Evolutionary Psychologist Diana Fleischman Begins a New Blog at Psychology Today: “How to Train Your Boyfriend”

I've followed Diana Fleischman's work for many months. She's smart and funny, but takes her evolutionary psychology seriously every step of the way. Diana has started writing a column on Psychology Today titled, "How to Train Your Boyfriend." Here an excerpt from her opening post:

You have two grandmothers, four great grandmothers, 512 great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmothers and millions of grandmas further in your past, before the word grandma even existed. These grandmas that scraped by, suffered, and survived long enough to reproduce, are only a fraction of all the women that existed. One important characteristic that set grandmas apart from the millions of non-grandmas was their ability to shape the behavior of others, especially children and grandpas. You probably have grandmas who lived on farms trying to get multiple children to cooperate with (and not kill) one another and in villages where they had to manage their reputations for the good of their families. But you definitely have grandmas who convinced men to take care of them and their children. Without any one of them, and their abilities you wouldn’t exist to read this blog. We evolved to be able to get other people to do what we want.

But, how do people get other people to do what they want?

Continue ReadingEvolutionary Psychologist Diana Fleischman Begins a New Blog at Psychology Today: “How to Train Your Boyfriend”

Colin Wright Discusses the Relevance of Binary Gonads to the Purported Sex Continuum

In an article at Quillette titled, "JK Rowling is Right—Sex Is Real and It Is Not a “Spectrum," biologist Colin Wright discusses the importance of gonads to determining the sex of individual organisms in every species of animals except, apparently, human animals. Here is an excerpt:

Both of these arguments—the argument from intersex conditions and the argument from secondary sex organs/characteristics—follow from fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of biological sex, which is connected to the distinct type of gametes (sex cells) that an organism produces. As a broad concept, males are the sex that produce small gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system.

It is crucial to note, however, that the sex of individuals within a species isn’t based on whether an individual can actually produce certain gametes at any given moment. Pre-pubertal males don’t produce sperm, and some infertile adults of both sexes never produce gametes due to various infertility issues. Yet it would be incorrect to say that these individuals do not have a discernible sex, as an individual’s biological sex corresponds to one of two distinct types of evolved reproductive anatomy (i.e. ovaries or testes) that develop for the production of sperm or ova, regardless of their past, present, or future functionality. In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time.

The binary distinction between ovaries and testes as the criterion determining an individual’s sex is not arbitrary, nor unique to humans. The evolutionary function of ovaries and testes is to produce either eggs or sperm, respectively, which must be combined for sexual reproduction to take place. If that didn’t happen, there would be no humans. While this knowledge may have been cutting edge science in the 1660s, it’s odd that we should suddenly treat it as controversial in 2020. . . . In humans, and transgender and so-called “non-binary” people are no exception, this reproductive anatomy is unambiguously male or female over 99.98 percent of the time. . . .

By way of analogy: We flip a coin to randomize a binary decision because a coin has only two faces: heads and tails. But a coin also has an edge, and about one in 6,000 (0.0166 percent) throws (with a nickel) will land on it. This is roughly the same likelihood of being born with an intersex condition. Almost every coin flip will be either heads or tails, and those heads and tails do not come in degrees or mixtures. That’s because heads and tails are qualitatively different and mutually exclusive outcomes. The existence of edge cases does not change this fact. Heads and tails, despite the existence of the edge, remain discrete outcomes.

Continue ReadingColin Wright Discusses the Relevance of Binary Gonads to the Purported Sex Continuum

Happy Neanderthal Father’s Day

I'm speaking up for the much-maligned Neanderthals today on this Father's Day, but not merely because many of us have a bit (1 to 2%) of Neanderthal DNA in our chromosomes and not merely because this population lasted until only 25,000 years ago. It's mostly because I just now stumbled upon this pretty cool Neanderthal reconstruction by Tom Bjorklundart of what a Neanderthal parent and child might have looked like.

Continue ReadingHappy Neanderthal Father’s Day

Jonathan Haidt Describes Today’s Conservatives and Liberals

I've closely followed the writings of Jonathan Haidt. His conclusions are closely tied to scientific findings. He crosscuts the current American political divide. He is hopeful that we will find our way as a country.

In this recent article at The Atlantic, "Jonathan Haidt Is Trying to Heal America’s Divisions: The psychologist shares his thoughts on the pandemic, polarization, and politics," Haidt explains what has gone wrong with many of those who consider themselves to be liberals and conservatives. What they have in common is authoritarianism populism:

Haidt laments the state of contemporary American politics, believing that on both the right and the left we’re seeing populism that responds to real problems but in illiberal ways. “On the right,” he said, “the populism there is really explicitly xenophobic and often explicitly racist … I think we see strands of populism on the right that are authoritarian, that I would say are incompatible with a tolerant, pluralistic, open democracy.”

Looking in the other direction, Haidt says, “we’ve messed up the word liberal and we’ve used it to just mean ‘left.’ I’ve always thought of myself as a liberal, in the John Stuart Mill sense. I believe in a society that is structured to give individuals the maximum freedom to construct lives that they want to live. We use a minimum of constraint, we value openness, creativity, individual rights. We try hard to maximize religious liberty, economic liberty, liberty of conscience, freedom of speech. That’s my ideal of a society, and that’s why I call myself a liberal.”

But on the left, Haidt said, “there’s been a movement that has made something else sacred, that has not focused on liberty, but that is focused instead on oppression and victimhood and victimization. And once you get into a framework of seeing your fellow citizens as good versus evil based on their group, it’s kind of a mirror image of the authoritarian populism on the right. Any movement that is assigning moral value to people just by looking at them is a movement I want no part of.”

Haidt went on: “I think this is a very important point for us to all keep in mind, that left and right in this country are not necessarily liberal and conservative anymore. On the left, it’s really clear that there are elements that many of us consider to be very illiberal; and on the right, it’s hard to see how Trump and many of his supporters are conservatives who have any link whatsoever to Edmund Burke. It’s very hard for me to see that. You know, I would love to live in a country with true liberals and true conservatives that engage with each other. That, I think, is a very productive disagreement. But it’s the illiberalism on each side that is making our politics so ugly, I believe.”

The key quote from the passage above: "Any movement that is assigning moral value to people just by looking at them is a movement I want no part of.” This is a modern version of MLK's classic advice that is scorned by many modern day "liberals": "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Why has this beautiful sentiment become so difficult today?

Continue ReadingJonathan Haidt Describes Today’s Conservatives and Liberals

You Are a Pulsating Universe

Human animals are amazing on many levels. Have you recently contemplated the beauty of your hand? Have you marveled at the fact that you can open it, grab something tightly, sense temperature, gently touch your lover's hair? And if you burn it or bruise it, it will usually heal all by itself. All of those things are so natural that it's easy to forget how miraculous hands are. You would never be able to create a device that replicates all of these extraordinary functions.

But let's dig a bit deeper by reading Neil Shubin's new book,Some Assembly Required: Decoding Four Billion Years of Life, from Ancient Fossils to DNA (2020).  The hand is made of cells, and there are parts to each of those cells, and the genetic code for you can be found in each of those cells.  But how does that information contained in your DNA become you?  How is it possible for your genetic blueprint to build and maintain your body?  Shubin's book describes this process beautifully.  I offer the following excerpt.  If this kind of writing inspires you like it does me, I urge you to obtain a copy of Some Assembly Required and find a quiet place to allow your DNA powered body to read your biography. This book is about inspiring science and scientists, but it is, at bottom, about who you are.

New microscopes that allow us to see DNA molecules themselves also let us see what happens as genes turn on and off. For a gene to become active, a molecular game of Twister needs to happen. Inactive regions of the genome are tightly coiled upon themselves, bundled around other small molecules to fit inside the nucleus. These regions are closed off and so are relatively inert. Before a region of the genome can become active, it needs to uncoil and open itself up to make a protein. These are only the first steps in a finely choreographed dance that turns genes on and off. For a gene to activate, its switch needs to contact other molecules and attach to an area adjacent to the gene itself. . . .

So here are the full steps of the dance that goes on when genes turn on: the genome opens, revealing the gene and its control region, parts attach, and a protein is made. This happens in every cell, with every protein. A six-foot-long string of DNA is coiled until it is smaller than the size of the head of a pin. Conjure the image of it opening and closing in microseconds, writhing and turning to activate thousands of genes every second. From the moment of conception and throughout our adult lives, our genes are continually being switched on and off. We begin as a single cell. Over time, cells multiply, while batteries of genes are activated to control their behavior to form the tissues and organs of our bodies.

As I write this book, and as you read it, genes are switching on in all four trillion of our cells. DNA contains many supercomputers’ worth of computing power. With these instructions, a relatively small parts list of twenty thousand genes can build and maintain the complex bodies of worms, flies, and people using control regions spread across the genome. Changes to this incredibly complex and dynamic machine underlie the evolution of every creature on Earth. Always coiling, uncoiling, and folding, our DNA is like an acrobatic maestro, a conductor of development and evolution.

Shubin, Neil. Some Assembly Required (p. 73).

Continue ReadingYou Are a Pulsating Universe