Science News for Writers

Source: Psychology Today This report of a "Y-chromosone Bottleneck" that occurred seven thousand years ago raises some interesting questions. In it, the author theorizes that war may have the effect of simplifying the male genome to the point that it's like having but one man for every 17 women.  Sounds like a male fantasy, but is it good for humanity and the potential for our survival on our planet? Research shows that healthy populations depend on genetic diversity such as in this report from 2015,  Genetic Diversity Linked to Today's Taller, Smarter People .  So if war has the effect of creating a male genome bottleneck, does the bottleneck limit the diversity needed to maintain a healthy population?  Could genetic bottlenecks be the reason that some militarily aggressive cultures such as the ancient Romans and Greeks are very peaceful today?  i.e., have they had the aggression breed out of them by years of wars in which the most warlike men died in bat

Source:  Telegraph It's estimated that the average man will drive an extra 900 miles during  his lifetime because he is lost.  Actually, it's because his loving life partner  is ripping him a new one and he's too busy  defending himself to watch  where he's going.  From  The real reason why men get lost and never ask for directions  We really don't need research to know that - men prefer to take spontaneous shortcuts, while  women tend to use routes they know. Or that to the undying annoyance of women, research shows clearly that men navigate more efficiently than women.  (Yes, research shows this to be true.) However, this efficiency is tempered by the fact that men frequently get lost on a short cut which men consider an adventure while getting lost when you could have stopped to ask directions really pisses her off.  We also instinctively know that   men and women tend to fight bitterly about how to get from point a to point b. ( I once t

Yes, actually I am.  We all are. *  *  *  *  * How humans repress prejudices Even people who would describe themselves as liberal and open-minded might not be free of unconscious racism A philosopher has used psychoanalysis to investigate why people are often not aware of their prejudices.  Bochum-based philosopher Dr Beate Krickel has used psychoanalysis to investigate why people are often not aware of their prejudices. In her accounts, she has been elaborating how prejudices can become unconscious.  Tolerant and yet full of bias A hypothetical example: a white professor describes himself as having a liberal, tolerant worldview. He confirms that it is nonsense and scientifically insupportable to assume that people with different ethnic background have different levels of intelligence. However, the convictions he professes are ostensibly contradicted by his behaviour: he acts, for example, surprised, when a person of colour asks an intelligent question in his seminar

Credit: © ALDECAstudio / Fotolia   Speakers hesitate or make brief pauses filled with sounds like "uh" or "uhm" mostly before nouns. Living during the Scientific Revolution is often staggering.  As in, I'm staggered by the incredible breadth of the types of research currently underway. Spending money and intellectual effort to time how long it takes for people to say different elements of speech in a variety of languages seems pretty damn obscure.  Yet, the result is surprising.  Humans speaking often unrelated languages take longer to say a noun that other types of words. Why? It is the way our brains process certain types of words. Why is this important to writers? Because people tend to pause or use filler words before using nouns, therefore the speech we write should show this human tendency.  It makes your dialog more believable and real. And isn't the idea? *  *  *  *  * Nouns slow down our speech Speakers hesitate or ma

Source:  Pursuing Points The myth of the objective observer takes another hit. As much as anyone wants to believe they are objectively seeking facts before expressing an opinion, the human brain doesn't work that way.  Genetically speaking even the best of us are more receptive to "facts" that bolster our preconceived opinions. This is why the scientific method is so important.  It doesn't rely on my opinion or your opinion.  It depends on the results of like experiments generating like results - whether we accept the results or not. And this explains why presenting facts, no matter how scrupulously developed and supported, go right over the heads of so many people.  It's not fact or truth that matters to our brain, it's what we believe. There must be a survival advantage to being, quite frankly, pig-headed. Makes things a bit clearer but still frustrating. *  *  *  *  * If you believe it, it's truer People reflexively accept inf

Source:  Daily Mail Gee, do you think so? Let's face it guys, women have us figured out.  Like, completely figured out.  Like, why try?  Like, we're so shallow and so obvious that it's not even a contest. Men want one thing and one thing only, and are willing to do anything to get it.  It's our genetic wiring.  We can try our hardest to be fair and non-sexist.  And even achieve some success in not being too obvious. But girls know. As Spanky once said, " You can fool some of the people, some of the time. . . but you can't fool mom ." Women are in complete control. Every time. Always. *  *  *  *  * Women see through flashy cars and bling Women perceive men who extrovertly display their wealth as unsuitable partners for long-term relationships When a man throws money around on flashy cars, people intuitively interpret this behavior as a sign that he is more interested in short-term sexual relationships than in romantic commi

Finally it appears that MIT has gotten involved in proving Will's syllogism, "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." Read his statement carefully.   ONE learns by reading.   A FEW who learn by observation. Then there's the rest of us. The reason for this, it turns out, is a special circuit in the brain that you or I need to have a functioning version of to actually learn by observing others.  Based on how we all behave, it is a circuit most of us must be missing.   Or perhaps it shorted out the first time we peed on an electric fence and it has yet to grow back.   *  *  *  *  * Brain circuit helps us learn by watching others Scientists pinpoint neural interactions that are necessary for observational learning Researchers have identified a brain circuit required to learn by watching others. This circuit,

Dell EMC InFocus A staple of science fiction is a future where artificial intelligence (AI) is used to control people's behavior, or, in which AI supplants the human element. I have mixed feelings about AI, its uses, and our future.  For one thing, it's questionable that the human brain can increase in size or complexity without causing the system to slow down.  The brain of a "genius" isn't larger than yours or mine, its simply organized differently.  The difference between early versions of humans and modern humans is in large part, size.  Yes, brain organization plays a role, but until the latest iteration of us, brain size was the critical factor. If we as a species have survived based on brain size, and brain size has maxed out, how do we continue to evolve intellectually?  Better organization?  Yes, but can we ever hope to create and control this type of evolutionary activity? One solution to maxed human brain size is creating an interface

Source:  Bart's Blackboard Down side of being dubbed 'class clown' Class clowns' off-task antics amuse and delight their classmates during first and second grades, making them the most sought-after playmates on the playground in early elementary school.  But by the time these mischievous boys are promoted to third grade, they plummet to the bottom of the social circle as classmates' disapproval of their behavior grows, a new study found. Perhaps most worrisome is that by third grade, playful boys may be internalizing others' negative assessments and begin viewing themselves as social failures, possibly setting them on a course for a host of poor academic and developmental outcomes, said researcher Lynn A. Barnett, an educational psychologist and professor of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois. These sudden reversals in playful boys' social fortunes from first to third grade may be classmates' mirroring of teachers