I'd be interested in a graph of "gracile features" vs "cognitive empathy". If the theory that we have "domesticated ourselves" by removing those most prone to reactive aggression from our gene pools is correct, then you would expect that those who repeatedly fell into reactive aggression because the only reason they could see for somebody's behaviour is "he disrespected me" (due to a lack of empathic cognition) would be among the first to get the chop.
There's an argument that humans became more gracile as we domesticated ourselves - and that something similar happened in bonobos (which are much more gracile than chimps).
Happens in non-primates, too, and we can even track changes in neural crest cells. Which is why I think it would make an interesting graph. Are we looking at, as the authors suggest, a cultural selection for greater cooperation because of more variable climates? Or are we looking at a genetic change?
The analyses in the Romero paper strike me as quite primitive. They seem to have carried out only simple regressions (Table 1), with each predictor separately. Given that all these factors are confounded with each other across countries, the data obviously seem to call for multiple regressions. Even if distance to the equator is the largest correlate in simple regressions, this might reverse once all confounders are taken into account!
Fortunately the data are included in the paper, so the multiple regression can be run by the next person who finds the time.
I didn’t read the paper, but I do find your explanation for greater variance in cognitive empathy as you move further away from the equator being due to the GEP convincing. However, does the correlation hold as you move south of the equator? You’re right thar more egalitarian countries are further away from the equator, but that’s mostly as you move north of the equator towards Scandinavia. Does the difference also increase as you move south of the equator, which would encompass mostly Latin American and African Countries?
Your discussion surrounding the "gender-equity paradox" has one apparent problem: social freedom is too new as an environmental factor driving strong positive selection. Early H. sapiens occupying Northern latitudes didn't have the complex societies required for the gender-equity paradox to account for the observed sex differences in empathy. Complex societies are a relatively new phenomenon and selection based on that environmental factor couldn't have happened that quickly.
You're right that social freedom is too new to have driven positive selection. But I'm not suggesting that the gender-equality paradox is a product of selection. It's an environmental effect.
You’re right that the timeline of the development of differences in social freedom is too short for selection pressures to have observable effects.
But I think the argument is that the gender equity paradox is an environmental phenomenon whereby low social freedom restricts all individuals to a narrower range of empathy behavior, for example, than would be observed if there were no constraints on individuals’ expression of the underlying biological differences in freer societies.
Bear with me a little longer. Social freedom as an environmental factor requires complex social organizations, but that's not a characteristic limited to Northern latitude groups is it? And isn't the point being pursued a difference between Nothern and zero latitude humans?
Excellent stuff. As always. The most fascinating explanation I’ve heard on the gender equality paradox is that when social construct is stripped away or minimized, all you’re left with is biology. And when biology prevails, we see larger sex preference differences. This highlights the clear biology in preferences, which may influence traits like empathy.
The weird thing, though, is that you'd expect that social forces in less gender-equal nations would amplify the biological differences rather than making them smaller.
True. I think what we often see in America is social pressure to advocate in opposition to facts if those facts don’t align with a narrative… a narrative that’s usually based on making sure someone doesn’t feel bad, regardless of factual data.
The the trait empathy normally distributed in both sexes? Some gender differences seem to be driven by male variance with the median man/woman being quite similar.
I'd be interested in a graph of "gracile features" vs "cognitive empathy". If the theory that we have "domesticated ourselves" by removing those most prone to reactive aggression from our gene pools is correct, then you would expect that those who repeatedly fell into reactive aggression because the only reason they could see for somebody's behaviour is "he disrespected me" (due to a lack of empathic cognition) would be among the first to get the chop.
There's an argument that humans became more gracile as we domesticated ourselves - and that something similar happened in bonobos (which are much more gracile than chimps).
Happens in non-primates, too, and we can even track changes in neural crest cells. Which is why I think it would make an interesting graph. Are we looking at, as the authors suggest, a cultural selection for greater cooperation because of more variable climates? Or are we looking at a genetic change?
The analyses in the Romero paper strike me as quite primitive. They seem to have carried out only simple regressions (Table 1), with each predictor separately. Given that all these factors are confounded with each other across countries, the data obviously seem to call for multiple regressions. Even if distance to the equator is the largest correlate in simple regressions, this might reverse once all confounders are taken into account!
Fortunately the data are included in the paper, so the multiple regression can be run by the next person who finds the time.
Hi Franck - that’s a fair criticism.
I didn’t read the paper, but I do find your explanation for greater variance in cognitive empathy as you move further away from the equator being due to the GEP convincing. However, does the correlation hold as you move south of the equator? You’re right thar more egalitarian countries are further away from the equator, but that’s mostly as you move north of the equator towards Scandinavia. Does the difference also increase as you move south of the equator, which would encompass mostly Latin American and African Countries?
Not sure! I've wondered about that, but I don't know of any research addressing it.
Your discussion surrounding the "gender-equity paradox" has one apparent problem: social freedom is too new as an environmental factor driving strong positive selection. Early H. sapiens occupying Northern latitudes didn't have the complex societies required for the gender-equity paradox to account for the observed sex differences in empathy. Complex societies are a relatively new phenomenon and selection based on that environmental factor couldn't have happened that quickly.
You're right that social freedom is too new to have driven positive selection. But I'm not suggesting that the gender-equality paradox is a product of selection. It's an environmental effect.
You’re right that the timeline of the development of differences in social freedom is too short for selection pressures to have observable effects.
But I think the argument is that the gender equity paradox is an environmental phenomenon whereby low social freedom restricts all individuals to a narrower range of empathy behavior, for example, than would be observed if there were no constraints on individuals’ expression of the underlying biological differences in freer societies.
Bear with me a little longer. Social freedom as an environmental factor requires complex social organizations, but that's not a characteristic limited to Northern latitude groups is it? And isn't the point being pursued a difference between Nothern and zero latitude humans?
It's not limited to Northern societies, but there's a correlation between social freedom and latitude.
Excellent stuff. As always. The most fascinating explanation I’ve heard on the gender equality paradox is that when social construct is stripped away or minimized, all you’re left with is biology. And when biology prevails, we see larger sex preference differences. This highlights the clear biology in preferences, which may influence traits like empathy.
The weird thing, though, is that you'd expect that social forces in less gender-equal nations would amplify the biological differences rather than making them smaller.
True. I think what we often see in America is social pressure to advocate in opposition to facts if those facts don’t align with a narrative… a narrative that’s usually based on making sure someone doesn’t feel bad, regardless of factual data.
The the trait empathy normally distributed in both sexes? Some gender differences seem to be driven by male variance with the median man/woman being quite similar.