The big buzz these days is that the Mayan calendar ends in December of 2012. Logically, this means the world is coming to an end. There's even a movie about it, which makes it even more convincing. However, seeing as the calendar on my wall ends in 2 months, I'm not even sure we'll make it to next year! If we do, I have a good plan for when the world actually ends...
The wonderful thing about humanity is that, even in the face of impending doom, we see opportunities. Services that promise to take care of your pets and deliver your mail after the rapture whisks you off to heaven certainly have the right idea. What I'm most looking forward to in 2012 are the End of the World parties. If I'm not single when I get to the party, I'll be single by the time I leave. If I leave.
What can we expect? Debauchery like there's no tomorrow. In fact, if I don't have sex with at least 5 different people by the end of the night, I'll probably feel like the world deserves to end. We're talking leave-your-reputation-at-the-door no-dignity hedonism. The only dilemma at that point is whether to use a condom or not. No hero wants to go down with his jacket on.
My only worry is the possibility of some nutbag who wants to call it an early existence and take a few people with him. Dude, I'm not your friend and I'm not going to join you. At least not before I get my rocks off. If we're really determined to go out on our own terms, you'll find us after the party, sprawled naked on the carpet after huffing nitrous oxide.
RSVP.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Evolution and Our Thought Process
A common way for scientists to describe evolution and adaptation is to assign a purpose for the various features and behaviors that animals possess. For example: An anteater's long snout evolved to allow it access to out-of-the-way areas where its food lives. This wording insinuates that the animal evolved along a path, a direction, a plan. We also tend to mention that the goal of nature is survival, as if nature itself has an intelligent purpose. Remember, though, that species go extinct just as they survive; through the adaptations that either succeed or fail to prepare them for their ever-changing environment. It is important for scientists to remember this distinction when describing nature because the example above is not accurate for evolution; it suggests intelligent design.
Evolution, as we know, describes a series of random variations and mutations that take dominance over thousands of generations within every life form. Organisms that multiply very quickly, like viruses and bacteria, seem to evolve much faster because we can observe it right before our eyes. Meanwhile animals whose generations span many years appear to us as running in place. This distortion makes evolution difficult to grasp for many people who simply cannot imagine their future progeny, millions of years from now, with giant heads or tentacle fingers because they cannot see any difference in their ancestors. Part of the problem is our tendency to justify things or events with a reason for their happening; we are not happy just accepting happenstance as a result of random chance. It does not give our lives much meaning or context.
Looking at the adaptations we see today, it is hard to imagine that we are here right now as a result of purely random circumstance. Take syphilis as an example; with the advent of antibiotics, this strain of bacteria would certainly not survive today if it still worked like it used to 400 years ago. Back then, you would develop hideous boils on your face as a mark of your infection. In addition to hampering its carrier's mating agenda, syphilis can easily be treated with modern medicine. So, what does it do? It goes hidden. Today's strains of syphilis have subtle symptoms that are not easily detected. This allows the bacteria to spread amongst unaware sexual partners. Now, the idea that syphilis' adaptation was guided by some intelligence would certainly have a little clout if not for the fact that many other strains of bacteria have faded from existence in the same time span as a direct result of their own "adaptations."
Can organisms without self-awareness or technology evolve in directions that they intend? Is there intelligence or choice involved in the existence of the species that are alive today, or is this all a function of circumstance? Its easy to look back at history and say, "Everything that has happened thus far was necessary for this very moment to occur." This is true and it depends on your belief in whether an invisible guiding hand exists or not to answer the questions. This kind of thinking is unique to humans.
The larger fallacy at hand here is our present-to-past view of our world. Being naturally self-serving animals, humans possess intelligence that coddles their sense of importance. We often forget that intelligence is only a function of a large brain, subject to its own design flaws (as explained by the field of behavioral economics). These flaws influence us to create justifications for things that happened in the past as part of a scheme, possibly because our sense of worth has outgrown the reality of our existence. It is easy to look at something that has happened and then come up with evidence for why it did. Isn't it strange, though, that with everything we know about the past, we still cannot predict the future?
Think of predicting the future as preventing it from even happening. If one person knew the secret to stock market success, others would follow and soon the financial environment would normalize around it. If we could predict 9/11 (conspiracy not withstanding) then we would have been able to prevent it. Since it did happen, we look back and piece together all the reasons why, as if they'll help us moving forward. The problem here is that we are using what we know as a gauge for what is possible. That is, until something else comes along and exploits what we don't know; another attack, or the recent shootings at Fort Hood. Then we'll start the justification process all over again, hoping for the best. We are not comfortable considering it's likely that what we don't know far outweighs what we do.
I ask you what is more valuable: a shelf full of books that you've read, or one full of books you haven't?
Evolution, as we know, describes a series of random variations and mutations that take dominance over thousands of generations within every life form. Organisms that multiply very quickly, like viruses and bacteria, seem to evolve much faster because we can observe it right before our eyes. Meanwhile animals whose generations span many years appear to us as running in place. This distortion makes evolution difficult to grasp for many people who simply cannot imagine their future progeny, millions of years from now, with giant heads or tentacle fingers because they cannot see any difference in their ancestors. Part of the problem is our tendency to justify things or events with a reason for their happening; we are not happy just accepting happenstance as a result of random chance. It does not give our lives much meaning or context.
Looking at the adaptations we see today, it is hard to imagine that we are here right now as a result of purely random circumstance. Take syphilis as an example; with the advent of antibiotics, this strain of bacteria would certainly not survive today if it still worked like it used to 400 years ago. Back then, you would develop hideous boils on your face as a mark of your infection. In addition to hampering its carrier's mating agenda, syphilis can easily be treated with modern medicine. So, what does it do? It goes hidden. Today's strains of syphilis have subtle symptoms that are not easily detected. This allows the bacteria to spread amongst unaware sexual partners. Now, the idea that syphilis' adaptation was guided by some intelligence would certainly have a little clout if not for the fact that many other strains of bacteria have faded from existence in the same time span as a direct result of their own "adaptations."
Can organisms without self-awareness or technology evolve in directions that they intend? Is there intelligence or choice involved in the existence of the species that are alive today, or is this all a function of circumstance? Its easy to look back at history and say, "Everything that has happened thus far was necessary for this very moment to occur." This is true and it depends on your belief in whether an invisible guiding hand exists or not to answer the questions. This kind of thinking is unique to humans.
The larger fallacy at hand here is our present-to-past view of our world. Being naturally self-serving animals, humans possess intelligence that coddles their sense of importance. We often forget that intelligence is only a function of a large brain, subject to its own design flaws (as explained by the field of behavioral economics). These flaws influence us to create justifications for things that happened in the past as part of a scheme, possibly because our sense of worth has outgrown the reality of our existence. It is easy to look at something that has happened and then come up with evidence for why it did. Isn't it strange, though, that with everything we know about the past, we still cannot predict the future?
Think of predicting the future as preventing it from even happening. If one person knew the secret to stock market success, others would follow and soon the financial environment would normalize around it. If we could predict 9/11 (conspiracy not withstanding) then we would have been able to prevent it. Since it did happen, we look back and piece together all the reasons why, as if they'll help us moving forward. The problem here is that we are using what we know as a gauge for what is possible. That is, until something else comes along and exploits what we don't know; another attack, or the recent shootings at Fort Hood. Then we'll start the justification process all over again, hoping for the best. We are not comfortable considering it's likely that what we don't know far outweighs what we do.
I ask you what is more valuable: a shelf full of books that you've read, or one full of books you haven't?
Monday, November 2, 2009
Dolphins Offer a Glimpse Into Brain Evolution
It is common knowledge that dolphins, apart from humans, are the smartest animals that we know of. They are the only other self-aware life form and they're cute, to boot. Every time I read about dolphins, I get excited to learn about how close to humans they really are. They possess learning skills similar to us, they use tools and mimicry, understand language and they can even negotiate. It sort of makes me wish I had one as a friend. Because of their intelligence, they can be seen as a link in the evolution of brain capabilities. There is a correlation in the relationship between brain size and body size that dolphins fit into quite well; humans have the largest brains in comparison with the size of their bodies, followed by dolphins and then chimpanzees.
When it comes to the evolution of human brains, they've progressively gotten larger and larger. This makes a lot of sense because the smarter we are, the more capable we are of adapting. Let's assume that dolphins are also following this evolutionary trend. Barring any catastrophes that devastate either humans or dolphins from the planet, the next 30 million years should be very interesting. Imagine a world where there are two different forms of highly intelligent life. Will the dolphins rule the sea the way we rule the land?
Here is a link to a very entertaining article about dolphins: Why dolphins are deep thinkers.
Here are a few excerpts:
When it comes to the evolution of human brains, they've progressively gotten larger and larger. This makes a lot of sense because the smarter we are, the more capable we are of adapting. Let's assume that dolphins are also following this evolutionary trend. Barring any catastrophes that devastate either humans or dolphins from the planet, the next 30 million years should be very interesting. Imagine a world where there are two different forms of highly intelligent life. Will the dolphins rule the sea the way we rule the land?
Here is a link to a very entertaining article about dolphins: Why dolphins are deep thinkers.
Here are a few excerpts:
Kelly has taken this task one step further. When people drop paper into the water she hides it under a rock at the bottom of the pool. The next time a trainer passes, she goes down to the rock and tears off a piece of paper to give to the trainer. After a fish reward, she goes back down, tears off another piece of paper, gets another fish, and so on....
One day, when a gull flew into her pool, she grabbed it, waited for the trainers and then gave it to them. It was a large bird and so the trainers gave her lots of fish. This seemed to give Kelly a new idea. The next time she was fed, instead of eating the last fish, she took it to the bottom of the pool and hid it under the rock where she had been hiding the paper. When no trainers were present, she brought the fish to the surface and used it to lure the gulls, which she would catch to get even more fish. After mastering this lucrative strategy, she taught her calf, who taught other calves, and so gull-baiting has become a hot game among the dolphins....
Scientists have observed a dolphin coaxing a reluctant moray eel out of its crevice by killing a scorpion fish and using its spiny body to poke at the eel. Off the western coast of Australia, bottlenose dolphins place sponges over their snouts, which protects them from the spines of stonefish and stingrays as they forage over shallow seabeds....
At a dolphinarium, a person standing by the pool's window noticed that a dolphin calf was watching him. When he released a puff of smoke from his cigarette, the dolphin immediately swam off to her mother, returned and released a mouthful of milk, causing a similar effect to the cigarette smoke. Another dolphin mimicked the scraping of the pool's observation window by a diver, even copying the sound of the air-demand valve of the scuba gear while releasing a stream of bubbles from his blowhole.Be sure to read the whole thing. It is quite enlightening and might make you wonder about the possibilities. It only frustrates me on one little level: I am very saddened by the knowledge that I wont be alive for the next 30 million years so that I can watch the dolphins evolve into the next intelligent species.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Responses to 7 Arguments Against Net Neutrality
This list contains simplified versions of the many different tactics people use in order to combat the concept of Net Neutrality. I've written previously about the topic of Net Neutrality and why it is necessary, but I was unprepared for opposition because I figured that people would understand and sympathize with me. This time I won't be so optimistic. I have been reading many discussions on the internet lately where people are debating the topic of Net Neutrality and it astounds me to see the amount of misinformation being passed around. It's lesson time:
Claim 1: Net Neutrality is a ploy by the Obama administration to control the internet.
Using this argument means you're aware of a proposal given earlier this month by the FCC to enforce Net Neutrality. There is absolutely nothing in the proposal that purports any sort of control of the internet. It was drafted with 6 tenets (listed in a previous blog entry) that were very clear about one purpose: keeping the internet free of influence from the ISPs that support it. As of now, we have not seen any legislature to determine what the "hidden agenda" of the Obama administration is. The FCC drafted the proposal and then handed it off to lawmakers to create the actual policy. Once that comes out, we will be able to make accurate judgments. Until then, this claim is blind speculation and blatant disinformation. It is an attempt to kill a motion before it can even be brought before the public.
Just so that we're clear: the only bill that has been proposed so far is John McCain's. It is a preemptive strike (a Republican specialty) against a threat that doesn't exist. It uses a straw-man argument to push the agendas of the only entities that could conceivably be opposed to the concept of Net Neutrality: corporate ISPs. The FCC proposals are guidelines and requests for legislature that has yet to be drafted. It is blatantly irresponsible to speculate on the terms of the bills that they will spawn. Jon McCain's bill, if passed before any of the resulting legislature is voted on, would prevent their necessity, which would be a shame for democratic discourse.
Claim 2: Some websites are more expensive to surf than others.
It is astounding how many people actually believe this argument and as a technology expert, I see it as my job to set the record straight. Take it from someone who has worked as a network engineer: high bandwidth sites such as Hulu and YouTube are not more expensive for you to surf. Data transfer restrictions are a function of an ISP's lack of infrastructure. In more technologically advanced countries like Finland, data transfer is not even measured for the purpose of charging or limiting. Rather, connections are charged based on their maximum throughput rates. In other words, you pay rent based on the size of your apartment, not how much crap you keep inside of it. Finland, by the way, is a socialist country and has one of the lowest cost-per-megabit rates in the world.
Claim 3: People in favor if Net Neutrality are government-loving sheep.
It is unfair to tie people who are informed about what Net Neutrality is together with people who actually believe John McCain's claims. I am willing to wager that 99% of everyone who is in favor of Net Neutrality also opposes government control of the internet. It is unfortunate that opposing John McCain's insidiously named "Internet Freedom Act" suddenly means you're FOR what he's going against. As explained in my response to Claim #1, John McCain's argument is a straw-man. He's basically arguing against an opinion that doesn't exist. Besides, you don't want to use this argument because by inversion, it means you're an unpaid pro-corporation shill.
I also feel that the term "Net Neutrality" is being purposefully dragged through the mud by using this argument. For veterans of the internet like myself, Net Neutrality has always meant ONE THING: equal access rights for all. By using disinformative straw-men to attack the wrong argument, further meanings have gotten attached to the term: pro-government, freeloader, Obama-apologist. Net Neutrality has never meant anything more than equal access rights. Please don't hijack an established term in order to turn its long-time supporters into something they are NOT.
Claim 4: Competition will ensure better quality and more innovation.
Before anyone can claim this, they should first be able to prove that the US infrastructure can surpass the capabilities of other countries. Once again, look at countries like Finland or even Japan to see what is possible with internet connectivity. Their superior connection speeds were not achieved through competition but by public funding. The corporations in the US are fat and lazy, perhaps because they are used to responding more to competition than user demands. This does not mean that creating a competitive market is the best thing to do. Rather, splitting up the giant corporations into smaller, more agile companies seems like it would be much better for consumers.
Claim 5: The Internet runs on private lines that belong to ISPs, they should be able to manage their networks how they like.
The internet would not exist without public funding and the allowed use of public land. It is not a stretch to require companies that utilize public land to act on good faith for the people. Furthermore, ISPs are compensated for the use of their networks by subscribers, governments and competitors already. Net Neutrality would not dictate how to manage a network beyond very simple guidelines to protect YOU (the consumer) from being screwed over. Why would you oppose this?
My friend Dan put it much more eloquently than I can: If you're against Net Neutrality then you must really like getting (bleep) raped. The government is trying to protect your virgin (bleep) on this one, and because it's the government doing it, you're saying, "How dare you intrude in the right of that company to bend me over and shove its massive throbbing corporate (bleep) into my unlubricated (bleep)!"
Claim 6: Users can "vote with their wallet" if an ISP steps out of line.
There are many things wrong with this statement. First, as anyone who has lived in multiple cities can tell you that there are areas where there is only one choice of ISP. Second, an ISP's power over traffic is not limited to its subscribers; any traffic traveling through its network is subject to its rules. So, you can be subscribed through one of the good guys, but your data packets still need to make their journey through the interconnected networks, dodging around obstacles and barriers put up by the bad ISPs. This results in a slower internet experience no matter how fast you can download. The only way to ensure low latency and high speeds is to enforce cooperation between all ISP entities.
Claim 7: Internet access is a luxury, not a necessity.
This is capitalism at its worst. Countries in Europe have already declared that broadband Internet access is a basic human right. This is the direction where we should be headed. If you don't believe as much, I can't change your mind.
(Addendum: Added Nov 03)
Claim 8: Given a free market, new technologies will arise that make Net Neutrality concerns obsolete.
It is certainly true that necessity is the mother of invention, but that doesn't mean that inventions arrive in a timely fashion. Is it really necessary to destroy what we have if only to eventually come up with something better? To compound this, the concept of circumventing the current network structure is a tall order. Free markets only work if there is a realistic point of entry for all parties. In this case, you can forget the possibility of a dark horse coming out of nowhere to revolutionize the Internet. If we do get a challenger, it will come in the form of a heavy player from the software industry: possibly Google or Microsoft. Either way, it is more corporatism.
(Addendum: Added Nov 03)
Claim 8: Given a free market, new technologies will arise that make Net Neutrality concerns obsolete.
It is certainly true that necessity is the mother of invention, but that doesn't mean that inventions arrive in a timely fashion. Is it really necessary to destroy what we have if only to eventually come up with something better? To compound this, the concept of circumventing the current network structure is a tall order. Free markets only work if there is a realistic point of entry for all parties. In this case, you can forget the possibility of a dark horse coming out of nowhere to revolutionize the Internet. If we do get a challenger, it will come in the form of a heavy player from the software industry: possibly Google or Microsoft. Either way, it is more corporatism.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Through the Hue of Your You-Colored Lens
Disinformation: A brand of information, not necessarily false, but rather misleading, misplaced, irrelevant, incomplete or superficial. It creates an illusion of knowing something while it actually leads one away from knowing.
When you think about it, information is fairly subjective these days. Every news source and every blog has a different perspective and you get to decide which source you're going to listen to. Even when you venture to read a story from a different source than your usual, its conflicting point of view forces you to make up your mind about if what you're reading is true, or at the very least consciously re-balance its terminology against its background politics. As our world becomes saturated with information, a battle for your trust in intellectual authority has begun. What's most disturbing is that truth is not important anymore. Instead, the vendors of our information's context use other appeal to help you digest their branded message. This all happens completely apart from reality. This is the age of the Internet.
You too can have your opinions heard on this network of nearly infinite reach. With not even a certification to your name, you can reach out to thousands of people. High tide has come and the flood of democratic Internet participation has begun crashing through the levies and sandbag walls. And as the waters of free, unencumbered speech carry us into the streets where only experts once walked, we pierce the air with our rallying cry: Democracy to information! We extol our wisdom, adding that we are not professionals, but we did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the previous night.
The masses now control the truth. It is said that he who wins the war writes the book, but the war is just a matter of which web address you type into your browser. With democratized content, users decide what gets seen and what gets buried; what gets shared and what gets ignored. Depending on what site you visit, you get a different story. Entire representations of opinions can simply starve to death on social news sites, which give their users the power to make dissenting points of view vanish from consideration with a single click. The result is myopic tunnel vision, the perpetuation of unchecked conviction, and a cage match between back-patting and debate. In by the good graces of the predictable social media public, all information associated with a favorite subject is on the fast track to recognition with little check for sincerity or validity. The information is not the goal; your attention is.
In 2003, FOX News argued in court for its first amendment right to report lies and misinformation. It won. Corporate news entertainment has disenchanted us and driven us into the arms of independent, unchecked and volatile quasi-information pumped out in droves by blogs across the expanse of social media. This stupidity can result in a loss of $4 billion off one corporation’s market cap because of an unchecked newsletter commenting on a bogus internal missive. It can also contribute to the loss of a primary election due to unverified claims of party infidelity. When the mission is to be the first to break a story rather than be accurate, mistakes made by the forerunners are perpetuated by the stragglers and nobody apologizes.
Is this where the future is headed? News that was designed to be shouted back at? Go on, give your opinion, they'll run a supplemental piece on it. This all isn't to say that news has ever been exactly what we want it to be, but there does not seem to be any noticeable movement in the right direction. At the moment, we are reveling in the sound of our collected voice. We are patting ourselves on the back, acknowledging the freedom of expression, unburdened by the presence of the truth. We would like to believe that we are champions of revolution, but we're not changing anything. Rather, we are clearing more ground for the battle of ideologies to rage on.
When you think about it, information is fairly subjective these days. Every news source and every blog has a different perspective and you get to decide which source you're going to listen to. Even when you venture to read a story from a different source than your usual, its conflicting point of view forces you to make up your mind about if what you're reading is true, or at the very least consciously re-balance its terminology against its background politics. As our world becomes saturated with information, a battle for your trust in intellectual authority has begun. What's most disturbing is that truth is not important anymore. Instead, the vendors of our information's context use other appeal to help you digest their branded message. This all happens completely apart from reality. This is the age of the Internet.
You too can have your opinions heard on this network of nearly infinite reach. With not even a certification to your name, you can reach out to thousands of people. High tide has come and the flood of democratic Internet participation has begun crashing through the levies and sandbag walls. And as the waters of free, unencumbered speech carry us into the streets where only experts once walked, we pierce the air with our rallying cry: Democracy to information! We extol our wisdom, adding that we are not professionals, but we did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the previous night.
The masses now control the truth. It is said that he who wins the war writes the book, but the war is just a matter of which web address you type into your browser. With democratized content, users decide what gets seen and what gets buried; what gets shared and what gets ignored. Depending on what site you visit, you get a different story. Entire representations of opinions can simply starve to death on social news sites, which give their users the power to make dissenting points of view vanish from consideration with a single click. The result is myopic tunnel vision, the perpetuation of unchecked conviction, and a cage match between back-patting and debate. In by the good graces of the predictable social media public, all information associated with a favorite subject is on the fast track to recognition with little check for sincerity or validity. The information is not the goal; your attention is.
In 2003, FOX News argued in court for its first amendment right to report lies and misinformation. It won. Corporate news entertainment has disenchanted us and driven us into the arms of independent, unchecked and volatile quasi-information pumped out in droves by blogs across the expanse of social media. This stupidity can result in a loss of $4 billion off one corporation’s market cap because of an unchecked newsletter commenting on a bogus internal missive. It can also contribute to the loss of a primary election due to unverified claims of party infidelity. When the mission is to be the first to break a story rather than be accurate, mistakes made by the forerunners are perpetuated by the stragglers and nobody apologizes.
Is this where the future is headed? News that was designed to be shouted back at? Go on, give your opinion, they'll run a supplemental piece on it. This all isn't to say that news has ever been exactly what we want it to be, but there does not seem to be any noticeable movement in the right direction. At the moment, we are reveling in the sound of our collected voice. We are patting ourselves on the back, acknowledging the freedom of expression, unburdened by the presence of the truth. We would like to believe that we are champions of revolution, but we're not changing anything. Rather, we are clearing more ground for the battle of ideologies to rage on.
Monday, October 26, 2009
10 Things You Didn't Know About Sexual Biology (Couples Edition)
Attraction is often a tricky concept to corner. Some people look to the stars. Some people play mind games. Some people just snap together like Legos. As the process of courtship goes, our emotions for each other grow and our economical evaluations about one another blur into feelings until one day we find ourselves with a home in the suburbs and a little crying baby in our lap. At many points along that line, we reminisce about all the things that drew us together in the first place: the racing heart when he introduced himself, her exhilarating scent, the wild stay-up-all-night sex, the realization that nobody could ever replace the other. We call it magic, but nature can be seen hard at work at every stage, doing its best to make sure we end up with the right person so that we can raise a smart, healthy family. And you were about to claim all the credit yourself...
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 10 things you did not know about sexual attraction:
1. Being in love with someone reduces the appeal of other potential partners1. Nature uses love as a tool to ensure that relationships last beyond courtship and mating, into and past the child-rearing phase. To test this out, a study was done to measure the pull that committed individuals felt toward other people of various levels of attraction. Subjects in two test groups were first primed to think about either extreme happiness or about their love for their partners. Next, both groups were subjected to rapid-fire bursts of images depicting very attractive people and normal-looking people. The researchers measured the reactions of both groups and concluded that the group primed to think about happiness paid the same amount of attention to the attractive and normal-looking photos, while the group that was primed to think about their love paid substantially less attention to the attractive photos. The reminder of their feelings for someone made them oblivious to the attraction of other romances. Knowing this, let's not jump to the conclusion that love is all we need. There are many other factors that go into attraction...
2. Your immune system determines how much you are attracted to someone else2. Here comes the science. It all begins with your personal scent; your aromatic essence. Your immune system creates proteins that your body uses and then secretes through your sweat glands. Bacteria on the surface of your skin then break down the proteins and this turns into your own signature perfume. On the receiving end, we find the aroma of compatible immune systems pleasing. If the other person's immune system is diverse enough to yours, your children will grow up with the benefit of a wider variety of resistances. (If you're wondering how that works genetically, it is because the immune system genes can be co-expressed.) There is no ideal scent because we all have a different immune system and this does a bit to level the playing field for everyone who isn't Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie.
To explain this point further, it should be noted that similar immune systems discourage each other from bonding. As we know, siblings mating together can result in the passage of recessive genetic defects and weakened immune systems. Even in non-related couples with similar immune systems, the occurrence of cheating increases with the percent of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes that the two people share3.
3. Gay men enjoy the scent of other gay men, but not of straight men. Talk about gay-dar. This was tested in a blind study where natural scents were collected from 4 groups of subjects: heterosexual men, homosexual men, heterosexual women, and homosexual women. Each individual scent sample was combined with the others of their group to create a generic example scent representing the sexual orientation. The second stage of the experiment had other members of those 4 groups actually smelling the combined samples. The results of their sniffing: "Heterosexual men, heterosexual females, and lesbians preferred odors from heterosexual males over odors from gay males; gay males preferred odors from other gay males4." Another interesting result was that gay males preferred odors from straight women over straight men. This provides some solid evidence of homosexuality being a natural occurrence, but unfortunately the people who refute that don't listen to science in the first place.
4. Babies can evaluate attractiveness, even at under a week old5. Beauty is not always in the eye of the beholder. Nature has a fairly simple standard of eligibility: symmetry. Even birds with more symmetrical tail features get more action than those with physical quirks. These values are not learned, either; they are evident within us as soon as we're born. In an experiment, researchers first had adults rate pictures of people based on their attractiveness, then they presented these pictures to newborn infants. The babies spent much more time looking at the attractive pictures than the less appealing ones. This still does not explain why Oscar the Grouch is so popular.
5. Women have more orgasms with men who have symmetrical bodies6. As with babies liking more symmetrical (thus more attractive) faces, it should be noted that attractive men are more suitable mates. As uneasy as that sounds, a simple survey was done that found 60% of women had orgasms with their partners, but among the respondents whose partners were more symmetrical, the rate was 75%. Those with more asymmetrical partners? 30%. We're not saying that symmetry is the only factor here, but it is an indicator of the many other qualities that go into evolutionary eligibility. For starters, an attractive male is more likely to be confident and more dominant, and that plays into lovemaking considerably. To compound matters further, orgasms help women feel more attached to their partners. Bachelors: you're playing with fire when you tease the orgasm god.
6. Looking an attractive person in the eye makes the brain anticipate a reward7. We've all felt that thrill when our eyes meet those of a really hot woman or man. We know it is a bit of anxiety, but what kind exactly? I would say it is a lot closer to watching your bowling ball roll down the lane than, say, the first day of school. The ventral striatum is an area of the brain that starts to spark when a reward is expected. This is the area that scientists notice gets a lot of play when people look at others who are attractive to them. The potential for social interaction gives the brain a little push forward. This is when you introduce yourself and start a conversation.
7. Humans are more likely to choose between two similar partners instead of considering a third, unique choice8. This is a very profound concept when you see it in action. In an experiment, pictures of two different-looking yet attractive people (Tom and Jerry) were displayed along with a third picture. This third picture was variable; half of the time, the third picture was a slightly modified version of Tom, only uglier (Tom's evil twin). The other half of the time, it was an "uglified" version of Jerry (Jerry's evil twin). When asked to choose between the three pictures, survey subjects more frequently chose Tom when his evil twin was present and they chose Jerry when his evil twin was around. The lesson here is that we need a standard of comparison to decide if something is good or not. We're able to determine that Tom is a better choice than his evil twin, but we don't know how Jerry stacks up because he is the orange to Tom's apple. It is suggested that in order to ensure success at the bar, you should take a slightly uglier version of yourself as your wingman.
8. Kissing may have evolved from "pre-chewing" by mothers for their infants9. Kisses are very special to us and are a huge part of the courtship process. A lot of information is exchanged with a kiss: smell, taste, body language. In fact, 59% of men and 66% of women reported having been attracted to someone, but losing interest after a sub-par first kiss10. But how did kissing become so important in the first place? One theory is that the intimacy of a kiss could have evolved from the act of a mother masticating food and passing it off for their baby to eat. If this idea suddenly makes kissing a little less attractive, you can think of it as a symbolic gesture of nurturing and care. There, all better.
9. Women are just as quick to be aroused as men, they just are not as aware11. We've all been told that we need to pre-heat the oven before we can start cooking. The truth, however, is that women heat up just as fast as men. Not only that, women become aroused by a wider variety of sexual imagery than men, including pictures of animals mating. Thermal images show that blood rushes to their genitals, but they are not always quite conscious of this until they are closer to their peak arousal12. When timed in comparison with men, it was found that both sexes reached peak arousal within 10 minutes. To add even more stereotype-busting quality to this point, it was found that when looking at porn, men spend more time looking at faces, while women let their eyes wander to genital areas just as much as men do13.
10. Monkeys will pay for porn, too14. Do you think there could possibly be a market for this? When offered the chance to view pictures of female monkey bottoms in exchange for their fruit juice, male rhesus monkeys emphatically paid up. There was no comment in the study if the monkeys got excited enough to spill their rhesus pieces all over their cage or not.
Thank you for reading. Stay tuned for the SEX Edition! As usual, I will leave you with some bonus facts:
- Twins can come from 2 different fathers.
- Sexual scents activate the pleasure center of the brain rather than the olfactory center.
- Darker males tend to have healthier sperm as a function of the amount of folate in their body.
- Plastic surgery has existed for centuries.
- Women smell better to men when they are fertile
- The more attractive the man, the more short-term sexual partners he has.
- Women work to be more attractive while they're fertile, even when married.
- "Spring fever" is caused by the body slowing melatonin production when the sun comes out after a cold, dark winter. Melatonin aids sleep, but also suppresses moods.
Sources:
1. G. C. Gonzaga, M. G. Haselton, J. Smurda, M. S. Davies, and J. C. Poore, "Love, Desire and the Suppression of Thoughts of Romantic Alternatives," Evolution and Human Behavior 29 (2008): 119-126.
2. C. Wedekind, T. Seebeck, F. Bettens, and A. J. Paepke, "MHC-Dependent Mate Preferences in Humans," Proc Biol Sci 260, no. 1359 (1995): 245-249.
3. C. E. Garver-Apgar, S. W. Gangestad, R. Thornhill, R. D. Miller, and J. J. Olp, "Major Histocompatibility Complex Alleles, Sexual Responsivity, and Unfaithfulness in Romantic Couples," Psych Sci 17 (2006): 830-835.
4. Y. Martins, G. Preti, C. R. Crabtree, T. Runyan, A. A. Vainius, and C. J. Wysocki, "Preference for Human Body Odors Is Influenced by Gender and Sexual Orientation," Psychological Science 16 (2005): 694-701.
5. A. Slater quoted by A. Gosline, "Babies Prefer to Gaze upon Beautiful Faces," New Scientist, September 6, 2004.
6. R. Thornhill, S. W. Gangestad, and R. Comer, "Human Female Orgasm and Mate Fluctuating Asymmetry," Animal Behavior 50, no. 6 (1995): 1601-1615.
7. K. K. Kampe, C. D. Frith, R. J. Dolan, and U. Frith, "Reward Value of Attractiveness and Gaze," Nature 413,no. 6856 (2001): 589.
8. C. Sedikides, D. Ariely, and N. Olsen, "Contextual and Procedural Determinants of Partner Selection: On Asymmetric Dominance and Prominance," Social Cognition (1999).
9. D. Morris, The Human Zoo (1969).
10. S. M. Hughes, M. A. Harrison, and G. G. Gallup Jr., "Sex Differences in Romantic Kissing Among College Students: An Evolutionary Perspective," Evolutionary Psychology 5, no. 3 (2007): 612-631.
11. M.L. Chivers, G. Rieger, E. Latty, and J. M. Bailey, "A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal," Psychol Sci 15, no. 11 (2004): 736-744.
12. T. M. Kukkonen, Y. M. Binik, R. Amsel, and S. Carrier, "Thermography as a Physiological Measure of Sexual Arousal in Both Men and Women," Journal of Sexual Medicine 4 (2007): 93-105.
13. H. A. Rupp and K. Wallen, "Sex Difference in Viewing Sexual Stimuli: An Eye-Tracking Study in Men and Women," Hormones and Behavior 51, no. 4 (2007): 524-533.
14. R. O. Deaner, A. V. Khera, and M. L. Platt, "Monkeys Pay Per View: Adaptive Valuation of Social Images by Rhesus Macaques," Curr Biol 15, no. 6 (2005): 543-548.
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you 10 things you did not know about sexual attraction:
1. Being in love with someone reduces the appeal of other potential partners1. Nature uses love as a tool to ensure that relationships last beyond courtship and mating, into and past the child-rearing phase. To test this out, a study was done to measure the pull that committed individuals felt toward other people of various levels of attraction. Subjects in two test groups were first primed to think about either extreme happiness or about their love for their partners. Next, both groups were subjected to rapid-fire bursts of images depicting very attractive people and normal-looking people. The researchers measured the reactions of both groups and concluded that the group primed to think about happiness paid the same amount of attention to the attractive and normal-looking photos, while the group that was primed to think about their love paid substantially less attention to the attractive photos. The reminder of their feelings for someone made them oblivious to the attraction of other romances. Knowing this, let's not jump to the conclusion that love is all we need. There are many other factors that go into attraction...
2. Your immune system determines how much you are attracted to someone else2. Here comes the science. It all begins with your personal scent; your aromatic essence. Your immune system creates proteins that your body uses and then secretes through your sweat glands. Bacteria on the surface of your skin then break down the proteins and this turns into your own signature perfume. On the receiving end, we find the aroma of compatible immune systems pleasing. If the other person's immune system is diverse enough to yours, your children will grow up with the benefit of a wider variety of resistances. (If you're wondering how that works genetically, it is because the immune system genes can be co-expressed.) There is no ideal scent because we all have a different immune system and this does a bit to level the playing field for everyone who isn't Brad Pitt or Angelina Jolie.
To explain this point further, it should be noted that similar immune systems discourage each other from bonding. As we know, siblings mating together can result in the passage of recessive genetic defects and weakened immune systems. Even in non-related couples with similar immune systems, the occurrence of cheating increases with the percent of human leukocyte antigen (HLA) genes that the two people share3.
3. Gay men enjoy the scent of other gay men, but not of straight men. Talk about gay-dar. This was tested in a blind study where natural scents were collected from 4 groups of subjects: heterosexual men, homosexual men, heterosexual women, and homosexual women. Each individual scent sample was combined with the others of their group to create a generic example scent representing the sexual orientation. The second stage of the experiment had other members of those 4 groups actually smelling the combined samples. The results of their sniffing: "Heterosexual men, heterosexual females, and lesbians preferred odors from heterosexual males over odors from gay males; gay males preferred odors from other gay males4." Another interesting result was that gay males preferred odors from straight women over straight men. This provides some solid evidence of homosexuality being a natural occurrence, but unfortunately the people who refute that don't listen to science in the first place.
4. Babies can evaluate attractiveness, even at under a week old5. Beauty is not always in the eye of the beholder. Nature has a fairly simple standard of eligibility: symmetry. Even birds with more symmetrical tail features get more action than those with physical quirks. These values are not learned, either; they are evident within us as soon as we're born. In an experiment, researchers first had adults rate pictures of people based on their attractiveness, then they presented these pictures to newborn infants. The babies spent much more time looking at the attractive pictures than the less appealing ones. This still does not explain why Oscar the Grouch is so popular.
5. Women have more orgasms with men who have symmetrical bodies6. As with babies liking more symmetrical (thus more attractive) faces, it should be noted that attractive men are more suitable mates. As uneasy as that sounds, a simple survey was done that found 60% of women had orgasms with their partners, but among the respondents whose partners were more symmetrical, the rate was 75%. Those with more asymmetrical partners? 30%. We're not saying that symmetry is the only factor here, but it is an indicator of the many other qualities that go into evolutionary eligibility. For starters, an attractive male is more likely to be confident and more dominant, and that plays into lovemaking considerably. To compound matters further, orgasms help women feel more attached to their partners. Bachelors: you're playing with fire when you tease the orgasm god.
6. Looking an attractive person in the eye makes the brain anticipate a reward7. We've all felt that thrill when our eyes meet those of a really hot woman or man. We know it is a bit of anxiety, but what kind exactly? I would say it is a lot closer to watching your bowling ball roll down the lane than, say, the first day of school. The ventral striatum is an area of the brain that starts to spark when a reward is expected. This is the area that scientists notice gets a lot of play when people look at others who are attractive to them. The potential for social interaction gives the brain a little push forward. This is when you introduce yourself and start a conversation.
7. Humans are more likely to choose between two similar partners instead of considering a third, unique choice8. This is a very profound concept when you see it in action. In an experiment, pictures of two different-looking yet attractive people (Tom and Jerry) were displayed along with a third picture. This third picture was variable; half of the time, the third picture was a slightly modified version of Tom, only uglier (Tom's evil twin). The other half of the time, it was an "uglified" version of Jerry (Jerry's evil twin). When asked to choose between the three pictures, survey subjects more frequently chose Tom when his evil twin was present and they chose Jerry when his evil twin was around. The lesson here is that we need a standard of comparison to decide if something is good or not. We're able to determine that Tom is a better choice than his evil twin, but we don't know how Jerry stacks up because he is the orange to Tom's apple. It is suggested that in order to ensure success at the bar, you should take a slightly uglier version of yourself as your wingman.
8. Kissing may have evolved from "pre-chewing" by mothers for their infants9. Kisses are very special to us and are a huge part of the courtship process. A lot of information is exchanged with a kiss: smell, taste, body language. In fact, 59% of men and 66% of women reported having been attracted to someone, but losing interest after a sub-par first kiss10. But how did kissing become so important in the first place? One theory is that the intimacy of a kiss could have evolved from the act of a mother masticating food and passing it off for their baby to eat. If this idea suddenly makes kissing a little less attractive, you can think of it as a symbolic gesture of nurturing and care. There, all better.
9. Women are just as quick to be aroused as men, they just are not as aware11. We've all been told that we need to pre-heat the oven before we can start cooking. The truth, however, is that women heat up just as fast as men. Not only that, women become aroused by a wider variety of sexual imagery than men, including pictures of animals mating. Thermal images show that blood rushes to their genitals, but they are not always quite conscious of this until they are closer to their peak arousal12. When timed in comparison with men, it was found that both sexes reached peak arousal within 10 minutes. To add even more stereotype-busting quality to this point, it was found that when looking at porn, men spend more time looking at faces, while women let their eyes wander to genital areas just as much as men do13.
10. Monkeys will pay for porn, too14. Do you think there could possibly be a market for this? When offered the chance to view pictures of female monkey bottoms in exchange for their fruit juice, male rhesus monkeys emphatically paid up. There was no comment in the study if the monkeys got excited enough to spill their rhesus pieces all over their cage or not.
Thank you for reading. Stay tuned for the SEX Edition! As usual, I will leave you with some bonus facts:
- Twins can come from 2 different fathers.
- Sexual scents activate the pleasure center of the brain rather than the olfactory center.
- Darker males tend to have healthier sperm as a function of the amount of folate in their body.
- Plastic surgery has existed for centuries.
- Women smell better to men when they are fertile
- The more attractive the man, the more short-term sexual partners he has.
- Women work to be more attractive while they're fertile, even when married.
- "Spring fever" is caused by the body slowing melatonin production when the sun comes out after a cold, dark winter. Melatonin aids sleep, but also suppresses moods.
Sources:
1. G. C. Gonzaga, M. G. Haselton, J. Smurda, M. S. Davies, and J. C. Poore, "Love, Desire and the Suppression of Thoughts of Romantic Alternatives," Evolution and Human Behavior 29 (2008): 119-126.
2. C. Wedekind, T. Seebeck, F. Bettens, and A. J. Paepke, "MHC-Dependent Mate Preferences in Humans," Proc Biol Sci 260, no. 1359 (1995): 245-249.
3. C. E. Garver-Apgar, S. W. Gangestad, R. Thornhill, R. D. Miller, and J. J. Olp, "Major Histocompatibility Complex Alleles, Sexual Responsivity, and Unfaithfulness in Romantic Couples," Psych Sci 17 (2006): 830-835.
4. Y. Martins, G. Preti, C. R. Crabtree, T. Runyan, A. A. Vainius, and C. J. Wysocki, "Preference for Human Body Odors Is Influenced by Gender and Sexual Orientation," Psychological Science 16 (2005): 694-701.
5. A. Slater quoted by A. Gosline, "Babies Prefer to Gaze upon Beautiful Faces," New Scientist, September 6, 2004.
6. R. Thornhill, S. W. Gangestad, and R. Comer, "Human Female Orgasm and Mate Fluctuating Asymmetry," Animal Behavior 50, no. 6 (1995): 1601-1615.
7. K. K. Kampe, C. D. Frith, R. J. Dolan, and U. Frith, "Reward Value of Attractiveness and Gaze," Nature 413,no. 6856 (2001): 589.
8. C. Sedikides, D. Ariely, and N. Olsen, "Contextual and Procedural Determinants of Partner Selection: On Asymmetric Dominance and Prominance," Social Cognition (1999).
9. D. Morris, The Human Zoo (1969).
10. S. M. Hughes, M. A. Harrison, and G. G. Gallup Jr., "Sex Differences in Romantic Kissing Among College Students: An Evolutionary Perspective," Evolutionary Psychology 5, no. 3 (2007): 612-631.
11. M.L. Chivers, G. Rieger, E. Latty, and J. M. Bailey, "A Sex Difference in the Specificity of Sexual Arousal," Psychol Sci 15, no. 11 (2004): 736-744.
12. T. M. Kukkonen, Y. M. Binik, R. Amsel, and S. Carrier, "Thermography as a Physiological Measure of Sexual Arousal in Both Men and Women," Journal of Sexual Medicine 4 (2007): 93-105.
13. H. A. Rupp and K. Wallen, "Sex Difference in Viewing Sexual Stimuli: An Eye-Tracking Study in Men and Women," Hormones and Behavior 51, no. 4 (2007): 524-533.
14. R. O. Deaner, A. V. Khera, and M. L. Platt, "Monkeys Pay Per View: Adaptive Valuation of Social Images by Rhesus Macaques," Curr Biol 15, no. 6 (2005): 543-548.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
March To Your Mailbox
Political gatherings have never sat well with me, particularly because they more closely resemble tantrums rather than persuasive action. Tonight, I found words for that idea that I was never really able to push out of my mouth before. Through the testimony of Congressman Barney Frank to a stationary video camera, filmed for the benefit of the Reddit.com community, it all came together. Political demonstrations are populist circle jerks that rouse emotions, but do little to influence the members of Congress. Why? Because a Congressman votes on behalf of his constituents and in a political rally, he has no way of knowing if the mass represents the opinions of his (or her) voting public.
The problem with marches is that when they're over, many people may feel like they've done their part and leave it at that. Frank's solution to this is to instead influence people to get involved on a local level by contacting their Representative and Senator to voice their opinions. Write letters and let them know that they'll only get your vote if they support your cause.
So what good are rallies? As I said, they are populist circle jerks. Take that however you like. Even in stories like that of Harvey Milk, where frequent and rousing public assemblies are used to gather momentum, the only decisive action happened when the ballots were counted, putting a man into office who could really represent.
I leave you with a 6 minute video of Barney Frank answering a question regarding his disdain for public assembly. It is not a matter of freedom of speech. It is a matter of actual political process.
The problem with marches is that when they're over, many people may feel like they've done their part and leave it at that. Frank's solution to this is to instead influence people to get involved on a local level by contacting their Representative and Senator to voice their opinions. Write letters and let them know that they'll only get your vote if they support your cause.
So what good are rallies? As I said, they are populist circle jerks. Take that however you like. Even in stories like that of Harvey Milk, where frequent and rousing public assemblies are used to gather momentum, the only decisive action happened when the ballots were counted, putting a man into office who could really represent.
I leave you with a 6 minute video of Barney Frank answering a question regarding his disdain for public assembly. It is not a matter of freedom of speech. It is a matter of actual political process.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
