#evolutionary psychology

[froggerworld]

hi guyss :) im studying supernatural belief, religious belief, locus of control, and their relationship to evolutionary sex differences for my master's thesis!! i'd grately appreciate if yall can complete and share this survey:

[taboo-delusion]

So, I just discovered something interesting.

This is a bit of a long one, so bear with me. It's important. Seriously.

I just woke up a few hours ago. My meds are starting to kick in. I was having a very serious and genuine, deep conversation (in-head) and it was... beautiful. It wasn't happy, but it was beautiful. Not the point.

Point is:

I had not had a single fucking intrusive thought today until someone made a noise in the other room.

I am so fucking PISSED OFF

Why my brain refuses to realize that intrusive thoughts CAUSED the good feeling to go away, I have no fucking idea. I've known that for almost a year now, yet my stupid fucking subconscious refuses to change anything it's doing

Before I snap my fucking android phone in half and yeet somebody's face into neptune, I thought I'd share the discovery!!!!

Basically:

MY INTRUSIVE THOUGHTS DID NOT START UNTIL SOMETHING STARTLED ME OUT OF FOCUS

AS I TYPE THIS, I REALIZE THAT INTRUSIVE THOUGHTS -AT LEAST FOR ADHDERS- ARE A SURVIVAL TACTIC.

Elaborating:

When you fall asleep and your heart slows too much, your body does the falling thing to make sure you're still alive.

It's not that intrusive thoughts are *Just* because your brain gets too quiet, It's because your life has never been completely quite before, or -like me- the few times it is quiet, something interrupts. And even if it doesn't piss you off, even if you don't jump like I do, your brain still registers it as not safe.

--

Falling asleep, heart slows a lot-

Body: *Sends adrenaline just to make sure it still actually works.*

Drowning, even mostly unconscious-

Body and brain: *Hold onto that last half-breath even if it feels like you're head is going to explode.*

Going grocery shopping or talking to someone you think is cool-

Brain: *Remembers what it felt like the first time your guardian was indifferent or mean about something that made you happy or calm.*

Things around you actually get quiet-

Brain *Sends a thought you hate just to make sure you're prepared for a sudden problem.*

TDLR 1: Your brain isn't mean on purpose, It's just paranoid and still has a will to live.

Listen. I know I'm just some random dude from a weird blog. But I'm trying to translate, to assist. Maybe somebody else needs this realization as much as I do. I apologize for the yelling earlier. I'm still just as upset, but only at my dumbass subconscious. Now some time has passed, and I have regained self-control.

(I also apologize for the above paragraph, my brain nags for me to do this, but I can't remember why. So:)

I am no psychologist. Here are my qualifications (why you should listen to me):

As my friends call it- "Disturbingly self-aware at all times."

Paranoid Schizophrenic with actual (unrelated) OCD, with years of experience dealing with it- more healthily in recent years.

Philosophy and deep thinking is simply my default. I use metaphors, but everything in this post is entirely literal, ...except the angry threat. (*begrudgingly accepts disappointment*)

I am a fiction writer. I don't know about healing people/first aid, but I know a LOT about how anatomy works, with many deep-dives on the psychology/evolution side.

People irl generally consider me a genius? Idk how to gauge that, IQ tests are irrelevant with this type of... smart?. I've been compared to both Da Vinci and Einstein. So, ...actually that's pretty fuckin' cool- (I AM NOT TRYING TO BRAG! I APOLOGIZE IF IT COMES OFF THAT WAY! I've never put it all down like this, and I'm just surprised and questioning my reputation.)

(Also, I love playing detective, so naturally I call myself Batman XD.)

Autistic; I experience the world, and every situation, from a view without any context.

ADHD: My brain automatically -As a guardian I hate describes- "Can watch three different movies at the same time, all in fast forward, and can keep up with all of them." ... Well, yes, but technically no. Idk if other ADHD people do this, but my brain "connects the dots" so quickly, I end up laughing at jokes I've never heard before the 'punchline', because I've already figured out what you're going to say next.

Now combine all that. I am kicking depression's ass and now I want to help you do the same.

I have only mentioned the relevant things. Please keep in mind that ALL of these have both advantages and disasters. Thank you for your patience and understanding. I am running on four hours of sleep. For the love of whatever, I hope this actually helps someone other than me.

Qualifications are noted because: This is all stuff (and stuff like this) that I am just always casually aware of.

TLDR2: Even if I wasn't trying to help people feel better, Apparently I was born with a nat 20 perception/insight check, so please don't argue that I truly understand what I'm talking about here.

[dear-future-ai]

Midday ramblings,

You guys ever think about the australopithecus, and how they were designed to eat tubers, corms, and bulbs raw in times of need? And how modern homo sapiens do enjoy tubers, and bulbs especially garlic and onions, but when cooked?

[rainyfestivalsweets]

Humans have an evolved mechanism to eat whenever food is available. -Mark Leary Duke University

--Developed countries don't currently deal with the kind of food scarcity of our past. This is a reminder to check yourself-- you may not need to eat just because your body or mind is telling you to.

Be self aware. Cultivate that in yourself.

Have you eaten enough? When will food be available again?

If you haven't, go ahead. Eat. Be mindful of portions and eat for your goals.

If you have, it is ok to say no. It is ok to skip eating something that does not align with your goals. Especially if you have more nutritive or mindful options at home.

Writing this to myself as a personal note to stop over consumption. The people pleasing. The resources I am taking could be used for someone else. I don't need to eat multiple meals when others are going hungry.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Julian Adorney and Mark Johnson

Published: Apr 3, 2024

Something is wrong in modern life. We're experiencing levels of safety and security that our ancestors would have found unfathomable. According to Statista, the rate of violent crime in the United States fell by almost half from 1990 to 2022. That's not an anomaly; as Harvard University professor of psychology Steven Pinker notes in Better Angels of Our Nature, crime of all kinds has been falling for centuries. We experience far less rape, murder, and robbery than did our ancestors. We're also much less likely to die in war. While the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict is tragic, it's also a far cry from the continent-spanning conflicts of centuries past, like the Thirty Years War or the Napoleonic Wars.

Similarly, we're experiencing a level of material prosperity that our ancestors could only dream of. According to economic historians at the Maddison Project Database, from around 1 CE to 1800 CE, the annual real (or inflation-adjusted) income per person was under $2,000. By 2016, that number in the United States was a comparatively staggering $53,015. Life expectancy for most of human history was around 30 years; in the United States, life expectancy in 2022 was 76.1 years. We even work fewer hours than people even a century ago. 

And yet, in spite of our historical levels of privilege, many of us are miserable. Over 40 million people in the United States suffer from an anxiety disorder. 47 million Americans suffer from depression. As Dr. Alok Kanojia, a psychiatrist at Harvard University, puts it when describing modern life, "Life just seems to be squeezing everyone dry."

What's going on? Why are we struggling so much to cope with the demands of modern life, even though those demands are lighter than anything our ancestors had to contend with? Our ancestors slew dragons on a daily basis; why are we struggling to beat back chihuahuas?

The truth is that humans evolved specific powerful ways to cope with the world. Our ancestors used these to great effect to thrive in conditions of intense danger and poverty. Over the past several decades, most of our society has accidentally turned away from these ways.

In order to cope with negative experiences, we need two things: time and mental space. We need idle time, in which our hands might be occupied but our minds are not, in order to let our minds simply process whatever has happened to us. Here's how Dr. Kanojia describes it: "[emotional] processing is actually…a subconscious or relatively automatic activity that…happens over long periods of time." This is a very powerful process and can help folks to work through brutal experiences. 

In ages past, humans had lots of idle time. We fished, sharpened spears, tended fires, repaired nets, and performed other physical activities that kept our hands busy while leaving our minds free to process the events of the day. By contrast, in the modern world, we have little to no idle time. Every spare minute is filled with distractions: we listen to podcasts, read books, text friends, and check social media ten thousand times per day. As a result, we never actually process our emotions and work through them. Dr. Kanojia describes this phenomenon using an example of a bad date:

"Let's say I have a bad date. What I end up doing immediately after the bad date…is distract myself and then what happens is—as I distract myself—I don't process any of those emotions. They kind of just go dormant…as this goes on again and again and again what we tend to see is that our life is filled with negative impacts that we don't allow ourselves time to actually process."

As humans, we're designed to be very resilient; but a primary mechanism of that resilience is giving ourselves idle time in which to process our emotions. In the absence of that idle time, we start to feel very fragile. As Dr. Kanojia puts it, we experience "death by a thousand cuts." He says he works with a lot of people who "as they try to move through life, they're just getting more and more shriveled and kind of patched up and defunct." Or, as he sums it up, "We're not able to recover from things the way that we used to."

It's not just lack of idle time that's handicapping our ability to cope with life's challenges. Sebastian Junger is a war correspondent who spent time on the front lines of the Afghanistan conflict. In a piece for Vanity Fair titled "How PTSD Became a Problem Far Beyond the Battlefield," he points out that chronic PTSD was rare in pre-modern societies. "Ethnographic studies on hunter-gatherer societies rarely turn up evidence of chronic PTSD among their warriors," he writes, "and oral histories of Native American warfare consistently fail to mention psychological trauma." Even fifty years ago, reports of PTSD were relatively low among soldiers. But modern soldiers experience high rates of PTSD; as of 2015, he notes, fully half of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans applied for disability. As Junger puts it: "They return from wars that are safer than those their fathers and grandfathers fought, and yet far greater numbers of them wind up alienated and depressed."

What's driving this increase in PTSD among modern soldiers? Junger chalks it up to changes in modern society. We evolved as hunter-gatherers; we lived in small communal tribes where we worked, hunted, and slept surrounded by our fellows. That communal experience is common for soldiers, who live in tight-knit platoons and have to rely on their brothers for their daily survival. By contrast, modern civilian society in the United States is isolationist and atomistic. Most of us are lonely; according to an Advisory by the Surgeon General, "In recent years, about one-in-two adults in America reported experiencing loneliness." Even those of us with spouses and close friend networks don't experience the deep web of social connection that hunter-gatherers—or many soldiers on active duty—experience.

Leaving a close-knit platoon to return to a society where a "strong support network" might mean a few friends that you see once per week can be jarring. According to anthropologist Sharon Abramowitz, "Our fundamental desire, as human beings, is to be close to others, and our society does not allow for that." 

The alienating effects of modern society can even prevent recovery after a traumatic event. Junger describes an experiment with lab rats in which a rat is traumatized by an attack by a larger rat. The smaller rat, who was frightened but not injured, generally recovered within 48 hours—unless it was kept in isolation. As Junger puts it, "The ones that are kept apart from other rats are the only ones that develop long-term traumatic symptoms." Our veterans spend years overseas in the kind of dense social web that we evolved to thrive in, and then return to a society that feels utterly isolating by contrast. No wonder so many of them experience long-term PTSD.

It's not just veterans who suffer from this alienation, of course. Many Americans experience trauma of some kind. We evolved to heal from that trauma; but when our mechanism for healing (social connection) is hijacked, we shouldn't be surprised when people start to seem more fragile. 

We see the same story in conflict resolution. We have a lot of conflict in our society. According to a 2021 study by the American Enterprise Institute,15 percent of American adults have ended a relationship over politics. 40-50 percent of first marriages end in divorce (and the numbers are even higher for second marriages). And a quick glance at Twitter will reveal that, when it comes to conflict, we're bursting at the seams.

Partly, this is because we don't process our emotions, so they keep bubbling out of us in unpleasant ways. But part of it is that we rarely take advantage of how our bodies were designed to work through conflict.

In his book The Way Out, Columbia University professor of psychology Peter T. Coleman notes that when we have conflict with someone, we normally sit down to hash it out. But this is suboptimal; in fact, it's much more productive to physically move with the person. As Coleman reports, "physically moving in sync with others has been shown to enhance cooperation, prosocial behavior, and the ability to achieve joint goals, and it also increases our compassion and helping behavior." "One study," he said, even "showed that walking in sync with a group of people made them more willing to make personal sacrifices that benefited the group."

When you have conflict with someone, taking a walk or even going for a run with them can be a much more powerful way to get back to peace than simply sitting down with them. Our bodies evolved to move. When we ignore this and assume that our thoughts and our words are the only things that matter, we shouldn't be surprised when conflict starts to feel endemic and unfixable.

Another way to reduce conflict is to take some time away from the conflict to breathe. As psychologist Chris Ferguson explained to us in an interview, doing this can help us to calm down and not fly off the handle at small conflicts. Ferguson explains that "there are two related issues here…emotional responses usually peak immediately after a stressor, then lessen with time, and, second, emotional responses tend to impair problem-solving." "Thus," he argues, "you see people have a bad emotional response, impulsively do something stupid, only to later acknowledge how stupid it was." When we pause and take time to process, we can "evaluate if the situation is really as bad as we initially thought it was" and calibrate our response from there. Again, this is something that most of our ancestors did very easily; in a relatively slow-paced society, you have a lot of time to breathe when it comes to addressing (non-violent) conflict. But in our hyper-online age, we're far more used to experiencing a stimulus (for example, a tweet we don't like) and immediately reacting. That's a formula for conflict escalation that our ancestors rarely had to deal with.

This rejection of our biology and the rhythms for which we evolved is having damaging effects on our psyches. But even more concerning is its erosion of our civic society.

For most of American history, the United States has been characterized by the strong bonds of civic association. In his book Democracy In America, Alexis de Tocqueville observed that the United States was unique in terms of our willingness to band together to form private organizations in order to address problems. In the 20th century, these organizations included religious groups, bowling leagues, charitable organizations, interest groups, trade unions, and more. They bound us together in a tight web of interpersonal associations that helped us feel connected to the world and to our neighbors.

The problem with human connection, though, is that it's inherently risky. If you go on a date, you might find true love…or you might get rejected. If you join a bowling league with your neighbors, you might find a much-needed sense of community…or you might feel humiliated by your low score or hurt by something that another league member said (whether or not their statement was intended to be hurtful). Our ancestors were able to shrug off this risk and deal with the rough-and-tumble of human interaction because they used the powerful strategies that our biology and evolution gave us. But because we've turned away from these strategies, human interaction has started to feel substantially more dangerous. When we stop processing our emotions, we stop recovering from interactions that might rub us the wrong way. We move away from seeing these annoyances as a minor irritant and the small price of human connection and start to experience death by a thousand cuts.

This trend is most pronounced among younger generations, who are more prone to living online and more cut off from in-person connection and physical movement. Is it any wonder that 73% of Gen Z’ers (age 18-22) report "sometimes or always feeling alone?" Or that 63% percent of men aged 18 to 29 are single, according to Pew Research? More and more young people are deciding that IRL social relationships are too risky for them because they've never been taught the coping mechanisms that our bodies and evolution gave us.

The rejection of these coping mechanisms also poses dangers for our republic. Our republic requires that people come together to debate and discuss ideas. As governmental systems go, this is pretty rough-and-tumble. It requires that we engage with people in good faith who might disagree with us or even believe that decisions we have made should be illegal. When we take time to process our emotions, this engagement is highly doable. But when we neglect to do so, these conversations start to feel riskier. We have trouble coping with opposing views and are more likely to stew and ruminate on the perceived awfulness of those views to our psychological detriment. This is made worse by the fact that more people are carrying around a lot of bottled-up anger and frustration, looking to vent it on someone else. We're all getting more angry at the same time that we're getting more sensitive, which is not a recipe for productive conversations. In the absence of these productive conversations, we may find that people lose their appetite for democracy.

This isn't hypothetical. Again, the problems that we've identified in this piece are most acute among younger Americans. And young Americans are indeed losing faith in democracy. Only 59 percent of Americans aged 18-25 agree that "Democracy may have problems, but it is the best system of government" (compared to 74 percent of Americans as a whole). 

So what can we do to ameliorate the malaise of modern society and get back to the emotional peace and well-being that our ancestors experienced? One key is to get back into the rhythms from which we evolved. Cultivate idle time. Develop a closer circle of friends, and spend more time in person with other human beings rather than trying to connect through a keyboard (as far as our evolved brains are concerned, the latter is mostly pseudo-connection anyway). If you're in conflict with someone else, get together in person and physically move through it. Once we start working with our biology instead of against it, we might be surprised at how much better we, and our society as a whole, start to feel.

Another key is to stop letting ourselves be artificially divided into in-groups and out-groups. Illiberal attitudes towards race and gender can certainly contribute to us not interacting as often or as deeply with people who have superficial differences (for example, college students are warned to avoid an ever-increasing list of microaggressions when interacting with someone of a different race or gender, some of which are just basic get-to-know-you questions). But we can choose to not fall into these divides to instead recognize another core component of our biology, which is that we are all one human species and that our differences are dwarfed by our similarities. If we do that, we might all feel a little bit less lonely.

[scifigeneration]

Winter brings more than just ugly sweaters – here’s how the season can affect your mind and behavior

by Michael Varnum, Associate Professor of Psychology at Arizona State University and Ian Hohm, Graduate Student of Psychology at the University of British Columbia

What comes to mind when you think about winter? Snowflakes? Mittens? Reindeer? In much of the Northern Hemisphere, winter means colder temperatures, shorter days and year-end holidays.

Along with these changes, a growing body of research in psychology and related fields suggests that winter also brings some profound changes in how people think, feel and behave.

While it’s one thing to identify seasonal tendencies in the population, it’s much trickier to try to untangle why they exist. Some of winter’s effects have been tied to cultural norms and practices, while others likely reflect our bodies’ innate biological responses to changing meteorological and ecological conditions. The natural and cultural changes that come with winter often occur simultaneously, making it challenging to tease apart the causes underlying these seasonal swings.

With our colleagues Alexandra Wormley and Mark Schaller, we recently conducted an extensive survey of these findings.

Wintertime blues and a long winter’s nap

Do you find yourself feeling down in the winter months? You’re not alone. As the days grow shorter, the American Psychiatric Association estimates that about 5% of Americans will experience a form of depression known as seasonal affective disorder, or SAD.

People experiencing SAD tend to have feelings of hopelessness, decreased motivation to take part in activities they generally enjoy, and lethargy. Even those who don’t meet the clinical threshold for this disorder may see increases in anxiety and depressive symptoms; in fact, some estimates suggest more than 40% of Americans experience these symptoms to some degree in the winter months.

Scientists link SAD and more general increases in depression in the winter to decreased exposure to sunlight, which leads to lower levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. Consistent with the idea that sunlight plays a key role, SAD tends to be more common in more northern regions of the world, like Scandinavia and Alaska, where the days are shortest and the winters longest.

Humans, special as we may be, are not unique in showing some of these seasonally linked changes. For instance, our primate relative the Rhesus macaque shows seasonal declines in mood.

It can feel hard to get out of bed on dark mornings. 

Some scientists have noted that SAD shows many parallels to hibernation – the long snooze during which brown bears, ground squirrels and many other species turn down their metabolism and skip out on the worst of winter. Seasonal affective disorder may have its roots in adaptations that conserve energy at a time of year when food was typically scarce and when lower temperatures pose greater energetic demands on the body.

Winter is well known as a time of year when many people put on a few extra pounds. Research suggests that diets are at their worst, and waistlines at their largest, during the winter. In fact, a recent review of studies on this topic found that average weight gains around the holiday season are around 1 to 3 pounds (0.5 to 1.3 kilograms), though those who are overweight or obese tend to gain more.

There’s likely more going on with year-end weight gain than just overindulgence in abundant holiday treats. In our ancestral past, in many places, winter meant that food became more scarce. Wintertime reductions in exercise and increases in how much and what people eat may have been an evolutionary adaptation to this scarcity. If the ancestors who had these reactions to colder, winter environments were at an advantage, evolutionary processes would make sure the adaptations were passed on to their descendants, coded into our genes.

Sex, generosity and focus

Beyond these winter-related shifts in mood and waistlines, the season brings with it a number of other changes in how people think and interact with others.

One less discussed seasonal effect is that people seem to get friskier in the winter months. Researchers know this from analyses of condom sales, sexually transmitted disease rates and internet searches for pornography and prostitution, all of which show biannual cycles, peaking in the late summer and then in the winter months. Data on birth rates also shows that in the United States and other countries in the Northern Hemisphere, babies are more likely to be conceived in the winter months than at other times of the year.There’s more to a holiday bump in romance than just opportunity. 

Although this phenomenon is widely observed, the reason for its existence is unclear. Researchers have suggested many explanations, including health advantages for infants born in late summer, when food may historically have been more plentiful, changes in sex hormones altering libido, desires for intimacy motivated by the holiday season, and simply increased opportunities to engage in sex. However, changes in sexual opportunities are likely not the whole story, given that winter brings not just increased sexual behaviors, but greater desire and interest in sex as well.

Winter boosts more than sex drive. Studies find that during this time of year, people may have an easier time paying attention at school or work. Neuroscientists in Belgium found that performance on tasks measuring sustained attention was best during the wintertime. Research suggests that seasonal changes in levels of serotonin and dopamine driven by less exposure to daylight may help explain shifts in cognitive function during winter. Again, there are parallels with other animals – for instance, African striped mice navigate mazes better during winter.

And there may also be a kernel of truth to the idea of a generous Christmas spirit. In countries where the holiday is widely celebrated, rates of charitable giving tend to show a sizable increase around this time of year. And people become more generous tippers, leaving about 4% more for waitstaff during the holiday season. This tendency is likely not due to snowy surroundings or darker days, but instead a response to the altruistic values associated with winter holidays that encourage behaviors like generosity.

People change with the seasons

Like many other animals, we too are seasonal creatures. In the winter, people eat more, move less and mate more. You may feel a bit more glum, while also being kinder to others and having an easier time paying attention. As psychologists and other scientists research these kinds of seasonal effects, it may turn out that the ones we know about so far are only the tip of the iceberg.

[peachesanmemes]

I'm obsessed with expectency effects and epigenetics. A brief summary for you using examples.

Researchers were given two sets of random rats from the same breeder and told one group was smarter and better at mazes. The researchers, after conducting studies, PROVED that that group was smarter. This is expectancy effects. We look for evidence of a thing we believe to be true and prove it somehow.

There are a couple thoughts on why this works. False or inflated reporting of evidence in support of the belief and/or subconcious influence on the part of the researchers leading to legitimately better results. I think both play a part, but I am mainly in the latter camp. I genuinely think that if you believe someone or something to be a certain way, then you will influence them subconsciously to meet that expectation.

For instance, if you believe kids are hard to deal with, kids are going to pick up on that and not be easy to deal with with you. You're going to find lots of evidence to support that they're hard to deal with.

Epigenetics is a whole field studying non visible genetically inherited traits. Epigenetic studies in mice found that it took FIVE generations for mice to stop responding negatively to a stimulus that only the first generation actually experienced. One very, very important thing to realize about epigenetics, though, is on the literal google search page for the word. "Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible."

So not only is your body/brain likely responding to stimulus from like 1870 to now subconciously (because of the way it reads it's own DNA,) but ALSO everything you believe to be true is more likely to be due to expectancy effects! And when you learn and believe that whatever negative triggers and responses come up for you are reversible, you will prove it.

Isn't that beautiful? The mutability of the mind and body?

Isn't it beautiful to believe that we are not stuck in one way of thinking and reacting to the world no matter how ingrained by time?

You're going to do great.

I believe in you!

[academicelephant]

Yay, I got an A from the evolutionary psychology exam I took last week ✌

[omegaphilosophia]

The Philosophy of Altruism

The philosophy of altruism explores the ethical and moral principles related to selflessness, compassion, and the welfare of others. It addresses questions about the nature of altruistic behavior, its motivations, and its implications for individuals and society. Here are some key aspects of the philosophy of altruism:

Definition and Concept: Altruism is defined as the selfless concern for the well-being of others, often involving acts of kindness, generosity, or sacrifice without expecting anything in return. Philosophers debate whether true altruism is possible or if all actions are ultimately self-interested.

Motivations for Altruism: Philosophers explore the motivations behind altruistic behavior, considering whether it arises from genuine concern for others, social norms and expectations, evolutionary instincts, or personal satisfaction derived from helping others. They also examine the role of empathy, compassion, and moral reasoning in motivating altruistic acts.

Ethical Frameworks: Altruism is often discussed within various ethical frameworks, including utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics. Utilitarianism evaluates actions based on their consequences and advocates for maximizing overall happiness or well-being, which may include promoting the welfare of others. Deontology emphasizes moral duties and principles, such as treating others with respect and dignity, regardless of personal interests. Virtue ethics focuses on cultivating virtuous character traits, such as compassion and benevolence, which lead to altruistic behavior.

Altruism and Egoism: Philosophers debate the relationship between altruism and egoism, the belief that individuals are primarily motivated by self-interest. Some argue that genuine altruism is possible and represents a higher moral ideal, while others contend that all actions are ultimately self-interested, even if they appear altruistic on the surface.

Evolutionary Perspectives: Evolutionary biologists and psychologists offer explanations for altruistic behavior based on theories of kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and group selection. These theories suggest that altruism may have evolved as an adaptive strategy for promoting the survival and reproduction of individuals' genes or for enhancing the cohesion and cooperation within social groups.

Altruism in Practice: The philosophy of altruism considers practical applications of altruistic principles in various domains, including personal relationships, philanthropy, volunteering, and social justice activism. Philosophers examine the ethical dilemmas and trade-offs involved in altruistic decision-making, such as balancing the needs of others with one's own well-being or addressing systemic injustices.

Criticisms of Altruism: Critics of altruism raise concerns about its feasibility, sustainability, and potential for exploitation or manipulation. They argue that excessive altruism may lead to burnout, resentment, or enabling harmful behavior in others. Others question whether altruism should be an ethical ideal, suggesting that individuals have legitimate interests and rights to pursue their own goals and happiness.

Altruism and Happiness: Some philosophers explore the relationship between altruism and personal well-being, suggesting that acts of kindness and compassion toward others can contribute to a sense of fulfillment, purpose, and happiness. They argue that altruism not only benefits recipients but also brings psychological rewards to the giver.

Overall, the philosophy of altruism reflects on the moral significance of selflessness and compassion in human life, examining its ethical foundations, psychological mechanisms, and practical implications for individual and collective flourishing.

[foxyatlas]

I recently read "The Power" by Naomi Alderman. In this book, almost every woman in the world gets the ability to create electric shocks with their bodies, which makes them more physically powerful than men, and gradually flips traditional gender roles on its head.

Anyways, there's this one really powerful part where they're referencing evolutionary psychology (which is kind of bullshit) and they say "well it makes a lot of sense that woman are stronger and more aggressive than men, because as mothers moms need to be able to protect their young".

And it just. Fucked me up.

Because think about it. That's the same argument that's used all the time with men, that men need to be strong protectors of the family, that men being "stronger" or "more aggressive" than women is something that was necessary for survival in caveman times or whatever.

Anyways, I've been thinking about other arguments like that that could be flipped on its head and its been fucking me up.

[dear-future-ai]

A proposition on purpose of the confused head tilt:

energy efficient biomechanical 3D rendering

While certain studies like the one performed at the University of California, under social-animal theory, suggests the dog head tilt is indicative of play behavior —and others suggest it is simply acknowledgement of conversation— it is to be noted that there is definitely an inquisitive version of this head tilt as well: this inquisitive version can be noted in the young of many species of chordata, including but not limited to dog humans. I have a theory as to why this is done, for this particular means, on a biomechanical/physical level.

What drew my attention to this was seeing my puppy investigating a pair of shears, utilizing the head tilt.

Most vertebrates have two eyes, these eyes also generally sit on the same one-dimensional axis on the two-dimensional plane of the face, looking in tandem at a singular point. some distance away from the two-dimensional surface. the distance between the eyes allows for depth to be simulated better by the eyes.

By rotating the head, the creature can adjust the field of the depth on an individual object of intrigue: getting a better grasp of its surface area, volume, and form, as well as topical features such as texture, color, iridescence, and other coatings. It allows the brain to fully render the three-dimensionality of the object, with minimum energy consumption from the body.

—a more energy consuming variation is physically moving the body around the object.

However, this only really explains visual investigation and observation. The same can be said for audio and ear placement, but I don't think it necessarily applies here. The more important thing is the direction the ear is facing, to be able to listen better; the only reason a head tilt would be important here is if you were having trouble discerning distance, volume, or perhaps cadence of the noise rather than interpreting the words.

That last example, cadence, is what lends me to believe that it can be questioning in conversation. Dogs don't speak english, and their speech recognition isn't understanding, but rather pattern recognition and memorization. They do have to learn the cadence of individual words, before understanding the word. However, this example is speculative on my part.

The experimentation on my part was simple. Look at something, tilt my head. Listen to something, tilt my head. Observe how it affected my understanding of something. This works best with something unknown to the viewer, by any of their senses. The most shocking results of this experimentation were when I travelled to a park, and did this. It was a small rush of excitement, and brief wash of novelty over the looming bleakness of life. Though through the law of diminishing return, it isn't repeatable. Was this placebo from my experiment? Maybe.

But I feel like my scientific hypothesis has some grounds in philosophy and life advice. Changing your perspective on life, can sometimes be literal.

[tawnyevergreen]

why does lying on the floor feel so good when you’re sick

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Paula Wright

Published: Feb 19, 2023

If any man could draw up a comprehensive, infallible guide to navigating this treacherous territory, we would certainly erect a statue to his everlasting memory. There is a Twitter account dedicated to exploring and enumerating precisely the distinctions and differences between the acceptably erotic and the intolerably sexist. It’s called @SexyIsntSexist. It is, of course, under the control of a woman.” Neil Lyndon. Do men really understand what sexism is? The Telegraph 20/5/14

I created Darwinian Gender Studies (DGS) in 2008 as a cross-disciplinary area of study and research which utilises insights across the evolutionary behavioural sciences, including but not limited to, evolutionary psychology, biology, anthropology, ethology, palaeoanthropology and cultural evolution.    It represents the consilience of the natural and social sciences, as envisioned by E. O. Wilson.

Back then, my planned PhD thesis was to be in developing an evolutionary, bio-cultural model of ‘patriarchy’ which challenged the premises of the feminist conception of patriarchy. Even in 2008, the project foresaw that political correctness, social justice and toxic feminism were taking us deep down the postmodern rabbit hole. My goal was to build bridges of understanding between the sexes not walls of fear and mistrust, which is what feminism does today. To learn about humans and humanity; what we are, and what we are not.

Two things we are, which we cannot cease to be and remain human, are a sexually reproducing, moderately sexually dimorphic, pair-bonded species. These are basic facts of our human nature which cannot be erased by social engineering.

Within DGS, I interrogate orthodox feminist concepts, such as patriarchy theory, objectification theory, gender, power, mating strategies, and sex differences and similarities, using humour and evolutionary explanatory models such as natural and sexual selection, parental investment theory, female choice, signalling theory, life history theory, intersexual competition and intrasexual competition.

History has demonstrated many times, that whenever our species attempts to take control of biology and bend it out of shape to ideological goals, human tragedy always follows. It’s a lesson we still don’t seem to have learned, as in spite of overwhelming evidence, many people still hold fast to the idea of an endlessly flexible human nature, and indeed, human nature is flexible, but a blank slate it is not. Neither however is it a crude caricature of immutable deterministic drives and instincts as often painted within the straw man of biological determinism. Human nature is very much mutable, but not infinitely or arbitrarily so, and here lies the nub: Within what may seem like infinite variations of human action and reaction to what life throws at us, our predispositions on an average scale are actually predictable. There are enough constants within this calculus to recognise the existence of an unmistakably human nature. This nature will vary and recalibrate between individuals and ecologies (variation is one of the engines of evolution) but these variations dance around a constant, evolutionary fire.

“Those who journey from political correctness to truth often risk public disapprobation, but it is notable that most never lose their tolerance or humanity. They may question the politics of race, but not that racism is bad; they may question campaigns about women’s pay, but not that women and men deserve equality of treatment.” Browne, A. (2006) The Retreat of Reason: Political correctness and the corruption of political debate in modern Britain. Civitas

I was, and am, standing on the shoulders of many female evolutionary scientists and philosophers who came before me such as Barbara Smuts, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Anne Campbell, Helena Cronin, Griet Vandermassen, Catherine Salmon, Maryanne Fisher, Bobby Low, Helen Fisher, and many more. Over the last 50 years, their scholarship has revealed that, far from feminist fears to the contrary, evolved sex differences do not equate to inferiority.  Via evolution, we in fact see true equality expressed in discrete and fascinating ways.

These women (and many men) have illuminated the role females play as potent agents of evolution via the phenomenon of female choice. This is sadly still an unsung revolution – unsung by feminism, not evolutionists –  as it shattered the male perspective biases that once dominated biology and Darwinism. These women did this, not with rhetorical declarations of war against ‘patriarchy’ but with logic and critical thinking.

When it comes to the principles of natural selection – the struggle to survive – men and women differ very little. Rather, it is in the principles of sexual selection – the struggle not just to survive but thrive enough to have offspring and allow them to thrive also – that the main differences start to become manifest. It is a categorical fact that none of these differences equates to any moral inferiority. No genuine evolutionary scholar would ever make such a claim.

Feminists have long claimed that logic is an exclusively male trait. So much so that to counter the “male” scientific method they felt the need to create “female” method – social constructionism - which ironically invokes every negative female stereotype they claim to want to refute. They did this not because social constructivism was a better tool – it is untested – but because it was the binary opposite of the scientific method.

Women, in fact, have nothing to fear from logic. Yet feminists do fear it, as philosopher Janet Radciffe Richards notes in her book The Sceptical Feminist, 

“…in spite of girls doing better at school than boys, feminists are still woeful at rationality…feminism has some tendency to get stuck in the quagmire of unreason from time to time [but] it cannot be denied that adopting an anti-rational stance has its uses; it can be turned into an all-purpose escape route from tricky corners”  

They also fear it because it falsifies the very premises feminism rests on – especially female inferiority.

This is a description of all feminisms today: radical, intersectional and all other tribes battling for dominance in the victim narrative – including ideological men’s rights, MGTOW and “red pill” groups. All feminisms eschew logic and reason for dogma and ideology and all are in thrall to the flying patriarchal spaghetti monster in the sky. Ask a question about female oppression, you already know the answer: it’s the patriarchy, stupid. And ideological men’s groups have their own version of patriarchy, known as gynocentrism. Both concepts are intellectually myopic.

I created DGS all those years ago because I wanted the opportunity to have a role, however small, in helping us better understand ourselves as a species.

It is true that as a woman I am perhaps more interested in the unique selection pressures women face due directly to their sex. As an evolutionist and a realist, however, this bias does not make me blind to the fact that men face their own unique selection pressures due explicitly to their sex.

The truth is, one sex cannot be understood except in the light of the other. Men and women have co-evolved, each shaping the other both physically and psychologically via sexual selection. Men desire power and resources because women desire men who have power and resources. And female conflict, well that doesn’t look like male conflict, and so often goes unseen, especially by feminists.

From an evolutionary perspective, feminism can be categorised as the study of the conflict between the sexes – intersexual conflict – aka the “battle of the sexes” with a particular interest in proximate, conscious mechanisms of how men can oppress women and how this oppression can be countered. But this is only half the story. Evolutionists posit that to really understand intersexual conflict one must also analyse intrasexual conflict. We do this because we observe across species that competition within a sex is always far more intense than between the sexes. An evolutionary lens also broadens the enquiry to include an analysis of ultimate, unconscious mechanisms of not just how, but why, men pursue the goal of power and resource control. What do men want to do with power? To create strong alliances, subdue rivals, protect against enemies and attract mates.  

Much is known about male intrasexual competition. We have had 2000 years to work it out – its role in shaping cultures and empires – for better or worse. Far less is known about conflict - and conflict resolution - between women; female intrasexual competition (FIC). It is the pink elephant in the feminist room. Do we have the same amount of time to understand female intrasexual competition? For better or worse? I don’t think we do. The epidemic of female-on-female bullying in nursing has long been acknowledged in academia, yet nothing is done about it. In the UK it costs the NHS billions of pounds in workplace attrition, sick leave and low efficiency. It can also cost lives, as a “culture of bullying” was highlighted in the official reports on two scandals in UK maternity wards where both infants and mothers lost their lives.

In another example observe the rise of intragender conflict in the West. Third-gender people exist in many cultures, but only in the West are males who identify with the female gender trying to use it as leverage to get access to sex-based rights and privileges. Then we have feminism itself a battleground fraught with female intrasexual competition, which is often mistakenly called “internalised misogyny”.  Women too, it seems, want to create alliances, subdue rivals and attract the best mates.

Using FIC as a lens to look anew at hot feminist topics such as the beauty industry, cosmetic surgery, anorexia, and the endless wars of attrition between the many tribes of feminisms brings fascinating new insights, as all these phenomena seem to be expressions of female competition not male oppression.

Nonetheless, there is still a comfortable consensus among all feminists that the beauty ‘ideal’ is a tyranny perpetrated upon women by the patriarchy. “Feminists down the ages have argued that the oppression of women is played out on their bodies, their clothes, their style of adornment. To politicise dress has been one of the enduring projects of the women’s movement.” (Walter, N. 1999) Naomi Wolf tackled this concept in her seminal book The Beauty Myth: How Images of Beauty Are Used Against Women. It suggested that this patriarchal strategy is one of ‘divide and rule’ as it “creates a climate of competitiveness among women that divides them from each other.”

Competitiveness is the keyword here. Perhaps the idea of sanctioning the idea, nay the fact, of female intrasexual competition seems frightening for feminists because on the surface of it, it threatens the very notion of a ‘sisterhood’. Yet we know that men are murderously competitive with one another, as homicide rates attest, and this does not seem to threaten their notion of ‘the patriarchy’.

The evidence actually shows that the beauty myth may not be a tyranny perpetuated on women by men, but on one other - if it is a tyranny at all! And it reveals a much more complex and fascinating picture of female agency which goes far to liberate women from the doctrine of passive femininity.

The fact is, women are fiercely competitive with one another, but as the existence of feminism attests, this does not stop women at least trying to cooperate to face challenges, though, as feminism also shows, its own willful ignorance of human nature means feminists cannot agree on anything for long. This explains the many tribes within feminism, and the fiercely defended hierarchies that exist within feminism itself.

I do not deny that these revelations are tricky for feminists to negotiate, but that is no reason for not taking them on. That female intrasexual competition exists is not in doubt. The degree of it however will vary from culture to culture. We know dominance hierarchies exist in many species and all apes. Humans add to the mix competence hierarchies which allow for the utilisation of innate talents and the division of labour which has allowed our species to become far more than the sum of its biologically determined parts.

We also know females have a large role in the construction and maintenance of such hierarchies, for better and worse. Women are individuals and as such are often not united in their interests. An individual’s environment is crucial to how they calibrate their own needs. Yet, ironically, the collective structure of feminism, suppresses the evolutionary mechanism of individual female choice. The epithet “choice feminism” is regarded with contempt by most feminists today.

 “If we do not know what we are capable of…then we do not know what to watch out for, which human propensities to encourage, and which to guard against.” Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.

Further reading: Griet Vandermassen Sexual Selection: A Tale of Male Bias and Feminist Denial ; Griet Vandermassen: Who’s Afraid of Charles Darwin: Debating Feminism and Evolutionary Theory; Anne Campbell: A Mind of Her Own: The Evolutionary Psychology of Women ; Sarah Blaffer Hrdy: Mothers and Others: The Evolutionary Origins of Mutual Understanding ; Sarah Blaffer Hrdy: Mothernature ; Susan Pinker: The Sexual Paradox: Men, Women and the Real Gender Gap ; Christina Hoff Sommers: Who Stole Feminism? ; Cindy Metson & David Buss: Why Women Have Sex; Women reveal the truth about their sex lives, from adventure to revenge (and everything in between) ; E.O. Wilson: Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge ; Jerome H.Barklow (ed): Missing the Revolution: Darwinism for Social Scientists

==

We recognize that the evolution of peafowl, bees, seahorses, angler fishes and marsupial mice has resulted in males and females whose physiology and behavior development has influenced and responded to each other. Yet somehow, that female and male humans behave as they do as a result of the other is somehow unreasonable or even "sexist." Like creationist Xians, this is a denial of evolution and of humans as members of the animal kingdom.

It seems like the "god did it" dragon of "tHe PaTrIaRcHy," then, was conjured to fill the gap in the combination of denial of biological sex-based differences (directly responsible for the formulation of gender ideology; and itself a denial of evolution), and denial of intrasexual competition between women ("On Twitter, women are more misogynistic than men") in order to obscure female agency.

If "gender studies" had been based on science instead of Marxian psychosis and postmodern fantasy, it might well have been harder for the Queer Theorists to find a solid ideological foothold and enthusiastic collaborators.

[bravecrab]

I was reading up on criticisms about Evolutionary Psychology, and I stumbled upon this headline on a pro-Evolutionary Psychology article:

Which as a queer, childless, atheist lefty is such a weird compliment. Evolutionary Psychology is a massive red flag, and I would recommend reading up on it.

[cunningplanning]

Tfw large heads and round faces, both infantile features that millions of years of evolution hardwired your brain to find cute and cuddly, trigger your nurturing and caring instincts, but it's literally just two hastily drawn stickmen being used in a metaphor that showcases the social stigma arising from people's misconceptions about sexual identity.