Dr. Benjamin Campbell, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin, received his PhD in biological anthropology from Harvard. He is generally interested in the evolutionary study of the human life course, hormones as modulators of human biology and behavior, and neuroanthropology.
Campbell applies these interests in the embodiment of masculinity among Ariaal men, pastoral nomads of the Marsabit District in Kenya. Embodiment, to Campbell, refers to the experiences of the body that provide context for cognition, including things like muscle tone, heart rate, and endocrine release. In this way, testosterone can be thought of as something that is “embodied” in the experiences of Ariaal men. Campbell hypothesizes that since testosterone is embodied, varying levels of testosterone can then affect the well-being (specifically the energy levels, libido, and enjoyment of life) of Ariaal men in a measurable and meaningful way.
In order to test this hypothesis, Campbell used the World Health Organization (WHO) quality of life questionnaire (WHOQOL) with 205 men in two different settlements, one nomadic and one close to a town, and collected saliva samples to test testosterone levels. Once he controlled for dopaminergic sensitivity (based on the Taq1 A1+ genotype, received from hair samples), residence (nomadic encampment or town settlement), and age group he ran a regression analysis to model the relationship of testosterone levels to the outcomes of satisfaction with energy, positive emotions, and satisfaction with sex which form his well-being outcomes. Of these, testosterone is linked with an increase in satisfaction with energy and positive emotions, though residence remains a stronger and larger predictor of the outcomes. In this way, embodying masculinity, in the form of increased testosterone levels, is associated with well-being.
From this conclusion, Campbell claims a “nearly” universal relationship between testosterone and well-being in men. However, the only other studies he cites to make this claim were done in Germany, the U.S.A., and Finland. It seems that more research would need to be done in countries in various geographic regions in order to be able to make any claims of a larger pattern of testosterone levels relating to well-being. Further, the exact pathways by which it does so would need to be explored in more detail. Of the variables used in this study, the one with the largest effect size and significance related to well-being had to do with living in the nomadic encampment, which Campbell suggests could be due to the men living closer to their cultural roots. If we are conceding that living in line with valued cultural roots contributes importantly to well-being, then we would need to somehow control for the possibility that it is living up to the cultural “model” of manliness, which testosterone might contribute to, rather than the testosterone itself, that is contributing to well-being. Along these lines, the socioculturally constructed nature of the gender role of “masculinity” would need to be further explored within each of the different contexts in which testosterone is being tested for its contributions to well-being.
For further consideration:
What, according to Campbell, is the relationship between embodiment and emotion?
What are some of the benefits of looking at the relationship between a hormone and well-being? What are some of the drawbacks?
What methodological changes could be made to address some of the further research questions either brought up here or in Campbell’s chapter itself?
Campbell, Benjamin. “Embodiment and Male Vitality in Subsistence Societies.” In The Encultured Brain: An Introduction to Neuroanthropology, edited by Lende, Daniel H., and Greg Downey, 237-259. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press. 2012.
Cameron Hay is a cultural anthropologist who specializes in medical and psychological anthropology. Her research endeavors revolve around understanding, experiencing, and coping with illness and disease from the perspective of patients, family members, and health care providers. The goal of her research is to facilitate mutual understanding between patients, physicians, and public health experts in order to allow for enhanced communication, ultimately leading to better health outcomes. Specifically, she hones in on the social distribution of medical knowledge, health disparities, health literacy, empathetic communication, healer-patient communication, health care decision making, experiencing chronic illness, and psycho social stress and health. Hays is currently a professor and the chair of the department of Anthropology at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio. She also serves as the director of the Global Health Research Innovation Center and the coordinator of the Global Health Minor at Miami. Her secondary position is at the University of California in Los Angeles where she works as a researcher at the Center for Culture and Health at the Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior.
Hays conducts ethnographic research in Lombok, Indonesia. Her case study titled, “Memory and Medicine”, that was featured in the book, “The Encultured Brain”, is a comparative study of the memory systems of Sasak healers and American physicians. This chapter is an analysis of contrasting medical practices of rural traditional Indonesian healers from the island of Lombok and urban biomedical doctors from California. Knowledge, memory, and memorization are the three key concepts that are employed in both healing systems. However, the extent to which each of these is deferentially used is crucial to understanding how medical information is socially and neurologically organized. Hays believes that different medical traditions utilize different types of memory systems which bolster the neurological memory processes in different ways. Three key arguments that shape her research are that memory and medicine co-evolve within local contexts, the co-evolution of these processes are not only evident in the analysis of medicine, and in order to understand her argument, we have to mend the gap between biological science, social sciences, and humanities.
Hays believes that the reason why neurological differences exist between these two types of healers is not because one practitioner is more intelligent than the other, but rather the neurological processes elicited in the memory encoding, organization and retrieval processes are intertwined with social, technological, and institutional traditions specific to that culture. In order to heal, the Sasak use jampi, or memorized formulas that are solely orally transmitted to selected individuals. Anxiety invoked during memorization is believed to enhance the memory encoding process. In America, formal training consisting of learning through evidence based scientifically published articles. In contrast to the Sasak, emotional anxiety is discouraged and viewed as a breech of clinical objectivity. Sasak medical tradition utilizes episodic memory which elicits the use of the hippocampal associative systems and is bolstered by emotional reactivity of the amygdala. American medical tradition utilizes a combination of episodic memory, semantic memory and procedural memory. The integration of medical knowledge is facilitated by the hippocampus but once schemas, or representative models are formed, schemas can be accessed independently of the hippocampus. Overall, Hay’s main argument is that any knowledge set is biocultural and influenced by differences in local assumptions, information distribution, learning and remembering processes, and the strengthening of certain neural pathways.
This article reminds me of several articles that I have read about fire walkers. Fire walkers are oftentimes able to recall specific details about their experience during this rite of passage. This enhancement in memory is because the event was emotionally significant, causing their amygdala to become highly active, which assists with memory storage. Similarly, better memorization of a jambi formula may be due to the anxiety invoked when slapped on the arm. The ability to recall particular details about one’s fire walking practice or a specific jambi line is associated with the consolidation of episodic memories. This article also reminds me of the idea of synaptic pruning and the brains remarkable plasticity. For example, the brains of blind individuals show weakened neural associations within the visual cortex but enhanced neural associations in other brain regions such as those associated with sound.
I enjoyed reading this article but was also hoping she would have included articles in support of her suggestions. I wished there was an accompanying study depicting neurological evidence of a correlation between higher rates of neural activation in certain brain regions and specific health care providers. She mentions that the bridging of disciplines in order to enhance biocultural understanding is valuable, however, she fails to display this transdisciplinary and collaborative research essence in her own work. I also recognize that she may have other studies that do exactly what she proposes. What I did not fully see in her article is the applicability of her research. I understand why it is important that the brain is able to shift and differentially allocate resources to certain regions but other readers may wonder why it is important to know that some healers predominately use a specific type of memory. How is this research valuable and applicable to us? Most grant proposals and published articles require an explanation of the “bigger picture”. What I did not grasp as well was this “bigger picture” and exactly what her research contributes to the field of neuroanthropology.
Questions to Consider
How can we benefit from this newly learned knowledge about the influence of cultural practice on neural pathways and the recollection of memories?
What type of hypothetical research project could we propose to test the validity of the idea that health care traditions strengthen certain specific neural pathways?
How can you use the “use it or lose it” phenomena to explain why certain neural pathways are augmented in healers cross-culturally?
Body, Brain, and Behavior: The Neuroanthropology of the Body Image
Charles D. Laughlin is currently a professor of religion at the University of Ottawa and is a professor emeritus of the Carleton University in Ontario, Canada where he previously taught anthropology and religion. Laughlin is interested in a theory that he and his friends, Eugene G. d’Aquili and John McManus, developed during the 1970s and 80s. The theory of biogenetic structuralism is a type of neuroanthropology that incorporates the brain, consciousness, and culture. Laughlin has devoted a large part of his career to collecting ethnographic data in Northeastern Uganda. Later, his interests in consciousness and the ways in which societies structure and interpret alternative states of consciousness led him to live in various Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Nepal and India.
Lauglin’s article titled, “Body, Brain, and Behavior: The Neuroanthropology of the Body Image”, focuses on how an individual’s neurocognitive model of his or her body is comprised of a combination of internal and external sensory systems. He defines body image as, “a dynamic set of models within their cognized environment that integrates currently anticipated and remembered perceptions of their body, as well as all other habitually entrained neural networks producing affect, cognitions, and habitual motor patterns related to their body”. He proposes that the model of the body is already present within each individual upon birth but develops and takes shape through genetic predispositions and subsequent sociocultural influences. Prior to explaining his position, Lauglin provides the reader with a list of traits associated with the neuroanthropological theory of body image. He states that the body image is a construct of the nervous system, the body is transcendental relative to body image, and behavior controls perception so that the body perceived matches what is expected. This means that the ability to acknowledge one’s body is innate, developing prenatally, the actual physical body is much more complex than the nervous system’s model of it, and lastly, behavior provides a negative feedback loop so that individuals act in accordance with their desired body image.
Lauglin describes how the nervous system models the environment within the body by explaining the neural networks that are involved with body image development. He lists the different types of memory images and indicates that eidetic imagery, or images that occur vividly but are not perceived as real, may be used to change one’s body image. Lauglin also explains how the multiple representation model, or the belief that verbal and imaginal systems are distinct and independent modes of representation, is the most widely believed model, as opposed to collapsing both systems. He breaks down this model by explaining how the right hemisphere predominantly processes nonverbal imagery while the left hemisphere processes verbal symbolism. Lastly, Lauglin discusses how body image may be changed by using clinical methods that utilize ritualized visualizations and guided imagery may prove to be therapeutic and help change negative body image.
I enjoyed reading this article because body image is such a fascinating topic and a very salient topic as well, especially on a college campus. This article reminds me of the use of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT) to help alter maladaptive thought patterns. Lauglin’s article also relates to other articles I have read that discuss how facial and physical symmetry are one of the few characteristics that are seen as attractive and desired features of a prospective mate cross-culturally. I believe that from an evolutionary anthropology perspective, physical and facial symmetry are subconscious indicators of health and fertility. Symmetry may be an indicator of superb genes and people may subconsciously seek more symmetrical mates in order to reproduce with an individual who is more fertile and more likely to yield healthier offspring.
With respect to physical body size, the notion of attractiveness also varies from culture to culture. Some regions in the Middle East and Africa believe that larger body size indicates wealth since they can afford to eat and become large. Furthermore, larger body size may also be indicative of health and reproductive capacity since being undernourished may cause for fetal termination since it may not have enough nutrition to survive to birth. On the other hand, in America, it is believed that those who are thinner are wealthier since they have the means and resources to purchase higher quality foods or can afford to spend their money on gym memberships and their time exercising instead of working. Neither of these “indicators” may actually be true but this article led me to wonder about how body image disorders develop and why.
Questions to Consider
What are some current ways in which body image disorders are currently being treated and how can we improve upon these methods according to Lauglin?
Do you think that certain cultures have an increased incidence or prevalence of body image disorders compared to others? Ie. Do women in America have more rates of anorexia because thinness is portrayed in the media? Or do women in South Africa have more rates of binge eating disorder because being overweight is valued in that culture?
Tying in Hay’s article, do you think that the neural pathways associated with negative body image are strengthened over time while positive body image pathways are weakened? Do you think this impacts one’s memory encoding, organization, and retrieval processes in any way?
It has long been appreciated that there is something about the human brain that makes it unique amongst other primates and mammals in general. Dr. Greg Downey and Dr. Daniel Lende explore how and why the human brain has evolved the way that it has in Chapter 4 of The Encultured Brain: An Introduction to Neuroanthropology. The authors are well-qualified to provide an overview on this topic as both have a wealth of publications in this area, as well as being leaders in the development of the field of Neuroanthropology.
What makes a human brain unique? Is it simply the sheer size of it? Well, no. Anyone who has visited the American Museum of Natural History in New York City can clearly see that the enormous blue whale hanging from the ceiling has a brain much larger in size than that of a human’s. Perhaps the issue is not sheer size then, but the size relative to one’s own body. Unfortunately, we once again do not have a satisfactory explanation for human’s unique cognitive capabilities. While looking at relative size does work to explain the blue whale example (a blue whale’s brain only accounts for 0.01% of its body’s mass while a human brain accounts for 2%) we see other species that are an exception to this rule. For instance, a pocket mouse has a brain that comprises 10% of their body mass, much more than that of a human and yet we don’t see the unique functionality of a human brain expressed in a mouse.
However, when we turn instead to the encephalization quotient (i.e. the ratio of predicted brain mass to observed brain mass) we see that humans do stand out in this respect. In fact, humans exhibit an encephalization quotient that is between five to seven times higher than what is predicted for a mammal of our size. While greater encephalization is found across primates, humans are still an outlier and it appears this has been true for quite some time. Around two million years ago the genus Homo appears and with it we see a tripling in brain size in our ancestors as compared to other apes. However, it is not just the increase in size that is notable here–brain organization is a key component in better understanding our cognitive evolution.
So, do humans simply have brains that have a ton of new structures that other primates don’t possess? This is once again an incorrect assumption. Rather than humans and primates differing in existing regions of the brain, our current evidence suggests that the differences are actually proportional which has fascinating implications for our evolutionary understanding of cognitive function. Instead of evolving new structures, it appears that humans have modified or repurposed existing structures so that certain brain regions have expanded at a different rate than others. This evolutionary trade-off has resulted in decreased development in areas like the human olfactory bulb, while structures like the cerebellum which is involved in frontal lobe functioning has shown great expansion.
In addition to size and structure changing across evolutionary time, connections among regions of the brain have also seen significant changes.
In particular, we have seen an increase in the total number of neurons and with this, we see that larger brains tend to develop areas that are increasingly independent or modular which requires an increase in white connective matter. Understanding the brain’s connectivity is likely a key component of understanding human consciousness. Further, many researchers are now emphasizing the failure of previous metaphors such as the brain being “hard-wired” which does not capture the way in which brains are shaped through interactions and development (i.e. “wet-wired”).
NOT A BRAIN ALONE
To better understand how it is that experiences help shape the brain, Downey and Lende draw on the concept of niche construction which emphasizes the role that organisms play in shaping their own environment and subsequent selective pressures.
The authors argue that niche construction provides a place for cultural researchers within evolutionary studies–an interdisciplinary relationship that is too rarely created. This relationship is absolutely necessary since an understanding of human “intelligence” cannot be obtained by looking simply at the size and structure of the brain. Rather, we must also consider how our social relationships allow us to transfer and amass all of the components that we regard as forms of “intelligence” (e.g., technology, skills, information). Moreover, the authors emphasize how emotions, motivation, and perception are all factors that play into our social and cultural complexity and, thus, cognitive evolution.
This last section of the chapter was by far my favorite as I feel the authors made a convincing argument for the role of culture and social relationships in our understanding of human evolution. Additionally, I think that they do a great job of not allowing those who are skeptical or critical of previous evolutionary research to “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” I think their point is best summed up in the following quote:
Powerful, but overly simple, models of evolution that assume evolutionary traits will necessarily result in human universals need to give way, not to erase evolutionary explanations, but to provide richer accounts that incorporate data emerging from genetics, paleoanthropology, comparative neuroscience, and anthropology, including research on human diversity (p. 124).
EVOLUTION OF THE CEREBELLAR CORTEX: THE SELECTIVE EXPANSION OF PREFRONTAL-PROJECTING CEREBELLAR LOBULES
The lead author for this paper is Dr. Joshua Balsters whose research interests are in the area of social and emotional decision making. While not covered in the article, Dr. Balsters states that his specific interest is in Autism Spectrum Conditions (ASC) which he studies using a combination of fMRI, EEG, and computational modeling.
At the broadest level, the researchers are interested in whether the process of brain evolution is mosaic (i.e. evolutionary pressures act on individual neural structures) or concerted (i.e. evolution acts on interconnected parts of the brain that comprise whole functional systems). To test this, the researchers examine the cortico-cerebellar system in three different primate species: humans, chimpanzees, and capuchin monkeys.
The study consisted of obtaining high-resolution MRI scans from 10 primates from each of the previously mentioned species (5 females and 5 males). All of the included primates had either reached sexual maturity or were close. The researchers were able to isolate the cerebellum and examine the lobules related to the primary motor cortex and the prefrontal cortex.
The data demonstrate that the lobules related to motor and prefrontal cortex occupy a greater proportion of the human cerebellum (83.87%) as compared to chimpanzees (67.1%) and capuchin monkeys (56.82%). Moreover, the results show that where there were increases in the prefrontal cortex, there were proportional decreases in the motor cortex. Since the volume of areas of the prefrontal cortex increased relative to cerebellar lobules connected to the motor cortex, these data suggest that these associated functional systems evolved together.
This study provides support for the idea that brain systems evolve in a concerted fashion. The results from this study are important as they suggest a potential route to find clues regarding the evolutionary pressures that may have contributed to various expansions in the brain. Additionally, this research demonstrates how comparative MRI can be utilized to examine differences across primates.
I was able to somewhat follow the methodology of this study; however, I found myself both intrigued and somewhat intimidated by what I couldn’t grasp. This makes me wonder about some of the practical issues with interdisciplinary collaboration. I loved Downey and Lende’s description of how cultural researchers could and should be involved in evolutionary research, but there will likely be some limitations to this collaboration. In many ways, Balsters et al. (2009) is speaking a different language with words and acronyms that will have no meaning to someone who is not well-versed in the cognitive literature. Even simply grasping the hypothesis or overall finding for the study would likely be quite difficult for someone outside the field to grasp. Here is our challenge: if we were to reduce the complexity of the article, perhaps more researchers could understand the results; contrastly, researchers most likely to utilize this study will need a detailed report of the methodology and results in order to replicate or expand on this study. How do we find this balance?
How would our understanding of human brain evolution be different if we didn’t consider it in terms of niche construction?
What are some arguments against the idea that humans have “unusual cognitive abilities?”
In light of new ideas regarding “dual-inheritance,” what are some reasons why anthropologists might be uniquely qualified to examine human cognitive evolution?
How might we define “culture” in evolutionary terms?
With the full acknowledgement that there is very likely more than one explanation for human brain encephalization, what is your favorite theory for why humans evolved such large and complex brains?
How can we encourage interdisciplinary research when each field has their own “language”?
Cognition, learning, and evolution in human and non-human primates
Primate Social Cognition, Human Evolution, and Niche Construction
The old image of a human evolving from an ape by gradually getting more upright is a common way to portray the concept of evolution, even though the imagery portrays a slightly incorrect concept: humans did not evolve “from apes,” modern day humans and modern day non-human primates evolved from a common ancestor. While this distinction may seem semantic, it’s important to note because the study of modern non-human primates is not quite exactly the same as peering back into our own evolutionary history. It can, however, still offer incredible insights into the overall evolution of our species, especially when it comes to cognition and learning, and offers clues as to how our species’ brain evolved the way it did. That is, studying cognition across the Primate order can provide a framework for understanding cognitive functioning and evolution.
One of the key commonalities all primates share is a dependence on close social relationships for support with security, food resources, and child rearing (MacKinnon and Fuentes 2012). Living in stable social groups allowed early primates to be able to deal with threats more efficiently. This lead to changes in the environment, such as, among other things, predators deciding to go after other pray. As threats lessened as a result of the adaptation of social groups, primates were then able to spend more time and energy in building social relationships, exploring territory, and experimenting with different foraging strategies (MacKinnon and Fuentes 2012). All of this lead to primates both requiring and having the opportunity to increase cognitive functioning. In this way, primates shaped their environment and were in turn shaped by the changing environment. This concept is called niche construction—primates created a niche for themselves in their environment that shaped both the environment and their evolution. This concept illuminates some of the intricacies involved in understanding evolution: the model of organisms merely adapting to their environments for the purpose of survival doesn’t quite capture the complexity involved.
Human niche construction and evolution, specifically, depended upon an increasingly sophisticated way of interacting with the environment. With the use of more tools, better survivability rates for infants, and increasingly complex methods of communication, early humans were able to efficiently increase their territory and cooperate within and among groups. The success of these adaptations meant more resources, and the conditions were fertile for the evolution of human cognition.
This chapter gives a good, easy to understand overview of the evolution of primate cognition, and makes a good case for the purpose of studying primate cognition in neuroanthropology. Of course, as an overview it ends up lacking in some specificity of the concepts covered, but the following articles address some of the more important areas more in-depth.
Understanding Primate Brain Evolution
The increasingly social nature of primates, as well as the increasing complexity of interactions with the environment, lead to an increase in the types of interactions and concepts that needed to be exchanged. To put it another way, the complexity of interactions increased. This is the basic idea behind the social brain hypothesis, which says that brain size, specifically the neocortex, is correlated with not just group size but the complexity of relationships within a social group (Dunbar and Shultz 2007). Some examples of complex social interactions necessary for survival in large groups that primates exhibit that require higher cognitive functioning include tactical deception, social play, and the use of subtle social strategies (Dunbar and Shultz 2007). The increase in neocortex size does not come without some tradeoffs, however: diet, infant care, and development have all shifted to account for the change in brain size necessitated by and necessary for increasingly complex social interactions.
This article is a thorough examination of the variables at stake in understanding the evolution of primate cognition. However, the statistical analyses and language used make it unapproachable for a casual reader. The previous piece covers the subject material in a more approachable way, though certainly doesn’t go into the depth of what’s involved in the social brain hypothesis.
Play, Social Learning, and Teaching
Complex social interactions like the ones required for primate survival, and that lead to the evolved human brain, needed to have been passed down from generation to generation in order to be evolutionary. One primary way learning of this kind takes place is through social play. Play is, in terms of survival, both costly and risky, which means that it likely has significant adaptive value (Konner 2010). As it turns out, the smartest animals are the ones that play the most, and it’s likely these two things co-evolved (Konner 2010). Interestingly, while the size of the neocortex is associated with intelligence and social complexity, the capacity for play appears to be housed in the limbic system, an older and more primitive part of the brain; however, animals with larger brains do play more and the animals with the largest brains play the most (Konner 2010), perhaps reflecting the increased complexity of the learning that needs to occur. For more information on the regions of the brain, see Kalat (2012).
While the process is not fully understood, social learning, unlike basic learning processes, likely takes place due imitative learning, assisted by the mirror-neuron system (MNS; Konner 2010). The MNS activates not only when one observes an action, but also right before an action is taken, which suggests that there is a link to the ability to perceive the intentions of others (Konner 2010).
This chapter comes from a book on childhood and development, so this chapter on social play doesn’t quite go into the specific depth that we might be interested in as neuroanthropologists, especially the neurobiology of social learning. While the mirror-neuron system is interesting and an exciting step toward understanding, its treatment is rather shallow and other systems aren’t included in the explanation.
While the above articles explain in varying degrees of accessibility the arguments for the evolutionary path of human cognition, they don’t go into much detail about the cognitive capabilities of our primate ancestors. Understanding the extent of primate cognition could help to understand the capabilities that primates had, prehistorically, that could contribute to and be shaped by their social complexity. According to Beran et al. (2016), controlled attention, episodic and prospective memory, metacognition, and delay of gratification have all been observed in chimpanzees. Non-human primates don’t match the cognitive abilities of humans in these areas, but their presence sheds light on the potential cognitive capabilities of our primate ancestors. Of course, it needs to be kept in mind that their study was done in a controlled laboratory setting with a modern chimpanzee, so the results would be different than a wild primate ancestor.
The scope of research included in this paper is impressive. Each component of cognition is tested well, with good results. While it is a psychology-oriented paper, more discussion of the implications for the understanding of primate evolution would have been welcome. Additionally, there isn’t any discussion of how these cognitive capabilities would be expressed in natural settings.
Questions for consideration:
What is niche construction, and how does it relate to our understanding of evolution? Can you think of any other examples of it?
What is the social brain hypothesis, and how does it relate to the evolution of the brain? What lines of evidence do we have that support this hypothesis?
How do modern advancements in technology alter the way we think about “play” as it relates to social learning?
What do you think about the understanding of gender in play relationships described in Konner’s article?
Beran, Michael J., Charles R. Menzel, Audrey E. Parrish, et al.
2016 Primate Cognition: Attention, Episodic Memory, Prospective Memory, Self-Control, and Metacognition as Examples of Cognitive Control in Nonhuman Primates. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 7(5): 294–316.
Dunbar, R.I.M, and S. Shultz
2007 Understanding Primate Brain Evolution. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 362(1480): 649–658.
Kalat, James W.
2012 Biological Psychology. Cengage Learning.
2010 The Evolution of Childhood: Relationships, Emotion, Mind. Harvard University Press.
Lende, Daniel H., and Greg Downey, eds.
2012 The Encultured Brain: An Introduction to Neuroanthropology. Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.
I have enjoyed cooking since I was little watching my mom cook as I stood by on a step stool. Cooking and baking allow me to take seemingly random ingredients, form them together, and make something (usually) tasty. It has always been exciting to me to find new recipes and make them while adding my own touches. Cooking allows me to be expressive and creative while also serving a vital purpose, which is to feed myself.
I began taking an interesting in cooking because I enjoyed being in the kitchen with my mom. As I grew older and more capable, I was expected to be able to contribute to making meals for the family. It became important to me to learn to cook properly so that I could make meals my family would enjoy eating. Cooking brought me joy and eating yummy food was always a plus.
I have been involved with cooking for a little over a decade, always casually, but in that time I have learned a lot. As I have grown older I have become more focused on trying to cook healthier while still enjoyable meals. I have learned a lot about portions, what foods are best for feeling full, and foods that give more energy. I have also gotten much better at not accidentally harming myself in the kitchen. The more I am able to learn about different foods and methods for cooking the more I am able to change and adapt the way I cook.
Cooking serves an important function in my life. Feeding myself allows me to be alive and function on a day to day. Since I have educated myself on what foods are best, I can optimize my daily routine by ensuring that I feel good and have lots of energy. Not to mention that today, it is generally cheaper and healthier to cook at home so being able to cook also aids me in that way.
One could say that humans and their ancestors have been cooking ever fire was tamable, proposed to date back to Homo erectus. Putting raw meat over fire and eating it may be simplistic but it certainly counts. Some scholars such as Richard Wrangham have asserted that cooking raw meat and eating it cooked instead of raw allowed for the human brain to develop greater than before. Cooking has continued to progress as humans learned how to use more tools and as they moved across the globe, trading goods with one another. My ability to cook even something as simple as a roast with potatoes and carrots would not be possible without our past ancestors drive to explore and the exchange of goods across the world.
Hello, my name is Megan Hill and I am an aspiring biological anthropologist who has found herself enrolled in this one of a kind course at the best university in the South (Roll Tide). Two major parts of my childhood are the prime influences for the topic of this post today. The first one is that while I was growing up, my mom and I would stay up late watching true crime shows such as forensic files, snapped, and cold case files. These shows had a major impact on how I saw the world and ended up shaping the kind of person that I would be. No I don’t mean that I’m a psycho who’s obsessed with death or anything like that. I mean that I wasn’t easily scared or grossed out by blood or the mere idea of death. I saw the field of forensics and homicide investigation as incredibly necessary and deeply fascinating. I knew from a relatively young age that I wanted to go into the criminal justice field. I later refined my dream job down to that of forensic science, then later to the idea of a career in forensic anthropology. I absolutely love the human body and the process to determining what happened to it that resulted in the death of that particular person.
The second major part of my childhood that influenced this post is that my grandmother taught me how to knit when I was 8 years-old. I grew up knitting scarves, pot holders, blankets, and sweaters. This is a skill not most teenagers that I knew possessed. Despite all of the time my friends spent playfully tease me about my “old lady” hobby, I’m glad that I learned how to knit when I did. I learned how to knit because my dad expressed a strong desire for me to learn. His nagging elicited action from my grandmother to reach out to me and offer to teach me. I like to think that this hobby does help me to survive. I am able to use it to make clothes to keep myself and my close friends and family warm throughout the cold winter months. Funny story, almost 2 years ago, I began working on a sweater for my 6’6″ boyfriend who lives in Boston. I still have not finished this sweater because it has required a lot of work from me and as a college student I have not had the time to devote to finishing this sweater. When I was 8 and I first learned how to knit, I was awful at it. There were holes all throughout the project and there were different yarn tensions from where I didn’t know how to hold the yarn as I was knitting it. However, as I got older and I kept practicing, the holes got smaller until there were no more holes in my work. I also learned how to keep consistent tension on the yarn throughout the entire project. Eventually all of my projects looked about the same to one another, I mean other than one looks like a scarf and one looks like a sweater but I’m sure you know what I mean.
Hi, I’m Kat, and I spend a lot of time thinking about art and sociocognitive theory. I’ve been painting and drawing since I was very, very small. It used to be one of the first things people learned about me, but now it’s one of the last. I see art as intrinsically tied to science, which may be why I took so much of both in college. To me, understanding one helps you understand the other. I like making things that make people feel things. To me, the art in itself is the transmission of feeling the object elicits. Synapses firing gracefully, elevated, as your eyes cross the surface of the painting, studying the peaks and waves. The things I tend to make are a combination of elegant and visceral. I think about why we’re driven to create things with little purpose except decoration, and perhaps narration. And why I, specifically, am driven to create, and can with some degree of proficiency.
I made this in high school. My professors liked to describe this style as “ugly beauty”.
So, as with everything, we can investigate these quandaries with some degree of modality. Four questions, four answers.
Causation – This is perhaps the most difficult question to answer. Whether talent is heritable is still up in the air amongst most people. It’s interesting, surely. Jeremy Summers of the Genetic Literacy Project postulates, from a few studies, that artistic ability can be linked to a few things. One is the release of serotonin, albeit not necessarily the inherent presence of it. Many artists have been famously depressed, the most famous probably being Vincent Van Gough. This is something else we share. My work, itself, improves when my mood does. Some of Van Gough’s greatest work was done during his stay in the Saint Paul-de-Mausole mental hospital, including Irises, and the one we all know, Starry Night.
Another link to creativity is, strangely, a shorter bundled strand of fibers in the corpus callosum. The theory here is that it allows for access to both sides of the brain through a shorter path, allowing for a faster and more effective flow of ideas.
Ontogeny– This one is easy enough to answer. As I grew older, I was better exposed to drawings. My mother is extremely creative, and would always shower our house with fresh flowers and coats of paint. She was the first person that taught me to draw. I have had many teachers in my life that have lended me advice and helped to increase my vocabulary of form.
Phylogeny– People make art for many reasons. They make it to hold record, as with Egyptian Hieroglyphics, to record their very presence in this world among many. They make it to communicate ideas, and make others feel things- at least I do. Some of the oldest pieces of recorded art are hand stencils on the walls of caves in Spain.
Handprints from the Cueva de las Manos, Spain.
Art has also been used as a plea to the gods, or a ritualistic object. Which brings me into the final question.
Adaptive Value – I couldn’t possibly talk about science and prehistoric art without mentioning Mr. Vilayanur S. Ramachandran, a Neuroscientist and Art Historian who speaks about a number of artistic principles in relation to human survival and chemistry. In artistic objects as early as the Venus of Willendorf, Ramachandran talks about a “peak shift”- a change in behavioral response through what is deemed necessary for a species’ survival.
The venus is one of the earliest examples of art in existence, made around 30,000 BCE. Found in the icy mountain ranges of Austria, its exaggerated curvature suggests the ideal female form in an environment of scarce resource. This shift occurred precisely due to what was seen as fertile, and thereby idealized in this way. It was thought to hold importance as an object of fertility.
The same can be said for more modern art, as well. While not in the same realm of magical thinking, exactly, it does play on some sensory skill developed in early human society, such as grouping and perception. Whether an object of religious significance, cultural commentary, or pure, unadulterated aestheticism, I believe it’s important to create. For both audience and viewer. Humans have always created, and I hope they always continue to. Myself included.
Hi, I’m Lauren and I’m always trying to push my own limits. I’m a senior working towards a B.S. in Psychology with minors in music and philosophy with a mind and brain concentration. My whole life is dedicated to making myself uncomfortable, because that’s how we grow as people. In high school, I was really shy and awkward and trying to blend in as much as possible. Really nothing special and really ok with it. But one day my band director (the whole shy and awkward thing definitely lends itself to being a band nerd, trust me) bestowed on all of us some wisdom that I will abide by for the rest of my awkward and extraordinary life: Get comfortable being uncomfortable. I’m pretty sure he was talking about becoming a better soloist or something at least semi-music related– but that’s not how I heard it. It came at a time my senior year when I was deciding what college to go to– in-state or out-of-state, big school or small school, public or private. And I needed to hear something that would help me make this decision that I knew would help shape the rest of my life. Which brought me to The University of Alabama! And this mantra has been going through my head since I stepped foot onto campus back in August of 2014.
These words of wisdom grant me a cause to push myself. It’s the only way I’ve figured out to be my best self, to stay busy, and to reach my full potential. There’s always more that I can do and I like to be able to prove that to myself. It probably comes from my competitive nature– I always like to “win”, and if winning is doing something different than I did yesterday then that’s cause enough for me to try it!
These uncomfortable behaviors produce stress in my system. Cortisol flows through my veins probably way more than the normal person; I’m sure my immune system has been compromised and my memory is getting worse by the minute. That’s why I’m constantly writing everything down and my planner is my most valuable possession. Source
Pushing myself like this is definitely a learned behavior. It’s something I work towards every single day. Whether it’s pushing myself to set up a one on one meeting with a professor (which gives me incredible amounts of anxiety), starting an independent research project, or running for club president, I’m definitely not predisposed to do any of these things. But day after day I find myself pushing to make something happen.
I’ve learned to overcome the butterflies in my stomach before every lab meeting and test review. I’ve retrained myself to embrace the jitters that come along with submitting a research proposal. Some argue that this feeling is an evolutionary mechanism designed to make you run away. I’ve retrained myself to run towards it.
This behavior definitely has allllll kinds of adaptive value. I mean, I’m always adapting to the new adventures I throw myself into. Spring semester of freshman year I tried out to be a coxswain for the Alabama Crew Club. No big deal, right? anyone can sit in the back of a boat and steer it. WRONG. I was so wrong. When I showed up (at 5 am), expecting to be one of several people hoping to make the team. Turns out, I was trying out to be a coxswain of the men’s team. And crew=rowing (something I only had a slight idea of when I showed up). But I was there. I sat in the boat and steered it down and back up the river. And at the end of practice (the sun had just risen because it was still only 7 am) they told me to read up about what I was doing and they’d see me the following morning! I had to adapt to be more social, to gain confidence, and to fill a leadership role overnight. And I’m sure that increasing the males around me by 400% definitely has the chance to increase reproductive success, statistically at least.
I don’t think this kind of behavior is an evolutionary trait– I think it’s a socially developed trait. Maybe there are some people who can push themselves naturally all the time (maybe they’re called extroverts?), but I am not like that. Maybe that truly is how some people get ahead and become CEOs or Senators or other models of “successful people”. But in my personal experience, this is a trait that derives from necessity, not from actual innate drive.
It’s really strange to think about yourself in terms of evolutionary adaptations. As a psychology major with a focus on brain studies, it’s something I’ve never had to do before. It’s definitely beneficial to examine yourself in terms of how you go about daily life. As a psych major we’re always told things like, “now don’t try to analyze yourself in this way, you’ll just think you’re a psychopath!” and other ridiculous things about the parallels we may start to see in ourselves and our friends to the disorders we learn about in abnormal psych classes. I think this gives a really nice reflective perspective to how we see ourselves in the context of our classmates and in a broader context, too.
I grew up in Durango, Colorado, and completed my bachelor’s degree in Boulder, CO, and master’s degree in Fort Collins, CO. Snow and mountains are in my blood. My parents joke that I’ve been skiing since I was three months old, when my dad would ski with me tucked into the front of his jacket. Alpine skiing, telemark skiing, and backcountry skiing have been some of my main hobbies throughout my life. Some of the reasons for this include community, being in nature, and enjoyable exercise, but the main reason that I enjoy skiing is because it puts me in a state of “flow.”
The concept of flow, pioneered by psychologist Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, is a state in which an individual is focused and fully absorbed in some task, generally one that is both challenging and rewarding (2014). Organized by Tinbergen’s four questions, there are a number of reasons why behaviors leading to a flow experience are important for humans.
Modern life has multifarious forms of stress–physical, environmental, psychological, and social–that bombard the individual constantly. As Robert Sapolsky discusses in Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers (2004),modern stressors might even cause a higher burden of stress than our ancestors may have had. In the face of these stressors, we need ways to help deal. Flow, and other states that take us out of our normal patterns of thinking, can help to alleviate some of the burden associated with constant stressors (see Lynn 2005). During a flow experience, like flying down a snowy mountain at 50mph, the mind is focused only on the immediate. Stress falls away, and is lessened after the experience as well.
What is now an adaptive trait for helping to deal with the stresses of the modern world has a long evolutionary history as well. The “living in the moment” feeling associated with flow, and the hyper-focus and skill that comes from it, would have been necessary for hunting and fighting. Those able to “turn off” their brains to focus fully on the task at hand, especially in dangerous, self- and community-threatening situations, would have been selected for over those who weren’t.
Flow experiences likely occur through cognitive mechanisms that help to stem the tide of an otherwise overwhelming amount of information in dangerous or threatening situations. Energy and attention go only to the absolutely necessary functions required for action in the moment: it’s not helpful to be worried about that thing your girlfriend said when an enemy is swinging a club at your head.
While the exact biomechanics of flow (and other dissociative states) are not fully understood, a gene, designated catechol O-methyltransferase, or COMT, has been identified that is a candidate for contributing to an individual’s propensity for absorption–a necessary component of flow. The presence of a gene that contributes to one’s ability to enter and maintain a state of flow suggests that this is a crucial aspect of the human experience that has been consistently selected for.
For more information, check out:
2014 Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
Lichtenberg, Pesach, Rachel Bachner-Melman, Richard P. Ebstein, and Helen J. Crawford
2004 Hypnotic Susceptibility: Multidimensional Relationships with Cloninger’s Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire, COMT Polymorphisms, Absorption, and Attentional Characteristics. International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis 52(1): 47–72.
Lynn, Christopher Dana
2005 Adaptive and Maladaptive Dissociation: An Epidemiological and Anthropological Comparison and Proposition for an Expanded Dissociation Model. Anthropology of Consciousness 16(2): 16–49.
Sapolsky, Robert M.
2004 Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers / Robert M. Sapolsky. 3rd ed. New York: Times Books.
Hello, my name is Abbie, and I’m a senior at UA. I’m majoring in Biology and Spanish with a minor in Anthropology. My hobbies tend to lean more towards the arts: playing flute, painting, drawing, and perhaps the least popular amongst our age group, sculpting with Play-Doh.
Commonly thought of as an easy arts and crafts activity for young children, using play-doh has quickly become a valuable hobby as I’ve grown older. Opposite to most, I seem to have grown into this habit instead of abandoning it with age. I find that it has stress-relieving and relaxing properties and provides a creative outlet to relieve any frustrations or anxieties.
This particular hobby had a fairly uneventful beginning. Walking through a Target store one day, I walked by a display of Play-Doh and spontaneously decided to purchase a few tubs, recalling how much I enjoyed it as a kid. That night happened to be in the middle of midterm exams, and it was particularly stressful as I had several exams that week. During a study break, I picked up one of the tubs and just began rolling the dough around, not making any intentional shapes, instead using it as “stress ball” of sorts.
This became a habit of mine while on study breaks to help relieve stress about upcoming exams. Eventually, I began using it while studying, much like the fidget cubes that many individuals use today, using it not only to eliminate anxiety but also to better my focus. It quickly became a more frequent pastime, not only using it as a stress ball, but also beginning to make pictures and shapes (though unrecognizable to others). I began carrying Play-Doh around with me in my back-pack, on short trips, and even on a summer long vacation out of state. I now use it almost daily to rid myself of any of the frustrations induced by the day’s events. It has rather quickly evolved into one of my most relaxing and beneficial hobbies, and my Play-Doh collection has grown significantly since its beginning.
Humans have utilized sculpture as an art form for centuries, though, most did it for different reasons than my own, citing religion and mythology as a common influence and model for their creations. Many also used it as a form of recreation, and this habit seems to have been passed down through generations. Though our prehistoric ancestors likely weren’t using brightly colored salt dough, sculpture as a hobby is not a new concept.
Though not directly responsible for increased survival chance, playing with Play-Doh does provide a group of advantageous traits that could be useful in a survival circumstance. Playing with Play-Doh not only reduces my stress levels, but also has increased my creativity and imagination. Creativity could prove useful as a potential problem-solving trait, which could potentially improve my overall ‘fitness’ as an individual. It can even be used to improve fine motor skills, depending on how detailed one’s creations become.