Recently in evolution Category
According to William Gurstelle, author of Absinthe and Flamethrowers: Projects and Ruminations on the Art of Living Dangerously, says the most satisfied and successful third of the population is eager for some risky business.
From his guest post on Boing Boing:
I found that moderate, rational, risk takers, that is, those with scores between the mean and one standard deviation to the right are the people who are most satisfied with their lives. I call that area "the golden third" because it's roughly 1/3 of the population. Studies (and there are several) show that people who take just a bit more risks than average, that is, those who live their lives in the golden third, tend to do better than average. They tend to be more satisfied with their lives and more fulfilled. To me, that's a stunning conclusion.
So in the spirit of risk-taking, something old and something new:
Downhill longboarding (at insane speeds) [go to 2:20] and a flip-tastic new free walking highlight reel.
As animal weaponry improves, its lethality declines. Seems a bit paradoxical.
Be sure to check out the NY Times up close slide show of beetle weaponry.
Dr. Emlen noticed a tendency for weapons to start out small, like mere bumps of bone, and then to evolve to more ornate form. The small weapons are actually quite destructive since their only role is to attack other males. But the more baroque weapons, even though they look more fearsome, seem to cause lesser loss of life.
The reason is that the more menacing weapons have often acquired a signaling role. Instead of risking their lives in mortal combat, males can assess each other's strengths by sizing up a rival's weapons, and decline combat if they seem outclassed. The ornate weapons also lend themselves to ritualized combat in which males may lock horns and assess each other's strength without wounding each other.
Happy Darwin Day everyone! Celebrating the man who wrote one of the most influential books the world has ever seen, The Origin of Species.
A new study shows that intelligence is a major player in the hunt for a suitable mate.
These biologists believe intelligence, as manifested in things like artistic and musical ability, is such a reliable indicator of underlying genetic fitness that it has been chosen by members of the opposite sex over the millennia. In the ensuing arms race to show off and get a mate it has been exaggerated in the way that a peacock's tail is. This process of sexual selection, Dr Miller and his followers believe, is the reason people have become so brainy.Hooray for brains!
What does this mean?
It means we, as a race, are genetically programmed to weed out the deficient in favor of the efficient. We are getting smarter because we are designed to promote intelligence. We don't even need to think about it.
Some people will provide anecdotal evidence that suggests beauty, not intelligence, is the major characteristic that governs our mate search. For some, beauty very well may be the characteristic that consciously guides the search, but I suspect that the person seeking beauty over intelligence will find over time and under the glossy exterior of beauty that a severe lack of intelligence is a dealbreaker.
The search for beauty without intelligence may be rooted in the need for power. Having a jaw-dropping mate gives the perception that one is powerful. People who want power convince themselves that beauty denotes this and is necessary to achieve a power position. But this is a bad short-term solution to a long-term problem. Long-term power is derived from knowledge, not beauty. Beauty can help achieve power in the short-term and will not affect it in the long-term, unless there is a genuine lack of intelligence. Just ask Nick Lachey.
Look at the prefrontal cortex on her!
Some in the media are celebrating the brainy renaissance. See: Wired Magazines Sexiest Geeks of 2007.
So beauty is not inherently dumb. That is a bad correlation for anyone to assume. Realistically, they can coexist. But intelligence is the key. So get smart. And get some.
This TED video is, well, a prerequisite for today. Howard Rheingold's ability to sum the history and present state of collaboration - conveying theoretical games like the prisoner's dilemma, the ultimatum game, and the tragedy of the commons - in under 20 minutes is very impressive.
I think often about where we came from, where we are now, where we may advance to, and the decisions, either conscious or subconscious, that guide us along the way. The majority of our day to day life is dictated by our inertia. We compile pieces of ourselves, like a Russian nesting doll growing layer by layer, aggregating components from generations past to what comprises our daily lives. These pieces are typically seen as advancements, so called improvements, in how we live, work, and play. We use science, industry, technology, medicine, and religion – fostered by our inertia – to work toward the greater goal of growth.
