the evolving mind

Here is a shocker: Economists discovered we are human! And they seemed shocked by it. In research into what might be described as consumer loyalty -

Academics set out to show whether customers who have been let down continue to do business after being offered an apology. They found people are more than twice as likely to forgive a company that says sorry than one that instead offers them cash.

The title to the news release suggest that, gee, our kind isn’t Homo capitalist.

Saying Sorry Really Does Cost Nothing

Here are the hard numbers:

Some 45% of participants withdrew their [negative] evaluation in light of the apology, while only 23% agreed in return for compensation.

In a speculation as to the psychological reason for the observed results, study co-author Dr Johannes Abeler displays a lack of understanding about the fundamental nature of our kind -

“It might be that saying sorry triggers in the customer an instinct to forgive – an instinct that’s hard to overcome rationally.”

An instinct to forgive . . . what is this but an attempt at relationship repair? An appropriate name for our kind might be Homo hypersocial.

As for needing to overcome a social instinct rationally — in this phrasing we see a kernel of a mistaken worldview. Homo rational is a myth. What we have at hand are cognitive and social skills/inclinations that evolved in a particular environment that human beings now apply to different circumstances.

Venturing into politics here, it is because Homo hypersocial suits us so much better than Homo capitalist or Homo rationalist that I find the objectivist and extreme libertarian worldviews to be narrow-minded. They run counter to a massive, essential side to human nature. The social.

Technorati Links: evolution, psychology

Are you a flower with feelings of inferiority? Not well-hung? Feel inferior no longer. Now you can have the masculine part of your biology enhanced. Our product will not only help you “measure up,” but will bring a smile to butterflies everywhere.

If butterflies could smile.

Technorati Links: flowers, photography

Lord my God! When I in awesome wonder
Consider all the works thy hand hath made,
I see the stars, I hear the mighty thunder,
Thy power throughout the universe displayed;

Refrain:
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art!
Then sings my soul, my Saviour God, to Thee,
How great Thou art, how great Thou art! (56)

To please, placate and perhaps find favor from an alpha: groom him. But what are humans to do? We don’t finger through the fur of others. What fills this void in our social-behavior repertoire? Kissing ass, to use the colloquial term. Or, in other words, praise.

Much of the praising behavior humans engage in, however, is not directed up the hierarchical social structure (and very rarely is it directed down). Instead, we praise those of similar status with whom we have alliances. Or those we simply want to be “on friendly terms with,” keeping alive the possibility of a future working relationship, should we need it.

Don’t you look nice today! This type of human talk is the human equivalent of grooming. It helps to establish and maintain relationships.

Among primates, lip-smacking often precedes and/or accompanies grooming — as if signaling intention to pick off fleas with lips. Lip-smacking likely evolved into a purely auditory gesture of friendliness when emitted on its own. Emitting words while gum-flapping became a natural elaboration.

In terms of grooming, the difference between human apes and non-human apes is that humans using words to pleasurably stroke others, while non-human apes must position themselves closer and physically reach out.

Robin Dunbar, in his book, Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, has made great headway into an understanding of that class of human behavior we might call “chit-chat.” He wrote, “We suggested that, as group sizes began to drift upwards from the numbers to which apes are currently limited, vocal grooming began increasing to supplement physical grooming.” (57)

Who has time to physically groom all the important and potentially important members of their social groups? Fortunately, we can do it across space. And with a few quick words.

Yes, it can be difficult to see the social intent behind the symbols we speak. It helps to envision what words mean in terms of behavior. For example, a “Yes, sir” voiced by recently disciplined son to his father is akin to a bow. Sir certainly doesn’t mean bow semantically. But there is a whole lot more to language than semantics. (58)

Consider the current fad of calling someone or his/her deed as “stupid.” It’s actually high praise. To say “that was stupid!” is to mean, “what you just did was awesome!” Words are highly plastic. One element to language that is not plastic, however, is tone. While one lover can coo to another, “you’re a babe,” or some such thing, and have it welcomed, I would advise against changing the emotional tone to an utterance and expecting it to be understood. “YOU’RE A BABE” spoken with in a dismissive sneer growl will never please a lover. Not among normal human animals.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: psychology, religion

As I try to highlight in this blog, there are not two distinct categories of science and not-science. Instead, there is the best science on one end of a spectrum, and absolutely not science, or nonsense, on the other. In between there is a whole range. Pseudoscience, weaker science, stronger science, etc.

One element that determines where on the spectrum a type of science or individual study finding deserves to be placed is the quality of data used. Because surveys generally generate weak data, any research that relies upon it cannot be viewed as strongly scientific. A recent news parody found over at the Onion illustrates why — in a way that made me laugh out loud. All you need is the title to understand. Enjoy.

Majority Of Parents Abuse Children, Children Report

Technorati Links: science

Upon witnessing a male behave in an extreme fashion — aggressive, impulsive, risky — we customarily conclude that the male “has big balls.” To behave like that, well, you’ve got to be high on testosterone, and for an ample supply, you need a major set of huevos. So to speak.

Recent research into male territorial aggression, however, has shed light on the crucial role estrogen likely plays. Yes, estrogen.

In Estrogen Link In Male Aggression Sheds New Light On Sex-specific Behaviors I learned,

For the first time, researchers have identified networks of nerve cells in the brain that are associated with how male mice defend their territory and have shown that these cells are controlled by the female hormone estrogen.

Okay, this is male mice. But judging from scads of research into other behavioral phenomena, the finding is likely to hold true for our kind.

If you didn’t know, the male body makes estrogen, as the female body makes testosterone. The behavior of each sex is influenced by hormones customarily associated with the opposite sex. Truth is, you don’t need ovaries to make estrogen, just as you don’t need testicles to make testosterone. If you need a high quantity of these hormones, however, it helps to have glands that specialize in making them.

Back to territoriality and estrogen. The territorial male protects his turf. He protects his mating opportunities, his mate, his nest, his offspring. What follows is pure speculation, but I could see why estrogen and not testosterone is the key hormone.

First, being the “female” hormone, estrogen likely drives females into becoming protective mothers. Second, one of the roles testosterone plays is to drive males, and females, into “making babies.” By the hormone NOT additionally being key to territoriality, multiple fertilization strategies open up. Sex without diligent parental investment becomes possible. As does sex with parental investment. And yes, numerous psychological studies suggest that different males — human males — seem oriented toward different sexual strategies, irregardless of their upbringing or religion, or culture, or whatnot. Well, maybe not totally irregardless.

No, I’m not excusing male philandering or attempting to explain away male commitment-phobia evident in some males. The sexual stereotype certainly does not hold true for all males. It is more of a caricature, an exaggeration of a kernel of truth. I’m just venturing where the science leads me. Though I have likely ventured beyond the science. But my point is that it is possible to better understand behavior without condoning it.

Here’s a provocative idea for an experiment. I wonder if male and female soccer and hockey goalies, and perhaps even defensemen, have higher estrogen levels, on average, than those offensive players whose role is less to protect a territory than to invade one. I wonder.  Quick, someone swab the inside of the cheeks to soccer and hockey players across the land and do a DNA test.  An inquiring mind wants to know if hormone levels may have influenced the players’ affinity for a position.  (Of course, this would have to be done before the choosing of a position.  The influence between behavior and biology is confoundingly bi-directional.  Playing the role could change hormone levels.)

Technorati Links: gender, psychology

Can you identify the above image?  Hints: x60 & it doesn’t glow. Answer and another pick below the fold.

Since owning and using a digital microscope I have realized that what seems visually flat to me is in actuality quite 3-d, at least when you look closer. Hence, many of the images are only clear/focused for one “slice” (depth) of the 3-d image. Darn.

Continue Reading »

A couple studies have been recently published that highlight how other primates behave similar to us. Or is our behavior similar to theirs?

1) Rhesus macaque mothers and their infants engage in a significant amount of “face time.” [source]

“What does a mother or father do when looking at their own baby?” asked Pier Francesco Ferrari of the Università di Parma in Italy. “They smile at them and exaggerate their gestures, modify their voice pitch—the so-called “motherese”—and kiss them. What we found in mother macaques is very similar: they exaggerate their gestures, “kiss” their baby, and have sustained mutual gaze.”

For macaques, however, this intimate bonding period lasts barely a month. Relative to humans, macaques undergo accelerated development. Or do humans, relative to macaques, undergo a dramatically slowed development?

Interestingly, for macaque and human, the next social stage is again similar. The young children turn from an intense interest and attachment to mom/caregivers, to a great interest in same-age peers.

2) In Old World monkeys, there is a correlation between brain size and time spent in social grooming.[source] It is not a surprise that humans, with our dramatically bulbous brains, spend a significant amount of time in behavior that could also be described as social grooming. The difference, as I am exploring in my Almighty Alpha series, is that humans groom one other by exchanging pleasant vocalizations in the form of chit-chat.

When it comes to primates, the smaller the brain, the simpler the social dynamics of the group they live in.

In explaining the existence of religions, some see in them an ancient means of regulating behavior. Social behavior. Consider the ten commandments (and my on-the-fly interpretation of them):

1) I am your alpha, recognize me as such and put none before me.

2 & 3) Do not speak poorly of me or make images of competing/aspiring alphas. Again, keep me first. All of you must do this (for the sake of group harmony).

4) Keep my day holy. All of you do this together.

5) Respect and don’t reject your mom and dad. Keep our social organizations stable.

6) Do not murder (any of those in your group).

7) Do not have intercourse with another male’s female. That will really destabilize a group.

8) Do not steal. From your group mates. Play nice.

9) Don’t tell lies about your group mates. We want loyal group members and need the ability to determine who are good (for us) and who are not.

10) Do not covet the stuff of other group members. That will lead to a failure to play nice.

Religious ideas are not so other-worldly when viewed in this light. Sure, supernatural entities play an important role in religion. But that role is largely to assist in the social regulation of a group of individuals by populating individual’s minds with invisible agents. The supernatural agents, not surprisingly, are generally important group members (ancestors, patriarchs) that show an interest in what goes on in the visible world. So to speak.

It seems to me modern believers attribute three classes of events to the work of a god . Yet in each case they are mis-attributions.

1) Large-scale natural events.

Earthquakes, hurricanes, etc. These events have a profound impact on people’s lives. Yet they are not “about us,” so to speak. While dramatic, natural events occur, sometimes seemingly from out of the blue, and while the effects may be significant in terms of human lives affected, we are mistaken if we take them personally.

2) Fluke events.

An understanding of probability doesn’t come naturally to the human mind. So, if a person who survives an airplane accident is found unconscious and clutching a cross necklace (or even without it) — it’s a miracle. Meanwhile, the far more numerous passengers that perished with or without clutching their religious artifacts . . . they get left out of the equation.

When the improbably occurs it is not a miracle. Rather, it is a fully natural fluke. At least to those who see the bigger statistical picture.

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 above photo shows a massive stone pillar and arch supporting the heavy ceiling and roof to a church. Wouldn’t a god’s house be more impressive if that god allowed his people to support it with not granite columns, but tall pieces of straw? Or better yet, cause the covering structure to continually hover, unattached? The reason we never see this: human hands can only do for their god what they could do without a god.

My conclusion: god is a worthless variable.

Technorati Links: atheism, religion

Most of you are probably familiar with the case of the peppered moth. In it’s original form, the moth was lighter in color. Enter the industrial revolution and the discoloration of surfaces, such as tree trunks, due to soot in the air. Over the course of moth generations, they took on a darker coloration. Those that blended with their environment better avoided predation and survived to reproduce.  Dark color-genes were naturally selected for, you could say.  Though there wasn’t an agent doing the selecting, nor was there a greater purpose to the selection.

A similar case has been discovered and studied. This time it was not peppered moths in England, but deer mice Nebraska. And the species did not darken in color, but lighten. Why? During the last ice age, “glaciers deposited sand dunes atop what had been much darker soil.”

For a mouse, as with a moth, standing out is not a good thing. Although hawks and other predators would differ in their preference for the color of their dinner.

How do we know these mice were once darker in color? Because the darker variety still exists. One might argue that the darker is a transitional variant of sorts. At least were the sand dune mice to eventually become a completely isolated and separate breeding population that eventually didn’t recognize the darker mice as potential mates. Call it evolution in action. And it’s happening right under our noses.

Here a little more info from the source article:

This and other evidence, including much greater genetic uniformity among pale mutants than their dark wildtype cousins, suggests this mutation is a relatively recent development, likely arising shortly after the formation of the Sand Hills in north-central Nebraska.

By mating light Sand Hills mice and dark mice found outside the Sand Hills, Linnen and Hoekstra determined that the light coloration seen in Agouti mutants is genetically dominant to the darker coats seen among wildtype mice.

One last point. During a recent Colbert Report episode, Richard Dawkins told the host of the show that any purpose to life is a human purpose. We create any purpose perceived. And I agree with that. Dawkins also said that, yes, evolution is random. But this point I wonder about. Hear me out.

In the case of the mice, for instance, genetic mutation responsible for the change in deer mice coloration.  I wonder if this type of mutation is completely random. Could there be some sort of epigenetic input involved? Biologists have recently come to understand that experiences can turn off and on already existing genes. Nurture triggers nature. Can some types of experience likewise make some genes more likely to mutate than others? Has the differing visual input (experience) of the deer mice, triggered a greater propensity for it to undergo genetic change (nature) in it’s fur-coloring genes? I wouldn’t be surprise if in the future we discover that much of randomness to evolution is actually more of a reflection of our ignorance than anything else. Of course, the opposite of random is not purposefully determined.

Technorati Links: evolution

The above clump of berries aren’t what you would call red. Well, maybe if you were color blind you might guess the tint of gray you saw suggested red. Are they purple? For those of us with a limited color vocabulary, I have decided to see if is a better term for it than “light-ish purple.”

To Google I will go,
to Google I will go,
hi-ho the Internet
to Google I will go….

Hmm. “Deep violet?” I was hoping to nail it with “magenta” or something.

Just goes to show ‘ya. Nature doesn’t come in categories. We shove it into them.

Technorati Links: language, photography