the evolving mind

Last month news of a very interesting study hit my desk. (And subsequently got lost under a stack of papers.) Upon re-reading the article from ScienceDaily this morning it struck me that one of the things the study into human sexuality revealed is that there can be a disconnect between what individuals honestly report and what is actually the case. Self-report questionnaires can be flawed because people do not have perfect knowledge of themselves. In the study in question, the inquiry was into “what turns you on?”

In a meta-analysis of 134 sexual psychophysiology studies, researchers looked at the correlation between subjective reports of sexual arousal vs. physiologic response. And they found an imperfect correlation.

For the male participants, the subjective ratings more closely matched the physiological readings indicating that men’s minds and genitals were in agreement. For the women, however, the responses of the mind and genitals were not as closely matched as men’s, suggesting a split between women’s bodies and minds. The readings from the physiological measurements and their subjective ratings were, in some cases, significantly different.

The above, it should be noted, flies in the face of the popular stereotype about men being the more psychologically clueless sex. Certainly, it is a complicated issue, one that doesn’t readily boil down to “girls are better than boys . . . no, boys are better than girls!”

Also noteworthy was this finding:

The type of sexual stimuli — their content and how it was presented e.g. visually or as an audio recording — made no difference to how well the subjective and physiological responses mirrored each other in men. However, it did influence women’s responses. Women exposed to a greater range and number of sexual stimuli — content and presentation — were more likely to have stronger agreement between subjective and physiological responses.

Sexual arousal aside–well, integral, actually–human psychology is complex and multi-faceted. Many of those facets aren’t readily accessible to conscious awareness and/or honest subjective appraisal. To the philosophical dictum “know thyself” I would thus add, “and realize there are limits to your self-knowledge.”

Technorati Links: psychology, sexuality

The above cartoon from atheistcartoons.com nicely illustrates the point I made in my brief post Unscientific Science from two days ago. I ended with this:

Although it is a popular word, spirituality is a lousy variable. Strong science and strong science writing gets specific, and the term spirituality is not.

On a related note, when attending college a friend of mine joked about belonging to the “church of the blessed void.” A blessed void indeed. What’s a void but a gap in our understanding . . . by another name?

Hmm. Can we say ignorance is bliss and bliss is spiritual, ergo, ignorance is spiritual?

Technorati Links: critical thinking, spirituality

Many religious folk claim that without a god in your life, well, all hell will break loose. Why? Their god is the source of morality. For years I have found this claim to be patently absurd. First, examine the many social groups around the globe and you will find many lacking “the” god of the Bible, or any supreme being for that matter, and, guess what — no wanton immorality. People seem to get along just fine. Though certainly with some exceptions. Just as you find among believers in a most high god.

Second, I have extensively studied risk factors for crime, and non-belief isn’t one of them.

Now new research further refutes the “first God, then morality” claim. In fact, the research argues that the claim has things backwards. It states:

“It seems that in many cultures religious concepts and beliefs have become the standard way of conceptualizing moral intuitions.”

That from, Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion.

So yes, religion and morality are likely related. But that relationship may consist of religions “conceptualizing” pre-existing “moral intuitions.”

Here’s the old view of the relationship, favored by pro-religion naturalists:

“Some scholars claim that religion evolved as an adaptation to solve the problem of cooperation among genetically unrelated individuals…” [bold mine]

But the new scholarly research refutes:

Citing several studies in moral psychology, the authors highlight the finding that despite differences in, or even an absence of, religious backgrounds, individuals show no difference in moral judgments for unfamiliar moral dilemmas. The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments.

And so “Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University” were led to this conclusion -

“This supports the theory that religion did not originally emerge as a biological adaptation for cooperation, but evolved as a separate by-product of pre-existing cognitive functions that evolved from non-religious functions,” says Dr. Pyysiainen.

Those who claim that you need religion to love thy neighbor and whatnot likely have placed the cart before the horse. This new research reveals that without the horse, there would be no cart. And as for atheists, they have no need for the cart of religion. And can love their neighbor just fine.

Technorati Links: morality, religion

The above photo taken in our yard of ivy climbing a live oak got me thinking about the term “Ivy League.” These schools are notoriously prestigious. A place for Richie Rich and other affluent bastards to attend–those lucky guys and gals.

Of course, luck has little to do with attending a Harvard or Yale. Family connections and the benefits of upper-class resources, sure. You might say, however, that luck has something to do with the prosperity of these schools and, by consequence, their students. An argument could be made that the ivy of affluent education climbs upon a mass of work-generated surplus.

Face it. Education is expensive. When guys and gals are in school, they aren’t engaged in resource-generating work. In a sense, they live off the fat of the land. A fat produced and harvested by others.

Advanced education has affluence to thank for its existence. And, almost ironically, the affluent have the less-affluent to thank for the resources they benefit from. For crops don’t grow themselves, goods don’t manufacture themselves . . . etc.

So sure, go ahead a be proud you attended Princeton. But be thankful as well.

Technorati Links: affluence, education

xkcd is my current favorite comic. The writing is great, and the stick figures, somewhat surprisingly, are a definite plus. And the topics: fantastically suited to those at the area of the intellectual bell curve not customarily catered to. Science, philosophy, meta-cognition of human social and emotional quirks . . . .

Later today I’m going to be clicking over to the most recent version of the blog carnival, Scientia Pro Publica. Number 21, Darwin’s 201st Birthday Edition, has been posted. Will this carnival become my current favorite? It could. I love the idea behind it. And it certainly has potential. What I hope to find is an abundance of is smart writing on truly educational topics.

No, no NASCAR, no celebrity gossip.

Was that elitist of me? Frankly, I don’t give a damn. Our culture puts such things as athletic ability on a pedestal, but intellectual ability, well, don’t flaunt that. It’s in poor taste.

This is getting close to a rant, so I better put the brakes on . . .

Technorati Links: blog carnival, cognitive elites

New research out of the University of California, San Diego, and the Leiden University Medical Center in the Netherlands has found that while people in a happy mood tend to seek out novel experiences, those in a dysphoric mood (down/depressed) show a preference for the familiar.

This finding is particularly noteworthy because it comes as the result of psychological experimentation. First moods were manipulated, then preferences for novel and familiar stimuli measured. That is an experiment all right.

Here’s the nutmeat of the news release:

“We thought the value of familiarity would depend on the context,” de Vries said [study co-author]. “Familiarity signals safety, which is pleasant in an unsafe or stressful context but might actually get boring when all is going fine.”

They examined the idea by presenting participants with random dot patterns resembling constellations in the sky and made these familiar through exposure. The researchers put some of the participants in a good mood and others in a bad mood – by asking them to recall joyous or sad events in their lives. They then maintained the mood by playing appropriate music during the remainder of the test. Finally, they measured participants’ emotional and memory responses to the dot patterns with ratings and, critically, with physiological measures (skin conductors to assess sweat and facial electrodes to detect incipient frowns and smiles).

As predicted, saddened participants showed the classic preference for the familiar, even smiling at the sight of familiar patterns.

A happy mood, however, eliminated the preference.

Interesting. While I wouldn’t make too much of the finding — it was just one experiment with its own, imperfect methodology — it does raise important questions.

It also seems to make a fair amount of intuitive sense. Though you can trust intuition only so far (which is not far at all). When feeling down, your emotions may be “telling you” there is danger lurking and/or that you or in a vulnerable state. So don’t go engaging in risky behavior. And the novel is riskier than the familiar.

Having studied human psychology extensively, one thing appears obvious to me: Although human beings are capable of advanced thought and rational behavior, we remain emotional animals and are substantially, if subtly, influenced by our feelings.

Technorati Links: mood, psychology

I’ve got to spend more time outdoors at night. For only when my area of Earth is in the shadow of itself can I view other planets and a vast multitude of stars. And what a profound view it is.

[photo thanks to NASA]

Technorati Links: cosmos

In his 1999 book, Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Christopher Boehm stated that political coalitions appear only in despotic (hierarchical) species. While there is some obvious truth to this — chimpanzees and macaques are noted for their hierarchical strivings and for the dynamic allegiances they form to aid upward social movement and to sustain reign at the top (1) — one wonders about humankind. Are we a despotic species, ruled and ruling by force? In the least, this is not always the case, especially in more recent history. And perhaps in ancient times of smaller average group size.

In this coming series of posts (in this category — what will become a chapter in my Almighty Alpha book) I will examine the line between hierarchical social organizations (power progressively concentrated in the few or one at the top) and egalitarian (power more equitably shared by all).

Boehm himself concluded that whether or not Homo sapiens is a hierarchical species is a controversial issue. (2) And there are certainly those who argue that we are not, not by nature, anyway. Eight years before Boehm’s book appeared, Margaret Power released, The Egalitarians: Human and Chimpanzee. She wrote:

“In most gathering-hunting societies the woman occupies a position of prestige equal to that of the man and is recognized as being equally important.” (3)

While I might argue with the qualifier “most,” there are other, perhaps more important, issues raised by her statement. Two immediately come to mind: 1) How do we determine whether or not a society is egalitarian? Just knowing one by seeing one? That’s not very scientific. 2) Are there perhaps many shades of gray–social groups that are neither outright egalitarian nor outright hierarchical, but some hybrid of the two?

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: evolution, psychology

Imagine this headline to a new science finding:

Selective Brain Damage Modulates Human Groovyness, Research Reveals

And a lead sentence that reads:

New research provides fascinating insight into brain changes that might underlie alterations in feeling groovy and and hip attitudes.

My guess is that most people would (or should) react this way: “What?!”

How different, I ask, is the following title and lead sentence to an actual bit of news reporting:

Selective Brain Damage Modulates Human Spirituality, Research Reveals

New research provides fascinating insight into brain changes that might underlie alterations in spiritual and religious attitudes.

Here’s the problem: most people only assume they know what is meant by the term spirituality. Yet ask people to define it, and the responses will be as diverse and vague as they would be to a request for a definition of “groovyness.”

Although it is a popular word, spirituality is a lousy variable. Strong science and strong science writing gets specific, and the term spirituality is not.

Technorati Links: research, spirituality

What is my Aesthetiopathy (TM)? My new get-rich scheme. It’s based on an ancient healing arts I just thought up. My first product will be tincture of orgasmically beautiful rose petal dew. You can use it to treat just about anything.

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, roses