It Takes Two: Brains Come Wired for Cooperation, Neuroscientists Discover

ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2011) — When Nancy Grace and her partner danced a lively rumba to Spandau Ballet's 1980's hit, "True," on a recent "Dancing With the Stars," more was going on in the legal commentator's brain than worry over a possible wardrobe malfunction.

Deep in Grace's cortex, millions of neurons were hard at work doing what they apparently had been built to do: act and react to partner Tristan MacManus's movements to create a pas de deux that had the dancers functioning together (for the most part) like a well-oiled machine.

That is because the brain was built for cooperative activity, whether it be dancing on a reality television show, constructing a skyscraper or working in an office, according to a study led by Johns Hopkins behavioral neuroscientist Eric Fortune and published in the November 4 issue of the journal Science.

"What we learned is that when it comes to the brain and cooperation, the whole is definitely greater than the sum of its parts," said Fortune, of the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences. "We found that the brain of each individual participant prefers the combined activity over his or her own part."

In addition to shedding light on ourselves as social and cooperative beings, the results have important implications for engineers who want to be able to program autonomous robots to work effectively as teams in settings such as bomb squads and combat.

But Fortune's work didn't involve androids or take place on a battlefield. Instead, he and his team took to the cloud forests of Ecuador, on the slopes of the active Antisana Volcano. Why? It's one of the only places in the world where you can find plain-tailed wrens. These chubby-breasted rust-and-gray birds, who don't fly so much as hop and flit through the area's bamboo thickets, are famous for their unusual duets. Their songs -- sung by one male and one female -- take an ABCD form, with the male singing the A and C phrases and the female (who seems to be the song leader) singing B and D.

"What's happening is that the male and female are alternating syllables, though it often sounds like one bird singing alone, very sharply, shrilly and loudly," explained Fortune, who spent hours hacking through the thick bamboo with a machete, trying to catch the songbirds in nets. "The wrens made an ideal subject to study cooperation because we were easily able to tape-record their singing and then make detailed measurements of the timing and sequences of syllables, and of errors and variability in singing performances."

The team then captured some of the wrens and monitored activity in the area of their brains that control singing. They expected to find that the brain responded most to the animal's own singing voice. But that's not what happened.

"In both males and females, we found that neurons reacted more strongly to the duet song -- with both the male and female birds singing -- over singing their own parts alone. In fact, the brain's responses to duet songs were stronger than were responses to any other sound," he said. "It looked like the brains of wrens are wired to cooperate."

So it's clear that nature has equipped the brains of plain-tailed wrens in the Andes of Ecuador to work cooperatively, and to prefer "team" activities to solo ones. But what does that have to do with people?

"Brains among vertebrate animals -- frogs, cats, fish, bears and even humans -- are more similar than most people realize," Fortune said. "The neurotransmitter systems that control brain activity at the molecular level are nearly identical among all vertebrates and the layout of the brain structures is the same. Thus, the kinds of phenomena that we have described in these wrens is very relevant to the brains of most, if not all, vertebrate species, including us humans."

Co-authors on the study are Gregory F. Ball of the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the Johns Hopkins University; Carlos Rodriguez of Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Ecuador; and Melissa Coleman, of Claremont McKenna College. David Li, an undergraduate student majoring in neuroscience at Johns Hopkins, also is a co-author.

This research was supported by the National Science Foundation.

It takes two: Brains come wired for cooperation, neuroscientists discover

Originally Posted by contracycle

It Takes Two: Brains Come Wired for Cooperation, Neuroscientists Discover ScienceDaily (Nov. 3, 2011) — When Nancy Grace and her partner danced a lively rumba to Spandau Ballet's 1980's hit, "True," on a recent "Dancing With the Stars," more was going on in the legal commentator's brain than worry over a possible wardrobe malfunction. Deep in Grace's cortex, millions of neurons were hard at work doing what they apparently had been built to do: act and react to partner Tristan MacManus's movements to create a pas de deux that had the dancers functioning together (for the most part) like a well-oiled machine. That is because the brain was built for cooperative activity, whether it be dancing on a reality television show, constructing a skyscraper or working in an office, according to a study led by Johns Hopkins behavioral neuroscientist Eric Fortune and published in the November 4 issue of the journal Science.

I wonder why all of the contestants didn't come together to create a beautiful, spontaneous, Ferris Bueller-style display to spread a message of peace and cooperation throughout the world.

Oh yeah, it's because it's a competition, just like most other things in this vale of tears. They're cooperating to out-compete the others, not because it's just brilliant in an of itself. If she'd been partnered with someone else you'd have had exactly the same results.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Well yes, but that's rather to miss the point. recognising the in-built capacity fior coopoeration - of which there is plenty of other supporting evidence - doesn't mean that there would be no competition among groups, or whatever, or even, say, between couples. But it does mean the whole sort of Galtian ubermensch who needs no-one is undermined.

Well yeah, but there's an inbilit capacity for genocide too. Stongly linked to that for cooperation, it would seem. The occasional, vague, altruistic impulse doesn't erase all the bad stuff.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

You're fighting an opponent that doesn't exist. This has nothing to do with altruism as such, and nothing was claimed about doing away with the "bad" bits. As you quite rightly mention, as I did myself, small unit cohesion can lead to greater atrocities against opposing groups.

But THAT analysis is already a lot more sophisticated than a simplistic "every man for himself/it's a jungle out there/war of all against all" view.

But how prolific is that view really? Even the evil banks bang on about teamwork incessantly in their recruitment and internal training bumf, and anyone who screws his colleagues over beyond the reasonable limits will find himselve ostracised.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

What Z said. You seem to believe that Thatcher's words "there's no such thing as society" are still prevalent.

They aren't. Not in the theory or the discourse. And, in practice, what we have is really socialism for the rich, mutualism for the middle class and capitalism for the poor.

__________________
Unless otherwise specified, I am posting as a regular poster. When I will act as a mod, I'll make sure you're in no doubt.

Well, I certainly don't think that argument has suffered much of a dent, yet. See the Tea Party, etc. And both you and Z have both recently propounded the "everyone is an object/competetitor to everyone else" line.

Edit: and sure the teamwork thing is big in cporate job ads and whatnot, but its a very deceptive argument. Partly its a bit of stock phraseology, partly is an exhortation to go above and beyond the dutieds they actually pay you for. You'll find they're not so keen on teamwork when it's you asking them for help or cooperation, they;re just softening you up for blackmail. Same for "flexibility", which is more or less code for "doing two people's jobs".

Originally Posted by contracycle

Well, I certainly don't think that argument has suffered much of a dent, yet. See the Tea Party, etc. And both you and Z have both recently propounded the "everyone is an object/competetitor to everyone else" line.

I can't speak for Gilles, but while I wish it were the case, I can't actually claim to represent a majority of modern society.

You'll find a lot of TP-ers big on community too, they just don't think that the state is the right level for it.

Originally Posted by contracycle

Edit: and sure the teamwork thing is big in cporate job ads and whatnot, but its a very deceptive argument. Partly its a bit of stock phraseology, partly is an exhortation to go above and beyond the dutieds they actually pay you for. You'll find they're not so keen on teamwork when it's you asking them for help or cooperation, they;re just softening you up for blackmail. Same for "flexibility", which is more or less code for "doing two people's jobs".

So teamwork basically means getting screwed by the stronger members of the team..? That's something else that the OP doesn't mention.

__________________
Standard disclaimer: the disgusting statements contained in this post are the views of the poster, and unless specified do not represent the views of the moderators or the site's owners.

Originally Posted by Zichao

You'll find a lot of TP-ers big on community too, they just don't think that the state is the right level for it.

Yes but that's always been the case. Never mind doing things that are actually useful, lets just leave it all to churches and charities. This isn;t as absolute as you are making it.

Quote:

So teamwork basically means getting screwed by the stronger members of the team..? That's something else that the OP doesn't mention.

That's what it means in terms of relations between bosses and workers.