Some of the things we do in our daily lives seem to have evolved from our distant past. Understand how our minds work and you are better able to control it.
First, I will have to acknowledge that I am not an evolutionary psychologist, not even a scientist by training, just someone who have thought about what I have widely read. This are just suggestions from some of my reflections mixed in with some conclusions from scientists in the field. I will try to distinguish my musings from proper research.
Now, what is evolutionary psychology? It is a relatively new branch of science of some 50 years old and proposition that the human mind evolved just as the body did. This took place as the structure and the chemistry in the brain evolved, and took place slightly differently in the brains of children, men and women, leading to habits, behaviours and tendencies that increase our chances of survival as a species. Many of these behaviours were previously considered part of higher level thought processes, that we humans, as the superior species, created as a result of our intelligence, but now, scientists proposes that these behaviours result from evolutionary processes that made us what we are.
But let's take a time out to remind ourselves what evolution is and does. Life started in earth’s primordial seas where complex molecules bumped together in the free flowing waters and out of the endless permutations of different molecules bumping in different conditions, ended up with a unique molecule chain that seeks to replicate itself. Scientists today do not know yet how, why or even how often it happened but this is when chemistry crosses into biology. Dawkins proposes that it is this, the gene and not the individual, which is the basic unit of life. As the gene replicates, it often does not replicate perfectly among its thousands of base molecules in its protein chain and these imperfections are mutations. Some mutations increases the likelihood of the gene surviving to replicate or to replicate more often or efficiently. Others may actually decreases the likelihood while most probably have no significant effect. Those with mutations that increases survival rates will grow in number while those with mutations that decreases survival rates will die out - and that is the basis of evolution. Later, successful mutations lead the gene to accrete features that enhances survival by building a cell around the gene to protect it and acquire food to provide energy to replicate. Much later, another successful mutation or mutations enable cells to cluster together and specialise into multi-cellularcreatures, which eventually led to organs, limbs and behaviour that further increases the gene's chances of replicating successfully: to breed and pass on its genes to succeeding generations. (Sorry for that lengthy explanation for the well-learned who are already aware but just need to set the background so that we can better understand what is to come)
Back in the world of evolutionary psychology, let's look at human behaviour that evolved through the last few million years. Now, none of these are genes that determine the complex behaviours we exhibit today, but rather more basic behaviours that enhances chances of survival and involves dopamine (the feel good hormones) or cortisol (the stress hormones) rush when performing such behaviours, cementing these behaviours to be preferred (or avoided as the case may be) by evolution. We do what we do to get the dopamine or avoid the cortisol.
First impressions
We often decry being quick to judge but that is probably a quick judgement in itself. In an environment where dangers lurks behind every shadow, evolution favours those mutations that can make fast judgements, finely balancing between survival and wasting energy in flight & foraging/hunting opportunities. Was that a lion in the tall grass or just wind rustling the leaves?
By the time the successful human species start to crowd the planet and human bands start to encounter each other, this fast judgement skills then transfers to making fast judgement of approaching strangers to assess friend or foe while still at a safe distance - whether these are strangers who will share resources and knowledge with you or will kill you. Eventually in a safe modern society setting that regulates much of human contact (if not by laws, then by conventions such as courtesy and good manners), that ability to judge quickly became redundant but found expression in the way we judge people by the first impressions they make on us. This is probably necessary in the first instance in our modern societies, where we often initially have little verifiable information about strangers we meet for the first time and we do need to assess the stranger so that we can correctly relate to the person. Quick judgements (assessments could be a better word) enable us to decide whether the appropriate greeting is just a nod & a smile or a handshake and if handshake, how vigourous. Without this, society probably wouldn't work, lacking conventions of courtesy and good manners.
Incidentally, there is this common preference in all human cultures to favour broad vistas in painting and that is probably evolutionary as well. We often admire broad open views, especially from a mountain top where you can see for miles, as they give us a sense of comfort because they are safe - you can see the dangers from far off. Whereas paintings of shadows and dark corners, as in a old creaking house at night or a wet dark jungle, plays on our having to be alert for unseen dangers.
Gossiping
We gossip, or rather we exchange relevant information. It is something that defines all human groups but is something that dates back to our primatial origins well before the emergence of the human species. From marmosets to the great apes (of which humans are one of five species), individuals live in social groups where social interactions determine your place in the group, and its concomitant determination of your access to food and to breeding opportunities.
Most groups are led by alpha males and/or alpha females, and with whom it is important for you to be on good terms and that extends to close friends of the alphas. If an alpha change seems imminent as they often do, you better see the signs early and ingrain yourself with the incoming alpha while keeping the outcast at a distance. Information about who is friend or foe with the alpha and even whether the alpha will remain in the pole position is therefore critical to your chances of survival and/or broaden your choice of mating partners (to get the best possible genes to pair with yours - Nature is amoral).
As soon as humans acquired language, exchanging information about the alphas came a close second to information about survival tips and food/water sources. That's gossiping and today, we gossip to exchange information about who in our work/family/social group to suck up to and which outcast to avoid, information familiar to our primate ancestors. And depending on which level of 'human group' we are identifying with that day, it could be about your boss in the office or the Royal Family.
Conforming and fashion
Fashion is evolutionary? Yeah, well not fashion in itself but we evolved for something more basic. We know that when we are listening and empathising effectively, we often unconsciously mimic the other person in our sitting positions or with what we do with your hands (eg., touching our face when the other person does). Mimicking enhances social cohesion by emphasising our similarities with others. And in the small groups of early hunter-gatherers where survival depends other members of the group coming to our aid, any trait that emphasise how similar our genes are to our potential helper would certainly enhance our survival. That is the basis of conforming, and if conforming traits help us survive to pass on such a gene, we will evolve to conform.
Fashion is really a way of conforming. Wearing the same or similar outfit, ie., whatever is fashionable, is emphasising our in-group-ness. Wearing tattered jeans to a tuxedo party only highlights just how out-group you are. It is all about being in the in-group.
On this point, modern society has now expressed conforming not just in the tiny group of 30 individuals but to the identity politics of today, involving groups of millions, or billions of individuals. We exclude others on the basis of religions, race, social class, etc etc etc. It seems that racial, religious and social group nationalism is part of our human evolution.
Male brains
Noticed how men cannot multi-task? And men are more adept mechanically, read maps better, etc ,etc, etc. Is that evolution? First, let's be clear I am not saying that all men cannot multi-task or the every man is more adept mechanically than every woman - that the worse man is still better than the best woman at this skill. Just as it is incontrovertible that the average man is taller than the average woman, there will still be some women who are taller than some men; similarly, we are comparing averages among men and women at the same trait, not outliers and so please let us not talk about so-and-so who has better skills in the said trait than the opposite gender.
In hunter-gatherer societies, men hunt and to be effective at hunting, they have to be single-minded when on the hunt. There is no benefit to being easily distracted when aiming your spear. So, men did not evolve to multi-task. Also, in hunting, men has to navigate the lay of the land to best ambush the prey. Hence, men's greater spatial awareness and the reputed male map reading skills in modern society.
For two million years, men have been making and improving the tools they used on the hunt, shaping flint-stones into sharp arrow-heads and perfecting the grip on spears. Did these intricate manipulation of objects lead to the male propensity to be more mechanical? (A friend of mine, very liberal type, remarked that her boys did gravitate to toy cars and her girls to dolls despite her great care not to indicate any gender preference to her children - but that is anecdotal of course, not a scientific observation at all. No, not at all)
Female brains
Because of the human evolutionary strategy of having smaller number of offsprings (smaller than say, turtles or cats) and focussing more efforts to care of each one, womenfolk in hunter-gatherer societies cared for the children when the men are away on the hunt. Also, women cook, a very natural task considering their proximity to the family fire for protection when the stronger and armed men are away. And, when opportunity arises and it is safe to do so, venture to gather fruits, eggs and nuts nearby. Running several tasks simultaneously is probably the source of the much-vaunted female multi-tasking skills.
Oh and also the women picking fruits could mean they evolved a more acute sense of colour and smell (Anecdotally, I find more women than men are super-tasters, people whose sense of taste and smell are more acute than normal - making them exceptionally difficult to cook for). Is that also why women are more attracted to bright red colours, that of ripen fruits, and men, who have lesser need to distinguish colours, more prone to colour-blindness?
Being risk adverse
People are notorious for being bad at assessing risks. We hear that repeated often. Risk is really the product of two factors - likelihood and impact. How likely is a future event to happen and what happens when it does. We tend of focus on the latter and emphasise less on the former. We tend to fear the far less frequent but more dramatic death in a burning plane crash rather than the more frequent but more mundane death in the car crash - in fact, the chances of death in the latter is a statistical multiple of the latter, by almost all measures.
Countless experiments show that we would prefer a 25% chance to win $10 over a 50% chance to win $20 but with a 25% chance of losing $10 (the likelihood is that you will earn more with the latter option even with the risk of losing money). We evolved to avoid the worse case scenario whatever the benefits and likelihood is. That is because in our distant past, the worse case scenario involves us being eaten by the tiger. So, we evolved avoidance of worse case scenarios. Same reason why the gazelle bolts at the mere rustling of lives. Better to waste energy in flight than to risk being eaten.
In modern living, this evolutionary trait often lead us to see people and their intentions in the worst possible light. Better to avoid the risk of losing money/status/ego, which the chance of a big win will not compensate. This risk adversity, coupled with our first impression tendencies and rejection of those who do not conform, often leads us to be wary of those with identifications different from ours - meaning, racism, nationalism etc - the out-groups.
Pattern recognition and superstitions
We evolved to be superstitious and to spread conspiracy theories. Oh, yes we did. We evolved to spot patterns in the environment we are in as this helps us predict the changing weather and react accordingly, and eventually control our environment. Other animals may anticipate the rising of the sun and behave in ways predetermined by their genes when the sun rises but only humans noticed that the general direction from which the sun rises is always the same and that the specific spot at which it rises differs at different times of the year, that this difference can be related to the changing seasons. Not only do humans spot patterns, they feel a need to explain these patterns by adorning stories of horses riding across the skies everyday and these stories became the bedrock of religious myths. The early observers who noted the patterns in the movements of the stars, moon and sun evolved to become priests. The ability to explain these patterns in simple story terms help lend creditability to the priest as they ask people to perform rituals that increase the likelihood of a preferred outcome (ie., appeasing the gods), which also have the side benefit (to the priest) of increasing his power.
While I am unaware of any conclusive research on this, it is unlikely that the human brain specifically evolved this pattern recognition trait but it is the by-product from the larger brains humans evolved from the better nutrition resulting from larger social groups, more effective tools and use of fire. Allied to pattern recognition is the human trait of categorising data and objects - we learn from young to categorise and to name objects (animals, etc), both of which are integral to our sense of control over these objects and thus, our environment. Which is why God in scriptures named individuals and objects as they are deemed to be under God's control.
Very specifically, the intentionality bias in decision-making (seeing an intention over other valid reasons - "that driver purposely cut in front of me") is the result of our brains being unable to accept that something 'just happened' and there must be a reason behind it. And of course our risk adversity makes us think that intentions of strangers tend to be bad ones. This intentionality bias also leads us to feats of spirituality (spirituality as in seeking some aim greater than ourselves, not spirituality as in spirits or being religious) as we struggle with questions of the nature of life and our life goals - our lives are not meaningless and our brains require us to seek a reason for our existence.
This urge to name, categorise and explain by stories the events of nature as part of the innate need to control the environment, lead the human brain to fill in gaps when there are inadequate available information, often seeing patterns where none exists. In our modern society, seeing a pattern and providing a reason where no pattern exist, is basically superstition. Conspiracy theories are a natural extension of superstitions, when it tries to explain seeming patterns in world events within the context of our other urge to share information (ie., gossip) and shaped by our propensity to think the worst due to our risk-adversity.
Being religious
Noticed that dopamine rush when we congregate in large numbers for a common purpose - a sports event, a political rally, arousing school song, a religious procession? That dopamine was there for a purpose - our genes prefer such a trait and it all started with being religious.
No, we did not evolved to go to church or pay our tithes. We did however evolved to gather together in social groups for a common purposes. Such gathering builds social cohesion within ever-larger groups as groups develop ever-complex conventions and rules to manage the growing complexities of social interactions in larger groups. Being in larger groups increases chances of survival due to increased protection and food resources. So, anything that makes humans gather in larger groups for a common purpose is thus, evolutionarily beneficial.
For a humanity awakening to its power to interpret and control its environment, primitive religious activities seeks to predict the coming of seasons. It was always long thought that humans began such religious activities because of the need to predict the seasons at the dawn of agriculture. Now archeologists have found remains of the earliest such gathering in Turkey dating back to 10,000 years ago when humans were still hunter-gatherers, before the advent of agriculture. The urge for such large religious gathering is very ancient indeed.
Note that scientists have found a gene called VMAT2, dubbed the God gene, which apparently predisposes an individual to mystical experience. I am not so sure about that and it still hasn't found general consensus in the scientific community. What I described above does not deal with this particular gene.
Mother's love
I am going to be controversial here. Mothers who evolved a dopamine rush when they see the large eyes on a round face of their babies are more likely to have those babies survive because of the greater propensity to prioritise the offspring's survival over their own, the willingness to make personal sacrifices for the offspring's nutrition - current and future. By the same token, babies who evolved cooing that endears them to the mother, and the mother who evolved to respond to cooing will lead to tighter bonding between mother and offspring, with its concomitant increased care and support for the offspring - thus, increasing the offspring's chances of survival until it could successfully breed, and replicate those genes. We evolved to think babies are cute and to instinctively protect babies and children - the group that does so is more likely to see its offsprings survive.
So, is love really chemistry rather than a higher thought process? Hmmmmm!! Much as the evidence is persuasive and I am unable to find any rational objection to this hypothesis, I still personally find it hard to let go - almost there but not yet, I guess.
So, what does this all mean for us living in the modern world? Are we destined to be the animal that we have evolved into. No. Just as we have evolved a bigger brain, cramped full of neurones especially in the grey matter in our prefrontal cortex, we have also evolved the capability to override the evolutionary traits encoded in our hypothalamus. Being born with a disability, whether a physical disability or being in a disadvantaged social class, is definitely not an advantage of course but that is no reason for fatalism. Human history is littered with stories of such people overcoming the odds. Sure, our evolved drawbacks starts us off at a disadvantage, like those with physical or social disabilities, but we can overcome them.
It starts with being aware of these drawback and why we behave the way we do and consciously learn to behave differently. Learn as an individual and as a society. We have to learn to do things as determined by our prefrontal cortex, and for that dopamine from our hypothalamus.
Yes, we judge people on first impressions but we can quickly adjust our response to the person on availability of further information as the meeting develops, which starts to happen in the first few seconds - we are prejudiced only if we persist with our initial response despite information to the contrary.
Yes, we exchange information and gossip, but be aware of the why that information was exchanged - is it necessary for the task at hand or is the level of detail regards a person so remote that we are very unlikely to utilise the information shared, ie., it really has nothing to do with us.
Yes, we do favour our in-group but our definition of in-groups have broaden in the last ten millennia. So, are our identity politics identification too restrictive or do we need to redefine what our in-group is in this globalised and inter-related world, where our survival as a species depends on what all of us, of different in-group identification, do.
Yes there are physical differences in male and female brains but be aware that it really is a sliding spectrum, not a binary position (meaning, skill positions of the different sexes sits at different ends with nothing in between) and also that your position in the spectrum in one trait does not determine your skill level in others. Also, being aware of skill levels of the other sex enables you to aim for proficiency and improve your skill level in that trait.
Yes, we evolve to think the worst of other people but be aware that our worst case outcome is no longer that extreme as in being eaten, and so we can start to factor in more of the benefits to balance the risk assessment.
Yes, we evolved to be superstitious and share conspiracy theories but understand why those superstitions and conspiracy theories arises in the first place - what is the gap in information that lead to them and the need to be fulfilled that makes one hang on to them.
And yes, realising that love is chemistry in action does not require us to give up the intention to love and to exalt love as the highest expression of a conscious human.
Comments