Evolved behaviour in humans

[SkepticLance]

The nature versus nurture argument about human behaviour has been going on for a long time. I have always thought that, as a general rule, purely as a mental tool, it is good to consider most human behaviours to be about 50:50 unless there is good data to show otherwise. This is not exact science, but the study of human behaviour is rarely exact science either. The 50:50 idea might be a useful mental tool though?

 

I have also thought that a good way to distinguish between human behaviour that is learned and that which is encoded in our genetic material is to see if it is universal or not. This tells us, for example, that the thumbs up sign is not instinctive, since it has different meanings for different cultures. However, a smile is totally universal, meaning pretty much the same thing everywhere you go, suggesting that the meaning behind a smile is genetic.

 

I came across a nice reference relating to this.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2008/08/080811200018.htm

 

Quote :

 

"The victory stance of a gold medalist and the slumped shoulders of a non-finalist are innate and biological rather than learned responses to success and failure, according to a University of British Columbia study using cross-cultural data gathered at the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games."

 

What do other people think about the relationship between cultural universality (or non universality) and behaviour being innate or learned?

[pioneer]

The psychologists Carl Jung developed the theory of archetypes. Using modern lingo, the archetypes are analogous to living personality software. The various levels are designed to interact with reality and collect data so they evolve. Within the small child there is basic form but little data. It is the innate learning capacity for a basic shell structure. This is analogous the nature aspect of the software. Culture and family provide the interactive data that builds upon this innate capacity to give it specific form.

 

Let me give a loose analogy. We start with a robot with learning software designed to gather data about trees. The starting program only has stick figures of basic tree patterns, very general, without any particular tree species or species variation in mind. The robot walks about, looking at a rock. It doesn't follow the basic template for this program, so it moves on. Next, it finds a pine tree. This satisfies the basic template, so it takes a picture to help refine the generic image. Both the generic and the refined image now exist as the same time, or nature and nurture. We learn at both a unconscious and conscious level.

 

This allows for two directions at the same time. It can still find maples trees to add to more detail to part of the stick figure templates or find variations in pine trees to add more detail to this possible variation: generalization-specialization. Often times, the cultural environment might be a forest of pine trees, where by default the data collection narrows into high pine tree resolution. The person who enters a more diverse forest may not obtain the same high singular resolution but may end up with fuzzier pictures of more tree variety. They are part of culture but not as singular fanatical.

 

In terms of personality software, the learning is often connected to innate human behavior. For example, falling in love. It is a very general human trait that is common to all and is part of the mating instinct. When one is younger, one is in a diverse forest where falling in and out of love allows diverse data collection. Marriage become the pine tree forest where culture teaches one to specialize. The result is uniform in many ways with respect to all humans, but specific due to unique data collection.

 

Humans have another feature, not found in animals, connected to the ego and will power. The analogy is the robot has its own unique autonomous programming and prime directive. But the ego has a remote control that can stir. Sometimes there can be conflict between the two, with the ego wishing to go left while the innate programming needs data from right. That is the normal human conflict between will, culture and nature. Animals don't have this problem since the software does all the stirring for them.

 

According to the work of Jung there are three basic levels of innate learning software, slightly different in men and women. The difference allows cross programming dynamics between men and women. This is where the learning software interacts with other learning software. We call it the battle of the sexes. An analogy is two robots, who are designed differently, but both have the prime directive to gather data about the other robot and integrate that into their own design. This learning changes their own parameters altering the data collection for the other robot, so they change, etc. But since there are many layers of software there are also nature and nurture occurring both in similar and opposite directions independent of this level of the software, bringing this into the software interaction. The brain or nature has it all coordinated, so nurture programming errors are not that large. But at times this can occur causing operational problems.

 

Medications can often be useful for operational problems. For example, if depression software is active, the proper med can close the program, so it is not reinforcing narrow data collection. The ego may not be able to stir the software out the dark forest. Once a new program comes on, maybe this one is collecting happy data. At that point, the ego doesn't mind following the prime directive of the software. It might be easier to stir or just follow the whims of the program.

[CDarwin]

The nature versus nurture argument about human behaviour has been going on for a long time. I have always thought that, as a general rule, purely as a mental tool, it is good to consider most human behaviours to be about 50:50 unless there is good data to show otherwise. This is not exact science, but the study of human behaviour is rarely exact science either. The 50:50 idea might be a useful mental tool though?

 

I have also thought that a good way to distinguish between human behaviour that is learned and that which is encoded in our genetic material is to see if it is universal or not. This tells us, for example, that the thumbs up sign is not instinctive, since it has different meanings for different cultures. However, a smile is totally universal, meaning pretty much the same thing everywhere you go, suggesting that the meaning behind a smile is genetic.

 

I came across a nice reference relating to this.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com:80/releases/2008/08/080811200018.htm

 

Quote :

 

"The victory stance of a gold medalist and the slumped shoulders of a non-finalist are innate and biological rather than learned responses to success and failure, according to a University of British Columbia study using cross-cultural data gathered at the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic Games."

 

What do other people think about the relationship between cultural universality (or non universality) and behaviour being innate or learned?

 

50/50 is more than inexact, though, it's totally artificial. You can't really put percentages on effects on human behavior, because 'nature' and 'nurture' involve different things. Biology provides tendencies, predispositions, and broad limits, while culture is an enormous force that not only involves discreet behaviors (like the thumbs up), but mediates biology, all experience, and even itself. So it's papaya and breadfruit, just a bit. Simple behaviors like facial expressions are relatively easy to say "oh, that's biological," but complex behaviors, not so much. And even with the smile, are there not subtle cultural differences that affect its meaning as well? In some circumstances in some cultures, smiling can be considered inappropriate or aggressive, where in others it would be perfectly normal.

[dichotomy]

I looked at the same article. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34626

I was interested in if they looked at sports itself as a subculture. The whole blind athlete thing didn't convince me at all.

 

Behaviour is both innate and learned. To what percentage? who know? To really prove cultural universality of behaviour you would probably need to compare it with a tribe of people living on the moon.

Behaviours that seem to be universal to my eyes are fear and ecstasy. I'm sure that there are heaps that are unique to a culture.

[SkepticLance]

Dichotomy

As you said, behaviour is both innate and learned. It is interesting to try to determine which is which. In spite of what CDarwin said, I am convinced the human smile is universal and represents a behaviour that is innate. If I give a friendly smile, it is perceived as such whether I am in Beijing, Greenland, Timbuktu or New York. The universality of the behaviour makes it rather probably that this is innate.

 

There have been numerous experiments comparing male and female behaviours. Many of them are universal, and appear at a very young age. This suggests that they are encoded in our genes.

 

Trying to determine percentages is probably futile. I regard untested behaviours as probably 50:50, but this is merely a way of looking at it, and proper testing would change that view.

[dichotomy]

Dichotomy

In spite of what CDarwin said, I am convinced the human smile is universal and represents a behaviour that is innate. If I give a friendly smile, it is perceived as such whether I am in Beijing, Greenland, Timbuktu or New York. The universality of the behaviour makes it rather probably that this is innate.

 

Well, laughter and smiling are thought to stems from nervous reations (If I recall correctly), which takes us back to the fear response. So I can see that smiling can be universal. But as CDawin said, a smile can mean, 'I'm about to knock your teeth out', too. Depending on context.

[PhDP]

50/50 is more than inexact, though, it's totally artificial. You can't really put percentages on effects on human behavior, because 'nature' and 'nurture' involve different things.

 

Sure we can, it's called heritability; the ratio of the genetic variance of a phenotype to the total phenotypic variance of that phenotype. We can estimate heritability from the simplest behaviors (interest in alcohol) to the more complex ones (political affiliations).

[iNow]

We can estimate heritability from the simplest behaviors (interest in alcohol) to the more complex ones (political affiliations).

 

I'd be curious to see what studies have been able to link political affiliation to genetics. Do you have any specifics on that?

[PhDP]

I'd be curious to see what studies have been able to link political affiliation to genetics. Do you have any specifics on that?

 

Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, John R. Hibbing. 2005. Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2): 1‐15.

 

Of course, it was not very well received by social scientists.

[iNow]

Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, John R. Hibbing. 2005. Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2): 1‐15.

 

Of course, it was not very well received by social scientists.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

 

 

http://www.apsanet.org/imgtest/GeneticsAPSR0505.pdf

If, as our results suggest, there is a genetic basis for the varying political views people hold, and if, as seems probable, genetic transmission frequently affects clusters of political attitudes,we are likely to observe broad but distinct political phenotypes. The number of these phenotypes may vary, but for purposes of illustration we discuss two probable orientations. One is characterized by a relatively strong suspicion of out-groups (e.g., immigrants), a yearning for in-group unity and strong leadership, especially if there is an out-group threat (“Do not question the President while we are at war with terrorists”), a desire for clear, unbending moral and behavioral codes (strict constructionists), a fondness for swift and severe punishment for violations of this code (the death penalty), a fondness for systematization (procedural due process), a willingness to tolerate inequality (opposition to redistributive policies),and an inherently pessimistic view of human nature (life is “nasty, brutish, and short”).

 

The other phenotype is characterized by relatively tolerant attitudes toward out-groups, a desire to take a more context-dependent rather than rule-based approach to proper behavior (substantive due process), an inherently optimistic view of human nature (people should be given the benefit of the doubt), a distaste for preset punishments (mitigating circumstances), a preference for group togetherness but not necessarily unity (“We can all get along even though we are quite different”), suspicion of hierarchy, certainty, and strong leadership (flip-flopping is not a character flaw), an aversion to inequality (e.g., support for a graduated income tax), and greater general empathic tendencies (rehabilitate, don’t punish).

 

Common political usage would call the first phenotype conservative and the second liberal, but we seek phrases that are less connected to political ideologies and that indicate that these two phenotypes run to the very orientation of people to society, leadership, knowledge, group life, and the human condition. Thus, we label the first “absolutist” and the second “contextualist.” This fundamental dimension offers a credible precursor to basic cleavages manifested in a broad range of human social activity: politics (conservatives/liberals), religion (fundamentalists/secular humanists), law (procedural/substantive due process), education (phonics/whole language), art (traditional form-based realism/modern free-form impressionism), sports (football/frisbee), medicine (traditional AMA/wholistic), morality (enduring standards/situational ethics), andscientific inquiry (formal/empirical). In our view, all of these vexing perennial dichotomies are related cultural expressions of a deep-seated genetic divide in human behavioral predispositions and capabilities.We certainly are not asserting that everyone holds one of these two orientations. Even if the individual genes involved with absolutism or contextualism tend to move together, this does not mean they always do. Some individuals may carry, say, an absolutist’s aversion to out-groups but a contextualist’s rejection of a universalistic behavioral code. Moreover, genes not included in these central packages, perhaps those related to extroversion, ambition, and intelligence, often muddy the waters.

 

More importantly, let us not forget that a heritable component of 50% for political ideology and probably somewhat higher for the absolutist-contextualist dimension still leaves plenty of opportunity for the environment to alter attitudes and behaviors—–and even orientation.

[CDarwin]

Alford, John R., Carolyn L. Funk, John R. Hibbing. 2005. Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted? American Political Science Review, 99(2): 1‐15.

 

Of course, it was not very well received by social scientists.

 

What I've read about that paper (haven't read it, I admit) it seems to me like they just defined "conservative" or "liberal" as a certain set of personality traits, then found the genetic basis of those personality traits. Doesn't seem that earth-shattering to me, and the obvious weak-point is there association of character traits with political orientation. But, haven't read the real paper. I do like the idea of sticking it to political scientists, who do rely way too much on untested 18th century philosophical concepts.

 

 

 

And I think you missed my point when you talked about heredity. Let's take dancing, for example. The existence of dancing is practically a cultural universal, so we can safely say it has a biological basis. But how do you measure variation of dancing in any quantitative way? It not only varies culturally, in set styles, but individually through different interpretations. And what influences interpretation? Culture again. That was really my point. When you have culture mediating biology, then culture mediating the mediation of biology, how can you put a percentage on the relative influence of the two on a behavior?

[PhDP]

CDarwin,

 

What I've read about that paper (haven't read it, I admit) it seems to me like they just defined "conservative" or "liberal" as a certain set of personality traits, then found the genetic basis of those personality traits. Doesn't seem that earth-shattering to me, and the obvious weak-point is there association of character traits with political orientation.

 

Earth shattering ? No, not really. But it's important to remember that heritability is often very high even for things we tend to attribute to cultural influences. I guess most people would think their environment had a much stronger influence on their political philosophy than their genes, but it's not that clear. At the very least, heritability for political affiliations is high enough that we can't ignore it.

 

Also, some personality traits are strongly related to political affiliations, "openness" is the perfect example.

 

And I think you missed my point when you talked about heredity.

 

And I think you missed my point

 

Let's take dancing, for example. But how do you measure variation of dancing in any quantitative way? It not only varies culturally, in set styles, but individually through different interpretations. And what influences interpretation? Culture again. That was really my point. When you have culture mediating biology, then culture mediating the mediation of biology, how can you put a percentage on the relative influence of the two on a behavior?

 

We're talking about nurture v. nature, so the question is; how much variation can be explained by genes, how much can be explained by the environment. It's the basis of quantitative genetics, one of the foundation of modern evolutionary biology; heritability. If you can quantify phenotypic variations, then you can use quantitative genetics to estimate the % of this variation which is caused by genes.

 

You talk about dancing, I think we can put a % on this. Why not ? We could study variations in style between cultures (heritability is probably 0 in this case), variations within a culture, for example how often will someone dance, what kind of dances, et cetera... I cannot really understand why you think we can't put a % on this, especially if you believe in evolution.

 

When you talk about culture or interpretations, in the eye of quantitative genetics it's the same thing as any other variation in the environment, it's no different than the temperature of water or the density of a predator.

[CDarwin]

When you talk about culture or interpretations, in the eye of quantitative genetics it's the same thing as any other variation in the environment, it's no different than the temperature of water or the density of a predator.

 

Except that culture is dynamic and unpredictable in its effects. I doesn't seem that it can be just one set part of the puzzle. The problem isn't pinning down the genetics, it's pinning down the social effects.

 

Start with the biological trait, dancing. How you dance will be cultural, we'll say. But there might also be a why you dance, which would also be cultural, and effect how you dance. Then there's when you dance, if you dance singly in a group, and all of these cultural decisions will effect the behavior of dancing. And none of those decisions are final or determinative. Some individuals will take their own cultural experiences (perhaps some have a greater affinity for American rap music that the rest of the group, or what-ever) and that too will effect their dancing.

 

But I guess I'm beginning to see what you mean. I just don't understand genetics enough to know how to mathemetize all of that, but I suppose it cane be done. With complex behaviors with multiple biological and cultural motives like dancing or say, voting, it must get daunting, though.

[PhDP]

CDarwin,

 

Except that culture is dynamic and unpredictable in its effects. I doesn't seem that it can be just one set part of the puzzle. The problem isn't pinning down the genetics, it's pinning down the social effects.

 

The notion that culture is somewhat different from the other forces in nature is, IMO, completely wrong. Predators are also unpredictable, their density fluctuate, sometime wildly, and they evolve.

 

Also, the funny thing with quantitative genetics is that you don't need to know anything about the genes or about the influences from the environment. Information is obtained by studying relatives, twins, ...

 

Start with the biological trait, dancing.

 

We get it; you like to dance.

 

But the fact is, I'm sure quantitative genetics could be used to study dancing, we could try to see, well, if heredity affects the type of dance preferred, the average number of time someone dance in a year, et cetera... Sometime the conclusion will be that heredity has very little effect, but we never know until we try.

 

I'm not specialized in quantitative genetics, but it's pretty impressive, it can solve problems from agriculture to paleontology. It's really a shame that so few social scientists know about it.