If you stay informed about a field of science for a substantial string of years — or take lessons learned from the history of science seriously — you will keep in mind the provisional nature of findings. Particularly certain types of findings and those at the frontiers.
So when a finding made years ago is supported by recent research, that’s noteworthy, though perhaps not fully “new.”
Such is the case with recent research on how fears and phobias are acquired. I was aware of previous work showing a strong learned component. And that seems to have held up. In People Aren’t Born Afraid of Spiders and Snakes: Fear Is Quickly Learned During Infancy we learn -
A new paper published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, reviews research with infants and toddlers and finds that we aren’t born afraid of spiders and snakes, but we can learn these fears very quickly.
Upon reading the above I thought, “Hmm, but close relatives of the human show similar sets of fears. Couldn’t there be an innate component.” And it seems there is.
One theory about why we fear spiders and snakes is because so many are poisonous; natural selection may have favored people who stayed away from these dangerous critters. Indeed, several studies have found that it’s easier for both humans and monkeys to learn to fear evolutionarily threatening things than non-threatening things…Susan Mineka’s research (from Northwestern University) shows that monkeys that are raised in the lab aren’t afraid of snakes, but they’ll learn to fear snakes much more readily than flowers or rabbits. [emphasis added]
Makes sense. So perhaps the title to news of the latest research ought to sport an asterisk. While people aren’t born afraid of spiders, they may be born primed to acquire that particular fear.
Is it possible that ADHD is so prevalent because the condition can be adaptive? Or was adaptive?
Of course, the answer to that question is likely not not black-or-white. We need to ask “How adaptive?” “What benefit would it bring?” “Under what environmental conditions?” Etc.
Most importantly, at this point in our understanding, we need to keep in mind that what we are engaging in is open-minded speculation. Nothing to be confident about.
Asking whether ADHD — in some form or another — is adaptive might be like asking if sickle-cell anemia is adaptive. The short answer – no. But with one copy of the gene there is that malaria-resistance thing. Which is adaptive. Does ADHD have a similarly hidden adaptive side?
Ruminating on possible evolutionary reasons why ADHD might be or could have been adaptive is not new. The same type of thinking has gone into other psychological conditions we generally categorize as “illness.” Take depression and schizophrenia. These are illnesses, thus always bad, right?
Always? A first query might probe the issue of what degree of depression or schizophrenia. For all forms are not the same. A second query might attempt to disclose the different types of personal, social and environmental conditions an individual might expect to encounter. Today. And yesterday.
For example, one might say that people feeling depressed have less energy and lack the impulse to “get up and go.” The reward centers in their brain are less active. When could this be adaptive? Well, perhaps in the case of someone with a serious injury or sickness, someone suffering a serious loss and additional loss is a real and present danger, someone temporarily or permanently infirm . . . . Perhaps it would be best for a person in that condition to feel less inclined to get up and go. Rather, their psychological (particularly emotional) state persuades them to “lay low.”
With schizophrenia it would definitely be important to distinguish degrees of the condition. Some have argued that individuals on the “saner” end of the schizophrenia spectrum tend to be more innovative and creative. Which is adaptive. So maybe a little bit o’ craziness can be a good thing.
Brain imaging research on individuals with ADHD (“black” status, in terms of the black-white spectrum) suggests that a significant difference in these individuals is an inability to switch-off extraneous inputs so as to maintain focus on a single task.
From, Brain scans show children with ADHD have faulty off-switch for mind-wandering, we learn,
Using a ‘Whac-a-Mole’ style game, researchers from the Motivation, Inhibition and Development in ADHD Study (MIDAS) group at the University of Nottingham found evidence that children with ADHD require either much greater incentives – or their usual stimulant medication – to focus on a task. When the incentive was low, the children with ADHD failed to “switch off” brain regions involved in mind-wandering. When the incentive was high, however, or they were taking their medication, their brain activity was indistinguishable from a typically-developing non-ADHD child.
Do children with ADHD have a mind with a naturally wider focus?
Imagine a child basket-weaving with others at the edge of a settlement. Many of the young ones concentrate superbly, making perfect baskets in no time at all. But for one child in particular, concentration is nearly impossible to maintain. His/her mind keeps wandering: What was that noise? I think a bird just flew into those bushes, must have been a thrush . . . I wonder what’s for dinner.” This child makes poor progress on the basket. And yet his or her disposition could be adaptive for the group, if not the individual. I recall reading the conjecture that people with ADHD would make good look-outs, scouts, explorers. But not surgeons nor accountant-types.
Are the traits of ADHD-types poorly fit for today’s environments, particularly the schoolroom and the corporate cubicle?
Quite a bit of research into the psychology of other animals has found distinct personalities. In particular, while some individuals are quite out-going, others are not. There is a real, innate difference in degree.
Why would this be the case? Because diversity is adaptive. In physical traits, in psychological traits. Within the talent pool of a social group. When human parents have a number of children, each is somewhat different from the others in disposition. Why would we expect all children to be optimally fit for our current environment?
We Homo sapiens are a very social species of animal. When we speak of our core selves, we will often refer to our hearts. “In my heart of hearts, I truly feel” . . . . ) What is the heart but the organ most obviously influenced by emotion. In the animal kingdom, where you find rich emotional lives, you also find rich social lives.
Three recent studies expose some of the depth and complexity to our social lives.
1) Self-esteem is golden.
In Young People Say Sex, Paychecks Come in Second to Self-Esteem we learn -
Researchers found that college students valued boosts to their self-esteem more than any other pleasant activity they were asked about, including sex, favorite foods, drinking alcohol, seeing a best friend or receiving a paycheck….
“We found that self-esteem trumped all other rewards in the minds of these college students,” Bushman said.
But wait, you might say, self-esteem is about the self, about inner feelings and dynamics. What’s social about that?
Like paper money, it seems, a self has no value in a void. It is relative. For paper money the value is relative to what you can get with it, with it’s actual purchasing power. How is the value of a self, appraised by the very same self, relative?
The best theory about the nature of self-esteem I have encountered posits that self-esteem reflects a person’s present and past perceptions of acceptance/rejection by others. This detail from the above study reflects that proposition:
One of the items they were asked about was self-esteem building experiences, such as receiving a good grade or receiving a compliment.
What were the above experiences “received” from? Others. What is a good grade relative to? Again, others (their performance).
2. Influenced by a belief one doesn’t hold.
Now here’s a bit of a head-scratcher: Secondhand television exposure linked to eating disorders
Secondhand television exposure – what is that? It’s when a person is exposed to people who have been exposed to television.
For parents wanting to reduce the negative influence of TV on their children, the first step is normally to switch off the television set.
But a new study suggests that might not be enough. It turns out indirect media exposure, i.e., having friends who watch a lot of TV, might be even more damaging to a teenager’s body image.
Wow. Interesting. Though I am somewhat skeptical. From data collected on girls in Fiji (where the influence of television can be better controlled for, as it is not as ubiquitous) -
[T]he biggest factor for eating disorders was how many of a subject’s friends and schoolmates had access to TV. By contrast, researchers found that direct forms of exposure, like personal or parental viewing, did not have an independent impact, when factors like urban location, body shape and other influences were taken into account.
Hmm. What the finding suggests to me is that exposure to television many not directly influence how a girl views herself. But it may influence how she treats others — at least unconsciously, how she behaves as an “other.” There is a bi-directional influence between the self and it’s social environment. If others send you signals that you aren’t good enough according to new standards (that darn paper dollar again!) they have internalized but apparently not applied to themselves, you have been exposed to a secondhand influence. It’s a social thing.
3. Homeopathic emotion?
Can water influence our emotions? Yes, if that water is actually non-diluted human tears. You may have already heard about this unique bit of research -
Emotional Signals Are Chemically Encoded in Tears, Researchers Find
As an aside, I don’t know about the “encoded” part. That word connotes both an “intentional” element and a symbolic component. A true code has both of those.
However the chemicals in tears are referred to, researchers found they can influence feelings and social behavior. At least the sexual feelings and behavior of males when unknowingly smelling the tears of females.
Is there such a thing as a scentless smell?
The research details are fascinating -
[T]he researchers first obtained emotional tears from female volunteers watching sad movies in a secluded room and then tested whether men could discriminate the smell of these tears from that of saline. The men could not.
In a second experiment, male volunteers sniffed either tears or a control saline solution, and then had these applied under their nostrils on a pad while they made various judgments regarding images of women’s faces on a computer screen. The next day, the test was repeated — the men who were previously exposed to tears getting saline and vice versa. The tests were double blinded, meaning neither the men nor the researchers performing the trials knew what was on the pads. The researchers found that sniffing tears did not influence the men’s estimates of sadness or empathy expressed in the faces. To their surprise, however, sniffing tears negatively affected the sex appeal attributed to the faces.
Wow. Cool.
Human beings are not thinking machines. We are social creatures often completely unaware of the many ways we influence others. And are influenced by them.
Does violence cause video games? Oops. I meant, do video games cause violent behavior? Many parents and psychologists would like to know. As would I.
In previous blog posts (see Skeptical of Research Linking Video Games With Violence) I have expressed two general thoughts: “it’s complicated,” and “the jury is out.” A re-visit to the topic, thanks to a recent research finding, has done little to change the second thought, yet confirmed the first.
In the news release, Violent games not to blame for youth aggression, I learned of research showing depression linked with both violence and the use of video games with violent content in “302 mainly Hispanic youth between the ages of 10 and 14 years.”
The article lead states -
How depressed young people are strongly predicts how aggressive and violent they may be or may become. Contrary to popular belief, however, exposure to violence in video games or on television is not related to serious acts of youth aggression or violence among Hispanics in the US, according to new research by Dr. Christopher Ferguson from Texas A & M International University. [emphasis added]
Yes, it’s complicated.
I must take issue, however, with the black-and-white language of “not to blame” in the title. To blame or not to blame, that shouldn’t be the question. The truth about this very complex question, with many social and psychological variables involved, is likely to be more nuanced.
But that’s just my hunch. And so I’m skeptical of it, too.
If all human beings were of equal status, the world would be a better place. Right? People would smile more, peace would reign, and the tireless, materialistic race of keeping up with the Joneses would fizzle out. Right? No more need to get-ahead if you’re in a dead-heat, after all. Right?
It appears at least the last of those statements may be wrong.
In somewhat of a counter-intuitive finding under the heading, Does equality increase status spending? we learn –
People are happier when goods are more equally distributed, but equality makes people want to spend more to get ahead of their neighbors, according to a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research.
Interesting. Because the article tells it so well, I’m going to go the lazy route and just cut-and-paste a couple highlights.
The researchers found that increasing equality decreases bottom-tier consumer envy of what other people have and boosts their satisfaction with their possessions. But increasing equality also raises the possibility of surpassing someone else. “In other words, equality increases the social gain (the boost in one’s rank in the distribution) provided by spending,” the authors explain….
“People do not only compete with the Joneses because they are envious,” the authors write. “Sometimes people compete with the Joneses because it allows them to climb the social distribution in a cost-effective way.” [emphases added]
It seems that not only are human beings interested in keeping up with the Joneses (of the social group/community they recognize as their own, or as one within reach), but also in surpassing the Joneses, if possible.
While equality may bring greater happiness in a heard of Joneses, it may not stifle our innate status-concerns.
Recent Comments