Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Science : Evolution and Biology | print version

Print | Comments |

The Biology Behind the Milk of Human Kindness

by Natalie Angier - New York Times

Thanks to SPS for the link.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/science/24angier.html?_r=2

As the festival of mandatory gratitude looms into view, allow me to offer a few suggestions on what, exactly, you should be thankful for.

Be thankful that, on at least one occasion, your mother did not fend off your father with a pair of nunchucks, but instead allowed enough contact to facilitate your happy conception. Be thankful that when you go to buy a pale, poultrylike entity, the grocery clerk will accept your credit card in good faith and even return it with a heroic garble of your last name. Be grateful for the empathetic employee working the United Airlines ticket counter the day after Thanksgiving, who understands why you must leave town today, this very minute, lest someone pull out the family nunchucks.

Above all, be thankful for your brain’s supply of oxytocin, the small, celebrated peptide hormone that, by the looks of it, helps lubricate our every prosocial exchange, the thousands of acts of kindness, kind-of kindness and not-as-nakedly-venal-as-I-could-have-been kindness that make human society possible. Scientists have long known that the hormone plays essential physiological roles during birth and lactation, and animal studies have shown that oxytocin can influence behavior too, prompting voles to cuddle up with their mates, for example, or to clean and comfort their pups. Now a raft of new research in humans suggests that oxytocin underlies the twin emotional pillars of civilized life, our capacity to feel empathy and trust.
...
Continue reading
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/24/science/24angier.html?_r=2

Posted: Tuesday, November 24, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 25 of 25 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #434608 by Sally Luxmoore on November 24, 2009 at 7:35 pm

What on earth is a nunchuck?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

2. Comment #434610 by ozturk on November 24, 2009 at 7:42 pm

Oh c'mon, Sally, you must be able to 'google it' as well as the next person! A (weapon which) consists of two sticks connected at their ends with a short chain or rope.

Other Comments by ozturk

3. Comment #434612 by littletrotsky13 on November 24, 2009 at 7:49 pm

I thought she was on about cristmas for a while.

Other Comments by littletrotsky13

4. Comment #434615 by root2squared on November 24, 2009 at 8:04 pm

"What on earth is a nunchuck?"

A good idea of what to do with a nun.

Other Comments by root2squared

5. Comment #434617 by Sally Luxmoore on November 24, 2009 at 8:07 pm

What - as in how much wood would a nun chuck?

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

6. Comment #434623 by root2squared on November 24, 2009 at 8:23 pm

As in chuck her out the window.

Other Comments by root2squared

7. Comment #434641 by Stafford Gordon on November 24, 2009 at 9:45 pm

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

8. Comment #434647 by NewEnglandBob on November 24, 2009 at 9:58 pm

How nany nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

9. Comment #434660 by rod-the-farmer on November 24, 2009 at 10:25 pm

And if you place nunchuck and into the feckin' sack adjacent to one another, you have a good start.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

10. Comment #434663 by bethe123 on November 24, 2009 at 10:29 pm

"How nany nuns could a nunchuck chuck if a nunchuck could chuck nuns?" -- NewEnglandBob

None. Nunchucks are illegal.

Other Comments by bethe123

11. Comment #434664 by Sally Luxmoore on November 24, 2009 at 10:30 pm

Well, I think we've got this article tightly sewn up now!
-- Claps dust off hands...

I'm off to chuck nuns.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore

12. Comment #434678 by Stafford Gordon on November 24, 2009 at 11:08 pm

Next time a wingnut asks any of you how you can be moral or good without religion you can refer them to this article; if new words frighten then don't read Dawkins.

Other Comments by Stafford Gordon

13. Comment #434685 by righton on November 24, 2009 at 11:25 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300

Hope this gets up soon. Complete garbage!

Other Comments by righton

14. Comment #434698 by MAJORPAIN on November 25, 2009 at 12:15 am

righton that article is scary!

anyway, as to oxytocin....almost everyone I tell about this hormone says it is bullshit that a chemical is what makes them love somebody. I've had a very hard time convincing even smart people that every human behavior is driven by our brains chemicals and hormones.

Love is a choice they yell at me, stamping away. Or, love is MAGIC, they yell at me, stamping away.

Other Comments by MAJORPAIN

15. Comment #434702 by righton on November 25, 2009 at 12:19 am

Even worse, it is featured on the Yahoo home page!

Other Comments by righton

16. Comment #434790 by Anvil on November 25, 2009 at 10:19 am

13. Comment #434685 by righton:

The Political Gene: How Darwin's Ideas Changed Politics - Dennis Sewell

Thanks for the link, mate. I'd seen the title (minus an abstract) on Amazon and was going to buy it. Thankfully, I now won't.

However, this quote from the interview:

"What has the theory of evolution done for the practical benefit of humanity? It's helped our understanding of ourselves, yet compared to, say, the discovery of penicillin or the invention of the World Wide Web, I wonder why Darwin occupies this position at the pinnacle of esteem. I can only imagine he has been put there by a vast public relations exercise."

Dennis Sewell 2009.

This statement should be writ large in every science class, sociology class, and history class. It should be the first discussion students of these subjects have. It should be the first Question on the exam papers of each of these subjects.

This statement should make Dennis Sewell a household name.

In future, in response to similar idiocy along the lines of "What has food ever done for us?" or "What has language ever done for us?" – “Okay, they both help when trying to place an order in a restaurant, but what practical benefit to humanity do they have, say, compared to Velcro, or even Lego?” We should forever respond with “Er, think you’re doing a bit of a Sewell there mate?”

Has this man read nothing on our attempts to combat the selective pressures on bacterial strains? Has this man read nothing on how we will combat the selective pressures on these bacterial strains in the future? Has this man read nothing... I could go on – I won’t. Suffice it to say if you’re looking for some stocking fillers then go for anything by Natalie Angiers – someone who understands exactly what the theory of evolution has done for the practical benefit of mankind.

Anvil.

Other Comments by Anvil

17. Comment #434793 by keddaw on November 25, 2009 at 10:28 am

I have two sticks and a piece of rope. That's Legal. I attach the rope to one of the sticks, all is well. If I then attach the other end of the rope to the other stick it's suddenly illegal? When did that piece of magic happen? (I used to love nunchucks as a kid.)

If anyone claims any emotion/experience is anything other than a biochemical reaction in their brain then they have abandoned reason and should get emergency accupuncture immediately.

Other Comments by keddaw

18. Comment #434808 by John Locke on November 25, 2009 at 11:51 am

nunchucks nunchucks....get your nunchucks

http://www.officeplayground.com/Nun-Chuck-P335.aspx

Other Comments by John Locke

19. Comment #434889 by Logicel on November 25, 2009 at 2:37 pm

keddaw: If anyone claims any emotion/experience is anything other than a biochemical reaction in their brain then they have abandoned reason and should get emergency accupuncture immediately.
____

It is similar to theists getting all knocked out of shape for them to accept that there are molecules in motion, unintended by god. They then conclude that there is no meaning. Same thing if love is reduced to chemicals, then it would mean that love is meaningless. Very silly notions. Without molecules in motion and love chemicals we would not have the society that we have, and as Natalie says, pass the oxytocin in thanks.

Other Comments by Logicel

20. Comment #435027 by Lucas on November 25, 2009 at 5:28 pm

Sally, might I suggest you Ask A Ninja?

Anvil - I sent this article to be posted here yesterday, but no luck (so far). Sewell is a sack of shit.

Q&A: Dennis Sewell on Charles Darwin's Dark Legacy

otherwise billed as...

The Dark Side of Darwin's legacy.

Other Comments by Lucas

21. Comment #435031 by bluebird on November 25, 2009 at 5:34 pm

Very interesting article, I like her writing style. A nice pre Turkey Day read.

Can't resist :)
http://www.cafepress.com/cp/moredetails.aspx?showBleed=false&ProductNo=36384399&colorNo=4&pr=F

Other Comments by bluebird

22. Comment #435154 by righton on November 25, 2009 at 8:04 pm

Anvil,

I am hoping that article gets posted here. It is full of logical fallacies. Here it is again, hopefully Josh will put it up.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091124/hl_time/08599194248300

Other Comments by righton

23. Comment #435207 by Mr DArcy on November 25, 2009 at 9:35 pm

Sorry in advance.

Monk's ambition?

None.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

24. Comment #435229 by Peter Clemerson on November 25, 2009 at 10:20 pm

TO Majorpain

Next time you have difficulty convincing people that their brains are driven by chemicals, ask them to explain the beneficial effects of general anesthetics and the many many drugs used by psychiatrists to treat anxiety, depression and psychotic hallucinations. Ask them to explain even aspirin's beneficial effects next time they have a headache.

What do they think LSD is and does?

Please post their reactions to these questions. I study cognitive dissonance and would be interested to know how they avoid changing their minds.

Peter Clemerson

Other Comments by Peter Clemerson

25. Comment #435359 by Eric Blair on November 26, 2009 at 6:42 am

Bernard Shaw said, "Love is a gross exaggeration of the difference between one person and everybody else."

People have long sensed Shaw was right in this statement but resisted its implications, just as we resist admitting love, or altruism for that matter, is just chemicals reacting in our brains.

However, oxytocin may explain why we love and the good feelings it brings but not how we love, which is of course the key issue.

EB

Other Comments by Eric Blair

Reload Comments | Back to Top