Thursday, February 24, 2011

On doing it all over again

There’s a saying in Spanish that says that man is the only species to trip on the same stone twice. In fact, I remember reading in a neuroscience text once about how homo sapiens is the only species that despite having suffered an adverse reaction to something that they ate, would be willing to eat it again. Are we stupid? Or are we the only species capable of hope?

Behavioural research experiments have shown that almost any living animal can be “taught” to respond in a predictable manner. You show a dog food and they instinctively salivate. You show a dog some food and sound a bell at the same time and the dog salivates. You do that enough times and the dog will come to associate the bell (not just food – and in fact, soon only the bell without the food) with salivation. You can train almost any animal to respond like this.

Most animals can also “teach” themselves (or their trainers) to respond in a certain manner. For example, a pigeon may notice once that when he spun to the right, he received a food reward. He will spin to the right again and see if he gets more food. Maybe he does, maybe he doesn’t, but it’s worth another shot, right? Of course, look at what’s at stake! There’s a perceived benefit to doing something in a particular way. Soon, the pigeon may find himself spinning and spinning, awaiting his reward and perhaps only erratically receiving it. Maybe he has to spin ten times before he is rewarded just once, the next time maybe only twice, the next feed may be 100 spins away – but it always seems so worth it!

The scenario described above about the pigeon is often quoted as an example of how almost any living creature is capable of superstition. A person or animal can do something because they believe they will receive a particular response, regardless of whether the behavior and the reward are causally linked. This belief can consist of a primitive or instinctive behavior in any animal or it can be a complex behavior derived from a complex centralized neurophysiological process (such as a ‘planned’ behavior initiated in a human cerebral cortex). Now, along with the concept of superstition comes the concept of addiction. A creature can derive so much pleasure from a thing (food, physical sensation, drug, drink, etc.), that he will continue to engage in repetitive behavior in order to attain it. He can continue to engage in the behavior even when he only seldom receives the reward, or even when as a result of behaving a certain way he suffers negatively. Why does this happen? Because some things seem so worth it!

We are very much like animals in some ways, and yet why is the human species different to other complex animals? Is it the cerebral cortex and its ability to house our sense of conscious planning, to perceive time, to exercise self-control, and to delay pleasure for perceived greater reward? Or is it our ability to hope and believe - even when what we believe is not biologically advantageous? To believe in things like love.

Most higher species are capable of caring for their young and will engage in what to the human eye appears to be affection. But can other animals love? What is love? I pose this question because love is one of the most addictive things on this planet. The reward, the pleasure in it, is that warm sensation of being "in love" and - if we're lucky enough - also of being loved. You fall in love and you forget about all those other times you thought you were in love. You forget of how much it hurt, you forget how hard it is to make any relationship work, you forget that every interaction with another human being will involve friction regardless of how much the people involved love each other. You risk hurting again. You risk losing. You risk your time, efforts, and emotional investment. You risk it even though you know the statistics. We tell ourselves 'no, this time it'll be perfect, we'll make it work, etc.' The reality is that from one relationship to the next we change very little yet expect a different result, a much more pleasant and successful result, each time. That is the stuff of superstitions, of addiction, of madness. And yet we do it. We fall in love again and again like a junkie addicted to the high. And we do it all because taking the risk - and the potential reward – seems AND IS so damn worth it!

Friday, February 18, 2011

On prejudice

One particular group of people that are often targeted by prejudice and discrimination are those we commonly refer to as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, transsexual, intersex, and the newest category, “questioning”. Essentially it could be said that non-exclusively-heterosexual people are often discriminated against. Well, they’re not the only ones and any “minority” group within a society is prone to the effects of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. One thing I have found extremely interesting in the past few weeks, though, is the prejudice towards bisexual persons on behalf of exclusively homosexual persons.

I know, I know, in our personal non-politically-correctedness-contaminated dialogues we would call all people who aren’t exclusively heterosexual, gay. Whatever. Let’s not get into the semantics of these labels. However, do let me get back to the prejudice towards “bisexual” people I’ve noted in the past few weeks.

I remember an episode of ‘The L Word’ where one of the girls who was exclusively homosexual was deriding another female who was bisexual. The argument was something like ‘just make up your mind already’, ‘just decide’. Seriously? Sexuality is a choice now? I found that ironic given the common arguments homosexual persons raise in counter to the religious heterosexual calls to “be normal”.

What’s even more ironic is that a group of people who are passionate to defend from discrimination and claim their rights as the same to any other member of society can also be so equally discriminating of another group of society who face many if not all their same challenges. For example, as I pointed out above, one of the stereotypes often peddled about bisexual people is that they are ‘undecided’ in terms of their sexual preference/identity. The majority of proponents of these and many stereotypes about bisexual people are people who are exclusively homosexual. In reality, both these subsets of people form a larger group of people most commonly banded together as ‘gays’. The banding together is in fact a blessing to these same people, forming greater majorities in the fight for the things that are often fought for: freedom of speech, representation, and other basic human rights. However, once you take away the common struggle, us human beings prefer to struggle against each other, smaller minority groups, the next person lower in the rank, the poorer, the more unfortunate, the weaker in the pecking order.

Just as an educational exercise I’d like to relate some of the other prejudices I hear banded around about bisexual persons:
-They’re not really gay, they’re just promiscuous and would have sex with anyone who was willing.
-They not really gay, they’re just with a homosexual partner at the moment until they find what they really want: a heterosexual partner.
-Bisexual people are promiscuous, they have no loyalty, and they’ll always leave you for the next best thing.
-They’ll always leave you for an opposite gender person.
-They’re just experimenting; they’ll go back to being heterosexual eventually.
-They only care about sex.
-They can’t commit because they can’t even “commit” to either being gay or straight.
-They’re actually just straight people.
-They have to like either men or women MORE.... this more often comes up in the form of a question.
-They just haven’t decided (or figured out) yet whether they’re gay or straight.... They NEED to make this DECISION!
-They’re bad people who only want sex from you.
-They’re just plain bad people...
Sound familiar? Wherever a group of people congregate, smaller cliques of people will form. Why? It’s human nature. It’s part of the process of self-identity. Often we define things for what they’re not. We define ourselves similarly by what we’re not. We’re not like that other group of people, those bad people. Our own societal group is better, it’s right, it’s better than all other alternatives. As we do this we define ourselves: we’re good people, we’re consistent people, we’re loyal people, we are good and worthy human beings. We overlook our flaws: the prejudice, the discrimination, the often derogatory language we use towards the “other” groups. And yet, it is absolutely essential to form our own identity, to define ourselves, to believe we are good and just human beings. The important thing is that once we reach this level of identity we continue to challenge our perspective - to be truly open-minded!

...A quote:
"AIDS. Homosexual. Gay. Lesbian. You think these are names that tell you who a person sleeps with, but they don't tell you that. No. Like all labels they tell you one thing, and one thing only: Where does an individual so identified fit into the food chain, the pecking order? Not ideology or sexual taste, but something much simpler: clout. Not who I fuck or who fucks me, but who will come to the phone when I call, who owes me favors. This is what a label refers to. Now to someone who does not understand this, a homosexual is what I am because I have sex with men, but really this is wrong. A homosexual is somebody who, in 15 years of trying cannot get a pissant anit-discrimination bill through the city council. A homosexual is somebody who knows nobody and who nobody knows. Who has zero clout. Does this sound like me, Henry? I have sex with men. But unlike nearly every other man of whom this is true, I bring the guy I'm screwing to the White House and President Reagan smiles at us and shakes his hand."  -Roy Cohn in Angels in America, by Tony Kushner.