Why Does Stephen Hate Bob (More Than His Wife)?

Posted on January 25, 2013 by Jesse Marczyk

“If a wife left her husband with three kids and no job/ to run off to fuck in Hawaii with some doctor named Bob/ you could skin them and drain them of blood so they die…especially Bob. Then you would be justice guy”. – Stephen Lynch, “Superhero”

For those of you not in the know, Stephen Lynch is a popular comedic musician. In the song, “Superhero”, Stephen gives the above description of what he would do were he “Justice Guy”. As one can gather, in this story, Stephen’s wife has run off with another man, resulting in Mr. Lynch temporarily experiencing a Predator-like urge for revenge. The interesting thing about this particular song is the emphasis that Stephen puts on his urge to kill Bob. It’s interesting in that it doesn’t make much sense, morally speaking: it’s not as if Bob, a third party who was not involved in any kind of relationship with Stephen, had any formal obligation to respect the boundaries of Stephen’s relationship with his wife. Looking out for the relationship, it seems, ought to have been his wife’s job. She was the person who had the social obligation to Stephen that was violated, so it seems the one who Stephen ought to mad at (or, at least madder at) would be his wife. So why does Stephen wish to especially punish Bob?

“I swear I’ll get you Bob, even if it’s the last thing I do!”

There are two candidate explanations I’d like to consider today to help explain the urge for this kind of Bob-specific punishment: one is slightly more specific to the situation at hand and the other applies to punishment interactions more generally, so let’s start off with the more specific case. Stephen wants his wife to behave cooperatively in terms of their relationship, and she seems less than willing to do so herself; presumably, some mating mechanisms in her brain is suggesting that the payoffs would be better for her to ditch her jobless husband to run off with a wealthy, high-status doctor. In order to alter the cost/benefit ratio to certain actions, then, Stephen entertains the idea of enacting punishment. If Stephen’s punishment makes his wife’s infidelity costlier than remaining faithful, her behavior will likely adjust accordingly. While punishing his wife can potentially be an effective strategy for enforcing her cooperation, it’s also a risky venture for Stephen on two fronts: (1) too much punishing of his wife – in this case, murder, though it need not be that extreme – can be counterproductive to his goals, as it would render her less able to deliver the benefits she previously provided to the relationship; the punishment might also be counterproductive because (2) the punishment makes the relationship less valuable still to his wife as new costs mount, resulting in her urge to abandon the relationship altogether for a better deal elsewhere growing even stronger.

The punishing of potential third parties – in this case, Bob – does not hold these same costs, though. Provided Bob was a stranger, Stephen doesn’t suffer any loss of benefits, as benefits were never being provided by Bob in the first place. If Stephen and Bob were previously cooperating in some form the matter gets a bit more involved, but we won’t concern ourselves with that for now; we’ll just assume the benefits his wife could provide are more valuable than the ones Bob could. With regard to the second cost – the relationship becoming costlier for the person punishment is directed at – this is, in fact, not a cost when that punishment is directed at Bob, but rather the entire point. If the relationship is costlier for a third party to engage in, due to the prospect of a potentially-homicidal partner, that third party may well think twice before deciding whether to pursue the affair any further. Punishing Bob would seem to look like the better option, then. There’s just one major hitch: specifically, punishing is costly for Stephen, both in terms of time, energy, and risk, and he may well need to direct punishment towards far more targets if he’s attempting to prevent his wife from having sex with other people.

Punishing third parties versus punishing one’s partner can be thought of, by way of analogy, to treating the symptoms or the cause of a disease, respectively. Treating the symptoms (deterring other interested men), in this case, might be cheaper than treating the underlying cause on an individual basis, but you may also need to continuously treat the symptoms (if his wife is rather interested with the idea of having affairs more generally). Depending on the situation, then, it might be ultimately cheaper and more effective to treat either the cause or the symptoms of the problem. It’s probably safe to assume that the relative cost/benefit calculations being worked out cognitively might ultimately be represented to some degree in our desires: if some part of Stephen’s mind eventually comes to the conclusion, for whatever reasons, that punishing one or more third parties would be the cheaper of the two options, he might end up feeling especially interested in punishing Bob.

All things considered, I’d say Bob had a pretty good run…

There is another, unexamined, set of costs, though, which brings us to the more general account. Stephen is not deciding whether to punish his wife and/or Bob in a social vacuum: what other people think about his punishment decisions will, in turn, likely effect Stephen’s perceptions of their attractiveness as options. If people are relatively lined up behind Stephen’s eventual decision, punishment suddenly becomes far less costly for Stephen to implement; by contrast, if others feel Stephen has gone to far and they align against him, his punishment would now become costlier and less effective (DeScioli & Kurzban, 2012). This brings us to a question I’ve raised before: would Stephen’s punishing of Bob result in the same social costs as the same punishment directed towards his wife? Strictly on the grounds that Bob is a man and Stephen’s wife is a woman, the answer to that question would seem to be “no”.

A paper by Glaeser and Sacerdote (2003) examined whether victim characteristics (like age and gender) were predictive of sentencing lengths for various crimes. The authors examined a sample of 1,772 cases in which manslaughter or murder charges were brought and a sentence was delivered, either due to a plea bargain or a conviction. Some of the expected racial bias seemed to raise its head, in that when the victim in question was black, the person sentenced for the killing was given less time (17.6 years, on average), overall, than when the victim was white (19.8 years). As was also the case in my last discussion of this topic, when the victim was a woman, sentence lengths were substantially shorter than when the victim was a man (17.5 vs 22.4 years, respectively). The difference is even starker when you consider the interaction between the gender of the person doing and kill and the gender of the person who got killed: when the victim was a man, if the killer was also a man, he would get about 18 years, on average; if the killer was a woman, that number drops to 11.3. For comparison’s sake, when the victim was a woman and the killer a woman, she would get about 17.5 years; if the killer was a man, that average was 23.1 years.

Those numbers, however, refer to all types of killings, so the sample was further restricted to vehicular homicides (about 7% of all homicides); essentially cases of people being killed by drunk drivers. These cases in particular are interesting because the victims here are, more or less, random; they just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and were not being targeted. Since these killings are relatively random, so to speak, the characteristics of the victim should be irrelevant to sentencing length, but they again were not. In these cases, if the person driving the car and doing the killing was a woman, she could expect a sentence of about 3 years for killing a man and 4.5 for killing another woman. If you replace the driver with a male, those numbers rise to 4.7 and 10.4 years respectively. Killing a woman netted a higher sentence in general, no matter your gender, but being a man doing the killing put you in an especially bad situation.

“Oh, good; we only hit a man. I was worried for a second there.”

So where does all that leave Stephen? If other people are more likely to align against Stephen for punishing his wife, relative to his punishing Bob, that, to some extent, makes the appeal of threatening or harming Bob seem (proportionally) all the sweeter. This analysis is not specifically targeted at gender (or race, or age), but at social value more generally. When deciding who to align with in these kinds of moral contexts, we should expect people to do so, in part, by cognitively computing (though not necessarily consciously) where their social investments will be most likely to yield a good return. Of course, determining the social value of others is not always easy task, as the variables which determine it will vary both in content and degree across people and across time. The larger point is simply that one’s social value can be determined not only by what you think of them, but by what others think of them as well. So even though Stephen’s wife was the only person cheating, Bob gets to be the party more likely to targeted for punishment, in no small part because of his gender.

References: Descioli, P. & Kurzban, R. (2012). A solution to the mysteries of morality. Psychological Bulletin, 1-20.

Glaeser, E., & Sacerdote, B. (2003). Sentencing in Homicide Cases and the Role of Vengeance The Journal of Legal Studies, 32 (2), 363-382 DOI: 10.1086/374707

My Eyes Are Up Here (But My Experiences Aren’t)

Posted on January 9, 2013 by Jesse Marczyk

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, objectification is a central notion to feminist theory. Among the listed features of objectification found there, I’d like to focus on number seven in particular:

Denial of subjectivity: the treatment of a person as something whose experiences and feelings (if any) need not be taken into account.

Non-living objects – and even some living ones – are not typically perceived to have a mind capable of experiences. Cars, for instance, are not often thought of as possessing the capacity to experience things the way sentient beings do, like pain or sound (though that doesn’t always stop drivers from verbally bargaining with their cars or physically hitting them when they “refuse” to start). Accordingly, people find different behaviors more socially justifiable when they’re directed towards an object, as opposed to a being capable of having subjective experiences. For instance, many people might say that it’s morally wrong to hit a person, because, in part, being hit hurts; hitting a car, by contrast, while silly or destructive, isn’t as morally condemned, as the car feels no pain. As people generally don’t wish to be treated in the same fashion as objects, their objections or being objectified would seem to follow naturally.

It has often been asserted that focusing on someone’s (typically a woman’s) physical characteristics (typically the sexual ones) results in the objectification of that person; objectification which strips them of their mind, and with it their capacity for experiences. They’re reduced to the status of “tool” for sexual pleasure, rather than “person”. This assertion makes a rather straightforward prediction: increasing the focus on someone’s body ought to diminish perceptions of their capacity to experience things.

Like the pain of his daily steroid injections.

When that prediction was put to the test by Gray et al (2011), however, the researchers found precisely the opposite pattern of results across six experiments: increasing the focus on a person’s physical characteristics resulted in the perception that the person was more capable of subjective experiences. In the first of these experiments, subjects were presented with either a male or female face alone, or those same faces complete with a portion of their exposed upper body, followed by questions about the ability of the pictured person to do (behave morally, control themselves) or feel (hunger, desire) certain things, relative to others. When more of the person’s body was on display, they were rated as slightly less likely to be able to do things (2.90 vs 3.23 out of 5), but slightly more able to experience things (3.65 vs 3.38), relative to the face-alone condition. It’s also worth noting that a score of 3 on this scale denoted being average, relative to others, in either agency or experience, so showing more skin certainly didn’t remove the perception of the person having a mind (they were still about average); it just altered what kind of mind was being perceived.

The basic effect was replicated in the second of these studies. Subjects were asked to assess pictures of two women along either physical or professionalism variables. Subsequently, the subjects were asked which of two women they thought was more capable of doing or feeling certain things as before. When the woman in the picture had been assessed along the physical variables, they were rated as being slightly more capable of experiences, but slightly less agentic; when that same woman was instead assessed along the professionalism variables, the reverse pattern held – more agency and less patiency.

The researchers turned up the sex in the next two studies. In the third experiment, subjects saw one of ten target men or women in a picture, either clothed or naked (with the sexy parts tastefully blurred, of course), and assessed the target along the same agency or experiential dimensions. The naked targets were rated as having a greater capacity for experience, relative to their clothed pictures (3.28 vs 3.18), while also having less agency (2.92 vs 3.26). Further, though I didn’t mention this before, it was the female targets that were ascribed more overall mind in this study, as was also the case in the first study, though this difference was small (just to preemptively counter the notion that women were being universally perceived as having less of a mind). On a possibly related note, there was also a positive correlation between target attractiveness and mind perception: the more attractive the person in the picture was, the more capable of agency and experience they was rated as being.

Taking that last experiment one step further, one of the female targets that had previously been represented was again presented to subjects either clothed or naked, but a third condition was added: that woman also happened to have done an adult film, and the (highly sexualized) picture of her on the cover was rated along the same dimensions as the other two. In terms of her capacity for agency, there was a steady decline over the clothed, naked, and sexualized pictures (2.92, 2.76, and 2.58), whereas there was a steady incline on the experiential dimension (2.91, 3.18, and 3.45). Overall, the results really do make a for a very good-looking graph.

Results so explicit they might not be suitable for minors

Skipping the fifth study, the final experiment looked at how a person might be treated, contingent on how much skin is on display. Subjects were presented with a picture of a male confederate who was hooked up to some electrodes and either clothed or shirtless. It was the subject’s job to decide which tasks to give to the confederate (i.e. have the confederate do task X or task Y), and some of those tasks ostensibly involved painful shocks. The subjects were told to only administer as many shock tasks as they thought would be safe, as their goal was to protect the confederate (while still gathering shock data, that is). Of interest was how often the subjects decided to assign the shock task to the confederate out of the 40 opportunities they had to do so. In the shirtless condition, the subjects tended to think of the confederate more in terms of his body rather than his mind, as was hoped; they also liked the confederate just as much, no matter his clothing situation. Also, as predicted, subjects administered fewer shocks to the shirtless confederates (8 times, on average, as compared with almost 14). Focusing on a person’s body seemed to make these subjects less inclined to hurt them, fitting nicely with the increases we just saw in perceptions of capacity for experience.

Just to summarize, focusing on someone’s physical characteristics, whether that someone was a man or a woman, did not lead to diminished attributions of their capacity to have experiences; just their agency. People were perceiving a mind in the “objectified” targets; they were just perceiving different sorts – or focusing on different aspects – of minds. Now perhaps some people might counter that this paper doesn’t tell us much about objectification because there wasn’t any – sexual or otherwise – going on, as “sexual objectification is the viewing of people solely as de-personalised objects of desire instead of as individuals with complex personalities and desires/plans of their own“. Indeed, all the targets in these experiments were viewed as having both experiences and agency, and the ratings of those two dimensions hovered closely around the midpoints of the scales; they clearly weren’t be viewed as mindless objects in any meaningful sense, so maybe there was no objectification going on here. However, the same website that provided the sexual objectification definition goes on to list pornography and the representation of women in media as good examples of sexual objectification, both of which could be considered to have been represented in the current paper. For such a criticism to have any teeth, the use of the term “objectification” would need to be reined in substantially, restricted to cases where depersonalization actually occurs (meaning things like pointing a video camera at someone’s body don’t qualify).

While these results are all pretty neat, one thing this paper seriously wants for is an explanation for them. Gray et al (2011) only redescribe their findings in terms of “common-sense dualism”, which is less than satisfying and it doesn’t seem to account for the findings on attractiveness very well either. The question they seem to be moving towards involves examining the ways we perceive others more generally; when and why certain aspects of someone’s mind become relatively more salient. Undoubtedly, the ways these perceptions shift will turn out to be quite complex and context-specific. For instance, if I was going in for, say, a major operation, I might be very interested in, to some extent, temporarily “reducing” the person doing my surgery from a complex person with all sorts of unique attributes and desires to being simply a surgeon because, at that moment, their other non-surgery-related traits aren’t particularly relevant.

“A few more people are coming over for dinner; which of you guys are the flattest?”

While it’s not particularly poetic, what’s important in that situation – and many other situations more generally – is whether the person in question can help you do something useful; whether they’re a useful “tool” for the situation at hand (admittedly, they’re rather peculiar kinds of tools that need to be properly motivated to work, but the analogy works well enough). If you need surgery, someone’s value as a mate won’t be particularly relevant there; after you’ve recovered, left the hospital, and found a nice bar, the situation might be reversed. Which of a person’s traits are most worthy of focus will depend on the demands of the task at hand: what goals are being sought, how they might be achieved, and whom they might be most profitably achieved with. Precisely what problem the aforementioned perceptual shifts between agency and experience are supposed to solve – what useful thing they allow the perceivers to do – is certainly a matter worthy of deeper consideration for anyone interested in objectification.

References: Gray, K., Knobe, J., Sheskin, M., Bloom, P., & Barrett, L. (2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101 (6), 1207-1220 DOI: 10.1037/a0025883

Is The Exotic Erotic? Probably Not…

Posted on December 22, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

Last time I wrote about the likely determinants of homosexuality, I ended up favoring the pathogen hypothesis that was put forth by Cochran, Ewald, and Cochran (2000) as the theory that had the most currently going for it. What is particularly interesting about my conclusion is how much empirical evidence directly confirms the theory: none. Don’t get me wrong; the pathogen hypothesis is certainly consistent with the known findings about homosexuality – such as the widely-varying reported concordance rates and the large fitness costs associated with the orientation – but being consistent with certain findings is not the same as being demonstrated by that evidence. If the currently most plausible theory for explaining homosexuality has, in essence, no direct evidence in its favor, that clearly must not be saying a lot about the alternative prospects. The two theories I covered last time – kin selection and sexually antagonistic selection – can’t even seem to account well for the existing evidence, so a neutral point with regard to the evidence is actually preferable. There was one theory that I neglected to mention last time, however, and this is a theory that purports to be able to explain both how heterosexual and homosexual orientations come to develop, and in both sexes, no less. If such a theory proved to have anything to it, then, it would be a highly valuable perspective indeed, so it deserves careful inspection.

“Nope; still not finding any indication of plausibility yet. Get the bigger microscope”

The theory, known as “Exotic Becomes Erotic” (EBE) was proposed by Daryl Bem (1996). If that name sounds familiar, it’s because this is the same Daryl Bem who also thought he found evidence for “extra-sensory porn-ception” in 2011, so we’re already not off to a good start. Pressing ahead despite that association, EBE puts the causal emphasis of developing a preferential attraction towards one sex or another on an individual’s perceptions of feeling different from other members of one sex: for instance, if a boy happens to not like sports, he will feel different from the majority of the other boys who do seem to like sports; if he does like sports, he’d feel different from the girls who did not. Following this perception of one sex as exotic, EBE posits that individuals will come to experience “non-specific, autonomic arousal” to the exotic group in question and, subsequently, that arousal will be transformed into an erotic preference for members of the initially exotic group. So, if you feel different from the boys or the girls, regardless of whether you’re a boy or a girl, you’ll come to be vaguely aroused by that sex – either by apprehension, anger, fear, curiosity, or really anything works, so long as it’s physiologically arousing – and then your body will, at some point, automatically turn that arousal into lasting sexual preferences.

Like most of the theories regarding homosexuality I discussed previously, this one also have very little actual evidence to support it. What it does have is a correlation between retrospective reports of childhood gender nonconformity and current sexual orientation. In fact, that single, underwhelming correlation is about all that EBE has going for it; everything else in the model is an assumption that’s largely built off that correlation. While a retrospective correlation is slightly better than having no evidence at all, it’s not better by a whole lot (in much the same way that 53% accuracy at guessing where some stimuli will show up between two options isn’t much better than 50%, yet apparently both are publishable). So, now that we’ve covered what the theory has going for it, let’s consider some of the things that EBE does not have going for it. You might want to take a break now to use the bathroom or get a snack, because this is a long list.

Let’s begin with the matter of this “non-specific physiological arousal”: at a bare minimum, EBE would require that the sex an individual perceived to be the least exotic ought to be consistently less physiologically arousing, on average, than the gender that individual did identify with. Without that arousal, there would be nothing to eventually convert into later sexual preference. So what does Bem have to say about the presence or absence of this arousal?

“To my knowledge, there is no direct evidence for the first step in this sequence beyond the well-documented observation that novel (“exotic”) stimuli produce heightened physiological arousal in many species, including our own”

So, in other words, there is no empirical evidence for this suggestion whatsoever. The problems, however, do not stop there: EBE is also massively under-specified in regards to how this hypothetical “non-specific arousal” is turned into eroticism in some cases but not others. While Bem (1996) proposes three possible mechanisms through which that transition might take place – sexual imprinting, the opponent process, and the extrinsic arousal effect – there are clearly non-human stimuli that produce a great deal of arousal (such as spiders, luxury cars, or, if we are talking about children, new toys) that does not get translated into later sexual attraction. Further, there are also many contexts in which gender-conforming children of the same sex will be around other while highly physiologically aroused (such as when boys are playing sports and competing against a rival team), but EBE would seem to posit that these high-aroused children would not develop any short- or long-term eroticism towards each other.

Nope; nothing even potentially erotic about that…

Bem might object that this kind of physiological arousal is somehow different, or missing a key variable. Perhaps, he might say, that in addition to this yet-to-be-demonstrated arousal, one also needs to feel different from the target of that arousal. Without being both exotic and arousing, there will be no lasting sexual preference developed. While such a clarification might seem to rescue EBE conceptually in this regard, the theory again falters by being massively under-specified. As Bem (1996) writes:

“…[T]he assertion that exotic becomes erotic should be amended to exotic – but not too exotic – becomes erotic. Thus, an erotic or romantic preference for partners of a different sex, race, or ethnicity is relatively common, but a preference for lying with the beasts in the field is not.”

In addition to not figuring out whether the arousal required for the model to work is even present, in no treatment of the subject does Bem specify precisely how much arousal and/or exoticism ought to be required for eroticism to develop, or how these two variables might interact in ways that are either beneficial or detrimental to that process. While animals might be both “exotic” and “highly arousing” to children, very rarely does a persistent sexual preference towards them develop; the same can be said for feelings between rival groups of boys, though in this case the arousal is generated by fear or anger. EBE does not deal with this issue so much as it avoids it through definitional obscurity.

Continuing along this thread of under-specificity, the only definition of “exotic” that Bem offers involves a perception of being different. Unfortunately for EBE, there are a near incalculable number of potential ways that children might feel different from each other, and almost none of those potential representations are predicted to result in later eroticism. While Bem (1996) does note that feeling different about certain things – interest in sports seems to be important here – appears to be important for predicting later homosexual orientation, he does not attempt to explain why feeling different about gender-related variables ought to be the determining factor, relative to non-gender related variables (such as intelligence, social status, or hair color). While erotic feelings do typically develop along gendered lines, EBE gives no a priori reason for why this should be expected. One could imagine a hypothetical population of people who develop preferential sexual attractions to other individuals across any number of non-gendered grounds, and EBE would have little to say about why this outcome does not obtain in any known human population.

The problem with this loose definition of exotic does not even end there. According to the data presented by Bem, many men and women who later reported a homosexual attraction also reported having enjoyed gender-typical activities (37 and 37%, respectively), having been averse to gender-atypical activities (52 and 19%), and having most of their childhood friends be of their same sex (58 and 40%). While these percentages are clearly different between homosexual and heterosexual respondents – with homosexuals reporting enjoying typical activities less, atypical ones more, and being more likely to predominately have friends of the opposite sex – EBE would seem to be at loss when attempting to explain why roughly half of homosexual men and women do not seem to report differing from their heterosexual counterparts in these important regards. If many homosexuals apparently did not view their own sex to be particularly exotic during childhood, there could be no hypothetical arousal and, accordingly, no eroticism. This is, of course, provided these retrospective accounts are even accurate in the first place and do not retroactively inflate the perceptions of feeling different to accord with their current sexual orientation.

“In light of not being hired, I can now officially say I never wanted your stupid job”

On a conceptual level, however, EBE runs into an even more serious concern. Though Bem (1996) is less than explicit about this, it would seem his model suggests that homosexuality is a byproduct of an otherwise adaptive system designed for developing heterosexual mate preferences. While Bem (1996) is likely correct in suggesting that homosexuality is not adaptive itself, his postulated mechanism for developing mate preference would likely have been far too detrimental to have been selected for. Bem’s model would imply that the mechanism responsible for generating sexual attraction, when functioning properly, functions so poorly that it would, essentially, render a rather large minority of the population effectively sterile. This would generate an intense selection pressure either towards any modification of the mechanism that did not preclude its transfer from one generation to the next or decisive selection towards a much greater gender conformity. Neither outcome seems to have obtained, which poses a new set of questions regarding why.

Precisely how such a poorly-functioning mechanism would have even come to exist in human populations in the first place is a matter that Bem never addresses. A major issue with the EBE perspective, then, is that it more-or-less takes for granted the base rate existence of homosexuality in human populations without asking why it ought to be that prevalent for humans but almost no other known species. Though Bem does not discuss it, almost every other species appears to navigate the process of developing sexual attraction in ways that do not result in large numbers of males or females developing exclusive same-sex attractions. If this was any other key adaptation, such a vision, and significant minorities of the population consistently went blind at very young ages in a world where being able to see is adaptive, we would want a better explanation for that failure than the kind that EBE can provide. Now if only the creator of EBE has some kind of ability to see into the future – an extra-sensory ability, if you will – to help him predict that his theory would run into these problems, they might have been avoided or dealt with…

References:Bem, D. (1996). Exotic becomes erotic: A developmental theory of sexual orientation. Psychological Review, 103 (2), 320-335 DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.103.2.320

Cochran, G., Ewald, P., & Cochran, K. (2000). Infectious Causation of Disease: An Evolutionary Perspective Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 43 (3), 406-448 DOI: 10.1353/pbm.2000.0016

Your Mama’s So Fat…

Posted on September 14, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

Recently, there’s been a (free) paper going around the various psychology blogging sites by Swami & Tovee (2012) that deals with how stress appears to affect men’s ratings of women’s attractiveness by body type. The study purports to find that men, when placed in an apparently stressful situation, subsequently report finding heavier women more attractive. My take on the issue, for what it’s worth, is that the authors (and a few bloggers who have picked up the study) might have, in the excitement of talking about this result, seemed to have overlooked the fact that their explanation for it does not appear to make much sense.

On the plus side, at least they tried; “A” for…affort, I guess…

Swami & Tovee (2012) referenced what they call the “Environmental Security Hypothesis”. This hypothesis suggests that when an individual is facing some environmental stress, they will tend to prefer mates that can more successfully navigate those stressful life events. In certain contexts, then, the author’s further suggest that physical attractiveness ideals should change. So, in the case of body size, their general argument would seem to go something like this: since fat stores are a measure of caloric security and physical maturity, when their caloric security is low, men should subsequently find women with more fat more attractive because they hold a higher mate value in those contexts.This argument strikes me as distinctly bad.

Presumably there are a number of modules inside our brain that function to assess the mate value of others. We should expect these modules to being paying attention, so to speak, to traits that correlate with the reproductive potential of those potential mates. Given that the current caloric state of women is one of those traits, we certainly should expect some of men’s mating modules to assess it. That’s all well and good, but here’s where the authors lose me: when a man is assessing a woman’s reproductive potential, how does information about that man’s current state help in that assessment? My being hungry or stressed should, in principle, have little or nothing to do with whether any individual woman is fertile or capable of successfully dealing with stressful life events, or anything, really.

Now maybe if I was chronically hungry or stressed, there might be some value in selecting a mate with more fat, but only insomuch as my levels of hunger and stress are predictive of theirs. This argument would hinge on the notion that stress and hunger are shared, more or less, communally. However, even granting that chronic levels of hunger or stress for me might be predictive of the risks that others will encounter these things as well, this study was not examining chronic levels of these variables; it was examining acute levels of stress or hunger. This makes the argument seem even weaker. The mate value of others should not really change because I have a stressful day (or, in the case of this experiment, a stressful few minutes competing for a fake job and counting backwards in intervals of 13 in front of a few people).

They should only change after I make it to happy hour.

Because of that, the question then becomes: what value would information about my current state have when it comes to assessing another individual’s state? As far as I can tell, this answer amounts to “not much”. If I want to assess someone else’s state my best bet would probably be to, well, assess it directly, rather than assessing mine and assuming mine reflects theirs. Despite this, the research did show that men were assessing heavier figures as more attractive after they had been stressed, so how should we explain this?

We can start by noting that neither men’s BMI or current hunger levels correlated with their ratings of attractiveness. Since adipose tissue is supposed to be signaling caloric security, this casts some doubt on at least part of the Environmental Security Hypothesis put forth by Swami & Tovee (2012). It would also appear to contradict some previous research they present in the introduction about how men’s preferences for female body size shift with their hunger levels. Nevertheless, men in the stressed group did tend to find the heavier figures more attractive. Those same men also happened to find the figures in the normal weight category more attractive, and, even though the preference was slightly shifted, also still found women in the underweight category to be the average ideal. In other words, their ratings of attractiveness shifted up in overall magnitude about as much as they shifted towards the heavier end. While the authors focus on the latter shift, they don’t seem to pay any mind to the former, which is a rather severe oversight.

Let’s consider that finding in light of a hunger analogy. There’s no denying that preferences can shift on the basis of one’s current caloric state. How appealing I find the idea of eating an unpalatable food will change on the basis of how recently I ate and how long I’ll likely have to wait before being able to eat something else. When I’m hungry, normally unpalatable food might appear more acceptable whereas food that was initially appetizing will now be highly appetizing. How attractive food seems, in general, would shift upwards. You might also find that, provided that not all food is equally as attainable, that I shift my standards towards food that I can more easily acquire and away from food that appears more difficult to obtain. When you’re hungry, a meal of lower quality now might seem more appealing than a meal of higher quality later, provided that meal of higher quality would even be available at all. Finally, you might find that no matter how hungry I get, my preference for eating things like bark or sand remains relatively unchanged, no matter how easy or difficult they are to obtain.

It’s not so bad once you ketchup it up…

Returning to the attractiveness ratings in the current study, this is basically what the paper showed: there was little variance in whether or not men found starving or obese women attractive (they didn’t). Stressed men also shifted their ratings to the right (perhaps towards more attainable mates) and similarly shifted them up (women were generally more attractive). Taking both of these effects into account gives us a better grasp for what’s really going on.

Now maybe the title of “stressed men lower their standards” has a bit less of a positive ring to it than the authors and bloggers intended, but it’s certainly consistent with the pattern of data observed here. It would at least appear to be more consistent than the author’s explanation for the pattern of results which hinges on ecological variation in access to resources, since the overall ecology for men wasn’t changing in this study: acute stress levels were. Whether your stress level is more useful for predicting useful things about other people, or whether it’s more useful for predicting which course of action you yourself should pursue, I feel, should be clear.

References: Swami V, & Tovée MJ (2012). The Impact of Psychological Stress on Men’s Judgements of Female Body Size. PloS one, 7 (8) PMID: 22905153

Mate Choices Can Be Complex, But Are They Oedipal Complex?

Posted on September 7, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

Theory is arguably the most important part of research. A good theory helps researchers formulate better research questions as well as understand the results that their research projects end up producing.I’ve said this so often that expressing the idea is closer to a reflex than a thought at this point. Unfortunately, “theories” in psychology – if we can even call them theories – are frequently of poor quality, if not altogether absent from research, leading to similarly poorly formulated projects and explanations. Evolutionary theory offers an escape from this theoretically shallowness, and it’s the major reason the field appeals to me. I find myself somewhat disappointed, then, to see a new paper published in Evolutionary Psychology that appears to be, well, atheoretical.

No, I’m not mad; I’m just disappointed…

The paper was ostensibly looking at whether or not human children sexually imprint on the facial traits of their opposite sex parent, or, more specifically (for those of you that don’t know about imprinting):

Positive sexual imprinting has been defined as a sexual preference for individuals possessing the characteristics of one’s parents… It is said to be a result of acquiring sexual preferences via exposure to the parental phenotype during a sensitive period in early childhood.

The first sentence of that definition seems to me to be unnecessary. One could have preferences for characteristics that one’s parents also happen to possess without those preferences being the result of any developmental mechanism that uses parental phenotype as its input. So I’d recommend using the second part of the definition, which seems fine, as far as describing sexual imprinting on parents goes. As the definition suggests, such a mechanism would require (1) a specified developmental window during which the imprinting takes place (i.e. the preferences would not be acquired prior to or after that time, and would be relatively resistant to change afterwards) and (2) that mechanism to be specifically focused on parental features.

So how did Marcinkowska & Rantala (2012) go about testing this hypothesis? Seventy subjects, their sexual partner, and their opposite sex parent (totaling 210 people) were each photographed from straight ahead and in profile. These subjects were also asked to report about their upbringing as a child. Next, a new group of subjects were presented with an array of pictures: on one side of the array was a picture of one of the opposite sex parents; on the other side there were four pictures, one of which was the partner of that parent’s child and three of which were controls. The new subjects were asked to rate how similar the picture of the parent was to the pictures of the people on the other side of the display.

The results showed that the group of independent raters felt that a man’s mother resembled slightly more closely his later partner than the controls did. The results also showed that the same raters did not feel that a woman’s father more closely resembled her later partner than the control did. Neither of these findings were in any way related to the self-reports that subjects had delivered about their upbringing either. If you’ve been following along so far, you might be curious as to what these results have to do with a sexual imprinting hypothesis. As far as I can tell, the answer is a resounding, “nothing”.

Discussion: Never mind…

Let’s consider what these results don’t tell us: they certainly don’t speak to the matter of preferences. As Marcinkowska & Rantala (2012) note, actual mating preferences can be constrained by other factors. Everyone in the population might wish to monopolize the matings of a series of beautiful others, but if those beautiful others have different plans, that desire will not be fulfilled. Since the initial definition of imprinting specifically referenced preferences – not actual choices – the findings would have very little relevance to the matter of imprinting no matter how the data fell out. It’s worse than that, however: this study didn’t even attempt to look for any developmental window either. The authors seemed to just assume it existed without any demonstration that it actually does.

What’s particularly peculiar about this oversight is that, in the discussion, the authors note they did not look at any adoptive families. This suggests that the authors at least realized there were ways of testing to see if this developmental window even exists, but didn’t seem to bother running the required tests. A better test – one that might suggest such a developmental window exists – would be to test preferences of adoptive or step-children towards the features of their biological and adoptive/step-parents. If the imprinting hypothesis was true, you would expect that adoptive/step-children would prefer the characteristics of their adoptive/step-parents, not their biological ones. Further, this research could be run with respect to the time at which the new parent came into the picture (and the old one left). If there is a critical developmental window, you should only expect to see this effect when the new parent entered into the equation at a certain age; not before or beyond that point.

The problems don’t even end there, however. As I mentioned previously, this paper appears atheoretical in nature, in that the authors give absolutely no reason as to why one would expect to find a sexual imprinting mechanism in the first place, why it would operate in early childhood, let alone why that mechanism would be inclined to imprint on one’s close, biological kin. What the precise fitness benefits to such a mechanism would be are entirely unclear to me, though, at the very least, I could see it carrying fitness costs in that it might heighten the probability of incest taking place. Further, if this mechanism is presumably,active in all members of our species, and each person is looking to mate with someone who resembles their opposite sex parent, it would seem that such a preference might actively disincline people from having what would be otherwise adaptive matings. Lacking any theoretical explanation for any of this, the purpose of the research seems very confusing.

On the plus side, you can still add it to your resume, and we all know how important publications are.

All that said, even if research did find that people tended to be attracted to the traits of their opposite sex parent, such a finding could, in principle, be explained by sexual selection. Offspring inherent genes from their parents that both contributed to their parent’s phenotype as well as genes that contributed to their parent’s psychological preferences. If preferences were not similarly inherited, sexual selection would be impossible and ornaments like the peacock’s tail could never have come into existence. So, presuming your parents found each other at least attractive enough to get together and mate, you could expect their offspring to resemble them both physically and psychologically to some extent. When those offspring are then making their own mate choices, you might then expect them to make a similar set of choices (all else being equal, of course).

What can be said for the study is that it’s a great example of how not to do research. Don’t just assume the effect you’re looking to study exists; demonstrate that it does. Don’t assume that it works in a particular way in the event that it actually exists either. Most importantly, don’t formulate your research project in absence of a clearly stated theory that explains why such an effect would exist and, further, why it would work the way you expect it might. You should also try and rule out alternative explanations for whatever findings you’re expecting. Without good theory, the quality of your research will likely suffer, and suffer badly.

References: Marcinkowska, U.M., & Rantala, M.J. (2012). Sexual Imprinting on Facial Traits of Opposite-Sex Parents in Humans. Evolutionary Psychology, 10, 621-630

The Myths That Never Were

Posted on July 7, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

I recently came across a post over at Psychology Today entitled, “Six Myths About Female Sexuality and Why They’re Myths” by one Susan Whitbourne. I feel the need to discuss it here for two reasons: first, it’s a terrible piece; not only does Susan get a lot wrong, she gets it wrong badly while bad-mouthing my field. So that’s kind of annoying, but it’s not the main reason. That reason is because, at the time I’m writing this, there are five comments on the article; there were ten comments on it before I had left mine last time I had checked it. This means at least six comments (all the highly critical ones, I might add) were deleted. This has, in turn, activated my moral template for automatic completion, and I find myself perceiving an incompetent writer trying to hide criticism instead of engaging it, instead of all the negative comments vanishing into the internet magically.

“Just throw a rug over it and you’re good to go”

I’d like to first mention that the source Susan is drawing her information from is Terri Conley. You know, the one who suggested that sexual reproduction is a byproduct of sexual pleasure. That is to say, sexual reproduction did not directly contribute to reproduction, which is kind of an odd claim to make. The paper itself was also discussed at some length here roughly a year ago, so what I’m doing is largely repetition; you know, standing on the shoulders of giants and all. Anyway, on to the matter of figuring out what institution is giving out psychology PhDs to people who clearly don’t deserve them (I’m looking at you…Columbia University? Really? Well, fancy that).

Susan – who I should remind everyone again says she has a PhD – in her first point suggests that men and women value the traits of status, youth, and attractiveness equally. Since this point is about preferences, it’s wrong on the grounds that massive amounts of evidence from surveys the world over demonstrate precisely that pattern of preferences. However, just because someone has certain preferences, it does not imply that their partner – should they eventually have one – will manifest any or all aspects of those preferences, as tradeoffs need to be made. If everyone expressed an interest for an attractive partner and there are only so many attractive partners to go around, someone’s going to be disappointed; many someones, in fact. Accordingly, it might not be such a good idea to attempt and invest a lot of energy in a long-shot, no matter how attractive the payoff might be (but more about speed dating below).

The second “myth” is that men and women desire (and have) different numbers of partners. In the realm of desire, men do indeed desire a greater number of partners than women. However, when, as Susan suggests, “appropriate statistical controls were used”, this difference goes away. In the current context, “appropriate” means “using the median instead of a mean”, or, as I might put it, ignoring all the inconvenient data. This is not a first time that a median, rather than mean, has been used to ignore data that doesn’t fit preconceptions. Now, of course, men and women need to have the same number of opposite sex partners; that’s just basic statistics. Despite this, men tend to claim to have more partners than women, so someone must be lying. In this case, the person lying is… the author, Susan. She reported that when hooked up to a fake lie detector, men adjusted their number down, which is peculiar, given that the study she’s talking about (Alexander & Fisher, 2003) found that men were consistent across groups; it was the women who were under-reporting. Way to bust myths, Susan.

You clearly put in the effort instead of just bullshitting it.

The third myth is that men think about sex more than women. This myth is a myth, according to Susan, in that it’s true. Men do, in fact, think about sex more, according to Conley et al (2011); they also think about food and sleep more. So let’s examine the logic here: Men do X more than women. Men also do Y and Z more than women. Therefore, men don’t do X more. Sure, that might seem like a basic failure of reasoning abilities, since the conclusion in no way follows from the premises, but, bear in mind, this woman does have a PhD from Columbia, so she clearly must understand this problem better than those who pointed out this huge failing. Better to just delete the comments of people pointing this out, rather than risk Susan wasting her valuable time engaging in debate with them.

Myth four is another one of those true myths: women have orgasms less frequently than men. However, it’s not just a true myth; it’s also one of those things Susan lies about. Susan grants that this orgasm differential exists in hookups, but not in romantic relationships. Conley et al (2011) report on data showing that, during hookups, women orgasm 32% and 49% as frequently as men (in first and repeat hookups respectively). However, in established relationships, women orgasmed 80% as much. Thus, according to Susan, a 20% gap in frequency amounts to no gap. Frankly, I’m surprised that Mythbusters hasn’t snatched Susan up yet, given her impressive logical and basic reading abilities.

Myth five is that, apparently, men like casual sex more than woman. I know; I was shocked to hear people thought that too. I already linked to the discussion of the article Conley (2011) uses to support the notion that men and women like causal sex just as much, but here it is again. The long and short of the paper is that, when women and men considered casual sex offers from very attractive and famous people, there was no difference. Women were also just as likely as men to accept a casual sex offer from a close friend who they thought would provide a positive sexual experience. It might be worth pointing that most people aren’t very attractive, famous, familiar, and skilled in bed, and women tend to judge most men as lacking in this department (given that 0% accepted offers for casual sex in the classic Clark and Hatfield paper), whereas the same dimensions don’t seem to matter to men nearly as much (given the roughly 75% acceptance rate). It might be worth pointing that out, that is, if you know what you’re talking about, which Susan and Conley clearly don’t.

Finally, we arrive at Myth Six: women are choosier than men. The Clark and Hatfield results, along with evidence from every culture across the globe and many species on the planet, might seem to confirm this myth. However, the results of a single speed-dating survey where no sexual behavior actually took place and no sex difference was fully reversed could overturn it all. In this study, depending on who approached who at a speed-dating event, there was a (relatively minor) effect on feelings of romantic desire, chemistry, and a desire to see the other partner again. That said, women tend to not approach men as much as men approach women in the world outside of the speed-dating scenarios, and when women approached men in the Clark and Hatfield study the men overwhelmingly said “yes” (while the women universally said “no” when approached by a man), and the study didn’t track whether anything ever came of the speed-dating, and a certain type of person might be interested in speed-dating, and speed-dating might not be terribly ecologically valid, and….you get the idea.

But other than being a total failure, your article was a great success.

Susan caps off her article by demonstrating that she doesn’t understand that the nature/nurture debate has long ago ended and that evolutionary psychologists reject such a dichotomy in the first place by asking about whether these behaviors are genetically or environmentally based. It’s nice to see that Susan comes full circle from her introduction where she suggests that she doesn’t understand evolution isn’t working to “keep the species afloat”. Finally, she asked why some people, who ought to know better, favor an evolutionary-based theory in their research. One can only wonder, Susan. I’ll leave it to people like you, who clearly know better, to lead the way. I just hope for all of our sakes that whatever path you end up leading us down doesn’t involve you having to read or understand anything.

References: Alexander MG, & Fisher TD (2003). Truth and consequences: using the bogus pipeline to examine sex differences in self-reported sexuality. Journal of sex research, 40 (1), 27-35 PMID: 12806529

Conley, T.D., Moors, A.C., Matsick, J.L., Ziegler, A., & Valentine, B.A. (2011). Women, Men, and the Bedroom: Methodological and Conceptual Insights That Narrow, Reframe, and Eliminate Gender Differences in Sexuality Psychological Science DOI: 10.1177/0963721411418467

Does Infidelity Pay Off (For Sparrows)?

Posted on June 9, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

For some species, mating can be a touch more complicated than others. In species where males provide little more than their gametes, the goal of mating for females is simple: get the best gametes available. While the specifics as to how that’s accomplished vary substantially between species, the overall goal remains the same. Since genes are all the female is getting, she may as well get the best that she can. In contrast, for some other species males provide more than just their genes; they also provide some degree of investment, which can take the form of a one-time gift through upwards of decades of sustained investment. In these species, females need to work this additional variable into their mating calculus, as the two goals do not always overlap. The male who’s willing to provide the best investment might not also happen to have the best genes, and pursuing one might risk the other.

Accordingly, it’s long been assumed that extra-pair mating (cheating) is part of the female strategy to have her cake and eat it too. A female can initiate a pair-bond with a male willing to invest while simultaneously having affairs with genetically higher-quality males, leaving the unfortunate cuckold to invest in offspring he did not sire. Undertaking extra-pair matings, however, can be risky business, in that detection by the investing male might lead to a withdrawal of investment and, in certain cases, bodily harm.

Good luck to all you parents when it comes to weaving that tidbit into your birds and bees talk.

These risks would require that offspring sired through extra-pair mating to tend to actually be fitter than offspring sired by the within-pair male, in order to be selected for. Abandonment can entail some serious risks, so females would need some serious compensating gains to offset that fact. A new paper by Sardell et al (2012) sought to determine whether extra-pair offspring would in fact be ‘fitter’ than within-pair offspring in Melospiza melodia – the song sparrow – when fitness was measured by lifetime reproductive success in number of offspring hatched, the number that survived to enter the breeding population, and the number of grand-offspring eventually produced. The results? Data gathered across 17 years, representing 2,343 hatchlings and 854 broods found that extra-pair offspring seemed to actually be less fit than their within-pair half-siblings. Well, kind of… but not really.

Over the 17 years of data collection, roughly 28% of the offspring were classed as being extra-pair offspring, and only broods with mixed paternity was considered for the present study (i.e. there was at least 1 offspring from the resident male and also at least 1 offspring from an extra-pair male). This cut the sample size down to 471 hatchlings, representing 154 mixed paternity broods across 117 pair bonds. The first point I’d like to make is that a 28% non-paternity rate seems large, and, unless it’s the result of an epidemic of forced copulations (rape), that means these female sparrows are having a lot of affairs, presumably because some mating module in their brain is suggesting they do

Within the sample of sparrows, female extra-pair offspring (the ones who were sired by the non-resident male) averaged 5.4 fewer hatched offspring over their lives, relative to their within-pair half-siblings; for extra-pair males, the corresponding average was 1.5 fewer offspring. However, not all of those hatchlings live to eventually breed. Of the 99 that did, the females that were the result of extra-pair mating, on average, had 6.4 fewer hatchlings of their own, relative to the within-pair females; the extra-pair males also had fewer hatchlings of their own, averaging 2.6 fewer. Thus, relative to their within-pair half-siblings, extra-pair offspring seemed to produce fewer offspring of their own, and, in turn, fewer grand-offspring. (I should note at this point that any potential reasons for why extra-pair young seemed to be having fewer hatchlings are left entirely unexamined. This strikes me as something of a rather important oversight)

Are we to conclude from this pattern of results (as this article from the Huffington post, as well as the authors of the current paper did) that extra-pair mating is not currently adaptive?

And is it time for those who support the “good genes” theory to start panicking?

I don’t think so, and here’s why: when it came to the number of recruited offspring – the hatchlings who eventually reached breeding age – extra-pair females ended up having 0.2 more of them, on average, while extra-pair males had 0.2 less of them, relative to their within-pair half-siblings. While that might seem like something of a wash, consider the previous finding: within-pair offspring were having more offspring overall. If within-pair offspring tended to have more hatchlings, but a roughly equal number reach the breeding pool, that means, proportionally, more of the within-pair offspring were dying before they reached maturity. (In fact, extra-pair offspring had a 5% advantage in the number of total hatchlings that ended up reaching maturity) Having more offspring doesn’t mean a whole lot if those offspring don’t survive and then go on to reproduce themselves, and many of the within-pair offspring were not surviving.

One big area this paper doesn’t deal with is why that mortality gap exists; merely that it does. This mortality gap might even be more surprising, given that the potential risk of abandonment might mean males were less likely to have been investing when they doubted their paternity, though the current paper doesn’t speak to that possibility one way or another. Two of the obvious potential suspects for this gap are predation and parasites. Extra-pair young may be better able to either avoid predators and/or defend against pathogens because of their genetic advantages, leading to them being more likely to survive to breeding age. Then there’s also a possibility of increased parental investment: if extra-pair hatchlings are in better condition, (perhaps due to said pathogen resistance or freedom from deleterious mutations) the parents may preferentially divert scarce resources to them, as they’re a safer wager against an uncertain future. Alternatively, extra-pair offspring might have commanded a higher mating value, and were able to secure a partner more able and/or willing to invest long term. There are many unexplored possibilities.

The heart of the matter here concerns whether the female sparrows who committed infidelity would have been better off had they not done so. From the current data, there is no way of determining that as there’s no random assignment to groups and no comparison to non-mixed paternity broods (though that latter issue comes with many confounds). So not only can the data not definitely determine whether the extra-pair mating was adaptive or not, but the data even suggests that extra-pair offspring are slightly more successful in reaching breeding age. That is precisely counter to the conclusions reached by Sardell et al (2012), who state:

Taken together, these results do not support the hypothesis that EPR [extra-pair reproduction] is under positive indirect selection in female song sparrows…and in fact suggest… [that] other components of selection now need to be invoked to explain the evolution and persistence of EPR.

Their data don’t seem to suggest anything of the sort. They haven’t even established current adaptive value, let alone anything about past selection pressures. Sardell et al ‘s (2012) interpretation of this mountain of data seems to be biting off more than they can chew.

It was a good try at least…

One final thoroughly confusing point is that Sardell et al (2012) suggest that how many grand-hatchlings the extra-pair and within-pair young had mattered. The authors concede that, sure, in the first generation within-pair sparrows had more hatchlings, proportionately more of which died, actually leaving the extra-pair offspring as the more successful ones when it came to reaching the breeding pool. They then go on to say that:

However, since EPY [extra-pair young] had 30% fewer hatched grandoffspring than WPY [within-pair young], higher recruitment of offspring of EPY does not necessarily mean that EPY had higher LRS [lifetime reproductive success] measured to the next generation. (p.790)

The obvious problem here is that they’re measuring grandoffspring before the point when many of them would seem to die off, as they did in the previous generation. So, while number of hatched grandoffspring says nothing important, they seem to think it does this time around. It’s been known that counting babies is only of limited use in determining adaptive value (let alone past adaptive value), and I hope this paper will serve as a cautionary tale for why that’s the case.

References: Sardell, R., Arcese, P., Keller, L., & Reid, J. (2012). Are There Indirect Fitness Benefits of Female Extra-Pair Reproduction? Lifetime Reproductive Success of Within-Pair and Extra-Pair Offspring The American Naturalist, 179 (6), 779-793 DOI: 10.1086/665665

Group Selectionists Make Basic Errors (Again)

Posted on May 28, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

In my last post, I wrote about a basic error most people seem to make when thinking about evolutionary psychology: they confuse the ultimate adaptive function of a psychological module with the proximate functioning of said module. Put briefly, the outputs of an adapted module will not always be adaptive. Organisms are not designed to respond perfectly to each and every context they find themselves in. This is especially the case regarding novel environmental contexts. These are things that most everyone should agree on, at least in the abstract. Behind those various nods of agreement, however, we find that applying this principle and recognizing maladaptive or nonfunctional outputs is often difficult for people in practice, laymen and professional alike. Some of these professionals, like Gintis et al (2003), even see fit to publish their basic errors.

Thankfully for the authors, the paper was peer reviewed by people who didn’t know what they were talking about either

There are two main points to discuss about this paper. The first point is to consider why the authors feel current theories are unable to account for certain behaviors, and the second is to consider the strength of the alternative explanations put forth. I don’t think I’m spoiling anything by saying the authors profoundly err on both accounts.

On the first point, the behavior in question – as it was in the initial post – is altruism. Gintis et al (2003) discuss the results of various economic games showing that people sometimes act nicely (or punitively) when niceness (or punishment) doesn’t end up ultimately benefiting them. From these maladaptive (or what economists might call “irrational”) outcomes, the authors conclude, therefore, that cognitive adaptations designed for reciprocal altruism or kin selection can’t account for the results. So right out of the gate they’re making the very error the undergraduates were making. While such findings would certainly be a problem for any theory that purports humans will always be nice when it pays more, and will never be nice when it pays less, and are always able to correctly calculate which situation is which, neither theory presumes any of those things. Unfortunately for Gintis et al, their paper does make some extremely problematic assumptions, but I’ll return to that point later.

The entirety of the argument that Gintis et al (2003) put forth rests on the maladaptive outcomes that are obtained in these games cutting against the adaptive hypothesis. As I covered previously, this is bad reasoning; brakes on cars sometimes fail to stop the car because of contextual variables – like ice – but that doesn’t mean that brakes aren’t designed to stop cars. One big issue with the maladaptive outcomes Gintis et al (2003) consider is that they are largely due to issues of novel environmental contexts. Now, unlike the undergraduate tests I just graded, Gintis et al (2003) have the distinct benefit of being handed the answer by their critics, which are laid out, in text, as such:

Since the anonymous, nonrepeated interactions characteristic of experimental games were not a significant part of our evolutionary history, we could not expect subjects in experimental games to behave in a fitness-maximizing manner. Rather, we would expect subjects to confuse the experimental environment in more evolutionarily familiar terms as a nonanonymous, repeated interaction, and to maximize fitness with respect to this reinterpreted environment.

My only critique of that section is the “fitness maximizing” terminology. We’re adaptation executioners, not fitness maximizers. The extent that adaptions maximize fitness in the current environment is an entirely separate questions to how we’re designed to process information. That said, the authors reply to the critique thusly:

But we do not believe that this critique is correct. In fact, humans are well capable of distinguishing individuals with whom they are likely to have many future interactions, from others, with whom future interactions are less likely

Like the last post, I’m going to rephrase the response in terms of arousal to pornography instead of altruism to make the failings of that argument clearer: “In fact, humans are well capable of distinguishing [real] individuals with whom they are likely to have [sex with], from [pornography], with [which] future [intercourse is] less likely.”

I suppose I should add a caveat about the probability of conception from intercourse…

Humans are well capable of distinguishing porn from reality. “A person” “knows” the difference between the two, so arousal to pornography should make as little sense as sexual arousal to any other inanimate object, like a chair or a wall. Yet people are routinely aroused by pornography. Are we to conclude from this, as Gintis et al might, that, therefore sexual arousal to pornography is itself functional? The proposition seems doubtful. Likewise, when people take birth control, if “they” “know” that they can’t get pregnant, why do they persist in having sex?

A better explanation is that “a person” is really not a solitary unit at all, but a conglomeration of different modules, and not every module is going to “know” the same thing. A module generating arousal to visual depictions of intercourse might not “know” the visual depiction is just a simulation, as it was never designed to tell the difference, since there never was a difference. The same goes for sex and birth control. That the module that happens to be talking to other people can clearly articulate that it “knows” the sex on the screen isn’t real, or that it “knows” it can’t increase its fitness by having sex while birth control is involved, other modules, could they speak, would give a very different answer. It seems Gintis et al (2003) fail to properly understand, or at least account for, modularity.

Maybe people can reliably tell the difference between those with whom they’ll have future contact and those with whom they likely won’t. Of course, there are always risks that module will miscalculate given the uncertainty of the future, but that task might have been something that a module could plausibly have been designed to do. What modules were unlikely to be designed to do, however, is interact with people anonymously, much less interact anonymously under the specific set of rules put forth in these experimental conditions. Gintis et al (2003) completely avoid this point in their response. They are talking about novel environmental contexts, and are somehow surprised when the mind doesn’t function perfectly in them. Not only do they fail to make use of modularity properly, they fail to account for novel environments as well.

So the problem that Gintis et al see is not actually a problem. People don’t universally behave as Gintis et al (2003) think other models predict they should. Of course, the other models don’t make those predictions, but there’s an even larger issue looming: the solution to this non-problem that Gintis et al favor introduces a greater, actual issue. This is the big issue I alluded to earlier: the “strong reciprocity” trait that Gintis et al (2003) put forth does make some very problematic assumptions. A little juxtaposition will let one stand out, like something a good peer reviewer should have noted:

One such trait, which we call strong reciprocity (Gintis, 2000b; Henrich et al., 2001), is a predisposition to cooperate with others and to punish those who violate the norms of cooperation, at personal cost, even when it is implausible to expect that these costs will be repaid either by others or at a later date…This is not because there are a few ‘‘bad apples’’ among the set of employees, but because only 26% of employees delivered the level of effort they promised! We conclude that strong reciprocators are inclined to compromise their morality to some extent, just as we might expect from daily experience. [emphasis mine]

So the trait being posited by the authors allows for cooperation even when cooperating doesn’t pay off. Leaving aside whether such a trait is plausibly something that could have evolved, indifference to cost is supposed to be part of the design. It is thus rather strange that the authors themselves note people tend to modify their behavior in ways that are sensitive to those costs. Indeed, only 1 in 4 of the people in the experiment they mention could even potentially fit the definition of a strong altruist, even (and only) if the byproducts of reciprocal altruism modules counted for absolutely nothing.

25% of the time, it works 100% of the time

It’s worth noticing the trick that Gintis et al (2003) are trying to use here as well: they’re counting the hits and not the misses. Even though only a quarter of the people could even potentially (and I do stress potentially) be considered strong reciprocators that are indifferent to the costs and benefits, they go ahead a label the employees strong reciprocators anyway (just strong reciprocators that do things strong reciprocators aren’t supposed to do, like be sensitive to costs and benefits). Of course, they could more parsimoniously be labeled reciprocal altruists who happen to be behaving maladaptively in a novel circumstance, but that’s apparently beyond consideration.

References: Gintis, H., Bowles, S., Boyd, R., & Fehr, E. (2003). Explaining altruistic behavior in humans Evolution and Human Behavior, 24 (3), 153-172 DOI: 10.1016/S1090-5138(02)00157-5

The Difference Between Adaptive And Adapted

Posted on May 20, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

This is going to be something of a back to basics post, but a necessary one. Necessary, that is, if the comments I’ve been seeing lately are indicative of the thought processes of the population at large. It would seem that many people make a fundamental error when thinking about evolutionary explanations for behavior. The error involves thinking about the ultimate function of an adaptation or the selection pressures responsible for its existence, rather than the adaptation’s input conditions, in considering whether said adaptation is responsible for generating some proximate behavior. (If that sounded confusing, don’t worry; it’ll get cleared up in a moment) While I have seen the error made frequently among various lay people, it appears to even be common among those with some exposure to evolutionary psychology; out of the ninety undergraduate exams I just finished grading, only five students got the correct answer to a question dealing with the subject. That is somewhat concerning.

I hope that hook up was worth the three points it cost you on the test because you weren’t paying attention.

Here’s the question that the students were posed with:

People traveling through towns that they will never visit again nonetheless give tips to waiters and taxi drivers. Some have claimed that the theory of reciprocal altruism seems unable to explain this phenomenon because people will never be able to recoup the cost of the tip in a subsequent transaction with the waiter or the driver. Briefly explain the theory of reciprocal altruism, and indicate whether you think that this theory can or cannot explain this behavior. If you say it can, say why. If you say it cannot, provide a different explanation for this behavior.

The answers I received suggested that the students really did understand the function of reciprocal altruism: they were able to explain the theory itself, as well as some of the adaptive problems that needed to be solved in order for the behavior to be selected for, such as the ability to remember individuals and detect cheaters. So far, so good. However, almost all the students then indicated that the theory could not explain tipping behavior, since there was no chance that the tip could ever be reciprocated in the future. In other words, tipping in that context was not adaptive, so adaptations designed for reciprocal altruism could not be responsible for the behavior. The logic here is, of course, incorrect.

To understand why that answer is incorrect, let’s rephrase the question, but this time, instead of tipping strangers, let’s consider two people having sex:

People who do not want to have children still wish to have sex, so they engage in intercourse while using contraceptives. Some have claimed that the theory of sexual reproduction seems unable to explain this phenomenon because people will never be able to reproduce by having sex under those conditions. Briefly explain the theory of sexual reproduction, and indicate whether you think that this theory can or cannot explain this behavior. If you say it can, say why. If you say it cannot, provide a different explanation for this behavior.

No doubt, there are still many people who would get this question wrong as well; they might even suggest that the ultimate function of sex is just to “feel pleasure”, not reproduction, because feeling pleasure – in and of itself – is somehow adaptive (Conley, 2011, demonstrating that this error also extends to published literature). Hopefully, however, for most people at least one error should now appear a little clearer: contraceptives are an environmental novelty, and our psychology is not evolved to deal with a world in which they exist. Without contraceptives, the desire to have children is irrelevant to whether or not some sexual act will result in pregnancy.

That desire is also irrelevant if you’re in the placebo group

Contraceptives are a lot like taxi drivers, in that both are environmental novelties. Encountering strangers that you were not liable to interact with again was probably the exception, rather than the rule, for most of human evolution. That said, even if contraceptives were taken out of the picture and our environment was as “natural” as possible, our psychology would still not be perfectly designed for each and every context we find ourselves in. Another example about sex easily demonstrates this point: a man and a woman only need to have sex once, in principle, to achieve conception. Additional copulations before or beyond that point are, essentially, wasted energy that could have been spent doing other things. I would wager, however, that for each successful pregnancy, most couples probably have sex dozens or hundreds of times. Whether because the woman is not and will not be ovulating, because one partner is infertile, or because the woman is currently pregnant or breastfeeding, there are plenty of reasons why intercourse does not always lead to conception. In fact, intercourse itself would probably not be adaptive in the vast majority of occurrences, despite it being the sole path to human reproduction (before the advent of IVF, of course).

Turning the focus back to reciprocal altruism, throughout their lives, people behave altruistically towards a great many people. In some cases, that altruism will be returned in such a way that the benefits received will outweigh the initial costs of the altruistic act; in other cases, that altruism will not be returned. What’s important to bear in mind is that the output of some module adapted for reciprocal altruism will not always be adaptive. The same holds for the output of any psychological module, since organisms aren’t fitness maximizers – they’re adaptation executioners. Adaptations that tended to increase reproductive success in the aggregate were selected for, even if they weren’t always successful. These sound like basic points (because they are), but they’re also points that tend to frequently trip people up, even if those people are at least somewhat familiar with all the basic concepts themselves. I can’t help but wonder if that mistake is made somewhat selectively, contingent on topic, but that’s a project for another day.

References: Conley, T. (2011). Perceived proposer personality characteristics and gender differences in acceptance of casual sex offers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100 (2), 309-329 DOI: 10.1037/a0022152

Making Your Business My Business

Posted on May 13, 2012 by Jesse Marczyk

“The government has no right to do what it’s doing, unless it’s doing what I want it to do” – Pretty much everyone everywhere.

As most people know by now, North Carolina recently voted on and approved an amendment to the state’s constitution that legally barred gay marriage. Many supporters of extending marriage rights to the homosexual community understandably found this news upsetting, which led the predictable flood of opinions about how it’s none of the government’s business who wants to marry who. I found the whole matter to be interesting on two major fronts: first, why would people support/oppose gay marriage in general, and, secondly, why on earth would people try to justify their stance using a line of reasoning that is (almost definitely) inconsistent with other views they hold?

Especially when they aren’t even running for political office.

Let’s deal with these issues in reverse order. First, let’s tackle the matter of inconsistency. We all (or at least almost all) want sexual behavior legislated, and feel the government has the right to do that, despite many recent protests to the contrary. As this helpful map shows, there are, apparently, more states that allow for first cousin marriage than gay marriage (assuming the information there is accurate). That map has been posted several times, presumably in support of gay marriage. Unfortunately, the underlying message of that map would seem to be that, since some people find first cousin marriage gross, it should be shocking that it’s more legal that homosexuality. What I don’t think that map was suggesting is that it’s not right that first cousin marriage isn’t more legal, as the government has no right legislating sexuality. As Haidt’s research on moral dumbfounding shows, many people are convinced that incest is wrong even when they can’t find a compelling reason why, and many people likewise feel it should be made illegal.

On top of incest, there’s also the matter of age. Most people will agree that children below a certain age should not be having sex, and, typically, that agreement is followed with some justification about how children aren’t mature enough to understand the consequences of their actions. What’s odd about that justification is that people don’t go on to then say that people should be allowed to have sex at any age, just so long as they can demonstrate that they understand the consequences of their actions through some test. Conversely, they also don’t say that people above the age of consent should be forbade from having sex until they can pass such a test. There are two points to make about this: the first is that no such maturity test exists in the first place, so when people make the judgments about maturity they’re just assuming that some people aren’t mature enough to make those kinds of decisions; in other words, children shouldn’t be allowed to consent to sex because they don’t think children should be allowed to consent to sex. The second point is, more importantly, even if such a test existed, suggesting that people shouldn’t be allowed to have sex without passing it would still be legislating sexuality. It would still be the government saying who can and can’t have sex and under what circumstances.

Those are just two cases, and there are many more. Turns out people are pretty keen on legislating the sexual behavior of others after all. (We could have an argument about those not being cases of sexuality per se, but rather about harm, but it turns out people are pretty inconsistent about defining and legislating harm as well) The point here, to clarify, is not that legalizing gay marriage would start us on a slippery slope to legalizing other, currently unacceptable, forms of sexuality; the point is that people try to justify their stances on matters of sexuality with inconsistently applied principles. Not only are these justifications inconsistent, but they may also have little or nothing to do with the actual reasons you or I end up coming to whatever conclusions we do, despite what people may say. As it turns out, our powers of introspection aren’t all they’re cracked up to be.

Letting some light in might just help you introspect better; it is dark in there…

Nisbett and Wilson (1977) reviewed a number of examples concerning the doubtful validity of introspective accounts. One of these finding concerned a display of four identical nylon stockings. Subjects were asked about which of the four pairs was the best quality, and, after they had delivered their judgment, why they had picked the pair the did. The results showed that people, for whatever reason, tended to overwhelmingly prefer the garment on the right side of the display (they preferred it four-times as much, relative to the garment on the left side). When queried about their selection, unsurprisingly, zero of the 52 subjects made mention of the stocking’s position in the lineup. When subjects were asked directly about whether the position of the pair of stockings had any effect on their judgment, again, almost all the subjects denied that it did.

While I will not re-catalog every example that Nisbett and Wilson (1977) present, the unmistakable conclusion arose that people have, essentially, little to no actual conscious insight into the cognitive processes underlying their thoughts and behavior. They often were unable to report that an experimental manipulation had any effect (when it did), or reported that irrelevant manipulations actually had (or would have had) some effect. In some cases, they were unable to even report that there was any effect at all, when there had in fact been one. As the authors put it:

… [O]thers have argued persuasively that “we can know more than we can tell,” by which it is meant that people can perform skilled activities without being able to describe what they are doing and can make fine discriminations without being able to articulate their basis. The research described above suggest that that converse is also true – that we sometimes tell more than we can know. More formally, people sometimes makes assertions about mental events to which they may have no access and these assertions may bear little resemblance to the actual events.

This – coupled with the inconsistent use of principled justifications – casts serious doubts on the explicit reasons people often give for either supporting or opposing gay marriage. For instance, many people might support gay marriage because they think it would make gay people happier, on the whole. For the sake of argument, suppose that you discovered gay marriage actually made gay people unhappier, on the whole: would you then be in favor of keeping it illegal? Presumably, you would not be (if you were in favor of legalization to begin with, that is). While making people happy might seem like a plausible and justifiable reason for supporting something, it does not mean that it was the – or a – cause of your judgment.

Marriage: a known source of lasting happiness

If the typical justifications that people give for supporting or opposing gay marriage are not likely to reflect the actual cognitive process that led to their decisions, what cognitive mechanisms might actually be underlying them? Perhaps the most obvious class of mechanisms are those that involve an individual’s mating strategy. Weeden et al. (2008) note that the decision to pursue a more short or long-term mating strategy is a complicated matter, full of tradeoffs concerning local environmental, individual, and cultural factors. They put forth what they call the Reproductive Religiosity Model, which posits that a current function of religious participation is to help ensure the success of a certain type of mating strategy: a more monogamous, long-term, high-fertility mating style. Men pursuing this strategy tend to forgo extra-pair matings in exchange for an increase in paternity certainty, whereas women similarly tend to forgo extra-pair matings for better genes in exchange for increased levels of paternal investment.

As Chris Rock famously quipped, “A man is only as faithful as his options”, though the sentiment would apply equally well to women. It does the long-term mating strategy no good to have plenty of freely sexually available conspecifics hanging around. Thus, according to this model, participation in religious groups helps to curb the risks involved in this type of mating style. This is why certain religious communities might want to decrease the opportunities for promiscuity and increase the social costs for engaging in it. In order to decrease sexual availability, then, you might find religious groups doing things like opposing and seeking to punish people for engaging in: divorce, birth control use, abortion, promiscuity, and, relevant to the current topic, sexual openness or novelty (like pornography, sexual experimentation, or homosexuality). In support of this model, Weeden et al (2008) found that, controlling for non-reproductive variables, sexual variables were not only predictive of religious attendance, but also that, controlling for sexual variables, the non-reproductive variables were no longer predictive of religious attendance.

While the evidence is not definitively causal in nature, and there is likely more to this connection than a unidirectional arrow, it seems highly likely that cognitive mechanisms responsible for determining one’s currently preferred mating strategy also play a role in determining one’s attitudes towards the acceptability of other’s behaviors. It is also highly likely that the reasons people tend to give for their attitudes will be inconsistent, given that they don’t often reflect the actual functioning of their mind. We all have an interest in making other people’s business our business, since other people’s behaviors tend to eventually have an effect on us – whether that effect is relatively distant or close in the causal chain, or whether it is relatively direct or indirect. We just tend to not consciously understand why.

References: Nisbett, R., & Wilson, T. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review, 84 (3), 231-259 DOI: 10.1037//0033-295X.84.3.231

Weeden, J., Cohen, A., & Kenrick, D. (2008). Religious attendance as reproductive support Evolution and Human Behavior, 29 (5), 327-334 DOI: 10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2008.03.004

Pop Psychology

The Internet's Best Evolutionary Psycholo-guy

Category Archives: Sex and Sexuality