Your Inner Fish For the Holidays!

You've seen all of those standard fare Christmas shoes over and over.  It's time to shake things up this holiday season.  Instead of watching predictable shows, or a show with a ghastly ending, the Grinch that Stole Christmas, open your mind and take a look at this much-stranger-than-fiction trilogy created by biologist Neil Shubin. These informative and entertaining shows are available at no charge at PBS.

Episode I - Your Inner Fish
https://www.pbs.org/video/your-inner-fish-program-your-inner-fish-2/

Episode 2 - Your Inner Reptile
https://www.pbs.org/video/your-inner-fish-program-your-inner-reptile/

Episode 3 - Your Inner Monkey
https://www.pbs.org/video/your-inner-fish-your-inner-monkey/

Continue ReadingYour Inner Fish For the Holidays!

Differential Investment in Procreating in Terms of Money and Risks

In her column at Psychology Today ("How to Train Your Boyfriend"), Evolutionary Psychologist Diane Fleischman illustrates the time investment differential in terms of money:

We know women have had to carry a baby for 9 months. But over our evolutionary history, a mother would have had to breastfeed for 3 years, on average, before the baby would be weaned. What's the minimum amount of investment a man could put in to have a baby? Let's be generous and say the minimum amount is an hour. This is called "minimum obligatory parental investment" and in human men and women, the asymmetry is bigger than in most other species. . . . If you think about the asymmetry between men and women in the minimum amount they would have to invest to make a baby in terms of dollar amount- a man would have to invest $1 and a woman would have to invest $32,000.

In her article, Fleishman points out many difference in behavior between men and woman (see the extensive list below), as well as reproductive risks, stemming from this procreation investment asymmetry.

Continue ReadingDifferential Investment in Procreating in Terms of Money and Risks

Our Self-Blind Manipulative Minds

The following quote is by evolutionary biologist, Diana Fleishman. Her ideas fit with my understanding that good science is a very special and rare kind of cognition that happens only within a carefully designed environment where we actively and incessantly seek out other peoples' criticism of our own ideas in order to avoid our self-imposed intellectual blindness. Encouraging criticism of each others' favorite ideas is not a sport most people enjoy. They'd rather assume that they have excellent intellectual hygiene so that they can blithely go about their days honking their tribal horns.

Human intelligence is incredibly useful but it doesn’t safeguard you against having false beliefs, because that’s not what intelligence is for. Intelligence is associated with coming up with more convincing bullshit and with being a better liar, but not associated with a better ability to recognizeone’s own bias. Unfortunately, intelligence has very little influence on your ability to rationally evaluate your own beliefs, or undermine what’s called “myside bias.”

The dark side of smart is that whenever we do good works, and cooperate, we draw from our manipulative past. The even darker side of smart is that competition doesn’t just select an ability to manipulate but also an adaptive ability to be unpredictable. And one of the best ways to be unpredictable is to not know yourself. So we have evolution to thank for shielding us from complete self-knowledge. As a result, most of our own minds are shrouded in darkness. Perhaps that’s for the best. We might not like what we’d see.

Continue ReadingOur Self-Blind Manipulative Minds

Sex Differences in Casual Sex and the Lack of Blank Slates

This Tweet links to a detailed article from 2017.  Men and women are similar in many ways, but they are extremely different when it comes to attitudes regarding casual sex.

From the cited article at Psychology Today:

Over the last few decades almost all research studies have found that men are much more eager for casual sex than women are (Oliver & Hyde, 1993; Petersen & Hyde, 2010). This is especially true when it comes to desires for short-term mating with many different sexual partners (Schmitt et al., 2003), and is even more true for wanting to have sex with complete and total strangers (Tappé et al., 2013).

In a classic social psychological experiment from the 1980s, Clark and Hatfield (1989) put the idea of sex differences in consenting to sex with strangers to a real-life test. They had experimental confederates approach college students across various campuses and ask, "I've been noticing you around campus. I find you to be very attractive. Would you go to bed with me tonight?" Around 75 percent of men agreed to have sex with a complete stranger, whereas no women (0 percent) agreed. In terms of effect size, this is one of the largest sex differences ever discovered in psychological science (Hyde, 2005).

 

Continue ReadingSex Differences in Casual Sex and the Lack of Blank Slates