People really do play by the rules!

Studies recently completed at Washington State University suggest that we really, really don't like non-conformists, people who don't play by the rules, regardless of whether the outcome is positive or negative.

The studies gave participants—introductory psychology students—pools of points that they could keep or give up for an immediate reward of meal service vouchers. Participants were also told that giving up points would improve the group's chance of receiving a monetary reward. In reality, the participants were playing in fake groups of five. Most of the fictitious four would make seemingly fair swaps of one point for each voucher, but one of the four would often make lopsided exchanges—greedily giving up no points and taking a lot of vouchers, or unselfishly giving up a lot of points and taking few vouchers.
As expected, participants didn't want to work with the greedy players who took more than they shared. Unexpectedly, they were also eager to get rid of the unselfish players - who consistently gave more than they received. The researchers found that
unselfish colleagues come to be resented because they "raise the bar" for what is expected of everyone. As a result, workers feel the new standard will make everyone else look bad. They frequently said, "the person is making me look bad" or is breaking the rules. Occasionally, they would suspect the person had ulterior motives.
It didn't seem to matter that the overall welfare of the group or the task at hand is better served by someone's unselfish behavior. The do-gooders are seen as deviant rule breakers. It's as if they're giving away Monopoly money so someone can stay in the game, irking other players to no end. I think that this merely demonstrates that the majority of people are generally (small c) conservative, and want to stay within well defined boundaries. In my opinion, this respect for the rules is one of the major foundations upon which religion builds, and which is (also) appropriated by authoritarians for their personal gain. Hooking into our sense of fair-play and our inherent tribalism seems to be a winning strategy for those who would define the rules for their personal gain. Define the rules, and the people will enforce them for you. No secret police needed!

Continue ReadingPeople really do play by the rules!

Moral conduct in the absence of commandments.

“Thou shalt love puppies.”

Does the above Commandment explain why people dutifully gravitate to homeless puppies, adopt them, feed them and love them? Of course not, because there is no such commandment. Nor are there any other abstract moral principles requiring us to love puppies. We love puppies because the urge to love small tame animals is deep in our bones. We love puppies because we are built to love (contrary to those who claim that life is fundamentally dog-eat-dog -- Consider also, that the “struggle for existence” is only a conceptual metaphor with limited application). Our human bodies are pre-rigged to take care of cute little mammals, especially when they appear to love us back. We would love puppies even if there were a commandment telling us to NOT love puppies.

Continue ReadingMoral conduct in the absence of commandments.

Animal cultures and overimitating

In the July 16, 2010 edition of Science (available online only to subscribers), Michael Balter opens his article, "Probing Cultures Secrets," with words that would have been considered blasphemous by scientists only a few decades ago:

Scientists once designated "culture" as the exclusive province of humans. But that elitist attitude is long gone, as evidenced by the recent meeting here on how culture, usually defined as the passing on of traditions by learning from others, arises and changes. The 700 attendees [of "culture evolves," held in London], a mixture of researchers and members of the public, heard talks on cultural transmission in fish, meerkats, birds, and monkeys, as well as in extinct and living humans.

Balter's question is "why do certain cultural trends, such as fashions, begin and catch on? To illustrate his answer, Balter refers to the work of anthropologist Susan Perry who described some unusual behavior of white faced capuchin monkeys in Costa Rica. Balter writes that some of these monkeys have adopted various traditions with "no clear survival purpose, such as sniffing each other's fingers and inserting them into a companions nose, or biting off a big chunk of another monkeys for and holding it in the mouth while he or she playfully tries to get it back."

Continue ReadingAnimal cultures and overimitating

Skin color as evidence of natural selection

In this TED talk, author Nina Jablonski (Skin: A Natural History) suggests that whenever someone demands proof of evolution by natural selection, you should roll up your sleeve and show them your skin color. You carry this evidence around with you every day. You should point out that skin color changes depending on where one's ancestors lived. Check out the dramatic world map image at about 4:20 of the video. Darker skin colors can be found near the equator and lighter skin colors abound in higher latitudes. There is a fundamental and undeniable relation between skin color and latitude. But that is just the beginning of her story. We all have melanin: nature's sunscreen. It protected equatorial people from harmful UVB rays, but nonetheless allowed their skin to produce vitamin D, which is now recognized as essential for proper skin, bones and immune system function. When humans moved to higher latitudes, their skin tones lighted up to allow better production of Vitamin D. Jablonski warns, however, that the angle at which sunlight hits the earth at higher latitudes blocks most UVB rays, allowing only UBA rays which cannot produce Vitamin D. Hence, those of us living in the northern latitudes, no matter what our skin color but especially those of us who work indoors, are at risk for lack of vitamin D. She urges doctors to do a better job warning patients in higher latitudes about the potential damage to skin, bones and immune system caused by their lack of vitamin D.

Continue ReadingSkin color as evidence of natural selection

Putting our close genetic relationship to chimpanzees into perspective

Genomics Professor Katherine Pollard explored the genetic basis for being human in a video presentation titled "What Makes Us Human. Here a rather dramatic announcement from her talk:

Mouse and rat actually have a common ancestor longer ago than human and chimp, and some people will be surprised by that. They will say, "We are so much more different than a chimp . . . mouse and rat must be pretty similar." Actually mouse and rat on average are much more different from each other than we are from a chimp, and that's sort of a humbling fact to keep in mind.
We're not exactly like chimpanzees, of course, but there are quite a few overlaps (as well as differences), which Pollard explores beginning at the 4-minute mark. Surprisingly, young chimpanzees have a better competency in counting and numbers than young humans. At the 11-minute mark, you can see that the human genome is 95% similar to that of a chimp (or 99%, depending on how you define similarity), and that it is 28% similar (or 89%, depending on definition of similarity) to the genome of a mouse. [More . . . ]

Continue ReadingPutting our close genetic relationship to chimpanzees into perspective