the evolving mind

Other research has shown that when people display dominant nonverbal behavior, not only do others think they are stronger and more competent, but also that they deserve to hold higher status positions.
- Larissa Tiedens, & Alison Fragile (72)

A recent search of PowerPoint(73) clipart, with the keyword “victory,” resulted in 49 images of human beings or of realistic depictions of human beings (vs. say, a “thumbs-up” smiley face). Forty-five of the images showed a human or small group of humans with arms raised. To complete the image, you might want to envision one man with his arms raised straight above his head, and out of the frame there is another man lying prostrate, a foot in the middle of his back. Body language speaks volumes; it is the primary language of our close primate relatives. Sure, today we edit out the person or persons we or our hero has been victorious over. Please, that would be vulgar. But the non-specific raising of the arms is fully acceptable.

I next searched for “defeat,” to see how the other end of the dominant/submissive spectrum is portrayed. This time there were a mere 3 hits. Who wants to focus on defeat? It’s impolite, really. All three hits depicted a person with their gaze on the floor, their head and body pitched forward. One showed a football player post-game, on the verge of putting his head in his hands, limp and resigned.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: psychology, status

Above is the bud of a starfish flower I photographed near our goldfish pond. When fully blossomed it resembles . . . a starfish. And it stinks. Literally. The plant is a carrion flower and -

these flowers smell like a dead animal, but their petals are typically flesh-colored, often with a dense covering of hair. The orchids Bulbophyllum and Pterostylis contain spot patterns or “warts” that imitate clusters of flies already enjoying a meal, and movable parts in the flower that catapult or maneuver the fly into a position of contact with the pollen masses (pollinia) or receptive stigma. [source]

Now why would Gawd create a stinking flower? Oops, bad question. As outlined in this post, “how” is the more scientific inquiry. How is it this stinking flower came to be? From an evolutionary perspective, one can connect the dots leading to this flower. From a theological perspective, one can’t say much.

And speaking of evolution, the Carnival of Evolution #8 has been posted.

Technorati Links: biology, Intelligent Design

[This is the second post in a series, "Campus Crusade for Christian Assumptions." Original post here.]

Thank God, according to the Bible, not only can you know, but you can choose where you will spend eternity.

So goes the first sentence of the ATS (American Tract Society) pamphlet I pulled from a professor’s door on campus this week. Thank you, professor-to-remain-anonymous, for providing students with such important news. You think. I hope that students who read your literature will do so critically. In the one sentence above I spot 4 new assumptions.

Before we begin, however, I should make sure I’m using the word “assumption” correctly. According to the Encarta dictionary, an assumption is -

something that is believed to be true without proof

Looks like I’m using it right.

Yesterday I covered these three assumptions: that there will be an eternity, that there is a soul/spirit that continues to exist beyond death, and that there are distinct places within an eternity for a soul to go to. What fresh assumptions do you spy in the single tract sentence at the head of this post?

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: belief, critical thinking, religion

What in the world? Man-made or natural? Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

Within a stack of old papers I found this article: Playing Video Games Reduces Sex Differences In Spatial Skills. It caused me to recall the whole flap caused by the Harvard University President who stated that women many never catch up to men in the hard sciences. (Is that a hard science in your pocket, or are you just glad to study me?). Much controversy ensued. The guy resigned.

I can see his point — it MAY be true that men are at an innate advantage over women when it comes to advances in theoretical physics, etc. But what the above article helped me to comprehend is that the advantage may consist of innate interest as much as it does innate ability.

Is it possible that men and women tend to excel at the activities they are most interested?

Toronto researchers have discovered that differences between men and women on some tasks that require spatial skills are largely eliminated after both groups play a video game for only a few hours.

My point: gender differences reflect more than innate abilities. Want more women to excel in the sciences? One way would be to make it more interesting to them. The gap may never be fully closed, but until the two elements of innate ability and innate interest are teased apart, we will never know.

Technorati Links: gender, genetics, skepticism

What are those odd growths among the cypress trees? They are called knees, and are found around trees in swampy areas. Years ago I had learned that their purpose was to provide oxygen when the water level rises, as it does around here after any significant rainfall. But I may have learned something untrue. I just checked Wikipedia and found this -

Knees are woody projections sent above the normal water level, roughly horizontally from the roots, with a near-right-angle bend taking them roughly vertically downward into soil, usually passing through water first. One rather popular view of their function is that they provide oxygen to the roots that grow in the low dissolved oxygen (DO) waters typical of a swamp (see also mangroves, which have similar adaptations). However, there is little evidence for this; in fact, swamp-dwelling specimens whose knees are removed continue to thrive.

Damn. Scientists know how to build a reactor that sends protons crashing into one another in a spray of quarks, but “they” don’t know why a cypress tree has knees. Maybe very few are drawn to that particular field of study. Or maybe it’s a swamp of study.

Technorati Links: boating, nature

It is fully reasonable for skeptics to question the existence of the Loch Ness Deity. Or of a god, however clearly or poorly defined. I would argue that for a skeptic to take a hands-off approach to religion would be to fail to be consistent in their thinking and worldview.

Yesterday, after teaching a developmental psychology class, I passed by the door of the host professor (if that’s what you call them) for the Campus Crusade for Christ. Right there on my campus. On the professor’s door hung a display holding a bunch of brand-new pamphlets for students and staff to take. So I took one. What was I supposed to do, put blinders on and walk past it as if it didn’t exist?

As an exercise in critical thinking I’m going to go through the pamphlet, line-by-line. This will be the first post in a series.

Front cover (title):

“Where will you spend eternity?”

How many assumptions are inherent in that question? I find three. Let’s spell them out.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: belief, critical thinking, religion

Genes built this, humans shaped it. Narrow it down any? Answer below the fold. [hint: you buy them by the box]

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

This is oversimplifying matters quite a bit, no doubt, but it seems to me that for a people or an individual to become more scientific they must change their “why” questions to “how.”

While “why” implies intention and purpose–and likely excites the “social animal” parts of our brains, “how” seeks to disclose the processes behind phenomena and stimulates the newer parts of the human brain–those involved in tool use.

For example, when in the wake of a tragedy, asking “why” it happened will tend to generate answers that reflect human social needs: was the event intended? Will it influence future behavior?

Asking “how” it happened opens the door to examining the specific, often impersonal, elements involved.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: freethought, religion, science

Most creatures have blind spots in their field of vision. Like this green anole. The few times I have successfully grabbed a wild lizard, I have swept my hand onto it from behind. They lack “eyes on the back of their heads.”

While I try to extend my skepticism to a full 360 degrees, I realize I have my blind spots. What are they? I can’t see them. And so I try to expose my mind to as much intelligent inquiry as possible.

If you are interested in extending your mind, might I suggest checking out the 104th Skeptics’ Circle?

Don’t answer; it’s too late. I already did.

Technorati Links: nature, skepticism