Sickness behaviour – useful concept or psycho-humbug?

[Squeezy]

Nothing to add to your discussion, people, but every time I look down the list of threads and see, "Sickness Behaviour" listed as a title, I want to bloody scream.

 

[Inara]

They work backwards - from the outcome (which is cherry picked for the purpose) to the evolutionary explanation. That way, you can never go wrong. There's always a nice evolutionary story you can tell about a behaviour, especially if you picked the behaviour that best suited your purpose. But then its just a story; it doesn't really tell us anything new or useful.

That's actually what I thought when I went through museums about dinosaurs. I read all the stories and see all the findings, and I just don't see why the stories should mirror reality - I mean, they could; and they couldn't. It seems to me that some people find some puzzle pieces and - due to fantasy and wishful thinking - the missing pieces are added to create a picture.

I think we don't really know what happened some million years ago (or just 30.000 years ago). It's fascinating to speculate. But this shouldn't be stated as fact. Also, most people forget it's an "evolution theory" which can be improved, changed, false...(it's not solely about natural selection which occurs in the present).

If wide parts of psychology don't produce good scientific facts in the present, I wouldn't believe a iota of what they say about the past.

So I agree with you on this:

But on top of that, there's also something hugely inhuman and patronising about it all. A lot of evolutionary psyc makes me feel this way. I don't think its a good thing to reduce people down to evolutionary tendencies. Especially not when its almost impossible to prove these stories wrong.

 

[Hip]

Is the evolution of civilisation analogous to biological evolution? It certainly isn't encoded in our genetic material but then neither is any learned behaviour. But the capacity to learn is and we already had the genetic capacity for modern civilisation 10,000 years ago.

Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme": a meme he defines as is an element of human culture (such as the ability to make iron tools, or build bridges) which is passed down from one generation to the next. These memes may be encoded in our brains and passed on by oral tradition, or may be written down on parchment, books, etc.

The only biological selection I can think of where intelligence, purpose and design drive it is artificial selection.

Certainly when humans start genetically modyfying the human genome at birth, to remove for example disease-causing genes, then you definitely have intelligence driving the path of human evolution.

But my feeling is that in the species where intelligence is high, especially the human species, the intelligence involved in choosing a reproductive mate (sexual selection) has been for millennia been manipulating the path of evolution.

From the Wikipedia article on sexual selection:

Geoffrey Miller has hypothesized that many human behaviours not clearly tied to survival benefits, such as humour, music, visual art, verbal creativity, and some forms of altruism, are courtship adaptations that have been favoured through sexual selection.
...
Some argue that the evolution of human intelligence is a sexually selected trait, as it would not confer enough fitness in itself relative to its high maintenance costs.

Thus the explosive growth in human intelligence may have been driven by sexual selection, not natural selection. And the more human intelligence increases by sexual selection preferences, the more this intelligence will be able to make even better decisions on sexual selection in future.

 

[Scarecrow]

Richard Dawkins coined the term "meme": a meme he defines as is an element of human culture (such as the ability to make iron tools, or build bridges) which is passed down from one generation to the next. These memes may be encoded in our brains and passed on by oral tradition, or may be written down on parchment, books, etc.

Memes, themselves, are merely an idea. Memetics is hardly a science.

Thus the explosive growth in human intelligence may have been driven by sexual selection, not natural selection. And the more human intelligence increases by sexual selection preferences, the more this intelligence will be able to make even better decisions on sexual selection in future.

Actually, the hypothesis that brain size in primates is linked to monogamy is based on competition among males for a mate, not the preference of females.

Sorry but I still can't see how intelligence 'drives' evolution.

 

[Hip]

Memes, themselves, are merely an idea. Memetics is hardly a science.

I am not sure what you are getting at; are you denying that human intelligence was involved in the evolution of human civilization as well?

I still can't see how intelligence 'drives' evolution.

To me the idea that through sexual selection, animal intelligence may shape the course of evolution seems self-evident. If you are not using your brains during a courtship, you are most likely an amoeba!

Actually, the hypothesis that brain size in primates is linked to monogamy is based on competition among males for a mate, not the preference of females.

Competition among males for a mate (intrasexual selection) is actually part of sexual selection, although a different part to the situation where the female chooses the male that she wants to reproduce with (intersexual selection).

Competition among males is going to be a driving force for increasing male strength and prowess (and increased prowess may equate to increased intelligence), but in this case, to me this intrasexual selection seems more like natural selection (survival of the fittest) on steroids. There is not any intelligent decision-making in such male-male competition, its just a brawl in which the strongest, fittest and probably smartest wins.

But in intersexual selection, where there is intelligent choice, even conscious choice in higher animals with developed consciousness, it seems self-evident intelligence itself will be steering the course of evolution.



I have admit that this is my own interpretation of sexual selection (the idea that female intelligence in mate choice plays a role in steering the course of evolution, and thus that human intelligence is part of the mechanism of evolution). But it just seems self-evident.

 

[Wonko]

@Hip

Just my take so far.....

You have an interesting way of using the word "intelligence", seeming to equate it with both very stupid behaviours and with the adoption of environmentally trained behaviours.

......but, it's taken me a few hours to write that, pair it down, rejig it etc. so...don't be surprised if any response doesn't, as I don't currently have the oomph to either address you point by point or actively try and pointless change what appears to be a fairly complex belief system....so, just a random comment.

 

[Hip]

You have an interesting way of using the word "intelligence", seeming to equate it with both very stupid behaviours and with the adoption of environmentally trained behaviours.

You mean I use the word "intelligence" to include both hardwired abilities (eg, the spider's innate ability to make a web) as well as abilities that have been learnt (eg, the way dogs can be taught tricks and skills). Yes, that's true, I include both.

I think those are both part of intelligence, but the ability to learn and adapt is obviously a higher and more powerful type of intelligence than the hardwired form. Sexual selection may involve both types of intelligence, but I think the adaptive intelligence, when employed to make decisions in mate choice, may have a more profound effect on the course of evolution.

 

[Scarecrow]

I am not sure what you are getting at; are you denying that human intelligence was involved in the evolution of human civilization as well?

You can't possibly think I'm that stupid. Please read post#180.

 

[Hip]

You seemed to be suggesting that memes (defined as an "idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture") may not exist.

 

[Skycloud]

Sexual selection may involve both types of intelligence, but I think the adaptive intelligence, when employed to make decisions in mate choice, may have a more profound effect on the course of evolution.

But random mutation is supposed to have a far more profound affect on evolution. What you are talking about perpetuates an existing genetic line/s, with adaptation within the potential of those genes. And learned behaviour/knowledge passed on generationally occurs under those conditions. The 'profound affect' in your argument is not necessarily a given, that I can see.

I've probably put that badly and would like to plead The Wonko Defence

......but, it's taken me a few hours to write that, pair it down, rejig it etc. so...don't be surprised if any response doesn't, as I don't currently have the oomph to either address you point by point or actively try and pointless change what appears to be a fairly complex belief system....so, just a random comment.

 

[Inara]

To me the idea that through sexual selection, animal intelligence may shape the course of evolution seems self-evident. If you are not using your brains during a courtship, you are most likely an amoeba!

To me, sexual selection and courtship are different. In my opinion sexual selection isn't connected with intelligence, courtship could be. Or more general: I don't think basic needs are linked to intelligence - they're just there - but how to get them, that is.

Edit: I agree with Wonko - I start to understand your personal meaning of "intelligence", only slowly; sorry.
I also start to understand your meaning of "sexual selection".

 

[Hip]

But random mutation is supposed to have a far more profound affect on evolution.

Random mutation and genetic recombination (the random combination of genes received from parents) provides the basis of both natural selection and sexual selection.

In natural selection, because of this genetic lottery, some creatures find themsevles genetically better equipped to survive and reproduce than others, and these creatures are more likely to transmit their genes to the next generation, compared to creatures genetically less well equipped to survive. Thus the environment decides which genes are good and promoted to the next generation, and which are poor and not promoted.

In sexual selection (more specifically intersexual selection), the same genetic lottery applies, but in this case, it is not the environment which decides which genes are good or bad, but the female, by her preference of mating partner.

Let's take the example of birds, where you get the female staying in the nest to look after her hatchlings, and the male bird goes off in search of food to bring back to the nest. Do you think that given a choice, a female bird is going to choose some scrawny old male with flimsy wings and poor feathers (bad genes) to reproduce with, or some fine specimen of a male, with strong wings and immaculate plumage (good genes)? Obviously she is likely to choose the strong male, because he is better equipped to fulfill his role as a food provider.

So in sexual selection, the good genes tend to be promoted to the next generation, and the bad genes tend not to be, and it is the female who decides, via her choice of partner, which are the good genes and which are the bad ones.


So in natural selection it is the environment which determines which are the good and bad genes, and in sexual selection (the intersexual selection version) it is the intelligent choice of the female that determines this.

 

[Webdog]

This thread reminded me of an article I read recently, where Elizabeth Unger MD, PhD, chief of the chronic viral diseases branch of the CDC was talking about ME/CFS. At the end of the quotes below she speaks of "sickness behavior".

http://www.the-rheumatologist.org/a...ome-myalgic-encephalomyelitis-preferred-term/

Dr. Unger described ME/CFS as a serious and long-term illness that affects many systems throughout the body. Patients who live with ME/CFS are unable to function in the same way they did before they became ill.

“One of the problems clinicians have is that the patients can look healthy when they walk into the office,” she explained, adding that, “It’s important they know this is a biological illness. This is not a mental illness.”

Although ME/CFS affects all populations, it is most prevalent in individuals aged 40–50 years. Infectious risk factors for ME/CFS are notable, but it is unclear if these infections are a cause or effect of ME/CFS. Non-infectious risk factors for ME/CFS include stress from physical trauma and adverse events. Some patients with ME/CFS have abnormal sleep patterns, but there are no consistent sleep abnormalities.

“The syndrome looks like a ‘sickness behavior’ triggered by cytokines after infection,” acknowledged Dr. Unger.

 

[Woolie]

Seeing the term "sickness behavior" now makes me very suspicious. It suggests the person might have a particular view about what MECFS is, and one I'm not in agreement with.

It also provides a neat segue into depression, which is the other common condition often said to resemble "sickness behavior".

The bit about "stress from physical trauma and adverse events" is even more worrying. Those little throwaways added there that leave the door wide open to psych explanations. hmmm.