5 ms·

Gwern's done a deep dive into some of Calhoun's work & how it's popularly interpreted – the abstract: > Did John Calhoun’s 1960s Mouse Utopia really show that

by gojomo 2y ago

Gwern's done a deep dive into some of Calhoun's work & how it's popularly interpreted – the abstract: > Did John Calhoun’s 1960s Mouse Utopia really show that animal (and human) populations will expand to arbitrary densities, creating socially-driven pathology and collapse? Reasons for doubt. https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia https://gwern.net/mouse-utopia

philipkglass 2y ago
This New Yorker piece shares skeptical takes too, though it waits until the end to include them: Then there’s the question of what Calhoun was actually observing. The pathological behavior of his rats was, it seems, a product less of their natural tendencies than of his experimental design. “No evidence” for behavioral sinks has ever “been found in wild populations of animals—rat, mouse, or otherwise,” Dugatkin writes. And, even if Calhoun’s experiments did reveal something real about rodents, it’s unclear what relevance this would have had for humanity. A textbook titled “Forty Studies that Changed Psychology,” by Roger R. Hock, contains a section on Calhoun’s work. It cautions, “We must always be careful in applying animal research to humans.” In 1975, the textbook reports, researchers attempted to “replicate with people some of Calhoun’s findings” by analyzing statistics like birth rates and mental-hospital admissions among New Yorkers: “No significant relationships were found between population density and any form of social pathology.”
- FrustratedMonky 2y ago
  "been found in wild populations of animals" But, his experiment wasn't natural was it? He provided infinite food at no cost. That doesn't really happen in the wild. This is the interesting finding I'd think, by putting the subject in un-natural settings, to see what can happen at extremes.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    Probably closer to what would happen with universal UBI.
    - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
      That is one of the spins that is put on it. But if we take rats/nature as the example. Then what is the counter proposal? That men are best in a state of constant warfare and conquering or being conquered. People should fight for their lives or starve. These aren't hyperbole, they are arguments being made. It's just not a great place to live, unless you are rich with your private army.
      - SoftTalker 2y ago
        I don't necessarily think that constant warfare is required (though certainly that has been the state of humans until the last century or so) but I do think that they are best when they are occupied with providing for their own and their families' survival. People (especially men) who have nothing to do are generally not mentally or socially healthy.
        FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Sure, if we lived on the savanna and we could survive with hunting/gathering. But if there aren't jobs, even if someone wants to work, what do they do? Or the jobs they can get don't pay enough to eat. The number of people, wal-mart employees that have full time jobs, and also on food stamps is pretty incredible. So if we want to not have UBI, but also want people working. Then, need to either raise minim wage, or provide big government work projects or something. So, I'm agreeing, but also saying in modern world, we cant hunt/gather, and since we don't want to have roving gangs fighting for food, or calling for revolution, we do need something to give that meaning. Some task.
    - kmeisthax 2y ago
      > Having observed the rats so closely, Calhoun now had a pretty good idea of what was limiting growth. The rats had divided themselves into eleven clans. Four had burrows conveniently located at the center of the enclosure, near where Calhoun had placed the food bins. In these privileged clans, a few dominant male rats mated with (and protected) a larger number of females. Although the high-status mothers successfully raised many pups, this wasn’t enough to offset the losses in a population that was aging and, increasingly, brawling. > The rats from the banlieues, for their part, lived under constant stress. When they attempted to get to the food bins, the fat rats in the middle tried—often successfully—to repulse them. Along the edges of the enclosure, packs of low-ranking males roamed from burrow to burrow, harassing the females. The outer-burrow females were so exhausted that they rarely conceived, and, when they did give birth, they often abandoned their pups. Not unless there was a group of people who had somehow figured out how to legally steal other people's UBI checks. The rats did not actually have access to infinite food. Some of the rats did, and they figured out how to monopolize that food source and exclude other rats.
  - Supermancho 2y ago
    > his experiment wasn't natural was it Depends on what you mean by natural. There are probably situations that were similar, at some point in time. Rats that got into in a grain storage container, or were trapped there, or who knows. That was natural mouse behavior, for the lack of/constraints provided.
    - natmaka 2y ago
      Trapped with infinite vital resources (food, water...)? It seems quite difficult to imagine.
  - VulgarExigency 2y ago
    > This is the interesting finding I'd think, by putting the subject in un-natural settings, to see what can happen at extremes. Interesting, maybe. Deeply unethical, certainly. I'm not against animal experimentation (although I'd never have the stomach for it myself), but it's hard to see what could be learned from these experiments except for how rats behave when placed in these strange prisons.
- natmaka 2y ago
  > birth rates and mental-hospital admissions among New Yorkers New-Yorkers are moving around, however in Calhoun's experiment the rodents were stuck in the barn. I wonder how the 1975 study takes this into account.
- gwern 2y ago
  > What did all this amount to? Neither “Rat City” nor “Dr. Calhoun’s Mousery” seems quite sure. In the preface to the former, Ramsden and Adams explicitly say that they are not going to “evaluate the merit” of Calhoun’s work. In the epilogue to the latter, Dugatkin tries to explain why this work has “fallen off the map.” His explanation largely has to do with shifting norms in academia. The study of population dynamics and behavior, he writes, has “changed radically since Calhoun undertook his experiments.” These are extraordinary statements about the scientific value of Calhoun's work, coming from the 3 people in the world who are presumably now the best acquainted with Calhoun's work and have gone through his archived papers and all followup research etc.
bee_rider 2y ago
That’s quite a takedown. In particular the existence of an apparently better run attempt to duplicate the result, which returned not much, seems like quite a nail to put in that coffin.
- mangosteenjuice 2y ago
  https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis This is an issue for all sorts of studies.
  - jerf 2y ago
    As well as the issue that, to a first approximation, nobody cares. The correct response to the replication crisis was for every affected science to immediately stop all funding and new experiments, if not pausing the ones in progress, review the situation with a series of intense conferences, and figure out how to allocate a lot more resources to replication. If that sounds extreme, well, the response to "vast quantities of the science you're doing is effectively worse than useless and you lack the ability to tell which is which" should be extreme! But, hey, I can put my realist hat on too. I know that was never on the table. A lesser response was all we could ever hope for. But what we got is effectively no response. Or if you prefer, the bare minimum that can be just barely called more than nothing. Nobody cares. The science goes on being cited, both in the field and in popular magazines, because that's just so much more fun. And an indeterminate, but assuredly large percentage, of science money is worse than wasted, but used to generate false science instead. And the prestige of "science" will continue wearing away until it is all spent.
- jhbadger 2y ago
  Not really. Replication is where you do exactly the same experiment as someone else and see if you get the same result or not. Nobody has tried this with Calhoun's universe experiments (they would probably cost too much, be hard to get through IRB as it could be argued that it is too cruel to the rats, and wouldn't be really fashionable these days as they are seen as part of the out of favor "behaviorism" movement). Simply saying that nobody has seen this behavior in nature or among humans isn't at all the same thing as replication.

by gojomo 2y ago

philipkglass 2y ago

This New Yorker piece shares skeptical takes too, though it waits until the end to include them: Then there’s the question of what Calhoun was actually observing. The pathological behavior of his rats was, it seems, a product less of their natural tendencies than of his experimental design. “No evidence” for behavioral sinks has ever “been found in wild populations of animals—rat, mouse, or otherwise,” Dugatkin writes. And, even if Calhoun’s experiments did reveal something real about rodents, it’s unclear what relevance this would have had for humanity. A textbook titled “Forty Studies that Changed Psychology,” by Roger R. Hock, contains a section on Calhoun’s work. It cautions, “We must always be careful in applying animal research to humans.” In 1975, the textbook reports, researchers attempted to “replicate with people some of Calhoun’s findings” by analyzing statistics like birth rates and mental-hospital admissions among New Yorkers: “No significant relationships were found between population density and any form of social pathology.”

FrustratedMonky 2y ago
"been found in wild populations of animals" But, his experiment wasn't natural was it? He provided infinite food at no cost. That doesn't really happen in the wild. This is the interesting finding I'd think, by putting the subject in un-natural settings, to see what can happen at extremes.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Probably closer to what would happen with universal UBI.
  - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
    That is one of the spins that is put on it. But if we take rats/nature as the example. Then what is the counter proposal? That men are best in a state of constant warfare and conquering or being conquered. People should fight for their lives or starve. These aren't hyperbole, they are arguments being made. It's just not a great place to live, unless you are rich with your private army.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      I don't necessarily think that constant warfare is required (though certainly that has been the state of humans until the last century or so) but I do think that they are best when they are occupied with providing for their own and their families' survival. People (especially men) who have nothing to do are generally not mentally or socially healthy.
      - FrustratedMonky 2y ago
        Sure, if we lived on the savanna and we could survive with hunting/gathering. But if there aren't jobs, even if someone wants to work, what do they do? Or the jobs they can get don't pay enough to eat. The number of people, wal-mart employees that have full time jobs, and also on food stamps is pretty incredible. So if we want to not have UBI, but also want people working. Then, need to either raise minim wage, or provide big government work projects or something. So, I'm agreeing, but also saying in modern world, we cant hunt/gather, and since we don't want to have roving gangs fighting for food, or calling for revolution, we do need something to give that meaning. Some task.
  - kmeisthax 2y ago
    > Having observed the rats so closely, Calhoun now had a pretty good idea of what was limiting growth. The rats had divided themselves into eleven clans. Four had burrows conveniently located at the center of the enclosure, near where Calhoun had placed the food bins. In these privileged clans, a few dominant male rats mated with (and protected) a larger number of females. Although the high-status mothers successfully raised many pups, this wasn’t enough to offset the losses in a population that was aging and, increasingly, brawling. > The rats from the banlieues, for their part, lived under constant stress. When they attempted to get to the food bins, the fat rats in the middle tried—often successfully—to repulse them. Along the edges of the enclosure, packs of low-ranking males roamed from burrow to burrow, harassing the females. The outer-burrow females were so exhausted that they rarely conceived, and, when they did give birth, they often abandoned their pups. Not unless there was a group of people who had somehow figured out how to legally steal other people's UBI checks. The rats did not actually have access to infinite food. Some of the rats did, and they figured out how to monopolize that food source and exclude other rats.
- Supermancho 2y ago
  > his experiment wasn't natural was it Depends on what you mean by natural. There are probably situations that were similar, at some point in time. Rats that got into in a grain storage container, or were trapped there, or who knows. That was natural mouse behavior, for the lack of/constraints provided.
  - natmaka 2y ago
    Trapped with infinite vital resources (food, water...)? It seems quite difficult to imagine.
- VulgarExigency 2y ago
  > This is the interesting finding I'd think, by putting the subject in un-natural settings, to see what can happen at extremes. Interesting, maybe. Deeply unethical, certainly. I'm not against animal experimentation (although I'd never have the stomach for it myself), but it's hard to see what could be learned from these experiments except for how rats behave when placed in these strange prisons.
natmaka 2y ago
> birth rates and mental-hospital admissions among New Yorkers New-Yorkers are moving around, however in Calhoun's experiment the rodents were stuck in the barn. I wonder how the 1975 study takes this into account.
gwern 2y ago
> What did all this amount to? Neither “Rat City” nor “Dr. Calhoun’s Mousery” seems quite sure. In the preface to the former, Ramsden and Adams explicitly say that they are not going to “evaluate the merit” of Calhoun’s work. In the epilogue to the latter, Dugatkin tries to explain why this work has “fallen off the map.” His explanation largely has to do with shifting norms in academia. The study of population dynamics and behavior, he writes, has “changed radically since Calhoun undertook his experiments.” These are extraordinary statements about the scientific value of Calhoun's work, coming from the 3 people in the world who are presumably now the best acquainted with Calhoun's work and have gone through his archived papers and all followup research etc.

bee_rider 2y ago

That’s quite a takedown. In particular the existence of an apparently better run attempt to duplicate the result, which returned not much, seems like quite a nail to put in that coffin.

mangosteenjuice 2y ago
https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis This is an issue for all sorts of studies.
- jerf 2y ago
  As well as the issue that, to a first approximation, nobody cares. The correct response to the replication crisis was for every affected science to immediately stop all funding and new experiments, if not pausing the ones in progress, review the situation with a series of intense conferences, and figure out how to allocate a lot more resources to replication. If that sounds extreme, well, the response to "vast quantities of the science you're doing is effectively worse than useless and you lack the ability to tell which is which" should be extreme! But, hey, I can put my realist hat on too. I know that was never on the table. A lesser response was all we could ever hope for. But what we got is effectively no response. Or if you prefer, the bare minimum that can be just barely called more than nothing. Nobody cares. The science goes on being cited, both in the field and in popular magazines, because that's just so much more fun. And an indeterminate, but assuredly large percentage, of science money is worse than wasted, but used to generate false science instead. And the prestige of "science" will continue wearing away until it is all spent.
jhbadger 2y ago
Not really. Replication is where you do exactly the same experiment as someone else and see if you get the same result or not. Nobody has tried this with Calhoun's universe experiments (they would probably cost too much, be hard to get through IRB as it could be argued that it is too cruel to the rats, and wouldn't be really fashionable these days as they are seen as part of the out of favor "behaviorism" movement). Simply saying that nobody has seen this behavior in nature or among humans isn't at all the same thing as replication.