Difference between revisions of "Tem"

From Alfino
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
m
Line 1: Line 1:
===Sapolsky, Chapter 10: The Evolution of Human Behavior===
+
===Hibbing, Chapter 5: Do You See What I See?===
  
Evolution 101 — 3 steps
+
:*Attention Studies research on Political difference:
  
:*not so much about survival as reproductionAntagonistic pleiotropy — sperm early, cancer later.
+
:*Rorschach testsseem to trigger different attentional and other biases.
  
:*other misconceptions — living better adapted than the extinct, not just a “theory”
+
:*Claim in this chapter: Differences in political temperament are tied to differences in a variety of perception and procession patterns prompted by stimuli.  Liberals and conservatives see the world differently. 
  
:*sexual selection and natural selection.  Example of peacocks — trade offs between two forms of selection. 
+
:The Eyes Have it
  
:*sociobiology — evolutionary psychology introduced.  Premise: Evolution optimizes social behavior (for fitness) and psychological traits just as it optimizes bodies.   
+
:*eye movement research: gaze cuing test reveal sensitivity to social cues, but tend to be cited as averages.  lots of variation.   
  
:*Marlin Perkins and Mutal of Omaha’s Wild KingdomBad ideas about evolution of altruistic species behaviorGroup selection doesn’t work that way.   
+
:*research question: Are liberals more susceptible to gaze cuing than conservatives?  Yes. liberals slow down under miscuing, but not conservativesliberal are more sensitive to social context, conservatives to rules121: not necessarily one better than the otherBut, interestingly (122) conservatives and liberals prefer their own attentional biases (at least weakly)!  (Speculate here.)
  
Individual Selection — 334: competitive infanticide: why langur monkeys kill babies.  How females develop a false estrus to fight back.  (Working against mountain gorillas these days.)
+
:Fitting Round Pigs into Square Holes 122
  
Kin Selection — 336: Basic idea: your nearest kin has most of your genesHaldane, “I’d gladly lay down my life for two brothers or eight cousins.”  AllomotheringGrooming behaviors reflect closeness337: vervet monkey study.  Playback studies.  These studies show in various ways how warning behaviors track kinship relationships in social primates.   
+
:*categorization tests allow us to see variations in cognitive temperamenthard categorizers vs. softConservatives / liberals124: conservatives more likely to lock onto a task and complete it in a fashion that is both definitive and consistent with instructions.   
  
:*problem for kin selection — avoiding inbreedingMany species mate with 1-3rd cousinsSperm aggregationMalagasy giant jumping rat. 340 - smell studies — women prefer smell of near relatives over unrelated.
+
:Italian researcher Luciana Carraro, why do some people tend to pay attention to negative words over positive words?  Used a Stroop Task measuring delay in reporting font color of negative wordsStrong correlation with political orientation"conservatives have a strong vigilence toward negative stimuli." Wasn't so much the valuation placed on negative words, but that negative stimuli triggered more attentional resources.  
  
How do animal recognize kin? Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) gives many animals olfactory recognition of kin. Other mechanisms: songs, vaginal fluid smell, milk.   
+
:*Same researchers did a Dot Probe Test (measuring speed in identifying a gray dot on a postive or negative image. Assumption that speed equates with attentional disposition toward the stimuli). Liberals a bit quicker with positive images, conservatives with negative.   
  
How do we do kin selection? Pseudo-kin selection or “green beard” effectsWe are not limited to actual kin, any conspicuous feature (like a green beard).  Humans show green beard effectsRelated to parochialism and xenophobia.
+
:*Hibbing et. al. wanted to replicate the Italian research.  Used a Flanker Task. (measuring speed in reporting a feature of an image when flanked by two images congruent or incongruent to the main imageAssumption is that the less you are slowed down by incongruence, the more attentional resources you had for the image.) Replicated typical results: we are all faster with angry faces, for exampleConservative less impacted by the angry facesBoth groups reacted the same to happy faces.
  
Reciprocal Altruism.
 
  
:*don't just think about evolution as promoting competition toward extinction.  equilibriums are important. 
+
:What Are You Looking At? 129
  
:*reciprocal altruism is a third way that evolution shapes human behaviorUnrelated individuals cooperate across nature (fish in schools, birds in formation, herds)Also unrelated primatesImportant 1971 paper by Trivers (344) on reciprocal altruismhow organisms incur a fitness cost to benefit another individual with expectation of reciprocation.   
+
:*Eye tracking attentional studies.  Their research measured "dwell time" - time spent looking at an image.  in a study, subjects are shown a group of imagesGeneral bias toward negative images.  
 +
  Theorized as having survival valueConservatives spend a lot more time on negative images and quick to fix on negative images.  Some weak evidence that liberals focus more on positive images, but sig. results concerned differentials.   
  
:*cheating and freeriding can create a "Red Queen" situation. 
+
:Perception is Reality -- But is it real?
  
Two big questions: when is cooperation optimal, how can altruism start?
+
:*Since liberals and conservatives value positive and negative images in the same way, you might conclude that they see the same world but pay attention to parts of it with different degrees of interest or attention.  But Hibbing et. al. are not so sure.  In a study, they asked libs and cons to evaluate pos/neg their view of the status quo on six policy dimensions (134).  They seem to assess the reality differently, '''they see different policies at work in the same society''', not just attending more to some stimuli.  '''Political difference might not be difference in preference, but in perception.'''
  
What strategy for cooperating is optimal?
+
:*They also did some research on ranking degree of negativity of images and, unlike the Italian research, conservatives did rank negative images more negatively.  In another study (135-6), researchers found that conservatives ranked faces as more dominant and threatening than liberals. 
  
:*background to Game Theory - John von Neumann.  Prisoner's Dilemma connected biologists to game theorists. 
+
:You're full of Beans
  
:*basics of a Prisoner's Dilemma payoff: A&B cooperate: 1 year: A cooperates, B defects: B walks and A gets three years. Cooperation is best, but each individual calculation leads to defectionQuite a little dilemma.
+
:*BeanFest -- a research game in which test subjects try to earn points by deciding whether to accept or reject a bean with an unknown point value. Based on personality, some subjects are more exploratory (accept more beans and get more information), while others are conservative. But political orientation also predicts strategy.  Shook and Fazio see the result as indicative of differences in data acquisition strategies and learning styles.  Interesting follow-up analysis based on giving test subjects a "final exam" on the bean values.  Similar scores, but different patterns of classification.   
  
:*defection is optimal for single round PD, but what about 3 roundsStill best to defect. What about "iterated" (uncertain number of rounds)?
+
:*139: good summary paragraph: "New bean? What the hell, say the liberals, let's give it a whirl"  Roughly equal scores on the game and exam.   
  
:*Axelrod's challenge:  Optimal strategy for iterated PD.  Winner: Anatol Rapoport:  Cooperation on 1st round and then match opponent's previous behavior.  "Tit for Tat"  Always works toward a draw, or slight negative outcome.  Not that Tit for Tat tilts toward cooperation, but avoids being a sucker and punishes defectors.  famous paper in 1981 by Axelrod and Hamilton. 
+
:*exploratory behavior and related differences in valuing everyday ethical situations, like forgetting to return a CDdiffering attitudes toward science and religion.
 
 
:*"signal errors" can reduce Tit for Tat payoffs.  Remedies: "Contrite tit for tat (retaliate after two defections) and Forgiving (forgive 1/3 of defections).  Both address the signal error problem, but have other vulnerabilities. 
 
 
 
:*Mixed (genetic) strategies:  You could start out with one strategy and then change to another.  How do you go from punitive Tit for Tat to one incorporating forgiveness?  Trust.  350-351: describes a changing environment a events signal to individuals to change strategiesKind of a model of real life. 
 
 
 
::*Black Hamlet fish
 
 
 
::*Stickleback fish
 
 
 
:*But sceptical that tit for tat has been found outside humans. 
 
 
 
How can altruism start? 353
 
 
 
:*on T for T in a population is doomed, two might find each other, Green beard effects might help grow a circle of cooperators.  If the cooperating trait included search behaviors for cooperators it would help.  Cooperation could also radiate from isolated groups that wind up inbreeding.  If reintroduced to a large population, they might influence cooperative payoffs. 
 
 
 
Standing on Three legs -- Some examples of different ways that these three forces (ind. selection, kind selection, and reciprocal altruism) can work together in animals.
 
 
 
:*vampire bat
 
 
 
:*pair bonding (A) vs. tournament species (B) -- what follows: B-males are more violent, A-males need less muscle, in B species a few males do all the reproducing, B-males more likely to screw anything, A-males more likely to share responsibilities.  B-species puts more emphasis on sexual selection.  360.
 
 
 
:*Parent-Offspring Conflict  -- weaning conflict.  other biological conflicts between fetus and mother. 
 
 
 
:*Intersexual Genetic Conflict -- In species with low paternal investment, a father's interest might be with the child and against the mother.  "imprinted genes" part of the mechanism for intersexual conflict.  Tournament species have more imprinted genes than pairbonding. 
 
 
 
Multilevel Selection Theory
 
 
 
:*genotype vs. phenotype:  phenotype is the expressed individual with its specific traits based on the genotype, which is specific genetic makeup of the individual
 
 
 
:*Why it matters -- explanations can be sought at either level.  unibrow example.  Reviews debate in biology: Dawkins, extreme gene centered - individual genes vs. genome, less radical view, genome centered.  Seems to disparge single gene selection somewhat.  Gould and Mayr: phenotype trumps genotype.  Selection acts on expressed individuals.  Dawkins analogy of cake recipe vs. taste of cake.  Could be the baker or the recipe if the cakes don't taste right.
 
 
 
:*Levels: single gene, genome, single pheotypic trait, collection of traits.  These are among the levels in Multi-level Selection.
 
 
 
:*Resurrection of Group Selection:  Culture (the result of advertising, ideology about cakes, etc.) can also act as a selection force. 
 
::*neo-group selection: some heritable traits can be maladaptive for the individual but adaptive for a group.  As in the PD, to get the optimal total outcome, you have be willing to forego the best individual outcome.  Still controversial.  Some biologist might agree that it is possible, but that it is rare.  However, among humans it seems to occur alot.  Cites "parochial altruism" and role of intergroup conflict in promoting intragroup cooperation.
 
 
 
:*credits David Sloan Wilson and E.O Wilson.  Quite an "encomeum" there!  more reading.  famous paper "Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology"
 
 
 
AND US?  How do humans fit into these four modes of selection? 
 
 
 
:*Individual Selection operates on us, but we do not have the same profile as our ancestors.  We are neither clearly pair-bonding nor tournament species (pick your favorite comparative anatomy detail). 
 
 
 
:*Maybe we are reproductive maximizers?  Famous examples of super reproducers in History: Pharaoh Rames II to Genghis Khan.  But then we have the Shakers.
 
 
 
:*Some evidence of competitive infanticide in abuse and killing by a step parent.  (These findings have been challenged, though.)
 
 
 
:*Kin Selection:  Strong evidence of practices tracking and favoring kin.  (Note for later question of "justified partiality".)  368: feuds, bendettas, bequests, dynastic rule, protection against adverse testimony.  Humans with damage to vmPFC choose strangers over family.  (creepy)  Story of the Russian who chose country over family and Stalin's reaction.
 
 
 
:*So, lots of evidence, but we also fight wars against people we are highly related to.  families fight over succession, patricide, fratricide, we also give to strangers.
 
 
 
:370: explanation for why we deviate so much from straight kin selection:  we don't do it with MHC or imprinted genes, but we are cognitive (which includes feeling) about it.  Evidence from kibutz about turning off sexual interest we "family".  46% would save ''their'' dog over a stranger.  We can also be manipulated into feeling positive or negative toward others. 
 
 
 
:*we used to think hunter gatherer bands were highly related, but only about 40%.  already reciprocal altruism on the scene there.  Conclusion: human do deviate from strict mechanisms of evolution found in other species.  (Alfino: We've evolved complex and mixed strategies and can use language and reflection to rethink our behaviors and attitudes.)
 
 
 
:*Some challenges: hard to identify heritability for traits related to group selection.  Just seems like the most parsimonious explanation. 
 
 
 
:Second challenge, Is evolution gradual? [This is optional reading.]
 
 
 
Is everything adaptive? [THis is optional reading.]
 

Revision as of 16:43, 3 July 2020

Hibbing, Chapter 5: Do You See What I See?

  • Attention Studies research on Political difference:
  • Rorschach tests. seem to trigger different attentional and other biases.
  • Claim in this chapter: Differences in political temperament are tied to differences in a variety of perception and procession patterns prompted by stimuli. Liberals and conservatives see the world differently.
The Eyes Have it
  • eye movement research: gaze cuing test reveal sensitivity to social cues, but tend to be cited as averages. lots of variation.
  • research question: Are liberals more susceptible to gaze cuing than conservatives? Yes. liberals slow down under miscuing, but not conservatives. liberal are more sensitive to social context, conservatives to rules. 121: not necessarily one better than the other. But, interestingly (122) conservatives and liberals prefer their own attentional biases (at least weakly)! (Speculate here.)
Fitting Round Pigs into Square Holes 122
  • categorization tests allow us to see variations in cognitive temperament. hard categorizers vs. soft. Conservatives / liberals. 124: conservatives more likely to lock onto a task and complete it in a fashion that is both definitive and consistent with instructions.
Italian researcher Luciana Carraro, why do some people tend to pay attention to negative words over positive words? Used a Stroop Task measuring delay in reporting font color of negative words. Strong correlation with political orientation. "conservatives have a strong vigilence toward negative stimuli." Wasn't so much the valuation placed on negative words, but that negative stimuli triggered more attentional resources.
  • Same researchers did a Dot Probe Test (measuring speed in identifying a gray dot on a postive or negative image. Assumption that speed equates with attentional disposition toward the stimuli). Liberals a bit quicker with positive images, conservatives with negative.
  • Hibbing et. al. wanted to replicate the Italian research. Used a Flanker Task. (measuring speed in reporting a feature of an image when flanked by two images congruent or incongruent to the main image. Assumption is that the less you are slowed down by incongruence, the more attentional resources you had for the image.) Replicated typical results: we are all faster with angry faces, for example. Conservative less impacted by the angry faces. Both groups reacted the same to happy faces.


What Are You Looking At? 129
  • Eye tracking attentional studies. Their research measured "dwell time" - time spent looking at an image. in a study, subjects are shown a group of images. General bias toward negative images.
Theorized as having survival value.  Conservatives spend a lot more time on negative images and quick to fix on negative images.  Some weak evidence that liberals focus more on positive images, but sig. results concerned differentials.  
Perception is Reality -- But is it real?
  • Since liberals and conservatives value positive and negative images in the same way, you might conclude that they see the same world but pay attention to parts of it with different degrees of interest or attention. But Hibbing et. al. are not so sure. In a study, they asked libs and cons to evaluate pos/neg their view of the status quo on six policy dimensions (134). They seem to assess the reality differently, they see different policies at work in the same society, not just attending more to some stimuli. Political difference might not be difference in preference, but in perception.
  • They also did some research on ranking degree of negativity of images and, unlike the Italian research, conservatives did rank negative images more negatively. In another study (135-6), researchers found that conservatives ranked faces as more dominant and threatening than liberals.
You're full of Beans
  • BeanFest -- a research game in which test subjects try to earn points by deciding whether to accept or reject a bean with an unknown point value. Based on personality, some subjects are more exploratory (accept more beans and get more information), while others are conservative. But political orientation also predicts strategy. Shook and Fazio see the result as indicative of differences in data acquisition strategies and learning styles. Interesting follow-up analysis based on giving test subjects a "final exam" on the bean values. Similar scores, but different patterns of classification.
  • 139: good summary paragraph: "New bean? What the hell, say the liberals, let's give it a whirl" Roughly equal scores on the game and exam.
  • exploratory behavior and related differences in valuing everyday ethical situations, like forgetting to return a CD. differing attitudes toward science and religion.