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!”
As it is possible to be “in the mood for love,” is it possible to be in the mood for . . . truth?
Rationally-inclined folk and many an intellectual seem wary of arguments presented in a passionate manner. There is a good reason for this. The more strongly we desire something to be true, the easier it is for us to perceive it that way. The treasured and the repulsive will bend the lines of thought.
Yes, feelings influence thinking. As a bit of recent psychological research illustrates. At ScienceDaily I came across this news release:
A Passing Mood Can Profoundly Alter ‘Rational Decisions’
Experiments on investing behavior and mood found that -
…loss aversion waxes and wanes in flexible ways, depending of whether or not the person is experiencing different fundamental motivational states, such as self-protection or looking for a mate.
Better investing decisions are more rational. You don’t want to completely gamble with your money. Or hide it under your mattress. It seems decisions made when in a more lustful or more fearful mood compromised a person’s financial decision-making.
First author Jessica Li notes this interesting gender difference in results:
“For men in a mating frame of mind, loss aversion completely disappeared and they became more focused on wins than losses. For women, on the other hand, mating motivation led them to be even more loss averse, to focus less on possible gains and even more on the pain of loss.”
Hear that investment banking firms? Seems you definitely should hire attractive women to consult with your heterosexual male clients (attractive men to make sales pitches to homosexual male clients). The reverse may the case for female clients.
But don’t. That would be unethical. Wouldn’t it?
My overall point: with this study we find more evidence that objectivity really ought to be equated with equanimity.
Quite a bit of research has linked having good social relationships (emotional support) and physical health, particularly in late life. Recently a gender difference in workplace relationships and health was found.
“[P]eer social support, which could represent how well a participant is socially integrated in his or her employment context, is a potent predictor of the risk of all causes of mortality,” the researchers wrote. “An additional (unexpected) finding … is that the effect of control on mortality risk was positive for the men but negative for the women.” [emphasis added; source]
In other words, men did better when in positions of control (another way of saying having relationships in which they bore more responsibility and wielded more power), while women did worse.
Which is interesting. As for potential reasons for the difference–and this is speculation on my part–I would imagine that one would be the possibility of women in a position of control being resented and resisted by men (and likely other women, for culture nurtures both sexes for better and worse). Who does she think she is?
There may also be an innate predisposition involved, small in some, larger in others, and even non-existing in yet others. It is a cultural universal that boys and men seem to gravitate and enjoy competitive struggle more than girls and women. Perhaps on some level, “the average women,” feels less positive about wielding social power. And less positive feelings lead to poorer health.
Years back a now-deceased member of my extended family suffered with periodic bouts of depression. When in that state she would spend days in her room, in bed, shades drawn. On one level I found the tendency curious. Part of me wondered, somewhat along the lines of that Zoloft advertising campaign, why such an individual wouldn’t turn from the darkness to the light.
New research has found a link between emotional states and preferences for types of stimulation.
Across five experiments the authors found that consumers felt more pleasure from tactile attributes of products when they were in negative states, and more pleasure from visual aspects when they were in positive states. [source]
Hmm. Interesting. As mentioned previously, I do some volunteering at a children’s grief center, and that place has dozens upon dozens of stuffed animals available for holding and snuggling.
As for the tendency to stay in a comforting darkness when feeling down but seek brightness when up, the research authors mention other studies on animals and sprinkle in a bit of evolutionary-psychology speculation:
One way the brain encourages correct behavior is to use the mammal’s affective state to change the pleasure response to major sensory channels….
Mammals that are in a positive state are primed for visual exploration, to fulfill goals of protection and territorial expansion. “Animal studies have shown that excited organisms have heightened visual systems and make more visual explorations,” the authors explain.
They add that tactile sensation becomes more pleasurable when we are down to encourage other types of behavior.
When feeling down a person has typically suffered a loss and/or is ill. It makes sense to conserve resources and refrain from drawing attention to yourself by people outside your close associates. Seek shade and shelter and the company of close associates, if any. Stay home, limit your exposure to the potential for future loss until healed.
When feeling up and fully charged — this is the time to explore, to take chances, to head into bright openness.
Interestingly, it seems there is a bi-directional influence as well. Think rainstorms during movie scenes. Oh-oh, someone is sad or about to be so. Birthday party? Blue sky and colorful balloons. Seasonal affective disorder, etc.
Hmm.
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Last weekend I read — skimmed, really — a book titled, The Bridge to Humanity: How Affect Hunger Trumps the Selfish Gene. I was interested in the topics it promised to address, namely human evolution and the role culture plays in it. Although the term “affect hunger” set off a bit of an alarm bell in my brain (what the hell is that?) the heading to the first section, in particular, seemed to hold promise: “Nature and Nurture.”
Psychology is considered a science. Is it? Can be. The book I read was not. Not really. Consider these representative passages:
Affect hunger is the motivating force for sociality, just as thirst motivates us to drink and hunger to eat.
Culture is therefore the shared perception of the universe and its contents, seen as a systematic whole, including the perceptions of self and the delineation of behavioral propriety.
Affect hunger is rooted in biology and emerges with culture. It ties the two together. Affect hunger does not leave the realm of biology, for its very existence plays a role in survival, first by contributing to the central nervous system and second by motivating us to entice the maternal care that is needed to live in a human world.
It seems that in attempting to develop a psychological theory-of-nearly-everything, the author wrote in generalities and employed numerous analogies. Data? There was none I found that directly supported unique, specific claims.
What makes a field of study science is not the subject itself, but how it examines and explains. A classic example is Intelligent Design. Although some people would like to needle it into science classes, just because it purports to be about biological life doesn’t make it a science.
If the book I read wasn’t science, what was it? Philosophy? Meta-psychology? Because I believe in precision I’m going to refrain from slapping any old term on it. Frankly, I don’t know what to call it. Maybe we simple need more words. Specific words.
Recent Comments