Emotional Affairs, Familiarity, and the Internet

Quite a departure for todays' post: it's more sociological than (neuro)psychological. Though, to be sure, there is an element of the latter, otherwise it wouldn't fit the theme!

A few years ago, a phenomenon called the Emotional Affair caught my eye. Why the qualification of a word in otherwise normal use? Well, unlike a garden-variety affair, which involves having a physical relationship outside of marriage or equivalent committed relationship, an emotional affair is sex-free. The connection is based solely on an emotional intimacy. The love between the two people blooms and grows without much if any physical contact, and is never consummated. Apparently, the incidence of such affairs, sometimes conducted over long distances via e-mail and/or phone and/or texting, is on the rise. How do we know this? Since no one thought to take a survey of such "unconsummated affairs" in the 19th century, we have no idea if they were more common than the novels and plays of the day let on. It is kind of strange to hear that, in this extremely permissive day and age, EAs occur more frequently than before. Don't people just do what they like, hang the consequences? No, some try to compromise: intimacy without cheating (or so it seems). And it is easier than ever to access that intimacy discreetly, thanks to modern technology. A special friend, on a phone or laptop, can be there day and night, ready for a chat.
But the internet is more than e-mail, isn't it? It's a doorway to search engines, which in turn allow us to look up old flames, old crushes, even old lovers. I have no stats on hand, and have no idea if any exist, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of EAs occur between people who knew each other more than 10 years before. In other words, familiarity had already been established with the object of interest, perhaps very well established.
This fascinates me. We have no shortage of potential partners out there, available through face-to-face encounters or online ones, yet so many of us seem drawn to prior relationships. I wonder if this connects with the brain's fundamental tendencies - in (illicit) romance of all things. (I knew I'd bring up the brain sooner or later.)
Whether we are aware of it or not, one of the most stressful things about meeting another human being is reading intentions. Sometimes, depending on us, or on them, we can size them up in an instant. Usually, it takes far longer to get past good manners, conventions, etc. In order to sort out all those signals, the brain has evolved a plethora of mechanisms for handling them - from analysis of expressions to detection of subliminal cues. Culture helps us a lot, as well. (Which may explain the popularity of movie love stories, for example.) How much easier if a person comes "pre-tested"!
Imagine a woman who has been married for 15 years. She feels a bit bored, and starts daydreaming about an old boyfriend she really clicked with 25 years ago. In previous eras, she would have had a major challenge finding his whereabouts unless he had an unusual name, or his family still lived nearby. Nowadays, that old flame could be a few mouse clicks away. If he's happy to hear from her, the e-mails will shuttle back and forth, drawing on nostalgia, loneliness, facility of communication, and the sense of doing "nothing morally wrong." Of course, it can get very complicated very quickly. Emotional connections are sometimes more powerful than purely sexual ones. Familiarity and nostalgia can fan the flames even higher. After all, we think on some level, I know he's a good guy. He would never lead me astray. (As if only strangers are potentially weak or wicked!)
As I have mentioned in previous posts, the human brain owes much of its complexity to social behavior and - according to my theory - our challengingly diverse diet. One of the most precious things about the environment, any environment full of friends and foes, human or edible, is familiarity. If we know Joe is a member of our tribe, we relax a little when we recognize him approaching; when we see a berry we know to be sweet, safe, and easy to eat, we relax and reach for it. Unknowns require more decision. They involve more risk.
The world is full of unknowns for the curious, adventurous, sometimes impulsive Omnivore Brain. Navigating the unknowns is a perilous but highly exciting journey.
More in future posts about how we pass on our results to others, helping them avoid some of our mistakes!

The Power of Analogy

Yesterday, I read a fascinating article co-written (with Emmanuel Sander) by one of the great science writers of our time, Douglas Hofstadter. "The forgotten fuel of our minds" can be found in the May 4 issue of NEW SCIENTIST. According to the two authors, new research examining the use of analogy in everyday thought suggests that it is far from an occasional tool for supporting a proposition or explaining something: it is the very basis of most thinking in the first place. Whether we are learning something new by mapping it onto pre-existing knowledge, or we are simply having a conversation, we take old ideas and use them in novel situations.

We use analogy whenever we use metaphors and similes, e.g., "His hair was like a bunch of ropes" or "Your premise doesn't hold water." And everyone uses expressions like these all the time. In fact, it is hard to imagine a conversation devoid of them altogether!
As I was reading, the power of analogy took place in my own mind. I drew parallels with my ongoing research into the omnivore brain. Could the ability to draw connections with previously acquired knowledge about the world (and oneself) have begun when we "learned" to be omnivores, about two million years ago?
Think about it: a herbivore (e.g., an antelope or a cow) doesn't need to differentiate much of its environment, but an omnivore, which must navigate a sea of choices (good, bad and in between) every time it wants to eat, does nothing but differentiate. It starts off its life by slowly learning safe choices from mother, then adds - presumably by trial and error - to this collection of useful facts as it goes along.
It is no accident that some of the smartest animals are the ones most diverse in their eating habits, e.g., bears, crows, raccoons. (Elephants being a notable exception that proves the rule.)

Humans pride themselves for their congitive abilities, citing logic, reason, and occasional intuitive powers among these strengths. The power of analogy contributes to our success as a species that confronts many choices - some lethal or at least challenging - every day. Wouldn't it be interesting if it is due to ancient adaptions to a diverse diet?

The "Usefulness" of Nature

To many people, NATURE is a place "out there." They fail to notice how indebted we are to the natural world - and how much a part of it we still are, despite thousands of years of trying to separate ourselves from it. It is neither supermarket nor recreation site nor messy menace we should keep out as much as possible.
Our food certainly continues that thread of intimate connection, even if some people would happily try to sell you lab-grown meat and genetically modified plants. In fact, our diet has probably been one of the biggest problems. We have evolved strategies to separate good from not-good food, and that mindset has led to separating "good" (useful) nature from "bad" or useless.
I think many would agree that we have messed up spectacularly in this dichotomy.
World-renown marine biologist Sylvia Earle says this about saving apparently useless species frome extinction. (A larger part of her essay appears here.)

[W]e need the leatherback, the panda and the worm because they might be useful to us. We have all heard about medicines that come from the rain forest. That is true. But consider this. With all of the millions of species on this planet is it possible that there is a cure for colon cancer in the genetic information of a beetle, a plant or a fungus in the forests of Costa Rica? The earth is like a house overflowing with wedding presents. When the bride and groom come home from their honeymoon they decide it is too crowded and throw out some of those gifts. A few weeks later they find that they don’t have a toaster or a vacuum. They were there but got thrown away. That is what we are doing, throwing away the gifts of biodiversity before we even unwrap (study) them. There are scientists who question whether biodiversity is needed for the stability of ecosystems. We might want to keep that biodiversity around until we figure that out.

 I see her approach, but it saddens me. In order to get people to agree with her, she's playing into the same dominant social paradigm that causes the problem.
In future posts I will try to wrestle with these issues.

A Minor Trauma: Eating Away From Home

Ever wonder why many cities are starting to look the same? I mean, if you travel a fair bit, or you watch the details on mainstream movies. There are fast food chains almost everywhere (and the same kind of chains; I won't honor them by listing even a few). Is the world simply becoming less imaginative, allowing the insidious creep of homogeneity to flatten out our food choices? Are people in other countries eager to have fun "food" instead of their tradtional fare, so they can be "like us"?
Yes, all of these are probably true. But these chains proliferated across North America in the first place, before going overseas, because many people were used to seeing those brands, and the familiarity comforted them, perhaps even more than the taste or texture of the foods themselves. Eventually, the companies expanded wherever they could.
Eating new food, even if you are only in a neighboring county, let alone in an entirely new culture, is a potentially dangerous venture. Part of being an omnivore - the by-now famous "omnivore's dilemma" - is the need to balance fear and desire. (It has that in common with life in general, I suppose!) You desire novelty, because new foods may be more nutritious or simply tastier. An ancient human who scorned new foods would have had to be extremely lucky that his tried-and-true favorites never became scarce. On the other hand, if you are too eager to try new things, and aren't careful, you could eat something poisonous or toxic. Ever wonder why we evolved to eat in groups? Watching others eat something and suffer no ill effects is a great reasurance in the hazardous world of omnivory.
Individuals vary greatly in how they balance fear of and desire for novelty. Conservative thinkers are less prone to poisoning, perhaps, but they lack variety in their diets. The disadvantages of this monotony may extend beyond the pleasures of the palate: they may lead to hard-grained habits that will never budge, even if the doctor orders a change of pace for health reasons.
On the other end of the spectrum, we have the cowboys of cuisine, the daredevils of the diet. I don't need to mention their names, because those people already make plenty of money by attracting attention to themselves (what better entertainment for an omnivore than the chance to watch someone foolish enough to eat something still alive or fermented to the point of putrefaction?).
Back to travel. Being away from home is risky in itself. Then add new customs, perhaps a new language or two, and try to find something to eat! Everything looks kind of ... odd, until.... Hey, there's that hamburger place we used to go to back home! It's a bit boring, but at least we know what it's supposed to taste like, and we won't have to worry about the local dishes!
Understandable, yes, but you wonder why some people bother to travel at all, if they're just going to eat "at home" while they do!