Evolutionary explanations: historical trajectory versus convergence

In the April 16, 2009 edition of Nature (available online only to subscribers), Johan J. Bolhuis and Clive L. Wynne asked "Can Evolution Explain How Minds Work? Their answer is that we need to be careful. Traits don't always smoothly work their way up from ancestors to contemporary species. Sometimes, traits appear as a result of "convergence," namely, these traits arise in species that are not closely related because these species were independently subjected to similar selection pressures. A good example of convergence would be the wings of birds and bats, which are not closely related species. Both species, however, were subjected to similar selection pressures, accounting for the existence of their wings. The authors argue that many studies suggesting that humanlike traits existed in lower primates lacked sufficient controls. Maybe those capuchin monkeys were not reacting on the basis of assessing "fairness" when they shared or rejected slices of cucumbers. Maybe they were rejecting an inferior reward simply because better rewards were potentially available. The authors suggest that their reanalysis of these experiments suggests that it is a mistake to assume the continuous development of mind up through the lower primates, culminating in human beings.

Continue ReadingEvolutionary explanations: historical trajectory versus convergence

Altruism in Sports – Strength Fest 2009

This past week I had the very enjoyable assignment of creating a short video of a four event strongman contest. The event was called Strength Fest 2009 and was held to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Iron Sport Gym which caters to athletes who compete in Strongman and Highland Games competitions. I thought that the readers of DI might find this video generally interesting but, more than that, I wanted to point out an aspect of the sport that I find fascinating, refreshing and which reminded me of a recent post here at Dangerous Intersection. One of the things that always strikes me about strongman competitions is the camaraderie. We are all familiar with teammates supporting each other, but in this case I am speaking about the camaraderie between rivals. Starting at around 2:15 watch how the competitors try to inspire one athlete to complete his lift, going so far as to slap him in the face to help him get motivated! (Watch carefully, he asks for it!)

Continue ReadingAltruism in Sports – Strength Fest 2009

Just run the Monty Hall experiment and get it over with

Monty Hall was the host of a TV game show called "Let's Make a Deal." I watched it when I was a boy and it was quite entertaining. One of the specific games on the show involved offering to allow a contestant to pick one out of three wrapped prizes. Some of the prizes were valuable, but one was often a worthless gag. After the contestant chose one gift, Monty invariably removed one of the two wrapped gifts that the contestant did not take. He then asked the contestant if he/she wanted to trade the box he/she originally chose in return for choosing the other remaining gift. Should the contestant stay put or should he/she switch? My gut feeling says that there is nothing to gain by switching, but there are many experts who disagree with me. Frankly, I’m tired of hearing about the Monty Hall problem. Many mathematically-inclined experts insist that you should ALWAYS switch after Monte takes away one of the three hidden prizes. There’s all kinds of high end mathematics involved in many of these analysis (see here for instance). The dispute gets really high-pitched sometimes, which is usually a clue that experts are claiming to be certain when they really don’t have any right to be. What I’m wondering is this: why don’t some social scientists simply gather empirical data in a lab? Assign someone to be Monty and let college students play the roles of contestants. Set the experimental parameters precisely (this needs to be done carefully because there is some question as to what, exactly Monty knows and does) and run the test over and over, until you’ve got LOTS of data. Have some students always make the switch. Have others never make the switch. Then tally the results and tell the mathematicians that you have the real answer. So that’s my thought: allow real-world trials tell the theoreticians the answer. Then let’s move on, please. Or has someone actually run the Monty Hall skit over and over in a lab yet and added up the results? I haven’t seen it yet, if this has been done.

Continue ReadingJust run the Monty Hall experiment and get it over with

Humans are so well designed!

I saw this snippet on my New Scientist RSS feed. Some researchers, investigating methods to improve IVF success rates, have discovered that contrary to popular belief, chromosomal abnormalities, and hence miscarriages, are not abnormal occurrences, but are in fact the norm.

As women age, their eggs are more likely to have the wrong number of chromosomes, which can lead to miscarriages. But when Joris Vermeersch from the Centre for Human Genetics in Leuven, Belgium, and colleagues examined 23 embryos from nine young, fertile couples who were undergoing IVF for screening purposes, they found that 21 had chromosomal abnormalities, suggesting these are in fact the norm (Nature Medicine, DOI: 10.1038/nm.1924).
I can only presume god was just being mean when he said 'go forth and multiply' - since he must have known that our ability to multiply was broken.

Continue ReadingHumans are so well designed!

Why it matters that humans are animals.

I have written numerous posts advocating that because humans are animals they should be recognized as such (for example, see here , here, here , and here). For zoologists and others who study animals, it is obviously true that we are animals. We do hundreds of things that the other mammals do, plus a few extra. You can see it every day when you eat, breathe, emote, poop, become fatigued and fall asleep. Yet millions of Americans are horrified by the thought that human beings are animals. Consider that we aren’t simply animals. Our species is a carefully defined type of animal. We are apes. Frans de Waal explains:

Darwin wasn't just provocative in saying that we descend from the apes—he didn't go far enough . . . We are apes in every way, from our long arms and tailless bodies to our habits and temperament.

If you want even more detail on what type of animal humans are (we are in the ape sub-division of primates), watch this brisk video by Aron-ra. Again, this sort of information is really disturbing to many people, especially religious conservatives. So why don't I simply leave religious conservatives alone? Why do I persist on standing on rooftops and proclaiming this message that humans are animals? Why don't I just whisper this sort of information only to my closest of friends: "Pssst. Human beings are animals." Why don't I just let it be, and keep it all to myself? What could possibly be at stake that I feel compelled to spread the word that human beings are animals? I was in the process of assembling my own list when I just happened to read Chapter 12 of Mark Johnson's new book, The Meaning of the Body: Aesthetics of Human Understanding. Johnson is well known for his work with metaphors and embodied cognition with George Lakoff. Chapter 12 of his new book contains a section that leaped out at me: "The Philosophical Implications of the Embodied Mind." In that short section, Johnson sets forth nine reasons why it really and truly matters for people to acknowledge that they are animals and to fully accept that their minds are embodied, not free-floating entities independent of physical laws. Johnson's biggest target is the "objectivist theory of meaning," the idea that meaning "gets defined without any connection to the experience of the creature (i.e., the human) for whom the words are meaningful. Johnson points out that those who follow the objectivist theory of meaning believe that words and sentences somehow "carry" meaning without even trying to explain how words and sentences ever come to acquire meaning. It should send up immediate red flags that the predominate theory of meaning relies on floating thoughts, a theory of meaning that is not biologically anchored. Reacting to (and rejecting) this objectivist approach, Mark Johnson premises his analysis "with a mind that is not separate from or out-of-ongoing-contact with its body and its world." His worldview includes a specific definition of body and his impressive list of why it matters for human beings to take seriously "the embodiment of mind and meaning." Here are those reasons (I will be borrowing liberally from Johnson's book with these descriptions, beginning at page 279):

Continue ReadingWhy it matters that humans are animals.