tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18105448068167927762024-03-08T16:34:46.255-08:00Evolution and EmotionsWhere Science meets wisdom: using evolutionary and ecological theory to
reinterpret and reinvigorate the classic wisdom about our emotions, moods, and personalities. Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391841589829910692noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-47398633891825159682015-04-07T00:34:00.000-07:002015-04-07T00:34:26.388-07:00New blogsI am putting aside the philosophical pondering of this blog to start some applied blogs using the same ideas. They can be found at the website for my new consulting company, <a href="http://emotalytic.com/">Emotalytics</a>. One blog focuses on advice for one's <a href="http://emotalytic.com/personal/">personal life</a> while the other focuses on advice for <a href="http://emotalytic.com/business/">companies and professionals</a>. Unlike the sporadic posting here, I am externally motivated and so will be posting to each one once a month.<br />
Hope you like it!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08391841589829910692noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-17040352645415440682013-11-12T00:04:00.000-08:002013-11-12T00:48:59.652-08:00The Love Equation<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Love is a complicated thing and finding someone who you can love and
who will love you back is the first step down that desirable but complicated
path. Making a romantic match is like matching two puzzle pieces when each
piece is a puzzle itself. We have to consider all the complexities of each
person and then only once we have a good picture of the individuals can we
consider how well they would fit as a couple. But what actually determines fit?
Both old wisdom and new science tell us a lot about what makes a good fit and
the list is pretty long. It includes similar social and economic class, similar
intelligence and physical attractiveness, similar political and religious
views, difference in dominant vs. submissive, etc. These factors are a jumble, though,
they all seem to help but none of them appear necessary or sufficient. Dating
services work by shoving all of these factors together and then rating partners
on how well they match up. This works because that’s the best service they can
offer since they have a limited pool. They match you with your first, second,
third, etc. best match until enough of the unmeasured factors also match up.
What dating services can’t do is identify that threshold point between success
and failure. To do that we need a unified framework that considers all of the
factors together. This is where ecology steps in </span><i><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; line-height: 17px;">[1]</span></b></span></span></i>.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"></span><br />
<a name='more'></a>Ecologists study how populations interact
with themselves and other species and one of our key areas of focus is studying
biodiversity: the number and types of species present in an area. To study how
biodiversity is actually maintained, ecologists have devoted a lot of effort to
understanding how species coexist, particularly how competitors (species which
use similar resources and face similar threats) are able to coexist. The
problem is that no species is actually trying to coexist with its competitors. If
a species could kick out all of its competitors, all the better. So the only
reason the best competitor in any environment doesn’t just kick out the less
well adapted species is that it can’t. The rule ecologists have found is \[\frac{\text{Lesser species' effect on lesser species}}{\text{Better species' effect on lesser species}}>\frac{\text{Fitness of better species}}{\text{Fitness of lesser species}} \]</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
The
right side of the equation says that coexistence gets harder as the stronger
species gets better adapted than the lesser species. Basically, it’s easier to coexist
when both species are more equally adapted to the environment. The left side of
the equation says that coexistence gets easier if the species harm themselves
more than they are harmed by the other species.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">What
do I mean by harm? Individuals harm their own species the same way you harm
yourself by eating food in your house: the more food you eat the less you have
to eat later. Species can harm themselves more than they harm other species if
they interact with their environment differently. Imagine two roommates who share
food and won’t buy groceries for a while. One roommate eats mostly meat in
every meal while the other eats meals that are mostly veggies. Each time the
meat-eater makes a meal, that is one less meal available for him but it has
little effect on how many more meals the pseudo-vegetarian can make since very
few veggies were eaten. Basically, the left side of the equation says that the
more complimentary the two species are the easier it is to coexist. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">So
far we haven’t got anything new. Just like the common wisdom for dating, the
more equal species are the more likely they will coexist and the more
complimentary they are the more likely they will coexist. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">The
new contribution from ecology is putting the whole equation together. Species
need to be as complimentary as they are unequal. The more equal they are the
less complimentary they need to be, the less equal they are the more
complimentary they need to be. For relationships, this means that partners only
need to be as different in their <b>type</b>
of needs and abilities (<i>complementarity</i>;
e.g., skilled at making money, friends, or a household, good at dealing with
big problems versus many small problems, good at making plans versus dealing
with surprises, etc.) as they are different in their <b>ability</b> to meet their needs (<i>quality <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><b><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></b></span><!--[endif]--></span></i>;
e.g., career level, intelligence, wealth, attractiveness, charisma, etc.).
Couples can have successful relationships even if they are quite different in quality
provided they are very complimentary. Likewise, couples can have successful
relationships even if they are very similar in their needs and abilities
provided they are also very similar in their ability to meet those needs.
Successful relationships can be found everywhere between these extremes, the
two aspects just need to balance. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">Translating
from ecology, the Love Equation is as follows. For a romantic relationship to
be successful, the following equation must be true for both partners: </span>\[\frac{\text{Quality of partner}}{\text{Quality of self}}<\frac{\text{Value of my partner's abilities to myself}}{\text{value of my abilities to myself}} \]</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
where
quality is judged objectively by society as a whole. The Love Equation nicely
separates out the two key aspects of a successful relationship: equality and
complementarity. To further justify this equation, if we remove objectivity and
instead view the criterion from the perspective of those in the relationship it
simplifies down to the intuitive \[\text{Percieved quality of partner}>\text{Percieved quality of self}\]</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
where quality is being perceived,
subjectively, by both partners in the
relationship. This equation is just a formalization of common wisdom. Both
partners should feel they are “lucky” to be in the relationship. More
precisely, they should value their partner’s contributions to the relationship more
than their own contributions. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">The Love Equation tells us the minimum
requirement for a loving and complete romantic relationship. Unfortunately,
relationships don’t exist in a vacuum so there are three external factors which
can interfere: (1) changes in circumstances, (2) differences in goals and
values, and (3) other potential partners. Changes in circumstances will happen
over the course of a relationship and can disrupt the relationship by changing
the values in the Love Equation. Differences in goals and values increase the
vulnerability of the relationship to changes in circumstance by increasing the
likelihood that one partner will be affected more than the other, reducing
equality. Finally, if there are lots of alternative partners available it is
more likely that a small reduction in equality or complementarity will make a
different partner more attractive than the current one (better potential
partners can also make a potentially loving relationship undesirable to begin
with). Fortunately, the way to guard against these factors is simply to start
with a relationship with more equality and complementarity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">That’s the equation for love. A
relationship can be built without meeting the Love Equation but it will not
develop into a fully developed intimate relationship. A stable and loving partnership
requires that individuals be complimentary enough to offset differences in
quality. There are two things I would like you to take away from this equation.
First, partners need to be similar and different, similar in their ability to
achieve but different in their approach, but how they go about being similar
and different can vary enormously. While rather cliché, it is entirely possible
for a loving relationship to be built on one partner being wealthy or powerful
while the other is physically attractive, it’s just a little more vulnerable to
changing circumstances. The second thing is that partners only need to be as
complimentary as they are different in quality. For example, a relationship can
survive two very dominant personalities provided the couple are also very
equal. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal">
<span lang="EN-CA">So, when looking for love keep the Love
Equation in mind to keep you realistic about what will work, despite advice to
the contrary, and what won’t work, despite you really wanting it (i.e., give up
on that celebrity crush). That being said, one of your brain’s main jobs is
figuring this all out behind the scenes so just trust your heart and make sure
that you both feel lucky.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div>
<!--[if !supportEndnotes]--><br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Stephen/Dropbox/Emotions/Why%20Evolution%20hates%20itself/Blog/The%20love%20equation%20(biodiversity%20and%20love%20-%20accessible).doc#_ednref1" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-CA"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-CA"> </span>This is a shortened
and simplified version of a more technical and nuanced post available at <span lang="EN-CA"><a href="http://evolutionandemotions.blogspot.ca/2013/11/LoveAndCoexistence.html">http://evolutionandemotions.blogspot.ca/2013/11/LoveAndCoexistence.html</a></span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
<div id="edn2">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/Stephen/Dropbox/Emotions/Why%20Evolution%20hates%20itself/Blog/The%20love%20equation%20(biodiversity%20and%20love%20-%20accessible).doc#_ednref2" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-CA"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span lang="EN-CA" style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">[2]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span></span></a><span lang="EN-CA"> As with species, a person’s quality is entirely conditional on the
environment we are considering them in (including everything from broad
geography and society to the specific social network). This has two main
implications. First, while people are not inherently better or worse than
others, people do vary in how successful they appear to be. This is contingent
both on how much they are able to achieve in their given environment and how
much their achievements matches what is considered successful by the people
around them (money, family, athleticism, intellectual/artistic contributions,
etc.). The second implication, which follows from the first, is that people
will choose to be in an environment in which they have high value. This can be
as subtle as choosing to spend time in places where people who value your
skills also spend time (e.g., athletics individuals at gyms, intellectual
individuals at universities, etc) or as major as moving to another city/country
where your strengths and weaknesses are more appropriate. For relationships,
this means that partners should be relatively well suited to the same
environment such that they are not sacrificing a substantial amount of
potential quality to be around each other (for most relationships this isn’t a
big deal as future partners tend to only meet because they thrive in the same environment). </span><o:p></o:p></div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-2205770206553588582013-11-02T14:46:00.002-07:002013-11-07T18:54:24.138-08:00Many fish in the sea: what biodiversity theory tells us about finding love<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
How do we find love?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
It may feel like I am jumping the gun a bit, coming back after two years
and jumping straight to such a big question, but those two years have been
spent doing the experiments for my PhD thesis on the evolution and ecology of
species coexistence. While I generally consider my thesis work and my emotions
work as two separate bodies, this series of posts on romantic love is the most
natural launching point as it represents the overlap of the two. It is a great
transition from my pure science to thinking about more applied questions. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
And anyways, people don’t really want to know what love is. What they
really want is to know how to find it! People’s drive to find love (I will
focus on romantic love as that is the most complete case) is a huge industry.
Actually, multiple industries, fueling match-making websites and consulting
services, countless books and talk shows, therapists, speed-dating events, and billions
of man-hours of gossip and conversation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<o:p></o:p></div>
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what do I add to this conversation? I don’t feel that being a happily
married man or an evolutionary biologist give me a special view, many people
with those credentials have already chimed in. This may seem odd, but I come to
you as an ecologist. We are the people that study populations and communities
looking at how species interact with each other. It’s actually very similar to
economics and it probably has some insights since economists have already chimed
in plenty on romantic love, looking at it as an economic transaction. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
How unromantic is that? An economic transaction!?! Romance is much more
like a competition! Hmmm, well I guess that’s more intimate but it doesn’t
sound any more romantic. It does give us a different perspective, though. And
let’s be honest, love does feel like a competition sometimes. Just because you
love somebody does not mean you always, or even often, want the same thing as
them. The reason I am going down this path is that when people are looking for something
called romantic love, they are looking for a stable and sustained relationship;
two people intimately coexisting, sharing their possessions, knowledge, and
themselves. Economists are good at placing a value on a relationship but, along
with a rather limited notion of value, this approach doesn’t identify
“sufficient” value. It is the ecologists who have devoted themselves to the
much more pertinent question, “how do things coexist?” <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So what is necessary for competitors (individuals or species with
overlapping resource needs) to coexist? To try to make this paragraph manageable, let me quickly set “Sames” to mean
individuals of the same species and “Others” to mean individuals of a competing
species. Then, the coexistence criterion is that individuals must negatively
impact Sames more than they negatively impact Others (<a href="http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.31.1.343">Chesson
2000</a>). This is pretty opaque because “impact” here has a very mathematical
meaning and hidden implications. We can clarify these complexities by
relativizing impact. The longer coexistence criterion is that the ratio of impact
from Sames versus Others must be larger than the ratio of the carrying capacity
of Others relative to Sames (Equation 1). For our purposes, carrying capacity
basically measures a species’ local quality. It is the maximum population size
of the species when the competitor isn’t there.<o:p></o:p></div>
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QH_ZdgcKBg4/UnVvhAJd0tI/AAAAAAAAABg/_o49E_ceCHI/s1600/coexistence+eq.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="43" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QH_ZdgcKBg4/UnVvhAJd0tI/AAAAAAAAABg/_o49E_ceCHI/s400/coexistence+eq.png" width="400" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">Equation 1<span style="line-height: 150%;"> </span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<span style="line-height: 150%;"> </span>The relativized coexistence criterion tells us that coexistence is a
balance of two qualities: how different two species are in their needs and how similar
they are in their ability to meet those needs (in a given environment). In
other words, coexistence requires species to achieve a similar enough level of
quality in a different enough way. The more different they are in their
qualities, the more different they have to be in their needs. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I imagine it like a bridge over a chasm. The width of the chasm is how
different the two species are in their ability to thrive in this environment
(their fitnesses). The length of the bridge we have is how different they are
in the way that they thrive. If the bridge is too short the weaker species
falls into the chasm and we don’t get coexistence. If the bridge is longer than
the width of the chasm, both species will coexist. Any extra bridge length
provides a buffer against fluctuation in the size of the chasm, stabilizing
coexistence in the face of change and random events. The most equal and resilient
coexistence comes when we have a massively oversized bridge spanning a very
narrow chasm. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
From this we can identify three broad mechanisms which promote coexistence.
First, species need to be as equal in their fitnesses as possible – they need
to have very similar levels of quality in the given environment. Second, species
need to compete as weakly as possible – they need to have complimentary needs. Third,
species should have shared enemies or friends – they should have shared goals.
The first two mechanisms are necessary and sufficient for coexistence: similarity
of quality leads to narrower chasms while complementarity leads to longer
bridges. We can imagine the third mechanism as maintaining the bridge. Having
shared friends or enemies doesn’t promote coexistence by itself but if species
have different friends or enemies that erodes their ability to coexist.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
I want to go into this idea of shared friends or enemies a little more
since there is less information on the subject available and I had to do my own
modeling to check it out. The first thing to note is that species don’t
interact simply as species-pairs, they exist in a larger community. That means
that while they are competing with each other, they are also competing, and
potentially cooperating, with other species. Complementarity works by each
species’ success making the environment worse for them, relative to the other
species, making future success more difficult (e.g., less prey, more predators):
when two species consume and are consumed by different species, these negative
feedbacks allow them to coexist. Interactions with mutualists (species which
cooperate with, and mutually support, the focal species) and other competitors
work in the opposite direction. As a species becomes more abundant its
mutualists become more abundant and its competitors become less abundant,
actually making the environment more desirable. When two species compete with
and cooperate with different species, these positive feedbacks will make it
harder for them to coexist. If, on the other hand, they share friends and
enemies, any advantages gained by one species will be shared by the other,
allowing the bridge to stay strong <span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
So, what does ecological coexistence tell us about romantic
relationships?<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Well, quite simply it formalizes what is already common wisdom: both individuals
should perceive their partner as being more valuable than themselves. They
should both feel “lucky” to be in the relationship. This doesn’t mean anything
as extreme as actually valuing the other more than yourself (“I would die for
you”). It just means that if both individuals were to direct all of their
energy into the relationship, towards maximizing their shared wellbeing, they
would both be better off. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
The new insight from ecological coexistence is what is necessary for this
to be true. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
We can translate the ecological criterion into relationship terms by
replacing species with people, population size with wellbeing, and new
individuals with benefits received from contributions. Also, it makes more
sense to frame the relationship in the positive so we can replace “more
negative” with “less positive”. Thus, for two people to coexist in a
relationship, <i>each contribution must
positively impact the other partner more than it would have impacted the
contributor</i> (at least on average). The net effect of this is that both individuals
must value their partner’s total contributions higher than their own.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
From Eq. 1, we see that for a relationship to achieve this, the couple’s
contributions need to be more complimentary than the relative difference in
their abilities to provide those contributions. In other words, the amount each
individual values what the other person brings to the table, relative to what
they themselves bring to the table, has to be greater than the relative
difference in the sheer amount they are able to bring to the table. Just as
with species, they need to achieve a similar enough level of quality in a
different enough way. It’s not enough for two people to be equal (e.g., prom
king and queen) and it’s not enough for both to be complimentary and humble (value
themselves less than they are valued by the other). You need at least some of
both. The latter is necessary for any positive relationship, no matter how big,
while the former is necessary for the relationship to be as substantial as a
romantic one. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
A lot of what I am saying has already been said. From psychology and
neuroscience, we know that successful romances are a mix of similar and
different (I am getting my neuroscience info from an <a href="http://integral-options.blogspot.ca/2013/06/the-science-of-love-and-happiness-all.html">interview</a>
of Helen Fisher of Rutgers University on her book, “<a href="http://www.helenfisher.com/books.html">Why We Love: The Nature and
Chemistry of Romantic Love</a>”). Successful partners tend to be similar in
many ways. They tend to have equal attractiveness, social and economic status,
intelligence, as well as being equal in other qualities by which we tend to
rank people. They also tend to be similar in their major goals and values. Both
partners tend to share religious, political, and social goals but more
importantly both partners tend to be the same in whether they favour long-term
or short-term goals, whether they are more concerned in investing in their
future or making the most of their present. The best relationships also have
differences though, while the couple should share many goals, they should be
different in how they go about achieving them. In the most simplified metric,
one is usually a dominant personality while the other is a more subordinate
personality. More generally, the couple should agree which partner is stronger
in each area such that one is always dominant while the other is subordinate,
though who is dominant changes between situations or tasks.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
While I have to admit that I only went to the effort of working out the
effect of shared friends and enemies for species coexistence because I knew
shared value was thought to be important for relationships, I think you will
still agree that the three mechanisms above fit well with what relationship
science has to say. First, species need to have similar carrying capacities
while couples need to have similar levels of quality (as measured not by each
other but by themselves, which should be a product of how much their present
society/environment values them). Second, couples, just like species, need to
be complementary in their needs and abilities. Finally, couples need to have
shared goals and values such that they succeed and fail together. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What coexistence theory really adds to this picture is a general
framework under which we can unify all this information. Psychologists have a
whole bunch of regressions that say which relationships are more likely to
succeed but these relationships are messy, there are a whole bunch of
relationships which don’t seem to fit. There are successful couples where both
are very dominant, where they are very different in terms of social and
economic status, where they have different religions, etc. Coexistence theory tells
us that a successful relationship results from the whole picture.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
What I have tried to convey is that coexistence is a balance and this has
both positive and negative implications. Biologists study coexistence because
lots of species can coexist but also because lots of species can’t. No matter
how much equality or shared values a couple have, a successful relationship
requires at least some complementarity. The amount of complementarity required
only goes up with couples that are less equal or more independent in their
goals and different in their values. This means that people need to be
realistic in what they are looking for because a relationship requires that
both parties be satisfied. This lack of realism is most clearly seen in hoping
that a little bit of complementarity will cover for a substantial difference in
how much they are valued by society. Basically, you should probably stop
swooning over that celebrity (unless you are one yourself, at least in your own
way) because it is unlikely you are that really, ridiculously complimentary.<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
On the positive note, a rewarding romantic relationship only requires
that the balance be met, which can happen in many ways. Maybe there is just one
person out there who will maximize this balance for each of us, a soul mate,
but the opportunity cost of waiting for that one perfect relationship far
outweighs any additional benefits relative to finding a great relationship that
works. Coexistence, not just perfection, will lead to a rewarding romantic
relationship. When looking for a match we should seek equality,
complementarity, and shared goals, but successful relationships are born of
unexciting amounts of each, as long as we have all three, and we can even get
away with little of one, or even two, provided we have enough of the others.
You only need species to be as different in lifestyle as they are in ability
and you only need couples to be as complimentary as they are different in
quality [2]. Shared values and goals are only as important as those values and goals
are to the individuals, and if couples are well matched enough in the other two
areas they can overcome even important differences in what they value. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
Now go forth and nerd up the dating scene (either yourself or with unsolicited
advice)!<o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: 150%; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">
In the next part of this series I will take this analogy one step
further, exploring what we can learn about the evolution of a relationship
(from initial attraction to old married couple) by looking at how species
coevolve with their competitors.</div>
<div>
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<!--[endif]-->
<br />
<div id="edn1">
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><!--[if !supportFootnotes]--><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10.0pt; line-height: 115%; mso-ansi-language: EN-CA; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[1]</span></span><!--[endif]--></span>
For the sake of the analogy I am simplifying how species interact with
predators and mutualists. In nature, shared predators can actually stabilize
coexistence if the predators are limited in how many types of species an
individual can efficiently hunt (due to learning, spatial separation of prey,
etc.). In that case, predators are known to switch between prey depending on
which one is more abundant, punishing success and supporting failure. <o:p></o:p></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoEndnoteText">
For mutualists, much of the ecological literature
focuses on competition for mutualists. Basically, mutualists are limited in how
many individuals they can interact with and mutually benefit. This leads to
species competing with each other to be more desirable to the mutualist. For my
purposes, I have assumed that the mutualist benefits each species proportional
to how much they benefit the mutualist and that the mutualist is only limited
by the number of individuals interacting with it. Thus, species don’t get
biased gains from or compete over mutualists but, if shared, they can benefit
from mutualists supported by the other species. This more accurately reflects
the relationship analogy of a shared goal or value, where the personal value of
a success is generally negligibly reduced by sharing that success with a small
number of others (e.g., raising a child, supporting a political cause).<o:p></o:p><br />
<br />
<span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 14px;">[2]</span></span></span> One aspect that this analogy misses is that species can have populations in multiple habitats while individuals have to be in a single environment (including place, career, social network, etc.). The first filter for species coexistence is that they have to survive in the same habitat. Equally, a major factor in finding a suitable partner is finding someone who thrives in the same environment you do (I feel comfortable leaving this in a footnote as people tend to interact primarily with others who chose the same environment). Equation 1 takes effect within the environment but if the relationship requires that one partner be in a environment for which they are not well suited, they will calculate equality based on their potential (in the environment they would choose otherwise) and the complementarity gains would have to cover the lost potential to justify them staying (I think this second part is true, should probably do the math to confirm).</div>
</div>
</div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-10984433933335521382011-09-01T11:57:00.002-07:002011-09-01T11:57:56.932-07:002c.ii. – Justifying love<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">Rationalizing emotions is not particularly socially acceptable and trying to rationalize an emotion as strong and socially important as love is potentially a dangerous endeavour.<span> </span>I very much doubt I could get away with simply stating that love is the highest form of trust, acting to increase the propagation of our genes, but I do have supporting evidence.<span> </span>The best arguments at my disposal are considering who we love, showing that my evolutionary model accounts for these choices, and showing how our responses to those we love correspond to what we would expect for targets of high trust in my general model of emotions.<span> </span></div><a name='more'></a> <o:p></o:p><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><u>Evidence 1 - Family</u>: If love is about maximizing the propagation of our genes, our most unwavering love (i.e. emotional Trust without rational trust) should be for those most likely to share and propagate our genes.<span> </span>Who better fills this role than our children, the very medium by which we propagate our genes, and it is unquestionably our children who are our greatest loves.<span> </span>Similarly, our blood relatives share many of our genes so their success is partially our success (known as kin-selection), leading to the predicted high level of love for family (though more wavering than for children) which we observe in ourselves.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><u>Evidence 2 - Friends</u>: We can also trust to the point of loving individuals who we very strongly believe will aid us in the future (i.e. increase our fitness).<span> </span>This can include very good friends, brothers in arms, as well as leaders.<span> </span>The latter may seem odd in this day but the love of one’s king or queen is not unexpected.<span> </span>This is due to the large influence rulers have on the wellbeing of their people in conjunction with the strong link between the wellbeing of the people and the ruler’s wellbeing.<span> </span>As such, at least when there is conflict between nations (I will explain why later when I discuss in-groups and out-groups), we would strongly expect sovereign leaders to act in the best interests of their people.<span> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><u>Evidence 3 – Mates</u>: Romantic love, the love between (current and potential) mate pairs is probably the first type of love most people think of.<span> </span>Clearly not limited to heterosexual relationships it is easiest to understand in that context.<span> </span>Romantic love is a special case, the targets of romantic love are not close family (they can be but there are selective forces like inbreeding depression and immune system diversification acting against it) and while we hope that our partners are also our close friends (a) it is not necessary and (b) romantic love is something beyond friendship.<span> </span>As one might guess, the basis of romantic love can be thought of as sex but, more appropriately, it is as an extension of our love for our children (current or future).<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">As sexual organisms we need a partner of the opposite sex to produce offspring and those offspring will get half of its genes from our partner.<span> </span>The quality of our offspring (i.e. our ability to propagate our genes to future generations; the likelihood we will have grandchildren) then relies on the quality of our partner, both their independent value and their value as a match for us.<span> </span>Additionally, the more uniquely human quality of romantic love lies in the absurd neediness of our children who require huge amounts of parental care relative to other organisms.<span> </span>This required parental care means that the quality of our offspring is also in large part due to the quality of their upbringing.<span> </span>These two qualities, sexual reproduction and needy children, help explain who we fall in love with.<span> </span>We love the qualities in our mates which we desire in our offspring and which will make our mate a good parental partner.<span> </span>Finally, we love our partner simply due to a shared love of our offspring, a shared goal of maximize their wellbeing.<span> </span>To summarize, if we like our partner’s genes and personality and we share or will share their children we can strongly trust them to produce and raise high quality high quality offspring which will propagate our genes. <span> </span>One final clarification, since evolution selects for success rather than any particular strategy and since those who don’t try to reproduce don’t have an evolutionary say in how best to reproduce, romantic love can act even when there is no intention of producing offspring.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><u>Evidence 4 - Investment</u>: The most characteristic quality of love is the willingness to accept personal sacrifice for their benefit of those we love.<span> </span>This is the same thing as investing in those individuals and, at least based on my emotional model, the more we trust something the more willing we are to invest in it, supporting the hypothesis that love is an intense form of trust. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><u>Evidence 5 – Sympathetic happiness</u>: Sympathetic happiness means to feel happy about the happiness of others.<span> </span>Under my model, this indirect happiness (happiness without any current physical benefit) occurs when our investment in a trusted target leads to increased value.<span> </span>Using a financial analogy this corresponds to the number of shares we have in the target multiplied by the value of those shares increasing more than the cost of the action.<span> </span>If the target is not highly trusted then we can imagine our investment increasing the targets wellbeing (their value) but not adequately increasing the likelihood we will recoup our investment (the number of shares).<span> </span>With a loved target, though, the number of shares can be thought to be very high such that any increase in their value will benefit us.<span> </span>As such, since happiness suggests an increase in value we are likely to feel sympathetic happy when we observe the happiness of a loved one.<span> </span>Such sympathetic happiness is a common experience of love, similar to feeling proud of a loved one (despite pride being defined as an inward feeling reflecting one’s own value), further supporting my hypothesis.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><u>Evidence 6 – Mourning</u>: The greatest sadness is in response to the death of a loved one.<span> </span>This sadness makes sense as death is final; death represents a complete loss of all investment in the target.<span> </span>The more we trust an individual the more we have invested in them and the greater the loss when they die so the death of a loved one, those in whom we have the most invested, is expected to represent the greatest loss. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span> </span>Hopefully this evidence convincingly makes my point, not simply with regard to love but the emotional model as a whole.<span> </span>Any questions, comments, or examples suggested to be unexplained by my model are welcome. <o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-35866651463162500722011-09-01T11:57:00.000-07:002011-09-01T11:58:36.759-07:002c.i. A crazy little thing called Love<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"> What is love? It’s a damn good question, one for which the internet simultaneously provides hundreds of answers and no answer at all. The question is a matter of philosophy and religion, grazed by psychologists and all but abandoned by hard science. Love is the emotion of the heart, of the soul. It is what makes us act selflessly and often irrationally, even absurdly. It is a gift from God or an odd by-product of culture, beautiful and all-important but beyond our explanation. To get to the heart of it all: Love is what differentiates us from the beasts.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">Well… wait, does it? What is love really? Can we discern its function? And can we really say that only humans really love while everything else (e.g. I feel that my dog loves me) is simply personification? This is the question I will attempt to answer here: what is love and why does it seem so extraordinary? So irrational? So… human?<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Rational irrationality<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"> Love is the most quintessential of human emotions, highlighting better than any other what emotions are and why we experience them the way we do. As I said in a previous post, emotions act to efficiently interpret a large amount of information to guide your decision making. Much of their function is about efficiency, providing an answer very quickly which is still correct a good percentage of the time. You could logically work through the problem to increase the probability of being correct but it would take far longer. We, of course, do this all the time but when you consider the (at least) thousands of decisions we make every day, many of them seemingly inconsequential, there is no way we could work through them all without the efficiency of our emotions. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">Emotions have an additional function, though. Rational though is limited by what we know, limited by our own experiences. To play the game of life rationally we have to consciously know the rules and, most importantly in this case, the objective. Emotions don’t share this limitation. Acting behind the scenes, emotions can make decisions using their own rules without explanation or justification. This is where evolution can work, blindly shaping the emotional rules to achieve the objective with no concern for what or why, only how well. Through evolution, our emotions account for information beyond our own experiences, deciphering life’s rules and objectives not through the ever-absent instruction manual to life but through generations and generations of our ancestors simply playing the game. Our emotions, then, can tell us to be attracted to facial symmetry and colourful plants, displeased by a frown, and to love our family before we ever (and without us ever needing to) know why. It is these hidden rules, unexplained and unjustified but appropriate none the less, that make emotions rationally irrational. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><b>Selfish selflessness<o:p></o:p></b></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">So, getting back to my point, what is love? The answer is amazingly simple, hidden is plain sight by its apparent irrationality. Love is the highest form of trust; we love that which we most strongly believe will benefit us. The apparent irrationality of love is due to not understanding the game being played: as the products of evolution we play the game of evolution. We can understand basic trust and the other emotions through our own experiences; we can see how they act to increase pleasure and avoid pain. This objective, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure, accomplishes the goal of the basic evolutionary game: maximizing fitness through maximum growth, survival, and reproduction. <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">Love plays a more complicated game, working towards the ultimate objective of maximizing the propagation of our genes, an objective which extends beyond our own wellbeing. This more complicated game is the idea explained in Richard Dawkins famous book, <i>The Selfish Gene</i>: from the perspective of a gene it doesn’t matter if it increases in frequency through directly increasing the fitness of its carrier (you) or through indirectly increasing the fitness of a carrier of the same gene (e.g. your sibling). Most organisms can’t actively play towards this ultimate objective as they are unable to recognize individuals carrying, or likely to carry, the same genes. In those of us who can, though, love acts to make the leap from only considering our wellbeing to considering the wellbeing of our genes. It is for this reason that love seems so abstract and irrational. Loves primary goal is beyond the rationality of our everyday experiences, it is even beyond a basic physiology programed to maximize our fitness… it helps us play a game most of us never know we are playing.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">I will lay out the evidence for this hypothesis in a second post but before I do so I would ask that you don’t take my functional description of emotions to be an attack on the emotional experience. I am not the foolish TV portrayal of a scientist who believes that deciphering something’s function makes it any less beautiful or amazing. To discount the emotional response is both arrogant and foolish, just as it is any time we believe we can do better than evolution, that which has formed all of the wondrously elegant organisms which fill our world. So if this helps you understand your emotions let it not be to circumvent them but to better appreciate them, to trust them and to relish in the experience. Most importantly, love, not because it is the right thing to do but because it is your thing to do.<o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-54050803024030790522011-08-23T17:46:00.000-07:002011-08-25T13:52:07.746-07:003a. Personalities - programmed for a cave and a spear or suburbia and a credit card?<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"> Emotions act to simplify the world, summarizing our experiences into a few metrics. So, for example, when you are trying to decide whether or not to eat an apple you don’t have to first recall every past experience involving apples. Instead your emotions have already summarized each event and the results have been pooled into one value characterizing your past experiences as somewhere between very rewarding or very detrimental on average. The general rules, such as both joy and pleasure increase trust, will remain fixed among individuals and species. What will change are the parameters of those rules: how much weight is placed on pleasure versus trust, old versus recent experiences. These parameters constitute our personality and while they will change overtime due to learning they must have an initial condition: our base personality, the component of our emotions most susceptible to evolution.<br />
<a name='more'></a></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">Current adaptations are the result of historical conditions; we need to look at the world of our ancestors to understand our personalities. The first question we need to address though is how far back in time do we need to go. Are our personalities adapted to the world of the cave men, small hunter-gatherer kinship tribes which are too dispersed to regularly interact, or the world of cities and nations, very large aggregations of specialized individuals which are relatively unrelated and largely unknown to each other? The answer is likely somewhere in the middle, varying depending on the specific aspect of personality in question, but I think a fallacy in current socio-biology and evolutionary psychology is underestimating the rate of adaptation. </div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">Populations have been shown to have drastic changes in traits in only a few generations, termed rapid evolution. The conditions for this rapid change are sufficient standing genetic variation and strong selection. Standing genetic variation means that the new majority trait already existed in the population as a small minority rather than requiring a new mutation. Strong selection on the other hand requires both that the different variations strongly change how an organism responds to the environment and that the environment has changed. In the majority of documented cases, rapidly evolving traits are those associated with predation, either capturing prey (e.g. beak or jaw size) or avoiding predation (e.g. body size or camouflage). This is likely because the interaction with other species causes these traits to have a high degree of specificity as well as the potential for rapidly changing conditions (e.g. the arrival of a new predator). <o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">The predator-prey interactions for humans are very different from most other animals: the majority of us obtain prey and avoid aggressors indirectly through interactions with other humans. Traits like body size, speed, or coordination are no longer the dominant factors in determining our growth, survival, and reproduction. In humans the weight of this burden falls to the way in which we interact with our fellow man and these interactions are shaped by our personalities. Additionally, how we should interact continues to change as the size and structure of the society in which we live also evolve. Together these suggest strong selection on our emotional predispositions (our base personalities). Acknowledging the large variation in personalities, then, I think that it is likely that our emotions have undergone (and are undergoing?) rapid evolution; human personalities are more adapted to historical than pre-historical social conditions. To take it one step further, it is not an evolutionary fallacy to say that we are emotionally adapted to (relatively) modern conditions.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">The final point I wish to make while laying the evolutionary ground work concerns why there is such a large amount of variation in personalities. If I am suggesting that we are (relatively) well adapted to modern conditions then shouldn’t that historical selection have “weeded out” all the variation, leaving only the one optimal strategy? The answer is what is called frequency dependent selection and it is a concept that I will return to often. Frequency dependent selection means that the fitness of a trait depends on the traits of others in the population. Negative frequency dependence means that rarer types have an advantage, the most ubiquitous example being sex: if you are a male in a female biased population, or vice-versa, life is pretty good. This negative frequency dependence acts to maintain diversity in the population, a 50:50 sex ratio in the previous example. Conversely, positive frequency dependence benefits common types, reducing diversity. For example, if everyone goes to site A for the mating season you aren’t going to do very well going to site B no matter what sex you are. As members of a structured society there is a diversity of emotional roles which we can fill and those in proportionally unfilled roles will fair relatively better (negative frequency dependence). So, for example, if you live in a society of very curious individuals (high trust for unknown targets) you can benefit from their experience and be cautious yourself, avoiding the risks, while if you live amongst very cautious individuals your curiosity can uncover substantial rewards.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"> So, to summarize: the emotions described in 2b are general across all learning organisms it is the personality, the parameters of the emotional rules, which differs between organisms. To understand the (average) human personality we have to look at the conditions under which we evolved. Due to the importance of our emotions in shaping social interactions, which strongly determine our fitness, it is likely that our personalities have undergone rapid selection suggesting that we can understand our personalities by looking at relatively modern conditions. Finally, the diversity in human personalities is maintained by negative frequency dependence where-by rare types have an advantage. The next section will explore how our social interactions have shaped our base personalities. <o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-91595657125369309032011-08-23T17:45:00.000-07:002011-08-23T17:45:32.628-07:003. Personalities - adaptive humanity<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span> </span>The model of emotions presented in 2B generalizes beyond humans to all organisms with the cognitive capacity to consider the past and the future.<span> </span>However, as Robert Burns put to words in his famous poem <i>To a Mouse</i>, many believe that this consideration of past and future is a rare trait, bestowed on humans and maybe a select few “higher” organisms.<span> </span>So let me revise, focusing on the result rather than the mechanism: any organism that learns, changing its behaviour based on past success or failure, likely uses the same cognitive processes which we experience as emotions.<span> </span>They may not experience emotions in the same way as humans, but parsimony (things are more likely to change a little than a lot) suggests that in a general sense learning organisms probably have a similar experience to humans.<span> </span>So, to understand the specifics of human emotions we have to move up one step to personality.<span> </span>While our emotions characterize how we feel it is our personalities while characterize what we feel in a given situation.<o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;"><span> </span><o:p></o:p></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-indent: 36.0pt;">In 2b I stated the rules determining the path you follow along the emotion decision tree.<span> </span>For example, if you feel trust towards a target you will go down a path leading to invest-or-request as opposed to fight-or-flight.<span> </span>Whether you feel trust or disgust though is, at the very least, a product of your naïve level of trust, your past experience with the target and similar targets, and how much weight you put on different types of experiences.<span> </span>While traits like your naïve level of trust or the weight you put on direct versus indirect knowledge will change over time, they must have starting values, what I will call the base personality.<span> </span>It is this base personality, the genetic component (the nature in “nature vs. nurture”) which natural selection shapes. <span> </span>While there are clearly differences within species (just look at the range of personalities amongst children) there are larger differences between species.<span> </span>It is these differences that lead to the young of social animals being playful rather than aggressive and predators being more curious than their cautious prey.<span> </span>So what is the base personality of humans and, more importantly, what factors have lead to our current state?<span> </span>This is the question I will attempt to answer in this series. <o:p></o:p></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-75459373472151971512011-08-06T21:33:00.000-07:002011-08-07T01:25:17.505-07:002a. Emotions: the currency of the mind<h1></h1><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I had a lot of trouble deciding what I would do my first real post on, but in the end it seemed natural to start with (what was supposed to be) a brief description of my views on emotions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This seemed like a good starting point not only because this is a blog about the struggle between emotions and the idea of evolution and I summarized evolution previously but because for me it is a bit of a beginning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">I didn’t know I wanted to be a biologist until I was forced to take a biology course in my first year of university.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have a vague recollection of being in elementary school and being asked what I wanted to be when I grew up.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After some though, I concluded that while I didn’t know what the job was, what I really wanted to be was someone who worked with math and animals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Despite how perfectly that describes what I do now, as the school system began to teach me biology I quickly realized that it was a foolish goal since to work with animals you studied biology and clearly all biology is is memorizing what things are called, something I am terrible at.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This sets the stage for a brief moment in my grade 10 humanities class by clarifying that at that time I wasn’t interested in (more like actively scorning) biology, much less evolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We had been practicing rapid writing for some end of year exam by getting a topic and writing a few paragraphs on it in 20 minutes, after which some people would read theirs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the class of interest, the topic was “what is fear” and as far as I could tell the class response was unanimous, with writings focused on one idea: fear is what limits you, it’s what you must conquer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now maybe it was simply a product of the stories we are told growing up, maybe it is how we naturally view our emotions or maybe a being a small nerdy kid growing up had given me a more timid viewpoint than everyone else who presented but my view was very different.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To me, the natural response was that fear is your guardian angel, that which protects you and guides you from harm. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Every time I think back to that memory I am always surprised by how telling it is about where I would end up and how I would think about the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is that functional way perspective on emotions, which hopefully differs at least in some way from your own so as to be interesting, that I will begin explore in this post.<br />
<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> So what are emotions?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, avoiding looking up a definition my inclination is that they are a psychological state which motivates an action to be taken.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This seems too broad though as is includes clearly physiological states such as pain, hunger, exhaustion, and stress when what I am interested in more abstract states like fear, love, and happiness (update: apparently the former are called homeostatic emotions while the latter are classic emotions).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would it then be appropriate to say “a purely psychological state” to discriminate between the two?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To me, the real issue is temporal: the former group of states are psychological interpretations of the immediate physical condition while I will argue that the latter are predictions of future conditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This quality of prediction is what makes emotions interesting. Like the discussion in the last post about laws and theories the former is complete in and of itself while the precise influence of the latter is highly condition dependent: the Second Law of Thermodynamics always has the same effect regardless of conditions just as being tired always means you need rest while adaptation can be hindered by genetic drift (evolutionary changes due to random survival and/or reproduction) and trust can be overwhelmed by fear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">Here is my functional view of emotions: they convert a large amount of cost-benefit information into a few units of emotional currency such that your conscious mind can quickly integrate and respond to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the rest of this post I will strive to explain what I mean by or the importance of each part of this description.</div><a name='more'></a><br />
<h2> </h2><h2>A world of cost-benefit information</h2><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Why are we attracted to beautiful things?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More appropriately, beautiful things are things we are attracted to, so what determines what is beautiful? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After some googling, here are some things I found generally deemed to be beautiful: flowers, rivers and waterfalls, a variety of birds and mammals, facial symmetry, clean skin, a 0.7 waist-to-hip ratio in females, vivid colours, smiles, and acts of kindness (and in some cases acts of religiosity though I will get to that in a future post).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is a lot of variety here: we have aspects or nature, both biotic and abiotic, human physical appearance, a human interaction, and a display of human personality as well as a general attraction to vivid colours. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The link? These are all things that indicate good conditions to survive, grow, and/or reproduce.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Flowing water is one of the primary requirements for any human settlement. Flowers, vivid colours (think fruits, which are colourful precisely so animals will eat them), and wildlife with similar physiological requirements to humans are all very good signs that a location has the requisite climate, food and shelter for a human population.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All of the physical human attributes listed are thought to represent good genes, health, and fertility while smiles and acts of kindness suggest a pro-social environment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We could do the same thing for ugly things: a barren landscape, signs of illness, human waste, frowns and glares, all of which suggest contagions or unfavourable conditions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The world we observe around us is full of information about future conditions in a given area: should we expect to find food or a good job or are many people similar to us poor and hungry, should we expect to find a good mate or are we more likely to get mugged, if I confront an aggressor are they likely to run or fight?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The challenge is integrating all of this information to calculate the costs and the benefits, the risks and the rewards.</div><h2> </h2><h2>The currency of emotions</h2><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">Emotions are a lot like money, with each base emotion (see below) representing a different currency.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Emotions take very different things and compare them on a common scale.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The value of these things changes based on past experience and multiples of the same thing show diminishing returns (2 monsters are scarier than, but not twice as scary as, 1 monster).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, it is easy to compare between currencies but only when a conversion coefficient has already been set based on a large amount of information.<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> Before going forward, I figured I should at least check out what the behavioural psychologists have come up with in emotions research.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Conveniently, a lot of effort has gone into grouping emotions in a systematic way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, there are many definitions and classifications of emotions and, while to be fair to myself it was at the top of the Wikipedia page, I of course latched onto those of an evolutionary minded psychologist, Plutchik. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Plutchik posited four pairs of basic emotions which, like the primary colours, combine to produce all the other emotions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These eight primary emotions are listed in the table below.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I worried going with the evolutionary psychologist was a biased choice, I did a very brief review of the modern literature on “basic emotions” (what I will call primary emotions; emotions which combine to produce all of the other emotions) and they still seem to be in favour, now supported by neurological evidence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Other primary emotion models have a similar list, usually differing only by adding in a shame like emotion or removing anticipation but I strongly prefer Plutchik’s paired organization.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="MsoTableGrid" style="border-collapse: collapse; border: none; mso-border-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-padding-alt: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184;"><tbody>
<tr style="mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-irow: 0;"> <td colspan="2" style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Plutchik's wheel of emotions</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: solid windowtext 1.0pt; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm; text-align: center;">Interpretation (my view)</div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 1;"> <td style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Joy</div></td> <td style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Sadness</div></td> <td style="border: none; mso-border-top-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Do/don't repeat behaviour in the future </div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 2;"> <td style="border: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Trust</div></td> <td style="border: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Disgust</div></td> <td style="border: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">seek out/avoid object</div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 3;"> <td style="border: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Fear</div></td> <td style="border: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Anger</div></td> <td style="border: none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Positive/negative (benefiting/harming the target) interaction</div></td> </tr>
<tr style="mso-yfti-irow: 4; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes;"> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Surprise</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">Anticipation</div></td> <td style="border-bottom: solid windowtext 1.0pt; border: none; mso-border-bottom-alt: solid windowtext .5pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;" valign="top"><div class="MsoNormal" style="line-height: normal; margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin-bottom: 0cm;">recalculate/wait for new data</div></td> </tr>
</tbody></table><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
</div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Plutchik apparently assigned an adaptive meaning to each basic emotion but as I can’t find his we will use my own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As mentioned in my first definition of emotions, emotions are motivational states. That is to say, emotions tend you towards taking a particular action.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since these are the primary emotions they should cover all the basic actions of data collection and response without overlap.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my next post (2b) I will explain how the interpretations listed above fill out a decision tree as to how to respond to observed objects or actions in such a way as to maximize good and minimize harm to one’s self.</div><h2> </h2><h2>Think quick!</h2><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">Why aren’t we all like Vulcans from Star Trek, purged of emotions and relying only on logical thought? <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Well, one of the main points I am trying to make it that emotions actually embody logical though. If that is the case, though, (a) why bother with emotions at all if we can just reason through each decision and (b) why do we often discriminate between being rational and emotional?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe the answer to (a) is fairly straight forward while the answer to (b) has multiple causes. So, let’s start with (a) and leave (b) for a separate post or your own consideration considering the length of this post already.</div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;"><br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> Emotions are all interpreted and balanced through conscious thought, which is a logic processing center, and the mechanisms of the emotions are logic base (see post 2b).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question then is why split the analysis up into two steps when the processing rules are the same for both?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer comes from computer science, which makes sense since computer scientists study how to optimize logic based data processing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Black box programming means that sections of the code are isolated as “functions”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Functions “do” a certain thing, taking a certain type of input and converting it into a certain type of output.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, a mathematical sum function will take in a bunch of numbers and give out a single number which is the numerical sum of all the input numbers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The advantage of functions is that they can they are optimized to do a very specific thing. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That specificity allows them to be very efficient; just as with vehicles, there is a general trade-off between speed and manoeuvrability in most things there is a trade-off between efficiency and flexibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The black-box approach makes sense for emotions both because the processes they represent are used extremely often and they need to be done very efficiently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I said above, there is a lot of cost-benefit information in this world and, while massive, we only have limited brain power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such, the more efficiently we process each object or action the more we will be able to consider or the more completely we will be able to consider them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, as is easy to imagine with emotions like fear, there are cases were observing and reacting quickly will make the difference between life and death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Surprise and anxiety help make the whole process more efficient but, particularly with evolution, every little bit helps. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1810544806816792776.post-21560357758432473092011-08-01T12:58:00.000-07:002011-08-08T01:53:21.546-07:001. Understanding the Theory of Evolution<div class="MsoNormal"></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To begin, let’s lay down some ground rules, the first and foremost being that the Theory of Evolution in its most general sense is true. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For me to argue for Evolution would be redundant and ineffective next to the works of far more elegant authors such as Richard Dawkins and Charles Darwin. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, for me to constantly consider that this theory is not true would not only be highly unnatural to me at this point but would also detract from the points I am trying to make. That being said, I believe that my effort to remember that I did not always believe in evolution will be one of my greatest assets in writing this in a way that appeals to both sides of the argument. So, to make sure we are all on the same page I will begin by describing what is meant (or at least what I mean) by the Theory of Evolution (by natural selection). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> <a name='more'></a></span><br />
</div><h2><u><br />
</u></h2><h2><u><b>Part 1: “It’s just a theory”</b></u></h2><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">The Theory of Evolution is a theory and we can place both a positive and negative tone on that troublesome first word, theory. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First the positive, when you say “I have a theory” in every day conversation what you actually mean is “I have a hypothesis”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientifically, to be a theory is an extremely prestigious position, only one step down from the peak in the hierarchy of ideas. At the peak are the Physical Laws: the unbreakable and omnipresent rules of the world we live in that set the parameters of every other scientific idea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They have yet to be contradicted by any scientific knowledge. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under the conditions of the Laws we can derive models which produce hypotheses. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the hypotheses of a given model are consistently supported that model becomes a theory.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, the Theory of Evolution is a general model of how things in the world work which has been supported by all the scientific data thus far.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not some offhand idea but an elegant mechanism which has its basis in the Laws and Logic and produces hypotheses which are relentlessly supported.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="text-indent: 36.0pt;">It is also important, particularly because it is often not done (likely due to a fear to show any weakness), to emphasize the negative, the limitations, with the positive. Theories describe more complex patterns than Laws: patterns which can interact with themselves and others. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the general way of saying that the effect of evolution is not consistent due to interactions between evolutionary forces and between evolution and other mechanisms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So, while the mechanism is always acting, its product can differ from what we would expect if only the mechanism of evolution was acting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is like cycling in the wind, if you keep pedaling in the same direction you will go a different distance or even a different direction depending on the strength and direction of the wind relative to you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is these interactions (statistically, both additive and interacting effects) which give Evolutionary Biologists like me something to do: we try to understand not only how evolution will act on a single trait or species but how evolution acting on multiple traits or species interact and how evolutionary mechanisms interact with other mechanisms and forces (e.g. population dynamics, migration, genetic drift, variation through time). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is all to say that while we may assume that the Theory of Evolution is true that does not mean that just because something is selected for by evolution it will exist. </div><h2> </h2><h2><u><b>Part 2: “Survival of the fittest”</b></u></h2><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The great beauty of the Theory of Evolution is that it is an amazingly simple process which leads to equally complex and far reaching results.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is this situation, though due to different reasons, that I choose to devote so much of my time to its study and that I am inspired to write this series.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The former is due to its power and in no small part to simply how my brain works: I am terrible at memorizing facts but good at making logical leaps. With a good understanding of evolution and a common level of knowledge of humans I can deduce something about almost any field involving living things (either as the subject, creator, or the participant) even though I may know very little. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The latter, my motivation for writing all this, is due to its simplicity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Theory of Evolution suffers from a “a little bit of information is a dangerous thing” problem: it is simple enough that anyone can understand the basic mechanism in a few minutes and influential enough that everyone should have an opinion on it but its application is far more complex that one would guess from a first glance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means that those opinions, whether correct or false, are often poorly justified (tangentially, while hopefully I will be more strongly justified I am still vulnerable to this when I speak beyond what I know from the scientific literature but that freedom is the point of this being a blog). So, at the risk of empowering more people with a little bit of knowledge here is the theory:<br />
<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> There are only three requirements for evolution by natural selection to occur: (a) variation among individuals, (b) differential survival/reproduction (fitness) correlated with these traits and (c) heritability of traits (children are similar to their parents). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Under these conditions the traits of the individuals in a population will change between generations, though as mentioned above the size or direction of change will, all else being equal, vary based on what other forces are also acting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you need evidence of (a) just go look out your window or check out the profile pictures on your Facebook page, the variation in this world, both between and within species is truly astonishing. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The evidence for (c) is equally obvious, particularly since the discovery of DNA, the medium of inheritance. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, while harder to observe in everyday life, I don’t think it is much of a stretch to ask you to assume that in most every population, some individuals produce more offspring than others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What it really comes down to when trying to decide if evolution will occur and how strong it will be is how well these requirements come together: whether the differential fitness of individuals is correlated with variation in heritable traits. Basically, does having a certain trait (or set of traits) make an individual more likely to have more offspring over their lifetime and are those offspring likely to have that trait as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The final thing I wish to clarify is what is meant by fitness in “survival of the fittest”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Above I mentioned “differential survival/reproduction” and “offspring over their lifetime”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What fitness means at its purest level is the rate at which an individual is able to propagate its genes into future generations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For species with fixed generation lengths, like annual plants, this simply means the number of offspring produced or, from a probability perspective, the probability of surviving times the number of offspring produced if you are fortunate enough to survive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Things get more complicated though if you don’t have a fixed generation length.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, if I have children who have their own children before my brother has his children then even if he has more offspring in then end than I do he may have a lower fitness than me since relative to him my grandchildren count towards my fitness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As such, different strategies can be used to achieve the same level of fitness. Evolutionary biologists simplify the recipes for these strategies by considering how an organism puts resources into the three mutually exclusive components of fitness: survival, growth, and reproduction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I find this is easiest to imagine as a game where you start off with a given number of turns and a given number resources per a turn and you want to collect points. Each turn, your resources can either be invested into buying more turns, increasing the number of resources per a turn, or converted into points.<br />
<br />
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> While this covers the basics of the Theory of Evolution, the last point highlights one idea which possibly shapes our lives more than any other, the concept of trade-offs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you want to invest more into survival you have to invest less in growth or reproduction, all else being equal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you want to spend time reading this blog you have to sacrifice time you could be doing something else. As economists say, there is no free lunch.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I bring this up not only because it is important that we always remember that every benefit has its cost, but because trade-offs have shaped how we think and interact and are at the root of why evolution has shaped us to naturally deny evolution as it pertains to us. </div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1