Superstitions evolved to help us survive
Sir Frederick
Superstitions evolved to help us survive
00:01 10 September 2008
NewScientist.com news service
Ewen Callaway
Darwin never warned against crossing black cats, walking under ladders or
stepping on cracks in the pavement, but his theory of natural selection explains
why people believe in such nonsense.
The tendency to falsely link cause to effect – a superstition – is occasionally
beneficial, says Kevin Foster, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University.
For instance, a prehistoric human might associate rustling grass with the
approach of a predator and hide. Most of the time, the wind will have caused the
sound, but "if a group of lions is coming there’s a huge benefit to not being
around," Foster says.
Foster and colleague Hanna Kokko, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, sought
to determine exactly when such potentially false connections pay off.
Simplified behaviour
Rather than author just-so stories for every possible superstition – from lucky
rabbit's feet to Mayan numerology – Foster and Kokko worked with mathematical
language and a simple definition for superstition that includes animals and even
bacteria.
The pair modelled the situations in which superstition is adaptive. As long as
the cost of believing a superstition is less than the cost of missing a real
association, superstitious beliefs will be favoured.
In general, an animal must balance the cost of being right with the cost of
being wrong, Foster says. Throw in the chances that a real lion, and not wind,
makes the rustling sound, and you can predict superstitious beliefs, he says.
Real and false associations become even cloudier when multiple potential
"causes" portend an event. Rustling leaves and say, a full moon, might precede a
lion's arrival, tilting the balance toward superstition more than a single
"cause" would, Foster explains.
In modern times, superstitions turn up as a belief in alternative and
homeopathic remedies. "The chances are that most of them don’t do anything, but
some of them do," he says.
Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, has proposed a similar
explanation for such beliefs, albeit in less mathematical language.
"Our brains are pattern-recognition machines, connecting the dots and creating
meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really
is connected to B, and sometimes it is not," he says. "When it isn't, we err in
thinking that it is, but for the most part this process isn't likely to remove
us from the gene pool, and thus magical thinking will always be a part of the
human condition."
Scientific superstition
Yet not all superstitions persist because of their evolutionary kick. "Once you
get to things like avoiding ladders and cats crossing the road, it's clear that
culture and modern life have had an influence on many of these things," says
Foster.
"My guess would be that in modern life, the general tendency to believe in
things where we don't have scientific evidence is less beneficial than it used
to be," he adds.
However, Wolfgang Forstmeier, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck
Institute of Ornithology in Starnberg, Germany, argues that by linking cause and
effect – often falsely – science is a simply dogmatic form of superstition.
"You have to find the trade off between being superstitious and being ignorant,"
he says. By ignoring building evidence that contradicts their long-held ideas,
"quite a lot of scientists tend to be ignorant quite often," he says.
Journal reference: Proceeding of the Royal Society B (DOI:
10.1098/rspb.2008.0981)
--
Frederick Martin McNeill
Poway, California, United States of America
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
******************************************
"The institution of the family is decisive in determining not only if a person has the capacity to love another individual but in the larger social sense whether he is capable of loving his fellow men collectively. The whole of society rests on this foundation for stability, understanding and social peace."
- Daniel Patrick Moynihan
******************************************
SolomonW
mmcn...@fuzzysys.com says...
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-help-us-survive.html?DCMP=ILC-tabView&nsref=dn14694
> Superstitions evolved to help us survive
> 00:01 10 September 2008
> NewScientist.com news service
> Ewen Callaway
>
> Darwin never warned against crossing black cats, walking under ladders or
> stepping on cracks in the pavement, but his theory of natural selection explains
> why people believe in such nonsense.
>
> beneficial, says Kevin Foster, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University.
>
> For instance, a prehistoric human might associate rustling grass with the
> approach of a predator and hide. Most of the time, the wind will have caused the
> around," Foster says.
>
> Foster and colleague Hanna Kokko, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, sought
> to determine exactly when such potentially false connections pay off.
>
> Simplified behaviour
> rabbit's feet to Mayan numerology ? Foster and Kokko worked with mathematical
> language and a simple definition for superstition that includes animals and even
> bacteria.
>
> The pair modelled the situations in which superstition is adaptive. As long as
> the cost of believing a superstition is less than the cost of missing a real
> association, superstitious beliefs will be favoured.
>
> In general, an animal must balance the cost of being right with the cost of
> being wrong, Foster says. Throw in the chances that a real lion, and not wind,
> makes the rustling sound, and you can predict superstitious beliefs, he says.
>
> Real and false associations become even cloudier when multiple potential
> "causes" portend an event. Rustling leaves and say, a full moon, might precede a
> lion's arrival, tilting the balance toward superstition more than a single
> "cause" would, Foster explains.
>
> In modern times, superstitions turn up as a belief in alternative and
> some of them do," he says.
>
> Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, has proposed a similar
> explanation for such beliefs, albeit in less mathematical language.
>
> "Our brains are pattern-recognition machines, connecting the dots and creating
> meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really
> is connected to B, and sometimes it is not," he says. "When it isn't, we err in
> thinking that it is, but for the most part this process isn't likely to remove
> us from the gene pool, and thus magical thinking will always be a part of the
> human condition."
>
> Scientific superstition
> Yet not all superstitions persist because of their evolutionary kick. "Once you
> get to things like avoiding ladders and cats crossing the road, it's clear that
> culture and modern life have had an influence on many of these things," says
> Foster.
>
> "My guess would be that in modern life, the general tendency to believe in
> things where we don't have scientific evidence is less beneficial than it used
> to be," he adds.
>
> However, Wolfgang Forstmeier, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck
> Institute of Ornithology in Starnberg, Germany, argues that by linking cause and
>
> "You have to find the trade off between being superstitious and being ignorant,"
> he says. By ignoring building evidence that contradicts their long-held ideas,
> "quite a lot of scientists tend to be ignorant quite often," he says.
>
> Journal reference: Proceeding of the Royal Society B (DOI:
> 10.1098/rspb.2008.0981)
>
> --
> Frederick Martin McNeill
> Poway, California, United States of America
> mmcn...@fuzzysys.com
> ******************************************
> "The institution of the family is decisive in determining not only if a person has the capacity to love another individual but in the larger social sense whether he is capable of loving his fellow men collectively. The whole of society rests on this foundation for stability, understanding and social peace."
> - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> ******************************************
>
In my experience superstitious wraps itself around some truth. Some the
actual act is good but the reasoning behind it is wrong.
Say the local witch doctor with his alternative and homeopathic remedies
that you quote. His theories are nonsense but he probably in the ancient
village is the best person to treat the sick.
Leon Hoeneveld
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-help-us-survive.html?DCMP=ILC-tabView&nsref=dn14694
> "Our brains are pattern-recognition machines, connecting the dots and creating
> meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really
> is connected to B, and sometimes it is not," he says. "When it isn't, we err in
> thinking that it is, but for the most part this process isn't likely to remove
> us from the gene pool, and thus magical thinking will always be a part of the
> human condition."
And once you have patterns recognized it is probable that you will see
mostly those patterns again.
Starting off with certain patterns will set you for life.
Superstition feeds on superstition. And it should be probable that in a
certain time you will make mistakes that prove to be fatal.
But then agian you could have already reproduced by then.
ZerkonX
> Superstitions evolved to help us survive
Are love, hate, justice and mercy superstitions?
A Situation
Please define your terms, including contextual behavioral examples.
tooly
"Sir Frederick" <mmcn...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
news:cfomc4plmnuv1h5tq...@4ax.com...
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-help-us-survive.html?DCMP=ILC-tabView&nsref=dn14694
> Superstitions evolved to help us survive
> 00:01 10 September 2008
> NewScientist.com news service
> Ewen Callaway
>
> Darwin never warned against crossing black cats, walking under ladders or
> stepping on cracks in the pavement, but his theory of natural selection
> explains
> why people believe in such nonsense.
>
> beneficial, says Kevin Foster, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard
> University.
>
> For instance, a prehistoric human might associate rustling grass with the
> approach of a predator and hide. Most of the time, the wind will have
> caused the
> sound, but "if a group of lions is coming there's a huge benefit to not
> being
> around," Foster says.
>
> Foster and colleague Hanna Kokko, of the University of Helsinki, Finland,
> sought
> to determine exactly when such potentially false connections pay off.
>
> Simplified behaviour
> lucky
> rabbit's feet to Mayan numerology - Foster and Kokko worked with
>
> "You have to find the trade off between being superstitious and being
> ignorant,"
> he says. By ignoring building evidence that contradicts their long-held
> ideas,
> "quite a lot of scientists tend to be ignorant quite often," he says.
>
> Journal reference: Proceeding of the Royal Society B (DOI:
> 10.1098/rspb.2008.0981)
>
> --
Perhaps there is more than one key to 'unlock' the same door?
What is the objective?
bigfl...@gmail.com
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-...
> Superstitions evolved to help us survive
> 00:01 10 September 2008
> NewScientist.com news service
> Ewen Callaway
>
> Darwin never warned against crossing black cats, walking under ladders or
> stepping on cracks in the pavement, but his theory of natural selection explains
> why people believe in such nonsense.
Nor did he explain why people believe in Mercedes Benz, status,
authority, prowess, talent and that sort of nonsense either.
It is though, amazing how such beliefs power people into action.
>
> The tendency to falsely link cause to effect – a superstition – is occasionally
> beneficial, says Kevin Foster, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University.
I wonder what 'caused' the good doctor into action.
>
> For instance, a prehistoric human might associate rustling grass with the
> approach of a predator and hide. Most of the time, the wind will have caused the
> sound, but "if a group of lions is coming there’s a huge benefit to not being
> around," Foster says.
Many people today,act as thought there is a pride of lions around
every corner.
>
> Foster and colleague Hanna Kokko, of the University of Helsinki, Finland, sought
> to determine exactly when such potentially false connections pay off.
>
> Simplified behaviour
> Rather than author just-so stories for every possible superstition – from lucky
> rabbit's feet to Mayan numerology – Foster and Kokko worked with mathematical
> language and a simple definition for superstition that includes animals and even
> bacteria.
Mathematical language? That IS Mayan and Pythagorean numerology.Sarcre
bleu...
They are using simplified behaviour to identify simplified behaviour.
>
> The pair modelled the situations in which superstition is adaptive. As long as
> the cost of believing a superstition is less than the cost of missing a real
> association, superstitious beliefs will be favoured.
Energy flows the path of least resistance.We each create our own
resistance.
> In general, an animal must balance the cost of being right with the cost of
> being wrong, Foster says. Throw in the chances that a real lion, and not wind,
> makes the rustling sound, and you can predict superstitious beliefs, he says.
Or the rustling of paper could be a sign of the recievers moving in.
People in some cases, by their actions, see that as a life or death
situation also.
>
> Real and false associations become even cloudier when multiple potential
> "causes" portend an event. Rustling leaves and say, a full moon, might precede a
> lion's arrival, tilting the balance toward superstition more than a single
> "cause" would, Foster explains.
This is simply self justification. Good, because all research is
subjective.
>
> In modern times, superstitions turn up as a belief in alternative and
> homeopathic remedies. "The chances are that most of them don’t do anything, but
> some of them do," he says.
Im certain he believes this.
>
> Michael Shermer, publisher of Skeptic magazine, has proposed a similar
> explanation for such beliefs, albeit in less mathematical language.
Would you expect a rabbi to extol the virtues of eating pork ?
>
> "Our brains are pattern-recognition machines, connecting the dots and creating
> meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature.
Pythagorean numerology/geometry are perfect examples. You gotta
laugh...:-)
>Sometimes A really
> is connected to B, and sometimes it is not," he says. "When it isn't, we err in
> thinking that it is, but for the most part this process isn't likely to remove
> us from the gene pool, and thus magical thinking will always be a part of the
> human condition."
He has identified the binary code. How exciting for him...
>
> Scientific superstition
> Yet not all superstitions persist because of their evolutionary kick. "Once you
> get to things like avoiding ladders and cats crossing the road, it's clear that
> culture and modern life have had an influence on many of these things," says
> Foster.
Especially if you take such information with a few cans of Fosters :-)
>
> "My guess would be that in modern life, the general tendency to believe in
> things where we don't have scientific evidence is less beneficial than it used
> to be," he adds.
Only if you wish to remain part of the status quo of the
intellectuals. Fact is, this does not have to be mutually exclusive.
Behing every image lies an inexhaustable avenue for scientific
investigation.
> However, Wolfgang Forstmeier, an evolutionary biologist at the Max Planck
> Institute of Ornithology in Starnberg, Germany, argues that by linking cause and
> effect – often falsely – science is a simply dogmatic form of superstition.
I bet he is popular amongst his peers. Hope he practices marshal
arts :-)))
>
> "You have to find the trade off between being superstitious and being ignorant,"
> he says. By ignoring building evidence that contradicts their long-held ideas,
> "quite a lot of scientists tend to be ignorant quite often," he says.
You can fool most of the pepole most of the time.
Gee, that was good fun !!!
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> In article <cfomc4plmnuv1h5tqakabl8iko8e7q6...@4ax.com>,
> mmcne...@fuzzysys.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-...
> > ******************************************
> > "The institution of the family is decisive in determining not only if a person has the capacity to love another individual but in the larger social sense whether he is capable of loving his fellow men collectively. The whole of society rests on this foundation for stability, understanding and social peace."
> > - Daniel Patrick Moynihan
> > ******************************************
>
> In my experience superstitious wraps itself around some truth. Some the
> actual act is good but the reasoning behind it is wrong.
>
> Say the local witch doctor with his alternative and homeopathic remedies
> that you quote. His theories are nonsense but he probably in the ancient
>
> - Show quoted text -
I suppose the time for the epistemological evidence to validate your
comments about the shaman will take a few thousand years. The time it
took his culture to take us where we are today.
Of course, he worked "with" nature, where as we spend a fortune on how
to use pharmacology to overcome the malevolent effects of sitting on
our arses (while researching ironically), eating way beyond our means,
making up for the lack of life quality by using various stimulating
substances, which are readily available as a result of the
pharmocologists need fpor self preservation.
What beautiful poetic irony ;-)
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
That depend on any expectations you may have if you practice such
qualities. Hate being the exeption. The consequence of which is
precise.
BOfL
bigfl...@gmail.com
> "Sir Frederick" <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote in message
>
> news:cfomc4plmnuv1h5tq...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14694-superstitions-evolved-to-...
>
> - Show quoted text -
To recognise which way the door swings.
BOfL
Art
>> "You have to find the trade off between being superstitious and being ignorant,"
>> he says. By ignoring building evidence that contradicts their long-held ideas,
>> "quite a lot of scientists tend to be ignorant quite often," he says.
>
>You can fool most of the pepole most of the time.
Reminds of Freud telling Jung that "we must make a dogma of this"
(Freudian psychoanalysis). Of course, Jung went his own way and
eventually had to break with Freud.
I'm currently readng "Memories, Dreams, Reflections" by Jung (recorded
and edited by Aniela Jaffe) which are his memoirs. It's amazing the
lengths Jung went to to "know thyself", as it were, exploring his own
psyche.
His father, a protestant minister, was a tragic figure. Even at a
young age, Jung recognized that his father was filled with inner
turmoil. Jung, however, was unable to communicate his insight
that religion is either experience-based or it's worse than nothing
at all. Jung had the same negative attitude toward philosophical
intellectualism and argumentation as he had toward theosophy and faith
... though he benefiitted by Kant at the tender age of seventeen.
In age dominated by materialistic dogmas, Jung was a refreshingly
honest thinker and _doer_ who had many personal experiences with the
so-called paranormal, as well as experiences of the "religious" or
spiritual kind.