“No one likes a hypocrite, or so the saying goes. But in a world driven more and more by technology like social networking, hypocrisy has never been so glaring. It has become part of pop culture to expose self-contradiction, with cable news networks and programs like The Daily Show placing contradictory political remarks side-by-side on a nightly basis, pointing out instances of hypocrisy to great effect. What if there was a scientific explanation? In a recent School of Arts and Sciences Knowledge by the Slice lecture series appearance, Robert Kurzban, Associate Professor of Psychology, discussed his most recent book, Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite: Evolution and the Modular Mind. Using biology as a stepping stone, the book applies evolutionary insights to human behavior, arguing that the mind does not function as a single unit, but instead a collection of adaptations—modules—customized to take over when a given situation arises.”
The language of winning is so ingrained in the culture that we Americans don’t even notice it. Does all this competition make us happier? Of course not. Listen along as Francesco Duina, author of Winning: Reflections on an American Obsession, joins David Phillippi on the Office Hours podcast. Their lively discussion touches on subjects from popular culture ranging from sports to children to celebrities, including why it makes sense for Budweiser to crown itself “The King of Beers” while the Danish brand Carlsberg is happier to be “Probably the Best Beer in the World.”
At his event with Zocalo, Robert Kurzban offered up an explanation of hypocritical behavior by politicians:
For more on how our brains modularity contributes to contradictions, read Rob’s book Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite.
Recent articles in Princeton Global Science include:
A response from Louise Barrett to Nicholas Wade’s article for the New York Times on dog cognition. Louise is the author of the forthcoming book Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds which will revolutionize how we think about and define intelligence.
David Weintraub, author of How Old Is the Universe?, is interviewed by Sean Moncrieff on Ireland’s Newstalk radio.
Our jacket designers give us a glimpse into the creativity that goes into a striking cover like the one for The Silicon Jungle by Shumeet Baluja, a novel of deception and mystery that gets at the heart of privacy issues and the googlization of information.
Like Princeton Global Science? Subscribe to our RSS Feed here: http://blog.press.princeton.edu/category/pgs/feed/.
|Did you read this article in the NY Times, Science Times about Chaser, a collie who now recognizes 1,022 nouns? The article–which bears the wonderful title “Sit. Stay. Parse. Good Girl!”–argues that Chaser’s example might teach us about how humans acquire language, too. In the response below, Louise Barrett, author of the forthcoming book Beyond the Brain: How Body and Environment Shape Animal and Human Minds, cautions us to take Chaser’s story with a grain of salt. She argues here (and in her book) that traditional ways of viewing intelligence should be re-evaluated and all may not be as it seems.|
My dog, Cassie, is a border collie. Unlike Chaser, the collie who has learned the names of over 1000 toys, Cassie’s vocabulary is rather more limited: all her toys are called ‘scrunchies’—the name of the first toy she was ever given. She consistently fails to learn any other names, and her apparent lack of intellectual ability has led my husband to dub her a ‘borderline collie’. Perhaps Cassie is simply not inclined to learn more and wants to get on with the ‘real’ game of fetch or, more likely, we lack the dedication to teaching shown by John Pilley, Chaser’s owner. Reading about Chaser’s feats, one cannot help be impressed by the feat of teamwork displayed by man and dog, and Chaser’s ability to discriminate between over 1000 different items is truly remarkable. So, why bring human language into it? As one commentator on Nicholas Wade’s piece puts it: “It’s too bad we see in this article the old, reliable tendency to make this finding valuable if it tells us something about how human children learn. How narrow are humans!” Exactly so. Our anthropocentrism, our desire to see ourselves reflected in other animals, is indeed a narrow perspective, and one that, inevitably, results in the diminishing of Chaser’s natural intelligence.
Consider how one of the first questions asked is whether Chaser is showing ‘simply’ a Clever Hans effect, the mere cuing into human body language without true ‘understanding’. The interpretation of the Clever Hans effect as ‘simple’ has always struck me as rather odd. After all, there’s nothing ‘simple’ about it; I find it amazing that another creature—one so different from us in morphology and its manner of engaging with the world—can nevertheless cue into the subtlest aspects of human body tension and breathing patterns, and learn to read them so expertly. Indeed, I find it much more interesting than the idea that Hans could actually count.
Thanks to Pilley’s careful experimental approach, we know that Chaser’s abilities are not the result of such inadvertent cuing, but even if they were, they would still tell us something interesting about the perceptual learning abilities of border collies, abilities we have bred into them and which are clearly exceptional; watching a collie herding sheep, sensitive to the subtle shifts and change in the herd’s response and responding itself to the minimal cues provided by the shepherd, can seem almost magical to our untutored eyes. But, of course, it isn’t magic. It is a form of expert pattern-recognition, a kind of fluid anticipation, as the dog notices the right things and responds at the right moment. It seems a shame that we spend our time attempting to eliminate such effects, wary of the spectre of Clever Hans, and not investigating them in their own right. Living in our human language-heavy world, we often fail to recognize how common and important such body-based practical knowledge is to the successful negotiation of our physical and social environment. We too are expert pattern-recognizers, engaged in a process of moment-by-moment attunement and adjustment to the things and events we encounter as we go about our daily lives; we too are creatures that cue into subtle aspects of movement and mood; we too spend part of every day behaving just like Clever Hans.
Emphasizing the language-like nature of Chaser’s skills, and whether she understands ‘meaning’, therefore misses the point. We can instead choose to look at things less analytically, with more attention to pattern, much like the way that turning down the sound on a TV show makes us more aware of the gestures and facial expressions that accompany the speech on which our attention usually becomes fixed. We can, in other words, attempt to look at the tasks without labeling the sounds that Chaser hears as ‘nouns’ and ‘verbs’, or ‘proper nouns’ versus ‘common’ ones. And when we do this, we see how Chaser has learned to discriminate the patterning of sounds and objects, on an ever finer level, and how these finely drawn perceptual discriminations of objects have also been discriminated from the patterns of actions that can accompany them, all achieved within the social context of pleasing her owner, and receiving praise and treats. Lacking the fully linguistic scaffold that shapes our view of the world—the way in which, as Andy Clark, the philosopher puts it, language ‘freezes’ our thoughts into objects, creating islands (or icebergs?) of thoughts about thoughts—Chaser may not see the task as we do at all, even though she performs exceptionally well at it. For her it may be another form of pattern-recognition, and not the bizarre human practice of word-learning. Indeed, this is the real lesson of Clever Hans: we shouldn’t assume that Chaser, and other animals in other experiments, sees their tasks as we do, even when their performance is consistent with a human-like interpretation.
John Pilley says he wants to teach Chaser a ‘receptive, rudimentary language’ as a way to help develop communication between people and dogs. Clearly, Chaser will be an apt pupil. But if we want to increase communication between humans and dogs there is another way. Instead of imposing the weird world of human language on dogs by dint of ‘brute repetition’ and daily drills, we could instead learn to read more closely the body-based cues and signals our dogs produce, and exploit the pattern-recognizing skills that we already share. A little less conversation, a little more Clever Hans please.
We enjoyed a nice long break for the New Year, but we’re happy to present Issue 9 of Princeton Global Science.
Richard Crossley, author of The Crossley ID Guide, explains in two videos how you can make your backyard more bird-friendly by incorporating bird baths and bird feeders (Check out the gorgeous birds in this video!).
And lastly we have two new PGS Dialogues — Robert Kurzban who is author of Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite, and Mircea Pitici who is editor of the The Best Writing on Mathematics 2010.
Like Princeton Global Science? Subscribe to our RSS Feed here: http://blog.press.princeton.edu/category/pgs/feed/.
|In the last PGS Dialogue, I wrote “Math is everywhere,” and now I find that, with a small modification, this short statement is as applicable to the subject of this Dialogue as the last. I could just as easily write “Hypocrisy is everywhere” and still be on solid ground.
Robert Kurzban, author of Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite, spoke with editor Eric Schwartz about his new book, his research, and of course, what might be on the horizon.
How did you arrive at your field of research?
I was lucky enough to have the chance to learn from so many people – and arriving at a research destination is always about the people who take you there – that it’s difficult to say how I arrived. I’ll highlight three stops along the way that stand out to me. Going back to the beginning, as an undergraduate preparing to major in biology, I learned two key lessons. First, that organisms are incredibly specialized to exploit their niches and, second, that inhaling ether in a fruit fly lab was not going to lead me to a satisfying and fulfilling life. Next, in graduate school, a biological anthropologist and a cognitive scientist – my advisers – showed me how the lessons I learned in my biology classes could shed new light on human social behavior. In many ways, my graduate education is reflected in the subtitle of the book, “evolution and the modular mind.” The third stop was a workshop I was lucky enough to attend in which a bunch of really smart people discussed some really interesting issues about human behavior and made really little progress. What was clear from the workshop is that we humans are really inconsistent creatures, and modularity – the idea that the mind consists of a large number of different parts – helps to make sense of why. This book, Why Everyone (Else) is a Hypocrite, takes ideas from my particular academic journey to explain some puzzling aspects of human behavior. (I might have mentioned a fourth stop along the way. I spent some time working for Disney – long story – and worked on a show called Cranium Command. The attraction explains how the mind is made up of a lot of different parts. Did a theme park attraction influence my academic path? *Shrug*)
What is the most surprising finding in your research?
A lot of people don’t want other people to use recreational drugs. This is so obviously true that it’s easy to miss the fact that psychologists still don’t really know why this is. So, recently, some collaborators and I ran a study designed to try to figure it out. Most people would probably think that opposition to recreational drugs comes from being a conservative, or highly religious, or from some other philosophical commitment. We had a different idea. So, we measured people’s opposition to drugs, their politics, and – the heart of the theory that started this research program – their sexuality, including things such as views toward casual sex, number of prior sexual partners, and so on. From our data, it turns out that if you want to try to predict whether someone opposes drugs, the best questions to ask them – other than, you know, whether or not they oppose drugs – isn’t their political party, but something considerably more personal. (The final version of the book was written before these findings were all in, but the explanation for this link is in Chapter 9.)
Where do you see your work leading you in the future?
Well, if I knew where it was leading, I guess it wouldn’t be “research” – off into the unknown and all that – but I can say that there are two questions that I’m excited to be pursing. The first one is about morality. Along with graduate students past and present, I’ve been working to understand the function of morality. To return to the question above, people moralize all sorts of things other people want to do, and we’d like to understand why that is (and, maybe, what we can do about it). The second line of work asks why people seem to like some sorts of scientific explanations – neuroscience is currently all the rage – but dislike other kinds. This dislike is tangible; as an evolutionary psychologist, I not infrequently have people who have no training as scientists inform me, with quiet, serious confidence, that my field is not, in fact, a science. It’s unclear why this is, and one thing I’d like to do is to understand such people and figure out what, exactly, their problem is.
Patricia Churchland, “The Great Debate” about neuroscience and morality, recorded at Arizona State University
On November 6th, 2010 a panel of renowned scientists, philosophers, and public intellectuals gathered to discuss what impact evolutionary theory and advances in neuroscience might have on traditional concepts of morality. If human morality is an evolutionary adaptation and if neuroscientists can identify specific brain circuitry governing moral judgment, can scientists determine what is, in fact, right and wrong? The panelists were psychologist Steven Pinker, author Sam Harris, philosopher Patricia Churchland, physicist Lawrence Krauss, philosopher Simon Blackburn, bioethicist Peter Singer and The Science Network’s Roger Bingham.
Recorded live at the Arizona State University Gammage auditorium.
“The Great Debate” was sponsored by the ASU Origins Project in collaboration with the ASU Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law Center for Law, Science and Innovation; the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Cambridge; and The Science Network.
Dr. Francesco Duina of Bates College recently provided a brief 90-second explanation of his book, Winning: Reflections on an American Obsession on WAMC’s Academic Minute. During the segment, Duina explains the argument and relevance of Winning and explores why the U.S. is consistently outranked on lists of the world’s happiest countries. Whew – that’s a lot for just 90 seconds!
Fish travel in schools, birds migrate in flocks, honeybees swarm, and ants build trails. How and why do these collective behaviors occur? Exploring how coordinated group patterns emerge from individual interactions, Collective Animal Behavior reveals why animals produce group behaviors and examines their evolution across a range of species.
Collective Animal Behavior
By David J. T. Sumpter
We invite you to read chapter one online:
The first bit of news is that today is the anniversary of the launch of Cassini/Huygens. I spoke with author and scientist Ralph Lorenz about his memory of launch day in 1997 and what might be next for this important space mission.
We also look forward to another yearly experience — the trek to find The Perfect Pumpkin — with a fun little math article from mathematics editor Vickie Kearn. Drawing on the skills described in Guesstimation: Solving the World’s Problems on the Back of a Cocktail Napkin by Lawrence Weinstein & John A. Adam, Vickie describes how to guess your pumpkin’s weight and cost before you break your back trying to lug one home.
PGS continues to go to the dinosaurs this issue. We have the tail end of our daily dinosaur feature and a sneak peek at an exciting new book for Fall 2011 — Pterosaurs by Mark Witton. His illustration of a pteranodon taking flight would be at home in the world of George Lucas, and the video he recommends fleshes out the process.
We anticipate the publication of Why Everyone (Else) Is a Hypocrite by Robert Kurzban with a terrific book trailer produced by Brandon Baker. Want to create your own fun iPhone application buttons like those in the video? This Web site can help: http://www.quirco.com/iPhoneIcon/.
Learn more about the book here: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9271.html