The Science Thread

I think there is a lot more communication going on in the non-human animal world than we realize.

Recent research shows the cuttlefish may communicate with "discolike arm gestures."

Scientists identified four arm wave signals cuttlefish use: “up,” “side,” “roll” and “crown”

1751122207713.png
 
What do you think came first? (According to the evidence we have) - Reading or money or games?

Before humans could read or spend money, we played games.

Excavations in Mesopotamia and Egypt uncovered ancient games such as the Royal Game of Ur and Hounds and Jackals. With no inkling of an alphabet or the marketplace, people still sat across from each other with a board between them, rolling dice, moving tokens, following rules.

It’s historical proof that channeling the competitive spirit into structured interaction with invented stakes is more than just a distraction. It’s a ritual foundational to the human experience.

(From an Atlantic article in my inbox today)
 
What do you think came first? (According to the evidence we have) - Reading or money or games?
I guessed it, hooray!

I figured before we wanted to transfer complex information with reading, and before we wanted more complex trade with others, we were probably sitting in caves or houses, bored, waiting for the winter to end…
 
Reading or money or games
Depends on how you define 'money' (barter, sharing?) or 'games'. Reading is obviously far removed from simple 'language'. I got a feeling they chose these terms to get the answer they wanted, seeing it's the Atlantic. All three can be hardwired behaviours, but yeah I'll give it to 'play' since you learn that before you learn to 'share', but where would language fit? Babby can read your face from the time it can see, but is still unable to move about or interact with the world at large. That's early humans and primates though. What would Robert Trivers say? I'm gonna think about this all day now, Louanne.

Oh yea, about Baby Can Read Your Face - they proved some time ago female infants were more interested in faces than objects, while males are more interested in objects than faces. Why is it thus? What could be the reasons behind this thusness?
 
they proved some time ago female infants were more interested in faces than objects, while males are more interested in objects than faces. Why is it thus?

Well, it tends to suggest that some gender cognition differences are innate rather than learned.

And it has been well-established that our brains sexually differentiate during fetal development (during the third trimester) - making "male" and "female' brains - under the influence of genes and hormones.

As to the reason why - well everything about us exists in us because at some point during our evolution, that particular trait gave us evolutionary advantage. What is the evolutionary advantage of females showing stronger interest in faces (social), and males in objects?

For females, as mothers, it tends to hint at becoming nurturers.

A bit of googling shows that these preferences may change over time, and males do develop social skills as they grow.
 
Girls = verbal ability, social cognition.
Boys = visuospatial and mathematical ability.
So, on average, girls tend towards vocations centred on people (nursing, teaching, etc) and boys towards 'things' - (mechanics, engineering.)
Another thing! The more egalitarian the society, the more pronounced sex differences become.
Bad google for telling you that it can change. This stuff used to be pretty straightforward but its gotten all political now.
 
So, on average, girls tend towards vocations centred on people (nursing, teaching, etc) and boys towards 'things' - (mechanics, engineering.)

Good thing you included "on average" - cause none of us fit a mold. Males can make very good nurses, and in my teaching career, I've met girls that rocked at Math and Science. And I have to say Math was always my easiest subject when I was a student.

The more egalitarian the society, the more pronounced sex differences become.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. How so?

Bad google for telling you that it can change. This stuff used to be pretty straightforward but its gotten all political now.

You don't think we change as we grow? What's politics got to do with it?
 
Short-term bursts of stress can be healthy. Long-term, unresolved stress contributes to heart disease, cancer, stroke, respiratory disorders, suicide and other leading causes of death.

In this high-stress modern world, stress-induced illnesses are wreaking havoc.

“There is an evolutionary mismatch happening right now,” says David Almeida, a developmental psychologist at Pennsylvania State University in University Park.

The fight-or-flight response just did not evolve to cope with the stuff we have to cope with today.

A little bit of uncertainty can be good, but when there is too much… the “off” switch doesn’t work.

But, there is hope…

Combatting Toxic Stress with Science
 
The generally accepted idea is that every single cell in your body has its own life - is a living entity unto itself - but the cells that make you up agree to communicate (with things like electricity and chemicals) and cooperate for the sake of the organism. You're an ecosystem of cooperating cells.

And now, research has discovered that when skin cells are injured, they scream for help.

Skin Cells ‘Scream’ for Help When Injured

Our skin’s epithelial cells send electrical signals like neurons to cry out for help


‘We got injured, we need repair, you need to come over here,...”
 
Last edited:
Back
Top