the evolving mind

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

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

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

Do you have a sweet tooth? Not all people find sweet foods equally appealing. Me, I’d rather have a second slice of steak than a slab of chocolate cake for dessert. Most sweets strike me as too sweet.

And then there’s my wife. But I won’t go there.

Why do people differ in the size of their sweet tooth (their preference for sweets)? No doubt there are a number of factors involved, starting with genetics: number of taste buds on the tongue, how richly the sweet sensation neurons connect with the pleasure/motivational centers of the brain, etc.

Culture and experience likely has something to do with it as well. My wife grew up in a household where sweets were more prized and regularly consumed. In mine — a good orange was the sweetest treat I reached for, when available.

Of course, that’s mere anecdote. For better information we must look to research. Psychobiologist Julie A. Mennella just released the results of her study. She found:

children’s response to intense sweet taste is related to both a family history of alcoholism and the child’s own self-reports of depression. [source]

Notice the statement does not include the words “exclusively related.” The two factors mentioned are likely two of many. (In fact, you couldn’t really say that either play a role in my wife and my cases. Not to our knowledge.)

The news release, by the way, was very well written, and deserves kudos for that. Consider these explanatory paragraphs:

Because sweet taste and alcohol activate many of the same reward circuits in the brain, the researchers examined the sweet preferences of children with a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. They also studied the influence of depression, hypothesizing that children with depressive symptoms might have a greater affinity for sweets because sweets make them feel better.

In the study, published online in the journal Addiction, 300 children between 5 and 12 years of age tasted five levels of sucrose (table sugar) in water to determine their most preferred level of sweetness. The children also were asked questions to assess the presence of depressive symptoms, while their mothers reported information on family alcohol use.

Interesting. And get a load of the precision of the wording of the study results:

Liking for intense sweetness was greatest in the 37 children having both a positive family history of alcoholism and also reporting depressive symptoms. The most liked level of sweetness for these children was 24 percent sucrose, which is equivalent to about 14 teaspoons of sugar in a cup of water and more than twice the level of sweetness in a typical cola. This was one third more intense than the sweetness level preferred by the other children, which was 18 percent sucrose.

Numbers are more precise than words; strongly scientific writing tends to use them.

As for the finding, it tells us nothing definitive about preference for sweets and the two psychological factors of depressive symptoms and a family history of alcoholism. Sure, it suggests a lot and begs for further study. But it is only one study, and we must remember that there are likely many other factors involved.

So no, if your date orders herself the double-fudge cake, that doesn’t mean she’s depressed; or if he orders just a coffee, black, that doesn’t mean he there’s no alcoholism in his family.

Still, it is enlightening to realize just how complex human psychology is. Even the size of a sweet tooth is a puzzle, with few pieces yet discovered.

Technorati Links: developmental psychology, psychology

According to a simplistic view of human psychology, stress is bad, and high sensitivity to stress is really bad. But with a more educated, scientific outlook we need to ask more questions. What kind of stress? How much stress? How often? For whom?

Thanks to new research, we now know to add this question: In what type of social setting and structure?

Here’s the lead paragraph to the news release:

Children who are especially reactive to stress are more vulnerable to adversity and have more behavior and health problems than their peers. But a new longitudinal study suggests that highly reactive children are also more likely to do well when they’re raised in supportive environments.

Before sharing the results, I must say that I’m unsure of the strength of the actual science behind the conclusions. This is all I learned about it from the article:

The researchers looked at 338 kindergarteners, as well as their teachers and families, to determine how family adversity and biological reactivity contribute to healthy development.

While 338 is an adequate sample size, what the heck does “looked at” mean?

So, with the results consequently taken with a grain of salt, we find that they were this:

[H]ighly reactive children were more likely to have developmental problems . . .

But wait, that’s not the whole story. The second half to the sentence answers an additional important question:

. . . when growing up in adverse, stressful family settings.

Ah, nice. So for the what we have a when. And there’s more! We can now add a big if to the equation.

But contrary to expectation, such children were also more likely to thrive when they were raised in caring, low-stress families because of their sensitivities to the supportive and nurturing qualities of such environments.

This finding brings to mind ADHD children. Somewhat similarly, one could simplistically ask, Is having ADHD a bad thing? Before answering that question in an educated, scientific manner, we’d have to refine it by asking a number of other questions.

As an offhand tangent, this question comes to mind: Asking people if they’d want a person with ADHD on their “team.” The smart person would ask questions about both the person with ADHD and the team. Who else was on the team? And, importantly, what were the team’s goals and preferred methods of operating?

Science. So many questions. So many questions about those questions. I wonder, are those who are good at asking questions better at answering them?

Technorati Links: ADHD, psychology, science

Homosexuality, where not repressed out of view, occurs in all cultures across the globe. Clearly there is a genetic component to it. From a strict evolutionary perspective, this doesn’t make sense. Like grandparents, homosexuals leave very few offspring and consume resources. There is a cost to a population, so where is the evolutionary benefit?

Similar to thinking about the group-level adaptiveness of grandparents, some evolutionary psychologists have advanced a “kin selection hypothesis.”

What that means is that homosexuality may convey an indirect benefit by enhancing the survival prospects of close relatives. Specifically, the theory holds that homosexual men might enhance their own genetic prospects by being “helpers in the nest.” By acting altruistically toward nieces and nephews, homosexual men would perpetuate the family genes, including some of their own. [article source]

While this is an intriguing idea, it remains an inert idea until supported by indirect evidence, at least. Or, better yet, until put to a direct test. And news of such a test has recently been released.

Paul Vasey and Doug VanderLaan of the University of Lethbridge, Canada tested this idea for the past several years on the Pacific island of Samoa. They chose Samoa because males who prefer men as sexual partners are widely recognized and accepted there as a distinct gender category—called fa’afafine—neither man nor woman. The fa’afafine tend to be effeminate, and exclusively attracted to adult men as sexual partners. This clear demarcation makes it easier to identify a sample for study.

What were the results of the test? (I would call it a “weak” test due to the methods–questionnaires–and data generated–self-reported answers). It seems the Samoan homosexual males did indeed show helping/resource-allocation favoritism toward the offspring of their siblings. They doted on nieces and nephews.

Certainly, in this one case it could be that culture has fashioned a productive role for these men, and it has nothing to do with evolution. But we don’t know that.

This line of research, however, has left me with one important question: Must all gene combinations be adaptive? Assuming that homosexuality is at least partly genetic, it is highly unlikely that there is a single “gay” gene. Or lesbian gene.

Consider this hypothetical: homosexuality results when A, B, and C genes occur together. The combination is not strictly adaptive because homosexuals tend to leave fewer offspring, if any. But perhaps the combinations of A and B, A and C, and B and C are adaptive. Maybe even highly so. And so the genes have not been trimmed out of existence via natural selection.

Additionally, we must remember that “gay” and “lesbian” are intellectual categories. Human sexual orientation likely comes in many forms or degrees. Similar to the personality attribute of extroversion/introversion, there is not just fully “extroverted” and fully “introverted.” There are 101 degrees of this element of social orientation. I imagine the same is true for sexual orientation.

If extreme introverts don’t leave as many offspring, one could ask why introversion continues to persist? Which is silly. That’s a taking a narrow view of things. As usual, it is likely much more complicated than that.

Technorati Links: evolution, homosexuality

Oh-oh. New research has surfaced that is tailor made for conservatives to abuse. Conveniently, they need read no further than the headline.

Youth who self-identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual at higher suicide risk, say Montreal researchers

You know what it means, don’t you?! Deep down inside, gays and lesbians know they are sinning sinners, and this is why they hate themselves.

Wrong. How is it wrong? Let’s read the first paragraph, at least.

Mental health professionals have long-known that gay, lesbian and bisexual (GLB) teens face significantly elevated risks of mental health problems, including suicidal thoughts and suicidal attempts. However, a group of McGill University researchers in Montreal has now come to the conclusion that self-identity is the crucial risk-factor, rather than actual sexual behaviours. Their results were published in February in the Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. [bold added]

Well, that’s not much of a help. And it actually contains an error itself. An error of omission. How so?

If you study psychological development you learn that personal identity develops in a social context. Not only are relationships a huge part of our identities, but a person’s identity is fashioned relative to their social context. They compare and contrast themselves with others. How are they alike, how are they different. And while being different in some regards can have positive mental health consequences (being better or the best at some valued ability or skill, etc.), being different from others can have negative mental health consequences (being the only black person in a white southern school, etc.).

The actual data itself is pretty interesting.

The researchers administered a detailed, anonymous questionnaire to nearly 1,900 students in 14 Montreal-area high schools, and found that those teens who self-identified as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or who were unsure of their sexual identity, were indeed at higher risk for suicidal ideation and attempts. However, teens who had same-sex attractions or sexual experiences – but thought of themselves as heterosexual – were at no greater risk than the population at large. Perhaps surprisingly, but consistent with previous studies, the majority of teens with same-sex sexual attraction or experience considered themselves to be heterosexual.

Yes, it really does appear that the self-identity part is key. It’s not until deep into the article, however — a place where conservatives are less likely to venture (or will find it easier to ignore) that what I see as the second crucial element is brought to light. Co-author Dr. Richard Montoro explains,

“The main message is that it’s the interface between individuals and society that causes students who identify as gay, lesbian, or bisexual the most distress.” [bold added]

Yes, it’s the interface. Both elements count. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine a hypothetical society in which homosexuality is popular and highly valued, with the minority heterosexuals are viewed as different, odd, and so heterosexuals may feel unworthy and alone. My guess is that in such a circumstance — given that particular interface — the heterosexual individuals who self-identify as heterosexual would be the ones with the higher risk for suicide.

So to conservatives who abuse this research I say, “Congratulations. You have shown to the world you are part of the problem.”

Technorati Links: homosexuality, psychology

Yesterday serotonin, today dopamine. New research suggests a relationship between dopamine and social status.

Okay, let’s clarify. First, dopamine is a neurotransmitter that could be described as a natural “reward” chemical in the brain. When dopamine levels are increased in the brain, subjects might describe their state with words like “aroused,” “eager,” “excited,” “interested.” Drugs such as caffeine and cocaine will increase dopamine levels.

Maybe reward isn’t the best word. Low-levels of dopamine has been implicated in addictive behavior. By gambling, for example, it is believed that subjects get shots of dopamine increase. Anticipated reward might be a better term. Increasing dopamine levels can help with the lethargic, apathetic component of depression. The depressed person may feel “it doesn’t matter,” and thus lack motivation. “Get out of bed, why? Leave the house, why?” Anticipating a positive outcome is strong motivator.

In the news of the research found over at Eurekalert, I learned that it was not the actual levels of circulating dopamine that was discovered to be related to social status, but the dopamine receptor density in the brains of the subjects. Interesting. In yesterday’s post about serotonin, I mentioned that neurotransmitter levels alone don’t tell the whole story. There can be many conditions, including much circulating neurotransmitter, but few receptors, as well as little circulating neurotransmitter and many receptors. Etc.

What about the social status part? Unfortunately, the article didn’t mention how that was measured. My guess: some sort of questionnaire. The neurotransmitter receptor density part was measured with PET scans.

The result -

[I]ncreased social status and increased social support correlated with the density of dopamine D2/D3 receptors in the striatum, a region of the brain that plays a central role in reward and motivation, where dopamine plays a critical role in both of these behavioral processes.

The lead author, a Dr. Martinez, offered an explanation for the results -

“We showed that low levels of dopamine receptors were associated with low social status and that high levels of dopamine receptors were associated with higher social status. The same type of association was seen with the volunteer’s reports of social support they experience from their friends, family, or significant other.”

That certainly is food for thought. Of course, the important word to highlight is correlated/associated. The study result was a found relationship. Is it a causal relationship, with the number of dopamine receptors causing greater social involvement and striving and eventual success? We don’t know. Nonetheless, an intriguing bit of research. And I absolutely loved the concluding paragraph:

These findings are particularly exciting because they put human neurobiology into a social context, and we humans are fundamentally social creatures. It is in these social contexts that the biological effects on behavior obtain their real meaning.

Our thoughts, feelings and behaviors are not guided by the whispering of angels; their genesis is not in a metaphysically meaningful quantum fluctuation. No, that’s not what science tells us. For those who are listening, we are learning that the mechanisms that generate our psychological selves — as intricate and complicated as they are — reside in the natural world. A very rich world that the increasingly powerful tools and methods of science is revealing to us, bit by fascinating bit.

Technorati Links: social psychology, status

What does SIDS (sudden infant death syndrome) have to do with serotonin? In new research the neurotransmitter has been identified as a possible culprit in the deadly disorder.

Neurotransmitters, for those unfamiliar, transmit messages across the junctions (synapses) between neurons. There are a number of different neurotransmitters, and these can act on some areas of the brain more than others.

In the study, Low production of serotonin in the brainstem a likely cause for SIDS, it was determined that low serotonin activity may play a role. Yes, it does certainly seem that this neurotransmitter is all the rage lately, being implicated in depression, social phobia, generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, irritable bowel syndrome, and poor fashion sense (just kidding about that last one). Yet serotonin is truly a work-horse molecule, and each person’s brain is different.

One thing being clarified lately is that there is more to serotonin than simple levels. The chemical doesn’t appear out of nowhere and then do its work on nothing. Essential parts of the equation to recognize are the synaptic vesicles that collect/store/release the neurotransmitter on the “sending side” of the synapse, and the receptors, which work on the receiving side of the nerve junction to complete the signal transmission.

In fact, it is thought that SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors — they keep more of the stuff circulating in the synapses) may take time to work because it is not just the level of serotonin the the synapses that is important, but the quantity and activity of vesicles and receptors as well. Research suggests that when exposed to increased levels of serotonin, neuronal growth/changes occur that likely results in a greater number of receptors.

All individuals, besides having different levels of circulating serotonin, likely have differing amounts of serotonin vesicles and receptors in different parts of their brain. Thus the possibility that one SSRI-level-influencing drug, such as Zoloft, can treat a number of disorders.

And now we get to SIDS. For years the cause of this tragic phenomenon has been a mystery. What causes some infant to die suddenly during sleep? Low birth weight, second-hand smoke, parents placing infants on their stomachs’ to sleep…?

SIDS has puzzled doctors and families for decades, but once the medical community recognized that a baby’s position while sleeping affects the risk for SIDS, national awareness campaigns sprouted to persuade parents to place babies to sleep on their backs. However, such campaigns haven’t completely solved the problem, prompting ongoing research to find a biological component to SIDS. [bold mine]

And that biological component could be the creation, transmission, and reception of serotonin. In the brainstem, which is the area of the brain that controls sleep. A promising lead -

[R]esearchers at Children’s Hospital Boston have linked sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) with low production of serotonin in the brainstem, based on a comparison of brainstem samples from infants dying of SIDS compared to brainstems of infants dying from other, known causes. [bold mine]

Of course, the above research is suggestive and not definitive. (The headline writer gets half a nod for including likely before cause.) But it’s certainly something. Progress. Even if it proves to be a dead-end, at least another avenue has been explored.

Technorati Links: psychology, serotonin

Men and women respond differently to marital infidelity. On average. Is this a learned response, something men and women acquire from their culture or from their own individual experience? The current default view argues it’s likely an innate difference (read genetic). A new study argues there is another option. [study source]

The nature perspective:

Research has documented that most men become much more jealous about sexual infidelity than they do about emotional infidelity. Women are the opposite, and this is true all over the world. The prevailing theory is that the difference has evolutionary origins: Men learned over eons to be hyper-vigilant about sex because they can never be absolutely certain they are the father of a child, while women are much more concerned about having a partner who is committed to raising a family.

But wait. Could nurture explain the differences? Have we missed something?

A nurture perspective:

But the new science suggests that the difference may be rooted more in individual differences in personality that result from one’s relationship history but that can fall along gender lines.

One’s “relationship history” influencing his/her response to cheating? How did they determine this?

The science:

Similar to earlier studies examining sex differences in jealousy, Levy and Kelly asked men and women which they would find more distressing—sexual infidelity or emotional infidelity. Participants also completed additional assessments including a standard and well validated measure of attachment style in romantic relationships.

“Attachment style?” What happened to “differences in personality that result from one’s relationship history”?

The finding:

those with a dismissing attachment style—who prize their autonomy in relationships over commitment—were much more upset about sexual infidelity than emotional infidelity. And conversely, those securely attached in relationships—including securely attached men—were much more likely to find emotional betrayal more upsetting.

The problem:

Okay. If attachment style, something that supposedly reflects an individual’s personality, is related to relationship history, how do we know that some other factor isn’t responsible for that attachment style and/or personality and/or relationship history? How do we know that the experiential element is a causal factor vs. an effect?

If you are getting the sense that with this new study there’s a whole lot of talk relative to the little science it is based upon, get a load of this:

The bologna:

Some people—men and women alike—are more secure in their attachments to others, while others tend to be more dismissive of the need for close attachment relationships. Psychologists see this compulsive self-reliance as a defensive strategy—protection against deep-seated feelings of vulnerability. Levy and Kelly hypothesized that these individuals would tend to be concerned with the sexual aspects of relationships rather than emotional intimacy.

Oh lard. The above reads as nearly perfect psychodynamic boilerplate. “Defensive strategy” . . . “deep-seated feelings of vulnerability.” That’s what it always boils down to: damaged feelings. It seems that if we search hard enough, that’s what we always find.

In my opinion, innate gender differences still better explain differences in response to infidelity. Why? First, as mentioned in the study, these gender differences are cross-culturally evident. Second, numerous studies on animals have shown that if you change, oh, say the testestosterone or oxytocin levels to an individual very early in life, you change the individual’s “relationship trajectory” and later history. To then describe the phenomenon in terms of emotional experiences is to miss the more important point. It is to grant the emotional experience undeserved primacy.

As a tangent here, one of the things I find disturbing about psychodynamic therapy is the stealth morality often contained within. Often you will here this sentiment expressed in so many words: Because of your personal history, because you were “damaged,” you are not able to function according todays’ social ideals. And so you have anger-management issues, or “unfounded fears” or damaged self-esteem, or sexual insecurity, or what have you.

In sum, to find psychodynamic reasons for the way human beings behave frequently involves a denial of human nature. Or even a denial of individual nature.

Technorati Links: gender, psychodynamic psychotherapy, psychology