'We live in an era where the brain and its "hard wiring" are used to explain behavior. Impressive brain scans reveal which areas light up whenever we have certain thoughts, emotions and drives. Thus, someone who is in love will exhibit some characteristic patterns of activity in the limbic region, the amygdala and elsewhere, providing us with a "signature," so to speak, of what love looks like beneath the skull. This is very interesting, and it leads to many fascinating possibilities. But one of the possibilities that needs to be ruled out is the crude notion that "my brain made me do it," which is just as suspect as "my genes made me do it." The brain is not a fixed dictator of behavior. We can go into philosophical reasons for why the mind is more important than the brain, but that tends to be dismissed as metaphysics; anyway, nobody wants to spoil the brain game, which is the big game in town so far as science is concerned right now.
What I object to is the underlying assumption that we are largely unconscious beings, directed by evolution, genes or the brain to be who we are. Freud's unconscious mind has suddenly found a mechanical representation that is given huge credit. On the surface, we don't know why we suddenly love someone else, so science runs in to say that our choice was based on pheromones (in one study, women liked the smell of men's underarms better if they also had symmetrical faces), imprints of desirable facial structures and other hidden factors beyond our conscious knowledge. Similarly, men are supposed to favor women with a certain ratio of waist to hip size.
I hope the reader can see that as intriguing as this may sound, it all tends to remove free will, choice and the growth of individual consciousness. After all, if there is a vast area known as the unconscious where invisible forces inherited from our ancestors are plying us with genetic and brain signals, what's the use of resisting? Again, this may sound abstract, but no subject is more vital than the relations between men and women.'
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/how-men-can-be-wise-about_b_835363.html
First, to date, no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behaviour (Bear et al. (2006)).
ReplyDeleteSecond, this sounds like the nature/nurture debate or genetic determination versus environmental effects. If genes do contribute substantially to the development of personal characteristics such as personality, then it is natural to wonder if this implies that genes determine who we are and thereby removing our free will.
In short, the very question opposing nature to nurture is a fallacy. If an environment is changed fundamentally, then the proportion of phenotypic variation in a population that is due to genetic variation between individuals, or heritability of a character, also changes. Conversely, if the genetic composition of a population changes, then heritability changes too.
There is no escape, genetic determination exists. Your genes determine your eye colour, height, sex etc. Genes even affect behaviour. Domestication of animals inevitably selected for special desirable characteristics, such a temperament which makes it unlikely to panic. Those characteristics will have corresponding genes.
The question is what control do we have over these selection processes. By example, facial symmetry is associated with fitness-linked traits, including health, and is an important indicator of freedom from disease (Fink, B et al. 2001). Other indicators of fitness could include smooth skin, this was especially important in pre-vaccine days when small pox and other diseases were rife. Such indicators are important to gain a high fecundity, as mates need to make the optimum choice in order for genes to survive and thrive in the next generations.
Similarly, if such fitness indicators exist, it makes sense that we become adept at spotting them. For example, if a mate is selected based on their facial symmetry, this in turn selects not only for continued facial symmetry, but also for the preference for facial symmetry; thus propagating the trait and attraction to the trait.
"Hip size indicates pelvic size and the amount of additional fat storage that can be used as a source of energy. Waist size conveys information such as current reproductive status or health status ... in westernised societies with no risk of seasonal lack of food, the waist, conveying information about fecundity and health status, will be more important than hip size for assessing a female's attractiveness" (Rozmus-Wrzesinska, M et al. (2005)).
However, such signals can be hijacked. For example, an Australian beetle species whose males were sexually attracted to large and orange females, the larger and more orange the better. This became a problem when the males started to attempt to mate with certain beer bottles that were just the right colour. The males were more attracted to the bottles than actual females. These are known as Supernormal Stimuli.
Similarly, it is argued that the impact of supernormal stimuli on the diversion of impulses for nurturing, sexuality, romance, territoriality, defence, and the entertainment industry’s hijacking of our social instincts. Junk food, for example, is an exaggerated stimulus to cravings for salt, sugar, and fats. Television is an exaggeration of social cues of laughter, smiling faces and attention-grabbing action. Ie modern cues may activate instinctive responses which evolved in a world absent of commercial advertising and marketing strategies.
But, whilst are genes may have certain predetermined preferences, as human beings we have one thing that can assist us – a rational mind and consciousness. This gives us the unique ability to exercise self-control, override instincts, and extricate ourselves from civilisation's (and nature’s) ornate traps.