirical research work in order
to develop a questionnaire able to measure the sociotype, the network
of relationships of the person, in order to correlate it with mental
health and risk (loneliness) situations.
THE SOCIOTYPE: OVERALL PANORAMA
Our work discusses the pertinence of a "sociotype" construct, both
theoretically and empirically oriented. The term, based on the
conceptual chain genotype-phenotype-sociotype, suggests the existence
of an evolutionary 'preference' in the human species for some
determined averages of social organization and communication
relationships. Although human individuals become highly adaptive and
resilient concerning the implementation of their sociality, a core
pattern, or "sociotype" might be established for their networking
relationships. The sociotype appears as a structural/relational
pattern which is actively looked for, and the absence of which
provokes predisposition towards feelings of loneliness and
unhappiness. The prospect of establishing numerical characteristics
for that pattern, both structural and dynamic, does not look too
farfetched. Hypothesis such as the "social brain" have already
advanced robust structural data. From the biomedical point of view,
properly framing the sociotype hypothesis and putting it into
empirical test could be a timely enterprise. As a number of
contemporary studies on social networks have reported, perceived
isolation and loneliness feelings turn out to be an unrewarding
condition for individuals, an unwanted state, and also a risk factor
for their health. In our times, the social changes derived from the
economic globalization, the new communication technologies, and the
demographic transition towards elderly populations have implied
dramatic changes in the social relationships of entire communities.
Given the absence of efficient psychosocial indicators, an empirical
search on the relational phenomenon throughout the sociotype lens
might provide useful orientations for mental health and quality of
life policies.
OUR SOCIALITY
Sociality is an obvious trait of the human species. Most of the
evolutionary and cultural novelties of our past refer to essential
aspects of sociality --e.g. origins of language, emotional
communication, group behavior, morals and ethics, religious and legal
codes, political institutions, and so on. Hypothesis such as the
"social brain" have contributed to advance a new bond-centered
approach on the evolutionary emergence of human sociality. The
presence of a series of significant regularities in the size and
structures of social groups, notwithstanding their remarkable
variability, suggests the plausibility of a "deep structure" of social
bonding for the human species. There seems to be an average of social
networking, with very ample upper and lower limits, concerning the
number and classes of bonding relationships that an individual is able
to maintain meaningfully. The finding of networking regularities such
as the famous "Dunbar's number" (150-200 individual acquaintances)
makes a lot of evolutionary and anthropological sense.
THE SOCIAL BRAIN HYPOTHESIS
The social brain hypothesis has posited that, in primate societies,
selection has favored larger brains and more complex cognitive
capabilities as a mean to cope with the challenges of social life. In
primate societies, a tight correlation has been observed between the
size of social groups and the neocortex relative proportion (roughly,
"brain size"). Actually, the idea of relating brain size with the
demands of communication in social life was already hinted by C.
Darwin in "The Descent of Man" (1871). More than a century later, J.
Allman and others reconsidered the idea and framed it as a social
hypothesis. Also known as the Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis,
it was more rigorously formulated by R. Dunbar (2004) and extended
into other mental and biomedical fields (e.g. human language as a new
form of social "grooming"). Although the hypothesis has been
criticized from several grounds, and it is unclear whether it can be
extended to the generality of mammalian societies, it has gained
momentum regarding the evolutionary explanation of the natural groups
and structures formed in human societies. In our work, the social
brain views have been taken as one of the main references to
structurally develop the sociotype hypothesis.
THE SOCIOTYPE HYPOTHESIS
Our work departs from the social brain hypothesis concerning its
empirical, or better, pragmatic orientation. Herein the emphasis will
be put on elaborating a mental-health oriented construct, roughly
exploring the potential applications of the sociotype as an indicator
gauging the whole relational networks of the person, and how much
daily conversation/communication he or she is engaged on a regular
basis. Seemingly, rather than the exchange of functional information,
it is trivial conversation, gossiping about social acquaintances what
represents the human equivalent of primate grooming --subsequently
stimulating in our "social brain" the production of endorphins, which
relieve stress and boost the immune system. Thus, counting with an
appropriate network of relationships that can provide us pieces of
amusing conversation would be an essential ingredient to our social,
psychological and physical well-being. Notwithstanding a number of
recent studies on social networks (technologically oriented) that have
tracked vast amounts of interpersonal exchanges, the metrics of the
relational structures necessary for mental health and well-being have
not been properly addressed yet. The hope is that the progressive
delineation of a sociotype concept, pragmatically oriented, and
susceptible of both theoretical and empirical demarcation, could
contribute to a better understanding of the structures and dynamics of
human sociality, and even provide some practical help when sociality
itself is in crisis, as seem to be happening with the current
"epidemics of loneliness" affecting large population tracts.
LONELINESS AND ITS PSYCHOBIOLOGICAL CONSEQUENCES
In our times the absence of social bonds has become a common
experience: over 80% of children and 40% of those over 65 report
feeling alone from time to time. Loneliness levels gradually decline
in the middle years of adulthood and increase with age (reaching the
maximum around age 70). The lack of social bonds has deleterious
effects on health through its effect on the brain, the
hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA), vascular processes, blood
pressure, gene transcription, inflammatory, immune, and sleep quality.
Research indicates that perceived social isolation (i.e., loneliness)
is a risk factor, and may contribute to poorer cognitive performance,
greater cognitive impairment and poorer executive function and an
increased negativity and depressive cognition that accentuate
sensitivity to social threats. In fact, loneliness is associated not
only with poor physical health; it also includes psychiatric
conditions such as schizophrenia and personality disorders, suicidal
thoughts, depression and Alzheimer.
A GROWING SOCIAL PROBLEM
In today's society there is a significant change in the way social
relationships are maintained, for the intrusion of the new ITs adds to
the important social disintegration that is occurring for other
reasons (aging, migration, marginalization of minorities, etc.). In
our times, relational networks are apparently larger and faster, but
more transient and devoid of personal contact, so that individuals are
at greater risk of social isolation. The evidence in fast-developing
countries is that economic growth and technological development have
gone hand-in-hand with an increase in mental and behavioral disorders,
family disintegration, social exclusion, and lower social trust.
FINAL QUESTIONS
I have seen in some other sessions that some final questions help to
focus the discussion; I will try with some easy ones:
1. Do you see pertinent the triad "genotype-phenotype-sociotype"?
2. Is there a species average on the number and classes of bonding
relationships?
3. Is face-to-face conversation our fundamental way to actualize
social bonds?
4. And what about the New Technologies relationships? Are they a
surrogate or a helpful tool? Both?
5. Is loneliness exacerbated in contemporary societies?
Thanks! :)
Raquel
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Raquel del Moral
Grupo de Bioinformacion / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. San Juan Bosco 13, 50009 Zaragoza
Tfno. +34 976 71 44 76
e-mail.rdelmoral.i...@aragon.es
---------------------------------------------------------
--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Jorge Navarro López
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, 50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 (& 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
jnavarro.i...@aragon.es
----------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis