Oxytocin Improves "mind-reading" In Humans

[Lokzo]

Background
The ability to “read the mind” of other individuals, that is, to infer their mental state by interpreting subtle social cues, is indispensable in human social interaction. The neuropeptide oxytocin plays a central role in social approach behavior in nonhuman mammals.

Methods
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled, within-subject design, 30 healthy male volunteers were tested for their ability to infer the affective mental state of others using the Reading the Mind in the Eyes Test (RMET) after intranasal administration of 24 IU oxytocin.

Results
Oxytocin improved performance on the RMET compared with placebo. This effect was pronounced for difficult compared with easy items.

Conclusions
Our data suggest that oxytocin improves the ability to infer the mental state of others from social cues of the eye region. Oxytocin might play a role in the pathogenesis of autism spectrum disorder, which is characterized by severe social impairment.



Oxytocin improves "mind-reading" in humans - PubMed

 

[opethfeldt]

Definitely noticed this effect at times my estrogen was high. I could tell when something was wrong with someone even over text. I wonder if it's some kind of intuition effect. I don't like oxytocin, though. For one, it seems to create strong groups with hostile attitudes toward outsiders. I don't see that as positive in any way. DHT is also a strong antagonist. So just looking at it from a hormonal perspective, it's probably not good, at least for men.

 

[Lokzo]

Definitely noticed this effect at times my estrogen was high. I could tell when something was wrong with someone even over text. I wonder if it's some kind of intuition effect. I don't like oxytocin, though. For one, it seems to create strong groups with hostile attitudes toward outsiders. I don't see that as positive in any way. DHT is also a strong antagonist. So just looking at it from a hormonal perspective, it's probably not good, at least for men.

Wow, thanks for sharing mate.

So you have used oxytocin??

DHT being a strong antagonist is new info to me. Citation?

 

[MetabolicTrash]

Interesting how another mentioned here regarding group dynamics and hormones.

I have read and seen of others who express the idea that social and/or ingroup biases are good, but I have always felt a bit dodgy about the whole thing.

I have never been a "guys-guy" type and some have maybe felt I was not "man enough" because of it, but I see it a bit differently now although I can't lie and say that it is not a bothersome thing I also felt myself regarding not being the stereotypical "bro" of any social predicament. I kind of always felt that these situations require a bidding of sorts -- you have to "show off" to impress and gain points, but I never felt there was anything to gain from doing such so I just don't care mostly. It does maybe suck to not be crowned "one of the guys" in my experiences up to date, but at least I can further build myself up as my own guy in an individual sense that others can realize and etc. Really I just felt I had to "act" to maintain a standing in typical male-groups -- and I do not prefer to have a polished, fake front -- I want to be discerned for a polished self that is more true to what I am or want to be, not what is presented as to fit more nicely with others or just "build status." I have also found this pointless since it can be a foolish thing. The one who wants to rule over others in a group will likely refuse to have another rule over them in the same way so it just often might become
a "who runs who" arrangement where some members are the rulers and expect the "rulees" as part of their group dynamics and such -- it may have little to no resemblance of balance in some cases. I figured it would be dumb to just try and play the "defeat the leader" tactic since again it is just that -- an approach to sort of "knock off" others so you can lead ... But for what?

Maybe always having somewhat of a chameleon or outsider essence can be good -- like a fleeting but well-received social life and experiences through-and-through.

The idea of always fighting or battling to remain at some position or status in a highly-narrowed group seems a bit too backwards for me. What is to gain ultimately from creating and/or participating in something while solely blocking many other things out? It is like creating your own bubble of working order that -- should it break -- everything you stand for seemingly becomes obsolete until you make your own new working order again in some way. Maybe the "butterfly" of the social world does better by not solely adapting itself to a situation or paradigm but constantly reads things and never fully sticks to anything -- but still ideally would see and even contribute some sense of value in things as well. The whole concept of grouping and distinctive classification like in high school cliques and whatnot just probably helps breeds the very dark things we witness in the worst situations anyways -- social disorders, antisocial nature, crime and other survival-driven, ruthless aims at building "rank" with or over others in often destructive ways.

I guess it is just my experience and development, but it is often tough for me to see a solid reason behind committing or sacrificing or giving "my all" to one thing because it must just be "better" than all others. Some I guess will see me as an untrustworthy fellow for this probably, but I can't justify unconditional giving for variable circumstances and differing factors "in" or "out" of any sphere or knowledge of my immediate social "breadth" (which isn't much anyways).

So regarding the context here it probably might be not that good to work better with some certain others if that creates heavy exclusion and group biases to the point where you have more groups and distinction than actual satisfying social structure or "terrain" as a whole for everyone.

Plus if I could "read" any mind I might just only prefer my own first.