the evolving mind

If the great alpha of the Bible manifests primate tendencies, do these extend into the sexual realm? Oh yes, baby, yes.

In the coming few posts — Almighty Alpha category — I will look at three aspects of primate sexuality relating to hierarchical behavior and status. Two are readily observed in chimpanzee behavior, while the third is most obvious in the human ape. They are:

1) Sexual primacy. Alphas expect to be first in line . . . to procreate with many/choice females. One might argue that this is the utmost motive in hierarchical strivings. Why exert energy to ascend a hierarchy? It’s all about resources (food, shelter, social alliances), the first and foremost being — excuse the bluntness — wombs.

2) Sexual jealousy (suspicion of rivals). This is the flipside of the primacy coin. Dominant males not only work to maximize their chances at impregnating females, they also look to limit the chances of others. Unless those others are allies.

3) Sexual protectiveness. Humans are the most egalitarian of the apes. They simultaneously venture beyond chimps as perhaps the the most sex-obsessed animal. Who is doing whom? We want to know. We also make laws and a multitude of moral proclamations about when where and how it is okay to be sexual. What’s that all about? In the Bible we get more than glimpses of an alpha’s sexual concerns echoing, no doubt, those of “his followers.” At least those with a voice/pen.

Do Bible writings portray a god with a primate’s sexual instincts? Stay tuned to find out.

Technorati Links: primates, religion, sexuality

A chunk of rock fell from the sky over Sudan. An asteroid became a meteor and hit the turf — so to speak — on the second largest of Earth’s continents. Where did it come from? I wonder, too.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos, NASA

In previous posts I have expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of vitamin supplements to improve health (when not treating a deficiency). While I harbor no blanket belief “they don’t work,” and am thus less likely to succumb to the confirmation bias, as an aspiring scientific thinker it is incumbent upon me to be on the lookout — and acknowledge — any evidence that pertains to the subject. Pro or con.

And so, when encountering this headline, Vitamin D Supplements Associated With Reduced Fracture Risk In Older Adults, I made sure to read it. Even though it didn’t grab my interest like a “con” report may have.

It is so easy to be biased. Intention can have nothing to do with it. What most interests us can itself cause us to encounter more of one type of information, less of another.

What was the study finding?

Oral vitamin D supplements at a dose of at least 400 international units per day are associated with a reduced risk of bone fractures in older adults, according to results of a meta-analysis.

Does the more scientific mind have a greater array of things that interest it? Hmm.

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, critical thinking

When chaos theory first became popular years ago, this was the most common example used to illustrate how dynamic and complex systems — such as the weather — can be sensitive to sometimes minute influences: a butterfly flapping its wings near the coast of Africa can trigger a tropical storm in the Atlantic that eventually blossoms into a hurricane that hammers Florida.

Damn those African butterflies!

While there may be a tidbit of truth to the butterfly scenario, there is another type of minute, far-away influence that is more likely having an influence on Florida weather. Dust particles. In particular -

The recent warming trend in the Atlantic Ocean is largely due to reductions in airborne dust and volcanic emissions during the past 30 years, according to a new study.

Less dust particles means more sunshine means warmer water means greater likelihood of more and stronger tropical storms and hurricanes. Why is there less dust in the wind today? Fewer, less severe dust storms in arid Africa.

Change one variable — wind storms on one continent — and in an almost magical fashion, there arises dramatic changes in other variables: hurricanes hitting another continent. Almost magical.

A paragraph in the source article appropriately warns:

Satellite research of dust-storm activity is relatively young, and no one yet understands what drives dust variability from year to year. However, the fundamental role of the temperature of the tropical North Atlantic in hurricane formation and intensity means that this element will be critical to developing a better understanding of how the climate and storm patterns may change.

Ain’t science cool? (Or windy, if you prefer.)

Technorati Links: physics

We had a beautiful little thicket of trumpet vine that got killed off this winter with the many frosts. Well, not killed completely. The freezing temperatures burned the vines to the ground. Yesterday I used an electric chainsaw to clear away the deadwood. And so the trumpetvine is gone. At least the above-ground part of it. But below ground is a mass of roots that will propel new growth out of the soil and into the airy sunshine very soon.

Technorati Links: nature

One weekend, while reading the New York Times online, I came across an article titled, “A Neuroscientific Look at Speaking in Tongues” (Benedict Carey, November 7, 2006). Minus the mind-numbing bias, I would have been plainly interested in the piece. Instead, I was irked by the blatant favoritism shown toward all things religious. A favoritism that helps keep anachronistic dogma on its own beloved shelf.
The article reported on a study showing that different brain areas became active/inactive while women “spoke in tongues” (vs. singing a gospel song). I learned, Researchers could pinpoint blood-flow peaks and valleys unique to speaking in tongues.

How was the report biased? First, throughout the article the activity was always referred to by the words, “speaking in tongues.” Not once was the neutral, modern term for it, “glossolalia,” employed. Why not use the more scientific term?

Second, check out this ludicrous passage:

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: atheism, critical thinking, semantics

Those human apes — they love to watch other apes. They? I mean we. And we learn by watching. From very early in life. In January of this year a study into the observational learning of infants made new ground –

University of Washington psychologists have learned that 10-month-old infants use their prior exposure and understanding of familiar actions by a person to unravel novel actions. However, this ability is limited by the location in which the new action is performed.

In particular, infants were able to learn the intent/desire of an adult, and when later, in the same room, use the learning to anticipate the adult’s next move, as measured by the visual attention of the child. But the tendency to make an inference of sorts was context-dependent: only in the same room did the infants seem to anticipate what would happen next.

Jessica Sommerville of the University of Washington says -

Our work suggests that children’s learning may benefit if they are provided with information about the desired end result of a game or activity before starting it.

And maybe keep in mind that learning can be context-dependent, or at least depend partly upon context clues.

Technorati Links: cognition, learning

What is it? A clue is in the title. And the image is at 200x.

Answer below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: microscope, puzzle

Experiments generate the strongest data. With an experiment you can actively manipulate one variable to determine whether an effect on another variable is . . . caused. Unfortunately, experiments are more difficult to conduct and, particularly in the field of psychology, performing them would violate ethics. (E.g., no psychologist would conduct an experiment to determine if abusive parenting causes depression in children.)

With other types of research, a causal relationship is more difficult to determine. Consider this finding on social skills and later income -

According to a University of Illinois professor who studies the sociology of education, high school sophomores who were rated by their teachers as having good social skills and work habits, and who participated in extracurricular activities in high school, made more money and completed higher levels of education 10 years later than their classmates who had similar standardized test scores but were less socially adroit and participated in fewer extracurricular activities.

Teacher observations and record of participation in extracurricular activities were found to be correlated with future educational achievement and income. Does that mean the one(s) caused the others? Maybe. But we don’t know for sure. Perhaps some other factor both drove the students to behave in a given way at one time, and that same factor (or group of factors) caused a similar behavioral outcome (educational and social excel-lence) 10 years later.

When study author Christy Lleras interprets her finding by saying -

Academic achievement is part of the story, but it’s not the whole story. You’ve got to have the social skills and work habits to back those achievements up.

I tend to agree, but very tentatively. For I am not certain that social skills and work habits can be taught by teachers and parents of high school students. Maybe those traits are largely inborn or acquired earlier in life. I don’t know. And I don’t think Christy really knows either. For her to then advocate for changing how schools educate children, as she goes on record in a science article, is not very scientific.

[O]ur schools are failing students by not providing enough opportunities to develop the skills, habits and knowledge we know employers are going to reward.

Really? It may be so, but I’m skeptical.

Technorati Links: critical thinking, science, sociology

Maybe the way my mind works and some Christian cartoons is incompatible. Check out this one -

When making an argument, I tend to (I hope) base it upon real-world findings. Data. When some Christians make an argument, they cite Bible chapter and verse. In the above case, here is the Bible material the cartoonist uses to support his claim -

2 Corinthians 5

Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. We live by faith, not by sight. We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord.

Um . . . where in the above is there anything about having questions answered by the Creator?

Nowhere.

Technorati Links: bible, humor, science