For instance, there are uncontentious examples of systems specialized for processing social information in the case of pheromone detection in insects and in the case of the vomeronasal system in many mammals. Examples in primates are more debated, but again we would argue that there are clear studies ranging from lesion work to neuroimaging of face processing. Although we have moved from regions to networks, the next key step is

to identify the flow of information through these networks to follow social information processing from stimulus through to response. This requires an understanding of the detailed computations implemented by the different nodes in the networks as well the dynamic interplay between them. One could make the analogy of moving from words (brain areas) to sentences (networks) to propositions (arrangements of network dynamics) to conversations (brains interacting). We are still solidly in the age of sentences Regorafenib molecular weight and are only beginning Fulvestrant mw to enter the age of propositions and conversations. Social neuroscience must include a wide selection of methods, study a wide range of species, and utilize a range of concepts and theories. It is this topical and methodological breadth, combined with its interdisciplinary approach, that generates tension in the field. Psychologists often find the methods of neuroscience impressive

but its concepts and theories impoverished. Neurobiologists find the questions of social psychology intriguing but its methods limited. No wonder there is often little agreement at faculty meetings L-NAME HCl on whom to hire in a “social neuroscience” search! We believe that the single major challenge—and exciting open terrain—for the future of social neuroscience is conceptual rather than methodological. How can we parse social behavior, to begin with, and what vocabulary of concepts should we deploy in describing central processes and relating them to neurobiological constituents? This question, we believe, is also the main source of tension among different strands of social neuroscience or between those with backgrounds in different disciplines. A large part of this tension stems

from the belief among some social scientists that the processes responsible for understanding both human and animal social behavior are very complex, are very context-dependent, and draw on many factors, including ones outside the brain—as such making these processes ill suited to neuroscientific study. It is important to understand the several facets behind this tension. One difficulty is simply to discover the processes, a query that can be approached in different ways—further development of theoretical frameworks or “discovery science” based on data mining, to name just two (see Table 1). But another important worry is reductionism, the sense that neurobiological approaches will generate concepts that displace those of social psychology, as exemplified in the quote below: …