Showing posts with label heredity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label heredity. Show all posts

Thursday, July 26, 2012

The wild within is male

We advocate openness in social interactions between people because man is not an island. Sociability, we say, is a driving need, along with food, drink, sex and security. We believe globalization shrinks the world into a village, and expect universal brotherhood to spread across borders. Yet when diverse people occupy the same space, rage responses tend to heighten. On the streets or in public gatherings, the offenders are largely male.


This dichotomy of thought and action among human populations may relate to resource availability. It may also be a consequence of social reorganizations, and in the pursuit of power, because whosoever corners the wealth, corners social advantage. If any organization is to succeed as such, it needs rules and penalties for rule-breakers, acknowledged and accepted by all the group members. The implementations of these rules require measures to install a leadership ready to make the hard choices, and to compel followers to acquiesce to the decisions made on their behalf. Else, the larger numbers perpetrate more chaos, increasing group vulnerability. To obtain power in the group and to maintain that power, force becomes the weapon of choice. The organization sanctions controlled aggression to police the detractors of its ideology, and to keep divisive influences at bay.

That sociability is instrumental in group security and the propagation of species is clear in the wild. Aggression on other groups is also a law of the jungle. On the anvil of the food chain, the weak are the first casualties. Humans, naturally so in comparison to other predators, thus have the least likelihood of survival especially against the group aggression of packs and herds. The physical disadvantage is overcome with the powers of the mind, the creation of tools and weapons. The early understanding of the strength in numbers, leads to the organized community living we like to call civilization. Hierarchy and the divisions of labour are created to harmonize social relations that continue in time, often held sacrosanct as traditions.

Needless to say, male domination is the operative tradition in most human cultures. Despite the apparently superior thought processes amongst their populations, the presence of others evokes feelings of competitiveness, frustration, expectations, and so on. Civilized populations have been especially preoccupied with male lineage through millennia. Extrapolating the might is right doctrine of the animal world, many presume to infringe on the rights of other individuals and groups. The history of cultures around the world records innumerable intrigues, assassination plots, battles and wars, wherein the lives of thousands have been sacrificed over genealogical claims.

We commonly assume that all other animals cannot think ahead as the humans do. Their responses are purely instinctive, we say - to attack when hungry or in defence of young. However, because the environment is constantly changing, each species must learn to adapt to change or face extinction. They too must evolve, and perhaps do so to adopt processes to moderate the social organization not unlike the human strategy. Experiments controlling space with other animals confirm that crowding increases irritability, and thence the rage.

Within several higher orders of the animal world, internecine male aggression powers survival not just against environmental adversity, but also of the particular lineage - yes, male. A pride of lions for instance, generally consists of one alpha male and several lionesses as one large family. Male cubs coming of age are ejected by their mothers to find their own destiny. Leadership depends on physical prowess, and the patriarch must continually prove his ability in combat with challengers. Should he be defeated, the victor takes control to form a new family. The lionesses must hide their existing male cubs to keep them alive, because to establish his authority, and while seeding his own family tree, the new leader sets about decimating future threats.


Male hormones like testosterone are implicated in this physiology of aggression. Fact is the male is genetically programmed to fight. The male group of hormones, the androgens, secrete from sex and adrenal glands. They are responsible for the visual splendour of the train of peacock tail feathers or the full-grown lion mane. These displays feed the universal myth of male domination, although they are merely the secondary sexual characteristics of the species. The preening and posturing of the male is needed to outshine other males to attract the females, or else the lineage ends. The failure to scare off the opposition creates stress, prompts fear and rage. Consequently, other hormones from the adrenal glands flood the system, causing the adrenaline rush of instant action.

The explosive testosterone-adrenaline combo fuels violence. Sometimes, the destructive results appear purposeless. The frenzy of rogue elephants, for example, demolishes, maims or kills everything in their path. This masti phenomenon appears to affect young adult males the most. Studies in the African wilds reveal that, male calves orphaned perchance or by human interventions, tend to become anti-social in later years. Separated from their herd early in life, they are forced to fend for themselves in the wild. Essentially, the orphans have been deprived during the formative stages of growing up, of crucial social learning within the herd, and hence their insecurity and lacks of socializing spill over. The senseless violence reflected amongst the human youth around the world may perhaps stem from similar underlying deprivations.

The organization itself is like a living organism; it needs a brain to reason, decision-make and direct. The group’s leadership is this brain that strategizes its activities and deliberates on ways to sustain its longevity. To preserve the harmony between individuals and groups, the community leadership has the heavy duty to delineate the boundaries, and socialize the total organization into them; to reclaim, not destroy, even the socially disruptive. 


An effective process of taming rogue elephants has been the company of trained bigger, older bulls. These more experienced elephants withstand their aggressive onslaughts, and also help bring down their seemingly uncontrollable rages. Perhaps human organizations need to offer their rudderless youth similar opportunities to control the instinctive, unthinking behaviours born of abondonment, fear and rage. Appropriate mentoring in sociability may actually bring the aggressive male out of the lonely wild within, and integrate him into mainstream society.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Altruism: Games people learn


Synopsis: In a society formed by putting different groups of people put together, the social climate developed depends on the local learning dynamics.


An independently derived culture can evolve in two ways.

Reciprocity

In isolation the evolution is convergent, maintaining the distinct, undiluted identity. In open relationships with other cultures, there is a parallel evolution, with influence and change flowing in both directions.

A cycle of reciprocity is formed. The biology of an individual generates and shape culture. At the same time, evolving culture influences the shaping genetic materials.

Cultural equilibrium

In a society formed by putting different groups of people put together, the social climate developed depends on the local learning dynamics. People tend to adapt their behaviour to this environment. They become predisposed to administering, anticipating and avoiding punishment in ways conducive to its sustenance.

Hence the different groups arrive at a ‘cultural equilibrium’ distinct from what they each have had before. Henrich et al predict that the local learning dynamics of diverse people determine how the strategies of cooperation and punishment are combined in the society.




Local learning

The researchers conducted game-playing experiments in 15 different societies on five continents including populations in Kenya, Fiji and Missouri. They used three-game experiments to test their prediction.


1. In the ultimate game (UG) experiment two anonymous players are to divide up a stake of real money in a one-shot deal. Player 1 can offer any monetary amount, even the smallest nonzero number to player 2. If the latter accepts whatever the ‘positive’ proposal is, both are rewarded but perhaps in unequal ratio. If the proposal is rejected, it is a costly punishment, since both players lose the stake.
2. In the third party punishment game (3PPG) experiment player 1 and player 2 are to divide up a stake of real money. There is however, player 3, who gets one half of the stake amount. This player decide whether the division has been fair, because player 2 has no say in the matter, and must receive whatever the other gives to him. In unequal sharing between the other two, player 3 has the option to pay out of
his/her amount to mete a costly punishment to player 1.
3. In the dictator game (DG) experiment the degree of altruism is measured. The process is the same as the first experiment, except that player 2 cannot reject the amount dictated by player 1.


Value of punishment

The games were designed to measure the degree of self-interest of players and their spirit of altruism. That is, to what extent people help others when not directly linked to them through kinship, reciprocity, reputation, or the immediate threat of punishment.

A prominent finding across cultures was the willingness to punish unfair acts. In every population tested, less-equal offers were punished more frequently. A greater willingness to punish selfishness and unfairness results in more prosocial behaviour. The researchers conclude that chastising the violations of norms allows its adherents to flourish, and hence also the genetic shaping towards altruism.


Comments/opinions, anyone??


Thursday, April 9, 2009

Altruism: Mystery of the prosocial



Synopsis: Leaders in organizations are left in continual dilemma whether - to develop the cooperative spirit among the diverse groups - they need to strictly impose the standards and norms of group behaviour, or be lax about them.



What makes people altruistic? A suitable answer is yet to be found to this mystery. Helpfulness, some say, comes from within. Perhaps because of a particular genetic trait inherited through generations, people are prosocial towards relatives, friends and even strangers.

Others hold that people behave in prosocial ways only because they are forced by the norms to do so. The cultural practice of rewards for those maintaining the bar and punishment for the norm-breakers, ensure that people of any particular society adhere to accepted standards of social behaviour, and think twice before deviating from them.

Cultural variations

Leaders in organizations are left in continual dilemma whether - to develop the cooperative spirit among the diverse groups - they need to strictly impose the standards and norms of group behaviour, or be lax about them.

Researchers investigating the issue have found wide cultural variations in social attitudes. That means populations across the globe do not all follow the same principles. Some societies show little overall willingness to punish, other a greater readiness to do so. Some cultures also fault excesses in generosity in the same way as selfishness.

Codependence?

In multicultural society or in any company aspiring to a global presence, the problem is of integration, and getting members of a crosscultural workforce to work together. What should be the basis of cooperation across communities in society? How are managers and supervisors to get individuals of the majority race and culture to cooperate with other minority groups?

Wilson and Lumsden propose that prosocial behaviour is carried forward by sociobiology. Genes and culture are co-dependent, meaning that they have a mutual influence on one another. The theorists say that ‘gene-culture coevolution’, is crucial to developing the appropriate neural network of the mind.

Thereby, people of different cultures in the same environment can also evolve together to behave in a common fashion. The cultural information driving the process are the stories, beliefs, and ceremonies shared symbolically among the individuals constituting that society.

The rules

Certain primary and secondary "epigenetic rules" control organizing the genetic patterns. These lead to the genomic expression of the “coevolution”:

· Primary epigenetic rules are inflexible. They imposed restrictions in line with the individual’s genetic inheritance. This information shapes the formation of the external senses, and their sensory range. As a result the scope is set from the initial filtering of inputs to perceptual abilities involved in the functioning of vision, hearing, taste, and smell.
· Secondary epigenetic rules selectively transmit variants of cultural information. These develop the unique individual traits and capacities like temperament, personality and beliefs.

Changing cultural opportunities shifts the balance of responses between the primary and secondary rules, and hence exerts important effects on the capacity of the individual mind for self-organization. Thus altruistic behaviour can spread through the population of society irrespective of kinship between groups.



Cont’d 2…games people learn