The Magic of Evolution in the Big Meaning of Kissing - How Many Friends Do You Need

This book is written by Robin Dunbar, after whom the Dunbar Numbers are named. Dunbar, after whom the Dunbar Number is named.

Dunbar's research found that the number of social relationships a human can have is around 150. Why?

On the one hand, there is empirical evidence. For example, survey data on more than 20 tribal societies show that the average size of these clan groups was 153. Neolithic villages in the Middle East around 6000 BC seem to have been between 120-150 people; the traditional size of villages in England in the 11th century was also around 150 people; the average size of villages in England in the 18th century was also 160 people; and corporate enterprises in modern societies with fewer than 150 people can be efficiently run on the basis of good interpersonal relationships. In modern armies, the smallest independent unit is the company, which typically totals around 130-150 men, and even the most basic combat unit of the Roman army (the infantry squadron or detachment) during the Roman **** and state period was of a similar size, roughly around 130 men.

On the other hand, the human brain, constrained by information about the quality of social relationships, can only support us having 150 friends. Of these, the 3-5 people we are closest to are contacted at least once a week; the 15 people who are slightly more distant are contacted roughly once a month; and the large circle of 150 people are contacted roughly once a year.

So there seems to be a limit to the number of people we can spend time with at a given level of closeness. There are only so many seats in the tightest social circle, and if someone you don't know suddenly becomes the most important person in your life, there's bound to be someone who gets squeezed into the next slightly larger concentric circle to make way for her/him.
When a boy falls in love with a girl, one of the boy's five closest friends must give way.

The human brain is only about 2% of the body's total weight and consumes 20% of the body's total energy intake. It seems that the human brain is a super-luxury item. But we know that evolution is extremely energy-efficient, and at such a large cost, the brain has to be worth its weight in gold.

The study found that pair-bonding seems to be the real source of brain power consumption. In most birds and mammals, the species with the largest brain-to-body ratios happen to be monogamous species - monogamous for long periods of time. Species that live in groups in indistinguishable flocks or herds, mating indiscriminately and randomly without selection, have much smaller brains.

One possible reason for this is that long-term monogamy entails extraordinary risks. A poor choice of mate - should one choose a mate who is unproductive, lazy, or prone to infidelity - directly threatens its ability to contribute to the species' gene pool. It follows that having a big enough brain at any cost to enable an animal to recognize at a glance who is worth committing to for the rest of its life is exceptionally important; another is that long-term coupledom also requires a great deal of flexibility and sophistication to be able to effectively anticipate and deal with all the potential arguments and disagreements for the rest of its life, and to be better able to raise its offspring.

So, if you're still overwhelmed by your spouse's bad behavior and screaming about how a woman's heart is like a needle, take solace in the fact that, thanks to evolution, you have one of nature's crowning glories, the brain, which allows you to take on adversity and rise to the occasion, and then it's smooth sailing.

Women always seem to have a mysterious sense of whether your claims about where you've been all night are true or false.

The thing is, about 1/3 of women can see the 4 basic colors, while men can only see the standard 3 basic colors (red, blue, and green), and some women can even see all 5 colors.

Why? Because the genes that process color are located on the X chromosome, and males have only one X chromosome (inherited from their mother), while females have two X chromosomes (one from each parent). When a small mutation occurs in the gene that codes for the color-sensitive pigment in the retina, the chromaticity that males get from their only X chromosome is the chromaticity that they are able to see, whereas females, because they have two X chromosomes, are able to see a slightly different shade of red or green. If both chromosomes are active during the development of the eye, the cone cells of these females can encode two color sensitivities, thus adding another color dimension, and in some cases even 2 more - blue, red, another shade of red, green, and another shade of green, for a total of *** able to see 5 basic colors.

In other words, women are able to discern more subtle changes in the color of their partner's face that men think are imperceptible. When something makes a man's face change, they catch it right away.

The famous linguist Steven Pinker once said that music is the most important thing in the world.

The famous linguist Steven Pinker once said that music is "the luxury of seduction in chemistry".

But what makes a species willing to invest so much time and money in evolution can never be a trivial by-product of evolution. Once an animal spends a lot of time and energy on something, it's usually because that thing is important in a fundamental biological sense.

One idea, originally put forward by Darwin himself, was that music was a kind of "sexual advertisement", largely due to the ability of some birds to sing. The ability to use your singing skills to create complex melodies is a clear demonstration of the qualities in your genes that will attract a potential mate. Evolutionary psychologist Jeffrey Miller has found that jazz musicians, jazz musicians, and jazz musicians can be very attractive to potential mates. Miller found that jazz musicians, pop musicians, and classical composers were always most productive during the most sexually active phases of their lives.

One of the author's students, Kostas Kaskatis, specialized in the study of jazz musicians. Kaskatis, a student of the author's, specialized in studying the compositions of 19th century European classical composers (from Beethoven to Mahler), as well as 1960s retro-rock singers. He found that the number of new compositions by these composers and singers tended to drop dramatically after they married, but then rise again once they separated or divorced from their wives and found new spouses again. Once they find a new spouse ...... pair, the number of works drops again.

It seems that getting married drains talent, so don't get married if you want to be famous.

Of course, there's also the idea that music can be a trigger for the body to release hormones like endorphins, which bring a sense of happiness and fulfillment and are essential for social bonding. So we see that people have always used singing and dancing to create a sense of belonging or community, which is essential for building cohesion in smaller human societies. The author wrote this book at a time when the magical activity that flooded the land of the gods had not yet come into being, a view that would be reinforced by asking him to visit a random neighborhood at dusk and experience a square dance in full swing.

Of course, Darwin wasn't necessarily wrong. Sexual selection may have ulterior motives for utilizing certain skills and emotions necessary for musical composition that originally evolved for a whole different purpose. Fundamentally, though, the true origin and function of music may also be to create connections between social groups. That may also be the origin of language. Shouldn't something so constructive as figuring out the true function of music be carried out at high frequency.

With a little attention, it's easy to see that men and women tend to favor very different topics of conversation. Men like to talk about themselves and women like to talk about others.

The primary purpose of men's conversations seems to be to promote themselves. They either talk about themselves or about something they think they know a lot about. It's a kind of audible peacock's tail (the peacock's tail was Darwin's bugbear for many years, because from a survival point of view the peacock's tail was a liability, but why did evolution retain it? Later, his old man figured out that the seemingly burdensome tail is actually a strong signal that I have such a burdensome still live well, at the same time, the more brightly colored and shiny tail the more the health of the individual).

That said, male peacocks hang out in their mating areas and are busy showing off their beautifully colorful tails whenever they see a female peacock in sight. The females wander among the males to see which one has the most colorful waving tail and choose it as their mate. Humans, on the other hand, seem to exercise this process entirely through language. Just as the male peacock suddenly opens his screen at the sight of a female peacock, the man switches his conversation to propaganda mode as soon as he sees a woman present.

You can listen carefully to a man's conversation when only other men are present and compare it to the same man's conversation when a woman is present. His style of conversation changes dramatically when there's a woman present, and he's more eager to show off and add a bit of sass to the conversation, prompting laughter from those around him. But in addition, you'll hear more aggressive conversations about professional topics and other demonstrations of a man's "knowledge", making the conversation competitive, a man's statement.

Women's conversations are primarily in the service of their social networks, which are constantly evolving as they build and maintain a complex web of social relationships. It's important to always be aware of what other people are doing, and it also implies that you're a member of a certain clique that people want to talk to you about. This isn't just boring talk, it's at the heart of the social carousel, the foundation on which society itself is built and operates.

Essentially, the conversation is different simply because men and women play different roles in social life.

The length of pregnancy in all mammals is determined by the size of the brain. The rate of growth of brain tissue seems to be predetermined, so that if a larger brain is desired, the gestation period can only be made longer so that the brain grows longer. As a result, species with larger brains have long gestation periods.

The problem with humans is precisely that we have larger brains. Based on the relationship between brain size and gestation length in other mammals, the human gestation period would be 21 months. But we all know that the human gestation period is only 9 months.

The reason for this is simple: Millions of years before our ancestors thought it would be useful to grow larger brains, they thought it would be more useful to walk upright. This led humans to evolve a very unique bowl-shaped pelvis, very different from the elongated pelvis of other monkeys and apes. With a bowl-shaped pelvis, we are better able to keep our body and head in balance, especially since we have a larger protruding brain. Even though the modern human pelvis has been evolving for nearly 2 million years, evolution still can't be perfectly engineered.

One of the sacrifices humans have had to make in order to walk large distances over long distances is that our lower backs have become weak. And the bowl-shaped pelvis has made the birth canal much narrower, with the result that ...... births leave mothers in tears.

At this point, our options are extremely limited. Of course, we could go back the way we came and give up on the stupid idea of having a bigger brain. That would mean we'd be at an evolutionary impasse, staying put. Because of climate change, the world changed so radically at that time that the consequence of staying put was extinction. In order to continue to survive, we had to change, to go out and adapt to new environments. And in new environments, a bigger brain is critical. So, the lesser of two evils, evolution ultimately chose to make women suffer, as well as having babies born prematurely.

After appreciating evolution's compromises, let's look at the wonders of evolution. When you first became a father, were you particularly concerned about which parts of your child looked like you, and for a man, it's very important that it's not his own. Like, right? Don't look, you just pull a man, all like.

By and large, human babies look pretty much the same, so much so, in fact, that all human babies start out with blue eyes and then turn brown or green. Why? Because a woman must have a man's cooperation in caring for her child, and in order to get a man to die willingly, you must convince him that it is his child.

At this point the baby is faced with two choices on its evolutionary path: either to look like the father, to look exactly like him in order to be good, or to not look like any father at all. As long as the father really is the child's father, the first choice is not much of a problem, but as we know that this human thing is complicated, and that roughly that many babies are not biological (it was said earlier that it was about 15%), then the second choice might be a little wiser. Whose baby is this? Let the dads guess. It's all up to the imagination. If you look hard enough, you'll always find a few things that look like the king next door.

Next, if your in-laws and wife keep saying that the baby looks like you, you need to be more careful.

4 out of 5 pregnant women experience vomiting or anorexia in the first 3 months of pregnancy. At first, doctors thought that morning sickness was just an unwelcome side effect of the hormonal changes that occur in pregnant women during pregnancy, and that surely something should be done to eliminate it. So phthalaminopiperidone was developed to alleviate the symptoms, resulting in tens of thousands of extremely rare cases of seal limb malformations worldwide in just a few years in the 1960s.

In fact, it seems that morning sickness in pregnant women is supposed to be good for the body - or at least the baby. Women who experience nausea in the first trimester of pregnancy are far less likely to lose their children to spontaneous miscarriage, and may give birth to larger, more beautiful children.

In fact, many of the foods we eat every day are mildly toxic, and sometimes simply poisonous, and we often can't resist the temptation of delicious flavors or obsess over the stimulation they bring in one way or another - things like alcohol, coffee, and chili peppers. If consumed in excess, many of these foods can be carcinogenic, and many are teratogens.

Adults are tolerant of these toxins because the smaller doses we consume are spread out among our relatively large bodies, where the toxins can be diluted. However, the fetus is so small that even a small dose of one of these toxins through the mother can have extremely harmful consequences. In fact, morning sickness is the child's way of trying to prevent the mother from ingesting too much food that is not good for the fetus.

This is why you shouldn't take medication for minor health problems, because you're suppressing the body's normal response, and you're hurting the body. For example, if you have a cold or flu, it's a cyclical disease, and you don't need to take any medication to get rid of it, so you'll have to take a pill to get rid of it.





Data Ready
Data Ready is a video ready to go.

Arnold Schumacher of the University of Hamburg, Germany, found that successful people are more likely to have a problem with the way they look. Schumacher's research found that successful people tend to look taller than they actually are. He found that across industries, from business executives and nurses to craftsmen such as carpenters, those higher up the career ladder were indeed much taller than those occupying lower positions on the career ladder, even when age differences were taken into account.

For example, in a sample of German business managers, the average height of senior executives was 5 centimeters taller than those in lower positions, and this was true for both men and women, regardless of their class origins and educational backgrounds. Another fact is that since George Washington's ascension to the presidency of the United States, the average height of senior executives has been 5 centimeters higher. Washington's rise to the presidency of the United States, it was found that in 71% of US presidential elections, the taller of the two finalists won the election.

Elizabeth Hill of Tulane University, Elizabeth Hill of Furman University, and John Kennedy of the University of California, Berkeley. Hill of Tulane University, Elaine Knox of Furman University, and others have found that people are more likely to be taller. Knox and others have found that people's ability to attract the attention of others depends largely on what they wear. In the experiment, they asked a person to wear designer clothes, wear expensive jewelry, and then asked him or her to wear a general line, the former than the latter appear to be a higher social status, but also more attractive.

Why do height and appearance play such an important role? Here's the truth: we're always trying to look for clues that identify successful people. After all, if you can afford nice new clothes, you can't afford to look bad. Height and good looks (facial symmetry), on the other hand, indicate that even with all the vagaries of life - from illness to trauma to starvation and long periods of growth and development - a person can still end up with a tall, symmetrical body, which is a reflection of his or her genetic excellence.

Freud and his ilk insisted that kissing simply reflected a desire to return to infancy, and that it evoked pleasant memories of sucking on breast milk that are y embedded in our minds. Another theory is that kissing is a form of courtship feeding, a habit widely practiced by insects and certain birds.

In fact, kissing may well be a way to test the genetic makeup of a prospective mate. Each person has a unique immune system, and kissing depends largely on a small cluster of genes known as the Major Histocompatibility Complex, or MHC, which determines the range of foreign bodies (from pollen to viruses to bacteria) that an individual's body is able to recognize and resist when they invade. This set of genes is particularly susceptible to mutation so that we can adapt to the threats posed to us by a tiny, ever-mutating world where parasites are constantly invading our bodies and threatening our very existence, and the MHC genes also determine our body odor, as it has been shown that a person's natural body odor is intimately linked to his or her immune system.

A long series of studies have shown that people prefer to bond with people who have complementary MHC genes to their own. The reason is simple. If your spouse has the same immune response as you, the children you have are bound to have limited immunity. But if your spouse's immune system is complementary to yours, then the children you have will have immunity that can fight off more diseases. This reasoning is somewhat similar to not being able to marry close relatives.

So how do you recognize when a prospective spouse's immune response is exactly complementary to yours? Smell is one way to recognize it, and smells can easily be obscured by a lot of dust and bacteria. So the best way is to get closer and "lick" the person's body odor.

So when you kiss someone for the first time in the future, you'll know that they're trying to test your genes for God's sake.

The study found that men were much more likely than anyone else to rescue (or try to rescue) young women they weren't related to, while women were significantly more likely to rescue children they were related to. In other words, for women, acts of heroism are necessarily associated with devotion to their own children, whereas for men, those acts seem to be more about fighting for a choice of spouse.

The authors and their students found that in a large number of British newspaper stories about people trying to help others in emergencies, almost all of the rescuers were men, the rescuers were generally from lower socioeconomic classes, and men from more affluent segments of society seldom pretended to be heroes. A very similar trend can be seen in the historic Cheyenne tribe of Indians in North America. demographic records from the late 1800s show that almost all war chiefs were orphans, or the sons of lower-ranking members of the tribe, and that because of their lower social status, these men were very unlikely to find wives. But successful war chiefs-that is, those who were able to leave the battlefield with honor after a long time and rejoin normal society-were very popular. Generally speaking, they produce more children than the Peace Chiefs, even though they have had mates for a much shorter period of time.

Adventurers are more successful at reproducing offspring, and those who are more willing to take risks clearly have more children than those who are not. This is despite the fact that there is no clear explanation for this phenomenon (whether more adventurous people are more likely to have unprotected sex, or whether they are simply more able to attract women). In any case, men who are willing to take risks contribute more to the next generation of the gene pool.

In today's overly visual world, we often forget the importance of smell. In fact, we use our sense of smell on more occasions than we think - especially when choosing a mate.

As far back as the 1960s, mischievous experimenters sprayed cubicles in men's and women's public*** bathrooms with androstenone (a member of the steroid family, a natural byproduct of testosterone, the so-called male hormone). a natural byproduct of testosterone - the so-called androgen; it's this substance that is responsible for the slightly musty smell men often get after shaving if they don't use aftershave), and then watched to see how people reacted.

What they found was that men didn't go into stalls that were "sprayed with androstenedione" - and even when they did, they were usually quick to exit and find a stall that didn't smell like it. Women, on the other hand, went into the bathroom and headed straight for the androstenedione-sprayed stalls.

Later, they did some tests when the women went on flash dates, where 1/3 of the women smelled of androstenedienone and clove oil (the clove oil was used to mask the odor of the androstenedienone, thus controlling the effect of the other odors), another 1/3 smelled only of clove oil, and the remaining 1/3 were sprayed with only colorless, odorless water. The results of the experiment were amazing. Not only did the women sprayed with androstenedienone rate the men they met on flash dates as more attractive than the other two groups of women, they were also much more likely to invite them to meet again.

In a sense, androstenedienone acts on some mechanism buried deep in our brains that makes us think more romantically than realistically about the pugilist standing in front of us.

Before you meet someone for the first time, remember to take an elemental tester with you.

Scientists have found a strong correlation between the pressin receptor gene and marital stability in men. One particular locus, RS3, varies widely across individuals and can be a function of how well a man scores on the Relationship Strength Score, which measures his marital fidelity. Of the 11 different genetic variants occurring at this locus, one in particular (allele 334) showed the strongest effect.

Men with one or two copies of allele 334 (in other words, one from one parent or one from each parent) scored lower on the relationship strength scale than men with any combination of the other 10 alleles. They were also more likely to live with their spouse rather than marry, suggesting that their marital fidelity was not as strong.

One-third of the men with two copies of the 334 gene reported that they had experienced a marital crisis in the past year, compared with 16 percent of those with only one copy of the 334 gene and 15 percent of those with no allele 334 at all. This was despite the fact that all the men in the sample had been in a stable relationship with their spouse for at least 5 years and had at least 1 child with their spouse.

In this sample of Swedes, about 4% of the men had two copies of the gene for allele 334, and 36% had only one copy, so that almost 2/3 of the men had no copy of the gene, and thus were likely to be good monogamous partners. A large sample survey in Quebec found similar proportions: i.e., about 1/3 of men were regularly promiscuous outside the home, while 2/3 of men were scrupulously monogamous (at least in their stable marital relationships).

Perhaps a genetic test before marriage is in order. For example, give him a cigarette, remove the butt after he's finished and send it to a genetics lab, where researchers can now take a sample of his DNA from a saliva patch and scan it to determine if there is allele 334 at his RS3 locus. If the test is positive, marrying him is not such a great idea; and if it's a double-positive test, marrying him is terrible.

Over the past year, I've had several friends who have kindly reminded me not to get all worked up about men and women. Here, a clarification.

First of all, there are only two things that really matter to people: survival and reproduction.

First of all, there are two things that really matter to people: survival and reproduction.

First of all, there are two things that really matter to people: survival and reproduction. Survival is actually a road to nowhere, because it is difficult to reach immortality. Besides, immortality is not the best evolutionary strategy, reproduction is. Only by reproducing can there be mutation, and with mutation, new abilities can arise. If our ape ancestors had lived forever millions of years ago, there would be no more of us. And there is no mutation of the race will appear particularly vulnerable, once the environment changes, it may be extinct, because the same thing, it is the reproduction and its subsequent mutation, resulting in the biological species of colorful, blossoming, but also can be in the time and time again under the natural disaster to continue the race.