Ten Things We Still Don't Understand About Humans 397
ParticleGirl writes "New Scientist has an article examining 10 human features (bugs?) that we still don't understand, like blushing, laughing, and nose-picking. There are some interesting, speculative evolutionary explanations listed for each. '[Psychologist Robert R. Provine] thinks laughing began in our pre-human ancestors as a physiological response to tickling. Modern apes maintain the ancestral 'pant-pant' laugh when they are tickled during play, and this evolved into the human 'ha-ha.' Then, he argues, as our brains got bigger, laughter acquired a powerful social function — to bond people. Indeed, Robin Dunbar at the University of Oxford has found that laughing increases levels of endorphins, our body's natural opiates, which he believes helps to strengthen social relationships.'"
Nose picking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nose picking? (Score:5, Insightful)
And is so much less uncomfortable than blowing your nose.
Or why people still take ... (Score:4, Insightful)
... the New Sensationalist [newscientist.com] seriously as a science magazine.
(Fine, mod this flamebait. I've got Karma to burn and I really dislike that rag.)
Re:Nose picking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Teenagers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Teenagers are not a biological issue at all, but a societal one. And one pretty easy to understand. Actually allow a smooth transition between childhood and adulthood, rather than making laws to restrict and "protect" teens until they hit that magic age of 18 or 21 or whatever, and while the problems won't go away, they'll become no worse than those of other young primates.
Re:Or why people still take ... (Score:5, Insightful)
... the New Sensationalist [newscientist.com] seriously as a science magazine.
Yeah, particularly as the article uses the outmoded term "altruism" for helping behaviour, and for some reason says, "most people say it doesn't make any evolutionary sense." I guess by "most people" they mean "most people who know nothing about the extensive and sound work on kin-selection and the evolutionary advantages of being a member of a group that engages in helping behaviour that has taken place in the past fifty years."
Seriously, helping behaviour hasn't been an issue for a couple of decades, and only then amongst the innumerate hangers-on from an earlier era. No one who knows anything about modern evolutionary thinking believes it is an issue today, which pretty much means, "New Sensationalist chooses ignorant ass to make up plausible bullshit to sell magazines to ignorant people under the guise of science."
Re:Teenagers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Teenagers? (Score:4, Insightful)
So yes, kids should be allowed to start drinking, swearing, fighting, fucking, smoking, shooting, PAYING THEIR OWN WAY and whatever else sooner in life than when they're allowed to now.
debated != "mystery" (Score:5, Insightful)
Example: Altruism.
It actually seems pretty obvious -- a community which was altruistic would, in the long run, have a higher chance of survival than a community which wasn't.
Another example: Superstition. I love this bit:
Religion offers another possible evolutionary benefit of superstition.
So... how is religion not superstition? Now you've got two mysteries, instead of one. And the same explanation still holds:
Our ancestors would not have lasted long if they had assumed that a rustle in the grass was caused by wind when there was even a small chance it was a lion. And it is worth making false-positive mistakes to get these relationships right.
Basically, religion and other superstitions are maladaptions of our ability to recognize patterns -- and an acceptable alternative to missing some pattern. Better to be paranoid than to be gullible -- better to be afraid of the tiger that isn't there than to be eaten by the tiger who is.
I suppose these aren't proven, but I do find this pretty weak, even for a "top 10" list. It's not "mysteries" so much as "cases which are not yet airtight".
Is slashdot going the way of Digg? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your article title should be "Top X {Reasons|Ways|Games...] To [Pick Up Girls|Make your own Fusion Reactor...]"
Yesterday on
Wow. (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty sure this has been common knowledge for years/decades.
Re:debated != "mystery" (Score:2, Insightful)
So... how is religion not superstition?
You read it wrong. TFA doesn't state that religion isn't superstition. It states that religion offers a benefit of superstition (the words are interchangeable a bit), namely promoting cohesion. This cohesion is a specific effect of religion and not of superstition, though the cause of both is the same because religion is a subclass of superstition.
Re:Teenagers? (Score:5, Insightful)
And resources contracting back to a "solar economy"? Turn in your geek card - geeks believe in the power of technology to improve lives. There's no reason to expect that that won't continue.
They forgot something. The Piss Shivers. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Missed one: (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't. I do. In fact I changed from your point of view to being able to not only understand how women think but sometimes even play on their motivations like on a piano. Nice side effect: Works on men too! :) But of course, any unfair manipulation is completely out of question. Analog to "white hat hacking".
But for you I have one single rule that you have to burn into your brain like your life would depend on it:
It's not important what you say, but how you say it. Or more general, how it feels.
This works while flirting, in every day communication, when arguing, when she asks if she looks fat, in creating a situation that will make her hot, etc, etc, etc.
You can walk up to a girl, and literally say the biggest crap. If it creates the right feeling in her, it will work.
That's why pickup lines are completely use- and pointless.
Politicians and especially advertisers are professionals in this too. Because it works on the more "basic" emotional brain. (Which really is not "simpler" than logic, but just another kind of intelligence.)
Never forgetting that single thing will help you more than any stupid relationship-help book. (Ok, I guess most of these include this nowadays.)
Re:Missed one: (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, I forgot: Of course I meant "how it feels for her"! Which means you have to listen to your emotional brain. Something that goes a bit against the stereotype of the cool western male, but in the end will make you a more manly man. (Protip: You still don't have to actually show all of those emotions. ^^)
Re:Teenagers? (Score:4, Insightful)
Evolutionary, we have a biology in which, I am told by people who seem to know, that a 15-17 year old girl is almost perfectly situation to bear offspring. The can carry them without the problems of later year, and often can deliver them without the difficulty of later years. Also the Circadian rhythm seems to change in a teen, allowing teens to sleep later, and in smaller chunks, as one might benefit one who had a child that needed to fed every couple hours. It is strange.
This of course is one issue we have with teens. On one hand we want to treat them children, which they are not. On the other hand, we won't give them a responsibility, which they need. We still have high schools starting at the same time as the elementary schools, a pretty silly thing to do, many adults, if they have a choice, go to work between 8 and 9. Many young people, if they have choice, work the night shift. In this way, adolescence is truly screwed up because the teen is still controlled by the assumptions of the adults, while having legitimate needs that are given no reasonable outlet.
Re:You hold the same view on gambling as Descartes (Score:2, Insightful)
You hold the same view on gambling as Descartes
Do you mean Pascal [wikipedia.org] maybe ? Come on, the guy had a programming language named after him and everything.
Re:Teenagers? (Score:1, Insightful)
"Teenager" actually correlates with puberty pretty well. During puberty, people are drenched with abnormally high levels of various hormones which changes their behavior pretty drastically.
A society that depends on 15 years olds in any serious manner is screwed.
Depends on the society. In a society where the average lifespan is 35 years, 15yr olds are absolutely crucial to reproduction, and since they are raised to, they generally fall into a very adult and responsible role at an earlier age than we are used to, and they're fine at it.
Re:debated != "mystery" (Score:3, Insightful)
Example: Altruism. It actually seems pretty obvious -- a community which was altruistic would, in the long run, have a higher chance of survival than a community which wasn't.
But it isn't obvious. Ask yourself this, what is the best way for an individual to live in an altruistic society? Answer: to be a selfish asshole that takes advantage of all the altruistic suckers. That tension between what is best for an individual and the common good creates many paradoxical situations and is much more involved than what you seem to think.
Re:Memes (Score:3, Insightful)
And, conversely, fnord is a meme.
Re:Nose picking? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, man, I know what you mean. Totally understand. I've felt that one. Nothin' like going from 1% clear nasal passages to 1% blocked.
Very few things in life feel better.
Mods: I'm 100% serious. Putting aside any personal feelings of disgust, how many of you agree? You all know it's true.
Re:Missed one: (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know, the level of unethical manipulation, objectivization, self-involvement, narcissism, and sexism in your theory seems perfectly consistent with the "stereotype of the cool western male."
But you're right about not needing relationship-help books. They also just slap together half-assed, pseudo-psychology and painfully obvious observations on rhetoric.
It's going to be painful, when you realize just how many women see right through your pose.
Re:Teenagers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nose picking? (Score:2, Insightful)
This has to be true. Think about it - how did people clear their noses before facial wipes of any kind (handkerchief, tissue, anything) was invented? There seems to be no more natural way to go about it than just to pick it.
Re:Teenage behaviour is evolution's reaction (Score:2, Insightful)
...to incest, which is bad for the gene pool.
When our primate ancestors stopped leaving the cave as soon as they could and started staying home with their parents until later in life, what better way to avoid interbreeding between offspring and parents than to make teenagers hate/piss off their parents, and do whatever they could to impregnate/get impregnated by someone else?
That's nature saying: "Get away from these same-gene carriers. Get out, and get wild. Multiply now!". And when they do, that's positive feedback for the evolutionary push. Interbreeding would reduce the probability of survival of the group in the long term (and short term, if <disgusting attempt to joke about people locked in basements removed>).
Wow.
I've never read such an insane "scientific" explanation for something as simple as a pool of hormones on a developing brain. That much going on will affect anybody.
How far out do you think these cave dwellers actually ventured?
Also, do you suppose in an earlier time when every able body was so important to the survival of the group, that "teens" would act out the way they do now?
I would say it isn't an evolutionary response so much as just simple development. You're reading too much into it.
Re:debated != "mystery" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's for old "nature" religions.
Nowadays religion is basically two things:
First a god is one way to cope with the fact, that we never can know where it all comes from. (The big bang and there being no time before it, is another more realistic one.) Of course they are all by definition unable to answer that question. But better than to get crazy, right?
Second, the "get crazy" part: If you ever read something about what we used to call neurosis or schizophrenia: It is basically the "art" of twisting the world so it's OK to you, even when it's not. You for example state, that it was OK that you got raped, because you really did bad things to your father when you were young. And then go to do way too much good, to make up for it, afterwards. Or you run onto the highway because you think you can control the world. And then when you get hit, you later insist that you wanted it that way.
Religion basically is a light form of schizophrenia. Which is bad and good. (In psychology, if something is a disease, depends on your/their view of "bad".)
It basically helps people cope with bad lives, horrible things, wars, poverty, and the everyday frustration. They can blame it on a higher power, or on their own fault to live by the rules of that power. So while I am far from being religious, I can totally understand people who are, and their needs for it. It's a useful tool for a desperate situation.
Where it gets bad, is when people want to profit from those people, by acting as if they were a mediator between them and their higher power. While essentially taking over their will and life. It's the biggest and one of the most evil scams -- off the backs of them.
But hey, people strive for the reproduction of their genes, and of their ideas. It's called evolution. And mother nature is really a bitch.
Blushing levels the social playing field. (Score:1, Insightful)
"Even Darwin struggled to explain why we would evolve a response that lets others know that we have cheated or lied"
Diversity is good within a species, as it strengthens the species as a whole when times are hard - like a new disease, sudden diet changes due to changes in food supply, habitat changes, strength to resist poisoning, etc..
Maybe blushing is there to help diversity be maintained in the long term?
A non-blushing individual could have a massive social advantage within their group. This gene line could spread through a population relatively quickly compared to other mutations, possibly having such a detrimental effect on diversity that a whole group or even species could get wiped out by a sudden environmental change.
Someone who doesn't blush possibly could be very dangerous to our and archaic humans' social mechanisms.... When it comes to individuals communicating, blushing lets the one party know that the subject of the conversation is important to the other. This can induce empathy in the blushed-to, and when we find people that are like us it is a very strong bonding force. Blushing forces feelings out into public, feelings that could stay inside if it weren't for the blushing - it provides a short cut to letting another how you truly feel.
If a human didn't learn that blushing lets other people know what really matters to them, they could keep things secret much more effectively. That would bring them social power in some situations. They'd grow up being able to never involuntarily let others know what really touches them, and this could make them a right nut-case.... blushing keeps the ego in check in this respect. Not blushing is the wrong sort of advantage for the species.
Now then, how blushing isn't fully compatible with the modern world where routine non-face to face contact occurs is left as an exercise for the reader. Bonus marks for comparing this to non-human entities, like corporations, governments, or religious establishments.
Brought to you by the use of recreational cannabis. Dangerous stuff, makes you think (and waffle)!
Re:Nose picking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Teenagers? (Score:1, Insightful)
And resources contracting back to a "solar economy"? Turn in your geek card - geeks believe in the power of technology to improve lives. There's no reason to expect that that won't continue.
It is a geek card, not a moron card. No reason to expect that technology won't continue to improve lives?
Sure some technology improves life. Then there are the things that reduce the quality of life. If technology cannot improve life sufficiently to counter the reduction in quality then overall quality of life will be reduced.
Think of the world's resources as a pie. The more people there are the smaller the slice of pie each person gets. As long as the world's population continues to grow technology is limited in improving the quality of life as the quantity of pie is finite and while it may increase, if it doesn't increase as quickly as the population does each slice of pie gets smaller and smaller regardless of technological improvements. And while some people will wind up with larger pieces of pie others will of course wind up with less.
The ability of technology to improve life is limited. It may have seemed limitless back when the population was smaller and less advanced and the pie looked infinite. Now that the population is much, much larger, and the pie is known to not be the least bit infinite, technology doesn't look to be capable of improving our lives without limit.
Re:Nose picking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, it doesn't.
Honesty and truthfulness have little value over there, whereas 2 +5's obviously show that everyone agrees with them here.
Re:Teenagers? (Score:3, Insightful)
Meh. I (as a person in that age range) am sick of being treated like someone who is expected to be chock full of hormones and therefore incapable of acting otherwise. People don't become adults faster by being told "you don't have to be mature yet" - they mature when people look at them strange and say "What's your problem? Stop acting like a child."
Re:Nose picking? (Score:3, Insightful)
Snort or pick, it's still the same booger.
Re:debated != "mystery" (Score:3, Insightful)
The problems arise, if you artificially limit your coping abilities. Either by only ever using some. Or by never ever using some. :)
No?
Well, no, I wouldn't agree.
For example: One potential way of coping is eating ice cream. But if what you're trying to cope with is an overeating disorder, then I'd say that is never the right way to cope with that.
A more extreme example: We could cope with our stress by killing someone. Is that an acceptable way to cope? No, I'd artificially limit my coping ability, and never use that ability.
Now, is religion as bad as murder? Usually not. But I'd still argue the side effects are not worth whatever comfort it provides, when there are so many other ways of being comforted. I would suggest the most effective way of coping, with or without religion, is reaching out to other real people.
Re:Teenagers? (Score:2, Insightful)
Meh. I (as a person in that age range) am sick of being treated like someone who is expected to be chock full of hormones and therefore incapable of acting otherwise. People don't become adults faster by being told "you don't have to be mature yet" - they mature when people look at them strange and say "What's your problem? Stop acting like a child."
I agree. My own experiences as a teenager (a bit over a decade ago) combined with current reflection upon the "adult" world have shown me that the only difference between teenagers and "adults" is how they are treated by the rest of society. Any sane person would be depressed and/or rebellious if treated and viewed the way our culture typically treats and views teenagers. Expectations create a self-fulfilling prophecy.