Maybe that guy isn’t a jerk; maybe he’s just low on oxytocin.
A new study conducted on macaques has generated this proclamation:
Oxytocin, the “love hormone” that builds mother-baby bonds and may help us feel more connected toward one another, can also make surly monkeys treat each other a little more kindly. [article source]
In the experiment, macaques in the experimental group were administered oxytocin–a hormone we humans share–via an inhalation mask. Relative to the control group, these monkeys displays greater pro-social behavior, as gauged by their willingness to give some sweet juice to their cohorts.
I wonder: would outfitting automobile air conditioners with an oxytocin injector eliminate road rage?
Let’s face it, grandmothers and grandfathers have sex. We may find that fact disturbing if we visualize the act with one or both of our own grandparents playing a leading role. Or maybe if we aren’t elderly ourselves, so have yet to have the personal experience of perceiving an aged member of the opposite sex as sexy. We may also find the image somewhat distasteful because our “lets-make-babies” genetic tendencies would prefer a real shot at procreation. Of course, grandfathers can still become fathers. Their sperm remain viable, though counts go down.
Why would post-menapausal women have sex? After all, they can no longer procreate. As I see it, there are two reasons. First, that sexual interest and activity persists beyond menapause may simply mean there have been no selective pressures to eliminate it. Or, in other words, it doesn’t bear a cost, so hasn’t been trimmed away by the need to survive. Second, we must consider potential non-procreative benefits to sex.
What got me thinking about this? A new study, of course. In Sexual satisfaction in women increases with age, I read of data gathered from 800+ women over 40 years. Researcher Elizabeth Barrett-Connor reports:
“Despite a correlation between sexual desire and other sexual function domains, only 1 in 5 sexually active women reported high sexual desire. Approximately half of the women aged 80 years or more reported arousal, lubrication, and orgasm most of the time, but rarely reported sexual desire. In contrast with traditional linear model in which desire precedes sex, these results suggest that women engage in sexual activity for multiple reasons, which may include affirmation or sustenance of a relationship.”
Interesting. The above seems to suggest a strong relationship component to elderly female sexuality. And maybe an identity-slash-self-esteem component. And for elderly males? It seems logical that they are likely the ones initiating much of the late-life sex. In their case, are their genetic procreative instincts behind the continued interest in sex? There is likely a relationship/identity/self-esteem element to it as well. But maybe not as much. Maybe. I think.
War is always bad, right? People get killed, and killing people is bad. So how could someone propose that war could have an upside?
Based partly upon archeological findings in Peru, UCLA researcher Charles Stanish has come to this conclusion:
“War, regional trade and specialized labor are the three factors that keep coming up as predecessors to civilization.” [source]
So the waging of war may have been a predecessor and facilitator of the development of civilizations. How so? To wage war is an organized social activity. Perhaps group warfare was the first activity — one that had huge implications for survival — that required a large number of individuals to work together. By waging war (on the offense to acquire more resources or in defense of one’s own life and resources), groups ‘grew’ their social muscles, you might say. Muscles that could later be put to use on other community tasks. Like public works projects.
Hmm.
Most of the time, when human traits are compared to the traits of other species, the analogy is worded something like this: “Rats discovered to have human-like trait.” As if the trait is ours, and it comes as a surprise that it is shared by a distant genetic cousin.
I welcome the day when more findings express this perspective: “Humans discovered to have rat-like trait.”
But back to the rats. Seems they exhibit something akin to empathy. Those (not) dirty rats!
In, Helping your fellow rat: Rodents show empathy-driven behavior, I learned of new research that shows rats are capable of “emotional contagion.” In humans, and other social species, emotions are contagious. When other individuals express them, we can feel them too. That’s why being around mopey people, for example, is a bit of a bummer.
In a serious of experiments it was found that given a choice between a chocolate treat (we share that, too?!) and freeing a trapped cagemate, rats will forego the chocolate and come to the aid of another rat.
I wonder if future research will show that rats are capable of double-crossing other rats, thus deserving the expression, “You dirty rat!” But maybe we just ought to change it to, “You dirty human!”
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Many people claim to have an “open mind.” But they fail to expose their open mind to any form of new information. In a practical sense, their open mind stays parked in the driveway. How is that mind functionally different from a closed mind?
A recent article over at ScienceDaily, Americans Choose Media Messages That Agree With Their Views, highlights this problem. Co-author of the study, Silvia Knobloch, said,
“We found that people generally chose media messages that reinforced their own preexisting views.”
It seems that not only to human beings tend to cherry-pick the data to acknowledge, but also the sources of data (if you can call them that) to consult. Both of these fall into the domain of “the confirmation bias:” perhaps the most serious impediment to corrective learning. If you don’t already know, the confirmation bias consists of recognizing and acknowledging information that confirms your belief while ignoring and neglecting information that conflicts with your beliefs.
What is an actively open mind to do? Find sources of information that show a true range of legitimate positions on topics (i.e., not the often bogus single pro-voice placed across from the single con-voice in a “debate” that in actuality is no debate). And for those really tough and important subjects, I believe it is incumbent upon the open mind to put his/her body into drive and seek out potentially disconfirming media and information. It takes effort, and it is not as enjoyable as discovering yet more evidence that you are “right,” but it is an essential practice for minds that are open in more than potential alone.
Recent Comments