the evolving mind

We Americans tend to feel an affinity for Aussies. Maybe it relates to the whole Wild West thing. Sure, sometimes we wonder what type of glue keeps their boots secured to the underside of our globe. But you’ve got to love those tans!

Was that a stereotype?

When I lived in the U.S. Southwest, one of the things I loved about it was the general lack of pretense in people. Didn’t matter if you were rich or poor, a rancher, farmhand, store owner or none-of-the-above. People are just people, and those who believe they are getting somewhere fast are fooling themselves. So why not kick up your feet, have a beer, and relax a bit?

It seems to me that the above attitude could describe what we Americans know and feel about Aussies. With such an attitude — one stripped relatively bare of pretension — it seems to me that a healthy skepticism would be as natural as tumbleweeds rolling in the wind.

I wonder if the Young Australian Skeptics would agree. They have recently hosted and posted the The 122nd Skeptics’ Circle. Their committee meeting theme was so well done, I’m inclined to buy them a beer. But I can’t find anything in Robert’s Rules of Order covering the protocol for that.

Technorati Links: skepticism

Whether or not a rose by another name smells as sweet (sorry Bill Quillmaster, you’re off on this one — most people would find “vomit blossom” less sweet), is a blossom from another perspective as beautiful?

Um. Probably not. While the above x60 digital microscope shot of the tissue to a Mexican petunia blossom is kinda neat, it likely causes a different type of arousal than naked-eyeball-grade beauty. At least to those minds aroused by such things.

And? Who said “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”? That person neglected to also mention angle, zoom, and lighting.

Technorati Links: art, photography

In the mammal kingdom, when one individual battles another and wins, its testosterone level rises. For the loser there is a drop. This phenomenon has been found to hold true for human athletes: While the winner in a competition — a game — undergoes a upward spike in testosterone, the loser’s level heads in the other direction.

Interestingly, the affect holds true for friends and fans as well. In team sports, fans of the winning team experience a surge in their testosterone levels. (Does this explain why it is the fans of the winning team, after a huge victory, that sometimes go an a destructive rampage, why they get all aped-up?)

Recent research has discovered this parallel phenomenon: Presidential election outcome changed voters’ testosterone. Specifically,

Young men who voted for Republican John McCain or Libertarian candidate Robert Barr in the 2008 presidential election suffered an immediate drop in testosterone when the election results were announced, according to a study by researchers at Duke University and the University of Michigan.

(For a liberal like me, both of George Bush’s presidential victories were a kick in the balls.)

What about women? Does the finding hold for them? Good question.

The findings mirror what other studies have found in men who participate directly in an interpersonal contest — the winner gets a boost of testosterone, while the loser’s testosterone drops. Testosterone is a steroid hormone manufactured by the testes that is linked to aggression, risk-taking and responses to threats. Women have it too but in much lesser amounts and originating from different sources (their ovaries and adrenal glands), which makes them less likely to experience rapid testosterone changes following victory or defeat.

Is that one of the reasons why women can be more “level-headed”? Is that why men get such a charge over sports, sometimes behaving like power-drunk apes? You never see women take their shirts off at sub-freezing football games to expose torsos painted in team colors. (Maybe there are other factors involved with that one.)

This phenomenon of vicariously felt victory and defeat all about, what is it all about? To me, it is yet more evidence that we are a hyper-social species that takes social alliances very seriously. If we didn’t feel what our allies felt, how unified with them could we really be? Without being unified in perception and feeling, how unified can we be in behavior?

Of course, our primate psychology, having evolved over millions of years, may be a poor fit for the modern world. While it is unlikely that the outcome of a Super Bowl would ever spark World War Three, ancient allegiances (and only slightly more ridiculous) to ethnic and religious “teams” just might.

Technorati Links: psychology, testosterone

The above photo is of a cluster of society garlic flowers. While I view it as “beautiful,” I realize that my perspective is that of a relatively affluent individual. I have food in my fridge — hunger is not driving me to find sustenance in raw nature. So rather than being drawn to the potential caloric value of the plant, I enjoy a “higher” feeling. Gosh it’s pretty.

Where does that sentiment come from? Hunger is easier to comprehend.

Higher, lower. I don’t know. It’s all sidewise to me.

Technorati Links: beauty, culture, photography

“The capture of grooming’s motivational system seems to correlate in each case with the evolution of relatively large groups and the invasion of a more terrestrial, open habitat.”
-Robin Dunbar (61)

Among chimpanzees and other primates, grooming serves as a social glue that keeps intra-group relations harmonious and stable. The greater the group size, the more complex, dynamic and varied the relationships, the greater the need for mechanisms for bond formation, maintenance, and repair.

Human beings generally live in large and very complex social groups. What behaviors do we have for forming and maintaining relationships with the many people in our communities? We talk. Yes, mere chit-chat has high value to our kind.

It’s funny. We recognize the play of children as superfluous in the short term, but potentially helpful in the long. Via play, human youth get exercise, improve their coordination, and learn how to get along. Is there no adult equivalent? I think so. For chimps it is obvious.

“Goodall observes that during a young ape’s adolescence, the proportion of time spent in social play slowly decreases while time spent in social grooming . . . increases.’” (62)

Social grooming. What does it accomplish? Not much, really. Maybe we ought to view the behavior as making investments in relationships. And relationships are a very important resource to a social species.

As for human beings, what takes the place of play? Oh sure, we “play” throughout our lives. But it doesn’t take a genius to notice that most forms of play involve others; play activities usually involve a social element besides the physical and/or cognitive challenges.

The women in a quilting bee, the men playing cards: are these activities fully about making bedding and winning spare change? No. Talk accompanies human play from an early age. Beyond the relatively superfluous form play takes, it is often the talk that really matters. In fact, the same sort of talk can take place over a backyard fence or adjacent to a water cooler. Blah, blah, blah. Yah, we’re cool.

Verbal grooming, whether we compliment another person directly (“Don’t you look nice.”, “Good job on that project.”) or indirectly via agreement over third-party developments (“Yes, so-and-so is such a blank.“), is a huge part of human social life. It is a glue that helps us form and maintain relationships.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, religion

I am not a fan of Stephen J. Gould’s proposal that science and religion are “non-overlapping magisteria.” Science — gee, it is so grand and does so much for people. Religion — gee, it is so grand and does so much for people. If we keep them more than an arm’s length apart, we don’t have to recognize that they conflict in many fundamental ways. And everyone can keep pretending that the Supernatural Emperor ain’t buck-naked.

Our current culture plays favorites with religion, treating it with kid gloves. Critical thinking, gee, that’s for all the other areas of life. Unfortunately, many scientists and science-writers persist in excluding it from critical thought. A recent geological study — geological! — provides a case-in-point.

In brief, the study asserts that Jerusalem sits atop a type of limestone that readily forms caves through which water flows and springs can bubble. This is an important reason why King David chose the area to build his city.

It proved to be a wise decision. One of David’s successors, King Hezekiah watched as the warlike Assyrian horde, a group of vastly superior warriors toppled city after city in the region. Fearing that they’d soon come for Jerusalem, he too took advantage of the limestone bedrock and dug a 550 meter-long (1804 feet) tunnel that rerouted the spring’s water inside the city’s fortified walls.

The Assyrians laid siege to the city in 701 BCE, but failed to conquer it. It was the only city in history to successfully fend them off. [source]

Anyone familiar with the Bible stories (some of it historical) knows that an essential theme is this: Something good happened because our god intervened to help us, pleased as he was with our loyalty to him. Or, Something bad happened because our god punished us for our infidelity to him. It’s all about me, me, me. Or we, we, we.

The author of the study, Michael Bramnik of Northern Illinois University, does make a brief nod to this all-too-common phenomenon:

“Surviving the Assyrian siege put it into the people’s minds that it was because of their faith that they survived,” Bramnik said. “So when they were captured by the Babylonians in 587, they felt it was because their faith had faltered.”

The real reason the people survived? The human engineering that brought water into the city. In a sense, you could say that what made and continues to make Jerusalem a holy city is the delusional thinking of people. Make that self-centered, delusional thinking. For when something good happens, it is all about me (and my people and our special relationship to our version of the one god); when something bad happens, it is also all about me.

Earlier this month I made a post in my Sunday Sacrilege category, “Nothing by the Hands of a God.” In it I proposed that there are three types of events that tend to be attributed to the work of a god. Bogusly so. The third is certainly relevant here -

3) The work of men and women.

An army is victorious in battle against its foe. Why? Not because they had greater numbers, better weapons or whatnot, but because they had a god on their side. An impressive cathedral is built. Not by human hands alone, but human hands doing the work of their god. The poor are fed. How? By people doing their god’s work.

What’s the unnecessary variable in all of this? A god. People do works they attribute to a god. Yet the works can be fully explained without a god.

The title of the science article above read, “Bedrock of a holy city: the historical importance of Jerusalem’s geology.” Why do people persist in referring to a city as “holy.” Sure, religion claims it is so. But what are those claims based upon? Does science have anything to say about the claims?

It seems to me that the bedrock of religion consists of mis-attributions for objects and events in the natural world. And delusional conclusions drawn from these (my god loves me and wants all people to do x, y, and Z).

How long do we keep pretending that science and religion do not overlap . . . and are equally grand?

Technorati Links: freethought, religion, science

Imagine that you wake up floating in outer space — like the above NASA photo of an astronaut relatively distant from his home shuttle. Sure, initially you may consider it a treat. So beautiful. So awe-inspiringly grand.

But unlike the photo, in my hypothetical scenario you have no shuttle-based peers to collect you or a jet-pack to propel you toward. No, you are all alone. Sure, it is pretty cool out there. But how long will your oxygen last? Your water? Your cool?

When does awe turn to foreboding and then to fear?

Fortunately, you are now here on Earth. No such fate awaits you. At least not yet. On your deathbed you may have a different perspective.

Some believers assert that the existential condition of the atheist is that of a person floating in space — untethered to anything absolute. There may be some truth to that. But most atheists I know would prefer that condition to that of floating in space clutching a flimsy chain of Biblical-page paper rings floating lifelessly nowhere. Bothering to hold Linus’ blanket would make as much sense.

How do you perceive your own condition? Is it a treat to be a human being on planet Earth? A trick? A hair-raising experience (at least during those October-31st type moments when you really thing about it)?

For more words by untethered atheists, I recommend checking out Carnival of the Godless #128 – Not Quite Halloween Edition.

Don’t worry. The collection of writings is free of real razor blades. Though you might get a bit existentially nauseous if you read them all at once.

Technorati Links: atheism, existentialism

Previous epidemiological studies have suggested that drinking moderate amounts of alcohol is not only NOT bad for you, but it could be good.

Suggested. Could be.

Why should these studies have been taken with a grain of sniffing salts? Because the data was generated not by controlled experiments, but by statistical seek-and-finds. And with these it is nearly impossible to isolate the influence of any one variable. A new study on alcohol and health illustrates this point perfectly.

According a new study of over 3,000 adults aged 70-79, the apparent association between light-to-moderate alcohol consumption and reduced risk of functional decline over time did not hold up after adjustments were made for characteristics related to lifestyle, in particular physical activity, body weight, education, and income. [bold mine; source]

Darn. It seems my light, regular drinking may not be a beneficial habit in itself. Instead, it is a sign of other good things: that I exercise, eat well, have good health care, etc.

One additional insight I take away from the above study is this: The findings of the behavioral sciences (the study of behavior — on what influences behavior and what behavior influences) should often be viewed cautiously not because the scientists in these fields are inferior. Rather, the subject of their study is fraught with difficulty.

Technorati Links: health, lifestyle

Central Florida is experiencing a cold snap of sorts. Yesterday the high temp didn’t even slip into the 70s. Brisk. This morning the central heat came on in our house for the first time in roughly half a year. I could tell by the smell of burnt dust.

It it breezy and cool out. Is it no wonder I haven’t seen (more often, heard) recent evidence of the two leopard frogs that live in our backyard pond. No ker-splash when I’ve wandered that way in the early morning or late night. Their moist skin . . . Brrrrrr!

I wonder where frogs go during cold weather. Do they hibernate, or just nap, in the deep, freeze-free muck at pond bottom? I wonder.

I suppose I could research the matter.

Yep, seems like it. At least on the bottom of a pond with water turned cold they escape the heat-stealing winds. Me, I’ll throw on a sweater.

Technorati Links: nature, photography

A couple months ago I came across a new scientific finding heralded with this title:

No such thing as ethnic groups, genetically speaking

Wow. “No such thing as ethnic groups.” That’s big. A natural question would be, “What data did the researchers collect?” Turns out, it’s not bad. In fact it is certainly noteworthy:

Evelyne Heyer, from the Musée de l’Homme in Paris, France, led an international team of researchers who studied mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosome data from several populations of two major language ethnic groups of Central Asia, the Turkic and Indo-Iranian groups. She said, “Our results indicate that, for at least two of the Turkic groups in Central Asia, ethnicity is a constructed social system maintaining genetic boundaries with other groups, rather than being the outcome of common genetic ancestry”.

That’s good quality data. But the leap from there to the startling, definitively worded conclusion is . . . ahem . . . huge and potentially bogus.

First. One finding on two Turkic groups. Second, take a look at the opening paragraph to the article:

Central Asian ethnic groups are more defined by societal rules than ancestry. Researchers writing in the open access journal BMC Genetics found that overall there are more genetic differences within ethnic groups than between them, indicating that separate ‘ethnic groups’ exist in the mind more than the blood.

Parsing the language, the groups are more defined by societal rules. No problem with that. Emphasis on the more. Additionally, this is central Asian ethnic groups, so it may not hold or hold as well for other groups. But here’s the major second point I’d like to make: That there are more genetic differences within these ethnic groups does not mean that there is no significant average group difference.

In my developmental psychology class we would cover some group differences in nearly every session. And time after time I would remind them that differences between individuals are very frequently larger than differences between groups.

For instance, boys, on average, are more aggressive than girls. There is, however, a huge variability among boys for aggressiveness, as there is among girls. So many boys are actually less aggressive than the average girl; and many girls are actually more aggressive than the average boy. The two data curves of this behavior overlap. Nonetheless, there remains a significant average difference.

So yes, the researchers uncovered something interesting and important. But no, they did not completely discredit the idea of distinct, genetically-based ethnic group. Mind you, that may one day be established. But at this point the jury is clearly still out.

Technorati Links: culture, genetics