Neuroticism and the Wild West

Continuing on the relationship between mind and brain, there was a study recently reported in the journal Psychological Science and described by the New York Times that concluded that people with ‘neurotic tendencies’ are more stressed out by uncertain feedback than they are by unambiguous negative feedback. To illustrate the point, let’s say you are having your in-laws over for Thanksgiving dinner and you really want them to like you. And let’s say, for the sake of the discussion, that they don’t like you—they don’t like your clothes, your personality, or your cooking. Would you rather have your mother-in-law tell you straight-out that she doesn’t like you, or would you rather have no idea whether she likes you or not?

According to this study, the answer depends in part on whether or not you are ‘neurotic’. People with ‘neurotic tendencies’ in the study preferred certain bad news over uncertainty, at least as measured in the study. This is where we come to the ‘mind-brain’ connection; in the study, the levels of misery of the subjects were determined by the activity in a certain part of the brain, called the anterior cingulate cortex. This brain region is part of something called the ‘limbic system’, a primitive collection of brain structures that give rise to emotion.

I found it interesting that instead of just asking the subjects about their level of inner turmoil, the investigators attached electrodes and measured electrical activity in the limbic systems of the study subjects. I haven’t read the original study—I don’t get the journal—but sometimes studies can get a bit too ‘techy’ and miss the point of what they started out investigating. For example, from reading the review of the study, the primary end point appears to be the level of distress of the subjects. I could imagine a researcher stating that the electrical activity is more ‘objective’ than a survey, but what if a person scores high on the electrical activity, but claims to have little actual distress? I could see the researcher believing the ‘objective data’ over the ‘subjective’ descriptions of the subject, but if the end point is ‘distress’, I think the subjective response is the most relevant. But this isn’t what I wanted to write about… so I will move on.

When I read about the study my first thought was: what is ‘neurotic’, anyway? The study talks about measuring five personality traits, including ‘neuroticism’. This led me to Wikipedia, where neuroticism is defined as ‘an enduring tendency to experience negative emotional states’. Woody Allen is the classic ‘neurotic’, of course; not the ‘married to my stepdaughter’ Woody Allen, but rather the Annie Hall or Hannah and Her Sisters Woody Allen. If you haven’t seen those two movies, you should—they are classics, and you will never again wonder what a ‘neurotic’ is after you has have seen them. I have written about ‘Borderline personality’; the ‘border’ is between neurotic and psychotic, and patients with borderline personality disorder or borderline traits will sometimes cross that line, transiently, during times of severe stress.

I continued to read about neuroticism at Wikipedia and other sites on the web. Gotta love the internet—it reminds me of going to ‘Fleet Farm’ in Fond du Lac, a store that carries clothing, hunting supplies, hardware, plumbing supplies, farm and auto supplies… I will go there to buy a screwdriver and come home with cordless drills, laser levelers, epoxy caulk, and my favorite— minimally expansive foam sealant! With the internet I will start out looking for a single definition, and end up reading page after page of barely-related information.

I came across another interesting finding about neuroticism: it has a geographical distribution! There is a higher incidence of ‘neurotics’ among the east coast population than among the population of the western states like Wyoming, Colorado, and Montana. That doesn’t surprise me at all, but perhaps it should. Why would there be a difference? Is it genetic drift? Some conditions, for example schizophrenia, tend to concentrate in cities; there are more support services available, and it is probably easier to be ‘homeless’ in a big city than in rural parts of the country… so over time the genes for schizophrenia tend to be more prevalent in people who live in cities. But why would ‘neurotics’ favor the east coast?

But then, who am I kidding? Personalities and personality traits run in families—they are carried to some extent in our genes—and so the neurotics of today were more likely to have neurotic parents yesterday. And neurotics are not the type of people to jump on a horse and start riding into Indian country! I can imagine the conversation on the trail, bouncing along on the seat of a Conestoga wagon: ‘gee guys, this is HORRIBLE… it’s so HOT! Is anyone else hot here? I don’t want to be difficult, but gee—what if they don’t LIKE us out here!’ So yes, genetic drift likely played a role, where people who were highly neurotic opted to stay behind and read the postcards rather than risk going to battle against ‘savages’.

There is also the ‘survival of the fittest’ influence on population; people with certain personality traits were less likely to survive and have offspring with similar personality traits. I picture a gunfight with a highly-neurotic gunslinger: DRAW! says the challenger, and the neurotic says ‘You’re kidding, right? I think you must have me confused with someone else! I KNEW this would happen if I came out west!’…

The good news, of course, is that there is a place for pretty much everyone.  A neurotic Woody Allen-type guy would be annoying on a cattle ranch;  the prevailing attitude would be ’shut up and just do it!’  At the same time, the no-nonsense hard-working rancher, completely at ease in a pitch-dark desert, would likely be put down as a ’simpleton’ in the boardroom– naked Broadway cowboys aside!

There is nothing to say that people should stay where they ‘belong’.  In fact, many people seem to enjoy being in exactly the place where they DON’T belong– the cowboy in the city, or the sensitive worrier on the oil platform. Some people are most comfortable when they are blending in;  others thrive on standing out.  The important thing, though, is for a person to know where he/she stands.  There were times when I worked at the prison when I felt like an alien; the prison where I worked as a psychiatrist was filled with union yes-men and mid-level government administrators, mostly determined to keep their mistakes secret from the ACLU and Justice Department lawyers who were suing them… (no bitterness here!).

From those experiences I learned that when I think I am going crazy, the first thing to do is take stock of my environment and decide whether or not I ‘belong’.  Doing so would have saved me a great deal of heartache during my prison work.  Another way to state my point is to say that it is not worthwhile to strive to fit in, when you don’t respect the people you are surrounded by.

Peace,

JJ

Rate this:

2.5