#60. Gender is Pecking Order [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact.

Gender is pecking order

Gender, social status, and testosterone are clearly interrelated, but exactly how requires clarification when the very nature of gender is in question, as now. One possibility is that the male pecking order sits directly atop the female pecking order, and there is no barrier between. Thus, a male who falls low enough in the male pecking order will undergo a reversal in gender identification from male to female (and maybe keep on going down) and a female who rises high enough in the female pecking order will likewise undergo a reversal in gender identification from female to male (and maybe keep on going up). The entire structure could be called "the" pecking order, with the statistical median of the status ranks, and possibly the ranked testosterone levels, always dividing females from males, at least in terms of gendered social signaling. This could be an example of what is called an exact theory replacing its approximate counterpart. In this case, the corresponding approximate theory would be the gender binary. ("You are either a man or a woman.")

Recent history of trans

Since the early sixties, we have seen a trend of increasing media exposure of trans and non-binary individuals, and this was also a period of ever-increasing human population numbers. I conjecture that the latter trend caused the former. The population trend may have produced an upward trend in the average population density at which people are living, suburban expansion notwithstanding. This may have caused an increasing incidence of aggressive one-on-one interactions among humans due to the Calhoun effect, which is much discussed in these pages. (See post #37.) Aggressive, one-on-one interactions are well known to change the social status of the combatants, the winner enjoying increased status (i.e., a higher ranking in the pecking order) and the loser suffering reduced status. Overall, population density increases can thus be expected to increase the amount of traffic on the social ladder, both upward and downward, leading to increasing numbers of individuals crossing the median and becoming trans or nonbinary. The increasing numbers of trans and nonbinary individuals in society was then faithfully reflected in the content of the news stories of the day. QED.

Trans and development

By the status-is-gender theory, the occurrence of trans and binary individuals should run in families, since a large part of social status is hereditary, although it is not necessarily determined directly by the genome. Status may be influenced by multimodal acquisition of a status "calibration" from caregivers early in life that is synaptically mediated yet resistant to change after a critical period is past. A similar and well established phenomenon would be the early maladaptive schema, and this may amount to the same thing by a different name if status defaults to maximal at birth and is then adaptively reduced by experience.

Trans not genetically determined

Consistent with this, PLOS blogger R. Lewis, who has a PhD in genetics, found remarkably little evidence of a direct genetic causation in transgenderism. Moreover, out of 58 studies on "transgender" listed on clinicaltrials.gov, nothing worth mentioning was found about genetics. This could be an instance of the filing-drawer effect (negative results not published but left to languish in the filing cabinet).

Tangent: how pecking-order dynamics may lead to dispersal

02-29-2020: I am indebted to Jordan Peterson for turning me on to the pecking-order idea. It can explain aspects of dispersalism, as follows: If people have no emotional memory of their social wins and losses, we would expect their distribution on the social ladder to be Gaussian (aka, a bell curve). However, if a win or loss leaves you with an emotional residue of optimism or pessimism (and, of course, it does), a positive feedback can set in if conflicts are coming faster than the emotional fallout from each can dissipate, so that the more you lose, the greater your pessimism, and the more likely you are to lose in the future. Moreover, the more you win, the greater your optimism, and the more likely you are to win in the future. <08-29-2020: Following Peterson, this emotional fallout effect may be due to prolonged up- and down-regulations of serotonin concentrations in the brain.> This dynamic then splits the population into a bi-modal social distribution of oppressors and oppressed, and the latter soon join some refugee stream, resulting in dispersal. The frequency of conflicts could be measuring population density, and the conflicts would not necessarily be over resources, but over proxies for these such as land or jobs. With the addition of these ideas, the splitting and separation of overcrowded rodent populations in the behavioral-sink phase of a Calhoun experiment is explained. To connect these ideas with my earlier idea of the sadness cycle, I conjecture that sadness and its attendant social signaling expresses anger colored by pessimism about winning, whereas contempt and its social signaling expresses anger colored by optimism about winning.

A false-flag strategy?

20-08-2020: Another idea about trans is that it is a false-flag strategy used by low-status males and females to reproduce without punishment. Pair a gay woman with a trans woman and you have a potentially fertile couple able to fool the oppressors until the deed is done. Likewise a gay man and a trans man.

Photo by Jonny Gios on Unsplash

#22. The Cogs of Armageddon [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact.

1-27-2017

This is a "just-so story" about how I believe everyday human behavior eventually accomplishes the all-important biological function of dispersal for the human race. A future post will attempt to explain how the "just-so story" got written in terms of natural selection and possible faster-acting proxies thereof needed by organisms with long generation times.

Dispersal is things like dandelions shedding airborne seeds, slime molds developing into spore cases on stalks and releasing the spores into the wind, territorial systems of birds and mammals forcing the unlanded young to seek widely for their own territories, and humans going into space because our science fiction writers keep scaring us about the possibility of meteor crashes wiping out life on Earth. To paraphrase the latter, a way to avoid extinction, long-term, is not putting all your eggs in one basket, geographically speaking.

The slime mold dictyostelium is triggered into its dispersal program by the food supply running short; I will adopt the assumption that the human dispersal program is also triggered by the end of the good times, that is, the price of bread rising relative to wages.

I conjecture that human neural pathways potentiate aggression when the hard times come, but of an elaborate kind adapted for ensuring efficient dispersal (i.e., with minimal loss of life). It begins with a two-person feud of the sort illustrated in cultural references too numerous to mention. In Canada, where I live, a cough accompanied by an angry expression plays the role of the instigation. The arbitrary stimulus, made offensive by some piece of Pavlovian conditioning, is traded back and forth with rapidly increasing energy. The process is remarkably like flirting, not surprising since the ultimate purpose has commonalities with reproduction--but of an entire society. 

However, the emotional component is strongly threatening rather than rewarding, because the participants must be induced to seek allies, which people do when threatened, until all of society is eventually polarized. The acts of provocation being traded back and forth become progressively more outrageous, as they must, to keep the polarization process going. Eventually, one side gets the upper hand and forces the other to flee.

The result is a diaspora, i.e., dispersal. Because of the long polarization process, an entire group is expelled, not single individuals one at a time. Thus, members of such a group can assist each other to survive and relocate, thereby reducing the mortality associated with dispersal, thereby making the dispersal event more efficient in terms of number of people relocated. The group who flees is then seen by the international community as the blameless victim, and the group who stays is seen as the unprincipled aggressor. This tends to elicit a sheltering of the refugees and an intimidation of the "aggressor," who is deterred from pressing his advantage, that is, pursuing the refugees and slaughtering them to the last man, which is what each side would dearly like to do to the other by this point. This, again, is an efficiency from the point of view of producing dispersal.

However, if each side is continually threatening the other, why don't they flee each other's presence during the very early stages? The answer seems to be that humans have a reflex that converts feeling threatened into a wish to injure the threatening party, possibly a behavioral leftover from some earlier adaptation, such as an anti-predation defense; to injure, you have to stick around. (Leftovers such as these form the building blocks of future just-so plots.)

Finally, settled refugees usually do not integrate completely into the host society, instead forming ethnic neighborhoods. This increases the resemblance to an entire society reproducing itself. However, the growth phase following reproduction in individuals seems to be lacking at the society level. However, being seen as ethnic by the host society, due to slow integration, could improve individual-level reproductive success of refugees because of disassortative mate-choice effects evolved to favor genes that produce dispersal.

2-24-2017

The dispersal-producing dynamic just outlined is fantastically powerful, as it must be to overcome all the reasons you would not leave your homeland forever at some arbitrary time: expense, risk of mortality in transit, opportunity costs, temporary loss of livelihood, need to learn a new language and customs, vulnerability to exploitation in the new country, etc., etc.

This dynamic is basically what theologians call evil, for which I propose the less judgmental, substitute term "dispersalism." If this is truly an insight, it should have a liberating effect on your life, even if you just remember that one word, but with the price of always being population-conscious: always trying to see what is happening at the population/zeitgeist level, and reading the paper every day at the very least.

At least one "just-so story" could probably be written for each of the pillars of the human species-specific objective function mentioned in previous posts, these being as follows: dispersal, genetic diversity, memetic diversity, and altruism. (The latter has not been mentioned until now.) Each of these must be optimized, not blindly maximized, for each comes at a cost. In terms of neurobiology, each pillar is probably a family of functionally related likes and dislikes wired up in the hypothalamus, but not obviously related to individual-level survival or reproduction.

#17. Hell's Kitchen [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact.

Ever since the assassination of JFK in '63, people of my generation have been wondering why the Americans kill off their best and brightest. It's not just the Americans, of course. The same thing happened to Gandhi and Our Savior no less.

I think a homey kitchen metaphor nails it. Once you have emptied the milk carton of all its milk, you can use it to dispose of the grease. That is, by the logic of "The Insurance of the Heart," once tremendous acclaim has been conferred on someone's name, the physical person no longer matters for the purposes of enhancing the name their descendents will inherit, and so can safely be used to draw the fire of the genetic undesirables; the resulting tremendous indignation will confer bad odor on the name of said undesirable for quite long enough to eradicate their meh genes in all copies.

Thus, Booth's genes were eradicated to make way for Lincoln's, and Oswald's genes were eradicated to make way for Kennedy's, without overall change in population density.

If the intermind could be said to have thoughts, this is what they would be like. Clearly, it's not God.

#16. The Intermind, Engine of History? [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact.

9-21-2016

This post is a further development of the ideas in the post, "What is intelligence? DNA as knowledge base." It was originally published 9-21-2016 and extensively edited 10-09-2016 with references added 10-11-2016 and 10-30-2016. Last modified: 10-30-2016.

In "AviApics 101" and "The Insurance of the Heart," I seem to be venturing into human sociobiology, which one early critic called "An outbreak of neatness." With the momentum left over from "Insurance," I felt up for a complete human sociobiological theory, to be created from the two posts mentioned.

However, what I wrote about the "genetic intelligence" suggests that this intelligence constructs our sociobiology in an ad hoc fashion, by rearranging a knowledge base, or construction kit, of "rules of conduct" into algorithm-like assemblages. This rearrangement is (See Deprecated, Part 7) blindingly fast by the standards of classical Darwinian evolution, which only provides the construction kit itself, and presumably some further, special rules equivalent to a definition of an objective function to be optimized. The ordinary rules translate experiences into the priming of certain emotions, not the emotions themselves, 

Thus, my two sociobiological posts are best read as case studies of the products of the genetic intelligence. I have named this part the intermind, because it is intermediate in speed between classical evolution and learning by operant conditioning. (All three depend on trial-and error.) The name is also appropriate in that the intermind is a distributed intelligence, acting over continental, or a least national, areas. If we want neatness, we must focus on its objective function, which is simply whatever produces survival. It will be explicitly encoded into the genes specifying the intermind, (For more on multi-tier, biological control systems with division of labor according to time scale, see "Sociobiology: the New Synthesis," E. O. Wilson, 1975 & 2000, chapter 7.)

Let us assume that the intermind accounts for evil, and that this is because it is only concerned with survival of the entire species and not with the welfare of individuals. Therefore, it will have been created by group selection of species. (Higher taxonomic units such as genus or family will scarcely evolve because the units that must die out to permit this are unlikely to do so, because they comprise relatively great genetic and geographical diversity.* However, we can expect adaptations that facilitate speciation. Imprinted genes may be one such adaptation, which might enforce species barriers by a lock-and-key mechanism that kills the embryo if any imprinted gene is present in either two or zero active copies.) Species group selection need act only on the objective function used by epigenetic trial-and-error processes.

In these Oncelerian times, we know very well that species survival is imperiled by loss of range and by loss of genetic diversity. Thus, the objective function will tend to produce range expansion and optimization of genetic diversity. My post "The Insurance of the Heart" concluded with a discussion of "preventative evolution," which was all about increasing genetic diversity. My post "AviApics 101" was all about placing population density under a rigid, negative feedback control, which would force excess population to migrate to less-populated areas, thereby expanding range. Here we see how my case studies support the existence of an intermind with an objective  function as described above.

However, all this is insufficient to explain the tremendous cultural creativity of humans, starting at the end of the last ice age with cave paintings, followed shortly thereafter by the momentous invention of agriculture. The hardships of the ice age must have selected genes for a third, novel component, or pillar, of the species objective function, namely optimization of memetic diversity. Controlled diversification of the species memeplex may have been the starting point for cultural creativity and the invention of all kinds of aids to survival. Art forms may represent the sensor of a feedback servomechanism by which a society measures its own memeplex diversity, measurement being necessary to control.

A plausible reason for evolving an intermind is that it permits larger body size, which leads to more internal degrees of freedom and therefore access to previously impossible adaptations. For example, eukaryotes can phagocytose their food; prokaryotes cannot. However, larger body size comes at the expense of longer generation time, which reduces evolvability. A band of high frequencies in the spectrum of environmental fluctuations therefore develops where the large organism has relinquished evolvability, opening it to being out competed by its smaller rivals. 

The intermind is a proxy for classical evolution that fills the gap, but it needs an objective function to provide it with its ultimate gold standard of goodness of adaptations. Species-replacement group selection makes sure the objective function is close to optimal. This group selection process takes place at enormously lower frequencies than those the intermind is adapting to, because if the timescales were  too similar, chaos would result. For example, in model predictive control, the model is updated on a much longer cycle than are the predictions derived from it.

12-25-2016

Today, when I was checking to see if I was using the word "cathexis" correctly (I wasn't), I discovered the Freudian term "collective unconscious," which sounds close to my "intermind" concept.

* 3-12-2018

I now question this argument. Why can't there be as many kinds of group selection as taxonomic levels? Admittedly, the higher-level processes would be mind-boggling in their slowness, but in evolution, there are no deadlines.

#15. The Insurance of the Heart [evolutionary psychology]

EP

Red, theory; black, fact.

8-29-2016

We live in an uncertain world, the best reason to buy insurance while you can. Insurance is too good a trick for evolution to have missed. When food is plentiful, as it now is in my country, people get obese, as they are now doing here, so that they can live on their fat during possible future hard times. They don't do this consciously; it's in their genes.

However, eating has only an additive effect on your footprint on society's demand for resources; how many kids you have affects your footprint multiplicatively. Thus, the effectiveness of biological insurance taken out in children foregone during times of plenty would be greater than that taken out in food consumed. Such a recourse exists (See Deprecated, Part 8); how well and long remembered the family name you bequeath to your children affects your footprint exponentially. (I assume that a good or bad "name" affects the reproductive success of all your descendants having that name until you are finally forgotten.) Compared to exponential returns, everything else is chump change. ("Who steals my purse steals trash." - Shakespeare)

There remains the problem of food going to waste during times of plenty because social forces prevent a quick population increase. I conjecture that the extra energy available is invested by society in contests of various sorts (think of the Circus Maximus during the heyday of ancient Rome) that act as a proxy to evolutionary selection pressure, whereby the society accelerates it's own evolution. Although natural selection pressure is maximal during the hard times, relying on these to do all your evolving for you can make you extinct; better to do some "preventative evolution" ahead of time.

Postscript 3

Since future environmental demands are partly unforeseeable, a good strategy would be to accelerate one's evolution in multiple directions, keeping many irons in the fire. Indeed, in the Olympics just concluded, thirty-nine sports were represented.

The power of these contests is maximized by using the outcomes as unconditioned stimuli that are associated with the family names of the winners and losers: the conditioned stimuli. In this way, one acquires a good or bad "name" that will affect the reproductive success of all who inherit it, an exponential effect. To ground this discussion biologically, it must be assumed that the contests are effective in isolating carriers of good or bad genes (technically, alleles), and that the resulting "name" is an effective proxy for natural selection in altering the frequency of said genes. To keep the population density stable during all this, winners must be balanced by losers. The winners are determined and branded in places like the ball diamond, and the losers are determined and branded in the courts.