Evolution's Pervasive Effect on our Behavior

[rousseau]

Alternative thread title: Girls are primed to fear animals, Boys are primed to take risks

Random thoughts on a Tuesday morning, I wondered if women were more inclined to fear dangerous creatures than men, and it turns out that they are:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17697-girls-are-primed-to-fear-spiders/

The results suggest that girls are more inclined than boys to learn to fear dangerous animals. By contrast, says Rakison, modern phobias such as fear of flying or injections show no sex difference.

He attributes the difference to behavioural differences between men and women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. An aversion to spiders may help women avoid dangerous animals, but in men evolution seems to have favoured more risk-taking behaviour for successful hunting.

In another case of 'everyone's behavior is rational and freely chosen', men are pre-disposed to take more risks, women are pre-disposed to avoid more risks... at least when it comes to wildlife.

I don't mean this to be any type of political point, just interesting how pervasive our evolutionary history is on our behavior.

 

[bilby]

Alternative thread title: Girls are primed to fear animals, Boys are primed to take risks

Random thoughts on a Tuesday morning, I wondered if women were more inclined to fear dangerous creatures than men, and it turns out that they are:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17697-girls-are-primed-to-fear-spiders/

The results suggest that girls are more inclined than boys to learn to fear dangerous animals. By contrast, says Rakison, modern phobias such as fear of flying or injections show no sex difference.

He attributes the difference to behavioural differences between men and women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. An aversion to spiders may help women avoid dangerous animals, but in men evolution seems to have favoured more risk-taking behaviour for successful hunting.

In another case of 'everyone's behavior is rational and freely chosen', men are pre-disposed to take more risks, women are pre-disposed to avoid more risks... at least when it comes to wildlife.

I don't mean this to be any type of political point, just interesting how pervasive our evolutionary history is on our behavior.

But this correlation says nothing about cause. It might be an evolved difference; But it might equally be a learned response - perhaps girls are better at picking up on cues from their parents about what is dangerous; Or perhaps parents are more protective of girls, and this influences their responses at a very early age. Certainly, the implication that this is an inborn trait that does not express itself until about 11 months of age is consistent with environmental, as well as genetic, causes.

Perhaps more likely, there is no effect at all. The sample size reported is tiny - ten children in total, so no more than five of at least one gender.

The very sparse evidence here is inadequate to support the broad and sweeping conclusions made by that article. At best, they justify further research with much larger numbers of subjects, and with changes to experimental design to try to tease out the various possible causes. Ideally, a genetic sequence needs to be identified that is expressed only in the children who display a fear response (and more frequently in girls than in boys), and then a blind trial carried out in which the relationship between possession of the hypothetically responsible gene, and reaction to spiders, is tested.

Of course, such a large and rigorous (and therefore expensive) study is unlikely to ever be funded.

 

[rousseau]

Alternative thread title: Girls are primed to fear animals, Boys are primed to take risks

Random thoughts on a Tuesday morning, I wondered if women were more inclined to fear dangerous creatures than men, and it turns out that they are:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17697-girls-are-primed-to-fear-spiders/

The results suggest that girls are more inclined than boys to learn to fear dangerous animals. By contrast, says Rakison, modern phobias such as fear of flying or injections show no sex difference.

He attributes the difference to behavioural differences between men and women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. An aversion to spiders may help women avoid dangerous animals, but in men evolution seems to have favoured more risk-taking behaviour for successful hunting.

In another case of 'everyone's behavior is rational and freely chosen', men are pre-disposed to take more risks, women are pre-disposed to avoid more risks... at least when it comes to wildlife.

I don't mean this to be any type of political point, just interesting how pervasive our evolutionary history is on our behavior.

But this correlation says nothing about cause. It might be an evolved difference; But it might equally be a learned response - perhaps girls are better at picking up on cues from their parents about what is dangerous; Or perhaps parents are more protective of girls, and this influences their responses at a very early age. Certainly, the implication that this is an inborn trait that does not express itself until about 11 months of age is consistent with environmental, as well as genetic, causes.

Perhaps more likely, there is no effect at all. The sample size reported is tiny - ten children in total, so no more than five of at least one gender.

The very sparse evidence here is inadequate to support the broad and sweeping conclusions made by that article. At best, they justify further research with much larger numbers of subjects, and with changes to experimental design to try to tease out the various possible causes. Ideally, a genetic sequence needs to be identified that is expressed only in the children who display a fear response (and more frequently in girls than in boys), and then a blind trial carried out in which the relationship between possession of the hypothetically responsible gene, and reaction to spiders, is tested.

Of course, such a large and rigorous (and therefore expensive) study is unlikely to ever be funded.

Truth be told I didn't look closely at the study I linked and built my own personal conclusion on anecdotal evidence. Mostly just *****ing around on the internet while at work and found the first link available that had some text.

I would suspect, though, with some searching on Google Scholar for something like 'do women fear spiders' you could find some studies that are a bit more substantial, but yea, probably not with a huge sample size.

 

[barbos]

I understand fear of spiders is genetic and both male and females are equally affected. I remember a study where they were testing reactions of newborns to spiders. Same with monkeys/apes.

 

[Bronzeage]

I remember an experiment performed in the 1950's. A clutch of turkey eggs were hatched and the chicks were raised in isolation from humans and other turkeys. A silhouette of a hawk was passed overhead and the little turkeys freaked out in fear. This led to all kinds of ideas about genetic memory. Then, someone had the bright idea to pass a regular circle overhead. It got the same reaction. It didn't matter what shape passed overhead. It scared turkeys.

The real problem with these kinds of questions is it is impossible to raise a human in isolation. There is no practical way to distinguish a learned behavior from some supposed genetic programming. If girls are supposed to be afraid of large animals, what's the deal with girls and horses?

- - - Updated - - -

I remember an experiment performed in the 1950's. A clutch of turkey eggs were hatched and the chicks were raised in isolation from humans and other turkeys. A silhouette of a hawk was passed overhead and the little turkeys freaked out in fear. This led to all kinds of ideas about genetic memory. Then, someone had the bright idea to pass a regular circle overhead. It got the same reaction. It didn't matter what shape passed overhead. It scared turkeys.

The real problem with these kinds of questions is it is impossible to raise a human in isolation. There is no practical way to distinguish a learned behavior from some supposed genetic programming. If girls are supposed to be afraid of large animals, what's the deal with girls and horses?

 

[barbos]

Bronzeage, well, experiments with spiders are much more recent than 1950s and scientists nowdays are better at this kind of stuff.

https://www.sciencealert.com/deep-unshakeable-fear-spiders-no-random-quirk-fate-born-arachnophobia

 

[bilby]

There no arachnophobia in Australia.

Arachnophobia is an irrational fear of spiders; in Australia a fear of spiders is completely rational.

 

[Grendel]

I remember an experiment performed in the 1950's. A clutch of turkey eggs were hatched and the chicks were raised in isolation from humans and other turkeys. A silhouette of a hawk was passed overhead and the little turkeys freaked out in fear. This led to all kinds of ideas about genetic memory. Then, someone had the bright idea to pass a regular circle overhead. It got the same reaction. It didn't matter what shape passed overhead. It scared turkeys.

The real problem with these kinds of questions is it is impossible to raise a human in isolation. There is no practical way to distinguish a learned behavior from some supposed genetic programming. If girls are supposed to be afraid of large animals, what's the deal with girls and horses?

Hawks are predators of Turkeys > A Hawk flies overhead > Anything flying overhead is risk > Duck

That would indicate genetic behaviour.

Hawks are predators of Turkeys > A circle flies overhead > Anything flying overhead is risk > 'Wait, don't duck, it's a circle and their harmless', says one young educated Turkey

That would indicate learned behaviour.

 

[barbos]

I remember an experiment performed in the 1950's. A clutch of turkey eggs were hatched and the chicks were raised in isolation from humans and other turkeys. A silhouette of a hawk was passed overhead and the little turkeys freaked out in fear. This led to all kinds of ideas about genetic memory. Then, someone had the bright idea to pass a regular circle overhead. It got the same reaction. It didn't matter what shape passed overhead. It scared turkeys.

The real problem with these kinds of questions is it is impossible to raise a human in isolation. There is no practical way to distinguish a learned behavior from some supposed genetic programming. If girls are supposed to be afraid of large animals, what's the deal with girls and horses?

Hawks are predators of Turkeys > A Hawk flies overhead > Anything flying overhead is risk > Duck

That would indicate genetic behaviour.

Hawks are predators of Turkeys > A circle flies overhead > Anything flying overhead is risk > 'Wait, don't duck, it's a circle and their harmless', says one young educated Turkey

That would indicate learned behaviour.

Yeah, circle or silhouette it's irrelevant. There are no balls flying around so false alarms from them are not a problem.
And I doubt it's even possible to identify silhouette anyway. So I would say 1950s study conclusion is correct.

 

[untermensche]

In an initial training phase Rakison showed 10 baby girls and boys a picture of a spider together with a fearful face. In the following test phase he let them watch the image of a spider paired with a happy face, and the image of a flower paired with a fearful face.

Despite the spider’s happy companion, the girls looked significantly longer at it than at the flower. The researchers took this to mean that the girls expected spiders to be linked with fear. The boys looked for an equal time at both images.

This could mean so many things.

The human intellect is extremely complex.

Were the girls afraid? They cannot say.

Were they trying to figure out a way to kill it? Or persuade it to not be aggressive? They cannot say.

 

[Grendel]

The human intellect is extremely complex.

Compared to who else's? That's a relative statement, subjective.

Our intellect is no more complex that most mammals. We just think it is, we don't allow any other judges except us in that competition. When your the self appointed judge you're always gunna come first.

 

[untermensche]

The human intellect is extremely complex.

Compared to who else's? That's a relative statement, subjective...

Are you saying the human intellect is not complex?

Are you speaking from experience?

 

[Grendel]

I'm saying it can't be determined because there is no yardstick. We use our own intellect to judge our own intellect. That's subjective.

 

[untermensche]

I'm saying it can't be determined because there is no yardstick. We use our own intellect to judge our own intellect. That's subjective.

You can say anything is complex if it is complex as opposed to simple.

 

[ronburgundy]

Alternative thread title: Girls are primed to fear animals, Boys are primed to take risks

Random thoughts on a Tuesday morning, I wondered if women were more inclined to fear dangerous creatures than men, and it turns out that they are:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17697-girls-are-primed-to-fear-spiders/

The results suggest that girls are more inclined than boys to learn to fear dangerous animals. By contrast, says Rakison, modern phobias such as fear of flying or injections show no sex difference.

He attributes the difference to behavioural differences between men and women among our hunter-gatherer ancestors. An aversion to spiders may help women avoid dangerous animals, but in men evolution seems to have favoured more risk-taking behaviour for successful hunting.

In another case of 'everyone's behavior is rational and freely chosen', men are pre-disposed to take more risks, women are pre-disposed to avoid more risks... at least when it comes to wildlife.

I don't mean this to be any type of political point, just interesting how pervasive our evolutionary history is on our behavior.

But this correlation says nothing about cause. It might be an evolved difference; But it might equally be a learned response - perhaps girls are better at picking up on cues from their parents about what is dangerous; Or perhaps parents are more protective of girls, and this influences their responses at a very early age. Certainly, the implication that this is an inborn trait that does not express itself until about 11 months of age is consistent with environmental, as well as genetic, causes.

Perhaps more likely, there is no effect at all. The sample size reported is tiny - ten children in total, so no more than five of at least one gender.

The very sparse evidence here is inadequate to support the broad and sweeping conclusions made by that article. At best, they justify further research with much larger numbers of subjects, and with changes to experimental design to try to tease out the various possible causes. Ideally, a genetic sequence needs to be identified that is expressed only in the children who display a fear response (and more frequently in girls than in boys), and then a blind trial carried out in which the relationship between possession of the hypothetically responsible gene, and reaction to spiders, is tested.

Of course, such a large and rigorous (and therefore expensive) study is unlikely to ever be funded.

It isn't a correlation, it is a controlled lab experiment that shows causality. What it actually showed was that boys and girls do not differ at birth in fear of spiders, but that girls learn to associate fear with spiders more quickly and easily than boys do.

They started by showing one group of infants both a smiling spider versus a fearful flower, and both boys and girls looked at both images an equal amount. They took this as evidence of no inborn fear of spiders.
But then they took another group of infants and first them look at just a fearful spider for a while so they might create a mental association between fear and spiders. Then they presented these infants with both a smiling spider and a fearful flower. If they had previously learned to associate fear with flowers, then they would look away from the smiling spider which they had learned to fear, and toward the flower even though it had a fearful expression. That is what the girls did but not the boys who acted like the other group of infants that never saw the fearful spider image.

IOW, the researches experimentally causes a learned association between fear and spiders that changed girls behavior but not boys. So it cannot be explained by what the kids learned before from their parents or the boys and girls would have acted differently from the start. Instead, it indicates that when girls and boys were given the same experience with the fearful spider, the girls were more prone to create a fear-spider association that affected their reaction to a spider even when it was "smiling".

 

[Grendel]

I'm saying it can't be determined because there is no yardstick. We use our own intellect to judge our own intellect. That's subjective.

You can say anything is complex if it is complex as opposed to simple.

You can say anything is complex, that's simplistic

 

[steve_bank]

If you want to argue men and women are the same with no genetic predisposition you have to refute evolution, genetics, physiology, and observation of other critters who have no articulate language and culture.

For us humans it is how much is genetics and how much cultural indoctrination. There is a Pacific island culture where traditionally men and women went bare breasted. It is the exposes thigh that is considered sexually provocative. There was a PBS Globetrekker episode on it. Women go bare breasted away from tourist areas.