Well that (if the LA Times got it right) is a very odd fact. Why would we be programmed to make babies when we are under stress as opposed to when we are fat and content? The standard evolutionary psychology line says that any innate response such as this has to have conferred some advantage on our pre-human ancestors. The only thing that I can think of is that stress might be caused by competition from some other tribe or another species and it might be advantageous in such situations to increase the number of "soldiers." However, given how long it takes humans to grow to the point that they are useful for such purposes, and given how significant a drain young are on resources, it really seems that such an impulse would be counter productive. Now if this was a grief response this might be more understandable. It would make sense that you might want to replace lost population, but stress seems awfully non-specific. Perhaps our emotional/behavioral systems simply aren't sophis! ticated enough to parse out different types of arousal, but if that is true that should throw a lot of suspicion on the whole enterprise of evolutionary psychology since the mechanisms that are being posited concerning sexuality and social interaction are usually much more highly nuanced than this. - - Bill Dickens
William T. Dickens The Brookings Institution 1775 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 797-6113 FAX: (202) 797-6181 E-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] AOL IM: wtdickens >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 10/01/01 12:21PM >>> An article in the LA Times discusses how high levels of stress change hormonal balances in the body causing, ahem, sexual arousal during times of stress. I can easily imagine a similar effect for just plain happiness. Fabio On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Robin Hanson wrote: > The Washington Post had two interesting articles yesterday about the > recent disaster changed public opinion, on happiness and on trust. > > On happiness, when asked last weekend to rate the overall quality of > their lives on a seven point scale, more than 44% picked the highest > rating. In June that was 30%, and in December 1999 it was 31%. This > seems to me to be an enormous problem for those who want to measure > economic policies by how much they increase reported happiness. Was > this disaster good for the nation because it made people happier?! > > On trust, when asked Sept 25-27, 64% of Americans now trust the > federal government nearly always or most of the time to do what is > right, more than double the percentage who said so in April 2000, and > the highest it has been for three decades. If we interpret this to > be a factual estimate by those questioned, rather than a statement > of values, this seems very hard to square with rationality. What > evidence of federal behavior in the last two weeks could possibly > be the basis for this huge change in opinion? The big info has to > be that the disaster was allowed to occur, and most federal action > since then has been a promises to do useful things, rather than > doing anything demonstrably useful. This seems to me a clear case > of wishful thinking, where people believe what they want to be true. > > > Robin Hanson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hanson.gmu.edu > Asst. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > MSN 1D3, Carow Hall, Fairfax VA 22030-4444 > 703-993-2326 FAX: 703-993-2323 >
