the evolving mind

In some circumstances the application of evolutionary-psychology thinking can be as silly as trying to find the primate precursor to the behavior of a piloting an airplane. Did swinging from trees help prepare humans for steering a Boeing 747 through 3-dimensional skies? Isn’t it obvious that peeling a banana is the antecedent to opening a flight log?

In future posts I will address questions about just how scientific evolutionary psychology is and can be (section titles: “Science and the Educated Guess,” and “Indirect Evidence and Possible Tests”). But putting that very-important issue aside right now, there is an essential question begging to be asked: Why the heavy focus on chimpanzee behavior?

There are a couple reasons for this.

First, chimpanzees are the most and best studied of the non-human primates. Second, DNA analysis has found that of any species, Pan troglodytes is most genetically similar to Homo sapiens.

But wait. The bonobo, or Pan paniscus, is as closely related to us as are chimps. It seems. While chimps and humans have a between 1 and 2% dissimilar genetic material, chimps and bonobos — a cousin species of the chimp, previously called the “pygmy chimp” — have approximately .3% non-shared genes. Because bonobos are usually lumped in with chimps, it is difficult to determine whether one or the other is a closer genetic kin to us. At least one biologist, Alison Jolly of the University of Sussex, has concluded that the bonobo is “no closer” to the human than is the chimpanzee.(1) Triglodyte or paniscus: Will the truer proto-human please stand up?

It is my present belief that chimpanzee behavior provides greater insight into human behavior. The late Roger Gould saw it this way, too:

“Inasmuch as morphologies can be interpreted correctly as reflections of behavior, therefore this suggests that the common ancestor was likely to have been more chimpanzee-like than bonobo-like in aspects of its behavior that were correlated with cranial development.” (2)

Of course, human beings are ultra-adaptive, if ultra-anything. I have previously argued that human nature could be compared to a Swiss Army knife. What is our true nature? Well, it depends upon the task at hand. Under some conditions we may be more triglodyte-like, in others, paniscus-like.

But wait. Recent research has suggested that the better primate to use as a guide to human nature is . . . the orangutan.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: evolutionary psychology, primatology

Are you kidding me?! The above NASA photo just about blows my mind. Awesome.

Because space travel is a relatively alien activity to our kind, are those who do it — and the technology that enables them — the extraterrestrial activity we should get excited about?

I think so.

Technorati Links: extraterrestrials, NASA

Three recent, separate studies have illustrated how chemicals and chemical levels can influence thoughts, feelings, behavior: human psychology. In two of the studies, the chemicals were endogenous, or internally produced, in the third, exogenous.

1) Dopamine and pleasure.

The first sentence to the news release tells it:

Enhancing the effects of the brain chemical dopamine influences how people make life choices by affecting expectations of pleasure, according to new research from the UCL Institute of Neurology. [bold added][source]

Drugs that influence dopamine levels in the brain include cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamines. Caffeine, too.

2) Carbon dioxide and fear.

Yes, your body creates carbon dioxide. Oxygen comes in through the lungs, carbon dioxide out. Higher levels of carbon dioxide have been found to trigger fear and anxiety.

A new study by University of Iowa researchers shows that carbon dioxide increases brain acidity, which in turn activates a brain protein that plays an important role in fear and anxiety behavior. [source]

Like the above on pleasure, this finding on fear has important mental health implications.

[T]he study team, including first author Adam Ziemann, M.D., Ph.D., found that making brain tissue less acidic (raising brain pH) blunted fear behavior produced by carbon dioxide and reduced learned fear. [bold added]

This is your brain; this is your brain with an altered pH. This is your emotional state and behavior; this is your emotional state and behavior with acidic brain tissue.

3) Phthalates and effeminate play.

Phthalates do not naturally occur in the human body. They are used by industry to soften plastics. When humans are exposed to these the can be absorbed. And when in a mother’s body, the can influence the developing fetus.

Phthalates are also found in vinyl and plastic tubing, household products, and many personal care products such as soaps and lotions. Phthalates are becoming more controversial as scientific research increasingly associates them with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities, and reduced testosterone in babies and adults. [source]

The news release containing the above information reported this very interesting finding:

In Swan’s study, higher concentrations of metabolites of two phthalates, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP), were associated with less male-typical behavior in boys on a standard play questionnaire….Girls’ play behavior was not associated with phthalate levels in their mothers, the study concluded.

Phthalates have previously been recognized as anti-androgenic compounds: they act against or disrupt the male hormones. How could the mothers’ exposure to this chemical affect their boys’ style of play?

Swan hypothesized that phthalates may lower fetal testosterone production during a critical window of development – somewhere within eight to 24 weeks gestation, when the testes begin to function – thereby altering brain sexual differentiation. [bold added]

Who knew that studying chemistry in school could aid your understanding of human psychology? We now know better.

Technorati Links: biology, gender, psychology

I would describe the state of those who accept the Bible as containing literal truth as “massive ignorance.”

The above photo is of a centuries old cathedral in Sicily. The footer of the supporting granite columns sit upon bricks fashioned from stone rife with shells. Yes, shells in the stone.

I wonder: where in the Bible does it say that God created the lands and seas, waited awhile for the seas to become populated with marine life, then converted some of the dynamic sea fringes into rock-hard land?

It doesn’t.

Those who claim that religion helps us see the “big picture” are looking through the wrong end of a telescope. If anything, by allowing their thoughts to be shaped-by and even tethered-to an ancient understanding of a relatively limited world, they have distanced themselves from a newer, clearer view of the universe.

Technorati Links: atheism, creationism, religion

Our society is currently undergoing this trend: Females are increasingly becoming the primary earners in households. This week I stumbled upon some research into the psychology of the phenomenon. While the write-up first showed promise, it ultimately disappointed me. The science was very soft.

The promise:

University of Missouri researcher Rebecca Meisenbach has found that women who take the role of lead breadwinner for their families experience both benefits and tensions. [source]

The disappointment:

In the qualitative study, Meisenbach interviewed 15 female breadwinners in professional occupations in the United States and had them describe their own experiences as breadwinners.

First there was the number. Just 15 subjects. But, more importantly, there was the type of research conducted. A qualitative study. This type of research is soft science if there ever were such a thing.

Here’s the beginning of the Wikipedia entry on qualitative research of the psychological variety:

In psychology, qualitative research has come to be defined as research whose findings are not arrived at by statistical or other quantitative procedures. Qualitative research is often said to be naturalistic. That is, its goal is to understand behaviour in a natural setting. Two other goals attributed to qualitative research are understanding a phenomenon from the perspective of the research participant and understanding the meanings people give to their experience. [bold mine]

To put it bluntly, it seems to me that this type of research is perfect for people averse to numbers and controls: the very things that give science it’s accuracy and precision. With qualitative research it is far too easy for the researchers’ own biases and preconceptions to plucked out of the vague cloud of data generated (unconsciously evoked?)

I don’t trust it. Qualitative research relies on the notion that people accurately perceive what is going on in their lives. Meanwhile, a mountain of research generated by strong scientific methods have highlighted how problematic this is. Furthermore, qualitative research is entirely non-replicable.

Sure, use it as a preliminary stage in data gathering. Employ qualitative methods to generate ideas about what might be the case. But once you have generated your set of “might be”s — hypotheses — to determine if they actually are I would insist on switching to more controlled, quantitative methods.

What did the above mentioned research study conclude?

Meisenbach found that the female breadwinners described six essential experiences: opportunities for control, independence, pressure and worry, valuing partner’s contributions, guilt and resentment, and ambition.

Has a bit of the feel of an astrological forecast, doesn’t it?

Are those “six essential experiences” truly what is going on? Maybe. But perhaps they are merely shared ways of thinking about what is going on (suggested/encouraged by the interviewer?). Without better controlled research, there is no way to know with any significant degree of confidence.

Technorati Links: psychology, skepticism

When in high school, and still going through the motions as a Catholic, I once got in a quarrel with the girl I was dating. What was the quarrel about? The Pope.

The girl and I had recently met at a youth bowling outing put on by our church. We hit it off and enjoyed a few weeks of good clean fun together.

One of the things that precipitated our break up was the scheduled visit to our state by the Pope. My girlfriend was very excited and planned to attend come hell or floodwaters. While I was okay with her excitement, she wasn’t okay with my ambivalence. No, I didn’t plan to waste a full day of my precious youth to go see “some guy.” I probably said, He lives in a castle and wears a fancy costume . . . big deal.

Decades later, this current Pope is likewise “just some guy” to me. Oh sure, he’s a politically important figure. But don’t expect me to revere his opinion an anything more than the opinion itself warrants. Ad hominem arguments — whether they reflect uncritical rejection or acceptance — are logically flawed. And I prefer to steer clear of such pitfalls.

[comic thanks to atheistcartoons.com]

Technorati Links: atheism, logic

1) Caltech researchers have found that fruit flies, of all things, engage in “emotion-like” behavior.

In their Neuron paper, the Caltech team—led by postdoctoral fellow Tim Lebestky—found that a series of brief but brisk air puffs, delivered in rapid succession, caused flies to run around their test chamber in what Anderson calls a “frantic manner.” This behavior persisted for several minutes after the last of the puffs. [source]

True, the fruit flies didn’t shed tears. But how else could emotion-like behavior be noted and measured in this species? BTW, the like is essential for maintaining a scientific attitude.

2) Okay, monkeys don’t really “date.” But how do they choose mates? What is attractive to them: A nice head of hair, big, brown eyes, pouty lips? Certainly it wouldn’t be a shapely derriere, for only we bipedal apes have such fully developed gluteus maximus muscles. It seems that as with humans, part of what makes one monkey attracted to another is . . . scent. As to why: an individual that smells different likely has different genes. And different genes mean healthier offspring.

Although it is not entirely clear how the females work out whose genes complement theirs, the researchers believe it might be done through smell. Monkeys know their own body smell, which is partly determined by their genes. They will sniff out the males whose body odour is different giving an indication that their genetic make up is likely to be unlike theirs, say the scientists. [source]

Hmm. The next time I tell my wife why I love her, should I include, “And it probably has something to do with your smell. You smell different.”

When lovers “nuzzle up” to one another, nose at necks (where blood flows close to the surface), are they inhaling clues about one another’s genetic make-up?

3) Ancient Greeks on the island of Sicily worshipped the sun, directly or indirectly. How do we know?

Dr Alun Salt, an astronomy technician from the Centre for Interdisciplinary Science at the University of Leicester, found that out of all the temples he surveyed in Sicily, all but three [of dozens] faced the rising sun. [source]

Worshipping the sun seems to me the most sensible of all religions. We know for a fact that life would be impossible without it. And forget about getting tanned at the beach.

Technorati Links: psychology, science

Consciousness befuddles me. If it doesn’t you — you probably haven’t given it much thought.

I wonder, for example, how my consciousness would differ, if exist at all, were I to lack short-term memory.

You: Did you see those flower buds?

Me: What buds?

Actually, without short-term memory of the sensory sort, by the time you emitted the final phonetic element of your question, “buds,” the “did you” would have long left my mind.

My semi-educated hunch is that short-term memory of some sort plays a crucial role in what we call consciousness.

But maybe you shouldn’t ask me, for I am a being critically limited by the nature of my own consciousness. Whatever that is.

Oh, and by the way, the “figure” and “ground” of the title refer to memory and real-time sensation.

Technorati Links: philosophy, psychology

Almost one year ago to the day I made a post about research into the “handedness” of gorillas: Shake Hands with that Gorilla. That primate species, it seems, has a preference for using its right arm/hand. New research appearing in the Jan 2010 issue of Cortex relates this finding on chimpanzee handedness:

A large majority of the chimpanzees in the study showed a significant bias towards right-handed gestures when communicating, which may reflect a similar dominance of the left hemisphere for communication in chimpanzees as that seen for language functions in humans. [source]

The news was not a surprise to me, for a few years ago I had attended a lecture on the handedness of chimps. The focus of that research, however, was slightly different. It tested hand preference during object manipulation and tool use. One interesting tidbit I learned was that when chimps throw stones (whether fastball or change-up), they tend to hurl them righty.

That research was conducted by American researchers in Georgia. This newer research had a different set of investigators, lending greater credence to it.

The French co-authors, Dr. Adrien Meguerditchian and Prof. Jacques Vauclair, from the Aix-Marseille University (Aix-en-Provence, France), also point out that “this finding provides additional support to the idea that speech evolved initially from a gestural communicative system in our ancestors. Moreover, gestural communication in apes shares some key features with human language, such as intentionality, referential properties and flexibility of learning and use”.

Very interesting.

Last year I ended my post with words equally valid today.

This means that if you ever meet a gorilla or chimpanzee in the forest, when you go to shake hands there won’t be confusion as to which to extend.

Technorati Links: evolution, language

Men are from Mars and women are from Venus. What about those assorted relatives that gather around your Thanksgiving table? My guess is that they are from Ganymede. Roughly the size of Mercury, Jupiter’s moon Ganymede is the largest of the moons in our solar system. It weighs in at twice the mass of “our” moon.

Ganymede is an oddish looking cosmic body. Kinda like more distant relatives. Sure, they resemble us, but are clearly different. Almost odd.

And what was that remark about no marshmallows in the yams? Was that serious?

Fortunately, land-bound spaceships will transport these relative aliens back to their own patch of terrestrial habitat when all the masticating and swallowing is done.

Wait. Maybe I’m the alien one!

Happy Thanksgiving to all.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: NASA, thanksgiving