Or could it be that wolves that are already more likely to hunt cougars (thus eat them and get the parasite) have high risk taking behavior and are thus more likely to be pack leaders? And the parasite actually has a benign influence on the host?
I don't see anything in that article that makes the conclusion inevitable. It's a remarkable correlation for sure, but unfortunately it doesn't go beyond that. There's no pathway from infection to leadership (just a vague hypothesis that doesn't resemble the mechanism in rats and hyenas), and it doesn't look as if they looked at uninfected pack leaders. Perhaps pack leaders or strays eat more dead cat, or some other intermediate host of T.gondii. Perhaps they sampled in the wrong time frame. The full article might have more info, but the linked one doesn't.
I haven't read the paper either, but I must say the operation of
parasites as elements in complex biological super-systems is
absolutely fascinating. Ants that march to the top of trees under the
influence of fungus spores trying to be eaten by birds. Fish that
commit suicide by swimming toward predators as part of a parasitic
lifecycle.... evolution is truly miraculous.
Another apocryphal story is cats carrying Toxoplasma Gondii make some people
really like cats. So maybe mad cat lady syndrome is treatable with drugs :)
Who knows what super-systems we are unwittingly a part of. That seems
an interesting area for big-data + AI hypothesis synthesis - we may
find new explanations or even whole new branches of behaviour in
psychology.
He probably didn't have the stat off the top of his head, so it was exaggerated based on assumptions. But the underlying intuition had a kernel of truth and applies to any political party, or any institution, really. For example, if an organization dedicated to the poor mainly draws support from poor people, they have a kind of incentive to subtly maintain poverty.
This theory that institutions kind of have a tendency to perpetuate the conditions that necessitate their existence was developed by Durkheim, and like most of the other early sociologists, I really recommend it over newer stuff. It's not conspiratorial, the idea is that organizations that do this outsurvive groups that legitimately solve the problems they are created to solve, and so through an evolutionary process, the longest lived and deepest institutions tend to be ones with behaviors ironically antithetical to their supposed mission (even if the members of the institution totally believe in and earnestly support the mission).
The typical example (at least when I was into this kind of stuff) is the Catholic Church earnestly helping the poor, but doing so in a way that societaly, will never actually alleviate poverty, or may even exacerbate it. Now days I tend to hear this line of thinking used about liberals supporting policies that "help" minorities but really perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
Whether you believe this is beside the point, I only mean to suggest that OP is wrong, but a steelman of his point is deeper than it seems, and deserves our good faith imo.
thaumasiotes was saying married people vote Republican more often. pfisch was suggesting he was actually witnessing a separate correlation. Older people tend to vote Republican more often, older people are more often married than younger people.
I was suggesting that there are other things that go into even the age issue.
Religious people are more likely to marry than non-religious people. Religious people tend to vote more conservatively than non-religious people. Etc. etc. I was agreeing with pfisch that a lot of the reasons people get married often line up with reasons why people vote Republican.
And I wouldn't say the Catholic Church believes its mission to be to eliminate poverty. Or even alleviate it. They want to temporarily alleviate the superficial effects of poverty on people.
Yes you could definitely make an argument that democrats benefit from poverty, or that republicans benefit from illegal immigration. People in poverty receiving benefits vote democrat because they're afraid republicans will cut benefits. People who fear illegal immigrants taking their jobs will vote republican because they think republicans will be tougher on illegal immigration. If democrats actually solved poverty or if republicans actually deported 100% of illegal immigrants, a lot of people would lose their reasons to vote for those parties.
Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.
>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.
You aborted your analysis too early. Getting Roe v. Wade overturned still benefits Republicans until such time as Legislation is successfully passed to outlaw abortion at all levels (i.e. State & Federal, though arguably we're talking Republican here, so one would think they'd content themselves with States). Only then would the "problem" be solved.
You are completely correct, I didn't mean to argue against the Dems, just noting that I hear this critique raised against them a lot.
>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.
Indeed, the far-right has raised exactly this criticism of overturning Roe v Wade:
>If you have limited energy and a limited number of possible wins, it is important to focus your limited energy on one kind of win: wins that make future wins easier. By definition, these are the kinds of wins that augment your power. These are real wins.
>
>There is another kind of “win,” wins which expend your power in order to achieve some result you want. These are sometimes called “Pyrrhic victories.” Pyrrhus took the battlefield, but after the battle his chances of winning were reduced. His tactical “victory” was a strategic defeat.
This kind of thinking isn't partisan, I think it describes the a problem that occurs with institutions in any society. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to be collectively vigilant against institutions succumbing to these tendencies. Which seems woefully inadequate.
> Not to mention, according to him, 40% is "barely".
You might want to think about what a 20-point margin means in electoral politics. Taking 60% of the vote is routinely described in terms like "landslide victory".
Married people make about half the Democratic voter base, so your reasoning seems flawed at best.
Not to mention that a large part of the relative under representation of married people in the Democratic voter base is due to relative over representation of younger people.
Here's an image purporting to describe the Reuters-Ipsos poll of 2012: https://i.imgur.com/I3ycNpC.png . (I haven't been able to find the actual poll.) It only gives the Republican share of the vote for each demographic, but Republicans+Democrats should be close to 100% of the vote. 1992 is an exception.
They looked at animals that were and were not infected, throughout their lives, and saw what they did, so they knew whether the animals were infected or not before they became pack leaders. From the article:
>The team looked at 256 blood samples from 229 wolves, which had been carefully watched throughout their lives, and had their life histories and social status recorded. Meyer and Cassidy found that infected wolves were 11 times more likely than uninfected ones to leave their birth family to start a new pack, and 46 times more likely to become pack leaders — often the only wolves in the pack that breed.
That article uses psychosis and schizophrenia interchangeably. There's also no mention of the familial nature of schizophrenia. There's a genetic link in many cases and there's been work in that area that's starting to identify particular genes that are associated with the disorder.
It could be that infection with T. gondii is sometimes the difference between simply having a predisposition towards schizophrenia and actually developing the symptoms. Pot use in the late teens and early 20s can have the same effect. It doesn't cause schizophrenia, but it may be a trigger than leads a genetically predisposed individual to develop the disorder.
The research results are an interesting find and good work. They indicate a clear need for more research. They aren't conclusive as is, at least with the limited info I found (I haven't found a papers archive from The Wolf Society 2022 conference, so I had to go by press articles). Sample size of 229 seems small, considering the diversity among wolf packs. For example, were these wolves from one state vs multiple states. Getting a larger sample size would be hard but not impossible if the study lasted a long time. Science is about building a stairway - 99% steps 1% momentous landings that built on all the steps before them. This work is a good solid step.
Is this because it increases risk-taking behavior? Who knows, but it's interesting that something with potentially significant health drawbacks may have enough benefits that it's evolved to coexist with us (up to 50% of people carry it).
it would be fascinating to see a plot of toxoplasma gondii hitting the first page of HN vs time.
It seems periodic, and i'm not kidding. (kinda like Jodi Foster in Contact with the headphones on)
Not this time, but usually it's a revelation about the protozoan with mice being fearless around cats, or about humans living with cats, with associated proposals of drama, perhaps to drive pageviews.
> Cassidy found that infected wolves were 11 times more likely than uninfected ones to leave their birth family to start a new pack, and 46 times more likely to become pack leaders
I thought we now believe that wolf packs are purely family units - mother, father and their cubs. There's no alpha wolves leading a pack of other male and female wolves, just stray wolves and family units. So a wolf pack is only comprised of the leader and its cubs.
I don't k ow anything about wolves or parasites, but those two things don't contradict each other. Maybe wolves with the parasite are exactly more likely to form such a family unit
Perhaps its just bad wording and they mean "they are 11 times more likely than uninfected ones to leave their birth family (BUT don't necessarily start a new pack), and 46 times more likely to (create a pack and) become pack leaders.
Sure, but there has to be stray wolves forming new packs. Every pack in existence started that way. While there is no fight for who will be "The Alpha", obviously there is a patriarch and matriarch of the pack.
It’s impressive to see T. Gondii evolve to influence their hosts to write positive PR.
Joking aside, it makes sense to me that higher risk behavior on the host’s part would increase a parasite’s spread, since some of the energy that drives risk also increases the rate of physical interaction with the world; like a free roaming particle with a lot of momentum on a substrate. It is good to see more research looking into this since this seems to be low hanging fruit compared to possible compound effects of t. gondii influence on society.
It's good research but there is a major caveat I didn't see it in this press release.
Before they answer questions like yours they
need to have tracked when infection occured.
Simple conundrum are wolves who are infected with t. Gondii more likely to leave their pack? Or are wolves that leave their pack more likely to get infected?
Similarly for pack leaders. It might seem obtuse to ask for this but it is important to disentangle somewhat cause and correlation.
In humans it's theorised to increase risk of car accidents (based on a french study monitoring speeding and traffic rule obedience).
They discuss it briefly and it turns out the above commenter is 100% correct in his assessment. Relevant quote from the paper:
>Given the correlational nature of the study, observed patterns may not be causal; for example, higher risk-takers could be more likely to be both entrepreneurial and exposed to T. gondii [...], thereby driving the correlation.
Remember that while it might sound amazing that a parasite could steer higher cognitive functions towards something as abstract as being more entrepreneurial, there is no practicable mechanism suggested so far and until someone figures out if it is even possible, all these studies are to be handled with care.
> there is no practicable mechanism suggested so far
There is, actually. T. Gondii has the genes to make tyrosine hydroxylase which is a dopamine precursor. It also visibly modifies rodent behavior around cat urine. Robert Sapolsky is one of many researchers narrowing in a mechanistic model of how parasites can influence host behavior.
Steering higher-order behavior by modifying reward circuits is possible and overtly practiced in many types of (mostly superficial) human relationships, organizational interfaces and societal structures.
> In the United States it is estimated that 11% of the population 6 years and older have been infected with Toxoplasma. In various places throughout the world, it has been shown that more than 60% of some populations have been infected with Toxoplasma.
I really don't get T. Gondii. I read all these article about how it might be affecting us, a source of mental health disorders, so on and so on. And it is very common in household cats + a lot of people already have it. CDC says, "While the parasite is found throughout the world, more than 40 million people in the United States may be infected with the Toxoplasma parasite." I assume present tense means currently infected?
Genuinely curious, why aren't we doing an annual anti-parasitic or something given the drugs are relatively benign?
How does it know what gene to promote? Its hard to beleive that such "primitive" organizm promotes exploration and risky behavior in number of different animals.
I think you're being facetious, but that would actually be an interesting segment of the population to look at for prevalence of T. gondii. I'd really like to see that study.
>Among professionals attending entrepreneurship events, T. gondii-positive individuals were 1.8× more likely to have started their own business compared with other attendees (n = 197). Finally, after synthesizing and combining country-level databases on T. gondii infection from the past 25 years with the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor of entrepreneurial activity, we found that infection prevalence was a consistent, positive predictor of entrepreneurial activity and intentions at the national scale, regardless of whether previously identified economic covariates were included.
>Comparison of testosterone concentrations and control groups showed that testosterone concentration in study group was higher than that in control group with statistically significant difference.
>Testosterone, a testicular steroid, is known to reduce fear and enhance sexual attractiveness in males. Here, we show that Toxoplasma gondii infection enhances expression of genes involved in facilitating synthesis of testosterone, resulting in greater testicular testosterone production in male rats.
2 billion people already have the Toxoplasma gondii in their brains. If it were to affect humanity is some profound way, we would have already linked it to something more substantial than n=197 studies of correlating success in entrepreneurship to the virus.
That's a pretty bold take from somebody who thinks it's a virus and not a single-celled parasite. But then as Charles Darwin said, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
It's widely known for many years now. Twenty years ago there was a huge report about it on German public radio. The article I looked references research from the seventies.
It's been a strange philosophical point to me that catching a parasite that really wants to be in your cat can alter your personality and unless you are a pregnant woman the medical system ignores it.
What's the medical system going to do about a parasite that often doesn't cause any symptoms that can pinpoint the particular pathogen? Most healthy people clear the infection without ever knowing anything happened.
We don't have any way to undo whatever the parasite did while it was active. It's probably possible to create a vaccine, but the full impact in humans is still being explored and a vaccine for a pathogen that's been with us mostly unnoticed since cats have been with us isn't a high priority.
I'd also say decades of research into the effects of T. gondii is explicitly not the medical system ignoring it. It's the medical system being aware of it, but there aren't any great solutions at this point.
I'd also like to point out the difference between difficult to define risk-taking behavior in adults vs. miscarriage, blindness, neurological issues, and hydrocephalus among other risks to a fetus.
I definitely don't have a clear answer here either. It's just a interesting thing to think about. It's very common and can change you or your loved ones personality. However, reviving it of course would also changed your personality. I've noticed recently that I've gotten much more risk-averse than I used to be and think it might be bad. Maybe I should get toxoplasmosis on purpose? Really creates a lot of questions about "self".
If T. gondii has you questioning the existence of free will, you should (or maybe shouldn't) look into how your gut microbiota affect your mental processes. We're less individuals and more systems of millions of different critters.
This may very well be true. I wish you had posted more of a direct criticism of the study in question other than its small sample size.
It may have had a similar control group and could be relevant. It could be that individuals with more of the parasite are more likely to become entrepreneurs still.
In a world where people are supplementing with turkesterone... It's an arthropod moulting hormone-analogue. But it's an ecdysteroid. So surely its ergogenic.
There is the idea that anyone that wants to be a leader probably shouldn't be a leader. These are the types of people who crave being in positions of authority over others. They'll step on anyone they need to in order to get the the top. They might be the leader, but they usually aren't necessarily the types of people that are looking out for the best interests of the people they lead.
There's also the Dunning-Kruger Effect; Incompetent or dumb people don't recognize their own failings and assume they are geniuses. Smart and competent people know their own deficiencies and assume they're limited or dumb.
so if you feel like you are limited/dumb are you actually smart or does realising that loop back to you actually really being dumb. seems like a catch 22
With DK, the underlying model is that people only improve when they see their flaws. People who are very good at seeing their own flaws improve their performance, but tend to think they are doing worse than they are.
In my view whether or not that makes you "smart" or "dumb" depends on what you do with the insight. As Ira Glass writes: "Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through."
I was once part of a department that was so well-managed and functional that I couldn't quite believe it. Then when time came choose a new department head, someone told me that they had always specifically avoided people who wanted to lead the department for the job.
Good policy. In worker owned enterprises that are run democratically the owner/employees elect their managers from the ranks. They act as manager for a term and then go back to their original position after the next election. Keeps everyone based in reality.
Decades ago, the Boston University Free Press (the alternative views newspaper) was managed in this manner. My buddy ended up running the paper for a year because he was the least political, most liked guy working at the place. He just wanted people to be happy. After a year, he was no longer happy and was glad to give up the job.
There's a difference between "I don't want to do this job", and "I don't want to do this job, but it needs to be done, and apparently everyone else thinks I'm the best fit for it. As much as I now hate you all, I'll do it, and may God have mercy on your souls."
I've been told several times that I become scarily competent at anything I hate, far in excess of those things that make me happy or bring me joy.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't discount disgust or aversion to something or it's lack as a disqualification to manage that thing. Quite to the contrary, they may be just the person aware enough of the thing in question to reliably manage it. I'll take a candidate who can explain at length why they hate that job over the most eager "this'll be great" candidate ever.
I'll just be realistic about my assessment of their tenure, and the compensation offered, and try really hard to figure out what they actually want before pulling the trigger on the hire.
The flaw is that it forces someone into a role they do not want to fulfil, that could see the occupant become resentful of those around them and act out of spite.
The short answer is there is no perfect model, people will always be people.
I somehow expect that person wouldn't have become spiteful _just_ because of the election, so wouldn't get elected in the first place... but yeah, we only have bad or worse solutions.
> There is the idea that anyone that wants to be a leader probably shouldn't be a leader. These are the types of people who crave being in positions of authority over others.
Which is why it's helpful to have as many (what I refer to as…) "power traps" in a society as possible: coaching, teaching, leading an HOA, leading a PTA, etc.
I have nothing against these endeavors, you must understand, but my view is that a person spending time acting as a judge for a dog show is less likely to pursue becoming an actual judge.
"There's a secret cabal of beings that are making my life personally miserable" is already a common enough position that cyclically occurs in human history every hundred years or so that I don't think it's a fiction. I don't think it's an untenable premise to suspect that toxoplasmosis pandemics are cyclically-occuring in humans already and are responsible for revolutionary periods and/or imperialism.
What people might find unpalatable is the idea that parasitic infection could determine so fundamentally political beliefs and ideology, but consider that the idea of not cleaning your hands directly led to disease was considered literal insanity (see the tragic history of Ignaz Semmelweis) prior to germ theory. Sometimes it's the smallest catalysts that cause the largest changes. For the want of a nail...
“Cats began their unique relationship with humans 10,000 to 12,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, the geographic region where some of the earliest developments in human civilization occurred ”
Surely causation. Farmers store crops which attract rodents which attract felines. Wild cats that mind their manners do better in this environment. Eventually wild cats become the kitty cats we know today.
That wild cats infected humans so that humans would develope agriculture that would attract rodents for the cats to eat? That hypothesis doesn't seem very plausible...
Cat infects human A, who feeds cat in a fit of unprecedented affection. Human B sees another human with a cat and wants to be their friend. Repeat until cat friend puddle is too large for local flora to sustain. Human Z invents agriculture, attracting rats. I'm not sure this is terribly plausible, but I do have a cat on my lap.
> Wolves infected with a common parasite are more likely than uninfected animals to lead a pack, according to an analysis of more than 200 North American wolves1. Infected animals are also more likely to leave their home packs and strike out on their own.
> Although under-studied, penguin populations, especially those that share an environment with the human population, are at-risk due to parasite infections, mainly Toxoplasmosis gondii. The main subspecies of penguins found to be infected by T. gondii include wild Magellanic and Galapagos penguins, as well as blue and African penguins in captivity.[78] In one study, 57 (43.2%) of 132 serum samples of Magellanic penguins were found to have T. gondii. The island that the penguin is located, Magdalena Island, is known to have no cat populations, but a very frequent human population, indicating the possibility of transmission.
HERZOG: Dr. Ainley, is there such thing as insanity among penguins? I try to
avoid the definition of insanity or derangement. I don't mean that a penguin
might believe he or she is Lenin or Napoleon Bonaparte, but could they just go
crazy because they've had enough of their colony?
AINLEY: Well, I've never seen a penguin bashing its head against a rock. They
do get disoriented. They end up in places they shouldn't be, a long way from
the ocean.
HERZOG: These penguins are all heading to the open water to the right.
But one of them caught our eye, the one in the center.
He would neither go towards the feeding grounds at the edge of the ice,
nor return to the colony. Shortly afterwards, we saw him heading straight
towards the mountains, some 70 kilometers away. Dr. Ainley explained
that even if he caught him and brought him back to the colony, he would
immediately head right back for the mountains. But why?
One of these disoriented, or deranged, penguins showed up at the New Harbor
diving camp, already some 80 kilometers away from where it should be.
The rules for the humans are do not disturb or hold up the penguin. Stand still
and let him go on his way. And here, he's heading off into the interior of the
vast continent.
With 5, 000 kilometers ahead of him, he's heading towards certain death.
> consider that the idea of not cleaning your hands directly led to disease was considered literal insanity (see the tragic history of Ignaz Semmelweis) prior to germ theory
I was under the impression that it wasn't so much that people considered the idea insane, as that they hated Semmelweis and were therefore strenuously opposed to anything associated with him.
Futurama made an episode kinda like this. But it's not so dystopic: if anything it kinda made me want to eat an egg salad sandwich from a vendomat in the bathroom of a truck stop!
Culture is emergent behavior or a description of human behavior, it's not an external agent that becomes attached to humans, so the analogy really doesn't work.
Culture is literally an external agent passed on by our family, friends, peers, institutions, companies, and organizations. It is and always has been a meme. The analogy is sound.
It's not an external agent, it's an emergent property of humankind. I don't find memes a compelling idea, but regardless, memes are not viruses and culture is neither a virus nor a virus-like external agent.
So the analogy is very forced and doesn't really work.
Obviously it doesn't always happen, a cold doesn't make you more sociable. On the other hand a cold virus that managed to pull that off through some freak mutation would easily outcompete all other variants.
Mitochondria are a bit special in that it's mutually beneficial, but the same could be said about the above cold virus, if the other symptoms are mild enough.
If 30-50% of people have toxoplasma gondii, "gondi makes you fearless, never felt so good, then just before exitus" sounds like a exaggeration, because I doubt 50% are fearless, never felt so good.
I mentioned the article title to my high school animal enthusiast and that is the first thing they said; haven't researched it yet but it seems like these scientists would be "in the know."
I had the same thought. And also, the whole classification of "alpha male", "beta male" of the pack has been debunked, since there's no pack, just the wolves family. So the "betas" are actually the young adults of the family, and the "alphas" the father and mother.
yayr | 3 years ago
> Physical and behavioural changes have also been found in people: testosterone and dopamine production is increased and more risks are taken.
...
> Up to one-third of humans might be chronically infected.
That is certainly an interesting research vector...
drooby | 3 years ago
Or could it be that wolves that are already more likely to hunt cougars (thus eat them and get the parasite) have high risk taking behavior and are thus more likely to be pack leaders? And the parasite actually has a benign influence on the host?
trenchgun | 3 years ago
Could be, but there are mechanisms which explain how toxoplasma creates the risky bhaviour: by increasing testosterone production.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33742779
snshn | 3 years ago
Elon Musk is probably full of 'em.
tgv | 3 years ago
I don't see anything in that article that makes the conclusion inevitable. It's a remarkable correlation for sure, but unfortunately it doesn't go beyond that. There's no pathway from infection to leadership (just a vague hypothesis that doesn't resemble the mechanism in rats and hyenas), and it doesn't look as if they looked at uninfected pack leaders. Perhaps pack leaders or strays eat more dead cat, or some other intermediate host of T.gondii. Perhaps they sampled in the wrong time frame. The full article might have more info, but the linked one doesn't.
nonrandomstring | 3 years ago
I haven't read the paper either, but I must say the operation of parasites as elements in complex biological super-systems is absolutely fascinating. Ants that march to the top of trees under the influence of fungus spores trying to be eaten by birds. Fish that commit suicide by swimming toward predators as part of a parasitic lifecycle.... evolution is truly miraculous.
Another apocryphal story is cats carrying Toxoplasma Gondii make some people really like cats. So maybe mad cat lady syndrome is treatable with drugs :)
Who knows what super-systems we are unwittingly a part of. That seems an interesting area for big-data + AI hypothesis synthesis - we may find new explanations or even whole new branches of behaviour in psychology.
novosel | 3 years ago
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31980266/
pydry | 3 years ago
Things also get interesting if you look at economic and social systems in this context.
thaumasiotes | 3 years ago
For sure. Married people barely vote Democratic. Given that, what kind of society will the Democratic Party seek to create?
pfisch | 3 years ago
How do you know you're not just catching cross correlation with age?
bena | 3 years ago
Age, socio-economic status, and other confounding factors.
Not to mention, according to him, 40% is "barely".
jesushax | 3 years ago
He probably didn't have the stat off the top of his head, so it was exaggerated based on assumptions. But the underlying intuition had a kernel of truth and applies to any political party, or any institution, really. For example, if an organization dedicated to the poor mainly draws support from poor people, they have a kind of incentive to subtly maintain poverty.
This theory that institutions kind of have a tendency to perpetuate the conditions that necessitate their existence was developed by Durkheim, and like most of the other early sociologists, I really recommend it over newer stuff. It's not conspiratorial, the idea is that organizations that do this outsurvive groups that legitimately solve the problems they are created to solve, and so through an evolutionary process, the longest lived and deepest institutions tend to be ones with behaviors ironically antithetical to their supposed mission (even if the members of the institution totally believe in and earnestly support the mission).
The typical example (at least when I was into this kind of stuff) is the Catholic Church earnestly helping the poor, but doing so in a way that societaly, will never actually alleviate poverty, or may even exacerbate it. Now days I tend to hear this line of thinking used about liberals supporting policies that "help" minorities but really perpetuate the cycle of poverty.
Whether you believe this is beside the point, I only mean to suggest that OP is wrong, but a steelman of his point is deeper than it seems, and deserves our good faith imo.
qnr | 3 years ago
Same general idea: it's not in the dating apps' best interest to get their users into successful long-term relationships and out of the dating pool.
bena | 3 years ago
thaumasiotes was saying married people vote Republican more often. pfisch was suggesting he was actually witnessing a separate correlation. Older people tend to vote Republican more often, older people are more often married than younger people.
I was suggesting that there are other things that go into even the age issue.
Religious people are more likely to marry than non-religious people. Religious people tend to vote more conservatively than non-religious people. Etc. etc. I was agreeing with pfisch that a lot of the reasons people get married often line up with reasons why people vote Republican.
And I wouldn't say the Catholic Church believes its mission to be to eliminate poverty. Or even alleviate it. They want to temporarily alleviate the superficial effects of poverty on people.
klipt | 3 years ago
Yes you could definitely make an argument that democrats benefit from poverty, or that republicans benefit from illegal immigration. People in poverty receiving benefits vote democrat because they're afraid republicans will cut benefits. People who fear illegal immigrants taking their jobs will vote republican because they think republicans will be tougher on illegal immigration. If democrats actually solved poverty or if republicans actually deported 100% of illegal immigrants, a lot of people would lose their reasons to vote for those parties.
Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.
salawat | 3 years ago
>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.
You aborted your analysis too early. Getting Roe v. Wade overturned still benefits Republicans until such time as Legislation is successfully passed to outlaw abortion at all levels (i.e. State & Federal, though arguably we're talking Republican here, so one would think they'd content themselves with States). Only then would the "problem" be solved.
jesushax | 3 years ago
You are completely correct, I didn't mean to argue against the Dems, just noting that I hear this critique raised against them a lot.
>Arguably by the same reasoning, republicans benefit from legal abortion and their finally getting Roe v Wade reversed was terrible for their electoral performance.
Indeed, the far-right has raised exactly this criticism of overturning Roe v Wade:
>If you have limited energy and a limited number of possible wins, it is important to focus your limited energy on one kind of win: wins that make future wins easier. By definition, these are the kinds of wins that augment your power. These are real wins. > >There is another kind of “win,” wins which expend your power in order to achieve some result you want. These are sometimes called “Pyrrhic victories.” Pyrrhus took the battlefield, but after the battle his chances of winning were reduced. His tactical “victory” was a strategic defeat.
Source: You can only lose the culture war (https://graymirror.substack.com/p/you-can-only-lose-the-cult...)
This kind of thinking isn't partisan, I think it describes the a problem that occurs with institutions in any society. I'm not sure what the solution is, other than to be collectively vigilant against institutions succumbing to these tendencies. Which seems woefully inadequate.
thaumasiotes | 3 years ago
> Not to mention, according to him, 40% is "barely".
You might want to think about what a 20-point margin means in electoral politics. Taking 60% of the vote is routinely described in terms like "landslide victory".
shkkmo | 3 years ago
Married people make about half the Democratic voter base, so your reasoning seems flawed at best.
Not to mention that a large part of the relative under representation of married people in the Democratic voter base is due to relative over representation of younger people.
voltaireodactyl | 3 years ago
This is a fascinating and unexpected piece of information. I would be very intrigued to read your source.
thaumasiotes | 3 years ago
Here's CNN's exit poll for November 2022: https://www.cnn.com/election/2022/exit-polls/national-result...
Unmarried women vote Democratic, 68-31.
Unmarried men vote Republican, 52-45.
Married women, Republican, 56-42.
Married men, Republican, 59-39.
Here's an image purporting to describe the Reuters-Ipsos poll of 2012: https://i.imgur.com/I3ycNpC.png . (I haven't been able to find the actual poll.) It only gives the Republican share of the vote for each demographic, but Republicans+Democrats should be close to 100% of the vote. 1992 is an exception.
Unmarried women, 31% Republican.
Unmarried men, 41% Republican.
Married women, 55% Republican.
Married men, 58% Republican.
meindnoch | 3 years ago
Most likely Democrat couples don’t feel the need to marry at the same rate as Republicans.
Anyhow, the quoted figures doesn’t exactly show that married people “barely vote Republican”.
salawat | 3 years ago
Sampling bias: those that respond to polls.
dtgriscom | 3 years ago
We went from wolf parasites to "Democrats want to prevent marriage", via exaggerated polling data. How does this add to our conversation?
tafda | 3 years ago
“ Republicans lead among married men (51%-38%), while married women are evenly divided (44% Republican, 44% Democratic). ” https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2015/04/07/a-deep-dive-...
That’s out of more than 60 million married couples in the US. Barely here equals about half?
thaumasiotes | 3 years ago
> Barely here equals about half?
Well, first, married women are not evenly divided. They are more Republican and less Democratic than unmarried men, who are also Republican.
Second, even by the numbers you cite, Democrats aren't coming close to half of the vote among married couples.
Third, you have over 11% of the vote going to third parties. In reality, in 2016 the two-party vote share was just over 94%.
Some of these problems seem to arise from you confusing party affiliation with voting. They're different.
freeflight | 3 years ago
> Perhaps they sampled in the wrong time frame. The full article might have more info, but the linked one doesn't.
The data was collected over nearly 27 years, the link to the full open access paper is in the references; https://doi.org/10.1038%2Fs42003-022-04122-0
simonh | 3 years ago
They looked at animals that were and were not infected, throughout their lives, and saw what they did, so they knew whether the animals were infected or not before they became pack leaders. From the article:
>The team looked at 256 blood samples from 229 wolves, which had been carefully watched throughout their lives, and had their life histories and social status recorded. Meyer and Cassidy found that infected wolves were 11 times more likely than uninfected ones to leave their birth family to start a new pack, and 46 times more likely to become pack leaders — often the only wolves in the pack that breed.
fergal_reid | 3 years ago
Havent read the paper, but your quote doesn't change the core point that it could be correlation.
E.g. perhaps aggression makes them more likely to eat infected animals and also more likely to challenge for leadership.
Mistletoe | 3 years ago
I had this thought but doesn’t the pack mostly eat the same thing?
brohee | 3 years ago
Not those that set out on their own, and thus are more likely to catch rodent while alone than feasting on big prey with the pack...
Unless they can pinpoint the infection and a subsequent behavior change, it's not super conclusive.
It's like concluding catching an IST makes you more promiscuous, even if that would likely be supported by statistics...
stared | 3 years ago
Potetnially related: "Men Who Owned Cats As Kids May Have Higher Psychosis Risk" https://www.iflscience.com/men-who-owned-cats-as-kids-may-ha...
msrenee | 3 years ago
That article uses psychosis and schizophrenia interchangeably. There's also no mention of the familial nature of schizophrenia. There's a genetic link in many cases and there's been work in that area that's starting to identify particular genes that are associated with the disorder.
It could be that infection with T. gondii is sometimes the difference between simply having a predisposition towards schizophrenia and actually developing the symptoms. Pot use in the late teens and early 20s can have the same effect. It doesn't cause schizophrenia, but it may be a trigger than leads a genetically predisposed individual to develop the disorder.
c3534l | 3 years ago
How do we know that risk-taking doesn't lead to a higher rates of parasitic infection?
manv1 | 3 years ago
Pussy changes everything?
californiadreem | 3 years ago
Squeaky meal gets the grease.
jokoon | 3 years ago
I'm still not very convinced of the scientific definition of "pack leader".
Behavior science is sensitive to interpretation, in my view.
It's a human bias to see human concepts in other species.
jonplackett | 3 years ago
What do you mean by that? I thought it was a pretty accepted/normal thing for wolves to have a pack leader?
goodpoint | 3 years ago
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-wolf-dont-alpha-males-females....
https://wolf.org/headlines/44265/
goodpoint | 3 years ago
And why the silent downvotes?
Communitivity | 3 years ago
The research results are an interesting find and good work. They indicate a clear need for more research. They aren't conclusive as is, at least with the limited info I found (I haven't found a papers archive from The Wolf Society 2022 conference, so I had to go by press articles). Sample size of 229 seems small, considering the diversity among wolf packs. For example, were these wolves from one state vs multiple states. Getting a larger sample size would be hard but not impossible if the study lasted a long time. Science is about building a stairway - 99% steps 1% momentous landings that built on all the steps before them. This work is a good solid step.
pvaldes | 3 years ago
Yep, who would imagine that animals in societies tend to discriminate against the ill and diseased.
codexjourneys | 3 years ago
Bringing my comments over from the other submission:
Not just wolves. Toxoplasma infection also "may make people look more attractive to the opposite sex": https://www.earth.com/news/parasite-makes-infected-people-lo...
Is this because it increases risk-taking behavior? Who knows, but it's interesting that something with potentially significant health drawbacks may have enough benefits that it's evolved to coexist with us (up to 50% of people carry it).
Overall, it looks increasingly like microbes shape our behavior and emotional health: https://www.science.org/content/article/evidence-mounts-gut-...
[Deleted] | 3 years ago
jjtheblunt | 3 years ago
it would be fascinating to see a plot of toxoplasma gondii hitting the first page of HN vs time.
It seems periodic, and i'm not kidding. (kinda like Jodi Foster in Contact with the headphones on)
Not this time, but usually it's a revelation about the protozoan with mice being fearless around cats, or about humans living with cats, with associated proposals of drama, perhaps to drive pageviews.
Trouble_007 | 3 years ago
Also; Grey wolves infected with this parasite are more likely to become pack leaders : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33738581
the_af | 3 years ago
It's the same news, reported in two different places.
Trouble_007 | 3 years ago
I reiterate;
Toxoplasma gondii : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii
Risk factors for human infection : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii#Immune_respo...
the_af | 3 years ago
Before, you linked to another article about wolves which was basically the same article that is linked at the top of this thread.
So "also, Grey Wolves" -- the "also" is redundant, since it's about the same wolves both times, and the finding is the same.
helsinkiandrew | 3 years ago
> Cassidy found that infected wolves were 11 times more likely than uninfected ones to leave their birth family to start a new pack, and 46 times more likely to become pack leaders
I thought we now believe that wolf packs are purely family units - mother, father and their cubs. There's no alpha wolves leading a pack of other male and female wolves, just stray wolves and family units. So a wolf pack is only comprised of the leader and its cubs.
https://wolf.org/wolf-info/wild-kids/wolf-families
henrydark | 3 years ago
I don't k ow anything about wolves or parasites, but those two things don't contradict each other. Maybe wolves with the parasite are exactly more likely to form such a family unit
helsinkiandrew | 3 years ago
Perhaps its just bad wording and they mean "they are 11 times more likely than uninfected ones to leave their birth family (BUT don't necessarily start a new pack), and 46 times more likely to (create a pack and) become pack leaders.
stared | 3 years ago
It is how I read that. They start their faimilies. Alpha male/female = parents. A pack is their extended family.
Alan_Dillman | 3 years ago
Sure, but there has to be stray wolves forming new packs. Every pack in existence started that way. While there is no fight for who will be "The Alpha", obviously there is a patriarch and matriarch of the pack.
Kiboneu | 3 years ago
It’s impressive to see T. Gondii evolve to influence their hosts to write positive PR.
Joking aside, it makes sense to me that higher risk behavior on the host’s part would increase a parasite’s spread, since some of the energy that drives risk also increases the rate of physical interaction with the world; like a free roaming particle with a lot of momentum on a substrate. It is good to see more research looking into this since this seems to be low hanging fruit compared to possible compound effects of t. gondii influence on society.
psychphysic | 3 years ago
Ha!
It's good research but there is a major caveat I didn't see it in this press release.
Before they answer questions like yours they need to have tracked when infection occured.
Simple conundrum are wolves who are infected with t. Gondii more likely to leave their pack? Or are wolves that leave their pack more likely to get infected?
Similarly for pack leaders. It might seem obtuse to ask for this but it is important to disentangle somewhat cause and correlation.
In humans it's theorised to increase risk of car accidents (based on a french study monitoring speeding and traffic rule obedience).
periheli0n | 3 years ago
Why do press releases always have to oversell the findings? I think it plays into the hands of science deniers.
I can see how press departments could claim that they’re only doing their job, but it’s potentially unethical and dangerous.
ShamelessC | 3 years ago
Probably a good idea to critique the paper, not the press release. I haven't read it but for all you know they could have discussed this at length.
sigmoid10 | 3 years ago
They discuss it briefly and it turns out the above commenter is 100% correct in his assessment. Relevant quote from the paper:
>Given the correlational nature of the study, observed patterns may not be causal; for example, higher risk-takers could be more likely to be both entrepreneurial and exposed to T. gondii [...], thereby driving the correlation.
Remember that while it might sound amazing that a parasite could steer higher cognitive functions towards something as abstract as being more entrepreneurial, there is no practicable mechanism suggested so far and until someone figures out if it is even possible, all these studies are to be handled with care.
ShamelessC | 3 years ago
My point remains - thank you for following up with what appears to be a proper criticism.
Kiboneu | 3 years ago
> there is no practicable mechanism suggested so far
There is, actually. T. Gondii has the genes to make tyrosine hydroxylase which is a dopamine precursor. It also visibly modifies rodent behavior around cat urine. Robert Sapolsky is one of many researchers narrowing in a mechanistic model of how parasites can influence host behavior.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17404235/ https://www.edge.org/conversation/robert_sapolsky-toxo
Edit:
Steering higher-order behavior by modifying reward circuits is possible and overtly practiced in many types of (mostly superficial) human relationships, organizational interfaces and societal structures.
nahuel0x | 3 years ago
If a parasite gives the host a competitive advantage, is really a parasite?
Kognito | 3 years ago
“Semi-dormant tissue cysts form in the brain, eyes and heart muscle, persisting the infection for life”
“Can also infect humans”
Well that doesn’t give me nightmares at all.
sva_ | 3 years ago
> In the United States it is estimated that 11% of the population 6 years and older have been infected with Toxoplasma. In various places throughout the world, it has been shown that more than 60% of some populations have been infected with Toxoplasma.
https://www.cdc.gov/parasites/toxoplasmosis/epi.html
parhamn | 3 years ago
I really don't get T. Gondii. I read all these article about how it might be affecting us, a source of mental health disorders, so on and so on. And it is very common in household cats + a lot of people already have it. CDC says, "While the parasite is found throughout the world, more than 40 million people in the United States may be infected with the Toxoplasma parasite." I assume present tense means currently infected?
Genuinely curious, why aren't we doing an annual anti-parasitic or something given the drugs are relatively benign?
tehchromic | 3 years ago
I had heard the relationship between countries with better football teams having higher rates of t gondii, now it all makes sense
bof_ | 3 years ago
Tell me about it.
deafpolygon | 3 years ago
So.. Chad parasites.
I'm off to find a parasite, wish me luck.
majkinetor | 3 years ago
Fucking amazing...
How does it know what gene to promote? Its hard to beleive that such "primitive" organizm promotes exploration and risky behavior in number of different animals.
nix23 | 3 years ago
Can we please do the same study with politicians?
msrenee | 3 years ago
I think you're being facetious, but that would actually be an interesting segment of the population to look at for prevalence of T. gondii. I'd really like to see that study.
nix23 | 3 years ago
Well no, it's was kind of a real question..but also with "the elon's of the world"
pvaldes | 3 years ago
Parasitized wolves (omegas being forced to eat the rotten leftovers) are losers that are often chased off the pack.
And most of them die for that.
Two titles. Same article; just without the starry-eyed documentary lens
hellfish | 3 years ago
> Up to one-third of humans might be chronically infected.
> Infections with toxoplasmosis are associated with a variety of neuropsychiatric and behavioral conditions
> Research on human vaccines is ongoing.
I say 5 years before we have a moral panic about this
nathan_compton | 3 years ago
Can't wait till pickup artist types are infecting themselves on purpose so they can be more alpha.
BlueTemplar | 3 years ago
> possibly even increasing their chances of encountering cougars and exposing more members to infection
(I'll get my coat.)
[Deleted] | 3 years ago
Invictus0 | 3 years ago
Was this entire comment section generated by GPT-3?
ChrisMarshallNY | 3 years ago
> Up to one-third of humans might be chronically infected.
That explains so much...
FirstLvR | 3 years ago
This whole post and comments are just incredible … can we predict one society success purely on parasite composition?
[Deleted] | 3 years ago
meindnoch | 3 years ago
"Risky business: linking Toxoplasma gondii infection and entrepreneurship behaviours across individuals and countries" (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30051870/)
>Among professionals attending entrepreneurship events, T. gondii-positive individuals were 1.8× more likely to have started their own business compared with other attendees (n = 197). Finally, after synthesizing and combining country-level databases on T. gondii infection from the past 25 years with the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor of entrepreneurial activity, we found that infection prevalence was a consistent, positive predictor of entrepreneurial activity and intentions at the national scale, regardless of whether previously identified economic covariates were included.
"The association of latent toxoplasmosis and level of serum testosterone in humans" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5994116/)
>Comparison of testosterone concentrations and control groups showed that testosterone concentration in study group was higher than that in control group with statistically significant difference.
"Toxoplasma gondii infection enhances testicular steroidogenesis in rats" (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.12042)
>Testosterone, a testicular steroid, is known to reduce fear and enhance sexual attractiveness in males. Here, we show that Toxoplasma gondii infection enhances expression of genes involved in facilitating synthesis of testosterone, resulting in greater testicular testosterone production in male rats.
frontman1988 | 3 years ago
2 billion people already have the Toxoplasma gondii in their brains. If it were to affect humanity is some profound way, we would have already linked it to something more substantial than n=197 studies of correlating success in entrepreneurship to the virus.
TheBigSalad | 3 years ago
Good point. We should stop studying it because we should have known by now.
wpietri | 3 years ago
That's a pretty bold take from somebody who thinks it's a virus and not a single-celled parasite. But then as Charles Darwin said, "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
ajmurmann | 3 years ago
There are other studies that link Toxoplasmosis to increased risk taking. Here one on increased likelihood of getting into car accidents: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC117239/#__ffn_s....
It's widely known for many years now. Twenty years ago there was a huge report about it on German public radio. The article I looked references research from the seventies.
It's been a strange philosophical point to me that catching a parasite that really wants to be in your cat can alter your personality and unless you are a pregnant woman the medical system ignores it.
msrenee | 3 years ago
What's the medical system going to do about a parasite that often doesn't cause any symptoms that can pinpoint the particular pathogen? Most healthy people clear the infection without ever knowing anything happened.
We don't have any way to undo whatever the parasite did while it was active. It's probably possible to create a vaccine, but the full impact in humans is still being explored and a vaccine for a pathogen that's been with us mostly unnoticed since cats have been with us isn't a high priority.
I'd also say decades of research into the effects of T. gondii is explicitly not the medical system ignoring it. It's the medical system being aware of it, but there aren't any great solutions at this point.
I'd also like to point out the difference between difficult to define risk-taking behavior in adults vs. miscarriage, blindness, neurological issues, and hydrocephalus among other risks to a fetus.
ajmurmann | 3 years ago
I definitely don't have a clear answer here either. It's just a interesting thing to think about. It's very common and can change you or your loved ones personality. However, reviving it of course would also changed your personality. I've noticed recently that I've gotten much more risk-averse than I used to be and think it might be bad. Maybe I should get toxoplasmosis on purpose? Really creates a lot of questions about "self".
msrenee | 3 years ago
If T. gondii has you questioning the existence of free will, you should (or maybe shouldn't) look into how your gut microbiota affect your mental processes. We're less individuals and more systems of millions of different critters.
ajmurmann | 3 years ago
Thanks! I've already down that and many similar rabbit holes and am entirely puzzled about self, sentients and existence :)
enkid | 3 years ago
That's not how science works.
jjallen | 3 years ago
This may very well be true. I wish you had posted more of a direct criticism of the study in question other than its small sample size.
It may have had a similar control group and could be relevant. It could be that individuals with more of the parasite are more likely to become entrepreneurs still.
eloff | 3 years ago
I can see the headlines now "you won't believe this one weird trick for bigger gains and better performance in bed".
Silverback_VII | 3 years ago
What is the legal framework for a product that infects people with "beneficial" parasites ?
gumby | 3 years ago
Ever seen “probiotics” for sale at the shops? Or live culture yoghurt?
[Deleted] | 3 years ago
hanniabu | 3 years ago
Just call it a supplement and you can do anything
escapecharacter | 3 years ago
As long as it doesn’t affect my essential fluids, I’m game
brookst | 3 years ago
Just take it with pure rain water and you’ll be fine.
brohee | 3 years ago
Maybe read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasite_%28Grant_novel%29 first...
marginalia_nu | 3 years ago
In a world where people are supplementing with turkesterone... It's an arthropod moulting hormone-analogue. But it's an ecdysteroid. So surely its ergogenic.
Sure, why not.
rainmaker124 | 3 years ago
machina_ex_deus | 3 years ago
Imagine how dystopian that would sound in humans, like some science fiction horror.
"All the leaders are secretly infected by parasites".
Sounds like interesting sci fi movie premise.
yesbut | 3 years ago
There is the idea that anyone that wants to be a leader probably shouldn't be a leader. These are the types of people who crave being in positions of authority over others. They'll step on anyone they need to in order to get the the top. They might be the leader, but they usually aren't necessarily the types of people that are looking out for the best interests of the people they lead.
TEP_Kim_Il_Sung | 3 years ago
There's also the Dunning-Kruger Effect; Incompetent or dumb people don't recognize their own failings and assume they are geniuses. Smart and competent people know their own deficiencies and assume they're limited or dumb.
Rallen89 | 3 years ago
so if you feel like you are limited/dumb are you actually smart or does realising that loop back to you actually really being dumb. seems like a catch 22
wpietri | 3 years ago
With DK, the underlying model is that people only improve when they see their flaws. People who are very good at seeing their own flaws improve their performance, but tend to think they are doing worse than they are.
In my view whether or not that makes you "smart" or "dumb" depends on what you do with the insight. As Ira Glass writes: "Nobody tells this to people who are beginners, I wish someone told me. All of us who do creative work, we get into it because we have good taste. But there is this gap. For the first couple years you make stuff, it’s just not that good. It’s trying to be good, it has potential, but it’s not. But your taste, the thing that got you into the game, is still killer. And your taste is why your work disappoints you. A lot of people never get past this phase, they quit. Most people I know who do interesting, creative work went through years of this. We know our work doesn’t have this special thing that we want it to have. We all go through this. And if you are just starting out or you are still in this phase, you gotta know its normal and the most important thing you can do is do a lot of work. Put yourself on a deadline so that every week you will finish one story. It is only by going through a volume of work that you will close that gap, and your work will be as good as your ambitions. And I took longer to figure out how to do this than anyone I’ve ever met. It’s gonna take awhile. It’s normal to take awhile. You’ve just gotta fight your way through."
stncls | 3 years ago
I was once part of a department that was so well-managed and functional that I couldn't quite believe it. Then when time came choose a new department head, someone told me that they had always specifically avoided people who wanted to lead the department for the job.
yesbut | 3 years ago
Good policy. In worker owned enterprises that are run democratically the owner/employees elect their managers from the ranks. They act as manager for a term and then go back to their original position after the next election. Keeps everyone based in reality.
bsenftner | 3 years ago
Decades ago, the Boston University Free Press (the alternative views newspaper) was managed in this manner. My buddy ended up running the paper for a year because he was the least political, most liked guy working at the place. He just wanted people to be happy. After a year, he was no longer happy and was glad to give up the job.
yesbut | 3 years ago
Managers, like politicians, should have term limits. The temptation for abuse and favoritism is too strong.
msrenee | 3 years ago
I agree with you for the most part, but what happens when you've got a damn good manager? They exist for sure. They're just unfortunately a minority.
victor106 | 3 years ago
My simple mind thinks:-
Why would you want someone who does not want to do a job do that job?
If you are interviewing someone and that person said “I don’t want to do this job” would you hire that person?
salawat | 3 years ago
There's a difference between "I don't want to do this job", and "I don't want to do this job, but it needs to be done, and apparently everyone else thinks I'm the best fit for it. As much as I now hate you all, I'll do it, and may God have mercy on your souls."
I've been told several times that I become scarily competent at anything I hate, far in excess of those things that make me happy or bring me joy.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, don't discount disgust or aversion to something or it's lack as a disqualification to manage that thing. Quite to the contrary, they may be just the person aware enough of the thing in question to reliably manage it. I'll take a candidate who can explain at length why they hate that job over the most eager "this'll be great" candidate ever.
I'll just be realistic about my assessment of their tenure, and the compensation offered, and try really hard to figure out what they actually want before pulling the trigger on the hire.
Eddy_Viscosity2 | 3 years ago
“Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.” - Douglas Adams
beardyw | 3 years ago
A perfect model for democracy I would say.
Jenk | 3 years ago
The flaw is that it forces someone into a role they do not want to fulfil, that could see the occupant become resentful of those around them and act out of spite.
The short answer is there is no perfect model, people will always be people.
soco | 3 years ago
I somehow expect that person wouldn't have become spiteful _just_ because of the election, so wouldn't get elected in the first place... but yeah, we only have bad or worse solutions.
dasv | 3 years ago
An idea that goes back to Plato's republic.
acuozzo | 3 years ago
> There is the idea that anyone that wants to be a leader probably shouldn't be a leader. These are the types of people who crave being in positions of authority over others.
Which is why it's helpful to have as many (what I refer to as…) "power traps" in a society as possible: coaching, teaching, leading an HOA, leading a PTA, etc.
I have nothing against these endeavors, you must understand, but my view is that a person spending time acting as a judge for a dog show is less likely to pursue becoming an actual judge.
yesbut | 3 years ago
Solution: Put term limits on democratically elected Dog Show judges, as well as normal judges.
[Deleted] | 3 years ago
tomger | 3 years ago
I think that’s the takeaway from the Lord of the Rings.
[Deleted] | 3 years ago
californiadreem | 3 years ago
"There's a secret cabal of beings that are making my life personally miserable" is already a common enough position that cyclically occurs in human history every hundred years or so that I don't think it's a fiction. I don't think it's an untenable premise to suspect that toxoplasmosis pandemics are cyclically-occuring in humans already and are responsible for revolutionary periods and/or imperialism.
What people might find unpalatable is the idea that parasitic infection could determine so fundamentally political beliefs and ideology, but consider that the idea of not cleaning your hands directly led to disease was considered literal insanity (see the tragic history of Ignaz Semmelweis) prior to germ theory. Sometimes it's the smallest catalysts that cause the largest changes. For the want of a nail...
hindsightbias | 3 years ago
“Cats began their unique relationship with humans 10,000 to 12,000 years ago in the Fertile Crescent, the geographic region where some of the earliest developments in human civilization occurred ”
Correlation or causation?
treis | 3 years ago
Surely causation. Farmers store crops which attract rodents which attract felines. Wild cats that mind their manners do better in this environment. Eventually wild cats become the kitty cats we know today.
wpietri | 3 years ago
I think they were suggesting that causality could run the other way.
shkkmo | 3 years ago
That wild cats infected humans so that humans would develope agriculture that would attract rodents for the cats to eat? That hypothesis doesn't seem very plausible...
wpietri | 3 years ago
That civilization bootstrapped due to brain chemistry changes via human/cat association.
klipt | 3 years ago
This catspiracy goes all the way to the top!
klyrs | 3 years ago
Cat infects human A, who feeds cat in a fit of unprecedented affection. Human B sees another human with a cat and wants to be their friend. Repeat until cat friend puddle is too large for local flora to sustain. Human Z invents agriculture, attracting rats. I'm not sure this is terribly plausible, but I do have a cat on my lap.
JoeyBananas | 3 years ago
You should go on Joe Rogan podcast and give a lecture on this theory
californiadreem | 3 years ago
The Article:
> Wolves infected with a common parasite are more likely than uninfected animals to lead a pack, according to an analysis of more than 200 North American wolves1. Infected animals are also more likely to leave their home packs and strike out on their own.
From Wikipedia, Toxoplasmosis Gondii ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasma_gondii ):
> Although under-studied, penguin populations, especially those that share an environment with the human population, are at-risk due to parasite infections, mainly Toxoplasmosis gondii. The main subspecies of penguins found to be infected by T. gondii include wild Magellanic and Galapagos penguins, as well as blue and African penguins in captivity.[78] In one study, 57 (43.2%) of 132 serum samples of Magellanic penguins were found to have T. gondii. The island that the penguin is located, Magdalena Island, is known to have no cat populations, but a very frequent human population, indicating the possibility of transmission.
From Werner Herzog's Encounters at the End of the Earth ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7kdDeGXUjI ):
thaumasiotes | 3 years ago
> consider that the idea of not cleaning your hands directly led to disease was considered literal insanity (see the tragic history of Ignaz Semmelweis) prior to germ theory
I was under the impression that it wasn't so much that people considered the idea insane, as that they hated Semmelweis and were therefore strenuously opposed to anything associated with him.
lzooz | 3 years ago
They generally have something in common that makes them parasites. But it's sort of a sensitive issue now.
_def | 3 years ago
It probably was sensitive forever - that's why it needs to change by speaking about it ;)
trenchgun | 3 years ago
Well... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33742779
yarg | 3 years ago
Animorphs.
adastra22 | 3 years ago
Then whatever you do, don't google "toxoplasma gondii"
nkzd | 3 years ago
There is an anime with a similar theme. Parasyte: The Maxim.
throwaway71271 | 3 years ago
Well most of the leaders of the world today are psychopathic, so its not that far off.
amarant | 3 years ago
Futurama made an episode kinda like this. But it's not so dystopic: if anything it kinda made me want to eat an egg salad sandwich from a vendomat in the bathroom of a truck stop!
klenwell | 3 years ago
Glad you mentioned this. Not horror, comedy!
Listen, you! I was born here. I raised a cloud of children here. My ancestors came over here on the sandwich.
One of my favorite episodes.
wazoox | 3 years ago
People engaging in dangerous behaviour (fast-driving motorcycles, sky-diving and... entrepreneurship) are more prone to be infected with toxoplasma.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31980266/
s3000 | 3 years ago
Culture can be seen as a symbiont for humans. Without infection, we are mere hunter-gatherers.
the_af | 3 years ago
Culture is emergent behavior or a description of human behavior, it's not an external agent that becomes attached to humans, so the analogy really doesn't work.
upsidesinclude | 3 years ago
Hint: check on synonyms for culture
the_af | 3 years ago
Care to elaborate?
sammalloy | 3 years ago
Culture is literally an external agent passed on by our family, friends, peers, institutions, companies, and organizations. It is and always has been a meme. The analogy is sound.
the_af | 3 years ago
It's not an external agent, it's an emergent property of humankind. I don't find memes a compelling idea, but regardless, memes are not viruses and culture is neither a virus nor a virus-like external agent.
So the analogy is very forced and doesn't really work.
doodledo32 | 3 years ago
culture is the greatest egregore and the enemy of progress if not aligned properly
edit: and as the one below me already alluded to, your statement exists on a physical substrate whilst culture exists abstractly thus invalid
fatneckbeardz | 3 years ago
literally an episode of Star Trek TNG, episode title Conspiracy, season 1 episode 24
yyyk | 3 years ago
>Sounds like interesting sci fi movie premise.
Well, their field of work is called poly-ticks...
mantas | 3 years ago
You don't need science finction. Just on following on some online communities:
> :s/reptiloids/parasites/g
tomjuggler | 3 years ago
With one third of humans infected it's more like the plot of an upcoming documentary..
BlueTemplar | 3 years ago
Now I understand the purpose of trigger warnings...
cruano | 3 years ago
> testosterone and dopamine production is increased
Or advertisement
winReInstall | 3 years ago
Syphillis makes you artistically brilliant, gondi makes you fearless, never felt so good, then just before exitus.
So, in conclusion, if the vector has requirements, the infection will try to make the host capable of fullfilment.
If the infection needs sugar, the mitochondria, will make the amobea crawl to algea.
shubb | 3 years ago
Thank you for the final line, I never realised that
winReInstall | 3 years ago
Its all just thesis, nothing is proven yet.
wongarsu | 3 years ago
Obviously it doesn't always happen, a cold doesn't make you more sociable. On the other hand a cold virus that managed to pull that off through some freak mutation would easily outcompete all other variants.
Mitochondria are a bit special in that it's mutually beneficial, but the same could be said about the above cold virus, if the other symptoms are mild enough.
winReInstall | 3 years ago
Urge to travel with corona intensifies.
arein3 | 3 years ago
If 30-50% of people have toxoplasma gondii, "gondi makes you fearless, never felt so good, then just before exitus" sounds like a exaggeration, because I doubt 50% are fearless, never felt so good.
LightG | 3 years ago
The next crop of YC applicants should be interesting ...
988747 | 3 years ago
And I always thought that wolves live in families, not packs, and what it takes to be a "pack leader" is being the father of other wolves.
sethammons | 3 years ago
I mentioned the article title to my high school animal enthusiast and that is the first thing they said; haven't researched it yet but it seems like these scientists would be "in the know."
the_af | 3 years ago
I had the same thought. And also, the whole classification of "alpha male", "beta male" of the pack has been debunked, since there's no pack, just the wolves family. So the "betas" are actually the young adults of the family, and the "alphas" the father and mother.
IngvarLynn | 3 years ago
Reminds me stories about school of fish following robot: https://newatlas.com/robofish-leeds-univiersity/15588/ or lobotomized fish (this looks more like anecdote than real research, i could not find the source).
Perhaps it is impossible to distinguish stupid boldness from real vision without complex communication.
752963e64 | 3 years ago
Frummy | 3 years ago
Where can I buy infected cat feces?
Maybe when aliens visit us they will say, no, step aside humans, we are here to talk to the true leaders of the planet. Bring out your microscopes.