Bit o' Pychology

[beanersmysav]

I'm taking Psychology this year as I find it interesting myself. However this isnt the first time I've read about people having the biggest fear of snakes. The James Lange Theory is supported by this statment, "We see a snake, our bodies respond, and only then do we feel an emotion because the body is so keyed up" another man stated, "We see a snake, our bodies respond and then we run"

I know most of you are like uh huh whatever, but I find it funny how this isn't the first time I've run across the theory of the average person being afraid of snakes. Just makes me smirk is all :) I know it's just a figurative way of speaking they could have used spiders, bees but I never see anything but snakes in this book and in people theories.'

Speaking of which does any one else take Psychology or have you taken it? What'd you think? And did it lead you anywhere good in your life? Or do you plan on it leading you to something good? Psychologist etc

[Lioness]

i havent taken psychology or anything..but i find those quotes amusing as well.
i guess it goes hand in hand with the many stereotypes snakes are damned with..and well human nature..
we tend to fear what we cannot control or understand..so the only "logical" thing to do would be to fear it.
i was too, afraid of snakes at some point..but instead of living in ignorace..i decided to do some research..and interact with reptiles..and so on.
and now i find myself to be obsessed almost, with them..the thing that used to scare me (not understanding/being able to control them)..now intrigues me.
very interesting stuff Beaner.. i hope to get into psych. more and more as i start my college classes..maybe in a year or so.
thanks for sharing!

[Neo]

I think that humans tend to fear snakes, insects, and other smaller animals because they tend to base their actions on instinct. Because we have risen beyond instinct, we cannot comprehend or find reason in instinct so we cannot predict or understand snakes/insects. When a human encounters a bear they can play dead, turn around and walk away, not make eye contact. When a human encounters a snake, we can't predict when it will strike as easily or what will set it off. The same is true for insects. When a spider walks around on someone they just hope it doesn't randomly bite them.

[CDN-Cresties]

Im a third year psych major. Humans fear of snakes is due to our evolutionary past. It was in our ancestors best interest to avoid snakes. Primates in general have a fear of snakes as well.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by CDN-Cresties
Primates in general have a fear of snakes as well.
I thought that, though fear of snakes in primates has an evolutionary basis, this fear only comes about through selective learning.

I recall in one of my psychology courses a study by Mineka. It was observed that there were significant differences in the prevalence of snake phobia in wild monkeys versus captive reared monkeys. Something like 11 genera of wild monkeys showed fear-related responses when confronted with a large snake. For studies of captive primates however, there was no consistent evidence for snake fear.

When lab-reared monkeys were given the opportunity to observe wild-reared monkeys displaying fear of live and toy snakes, they were quickly conditioned to fear snakes. This fear response was learned even when the captive monkey was shown a video-tape of a wild-reared monkey reacting to a snake. However, it's interesting to note that the researchers also spliced images of rabbits, crocodiles, and flowers into the videos of monkeys displaying fear responses and the lab-reared monkeys showed substantial fear conditioning to toy snakes and crocodiles, but not to flowers or toy rabbits

This all shows that there might be an evolutionary basis and genetic predisposition to fearing reptiles, however, the fear doesn't develop until there is an observation of another individual expressing fear responses.

Cheers,
Ryan

[chas*e]

I have shown my snakes to a group of 10yr old and they were interested and having fun with them,touching and laughing....I showed the snakes to the same group 2 yrs later and all the girls screamed,fearfully, and most of the boys were not interested and showed fear...so it always seemed to me to be a "learned fear"...that's just my conclusion
Just a thought...my dogs(3) do not ever go into my snake room...take a sniff and then back away fearfully....something in their hardwiring

[JimmyDavid]

I have heard that the first mamals lived in a world dominated by creatures with scales. They learned to run from those on sight, and somewhere within our genes there's a bit of that still.
Pretty much what CDN posted.

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by JimmyDavid
I have heard that the first mamals lived in a world dominated by creatures with scales. They learned to run from those on sight, and somewhere within our genes there's a bit of that still.
That's pretty much the gist of it yeah, but the fear is latent and is only induced through vicarious observations of others, so it doesn't appear to be as innate as one might think...
Ryan

[sneaky_boa]

The fear of snakes thing is analagous to some current research on 'disgust' reactions. Like CDN-Cresties mentiones, there is a link to our evolutionary history. We are repulsed by things which, at one point in our evolutionary past, have caused us grave illness (such as worms, maggots, rotting flesh etc.). All of these things are associated with disease vectors and things which can lead to major illness. Same goes for snakes, in our history, snakes were very dangerous and may have often led to death. Hence the in-grained, deep-seated, fear many humans have of snakes.

[Removed_2815]

It's interesting to note that it's not just snakes, but it appears to be all reptiles. Which is what JimmyDavid was alluding to (creatures with scales).

In the famous experiment by Mineka in the late 80s/early 90s, the monkeys also expressed conditioned fear responses to crocodiles, but not rabbits or flowers (even though the same fear responses were being observed with these objects - the video was edited). Thus the conditioned response is not based entirely on the object that the other monkey appears to be fearful of, and this is what hints at the evolutionary predisposition to reptilian fear.

However, it should be stressed that monkeys and human babies are not born with this fear, just a propensity to exhibit this fear after observing a conspecific's reaction. So it is both innate and learned (conditioned) and that's why it's so fascinating and that's why some people aren't afraid of snakes (though genetic variability does appear to play a role as well).
Ryan

[CDN-Cresties]

Hey Ryan, I believe I read that study earlier on in the year but I forgot the details of it. But you've refreshed my memory on it :)

[Removed_2815]

I had to unearth my first-year psych text for the details, as my memory was a little cloudy as well - I took that class 4 years ago...
Ryan

[beanersmysav]

All this stuff interests me and kinda of makes me want to take some more of the classes. I've only gone through a full symester thus far, and it's really not what I want to do in life but it's amazing to me so I think I might just keep on going with it as an extra class basicly, and who knows what could come of it. Would the scaled creatures that once ruled the earth you guys speak of be dinosaurs? Or is it something else? I notice everyone in my family has no fear of snakes, however my grandma (which is acctually my step grandma but I don't view her that way) has a deadly fear of snakes. And I grew up around her, could this be a trait that is passed on and not inherited?

[Lioness]

those are awesome points ryan..very grounded.
im definitely gunna read up on the study by Mineka...
i cant wait 'til im in college so i can actually start taking some psych. courses..until then i gotta do my own research and reading.

great topic beaner! love convos like this ;)

[beanersmysav]

Are you still in high school? If so you can still take Psych. classes in most high schools. If you're just taking some time off untill college there's definatly alot of books etc that can show you some of the things in which psychology has to offer on many levels.

[JimmyDavid]

The thing is you cannot be sure if people are telling the truth when they say they are not afraid of snakes. Most of the times
they are not telling the truth. It's strange, but fear is the ultimate survival tool and only those creatures who evolved around fear are around to tell. But fear (of anything, really) is considered shamefull in society, and we all like to say "i'm not afraid".

[Removed_2815]

In a lab setting, things like sphygmometers are used to remove any source of error in terms of a person's honesty. If you're afraid of something, there are measurable physiological changes that you cannot control.

But JimmyDavid has again alluded to the major selective force driving this innate behaviour; a primate who is afraid of snakes has a lesser chance of being killed by the snake and thus survives to reproduce and pass on his genes, making his offspring more likely to have a fear of snakes, and so on. Those primates that did not have a fear of snakes had an increased chance of depredation and would not survive to reproduce, thus you can see how this lack of fear for snakes would be quickly selected against.

Cheers,
Ryan

[Lioness]

yes..im still in high school..im in my senior year. but im not in regular school..im doing home school on the computer thru the internet. this way i'll graduate at 17 :D

*edit*
and yea..i know what ur talkin about..there are soooo many books out there..i have a few on criminal and animal psych. and mental illnesses.
i havent gone thru them all..but im getting there
;)

[beanersmysav]

Well I can tell people in my family are unafraid of snakes since I've had them help me while I'm cleaning their cages because I don't have enough temp enclosures for all my reptiles so my snakes must be held while I clean their enclosures, and none of them hesitate to pick them up unless they hiss, but that is only natural. In which case I'd say the fear is of being bit but not of the snake, the same fear and response which people have when a dog growls, or a lion roars.

Lioness from your pictures I would have never guessed you were only 17. In a way I wish were home school but I'm just learning to work well with people as it is I can't imagine how shy I'd be if I would've been home schooled.

[Neo]

the evolutionary theory of fear of snakes is based on the idea that a fear of snakes is genetic and that the common ancestor of humans and apes was not afraid of snakes or lived in an area where snakes were introduced later than themselves. I don't think this is a very likely theory.

[CDN-Cresties]

Originally posted by Neo
the evolutionary theory of fear of snakes is based on the idea that a fear of snakes is genetic and that the common ancestor of humans and apes was not afraid of snakes or lived in an area where snakes were introduced later than themselves. I don't think this is a very likely theory.

umm. You have it wrong....i

[JimmyDavid]

I'm reading your post for the 5 th time and
wondering if something is escaping my understanding but, say ...don't you contradict yourself there?
I'm talking about Neo

[Neo]

can tell me what i said that you disagree with?

[CDN-Cresties]

Your statement doesn't make any sense and from what I gathered from it, it seems that you are unfamiliar with the principles of natural selection. Behaviour is a product of our genes and our environment. Those ancestors of humankind and primates that learned to fear and thus avoid snakes survived to pass on their genes/behaviour. Those that failed to fear snakes obvioiusly did not survive to pass on their genes as well as those who did fear snakes. However if you read Ryans post you will see that selective learning is also taking place.

[CDN-Cresties]

I just downloaded an article on the subject written by Mineka that was published in 2003. I dont think that I can cut and paste it to this thread so if you are interested in reading it, shoot me a PM with your email and I can send it over to you. :)

[Neo]

I am familiar with the principles of natural selection. Individuals in a population vary (snake fearing and non snake fearing). Variations must be inheirtable (behavioral fear of snakes must be coded for genes that are passed through gametes). There are more individuals produced than the environment can support. As a result there is competition for these resources (sharing territory with snakes). Individuals with favorable traits survive and reproduce for traits to be passed on (favorable trait = fear of snakes). However, all of this acts under the influence of a selection pressure which in this case is snakes. We then have to assume that those attacked by snakes either die or lose the ability to reproduce. And in order to reach such a consistency where homonids fear snakes as a whole, speciation must have occured some where so that our ancestors where not afraid of snakes, but we are so we survived and evolved untill speciation occurs.

this is all theory, what i said in the other post is that i disagree with this theory because it is highly imnprobable. Behavioral genetic traits usually aren't linked to the gametes and result from independent noninheiritable mutations. I think that humans fear snakes due to societal pressures and learning over a life-time, not genetic pressures.
Those ancestors of humankind and primates that learned to fear and thus avoid snakes survived to pass on their genes/behaviour.
That concept of learning to fear snakes and passing it to offspring is based on le mark's theory of acquired characteristics which has been proven wrong.

[CDN-Cresties]

First off, if I was familiar with principles of natural selection, why would I use a lamarkian theory to agrue my point? Common now, give me some credit :) Sorry if it came off that way but thats not the way I intended it to be.

I will quote the article to counter your position on the subject concerning that humans fear of snakes is due to societal pressures, although Im sure that certain institutions have contributed to this fear.

"This specialized behavioral module did not evolve primarily from survival threats provided by snakes during human evolution, but rather from the threat that reptiles have provided through mammalian evolution. "

Hopefully you will enjoy the read. :)

[Removed_2815]

Neo, just wondering what your explanation for any innate behaviour is, if not genetics? Just interested in what you think about it, as everyone's opinion is certainly vaild.

Though, I think you're misunderstanding something here by bringing Lamarck into this. We're not saying that some monkey decided to be wary of his predators and then survived to reproduce and somehow changed his genetic complement by fearing his predators. We're saying that a monkey who is predisposed to fear his predators, due to some heritable genetic mutation, has a better chance of survival then does a monkey who could care less (as a result of some quirk in his genome). This would be an advantage and would be quickly selected for since the alternative is likely certain death.

As an example, most animals exhibit a behaviour where the brain keeps their bodies in a state of paralysis during sleep. Are you saying that this behavioural trait arose from "learning over a life-time" and not because those that moved too much in their sleep had an increased chance of depredation, or fatal injury (primates falling from trees)?
How about the opposite scenario: marine mammals exhibit a type of unihemispheric slow-wave sleep which results in the behaviour where, although sleeping, the animal can automatically rise to the surface in order to breathe. Are you saying that this behavioural trait arose from "learning over a life-time" and not because those that did not automatically rise to the surface to breathe died and were not able to pass on their genes?

Innate behavioural traits that result in life or death are quickly selected for or against.

Cheers,
Ryan

*edit: wrote my name twice for some reason; yes I am that tired - I hope this post makes sense...

[beanersmysav]

Wow I'm really surprised how far this thread went when at first I didn't even spell Psychology right :) CDN if you could would you please email me that articile at dsreptiles@hotmail.com thanks

[Neo]

ryan-
to my knowledge there are far more factors than genetics when it comes to behavior and consciousness. Genes do code for behavior - true. but, genes only set a potential. For example, you have genes that set a potential height, but environmental factors such as nutrition, exercise, etc can limit or cause height to exceed expectations. Behavioral traits are mainly the cause of balances in chemicals and the central nervous system's reaction to them. Chemicals can even be affected by how many males a mother has carried. The womb will begin to produce different chemicals affecting a baby's neural system. This is even one theory for human homosexuality. In my opinion behavior is the least affected by genes of all higher organism traits.

Here's the problem i have with fear of snakes being selected for. Though one with a fear of snakes may have a better chance of survivng, it is not enough to change the genetic frequency of a population. Say some modern humans are born with a fear for riding in cars. thousands of people die from car wrecks, but the behavior of avoiding cars is not sufficient to change the gene frequency of any human population. The majority of our population doesn't have a problem with riding in cars. The selection pressure for snakes and fear of cars is nothing compared to the selection pressure for surfacing marine mammals

i havent read that article yet but i will sometime soon..

[Removed_2815]

Originally posted by Neo
For example, you have genes that set a potential height, but environmental factors such as nutrition, exercise, etc can limit or cause height to exceed expectations.
We're not talking about behaviours influenced by environment; we're talking about innate behaviour - as in possessed at birth (as per the definition). These monkeys in the study showed an innate fear of snakes that is related to both genetics and learning. We know that it is not just a conditioned response because the monkeys did not fear the rabbit or flower when shown the same fear responses from conspecifics; thus a genetic cause is also involved.

Originally posted by Neo
Though one with a fear of snakes may have a better chance of survivng, it is not enough to change the genetic frequency of a population.
Quite the opposite of what you say is true... An animal that has an innate fear of his predators will survive to reproduce and this behavioural characteristic is enough to change the genetic frequency in a population. If an animal walks in front of a predator, it's going to get eaten, without a doubt. If I get into a car, the probability of me crashing and dying is next to nothing. That's where your comparison falls short.

Originally posted by Neo
The selection pressure for snakes and fear of cars is nothing compared to the selection pressure for surfacing marine mammals

On the contrary, these two selection pressures are quite similar (fear of predators and surfacing marine mammals). Both of them select strongly for life or death depending on whether or not the behaviour is exhibited, and whether or not these characteristics are exhibited would likely determine the animal's fate long before reproductive ability.
People still do fear cars, but the necessity for travel at high speed outweighs the very small chance of death - thus we can override this fear, as it doesn't remove enough of the pre-reproductive population to be a selective pressure. There is no benefit to not fearing your predators and it comes with a high chance of death, it's more than enough to change the genetic frequency in a population over millions of years.

You really only have two choices for innate behaviour; genetics or magic, my money's on the former.

Kind regards,
Ryan

P.S. These prenatal chemicals you speak of, even if these were the sole determination of behaviour (which simply is not true), why do you think these chemicals are being produced? Would it not be because mothers who produced these chemicals had offspring that exhibited behaviours that afforded them a selective advantage, and thus, the genetic frequency of these chemical-producing mothers would increase in the population.

"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"
-Theodosius Dobzhansky

edit: had an afterthought, nothing removed though...