anthropometaphors

While some will argue otherwise, humans are a type of animal from a biological perspective.  Much research is conducted on animal models with the aim of extrapolating knowledge of animal form and function to a better understanding of human life.

A recent such study published in Current Biology compares behavioral flexibility in 7 non-human primate groups.  It turns out there are two general social structures that describe how primates relate to one another.  On the one hand there are fission-fusion societies in which relationships, loyalties and affiliations shift.  Humans would fall into this category, as would chimps.  On the other hand, some primates live in stable, cohesive groups.  The researchers found that fission-fusion animals have greater behavioral flexibility. That flexibility in turn enables their fluid social life.

As humans, we are members of a fission-fusion society.  Every day we interact with strangers, colleagues and family or friends.  Sometimes we change jobs or get divorced.  As time progresses, technology changes our capacity to interact.  I wonder how well the aforementioned animal behavior findings can be extrapolated to humans and beyond – including humans as we undergo globalization amidst a technological revolution.  Our social networks are increasing tremendously, is our flexibility keeping pace?

I subscribe to Tin House, an independent quarterly out of Portland, Oregon.  As a visual person, the first thing I saw on the cover of the issue I received this week was the Banksy image (see above).  Knowing Banksy’s artworks are often-satirical pieces of art on topics such as politics, culture, and ethics, I wasn’t surprised to read “The Political Future” above the cover image.

The first piece in the edition was an essay by Barry Sanders entitled America: A Very Brief Biography.  One of Sanders’ points that struck me is how we, as Americans, are lying to ourselves about who and what America is.  It is this self-denial about our country that allows us to believe lies we are told by our government.  Sanders wields the pen well, if brutally; calling attention to the truth that America is no longer the superpower that put a stop to WWII and the concentration camps, but is now synonymous with consumption (of various kinds), debt, torture and military.

My thoughts return to behavioral flexibility.  At heart, denial is a refusal, a resistance.  When I think of denial, I don’t think of flexibility exactly.  In fact, I think of rigidity.  How can we become the inevitable international society we are headed toward without flexibility?  We need it, and not just a pinch or two.  We need it by the bucketful.

To end this hefty post on a lighter note, I’ve been thinking an awful lot of this increasingly trendy poster memeing it’s way through the design world:

(and be flexible!)

I’m staunchly apolitical. That said, I have a very large heart for science, and as such, will post the following here:

In November, 2007, a small group of six citizens – two screenwriters, a physicist, a marine biologist, a philosopher and a science journalist – began working to restore science and innovation to America’s political dialogue. They called themselves Science Debate 2008, and they called for a presidential debate on science. The call tapped a wellspring of concern over the state of American science.

Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. See who here. Among other things, these signers submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of America.

Beginning with these 3.400 questions, Science Debate 2008 worked with the leading organizations listed to craft the top 14 questions the candidates should answer. These questions are broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they are specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

The above text was taken from Science Debate 2008, where you can find the candidate’s answers to these 14 pertinent questions in blue and red.

While the text for the candidates’ individual responses can be found elsewhere, I prefer this site’s format — with the answers of Obama and McCain posted side-by-side.  In such a format, it is immediately obvious when McCain speaks at length about his plans for funding space program research.  And obvious again when he has relatively little to say about scientific integrity, health and the more technical issue of stem cell research.  Word count on a given topic is by no means a way to gauge a candidate’s merit.  I just found it interesting, that’s all.

staunchly apolitical, mind you

Take a picture of yourself right now.
Don’t change your clothes, don’t fix your hair…just take a picture.
Post that picture with NO editing.
Post these instructions with your picture

me + bronchitis

Scientists are finding differences between men and women!

In addition to the well-known anatomical differences, gender differences have been identified in brain connections and gait.  We can identify a figure’s gender — and feelings — by the way it’s silhouette moves and carries itself.  When it comes to interpersonal dynamics, we read and process subtle cues about one another, often at the subconscious level.

Take the results of a recent evolutionary study that found the facial features of men and their partners’ fathers to look more similar to each other than to random men.  Why date someone who looks like dad?  To take an evolutionary approach, there was a time when multiple hominid species coexisted.  Finding a mate whose face is similar to that of a known relative could be insurance against mating with the wrong species.  So what does that say about those of us who date the non-dad?  How does interracial parentage fit into the evolutionary scheme of things — As a genetic population control mechanism a la kamikaze?  Or to ensure hybrid vigor and outbreeding in response to environmental change?

With the rise of genetic and genomic testing, it was only a matter of time before matchmakers piled onto the spit-testing bandwagon.  Inspired by the T-shirt sniffing test — in which MHC (major histocompatibility complex) was shown to influence body odor and mate preference — scientists formed Genepartner to provide identify romantic compatibility based on genetic testing.

Genetic matchmaking isn’t restricted to humans.  Zoos have begun including genetic information about captive animals in their studbooks, with the hope of identifying successful breeding pairs for long-term species survival.  Apparently koalas are extremely particular about mate choice.  Who knew?

a studbook

rhinovirus

I’ve had a visitor for the past week.  What a demanding guest the rhinovirus can be.  In any case, it looks like the little guy is getting on his way.