the evolving mind

“Thus, in the Old World species which have been studied under natural conditions, there appears to be a correlation between the amount of allogrooming behavior and the steepness of the dominance slope within the troop.”
- John Sparks (11)

“An adult male tends to groom higher-ranking or older male partners more than he is groomed by them.”
- Jane Goodall (12)

Pleasing those individuals more mighty than yourself is a means of staying on their proverbial good side. How do you please the relatively mighty? First, by refraining from behavior that angers or threatens them. By staying out of their hair. (Technically called “negative reinforcement” — the removal of unpleasant stimuli being reinforcing, which is distinctly different from punishment.) Second, by acknowledging their greater status, in gesture, deed, sound, or even word. By bowing down to them.

A class of primate behavior that belongs in the second category is that of grooming. Numerous studies have shown that gentle touch is pleasing to the touchee, likely causing the release of “pleasure chemicals” (oxytocin a likely culprit). Does hearing complimentary word spoken your way bear the same neurochemical impact as a pat on the back? Perhaps.

Supernatural and religious ideation frequently depicts an overt hierarchical structure. Above is the abode of the mighty. Be bad and you go down . Those closer to “up” are fathers, a step below them, brothers. Titles convey the rarified position of important individuals.

Consider the etymology of three religious terms: Pope, priest and gentile. (All three from the Online Etymology Dictionary.) Notice the implied status and exclusivity for each.

Pope -

O.E. papa, from M.L. papa “bishop, pope” (in classical L., “tutor”), from Gk. papas “patriarch, bishop,” originally “father.”

Priest -

O.E. preost, shortened from the older Gmc. form represented by O.S., O.H.G. prestar, O.Fris. prestere, from V.L. *prester “priest,” from L.L. presbyter “presbyter, elder,” from Gk. presbyteros (see Presbyterian).

Gentile -

1160, from L.L. gentilis “foreign, heathen, pagan,” from L. gentilis “person belonging to the same family, fellow countryman,” from gentilis (adj.) “of the same family or clan,” from gens (gen. gentis) “race, clan” (see gentle).

While there is but one father, there can be many elders. And as for gentiles, the are both common and “not of us,” at least for Jews, the in-group as they saw it and perhaps still see it.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let us first take a look at primate grooming as it pertains to their hierarchical organization. Then we’ll segue to other important social elements of grooming. Finally we will transition from physical grooming to verbal praise. The latter two items will be addressed in separate, forthcoming installments.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: primates, religion, status

A recent study out of the University of Buffalo has clearly revealed that the confirmation bias influences human cognitive habits in many areas of life. (Nearly all?) In their study, researchers looked into political beliefs and how even outright bogus ones can be easily supported.

Briefly, the confirmation bias consists of of the tendency to notice events and information that confirm your belief coupled with the failure to acknowledge events and information that could challenge and disconfirm your belief. In the article, Study Demonstrates How We Support Our False Beliefs, co-author Steven Hoffman says,

“Our data shows substantial support for a cognitive theory known as ‘motivated reasoning,’ which suggests that rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe.

“In fact,” he says, “for the most part people completely ignore contrary information.”

Bingo, the confirmation bias in action. In this case, the belief in question was the bogus link between Saddam Hussein and the terrorist attacks on 9/11.

A couple points in the article deserve to be highlighted. First, Hoffman says,

“The argument here is that people get deeply attached to their beliefs.”

How often has it been a public relations problem that scientists are seen as coldly aloof, residing in their ivory towers of frigid facts? How often in public debates do the advocates of nonsense come across as more passionate, hence persuasive? And yet it is she who lacks deep attachments who should be trusted more.

Second, and in a related fashion, personal investment in a belief makes it much more difficult to move beyond.

“We refer to this as ‘inferred justification,’” says Hoffman “because for these voters, the sheer fact that we were engaged in war led to a post-hoc search for a justification for that war.

I wonder if it is more difficult for active members of churches to jettison their belief, for they have spent so much time and energy and perhaps money that they would prefer their thinking and action not stand on a questionable foundation. And so they buttress it with justifications and rationalizations.

Or so I think. But I could be wrong. I await further educational experiences, whether or not they confirm or disconfirm my present thinking.

Technorati Links: cognition, critical thinking

Hummingbird food, at least that found in nature, tends to be served on gorgeous platters. Well, it tends to be found among colorful flower petals (or bracts, as the case may be). The above photo of an immature blossom is from a backyard shrimp plant. Its segmented flower apparently resembles cooked shrimp. (Boy, do I wish the shrimp plants would grow real shrimp! I’d go munching my way through the garden, with or without a cup of cocktail sauce in hand. Sweet peas are nice, but . . . .)

Yesterday evening I watched, and listened to, a female ruby-throated hummingbird feed from matured shrimp plant blossoms. I knew it was a female hummingbird because it lacked the ruby throat coloration of the males. And because we only get one variety of hummingbird around here.

I wonder why there is only one species of this type of bird in central Florida. When I lived in New Mexico, we had several. At first blush it seems that the desert ecosystem wouldn’t be as diverse as that around here. But then again, drastic changes in elevation and varying amounts of rain isn’t something to overlook. And Florida lacks this. Do we also lack an overhead flyway from diverse environments that might funnel other types of hummingbirds here?

So many questions.

Technorati Links: birds, fauna, flora

An issue I frequently harp on is that of language use. While precision with instruments is essential to good measurement, precision with language is crucial to defining variables, crafting hypotheses, and developing theories. Unfortunately, when it comes to educating the public about scientific findings, many writers “sexy” things up by playing fast and loose with words. Other times the problem may consist of a lack of good words to describe the phenomena in question.

When a writer lacks a good, tight-fitting word, he or she doesn’t just leave a void in the sentence. They work with what they’ve got. “Sorry, we don’t have this word in a size 9, we’ll have to go with an 11 and add some fill.” The more responsible and scientific thing to then do is to “add some fill,” to explain how the word doesn’t quite fit, and in doing so, outlining and better filling the void.

Case in point — an article from ScienceDaily bearing this title: Scientists Show Bacteria Can ‘Learn’ And Plan Ahead.

Okay, we’ve got half-quotes around learn. So the bacteria don’t learn as we customarily think of learning. What about plan ahead? Can bacterial truly do that as we do? Or is more explanation needed?

In the article we find many loose-fitting words in need of further explanation.

Bacteria can anticipate a future event and prepare for it, according to new research at the Weizmann Institute of Science.

How do they anticipate? What do they do to prepare? Explanatory paragraphs further confuse as much as they clarify:

Their findings show that these microorganisms’ genetic networks are hard-wired to ‘foresee’ what comes next in the sequence of events and begin responding to the new state of affairs before its onset.

Foresee? Respond?

the scientists found that when the wine yeast feel the heat, they begin activating genes for dealing with the stresses of the next stage.

Feel? Activating?

After reading the article more closely a second time, I have a better understanding of the research, and the meaning of the words used to describe it. I may be wrong, for this is not my area of specialty, but the underlying science seems to be about a type of epigenetic change in bacteria.

What does epigenetic mean? Good question. The Wikipedia entry is quite clear on the matter. It fills the shoe of that term nicely.

In biology, the term epigenetics refers to changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: over; above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell’s life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism;instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism’s genes to behave (or “express themselves”) differently.

Notice how the loose-fitting behave was tightened parenthetically? That is good science writing. And let’s end with the good.

Technorati Links: education, research, semantics

I am an atheist and I have teeth. And here I am talking about the figurative kind. What do I sink my teeth into? Anything I view as nonsense. Any regular reader of this blog knows that my favorite target is weak and/or outright bogus science. Another favorite target is religion. Why? Because I view it as a completely bogus “way of knowing.”

Otherwise, my teeth stay in my mouth. So to speak. I have loving relationships, am a productive, charitable member of society, etc. Sure, atheists have teeth, but so does everyone. We are not significantly different from the rest of society in that regard.

But yes, in terms of our view of religion, why tend to NOT grant it special treatment. For a whole, heaping helping of no-special-treatment, I recommend checking out the 124th edition of the Carnival of the Godless.

Technorati Links: atheism, belief, blog carnival

What creature sports these offensive (or perhaps defensive) weapons? Hints: pic at x200; this guy/gal’s relatives nearly kept me up last night.

Answer and another photo below the fold.

And by the way, you’ve got some formerly impressive weapons yourself: on the tips of your fingers and in your mouth. Our kind will still resort to biting and scratching.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: fauna, mircoscope, puzzle

When prayer fails, rationalizations succeed. This was aptly illustrated by the cartoon I posted earlier in the week, titled “The Spin Doctor.” This morning the same theme jumped up and punched me in the eye. So to speak. In pile atop my desk, I found an article from a science website (EurekAlert) spouting this nonsense:

Brandeis University research in the Journal of Religion this month shows that over the last four decades, medical studies of intercessory prayer—the prayer of strangers at a distance—actually say more about the scientists conducting the studies than about the power of prayer to heal.

Had I been drinking milk at the time it would have come shooting out my nose.

What a load of happy horse . . . rationalization. No, the studies primarily show a lack of a link between prayer and health. In the wake of the lack of a link, we discover that the meager remaining tendril of hope for the religiously-minded is the power of rationalization.

Are you sitting down? No milk in you mouth? Good. Read this quote by the Brandeis University “researcher” Wendy Cadge:

“With double blind clinical trials, scientists tried their best to study something that may be beyond their best tools,” said Cadge, “and reflects more about them and their assumptions than about whether prayer ‘works.’”

Oh lard. How infuriating. How sad. Talk about assumptions! This is a case of the cracked pot calling the titanium kettle black. If we must talk about two competing sets of assumptions (for science, working premises, really), one set, the scientific set, has been tested and refined and found effective over and over again. The other set? It is suspended by threads of true belief in minds alone. Out in the real world, that set fails. As has been shown time and time again. And that is what the science shows. The “reflects more about them and their assumptions” part is a bald case of special pleading.

Technorati Links: belief, critical thinking

The above blossom (unknown variety) is fully unfurled. It seems the flower doesn’t completely mature by the standards of typical, petal-producing plants. Ask it if it cares.

Evolution works in wondrous ways. One of the ways is by the retarding of development. Human beings, for example, undergo quite a bit of “retarded development.” We come out of the womb half-baked and fully helpless. We retain an interest in play, often considered an element of youth, throughout our life span. Etc., etc.

Genes influence timing influence development. In sometimes startling ways.

Technorati Links: flora, genetics

Yesterday, in my Steaming Pile post, we “learned” that there are three types of dog intelligence. Gee, I had thought there were seven and half.

Today I am happy to (mis)educate you with this nugget: it seems there are three types of relationships dog owners have with their dogs.

My, that number three sure is popular!

In this ScienceDaily.com article I read of research consisting of “28 in-depth interviews with dog owners from a Midwestern county.” Wow. In-depth!

Let’s cut to the chase of the alleged finding before I continue with my snarky barkings.

Dog ownership attitudes fell into three categories: Humanist, where dogs were highly valued and considered close companions, like pseudo people; protectionists might be vegetarians and they greatly valued animals in general, not just as pets; dominionists saw animals as separate and less important than people, often using the dogs for hunting and pest control and requiring them to live outdoors.

Apparently none of the 28 were in the beastialitist camp. Nor in the my-pet-is-my-surrogate-child category. Etc.

Here’s my beef with this type of science. The finding seems to be more of an intellectual fabrication than a discovery of fact. A bit like looking at the sky and determining what a cloud shape resembles. Strong science strays little from facts. Weak science wanders a greater distance from the data — data that itself may be light-weight and/or ambiguous.

Of course, I would have no problem with scientific speculation (cursory hypothesizing/theorizing) when presented as such: These are my ideas which we cannot be too confident of at this stage.

Finally — I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: There are two types of people in this world. Those who believe there are two types of people, and those who don’t (a.k.a., critical thinkers).

Albert Einstein once opined, “In science, things should be made as simple as possible, but not too simple” (my paraphrase). In the above cases of 3 types of dog intelligence and three types of human-canine relationships, methinks things have been made too simple.

Technorati Links: animals, skepticism

Sometimes it seems to me that life on Earth is akin to a party. What a crowd of organisms! What bustling! What noise!

Two of the reasons I enjoyed living in the Southwest were the elbow room and the quiet. It was easier to fall into a more contemplative state and take a deeper view, at least in terms of time.

Imagine sitting in solitary at the edge of a massive crater. Yes, crater. There are many on our home planet. Most are covered with growth and/or eroded to near oblivion. But in the desert regions — there they are. Holy smokes! Not only is Earth not the center of the Universe, but it has been battered by wayward hunks of space junk. Just like any planetary body. Just like any.

-

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: belief, cosmos, meaning