scholarly journals Humans as model organisms

2017 ◽  
Vol 284 (1869) ◽  
pp. 20172115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Sterelny
Keyword(s):  
Group Formation ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Evolution Of Cooperation ◽  
Model Organisms ◽  
Cultural Learning ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Shared History ◽  
Behavioural Characteristics ◽  
Physical Traits ◽  
Structure Communication

Like every other species, our species is the result of descent with modification under the influence of natural selection; a tip in an increasingly large and deep series of nested clades, as we trace its ancestry back to increasingly remote antecedents. As a consequence of shared history, our species has much in common with many others; as a consequence of its production by the general mechanisms of evolution, our species carries information about the mechanisms that shaped other species as well. For reasons unconnected to biological theory, we have far more information about humans than we do about other species. So in principle and in practice, humans should be usable as model organisms, and no one denies the truth of this for mundane physical traits, though harnessing human data for more general questions proves to be quite challenging. However, it is also true that human cognitive and behavioural characteristics, and human social groups, are apparently radically unlike those of other animals. Humans are exceptional products of evolution and perhaps that makes them an unsuitable model system for those interested in the evolution of cooperation, complex cognition, group formation, family structure, communication, cultural learning and the like. In all these respects, we are complex and extreme cases, perhaps shaped by mechanisms (like cultural evolution or group selection) that play little role in other lineages. Most of the papers in this special issue respond by rejecting or downplaying exceptionalism. I argue that it can be an advantage: understanding the human exception reveals constraints that have restricted evolutionary options in many lineages.

scholarly journals Concessions of an alpha male? Cooperative defence and shared reproduction in multi-male primate groups

2012 ◽  
Vol 279 (1743) ◽  
pp. 3788-3795 ◽  
Author(s):  
Noah Snyder-Mackler ◽  
Susan C. Alberts ◽  
Thore J. Bergman
Keyword(s):  
Natural Variation ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Reproductive Skew ◽  
Evolution Of Cooperation ◽  
Mutual Benefit ◽  
Adult Males ◽  
Alpha Male ◽  
Access To Resources ◽  
Theropithecus Gelada ◽  
Data Support

By living in social groups with potential competitors, animals forgo monopolizing access to resources. Consequently, debate continues over how selection might favour sociality among competitors. For example, several models exist to account for the evolution of shared reproduction in groups. The ‘concession model’ hypothesizes that dominant reproducers benefit from the presence of subordinates, and hence tolerate some reproduction by subordinates. This mutual benefit to both dominants and subordinates may provide a foundation for the formation of social groups in which multiple members reproduce—a necessary step in the evolution of cooperation. To date, however, the concession model has received virtually no support in vertebrates. Instead, the vast majority of vertebrate data support ‘limited control models’, which posit that dominant reproducers are simply unable to prevent subordinates from reproducing. Here we present the most comprehensive evidence to date in support of the concession model in a vertebrate. We examined natural variation in the number of adult males in gelada ( Theropithecus gelada ) reproductive units to assess the extent of reproductive skew in multi-male units. Dominant (‘leader’) males in units that also had subordinate (‘follower’) males had a 30 per cent longer tenure than leaders in units that did not have followers, mainly because followers actively defended the group against potential immigrants. Follower males also obtained a small amount of reproduction in the unit, which may have functioned as a concession in return for defending the unit. These results suggest that dominants and subordinates may engage in mutually beneficial reproductive transactions, thus favouring male–male tolerance and cooperation.

Special issue on English intensifiers

2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-219 ◽  
Author(s):  
BELÉN MÉNDEZ-NAYA
Keyword(s):  
Twentieth Century ◽  
Early Modern ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Semantic Change ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Early Modern English ◽  
Grammatical Change ◽  
Degree Modifiers ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Scholarly Attention

Degree modifiers, degree words or intensifiers are linguistic elements which convey the degree or the exact value of the quality expressed by the item they modify. They are typically adverbs, as in very hot, really interesting, greatly appreciate or completely absurd, but adjectives may also fulfil this function, as in utter nonsense. As noted by Bolinger (1972: 18), degree words offer a picture of ‘fevered invention’, and without any doubt constitute one of the major areas of grammatical change and renewal in English (Brinton & Arnovik 2006: 441), especially from the Early Modern English period onwards (Peters 1993). It is therefore no surprise that degree modifiers have attracted so much scholarly attention from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day. Pioneering studies, such as those by Stoffel (1901), Borst (1902) and Fettig (1934), provide comprehensive inventories of intensifying adverbs in both modern and earlier English, as well as valuable insights into how they originated. In the last decade, however, intensifiers have become the object of renewed interest; this can be attributed in part to the development of computerized corpora, and also to advances in theoretical linguistics, more specifically in the study of semantic change and of grammaticalization processes. This renewed interest has focused, for example, on the individual histories of particular degree items as seen from the perspective of grammaticalization, on the competition of different intensifiers within a given period and across time, and on their distribution across different social groups, varieties or registers.

scholarly journals No evidence for individual recognition in threespine or ninespine sticklebacks ( Gasterosteus aculeatus or Pungitius pungitius )

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 191703
Author(s):  
Mike M. Webster ◽  
Kevin N. Laland
Keyword(s):  
Social Learning ◽  
Food Reward ◽  
Gasterosteus Aculeatus ◽  
Individual Recognition ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Model Organisms ◽  
Pungitius Pungitius ◽  
Trained Subjects ◽  
Exciting Opportunity ◽  
Class Level

Recognition plays an important role in the formation and organization of animal groups. Many animals are capable of class-level recognition, discriminating, for example, on the basis of species, kinship or familiarity. Individual recognition requires that animals recognize distinct cues, and learn to associate these with the specific individual from which they are derived. In this study, we asked whether sticklebacks ( Gasterosteus aculeatus and Pungitius pungitius ) were capable of learning to recognize individual conspecifics. We have used these fish as model organisms for studying selective social learning, and demonstrating a capacity for individual recognition in these species would provide an exciting opportunity for studying how biases for copying specific individuals shape the dynamics of information transmission. To test for individual recognition, we trained subjects to associate green illumination with the provision of a food reward close to one of two conspecifics, and, for comparison, one of two physical landmarks. Both species were capable of recognizing the rewarded landmark, but neither showed a preference for associating with the rewarded conspecific. Our study provides no evidence for individual recognition in either species. We speculate that the fission–fusion structure of their social groups may not favour a capacity for individual recognition.

Sub-Nationalism

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (8) ◽  
pp. 799-807 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Sybblis ◽  
Miguel Centeno
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Theory Construction ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Social Transformations ◽  
Inclusive Approach ◽  
Political Conditions ◽  
Small N ◽  
National Analysis

The global move toward decentralization and the seeming retreat of social groups to their distinct corners imply that subunits (both states and local governments), sectors, and regions may have more explanatory value in our current world than previously. In this special issue, we embrace both large and small “N” sub-national analysis—as a means of understanding the uneven nature of specific transformations within and across countries. While sub-national analyses have often been used to understand economic and political conditions, we take a broader and more inclusive approach—which embraces all types of social transformations and encourages attention to a variety of phenomena in the interest of gaining better descriptive accuracy, and in order to bolster and enrich theory construction.

On the social construction of geomedia technologies

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-99 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karin Fast ◽  
Emilia Ljungberg ◽  
Lotta Braunerhielm
Keyword(s):  
Social Construction ◽  
Digital Media ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Social Relevance ◽  
Power And Control ◽  
The Social ◽  
Public Lives ◽  
And Control

Geomedia technologies represent an advanced set of digital media devices, hardwares, and softwares. Previous research indicates that these place contingent technologies are currently gaining significant social relevance, and contribute to the shaping of contemporary public lives and spaces. However, research has yet to empirically examine how, and for whom, geomedia technologies are made relevant, as well as the role of these technologies in wider processes of social and spatial (re-)production. This special issue contributes valuable knowledge to existing research in the realm of communication geography, by viewing the current “geomediascape” through the lens of social constructivist perspectives, and by interrogating the reciprocal shaping of technology, the social, and space/place. Scrutinizing the social construction of geomedia technologies in various empirical contexts and in relation to different social groups, the essays deal with important questions of power and control, and ultimately challenge the notion of (geo)mediatization as a neutral process.

scholarly journals Competition Drives Group Formation and Reduces Within Nest Relatedness in a Facultatively Social Carpenter Bee

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jess L. Vickruck ◽  
Miriam H. Richards
Keyword(s):  
Resource Sharing ◽  
Resource Competition ◽  
Group Formation ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Fitness Costs ◽  
Short Supply ◽  
Carpenter Bee ◽  
Direct Fitness ◽  
Indirect Fitness ◽  
Almost All

Animals respond to competition among kin for critical breeding resources in two ways: avoidance of direct fitness costs via dispersal of siblings to breed separately, and formation of kin-based societies in which subordinates offset direct fitness costs of breeding competition via altruism and increased indirect fitness. In the facultatively social eastern carpenter bee, nests are a critical breeding resource in perpetually short supply, leading to strong competition among females. Observations of individually marked and genotyped females in conditions of high and low resource competition demonstrate that competition leads to resource sharing and group nesting. However, in contrast to almost all known animal societies, females avoid nesting with relatives, and disperse from their natal nests to join social groups of non-relatives. This is the first example of a structured insect society with cooperation nestmates, the majority of which are unrelated; thus cooperation is more likely based on selection for direct, rather than indirect fitness. By forming social groups of non-kin, females avoid the indirect fitness costs of kin competition among sisters, yet increase their chances of successful reproduction, and thus direct fitness, when forming colonies of non-relatives.

scholarly journals Access to Higher Education: An Instrument for Fair Societies?

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gaële Goastellec ◽  
Jussi Välimaa
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Social Stratification ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Educational Opportunities ◽  
Access To Higher Education ◽  
Mass Education ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Theoretical Approaches ◽  
Sensitive Issue ◽  
Comprehensive Knowledge

Access to higher education (HE) has a long history. To offer a view on the current debates and worldwide issues regarding access to HE, this editorial depicts how the control of educational access has historically been used as an instrument of governance at the interface of two processes: social stratification and the territorialisation of politics. Access to HE has remained embedded in these large structural processes even though HE has expanded from a highly elitist institution into mass education systems with equity of educational opportunities having become a desirable goal across societies. Analysing these processes helps understand the complex mechanisms producing inequalities in HE today, which are brought together by the ten articles composing this special issue. Tacking stock of how inequalities in access are produced in different continents, countries, HE Institutions, applying to different social groups though evolving mechanisms, these articles document the importance of contrasting methodological and theoretical approaches to produce comprehensive knowledge on this sensitive issue for democratic societies.

scholarly journals Illiberalism, polarisation, resilience, and resistance

Intersections ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Michael C. Zeller ◽  
Zsuzsanna Vidra
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Central And Eastern Europe ◽  
Social Groups ◽  
Social Resilience ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Political Position ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Social Polarisation ◽  
Human Rights Norms

Illiberal regimes undermine human rights norms that entail equal legal protections of citizens and social groups. Illiberal actors often intentionally drive social polarisation in hopes of bolstering their support and securing their political position. This strains liberal democratic-oriented social resilience and provokes resistance to the illiberal regime. The articles in this special issue, looking at the regimes and societies of Central and Eastern Europe—where the establishment and operation of illiberal regimes is conspicuous, where ‘pernicious polarisation’ (Somer, McCoy, & Luke, 2021) that strains social resilience is often striking, and where resistance is crucial to halt or reverse illiberalisation—address this nexus of concepts. In this introduction, we review the four key concepts that undergird the special issue’s articles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document