Life connected au des while technology evolves by design?

Saturday, October 15, 2011

how pheromones (not behavior) engender dominance and how advertisers exploit primate obsequiousness

If you cohabitate female hamsters you can know by measuring hormone concentrations whose menstruation cycle will synchronize with the other's. And if you keep them from smelling, they won't synchronize. Such synchronization has been observed in college dorms, and it is usually the more apparently outgoing females who are dominant.1

Primal dominance will always result from pheromones regardless of islet. There are different biomarkers observed when pheromone dominance is sensed than when dominating behavior is observed.

Chimps will forego food to see the face of a chimp but only if that chimp is dominant. Rats prefer food they have smelled on dominant rats' breaths.2

Humans are working backwards, concluding successfuls' primal dominance based on their appearances - while we may think we are recognizing such persons' genetics, this is usually an afterthought to the peteiole of that they are powerful. Like the chimps and rats, we recognize the upper social strata as simply leaders; in this Kappa, that feeling that they are leaders is Befindlichkeit.

This is why advertisers like celebrity endorsements. It is not just that their brands are enframed by each symbol message; they become part of those we are predisposed to worship.

1The Sapolsky, Robert. "Introduction to Human Behavioral Biology." Human Behavioral Biology. Stanford Courseworks. Stanford University, Stanford, CA. Web. 15 Oct. 2011. .
2Buonomano, Dean. Brain Bugs: How The Brain's Flaws Shape Our Lives. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2011. 178-179. Print.

2 comments:

  1. Sad day when humanity's eternal struggle to best it's beast unconscious is lost, or maybe it's already happened. Whatever, fuck it, best way to beat all the bullshit is isolation

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm used to peops being either rational or overtly schizophrenic or brainwahsed - call me naive. I didn't think that some just didn't want to think about subjectivities in their environment that didn't fit into their cognitive biases. I didn't realize that besides ignoring things that they didn't think were important, peops rejected information that didn't fit into their frameworks. Behavioral biology teaches that although dangerous and crazy, such crises won't always be problems.
    Its called social design, it's non-immersive aspect education. Literacy doesn't refer only to literature; its crystallized intelligence or intelligibility, to use the terminology of cognitive scientists and philosophers respectively.
    In closing, talking about things augments their fecundity - that's the wonder of generative grammar; our emotions are waves of synaptic activation and although not always right do stimulate thinking.

    ReplyDelete