All the world’s a sta… lab?

Over dessert with a friend a few weeks ago, I was accused of “bringing my work home” to the extent that I live my life in accordance with the scientific method. While at first I was slightly wounded, I realized that I do in fact, do this- and furthermore, that it suits me just fine. By this I mean that ideally, people define their terms so that communication is not hampered by misunderstandings; ideas are shared freely and without criticism until trial and scrutiny provide grounds for appraisal; conclusions are based on personal experience, observation and “data” collected with an open mind and objective eye as free as possible from bias- and always taking into account and compensating for potential sources of prejudice. Theories and opinions are always open to revision as life testifies against them, or new evidence comes to light; and (ideally) mistakes are embraced for the lessons they reveal and behaviour is adapted accordingly. Although some may argue otherwise, I don’t think this makes me mechanical, cold, or lacking in emotion or passion; rather it allows me to focus my energy and enthusiasm on worthy causes and effectively steer myself along a fruitful path.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what makes a successful person. Not only in the achievement distinction, but the social sphere as well. What draws the line between someone who is likeable, and appreciated, and another who is cherished and held in high esteem by a wide and diverse demographic? Is it a tangible trait that separates the people who leave a lasting impression, and those who flit in and out of our lives leaving behind merely traces of memories? What distinguishes those who turn their dreams into reality, and stretch the boundaries of knowledge and accomplishment?

Facebook and social evolution

Disclaimer: I’m not sure if any of this really makes any sense… it’s mostly a lot of questions.

What is it that makes use human? Is it our minds? An imagination? The fact that we build complex tools to help us live day to day lives? Is it language? Our ability to plan ahead? We have big brains, but does that make us smart? There are undoubtedly many things that make humans unique among animals, things that most believe put us at the “top of the food chain”. We dream up elaborate plans and alternate universes, and share these experiences and ideas with large groups of others. Our ability to maintain large social networks is another hallmark of Homo sapiens sapiens and we’ve come so far as to create an entire virtual world, one where people can interact in real time with others across the globe by sharing photos, messages and “pokes”.

In our attempt to measure what it is that makes us human and explain how we’ve come as far as we have in the evolutionary journey, an interesting correlation has been noted that relates neo-cortical size to group size. This indicates to researchers in London that it is our complex brains that have allowed us to develop complex societies. Among primates, group size tends to be related to the amount of social grooming that occurs; that is, chimps spend time picking insects from each others fur, and stroking each other to build social bonds and expand their network of family and friends. It has been suggested that the evolution of large groups in the human lineage depended on a more efficient means of social bonding; that to spend that much one-on-one time with everyone in a network the size we choose to maintain would leave no time for defending ourselves against predators, or finding food and shelter. It has further been suggested that language is uniquely equipped to fill this role; that chit-chat and gossip have taken the place of physical social bonding, and we can now bring ourselves up to speed on the behavioural characteristics of those around us by spending 60% of our time talking about relationships and personal experiences. Language is the new social grooming. Turns out gossip and seemingly meaningless small-talk has it’s place after all!

The advent of the internet has allowed us to broaden the scope of these networks even more, keeping in touch with people miles away through e-mail, instant messaging and personal webpages. Digital news feeds that are updated constantly keep the world up to date, and everyone can put their own individual spin on current events by updating their own blogs, or myspace pages. Facebook seems to be the new time-saver for gauging behavioural characteristics and keeping in touch across distance, and even with those close to home. Everyone we know whether they’re merely acquaintances or life-long friends are on an even playing field in this new digital medium, and global networks grow ever more complex.

So, what do we do when there isn’t enough time in a day to do everything we need to do to survive and catch up on the gossip and current events milling about our social networks using “conventional” means like a phone call, or personal e-mail? We check our facebook news feed, and write a witty message on friends’ walls to keep stroking each others egos and making ourselves and others feel popular and wanted. What used to be necessary for forming social bonds is now reserved for the most intimate of relationships, and even grazing the arm of a stranger on the subway or in a crowded elevator feels somewhat risque. Have our social networks grown so large that a mere phone call or personal e-mail costs too much precious time that we’ve developed expansive and seemingly detailed tools like Facebook and MySpace to replace face-to-face interaction?

Empirical?

After a rather unproductive day I decided to go out to get some fresh air, and caffeine before settleing down to get some serious work done on a few assignments. 9pm was probably not the most advisable hour to be ordering a triple grande white mocha, but it did have the desired effect of getting my brain working again. Lately whenever I get a beverage from Starbucks, the same “The Way I See It” quote has been featured on the side of my cup, however today’s was new. Here is what my cup says:

“A very bad (and all too common) way
to misread a newspaper: To see
whatever suports your point of view
as fact, and anything that contradicts
your point of view as bias.”

-Daniel Okrent
Ombudsman

Upon reading it, I realize that this faux-pas applies to much more than reading the newspaper. This year especially, I’ve found fault with quite a few scholars and the work they publish, and this very Monday afternoon I found myself getting all riled up in a discussion with a professor and several fellow students in a seminar course about the validity of evidence that had been cited in a paper published in a fairly prestigious scientific journal. It seems surprisingly common in multiple disciplines these days for researchers to conveniently overlook outlying values, or evidence that doesn’t support their hypothesis claiming they’re merely an anomaly or unique case; or choosing statistical tests in such a way that “supports their theory” at first glance, when really it was never the appropriate test to be using in the first place!