Human behavior

when-did-humans-start-social-knowledge-accumulation?

When did humans start social knowledge accumulation?

Two worked pieces of stone, one an axe head, and one a scraper.

A key aspect of humans’ evolutionary success is the fact that we don’t have to learn how to do things from scratch. Our societies have developed various ways—from formal education to YouTube videos—to convey what others have learned. This makes learning how to do things far easier than learning by doing, and it gives us more space to experiment; we can learn to build new things or handle tasks more efficiently, then pass information on how to do so on to others.

Some of our closer relatives, like chimps and bonobos, learn from their fellow species-members. They don’t seem to engage in this iterative process of improvement—they don’t, in technical terms, have a cumulative culture where new technologies are built on past knowledge. So, when did humans develop this ability?

Based on a new analysis of stone toolmaking, two researchers are arguing that the ability is relatively recent, dating to just 600,000 years ago. That’s roughly the same time our ancestors and the Neanderthals went their separate ways.

Accumulating culture

It’s pretty obvious that a lot of our technology builds on past efforts. If you’re reading this on a mobile platform, then you’re benefitting from the fact that smartphones were derived from personal computers and that software required working hardware to happen. But for millions of years, human technology lacked the sort of clear building blocks that would help us identify when an archeological artifact is derived from earlier work. So, how do you go about studying the origin of cumulative culture?

Jonathan Paige and Charles Perreault, the researchers behind the new study, took a pretty straightforward approach. To start with, they focused on stone tools since these are the only things that are well-preserved across our species’ history. In many cases, the styles of tools remained constant for hundreds of thousands of years. This gives us enough examples that we’ve been able to figure out how these tools were manufactured, in many cases learning to make them ourselves.

Their argument in the paper they’ve just published is that the sophistication of these tools provides a measure of when cultural accumulation started. “As new knapping techniques are discovered, the frontiers of the possible design space expand,” they argue. “These more complex technologies are also more difficult to discover, master, and teach.”

The question then becomes one of when humans made the key shift: from simply teaching the next generation to make the same sort of tools to using that knowledge as a foundation to build something new. Paige and Perreault argue that it’s a matter of how complex it is to make the tool: “Generations of improvements, modifications, and lucky errors can generate technologies and know-how well beyond what a single naive individual could invent independently within their lifetime.”

When did humans start social knowledge accumulation? Read More »

using-vague-language-about-scientific-facts-misleads-readers

Using vague language about scientific facts misleads readers

Using vague language about scientific facts misleads readers

Anyone can do a simple experiment. Navigate to a search engine that offers suggested completions for what you type, and start typing “scientists believe.” When I did it, I got suggestions about the origin of whales, the evolution of animals, the root cause of narcolepsy, and more. The search results contained a long list of topics, like “How scientists believe the loss of Arctic sea ice will impact US weather patterns” or “Scientists believe Moon is 40 million years older than first thought.”

What do these all have in common? They’re misleading, at least in terms of how most people understand the word “believe.” In all these examples, scientists have become convinced via compelling evidence; these are more than just hunches or emotional compulsions. Given that difference, using “believe” isn’t really an accurate description. Yet all these examples come from searching Google News, and so are likely to come from journalistic outlets that care about accuracy.

Does the difference matter? A recent study suggests that it does. People who were shown headlines that used subjective verbs like “believe” tended to view the issue being described as a matter of opinion—even if that issue was solidly grounded in fact.

Fact vs. opinion

The new work was done by three researchers at Stanford University: Aaron Chueya, Yiwei Luob, and Ellen Markman. “Media consumption is central to how we form, maintain, and spread beliefs in the modern world,” they write. “Moreover, how content is presented may be as important as the content itself.” The presentation they’re interested in involves what they term “epistemic verbs,” or those that convey information about our certainty regarding information. To put that in concrete terms, “’Know’ presents [a statement] as a fact by presup­posing that it is true, ‘believe’ does not,” they argue.

So, while it’s accurate to say, “Scientists know the Earth is warming, and that warming is driven by human activity,” replacing “know” with “believe” presents an inaccurate picture of the state of our knowledge. Yet, as noted above, “scientists believe” is heavily used in the popular press. Chueya, Luob, and Markman decided to see whether this makes a difference.

They were interested in two related questions. One is whether the use of verbs like believe and think influences how readers view whether the concepts they’re associated with are subjective issues rather than objective, factual ones. The second is whether using that phrasing undercuts the readers’ willingness to accept something as a fact.

To answer those questions, the researchers used a subject-recruiting service called Prolific to recruit over 2,700 participants who took part in a number of individual experiments focused on these issues. In each experiment, participants were given a series of headlines and asked about what inferences they drew about the information presented in them.

Using vague language about scientific facts misleads readers Read More »

song-lyrics-are-getting-more-repetitive,-angrier

Song lyrics are getting more repetitive, angrier

The song remains the same —

An analysis of 50 years of popular music lyrics reveals a number of trends.

A female singer gestures towards an enthusiastic crowd.

From ‘80s new wave to ‘90s grunge to the latest pop single, music has changed a lot over the decades. Those changes have come not only in terms of sound, though; lyrics have also evolved as time has passed.

So what has changed about the lyrics we can’t get out of our heads? After analyzing 12,000 English-language pop, rock, rap, R&B, and country songs released between 1970 and 2020, researcher Eva Zangerle of Innsbruck University and her team have found that lyrics have been getting simpler and more repetitive over time. This trend is especially evident in rap and rock, but it applies to other genres as well. Another thing Zangerle’s team discovered is that lyrics tend to be more personal and emotionally charged now than they were over 50 years ago.

Know the words…

“Just as literature can be considered a portrayal of society, lyrics also provide a reflection of a society’s shifting norms, emotions, and values over time,” the researchers wrote in a study recently published in Scientific Reports.

That’s why Zangerle created a dataset to find out the different ways in which lyrics have changed. She and her colleagues used the virtual music encyclopedia Genius, which also provides release year and genre information. From the lyric dataset she created, the team pulled data having to do with the structure, language, emotion, and complexity of songs. Five genres—pop, rock, rap, R&B, and country—were chosen because they are genres with the most lyrics that were popular on streaming platform last.fm.

There were two types of analyses done on the music. The first looked for the lyrical trends that were most prevalent for each release year, while the second went deeper into online views of lyrics, characteristics of lyrics (such as emotion), and release year. The researchers obtained the play count from last.fm and the lyrics view count from Genius.

How often people view the lyrics is unexpectedly important. Unlike play counts of songs, this stat shows how important lyrics are despite the popularity (or lack thereof) of the song or genre.

…and the meaning

What can lyrics tell us about different genres and eras? Results for the first analysis showed that certain characteristics are most important across genres, including repeated lines, choruses, and emotional language. The genres in which emotion was most important were country and R&B.

Repeated lines increased over the decades in all genres analyzed, and later lyrics contain more choruses than earlier ones. These increases are further proof that songs have become simpler and more repetitive since the ‘70s.

Lyrics were also more personal and angrier across all genres studied. Personal lyrics were identified by the number of personal pronouns, which especially increased in rap and pop, while rock and R&B saw moderate increases and country stayed nearly the same. Anger and other negative emotions (as expressed through words associated with these emotions) also increased across genres. Rap had the highest increase here, especially in anger, while country showed the lowest increase. Positive emotions decreased in pop and rock, while they increased somewhat in rap.

When looking at the results from the second analysis, Zangerle noticed that lyric views were higher for older rock songs than newer ones, and vice versa for country, which had lower view counts for older songs and higher view counts for new songs. This means that the popularity of country lyrics has increased over time in comparison to rock. Listening count had no relationship to this, meaning interest in the sound of a song was not related to interest in its lyrics.

Through the decades, it seems that music has gotten simpler, more repetitive, and more emotional—especially angrier—and more personal. The study didn’t look into what events and societal changes might have influenced this trend, but the researchers still had some sociological insights. They think pop is all about record sales and what’s hot from one moment to the next, while the preference for older rock songs shows that the main audience of rock is middle-class and against commercialism. Emotionally charged words could also convey feelings toward shifts in society.

The researchers “believe that the role of lyrics has been understudied and that our results can be used to further study and monitor cultural artifacts and shifts in society,” the study said.

Scientific Reports, 2024.  DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-55742-x

Song lyrics are getting more repetitive, angrier Read More »

lawsuit-opens-research-misconduct-report-that-may-get-a-harvard-prof-fired

Lawsuit opens research misconduct report that may get a Harvard prof fired

Image of a campus of red brick buildings with copper roofs.

Enlarge / Harvard’s got a lawsuit on its hands.

Glowimages

Accusations of research misconduct often trigger extensive investigations, typically performed by the institution where the misconduct allegedly took place. These investigations are internal employment matters, and false accusations have the potential to needlessly wreck someone’s career. As a result, most of these investigations are kept completely confidential, even after their completion.

But all the details of a misconduct investigation performed by Harvard University became public this week through an unusual route. The professor who had been accused of misconduct, Francesca Gino, had filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit, targeting both Harvard and a team of external researchers who had accused her of misconduct. Harvard submitted its investigator’s report as part of its attempt to have part of the suit dismissed, and the judge overseeing the case made it public.

We covered one of the studies at issue at the time of its publication. It has since been retracted, and we’ll be updating our original coverage accordingly.

Misconduct allegations lead to lawsuit

Gino, currently on administrative leave, had been faculty at Harvard Business School, where she did research on human behavior. One of her more prominent studies (the one we covered) suggested that signing a form before completing it caused people to fill in its contents more accurately than if they filled out the form first and then signed it.

Oddly, for a paper about honesty, it had a number of issues. Some of its original authors had attempted to go back and expand on the paper but found they were unable to replicate the results. That seems to have prompted a group of behavioral researchers who write at the blog Data Colada to look more carefully at the results that didn’t replicate, at which point they found indications that the data was fabricated. That got the paper retracted.

Gino was not implicated in the fabrication of the data. But the attention of the Data Colada team (Uri Simonsohn, Leif Nelson, and Joe Simmons) had been drawn to the paper. They found additional indications of completely independent problems in other data from the paper that did come from her work, which caused them to examine additional papers from Gino, coming up with evidence for potential research fraud in four of them.

Before posting it on their blog, however, the Data Colada team had provided their evidence to Harvard, which launched its own investigation. Their posts came out after Harvard’s investigation concluded that Gino’s research had serious issues, and she was placed on administrative leave as the university looked into revoking her tenure. It also alerted the journals that had published the three yet-to-be-retracted papers about the issues.

Things might have ended there, except that Gino filed a defamation lawsuit against Harvard and the Data Colada team, claiming they “worked together to destroy my career and reputation despite admitting they have no evidence proving their allegations.” As part of the $25 million suit, she also accused Harvard of mishandling its investigation and not following proper procedures.

Lawsuit opens research misconduct report that may get a Harvard prof fired Read More »

forget-the-proverbial-wisdom:-opposites-don’t-really-attract,-study-finds

Forget the proverbial wisdom: Opposites don’t really attract, study finds

On the tenth day of Christmas —

Educational attainment, substance use were most common shared traits among couples.

What draws us to choose romantic partners? A sweeping new meta-analysis suggests we gravitate toward certain shared traits.

What draws us to choose romantic partners? A sweeping new meta-analysis suggests we gravitate toward certain shared traits.

There’s rarely time to write about every cool science-y story that comes our way. So this year, we’re once again running a special Twelve Days of Christmas series of posts, highlighting one science story that fell through the cracks in 2023, each day from December 25 through January 5. Today: a broad meta-analysis spanning over a century of studies finds that opposites don’t really attract when it comes to choosing a mate.

We’ve all heard the common folk wisdom that when it comes to forming romantic partnerships, opposites attract. Researchers at the University of Colorado, Boulder, contend that this proverbial wisdom is largely false, based on the findings of their sweeping September study, published in the journal Nature Human Behavior. The saying, “birds of a feather flock together,” is a more apt summation of how we choose our partners.

“These findings suggest that even in situations where we feel like we have a choice about our relationships, there may be mechanisms happening behind the scenes of which we aren’t fully aware,” said co-author Tanya Horwitz, a psychology and neuroscience graduate student at UCB. “We’re hoping people can use this data to do their own analyses and learn more about how and why people end up in the relationships they do.”

Horwitz et al. conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed studies in the English language involving comparisons of the same or similar complex traits in partners, all published before August 17, 2022, with the oldest dated 1903. They excluded same-sex/gender partners, maintaining that these partnerships warranted a separate analysis since the patterns could differ significantly. The meta-analysis focused on 22 distinct traits. The team also conducted a raw data analysis of an additional 133 traits, drawing from the UK’s Biobank dataset, one of the largest and most detailed in the world for health-related information on more than 500,000 people. All told, the study encompassed millions of couples spanning over a century: co-parents, engaged pairs, married pairs, and cohabitating pairs.

The personality traits included were based on the so-called Big Five basic personality traits: neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. (The Big Five is currently the professional standard for social psychologists who study personality. Here’s a good summary of what those traits mean to psychologists.) The other traits studied included such things as educational attainment, IQ score, political values, religiosity, problematic alcohol use, drinking, quitting smoking, starting smoking, quantity of smoking, smoker status, substance use disorder, BMI, height, waist-to-hip ratio, depression, diabetes, generalized anxiety, whether they were breastfed as a child, and age of first intercourse, among others.

The meta-analysis and Biobank analysis revealed that the strongest correlations for couples were for birth year and traits like political and religious attitudes, educational attainment, and certain IQ measures. Couples tend to be similar when it comes to their substance use, too: heavy drinkers tend to be with other heavy drinkers, and teetotalers tend to pair with fellow teetotalers. There were a handful of traits among the Biobank couples where opposites did seem to attract, most notably whether one is a morning person or a night owl, tendency to worry, and hearing difficulty.

The weakest correlations were for traits like height, weight, medical conditions, and personality traits, although these were still mostly positive, apart from extroversion, which somewhat surprisingly showed almost no correlation. “People have all these theories that extroverts like introverts or extroverts like other extroverts, but the fact of the matter is that it’s about like flipping a coin,” said Horwitz. “Extroverts are similarly likely to end up with extroverts as with introverts.”

Horwitz et al. cautioned that even the strongest correlations they found were still fairly modest. As for why couples show such striking similarities, the authors write that there could be many reasons. Some people might just be attracted to similar sorts, or couples might become more similar over time. (The study also found that the strength of the correlations changed over time.) Perhaps two people who grow up in the same geographical area or a similar home environment might naturally find themselves drawn to each other.

The authors were careful to note several limitations to their meta-analysis. Most notably, most of those partners sampled came from Europe and the United States, with only a handful coming from East and South Asia, Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean. Furthermore, all participants in the UK Biobank dataset were between the ages of 40 and 69 when they were originally recruited, all of whom were less likely to smoke, be socioeconomically deprived, or drink daily. The studies included in the meta-analysis also varied widely regarding sample sizes used to draw correlations across traits. For these reasons, the authors caution that their findings “are unlikely to be generalizable to all human populations and time periods.”

Nature Human Behavior, 2023. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01672-z  (About DOIs).

Forget the proverbial wisdom: Opposites don’t really attract, study finds Read More »

people-can-tell-what-you-want-to-know-when-you-shake-wrapped-christmas-gifts

People can tell what you want to know when you shake wrapped Christmas gifts

On the first day of Christmas —

We can tell if it’s about how many objects are inside, or the shape of those objects.

adorable curly red haired toddler in onesie grinning while holding a wrapped christmas present

Enlarge / Shake, shake, shake: this adorable young child would love to guess what he’s getting for Christmas this year.

Johns Hopkins University

There’s rarely time to write about every cool science-y story that comes our way. So this year, we’re once again running a special Twelve Days of Christmas series of posts, highlighting one science story that fell through the cracks in 2023, each day from December 25 through January 5. Today: New research shows it’s incredibly easy for people watching others shake boxes to tell what they’re up to.

Christmas Day is a time for opening presents and finally ending the suspense of what one is receiving this year, but chances are some of us may have already guessed what’s under the wrapping—perhaps by strategically shaking the boxes for clues about its contents. According to a November paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, if someone happened to see you shaking a wrapped gift, they would be able to tell from those motions what you were trying to learn by doing so.

“There are few things more delightful than seeing a child’s eyes light up as they pick up a present and wonder what might be inside,” said co-author Chaz Firestone of Johns Hopkins University, who studies how vision and thought interact. “What our work shows is that your mind is able to track the information they are seeking. Just as they might be able to tell what’s inside the box by shaking it around, you can tell what they are trying to figure out when they shake it.” Christmas presents are “the perfect real-life example of our experiment.”

According to Firestone et al., there is a large scientific literature devoted to studying how people represent and interpret basic actions like walking, reaching, lifting, eating, chasing, or following. It’s a vital ability that helps us anticipate the behavior of others. These are all examples of pragmatic actions with a specific aim, whether it be retrieving an object or moving from one place to the next.  Other kinds of actions might be communication-oriented, such as waving, pointing, or assuming an aggressive (or friendly) posture.

The JHU study focused on so-called “epistemic” actions, in which one is seeking information: dipping a toe into the bathtub to see how hot is, for example, testing a door to see if it is locked, or shaking a wrapped box to glean information about what might be inside—like a child trying to guess whether a wrapped Christmas present contains Lego blocks or a teddy bear. “Epistemic actions pervade our lives, and recognizing them does, too,” the authors wrote, citing the ability to tell that a “meandering” campus visitor needs directions, or that someone rifling through shallow drawers is probably looking for keys or similar small objects.

People watched other people shake wrapped boxes for science.

For the first experiment, 16 players were asked to shake opaque boxes. In the first round, they tried to guess the number of objects inside the box (in this case, whether there were five or 15 US nickels). In the second, they tried to guess the shape of a geometric solid inside the box (either a sphere or a cube). All the players scored perfectly in both rounds—an expected outcome, given the simplicity of the task. The videos of those rounds were then placed online and 100 different study participants (“observers”) were asked to watch two videos of the same player and determine which video was from the first “guess the number” round and which was from the second “guess the shape” round.  Almost all the observers guessed correctly.

This was intriguing evidence that the observers could indeed infer the goal of the shaking (what the game players were trying to learn) simply by interpreting their motions. But the researchers wondered to what extent the success of the observers relied on the game players’ success at guessing either the number or shape of objects. So they tweaked the box-shaking game to produce more player error. This time, the videotaped players were asked to determine first whether the box held 9, 12, or 16 nickels, and second, whether the box contained a sphere, cylinder, or cube. Only four out of 18 players guessed correctly. But the success rate of 100 new observers who watched the videos remained the same.

Firestone et al. ran three more variations on the basic experiment to refine their results. With each iteration, most of the players performed shaking motions that were different depending on whether the round involved numbers or shapes, and most of the observers (500 in total) successfully inferred what the players were trying to learn by watching those shaking motions. “When you think about all the mental calculations someone must make to understand what someone else is trying to learn, it’s a remarkably complicated process,” said Firestone. “But our findings show it’s something people do easily.”

DOI: PNAS, 2023. 10.1073/pnas.2303162120  (About DOIs).

People can tell what you want to know when you shake wrapped Christmas gifts Read More »