5 ms·
In slime molds, evolution selects 'loners' who refrain from collective behavior
- darepublic 7y agoI feel validated by mold
- koeng 7y agoThis activity can sometimes be annoying in biology experiments, especially when you get down to the bacterial size and do measurements on the population. Think the average expression of gene X is 100? Well, it is, with 90% of the population expressing the gene at 111 and 10% not expressing it at all. Unlike computers, cells like to do their own thing :(
- sysbin 7y ago> Unlike computers, cells like to do their own thing :( Fairly the same, if everything at the lowest level is just programmed to do what occurs.
- koeng 7y agotechnically true, the best kind of true
- 0134340 7y ago>Unlike computers, cells like to do their own thing As an ex-repair tech, I can't applaud this comment.
- baq 7y agoi can assure you that if you counted the amount of processors or perhaps independent computers in what's commonly referred to as a 'computer' you'd be surprised the thing actually responds to input in a somewhat predictable way.
- chrischen 7y agoWhile human social loners fit the mould, I don't think that's the lone point we should get out of this. What is actually beneficial to society (whether mold or human) is diversity in genetics, neuro-diversity, and in general.
- addHocker 7y agoNeurodiversity is a adaption to cyclic repeating circumstances. They exist, because somewhere in the repeating loops before society stabilized, that behaviour made sense. To sucessfully use those components though, is tough. Creative people industries have specialized handler jobs, who keep the drama and problems away from other jobs. Creative people make for lousy project planners and directors. Incremental thinkers make for lousy creative endavour entrepaneurs - if left to their own devices. To craft these devices, made from neurodiverse people, one needs to be painfully aware of all components and there failure modes. Welcome to the wonderful world of leviathancybernetics.
- analognoise 7y agoWhen you say "neuro-diversity" is beneficial, what exactly do you mean?
- op03 7y agoTake curiosity. If everyone in the village is highly curious and off exploring the jungle with tigers, everyone in the village, sooner or later, dies. On the other hand if everyone in the village sees tigers behind every bush and stays put within the safe confines of village walls, no one in the village learns how to tame or hunt the tiger. A Tiger here being a placeholder for any threat/unknown the group faces, requiring talents as yet not known to the group. If you do find a village that has managed to Not fall victim to both those scenarios think about what it tells you about the distribution of curious/non-curious within the village.
- teraku 7y agoThis. I remember there being articles about Neandertals having almost no curious explorers, being very catious, whereas homo sapiens skeletons found in swamps, with deadly mushrooms in their stomach and whatnot. So even though Neandertals had a more advanced brain during their time compared to the homo sapien competitor, they died because they did not make it, maybe because they did not take enough risk.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- codingslave 7y agoI think being a loner is a high variance strategy. In a majority of the time, it hurts you in our society. But certain individuals will see huge levels of success. It's similar to the genetics of schizophrenia. Families with genetic schizophrenia and more specifically individuals with high chances of mental illness often see bifurcated life outcomes, they are both more likely to end up down and out, homeless, in a mental hospital etc. But they are also more likely to see outsized success, academically and business wise. This has been studied and proven. It's common among siblings, one succumbing to schizophrenia, the other reaching upper echelons of society.
- asdfman123 7y agoWell, be careful not to assume that the modern-day loner is the same as the Pleistocene-era loner. I'm both somewhat shy and very much introverted. I don't like artificially-created social situations. But I'll talk at great length to family members and people I work closely with. If I were in a Pleistocene tribe where basically I'm surrounded by 120 members of my extended family, coworkers, etc. etc., I'd probably talk a lot more. I like social interactions, I'm just uncomfortable in novel situations and I don't like small talk.
- r6754dw 7y agoTrue, our modern societies where most people meet strangers often are historically unusual. Before industrialization the vast majority of population lived their lives in small village communities where everybody knew each other. Traits that might be harmful today weren't necessarily so back then.
- monkeydreams 7y ago> I think being a loner is a high variance strategy. In a majority of the time, it hurts you in our society. But certain individuals will see huge levels of success. I have been thinking through this question quite a lot recently. In an employment scenario loners often appear to be driven to manage or encompass all aspects of their domain. This leads to a breadth of knowledge and skills. If this pattern has occurred across their entire life, then they can appear to be highly intelligent, "across everything", driven, etc - or they can appear frenetic, unfocused and disorganised.
- RedBeetDeadpool 7y agoThis makes me think of how certain types of people, i.e. the experimental, inventors, entrepreneurs, artists, etc, who live life to the beat of their own drums, don't really ever let society tell them how they should act, but if they ever strike gold, the rest of society immediate starts to follow along using their products, or mimicking their style. Also the majority of these types of people never strike gold, but they will wander on their own path regardless - very similarly to those 'loners'.
- 8bitsrule 7y agoMandatory Agent Smith speech follows. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrBdYmStZJ4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrBdYmStZJ4