Slashdot Mirror
Ten Things We Still Don't Understand About Humans
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.'"
What's not to understand? It clears the nose!
... the New Sensationalist seriously as a science magazine.
(Fine, mod this flamebait. I've got Karma to burn and I really dislike that rag.)
Prime numbers are exactly what Alan Greenspan says they are -S. Minsky
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.
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".
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
We've all heard the joke about how to get on the front page of Digg. /. it was an article on 10 failed mouse designs. Today it is 10 things we don't know about the human body.
Your article title should be "Top X {Reasons|Ways|Games...] To [Pick Up Girls|Make your own Fusion Reactor...]"
Yesterday on
"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."
Pretty sure this has been common knowledge for years/decades.
Still haven't heard a reasonable explanation on that one.
Name...That...Autocomplete!
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.)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
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. ^^)
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
You hold the same view on gambling as Descartes
Do you mean Pascal maybe ? Come on, the guy had a programming language named after him and everything.
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
And, conversely, fnord is a meme.
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
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.
...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.
If you aren't suspicious of your government's actions, you aren't doing your job as a responsible citizen.
"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)!