Listen to the entire article:

 

There is an emerging body of scientific research indicating that the human brain is impacted by social experience in ways we did not realize previously. In the last several decades we learned that the brain is malleable, a discovery that continues to influence how the brain responds to trauma and other types of insult. But, beyond this, it now appears that social relations, all aspects of interpersonal experience, become imprinted on the brain, impact neurologic and physiological functioning, and ultimately linger as a kind of neurologic aura which sends signals to others in the social world. Essentially, experience changes the wiring of the brain and the nervous system, and this rewiring is unconsciously and inadvertently communicated. Somewhat eerily, what happens to a person relationally is not concealed within memory but revealed from one mind to another.

 

This understanding of the brain’s encoding of social experience suggests that the long-held assumption of a mind-body connection captures only two-thirds of reality; social experience needs to be added as a third component to this framework to emphasize the significance of social relations as an ongoing factor simultaneously impacting the mind and the body.

 

Several implications of these scientific advancements are worth noting.

 

First, what happens to us stays with us, not just in memory but in our nervous system, our physiology, our brain and our brain chemistry. Second, experience may be incorporated emotionally and physiologically in very different ways. For example, a child who grows up in a chaotic and unstable family may, as an adult, not recall the events of childhood with any notable distress or regret. However, this individual may in fact suffer from chronic hypertension that is related to an over-active flight/fight arousal set-point arrived at in the nervous system during early childhood and persisting since that time.

 

And since we now understand that social experience alters one’s brain and physiology, it also seems to be the case that these alterations influence the nature of future interpersonal dynamics and events. The relationship between experience and neurobiology is bidirectional and mutually co-determined.

 

For example, if, for whatever reason, a young child tends not to be noticed or responded to in early development, by parents, teachers, whatever the case may be, and if this feeling of being taken for granted and viewed as inconsequential is repetitive and operating at some consistent level of intensity, alterations in the child’s neurobiology based on this particular quality of social experience will set the stage for the nature of future social interactions. Extending even into her adulthood, this child now a woman may continue to have ongoing experiences of not being seen or valued. It’s as if she has been fated to live a life of being taken for granted or even devalued by others again and again, fated not by some religious or spiritual force but through the dynamic mechanisms of neurobiology.

 

What seems to be the case is that, as experience alters our brains and nervous systems, these alterations are communicated or signaled in the social world. Neurobiological cueing, and the corresponding responses these cues elicit, underlie the foundation of the social/relational world.

 

Scientists have been on the path toward neurobiological cueing for some time. Decades ago, in the 1980s, in a series of experiments social psychology researchers discovered that (1) grade school teachers approached certain students, without any prior knowledge of or experience with these students, more positively than others, and (2) these more positive attitudes promoted greater academic success and more prosocial behavior in these students as compared to other students who were viewed less positively. The findings were explained by the presence of “expectancy effects” which are unconscious attitudes a person incites in others that are not tied to any direct or obvious factor or characteristic. Expectancy effects are, in essence, the forerunners of neurobiological cueing. That is, a particular student’s neurobiological status (formed by experiences of the past) cues a teacher to view that particular student fondly, whereas another student’s neurobiological status (formed by a host of other, more likely negative experiences in the past) cues a teacher to view the student more negatively or critically.

 

Typically, these cues are not consciously recognized; instead, they subtly activate a stylized way of thinking and feeling about a person that gradually organizes and shapes responses which are aligned with these cues. Beyond our awareness and intentionality, we are neurobiologically communicating our history to others in ways that ultimately seem to perpetuate that history.

 

This neurobiology of fate refines and updates Freud’s notion of the repetition compulsion in which he argued that we are unconsciously motivated to repeat negative or traumatic experiences until we master them. It also explains why the common attempt to change the course of one’s life by moving and starting over, the so-called “geographic cure,” usually fails. This is because neurobiological cueing occurs in whatever situation you are in — you cannot evade it. Experience that is fated neurobiologically is applicable to all aspects of human experience, especially the romantic relationships we cultivate, the professional relationships and work situations we find ourselves in, and the emotional and financial well-being we achieve. While the view that all future experience is neurobiologically steeped in prior experience may seem rather deterministic, if not fatalistic, I don’t believe all hope should be lost. In fact, understanding how our neurobiological legacy incites others to think and feel about us in thematic ways offers a new perspective on how to influence others to achieve the outcomes we desire. This is a subject I will be addressing in future presentations.