Bears
Posted: Tue Jun 10, 2008 10:45 pm
In the New Scientist the other day, in the questions and answers section, it was asked whether bears ever got lonely.
One of the respondants cited that bears do, in fact, engage in play fights in which they avoid doing injury to one another.
The respondant then said, though, that these play fights are in order to establish dominance, and therefore should not be interpreted as friendliness.
This is a typical example of a particular kind of evolutionary fallacy. We determine what the evolutionary purpose of an action is, therefore it is the motivation behind the action. We see this also in interpretations of human behaviour. However, I think it distinctly unlikely that the bears get together and think 'Let's determine who is dominant'. I think it infinitely more likely that while such actions may have the result of determining dominance, the mechanism by which the bears are motivated to engage in it is one of enjoyment.
We could say of all manner of human behaviours that they are there to determine dominance or somesuch, but who when playing football thinks 'haha, I am using an opportunity to establish my dominance'? None but the unhinged, I think. Rather, while establishing dominance may be the evolutionarily useful aspect of the behaviour, it is the enjoyment of it that is the actual mechanism.
This also reminds me of a similar issue, the question of 'how on earth can penguins stand such utterly cold conditions?'. The answer, I feel, is that to penguins they are not experienced in the same manner as for humans. It is eminently likely that their midway point of temperature is experienced much as our general midway point of temperature is, as neither hot nor cold, and that the extremities are experienced in relation to this.
One of the respondants cited that bears do, in fact, engage in play fights in which they avoid doing injury to one another.
The respondant then said, though, that these play fights are in order to establish dominance, and therefore should not be interpreted as friendliness.
This is a typical example of a particular kind of evolutionary fallacy. We determine what the evolutionary purpose of an action is, therefore it is the motivation behind the action. We see this also in interpretations of human behaviour. However, I think it distinctly unlikely that the bears get together and think 'Let's determine who is dominant'. I think it infinitely more likely that while such actions may have the result of determining dominance, the mechanism by which the bears are motivated to engage in it is one of enjoyment.
We could say of all manner of human behaviours that they are there to determine dominance or somesuch, but who when playing football thinks 'haha, I am using an opportunity to establish my dominance'? None but the unhinged, I think. Rather, while establishing dominance may be the evolutionarily useful aspect of the behaviour, it is the enjoyment of it that is the actual mechanism.
This also reminds me of a similar issue, the question of 'how on earth can penguins stand such utterly cold conditions?'. The answer, I feel, is that to penguins they are not experienced in the same manner as for humans. It is eminently likely that their midway point of temperature is experienced much as our general midway point of temperature is, as neither hot nor cold, and that the extremities are experienced in relation to this.