The following is
The formal academic paper
In which the theory
Laid out in
Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st Century
Was first was introduced to the scientific community.
It was presented before a joint session of
The European Sociobiological Society, The International Political Science Association,
And The Association for Politics and the Life Sciences,
And later appeared in the book
Research in Biopolitics, Volume 6, 1998.
Sociobiology and Biopolitics.
Edited by Albert Somit and Steven A Peterson.
Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc., 1998: 43-64.
Sociobiology and Politics
BEYOND THE SUPERCOMPUTER:
SOCIAL GROUPS AS SELF-INVENTION MACHINES
by Howard Bloom
photo by Howard Bloom
In the new evolutionary disciplines there is a debate with major implications for the way in which we view politics, citizenship, emotions, health, ideology, and even the perceptual processes that produce a consensual reality.
In one sense, the scientific argument resembles that between the Lilliputians and the Blefuscudians who, in Gulliver’s Travels, warred over whether a breakfast egg should be opened at the large or at the pointed end. Dominating the field are individual selectionists, those who believe that the emergence of all behavior must be explained by forms of self-interest which embody what author Robert Wright, in his summation of “the credo of the new paradigm,” calls “head to head competition” between individual genes and often between individual animals or humans (Wright, 1985: 188). Group selectionists, on the other hand, are convinced that new evolutionary forms can emerge both from the battle for personal advantage and from the competition between social coalitions.
The formulae upon which individual selectionism rests were enunciated by biologist William Hamilton in the early 1960s. Hamilton’s conclusions were based on an analysis of bees and other Hymenoptera. The view that all behavior is ultimately based on self-interest had strongly taken hold. How, then, could one account for altruism? Hamilton focused on the selfless manner with which female worker bees sacrifice their reproductive rights and chastely serve their queen. His triumph was a mathematical demonstration that the workers were carrying essentially the same genes as the queen. Hence when an individual lived out her life on behalf of her monarch, she only appeared to be ignoring her own needs. The genes she carried were closely related to those in the eggs laid by her mistress. By pampering the colony’s egg-layer, each worker was coddling replicas of her own internal blueprint. Altruism, asserted Hamilton, was self-interest in disguise.
Hamilton’s ideas and those built upon them have contributed mightily to our understanding of evolutionary mechanisms in fields from psychology, medicine, and ecology to the study of animals in the wild.
But roughly twenty-five years after the Hamiltonian epiphany, examination of real world bee colonies demonstrated that Hamilton’s mathematics did not correspond with fact. There was far more genetic variety in clusters of unselfish insects than the equations would allow (Queller et al., 1988; Seeley, 1995: 7). Individuals were not abjuring their interests simply to protect near-clones of their own genomic material. Apparently something else was going on. Nonetheless, concepts based on what became known as the selfish gene (Dawkins, 1976) are now dogma.
Many scientists have been tempted to propose non-Hamiltonian approaches to the activities within and the competition between groups. For decades, these thinkers have been stopped by the quiet threat of exclusion from professional respectability, expulsion from career advancement, and banishment from the possibility of academic tenure.
However it is becoming increasingly obvious to a small group of heretics that a new breed of evolutionary insights can emerge if one accepts the coexistence of both group and individual selection. In other words, indications are that the social and biological sciences may benefit enormously from a truce between the Blefuscudians and the Lilliputians.
In my book The Lucifer Principle: a scientific expedition into the forces of history (Bloom, 1995), I’ve attempted to show the many ways in which we are both selfish competitors and pawns of the social group. For example, The Lucifer Principle presents evidence that individuals are biologically wired as expendable cells in a social “superorganism.” The book goes on to contend that human groups follow the rules of dominance hierarchies uncovered by naturalists but normally applied primarily to individuals. The Lucifer Principle combines naturalists’ observations with those of psychoendocrinologists and others to shed new light on phenomena from the bickering of local cliques to the machinations of nation-states and from the maneuvering of economic competitors to the butchery of armies.
But perhaps the best way to demonstrate how far one can move if one accepts both individual and group selection is to reveal one of the many potential approaches to a post-individual selectionist sociobiology. I propose to outline five elements which turn virtually every form of social group–from a teenage gang to a multi-national culture–into a collective intelligence, a complex adaptive system whose powers of perception and invention both utilize and transcend those of the individuals within it. Next I’ll show how social groups at every level on the evolutionary ladder operate as group brains. Finally, I’ll present examples to suggest how the five principles can throw individual passions, mass mood swings, geopolitics, fashion, fads, and health into surprising new perspective.
A great deal of work has been done since 1980 on complex adaptive systems–biological and electronic learning machines. Most of this scholarship has taken mathematical form. However, it is possible to sum up a complex adaptive system’s quintet of key elements entirely without equations. These elements are (1) conformity enforcers, (2) diversity generators, (3) utility sorters, (4) resource shifters, and (5) intergroup tournaments.
•Conformity enforcers impose sufficient similarity on group members to give the social structure coherence, relative permanence, and the ability to carry out large-scale, integrated, multi-participant projects.
In humans, conformity enforcers lead, among other things, to a collective perception, a socially constructed view of reality which influences both childhood brain development and adult sensory processing, and which produces a Weltanschauung displaying many of the characteristics of a shared hallucination.
•Diversity generators spawn variety. Each individual represents a hypothesis in the group mind.It is vital for the group’s flexibility that it have numerous fallback positions in the form of individuals sufficiently different to provide approaches which, while they may not be necessary today, could prove vital tomorrow. This can easily be seen in the operation of one of nature’s most superb learning machines, the immune system. The immune system contains different antibody types, each a separate conjecture about the nature of a potential invader (Farmer et al., 1985: 188). However diversity generators take on their most intriguing dimensions among human beings.
•Next come the utility sorters. Utility sorters are systems which sift through individuals, favoring those whose contributions are most likely to be of value. These pitiless evaluators toss those whose presence represents excess baggage and faulty guesswork into biological, psychological, and perceptual limbo. Some utility sorters are external to the individual. But a surprising number are internal. That is, they are involuntary components of a being’s physiology.
•Fourth are the resource shifters. Successful learning machines shunt vast amounts of assets to the individuals who show a sense of control over the current social and external environment. These same learning machines cast individuals whose endowments seem extraneous into a state of relative deprivation. Christ captured the essence of the algorithm when he observed “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath” (Mark 4:25).
•And bringing up the rear are intergroup tournaments, battles which force each collective entity, each group brain, to continue churning out fresh innovations for the sake of survival. Psychoneuroimmunologists have found that we come complete at birth with a myriad of seemingly self-defeating and maladaptive physiological reactions. It is currently fashionable to suppose that self-destructive built-ins are misplaced leftovers from our hunter-gatherer days. But there is an enormous amount of evidence that each of these biological handicaps gives the group intellect a competitive edge. In fact, there is good reason to believe that autonomic shut-down devices help produce an even more positive byproduct: the constant enrichment of the environment, the complexification of the planetary biomass.
To understand how these five principles affect you and me, it may be helpful to examine the workings of a group brain in an organism normally thought to have no intelligence at all: the bacterium.
Simulation of a colony of P. dendritiformis bacteria,
Eshel Ben-Jaob’s Bacterial Cybernetics Group
In the late 1980s, University of Tel Aviv physicist Eshel Ben-Jacob and the University of Chicago’s James Shapiro were perplexed. Bacteria, which we are popularly regarded as loners, are extraordinarily social, clustering in highly structured colonies. Traditional neo-Darwinism says that bacteria stumble from one innovation to another by random mutation. But a growing body of evidence has accumulated to indicate that bacterial mutations are not completely random (Kiely, 1990; Weiss, 1990; Lipkin, 1995a; Lipkin, 1995b). Seemingly every month fresh studies suggest that these mutations may, in fact, be genetic alterations “custom-tailored” to overcome the emergencies of the moment.
Ben-Jacob detoured from normal physics and spent five years studying bacillus subtilis. Meanwhile Shapiro focused on such organisms as E. coli and salmonella. Unlike the traditional biologists who had preceded them, both Shapiro and Ben-Jacob applied an unconventional tool to their data: the insights they had absorbed from the mathematics of materials science. Gradually their work indicated that, rather than being a mere carrier of construction plans, the package of genes carried by each individual subtilis functions as a computer. What’s more, the genetic bundle seemed to accomplish something even computers cannot achieve. Says Ben-Jacob, “the genome makes calculations and changes itself according to the outcome.” Unlike a silicon chip, the genome adapts to unaccustomed problems by remodeling itself (Eshel Ben-Jacob, personal communication, 1996; Ben-Jacob, 1993; Ben-Jacob, 1997; Ben Jacob, 1998; Ben-Jacob and Dworkin, 1997; Shapiro, 1991).1
Reaching this conclusion left a puzzle. Gödel’s theorem implies that one computer cannot design another computer with more sophisticated computational powers than its own. So how does the individual bacterium’s central processing unit confront large-scale catastrophe, natural disaster so overwhelming that it dwarfs the bacteria’s solo computational abilities? The answer, Ben-Jacob hypothesized, lay in networking–in knitting the colony’s multitude of genomic personal computers into something beyond even the massively parallel distributed processor known as a supercomputer. A supercomputer is only faster than its less sophisticated cousins, but does not transcend many of the smaller machines’ most basic limitations. However the “creative net” of the bacillus, unlike a machine, can recast its form to face an unfamiliar challenge.
Ben-Jacob has now analyzed thousands of colonies of bacillus subtilis to find out if his creative network hypothesis is true, and if so what makes the collective information-processor work. His conclusion: bacilli are in constant contact, communicating through a wide variety of means, measuring their environment’s limitations and opportunities, and feeding their data to each other, then finally summing the product through collaborative decision. In short, bacilli engage in many of the basic activities we associate with human beings.
Here’s how Ben-Jacob’s work appears when filtered through the lens of a social learning machine’s five principles:
1) Bacillus subtilis colonies utilize the most basic conformity enforcer–the genome, which restricts the range of forms and of operating methods among the colony’s individuals. The resulting semi-uniformity makes it possible for each and every member of the community to “understand” a common collection of “languages.”
2) Bacillus subtilis colonies employ a variety of diversity generators. Says Ben-Jacob, bacterial clones (genetically identical offspring of the same mother) can assume intriguingly different variations. Which each dons depends on the chemical signals it picks up from the herd around it. These cues activate or deactivate individual genes, redrawing a bacterium’s design and replacing its old operations manual (Ben-Jacob, personal communication, 1996). In the best of times, when food is plentiful, the colony clumps together for the feast. Divergent appetites and digestive abilities are vital to a gorging group’s survival. The bacteria which concentrate on mining the new food source produce a poisonous by-product–bacterial excreta, the equivalent of feces and urine. Other bacteria adopt an entirely different metabolic mode. To them the excrement is caviar. By snacking heartily on toxic waste, they prevent the colony from killing itself (Ben-Jacob, personal communication, 1996).
More diversity generators kick in when the colony’s banquet runs out. As famine approaches, individuals send out a chemotactic signal of repulsion, a signal that says “spread out, flee, explore.” This prods roughly 10,000 groups of cells to act as scouting parties, setting forth in a trek which looks to the human eye like a spreading circle of fractal lace. Meanwhile other cellular cohorts apparently set up posts in the wake of the outward advance and channel the findings of the explorers toward the center.
3) At this stage the teams of pioneers (technically called “random walkers”) utilize the third principle of a complex adaptive system: the colony’s utility sorters. Those exploration parties which find slim pickings have an internal device, the bacterial equivalent of what British theorist Michael Waller, writing about human beings, has called a “comparator mechanism” (Waller, 1995). This gauge determines that the outriders have chanced across parched and dangerous territory. Their mission, in short, has failed. The unfortunates send out an altruistic repellent which makes others in the group avoid them, leaving them to starve in isolation.
Conversely, discoverers which encounter a cornucopia of edibles have their comparator mechanisms tweaked in the opposite direction. They disperse an attractant which makes them the star of the party.
4) Now the fourth principle of the complex adaptive system enters the petri dish: the resource shifters. Those stranded in the desert are deprived of nutrients, which their location cannot provide, of companionship, and, most important from the point of view of the group brain, of what might best be termed popularity. Meanwhile, those who find an overflowing buffet eat their fill and command the attention and protection of a gathering crowd. They are transformed into leaders, guiding the group mind. “For he that hath, to him shall be given: and he that hath not, from him shall be taken even that which he hath” (Mark 4:25).
Should things prove truly grim, however, and even the most strenuous searchers confirm that food is nowhere within reach, another diversity generator, the most startling of them all, may rouse to meet the challenge. It is a mechanism which James Shapiro calls the “genetic engineer.” Explains Ben-Jacob, “the cell carries a complete set of tools for genetic self-reconstruction: plasmids, phages, transposons, and too many others to mention,… the same tools, in fact, used in the lab today for genetic engineering.” A microscopic research and development squadron goes to work recrafting its own genetic string.
Which raises a question: does the genomic skunk works merely trot out pre-fabricated parts which have worked in the past? Or is it capable of true innovation?
Explains Ben-Jacob, “We’ve tried exposing bacterial colonies to conditions so novel that the creatures could never have encountered them before. Tough conditions, conditions of life and death. We wanted to know how inventive the colonies could be in reworking their genetic code. For example, we took bacteria that can’t move on agar but are able to roam freely in liquid. We put them on the wilderness of their worst nightmares, agar, and deprived them of food. The need to branch out in search of grazing land was a true creative challenge.” By forming a modular network beyond the supercomputer, by assembling a group mind, the massed genetic engineering teams were able to solve the problem.
Thanks to the synergy of the conformity enforcer, the diversity generator, the utility sorter, and the resource shifter, the colony was capable of something numerous humans never achieve–creativity.
5) In a natural environment, the fifth of a complex adaptive system’s principles would presumably come into play: the intergroup tournament. Alas, Ben-Jacob has studied each colony isolated in its own petri dish, sealed off by glass walls from competing groups. But as the resources which feed the bacillus subtilis run out, imagine what might happen if a spore of another bacterial species were to drop in, a species which found the inedible plateau on which the subtilis was stranded to be more nourishing than roast beef and Yorkshire pudding. The race would be on. While the bacillus subtilis reworked its genome in an effort to gain sustenance from the now (to it) barren waste, the newcomer would rush to reproduce, taking advantage of the fact that subtilis‘ inedible slabs are its entrée du jour.
As the two groups struggled to take over the petri dish, would a new innovation emerge from the contest, an innovation of the sort which enriches the fate of a species for eons? One which transforms ever more of this once entirely barren planet into food for life?
Ample evidence indicates that complex adaptive systems, with their enormous competitive advantages, have progressed from kin‑groups through to mega-societies with little or no regard for the interests of solitary selfish genes. This is particularly apparent in large-scale human societies, societies seemingly ruled by the same five principles which structure colonies of bacillus subtilis:
CONFORMITY ENFORCERS. Humans are biologically programmed to “fit in”. For example, an infant’s brain is shaped by the culture into which it is born. Six-month olds can either distinguish or produce every sound in virtually every human language. But within a mere four months, this capacity has decreased by roughly two thirds (Werker, 1989; Werker and Desjardins, 1995; Werker and Pegg, in press). This slashing of ability, like other cultural blinkers of perceptions (Eisenberg, 1995; Segall, et al. 1996; Shi-xu, 1995, Lucy, 1992; Berridge and Robinson, 1995; Lancaster, 1968; Emde, 1984; Belsky et al. 1996; Bower, 1995; Caporael, 1995; Nisbett and Ross, 1980; Shweder and D’Andrade, 1980), is accompanied by extensive alterations in the cerebral tissue. During human development, brain cells are measured against the requirements of the physical and socio‑cultural environment. The 50% of neurons found useful thrive. The 50% which remain unexercised literally cease to be (Gould, 1994; Young et al. 1994; Nadis, 1993; Levine, 1988; Elbert et al. 1995; Barinaga, 1994; Pascual-Leone and Torres, 1993; Holden, 1995; Korein, 1988.). The cerebral floor plan underlying the mind is redrawn to conform to a larger social pattern.
Experiments by memory researcher Elizabeth Loftus (Loftus, 1980), psychologist Solomon Asch (Asch, 1956), and numerous others have demonstrated that even among adults there is a propensity to form a shared perception of the world, a view so distinctive that it can give outsiders the impression of a mass delusion. Pressures to conform arise from the urge to belong, the fear of social ostracism, and the appeal of role models. Nearly forty years ago sociologist Erving Goffman (Goffman, 1959) demonstrated that even much of what we think of as our most willful behavior is guided by scripts drafted for us by the social organism of which we are a part.
DIVERSITY GENERATORS. All cultures impose conformity. Yet all benefit from the contribution of their marginal personalities–those who do not fit the mold. Numerous tribal groups turn their cross-dressers and their insane into shamans or seers and use the quirks of their vision as a guide in times of uncertainty. Large-scale societies benefit even further from singular individuals and unorthodox subcultures. Between 361 and 206 BC, the Chinese empire gained its unity, its bureaucratic structure and its standardized writing system from the most eccentric section of the future country, Ch’in, a territory constantly nourished by the input of traders shuttling between one culture and another. The religious non-conformists of 17th and 18th century England were excluded from the country’s official schools. Formulating their own educational substitute, they abandoned the traditional Latin trivium and quadrivium in favor of the newly emerging sciences. Forbidden to participate in traditional high-status occupations, they turned their attention to such déclassé new enterprises as canal building and the mining of coal. The result: the non-conformists saved Britain from possible stagnation and helped usher in the Industrial Revolution.
Productive deviants frequently benefit from “field independence” and a strong “internal locus of control” (Lefcourt, 1982). All too often, one era’s despised tinkerer–an isolate like Gregor Mendel–will lay the groundwork for a later generation’s innovative whiz kids.
Additional diversity generators include impulses toward self-assertion, individuation, and youthful rebellion, not to mention Sigmund Freud’s “narcissism of minor differences”(Freud, 1989; Scherer and Ekman, 1984; Boorstin, 1953; Birenbaum and Lesieur, 1982; Stevens and Price, 1996), Eric Erikson’s “pseudospeciation,” and the closely related ecological phenomenon of “character displacement” (Grant, 1994; Schluter, 1994). In all of these, fundamentally similar individuals seize on petty discrepancies and magnify them until they become insurmountable barriers (Stevens and Price, 1996). Even in tribal societies, the resulting differences of opinion easily overleap genetic barriers, turning brother against brother (Johnson and Johnson, 1995; de Waal, 1989: 247f.). In the last two and a half millennia, these forces have often gone one step further and created camaraderie among those of wildly varying chromosomal background.
Human diversity generators are shifted into high gear by precisely the type of signals which trigger diversity generation among bacteria‑‑signs that the environment is overcrowded, under‑resourced, or lacking in other critical requirements for survival. A large body of studies demonstrates how stressors ranging from a rapid rise in taxes to a dramatic increase or drop in temperature and even an intolerable noise level can break down group cohesion, increase conflict, and encourage restlessness. The result is often a group split which provokes dissenters to search for a new environment, a new world view, and/or a new modus operandi (Griffitt, 1970; Griffitt and Veitch 1971; Weber et al. 1988: 129, 341; Horney et al. 1995; Roberts, 1983: 558-562; Ferguson and Rogers 1981: 141; Dollard et al. 1957: 44; Braudel, 1981: 144f; Weber, 1968: xxiii; Russ et al. 1979). These mechanisms and their effects eerily parallel the chemotactic repulsers which drive stressed bacteria apart, turning human migrants, malcontents, and rebels into feelers who scour the technical, social, and geographic landscape in search of a new way forward for the wider group.
UTILITY SORTERS. The evidence, at this point, is not looking good for the selfish gene and its promoter, the individual selectionist. Among bacteria, a built-in comparator mechanism requires each forager to let the world know whether it has succeeded or failed. If its quest has been productive, physiology drives the bacillus to broadcast the message “follow me.” If its expedition has failed, it has no choice but to signal “leave me to my fate.” Voluminous evidence indicates that comparator mechanisms are virtually standard equipment in all social animals, from the microbial level (Ameisen, 1996) to that of crustaceans (Lange, 1996; Barinaga, 1996; Kravitz, 1988; Adler, 1996), birds,2 and mammals. At each evolutionary level these internal and external sensors of adaptation become more varied and complex. Are humans slaves to similarly implacable biological impulses?
Through a variety of means, among them a sense of control (Lefcourt, 1982: 3-18; Miller et al. 1977; Shors et al. 1989; Shavit, 1983; Davis et al. 1980; Buchsbaum et al. 1982; Sagan, 1988; Davis et al. 1979) over circumstance and the intake of social feedback (Bloom 1995: 60-70, 140-145; Kemper, 1990: 7, 54, 197; Freedman, 1979: 100f; Kroeber, 1952: 43-47; Holmes, 1979), comparator mechanisms indicate to you and me our utility to the social group. A sense of being unneeded leads to a collapse of our self‑esteem (Brown et al. 1986; Price, 1988; Barkow, 1989; Festinger, 1944; Aronson and Linder, 1965; Goleman, 1988; Bloom, 1995: 47-72, 140-145; Maslow, 1973; I.H. Jones et al. 1995) and a range of physiological changes which, in the natural world, would sharply increase the odds of death. Our immune system is impaired (Bower, 1986; Ader, 1983; Sapolsky, 1990; Sapolsky, 1988; Davidson, 1992; Bower, 1988); our perceptions are dulled (Miller et al. 1977; Gazzaniga, 1992: 191-193); our sexual drive diminishes (Sapolsky, 1987; Miller et al. 1977); in males, sperm count and motility both fall; our appetite shrinks or is lost (Gallagher, 1992: 12-15; Lefcourt, 1982: 10; Thomas and DeWald, 1977: 229; Seligman, 1990: 69); our social magnetism evaporates (Gilbert et al. 1994: 149-165; Bloom, 1995: 140-145); and we tend to experience a profound sense of lethargy, negativity, and hopelessness (Dabbs and Leventhal, 1966; Gilbert and Allan, 1994).
A multitude of psychophysiological and psychoneuroimmunological deactivators contribute to these effects, among them “learned helplessness” and the chronic secretion of glucocorticoids and endogenous opiates. A persistent bath of glucocorticoids, for example, literally kills tissue in the hippocampus–a part of the brain vital to memory.
Comparator mechanisms in those who feel un-needed go a step further. They produce a variety of subtle and not-so-subtle signals which drive others away, thus marginalizing the victim as thoroughly as the bacteria whose quest has failed (De Vries et al. 1994: 108; Bloom, 1995: 47-49, 55-56, 60-66, 110-115, 325).
By contrast, those of us who’ve continuously had a handle on our fate:
- are blessed with chemical tonics like androgens and serotonin, which boost health, sexual appetite, and energy (Sapolsky, 1988);
- experience heightened acuity and independence of perception (Triandis 1993, Hollander 1958, Kandel and Hawkins 1992, Herskovits 1965: 39, Ezzell 1992);
- become socially captivating (Thibaut and Riecken, 1995; Freedman, 1979: 68; Hurwitz et al. 1953; Torrance 1954); and
- send out variants of the successful bacterium’s chemotactic “gather round and follow my ways,” using such devices as postural cues, verbal subtleties (Erikson et al. 1978), body languages (Henley, 1977; Thayer, 1989: 22; Hurwitz et al. 1953; Strodtbeck, 1957; Freedman, 1979: 96; K.R.L. Hall, 1967: 270; McGinley et al. 1975; Mehrabian 1981), and status symbols (Sahlins, 1986; Veblen, 1934; Johnson and Earle, 1987: 219; Galbraith, 1976; Fraser, 1989: 50; Braudel, 1981: 333).
In other words, the folks with the firmest grasp on the challenges facing their group become its opinion-makers. They are given the privilege of steering the collective mind. The bumblers and wrong-guessers either submit to the leadership of others, or, if the community undergoes a severe lack of resources, succumb to disease or suicide.
This concept and the empirical data from which it is derived run directly counter to the tenets of individual selectionism and current neo-Darwinism. In many instances, the victims of self‑perceived failure damage or eliminate, not only their own evolutionary interests, but also those of their kin. For example, a business failure can result either in suicide or other patterns of behavior equally damaging to both spouse and offspring. The case of the hospitalized is even more illustrative. Studies show that depressed patients become withdrawn (Zuckerman, 1995), cranky, inarticulate, lacking in wit, and deprived of verbal flexibility (E.E. Jones and Berglas, 1978; Paloutzian and Ellison, 1982; W.H. Jones et al. 1981). Even their facial gestures and body language drive others away (Altman and Vinsel, 1977; Raven, 1983: 253, 685; Argyle, 1989: 60; Kalin, 1993; Clore and Byrne, 1974; Gotlib, 1992; Myers and Diener, 1995; Emmons, 1986; Myers, 1993; Veenhoven, 1988; Seligman, 1990: 187-198; Bull, 1986: 121; Mehrabian and Williams, 1969; Kiritz 1971). The depressed also suffer from a severe reduction of immune function. They become sitting ducks for illness. In a hospital setting, studies show that depressed patients’ avoidance cues are nearly suicidal. Those in the throes of depression receive far less care than others with a more cheerful demeanor (H. Hall, 1989; Lerner, 1980; Tavris, 1982: 233f).
What causes depression in humans and other vertebrates? Two factors…an isolation which signals that one is socially dispensable (Raven and Rubin, 1983: 56f; Stolzenberg et al. 1995: 85; Lynch, 1979; Lynch and McCarthy, 1967; Lynch and McCarthy, 1969; House et al. 1988; Pelletier, 1983; Sarason and Pierce, 1988; Cohen et al. 1992: 301; Durkheim, 1951: 217, 241; Martin, 1968; Phillips, 1979; Phillips and Lu, 1980); and the loss of control which indicates that one is not capable of coping–that the hypothesis represented by one’s “personality” is inappropriate to current circumstance. The result: depressive humans suffer the utility sorter’s most extreme negative effects and are those most likely to die. (Depressive monkeys, rats, grouse, and numerous other creatures are subject to a similar fate.)
RESOURCE SHIFTERS take over where the utility sorters leave off. Those who demonstrate the ability to generate or accumulate resources are given even more. It may be yams and pigs among Polynesians, copper and blankets among the Kwakiutl (Benedict, 1934: 178; Johnson and Earle: 1987: 168f; Harris, 1978: 94-98; Harris 1977: 104-108; Sahlins 1986: 308), cattle amongst the Masai and the Xhosa (Mostert, 1992), and cash, Lamborghinis, and yachts in the West. But most humans are inordinately drawn to the material indications of success.
Resources are shifted in great quantities to those like Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Wal-Mart’s Sam Walton, who become the apotheosis of business success. People shower them with luxurious gifts. Hotels attempt to lure them with free rooms and restaurants with free meals. Men and women of exceptional talent take pride in becoming members of their team. And, most important, like the pay‑dirt‑striking bacteria who find themselves the center of a crowd, successful humans become hubs of influence (Johnson and Earle, 1987: 52; White, 1993; Freedman, 1979: 36; Bernays, 1928), commanders of what primatologists call the social “attention structure” (Chance, 1967; Tiger and Fox, 1971: 39f; Washburn and Hamburg 1968: 471; Fossey, 1983: 64; Altmann, 1967: 349). In short, their attitudes, thoughts, and styles set the trend for the group.
photograph by Howard Bloom
Success produces the equivalent of the bacterium’s chemotactic attractant; failure generates the counterpart of a chemotactic repellant (Lipkin, 1995; Zullow and Seligman, 1990; Seligman, 1990: 187-198). As the old song says, “Nobody loves you when you’re down and out.”
THE INTERGROUP TOURNAMENT. Everything from the subtle warfare between colonies of sea anemones to the territorial machinations of wolf packs and the outright pillage inflicted by armies of ants indicates the universality of intergroup strife. The forms of competition and bloodshed between troops of monkeys or apes are nearly innumerable. And then we have those primates who have left us eloquent histories, elaborate tapestries, equestrian statues, oil-on-canvas masterpieces, and heroic friezes testifying to their battles. “It is well that war is so terrible…”, said one member of this species, “or we should grow too fond of it.” The name of that Homo sapien was Robert E. Lee.
Beating the opposition is central even in peaceful commercial enterprise. Two decades ago the supercomputer company led by Seymour Cray seemed invincible. But Cray’s last enterprise was shattered well before his death, the victim of a new technology, the microprocessor. This superchip made possible a silicon version of what bacilli long ago evolved–the massively parallel computer (Verity, 1995). As Cray Computer Corporation fell, Bill Gates’ Microsoft rose. Cray had been admirably adapted to the environment of the mainframe. But Gates was a creature of a new ecology–that of the microprocessor-powered personal computer.
These are small‑scale battles compared to those which constantly unleash their brutalities across the face of this planet. Zoology, ecology, history, and current affairs abound with examples of competing group brains using their individual members as modules, sensors, parallel‑distributed information processors, pawns, and experimental test components in relentless battles for supremacy. The largest of them, we call nation states. These collective intelligences have frequently reengineered their organizational blueprints as thoroughly as the bacterial colony retooling its genome.
Individual selectionists have two major fallback positions to account for the otherwise difficult to explain–kin‑selection (the surrender of self to benefit those who carry genes like your own) and reciprocal altruism (the swapping of generous deeds). But a plethora of studies indicates that among humans, the victims of elimination are the group members with the fewest family ties or close friends (House et al. 1988; Severino, 1983; Pelletier, 1983; Jarvinen, 1955; Arnetz et al. 1983; Cohen and Syme, 1985; Broadhead et al. 1983; Berkman, 1984; Bloom, 1995: 60-65; Konner, 1990: 27f; Catanzaro 1995: 393.).The self-sacrificers’ pre-programmed renunciation does not add a scrap of benefit to genes identical to their own, nor does it store up favors for the future. This makes accounting for the survival of utility sorters ,and resource shifters in terms of individual selectionism exceedingly difficult, if not impossible.
Group selectionism can provide a richly productive alternative explanation. Individuals within a social unit are ranked on the basis of perceived relevance to a larger community. They either move to the sidelines or to the center depending on the verdict rendered by their psychophysiology and by their social or environmental milieu. Thus they become components of a communal intelligence. Put yet another way, conformity enforcers, diversity generators, utility sorters and resource shifters aid in the construction of competitive machines far more powerful than mere individual organisms. When matched against genes whose disguised selfishness restricts them to family support and reciprocal exchanges, genes free to participate in the computational and inventive power of a group brain will roll over their rivals like a tank flattening a Volkswagen.
Eshel Ben-Jacob has been forced to infer from his data on bacillus subtilis that we may be viewing “a new picture of cooperative evolution” (Corning, 1983; Corning, 1996; Smillie, 1993; Smillie, 1995), one entirely “orthogonal” to standard neo‑Darwinism (Ben-Jacob, 1998; Ben-Jacob, Cohen, and Czirók. In press.). What does “orthogonal” mean? In Edwin A. Abbott’s classic book, Flatland, creatures operating on only the two-dimensional axes of depth and width felt their world was infinite (Abbott, 1953). Yet there was an even larger infinity above them–if only they had been able to look up.
When using the light of both group and individual selection, the new evolutionary sciences are able to lift their eyes and see our kinship with three-and-a-half billion years of precursors, thus vastly expanding their range of explorable evidence and explanatory mechanisms. The world of the petri dish sheds light on the conference halls of the Hague. The mathematics of materials science and of such non-linear newcomers as fractals and chaos theory, the insights of cell biology and endocrinology, and the mysteries of psychology find a new place in the puzzle. If the evolutionary dogmatists of Lilliput and Blefuscu will simply recognize the equal importance of each end of the egg, they may finally make it possible for science to reveal something far more fascinating–the workings of an egg’s interior. The inner workings of you and me.
photograph by Howard Bloom
1) See unpublished papers by Ben-Jacob and Shapiro listed in bibliography.
2) Amotz Zahavi first proposed that assemblages of birds act as “information-centers” in Ward and Zahavi. 1973. Since then, avian experts like P. de Groot (de Groot 1980) and John and Colleen Marzluff with their sometime collaborator Bernd Heinrich have done much to probe the operation of bird roosts as collective brains, group intelligences (Marzluff et al. 1995).
3) Credit for pointing out that isolation and lack of control are the two factors which consistently produce laboratory models of depression in experimental animals goes to Pulitzer-Prize-winning science journalist Jon Franklin in his Molecules of the Mind: The Brave New Science of Molecular Psychology, New York: Atheneum, 1987.
Abbott, Edwin A. 1953. Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, with Illus. by the author, A Square. New York: Dover Publications.
Ader, Robert. 1983. “Behavioral Conditioning and the Immune System.” in Emotions in Health And Illness: Theoretical and Research Foundations, edited by Lydia Temoshok, Craig Van Dyke, and Leonard S. Zegans. New York: Grune & Stratton, 137-151.
Adler, T. 1996. “A shrimpy find: Communal crustaceans.” Science News, June 8.
Altman, I., and A.M. Vinsel. 1977. “Personal Space: An Analysis of E. T. Hall’s Proxemics Framework.” In Human Behavior and the Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, Vol. 2, edited by Irwin Altman and Joachim F. Wohlwill. New York: Plenum.
Altmann, Stuart A. 1967. “The Structure of Primate Social Communication.” In Social Communication Among Primates, edited by Stuart A. Altmann. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Ameisen, Jean Claude. 1996. “The Origin of Programmed Cell Death.” Science, May 31.
Argyle, Michael. 1989. “Innate and Cultural Aspects of Human Non-verbal Communication.” In Mindwaves: Thoughts on Intelligence, Identity and Consciousness, edited by Colin Blakemore and Susan Greenfield. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Arnetz, B.B., T. Theorell, L. Levi, A. Kallner, and P. Eneroth. 1983. “An Experimental Study of Social Isolation of Elderly People.” Psychosomatic Medicine 45: 395-406.
Aronson, Eliot, and Darwyn Linder. 1965. “Gain and Loss of Esteem as Determinants of Interpersonal Attractiveness.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1: 156-171.
Asch, Solomon E. 1956. “Studies of Independence and Conformity: I. A Minority of One against a Unanimous Majority.” Psychological Monographs 70(9) (Whole No. 416).
Barinaga, Marcia. 1994. “Watching the Brain Remake Itself.” Science, December 2.
Barinaga, Marcia. 1996. “Neurobiology: Social Status Sculpts Activity of Crayfish Neurons.” Science, January 19.
Barkow, J.H. 1989. Darwin, Sex and Status. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Baron, R.A., and V.M. Ransberger. 1978. “Ambient Temperature and the Occurrence of Collective Violence: The ‘Long, Hot Summer’ Revisited.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36: 351-360.
Belsky, Jay, Becky Spritz, and Keith Crnic. 1996. “Infant Attachment Security and Affective-Cognitive Information Processing at Age 3.” Psychological Science, March: 111-114.
Ben-Jacob, E. 1993. “From Snowflake Formation to the Growth of Bacterial Colonies. Part I. Diffusive Patterning in Azoic Systems.” Contemporary Physics 34: 247.
Ben-Jacob, E. 1997. “From Snowflake Formation to the Growth of Bacterial Colonies II: Cooperative formation of complex colonial patterns.” Contemporary Physics, 38(3): 205-241.
Ben-Jacob, E. 1998. “Bacterial wisdom, Godel’s theorem and creative genomic webs.” Physica A, 248: 57-76.
Ben-Jacob, E. In preparation. “Cooperative Evolution and Genome Cybernetics.”
Ben-Jacob, E., and I. Cohen. 1997. “Cooperative Formation of Bacterial Colonies.” In Bacteria as Multicellular Organisms, edited by J.A. Shapiro and M. Dworkin. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ben-Jacob, E., I. Cohen, and A. Czirók. In press. “Smart Bacterial Colonies.” In Physics of Biological Systems: From Molecules to Species, edited by E. Ben-Jacob, I. Cohen, and A. Czirók. Berlin: Springer.
Ben-Jacob, E., H. Shmueli, O. Shochet, and A. Tenenbaum. 1992. “Adaptive Self-organization During Growth of Bacterial Colonies.” Physica A, 187: 378.
Ben-Jacob, E., A. Tenenbaum, O. Shochet, and O. Avidan. 1994. “Holo Transformations of Bacterial Colonies and Genome Cybernetics” Physica A 203: 1.
Ben-Jacob, E., A. Tenenbaum, O. Shochet, I. Cohen, A. Czirók, and T. Vicsek. 1994a. “Communication, Regulation and Control During Complex Patterning of Bacterial Colonies.” Fractals 2(1): 14-44.
Ben-Jacob, E., A. Tenenbaum, O. Shochet, I. Cohen, A. Czirók, and T. Vicsek. 1994b. “Generic Modeling of Cooperative Growth Patterns in Bacterial Colonies.” Nature 368: 46-49.
Ben-Jacob, E., A. Tenenbaum, O. Shochet, I. Cohen, A. Czirók, and T. Vicsek. 1995a. “Cooperative Formation of Chiral Patterns During Growth of Bacterial Colonies.” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75: 1226-1229.
Ben-Jacob, E., A. Tenenbaum, O. Shochet, I. Cohen, A. Czirók, and T. Vicsek. 1995b. “Cooperative Strategies in Formation of Complex Bacterial Patterns.” Fractals 3(4): 849-868.
Ben-Jacob, E., A. Tenenbaum, O. Shochet, I. Cohen, A. Czirók, and T. Vicsek. In press. “The Response of Bacterial Colonies to Imposed Anisotropy.” Phys. Rev. E.
Benedict, Ruth. 1950 . Patterns of Culture. New York: A Mentor Book, New American Library.
Berkman L.F. 1984. “Assessing the Physical Health Effects of Social Networks and Social Support.” Annual Review of Public Health 5: 413-432.
Bernays, Edward L. 1928. Propaganda: The Public Mind in the Making. New York: Horace Liveright.
Berridge, Kent C., and Terry E. Robinson. 1995. “The Mind of an Addicted Brain: Neural Sensitization of Wanting Versus Liking.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, June: 74.
Birenbaum, Arnold, and Henry Lesieur. 1982. “Social Values and Expectations.” In Sociology of Deviance, edited by M. Michael Rosenberg, Robert A Stebbins, and Allan Turowitz. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Bloom, Howard. 1995. The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History. New York: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Boorstin, Daniel J. 1953. “Our Cultural Hypochondria and How to Cure It.” In The Genius of American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bower, Bruce. 1986. “Personality Linked to Immunity.” Science News, November 15.
Bower, Bruce. 1988. “Emotion-Immunity Link in HIV Infection.” Science News, August 20.
Bower, Bruce. 1995. “Brain Activity Comes Down to Expectation.” Science News, January 21.
Braudel, Fernand. 1981. The Structures of Everyday Life: Civilization & Capitalism, 15th?18th Century, Vol. 1. Translated by Sian Reynolds. New York: Perennial Library, Harper & Row.
Broadhead, W.E., B.H. Kaplan, S.A. James, E.H. Wagner, V.J. Schoenbach, R. Grimson, S. Heyden, G. Tibblin, and S.H. Gehlbach. 1983. “The Epidemiological Evidence for a Relationship Between Social Support and Health.” American Journal of Epidemiology 117: 521-537.
Brown, G.W., B. Andrews, T. Harris, Z. Adler, and L. Bridge. 1986. “Social Support, Self?esteem and Depression.” Psychological Medicine 16: 813?831.
Buchsbaum, Monte S., et al. 1982. “Role of Opioid Peptides in Disorders of Attention in Psychopathology.” Proceedings of the New York Academy of Science: 352-365.
Bull, Peter Bull. 1986. “What Does Gesture Add to the Spoken Word?” In Images and Understanding: Thoughts About Images, Ideas About Understanding, A Collection of Essays Based on a Rank Prize Funds’ International Symposium Organized with the Help of Jonathan Miller, Held at the Royal Society in October 1986. Edited by Horace Barlow, Colin Blakemore, and Miranda Weston-Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Caporael, Linnda R. 1995 June 1. “Sociality: Coordinating Bodies, Minds and Groups.” Psycoloquy (online journal).
Catanzaro, Denys de. 1995. “Reproductive Status, Family Interactions, and Suicidal Ideation: Surveys of the General Public and High-Risk Groups.” Ethology and Sociobiology 16: 393.
Chance, Michael. 1967. “Attention Structure as the Basis of Primate Rank Orders.” J.R.A.I. 2(4): 503-518.
Clore, G.L., and D. Byrne. 1974. “A Reinforcement-Affect Model of Attraction.” In Foundations of Interpersonal Attraction, edited by T. L. Huston. New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, S., and S.L. Syme, eds. 1985. Social Support and Health. New York: Academic Press.
Cohen, Sheldon, J. R. Kaplan, Joan E. Kunick, Steven E. Manuck, and Bruce S. Rabin. 1992. “Chronic Social Stress Affiliation and Cellular Immune Response in Non?Human Primates.” Psychological Science, September.
Corning, Peter A. 1983. The Synergism Hypothesis: A Theory of Progressive Evolution. New York: McGraw Hill.
Corning, Peter A. 1996. “On the Concept of Synergy and Its Role in the Evolution of Complex Systems.” Pre-publication manuscript prepared for the Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems.
Corning, Peter A. In press. “The Cooperative Gene: On the Role of Synergy in Evolution.” Evolutionary Theory.
Dabbs, J.M., Jr., and H. Leventhal. 1966. “Effects of Varying the Recommendations in Fear-Arousing Communication.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 4: 525-531.
Davidson, Richard J. 1992. “Emotion and Affective Style, Hemispheric Substrates.” Psychological Science, January: 42.
Davis, Glenn C., Monte Buchsbaum, et al. 1979. “Analgesia to Pain Stimuli in Schizophrenics and Its Reversal by Naltrexone.” Psychiatry Research 1: 61-69.
Davis, Glenn C., Monte Buchsbaum, and William E. Bunney, Jr. 1980. “Alterations of Evoked Potentials Link Research in Attention Dysfunction to Peptide Response Symptoms of Schizophrenia.” In Neural Peptides and Neuronal Communications, edited by E. Costa and M. Trabucci. New York: Raven Press.
Dawkins, Richard. 1976. The Selfish Gene. New York: Oxford University Press.
de Groot, P. 1980. “Information Transfer in a Socially Roosting Weaver Bird [Quelea quelea; Ploceinae]: An Experimental Study.” Animal Behaviour 28: 1249-54
De Vries, Geert J., Hussein Ali-Shamma, and Lei Zhou. 1994. “The Sexually Dimorphic Vasopressin Innervation of the Brain as a Model for Steroid Modulation of Neuropeptide Transmission.” In Hormonal Restructuring of the Adult Brain: Basic and Clinical Perspective, edited by Victoria N. Luine and Cheryl F. Harding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 743: 108.
de Waal, Frans. 1989. Peacemaking Among Primates. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Dollard, John, Neal E. Miller, Leonard W. Doob, O.H. Mowrer, Robert R. Sears, Clellan S. Ford, Carl Iver Hovland, and Richard E. Sollenberger. 1957. Frustration and Aggression. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Durkheim, Emile. 1951. Suicide: A Study In Sociology. Translated by John A. Spaulding and George Simpson. New York: The Free Press.
Eisenberg, L. 1995. “The Social Construction of the Human Brain.” American Journal of Psychiatry 152(11): 1563-1575.
Elbert, Thomas, Christo Pantev, Christian Wienbruch, Brigitte Rockstroh, and Edward Taub. 1995. “Increased Cortical Representation of the Fingers of the Left Hand in Stringed Players.” Science, October 13.
Emde, Robert N. 1984. “Levels of Meaning for Infant Emotions: A Biosocial View.” In Approaches to Emotion, edited by Klaus R. Scherer and Paul Ekman. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Emmons, R.A. 1986. “Personal Strivings: An Approach to Personality and Subjective Well-being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 1058-1068.
Erickson, B., E.A. Lind, B.C. Johnson, and W.M. O’Barr. 1978. “Speech Style and Impression Formation in a Court Setting: The Effects of ‘Powerful’ and ‘Powerless’ Speech.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 14: 266-279.
Ezzell, Carol. 1992. “Sticky Situations: Picking Apart the Molecules that Glue Cells Together,” Science News, June 13.
Farmer, Doyne, Alan Lapedes, Norman Packard, and Burton Wendroff, editors. 1985. Evolution, Games and Learning: Models for Adaptation in Machines and Nature, Proceedings of the Fifth Annual International Conference of the Center for Nonlinear Studies, Los Alamos, NM 87545, USA, May 20-24, 1985. Amsterdam: North-Holland Physics Publishing.
Ferguson, Thomas, and Joel Rogers, editors. 1981. The Hidden Election: Politics and Economics in the 1980 Presidential Campaign. New York: Pantheon Books.
Festinger, Leon. 1944. “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.” Human Relations 2: 117-140.
Fossey, Dian. 1983. Gorillas In the Mist. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Franklin, Jon. 1987. Molecules of the Mind: The Brave New Science of Molecular Psychology. New York: Atheneum.
Fraser, Antonia. 1989. The Warrior Queens. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Freedman, Daniel G. 1979. Human Sociobiology: A Holistic Approach. New York: The Free Press.
Freud, Sigmund. 1989. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: W.W. Norton.
Galbraith, John Kenneth. 1976. The Affluent Society. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Gallagher, Winifred. 1992. “Motherless Child.” The Sciences, July/August.
Gazzaniga, Michael S. 1992. Nature’s Mind: The Biological Roots of Thinking, Emotions, Sexuality, Language, and Intelligence. New York: Basic Books.
Gilbert, P., and S. Allan. 1994. “Assertiveness, Submissive Behaviour and Social Comparison.” British Journal of Clinical Psychology 33: 295-306.
Gilbert, P., J. Price, and S. Allan. 1994. “Social Comparison, Social Attractiveness and Evolution: How Might They Be Related?” New Ideas in Psychology 13(2): 149-165.
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Anchor Books.
Goldman-Rakic, P., and P. Rakic. 1984. “Experimental Modification of Gyral Patterns.” In Cerebral Dominance: The Biological Foundation, edited by N. Geschwind & A.M. Galaburda. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goleman, Daniel. 1988. “What Do Children Fear Most? Their Answers Are Surprising.” New York Times, March 17.
Gotlib, Ian H. 1992. “Interpersonal and Cognitive Aspects of Depression.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, October: 149-154.
Gould, Elizabeth. 1994. “The Effects of Adrenal Steroids and Excitatory Input on Neuronal Birth and Survival.” In Hormonal Restructuring of the Adult Brain: Basic and Clinical Perspective, edited by Victoria N. Luine and Cheryl F. Harding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.
Grant, Peter R. 1994. “Ecological Character Displacement.” Science, November 4.
Griffitt, William. 1970. “Environmental Effects on Interpersonal Affective Behavior: Ambient Effective Temperature and Attraction.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 15: 240-244.
Griffitt, W., and R. Veitch. 1971. “Hot and Crowded: Influences of Population Density and Temperature on Interpersonal Affective Behavior.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 17: 92-98.
Hall, Holly. 1989. “Weep and You Weep Alone.” Psychology Today, June 18.
Hall, K.R.L. 1967. “Social Interactions of the Adult Male and Adult Females of a Patas Monkey Group.” In Social Communication Among Primates, edited by Stuart A. Altmann. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Harris, Marvin. 1977. Cannibals and Kings: The Origins of Cultures. New York: Vintage Books: 104?108.
Harris, Marvin. 1978. Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture. New York: Vintage.
Heinrich, Bernd. 1995. “Why Ravens Share.” American Scientist, July-August.
Heinrich, B., and J.M. Marzluff. 1991. “Do Common Ravens Yell Because They Want to Attract Others?” Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 28: 13-21.
Henley, N.M. 1977. Body Politics: Power, Sex, and Nonverbal Communication. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Herskovits, Melville J. 1965. Economic Anthropology: The Economic Life of Primitive Peoples. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
Holden, Constance. 1995. “Sensing Music.” Science, October 13.
Hollander, E.P. 1958. “Conformity, Status, and Idiosyncrasy Credit.” Psychological Review 65: 117-127.
Holmes, Edward. 1979. The Life of Mozart, including His Correspondence. New York: Da Capo Press.
Horney, Julie, D. Wayne Osgood, and Ineke Haen Marshall. 1995. “Criminal Careers in the Short Term: Intra-Individual Variability in Crime and its Relation to Local Life’s Circumstances.” American Sociological Review, October.
House, James S., Karl R. Landis, and Debra Umberson. 1988. “Social Relationships and Health.” Science, July 29.
Hurwitz, J.I., A.F. Zander, and B. Hymovitch. 1953. “Some Effects of Power on the Relations among Group Members.” In Group Dynamics: Research and Theory, edited by Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin Zander. New York: Harper & Row.
Jarvinen, K. 1955. “Can Ward Rounds Be a Danger to Patients with Myocardial Infarction?” British Medical Journal 1 4909: 318-320.
Johnson, Allen W., and Timothy Earle. 1987. The Evolution of Human Societies: From Foraging Group to Agrarian State. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Johnson, Steven B., and Ronald C. Johnson. 1995. “Support and Conflict of Kinsmen: A Response to Hekala and Buell.” Ethology and Sociobiology 16: 83-89.
Jones, E.E., and S. Berglas. 1978. “Control of Attribution About the Self Through Self-handicapping Strategies: The Appeal of Alcohol and the Role of Underachievement.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 4: 200-206.
Jones, I.H., D.M. Stoddart, and J. Mallick. 1995. “Towards a Sociobiological Model of Depression.” British Journal of Psychiatry 166: 475-479.
Jones, W.H., S.A. Hobbs, and D. Hockenbury. 1981: “Loneliness and Social Skill Deficits.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42: 682-689.
Kalin, Ned H. 1993. “The Neurobiology of Fear.” Scientific American, May.
Kandel, Eric R., and Robert D. Hawkins. 1992. “The Biological Basis of Learning and Individuality.” Scientific American, September.
Kiely, Tom. 1990. “Rethinking Darwin.” Technology Review, May/June.
Kemper, Theodore D. 1990. Social Structure and Testosterone. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Kiritz, S.A. 1971. “Hand Movements and Clinical Ratings at Admission and Discharge for Hospitalized Psychiatric Patients.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of California, San Francisco. Cited in P. Ekman and W.V. Friesen, “Non-Verbal Behaviour and Psychopathology.” In The Psychology of Depression: Contemporary Theory and Research, edited by R. J. Friedman and M.M. Katz. New York: Wiley, 1974.
Konner, Melvin. 1990. Why the Reckless Survive…and Other Secrets of Human Nature. New York: Viking.
Korein, Julius. 1988. “Reality and the Brain: The Beginnings and Endings of the Human Being.” In The Reality Club, edited by John Brockman. New York: Lynx Books.
Kravitz, Edward. 1988. “Hormonal Control of Behavior: Amines and the Biasing of Behavioral Output in Lobsters.” Science, September 30.
Kroeber, A.L. 1952. The Nature of Culture. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lancaster, Jane B. 1968. “Primate Communication Systems and the Emergence of Human Language.” In Primates: Studies in Adaptation and Variability, edited by Phyllis C. Jay. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Lange, Justine H. 1996. “Dominance in Crayfish.” Science, April 5.
Lefcourt, Herbert M. 1982. Locus of Control: Current Trends in Theory and Research–Second Edition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Leonard, Christiana M., Linda J. Lombardino, Laurie R. Mercado, Samuel R. Browd, Joshua I. Breier, and O. Frank Agee. 1996. “Cerebral Asymmetry and Cognitive Development in Children: A Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study.” Psychological Science, March.
Lerner, Melvin J. 1980. The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
Levine, Daniel S. 1988. “Survival of the Synapses.” The Sciences, November/December.
Lipkin, Richard. 1995a. “Bacterial Chatter: How Patterns Reveal Clues about Bacteria’s Chemical Communication.” Science News, March 4.
Lipkin, Richard. 1995b. “Stressed Bacteria Spawn Elegant Colonies,” Science News, September 9.
Loftus, Elizabeth. 1980. Memory. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
Lucy, J. 1992. Grammatical Categories and Cognition: A Case Study of the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lynch, J.J. 1979. The Broken Heart: The Medical Consequences of Loneliness. New York: Basic Books.
Lynch, J.J., and I.F. McCarthy. 1967. “The Effect of Petting on a Classically Conditioned Emotional Response.” Behavioral Research and Therapy 5: 55-62.
Lynch, J.J., and I.F. McCarthy. 1969. “Social Responding in Dogs: Heart Rate Changes to a Person.” Psychophysiology 5: 389-393.
Martin, Walter T. 1968. “Theories of Variation In the Suicide Rate.” In Suicide, edited by Jack P. Gibbs. New York: Harper & Row.
Marzluff, John M., Bernd Heinrich, and Colleen S. Marzluff. 1966. “Raven Roosts Are Mobile Information Centers.” Animal Behaviour 51: 89-103.
Maslow, Abraham. 1973. “Dominance Feeling, Behaviour and Status.” In Dominance, Self?esteem, Self?actualization: Germinal Papers of A.H. Maslow, edited by R.J. Lowry. Monterey: Brooks/Cole.
McGinley, H., R. Lefevre, and P. McGinley. 1975. “The Influence of a Communicator’s Body Position on Opinion Change in Others.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 31: 686-690.
Mehrabian, Albert. 1981. Silent Messages: Implicit Communication of Emotions and Attitudes. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co.
Mehrabian, A., and N. Williams. 1969. “Non-Verbal Concomitants of Perceived and Intended Persuasiveness.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 13: 37-58.
Miller, William R., Robert A. Rosellini, and Martin E.P. Seligman. 1977. “Learned Helplessness and Depression.” In Psychopathology: Experimental Models, edited by Jack D. Maser and Martin E.P. Seligman. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Mostert, Noel. 1992. Frontiers: The Epic of South Africa’s Creation and the Tragedy of the Xhosa People. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Myers, D.G. 1993. The Pursuit of Happiness. New York: Avon Books.
Myers, David G., and Ed Diener. 1995. “Who Is Happy?” Psychological Science, 1995: 10-19.
Nadis, Steve. 1993. “Kid’s Brainpower: Use It or Lose It.” Technology Review, November/December.
Nisbett, R., and L. Ross. 1980. Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Paloutzian, R.F., and C.W. Ellison. 1982. “Loneliness, Spiritual Well-being and the Quality of Life.” In Loneliness: A Sourcebook of Current Theory, Research, and Therapy, edited by L.A. Peplau and D. Perlman. New York: Wiley.
Pascual-Leone, A., and F. Torres. 1993. “Plasticity of the Sensorimotor Cortex Representation of the Reading Finger in Braille Readers.” Brain 116: 39-52.
Pelletier, Kenneth R. 1983. “Stress: Etiology, Assessment, and Management in Holistic Medicine.” In Selye’s Guide to Stress Research: Volume 3, edited by Hans Selye. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Phillips, David P. 1979. “A Dip in Deaths Before Ceremonial Occasions: Some New Relationships Between Social Integration and Mortality.” American Journal of Sociology 84: 1150?1174.
Phillips, David P., and Judith Lu. 1980. “The Frequency of Suicides around Major Public Holidays: Some Surprising Findings.” Suicide and Life Threatening Behavior, Spring: 41?50.
Price, John. 1988. “Self?esteem.” The Lancet: 943?944.
Queller, David C., Joan E. Strassman, and Colin R. Hughes. 1988. “Genetic Relatedness in Colonies of Tropical Wasps with Multiple Queens.” Science 242: 1155-1157.
Raven, Bertram H., and Jeffrey Z. Rubin. 1983. Social Psychology. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Roberts, J.M. 1983. The Pelican History of the World. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.
Russ, R.C., J.A. Gold, and W.F. Stone. 1979. “Attraction to a Dissimilar Stranger as a Function of Level of Effectance Arousal.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 15: 459-466.
Sagan, Leonard A. 1988. “Family Ties: The Real Reason People Are Living Longer.” The Sciences, March/April.
Sahlins, Marshall D. 1986. “Poor Man, Rich Man, Big-Man, Chief.” In Conformity and Conflict: Readings in Cultural Anthropology, edited by James P. Spradley and David W. McCurdy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Sapolsky, Robert M. 1987. “Stress, Social Status, and Reproductive Physiology in Free-Living Baboons.” In Psychobiology of Reproductive Behavior: An Evolutionary Perspective, edited by David Crews. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Sapolsky, Robert. 1988. “Lessons of the Serengeti.” The Sciences, May/June.
Sapolsky, Robert M. 1990.”Stress in the Wild.” Scientific American, January.
Sarason, I.G., B.R. Sarason, and G.R. Pierce. 1988. “Social Support, Personality, and Health.” In Topics In Health Psychology, edited by S. Maes, C.D. Spielberger, P.B. Defares, and I.G. Sarason. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Scarr, Sandra. 1991. “Theoretical Issues in Investigating Intellectual Plasticity.” In Plasticity of Development, edited by S.E. Brauth, W.S. Hall, and R.J. Dooling. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Scherer, Klaus R., and Paul Ekman, eds. 1984. Approaches to Emotion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schluter, D. 1994. “Experimental Evidence that Competition Promotes Divergences in Adaptive Radiation.” Science, November 4.
Seeley, Thomas D. 1995. The Wisdom of the Hive: The Social Physiology of Honey Bee Colonies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Segall, M.H., D.T. Campbell, and M.J. Herskovitz. 1996. The Influence of Culture on Visual Perception. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Seligman, Martin E.P. 1990. Learned Optimism. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Severino, Sally K. 1983. “Renal Failure and Stress.” In Selye’s Guide to Stress Research, Volume 3, edited by Hans Selye. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Shapiro, James A. 1991. “Genomes as Smart Systems.” Unpublished.
Shapiro, James A. n.d. “Natural Genetic Engineering in Evolution.” Unpublished.
Shavit, Y. 1983. “Endogenous Opioids May Mediate the Effects of Stress on Tumor Growth and Immune Function.” In Proceedings of the Western Pharmacology Society 26: 53-56.
Shi-xu. 1995. “Cultural Perceptions: Exploiting the Unexpected of the Other.” Culture & Psychology 1: 315-342.
Shors, T.J., T.B. Seib, S. Levine, and R.F. Thompson. 1989. “Inescapable Versus Escapable Shock Modulates Long-Term Potentiation in the Rat Hippocampus.” Science, April 14.
Shweder, R.A., and R.G. D’Andrade. 1980. “The Systematic Distortion Hypothesis.” In Fallible Judgment in Behavioral Research. New Directions for Methodology of Social and Behavioral Science 4: 37-58.
Smillie, David. 1993. “Darwin’s Tangled Bank: The Role of Social Environments.” In Perspectives in Ethology, Volume 10: Behavior and Evolution, edited by P.P.G. Bateson, et. al. New York: Plenum Press.
Smillie David. 1995. “Darwin’s Two Paradigms: An ‘Opportunistic’ Approach to Group Selection Theory.” Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 18(3): 231-255.
Sober, Elliot, and David Sloan Wilson. 1998. Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stevens, Anthony, and John Price. 1996. Evolutionary Psychiatry: A New Beginning. London: Routledge Press.
Stolzenberg, Ross M., Mary Blair-Loy, and Linda J. Waite. 1995. “Religious Participation in Early Adulthood: Age and Family Life Cycle Effects on Church Membership.” American Sociological Review, February.
Stolzenburg, W. 1990. “Hypermutation: Evolutionary Fast Track?” Science News, June 23.
Strodtbeck, F.L., R.J. James, and C. Hawkins. 1957. “Social Status in Jury Deliberations.” American Sociological Review 22: 713-719.
Tavris, Carol. 1982. Anger: The Misunderstood Emotion. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Thayer, Robert E. 1989. The Biopsychology of Mood and Arousal. New York: Oxford University Press.
Thibaut, J.W., and H.W. Riecken. 1995. “Some Determinants and Consequences of the Perception of Social Causality.” Journal of Personality 24: 113-133.
Thomas, Earl, and Louise DeWald. 1977. “Experimental Neurosis: Neuropsychological Analysis.” In Psychopathology: Experimental Models, edited by Jack D. Maser and Martin E.P. Seligman. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Tiger, Lionel, and Robin Fox. 1971. The Imperial Animal. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Torrance, E.P.. 1954. “Some Consequences of Power Differences on Decision Making in Permanent and Temporary Three-Man Groups.” Research Studies (Washington State College) 22: 130-140.
Triandis, Harry C. 1993. “Collectivism and Individualism as Cultural Syndromes.” Cross-Cultural Research, August & November.
Veblen, Thorstein. 1934. The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions. New York: The Modern Library.
Veenhoven, R. 1988. “The Utility of Happiness.” Social Indicators Research 20: 333-354.
Verity, John W. 1995. “Computers: How the Numbers Crunched Cray Computer: A Shifting Market and Repeated Delays Drove It into Chapter 11.” Business Week, April 10.
Waller, M.J.C. 1995. “Darwinism and the Enemy Within.” Journal of Social and Evolutionary Systems 18(3): 217-229.
Ward, P., and A. Zahavi. 1973. “The Importance of Certain Assemblages of Birds as ‘Information-Centers’ for Food Finding.” Ibis 115(4): 517-534.
Washburn, S.L., and D.A. Hamburg. 1968. “Aggressive Behavior in Old World Monkeys and Apes,” in Primates: Studies in Adaptation and Variability. Edited by Phyllis C. Jay. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Weber, Bruce H., David J. Depew, and James D. Smith, editors. 1988. Entropy, Information, and Evolution: New Perspectives on Physical and Biological Evolution. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Weber, Max. 1968. Charisma and Institution Building. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Weiss, R. 1990. “Do-It-Yourself Evolution Appears Unlikely.” Science News, March 10.
Wells, E.L., and G. Marwell. 1976. Self?esteem: Its Conceptualization and Measurement. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Werker, Janet F. 1989. “Becoming a Native Listener.” American Scientist, January-February.
Werker, Janet F., and Renee N. Desjardins. 1995. “Listening to Speech in the First Year of Life: Experiential Influences on Phoneme Perception.” Current Directions in Psychological Science, June.
Werker, J.F., and J.E. Pegg. In press. “Infant speech perception and phonological acquisition.” In Phonological Development: Research, Models and Implications, edited by C.E. Ferguson, L. Menn, and C. Stoel-Gammon. Parkton, MD: York Press.
Werker, Janet F., and Richard C. Tees. 1992. “The Organization and Reorganization of Human Speech Perception.” Annual Review of Neuroscience 15: 377-402.
White, Randall. 1993. “The Dawn of Adornment.” Natural History, May.
Wright, Robert. 1995. The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology. New York: Vintage Books.
Young, Wise, June Kume-Kick, and Shlomo Constantini. 1994. “Glucorticoid Therapy of Spinal Chord Injury.” In Hormonal Restructuring of the Adult Brain: Basic and Clinical Perspective, edited by Victoria N. Luine and Cheryl F. Harding. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 743.
Zuckerman, Marvin. 1995. “Good and Bad Humors: Biochemical Bases of Personality and Its Disorders.” Psychological Science, November.
Zullow, H.M., and M. Seligman. 1990. “Pessimistic Rumination Predicts Defeat of Presidential Candidates: 1900-1984.” Psychological Inquiry 1.
The Evolution of Mass Mind From the Big Bang
to the 21st Century