Psychobiology of Love, Truth and Deceit

“The heart has its reasons whereof Reason knows nothing” . This pithy saying, coming from one in whose honor the early computer programming language is named, seems an unlikely source for this romantic sounding mush. Pascal’s statement appears to be on to something, all the while suffering from a fatal flaw that lawyers call a ‘conclusory allegation’. Notwithstanding the usage of a little legalism here, he is making an assertion while offering no evidence to support the same. More on this later.

Recent advances in medical science tell us that neural systems which are responsible for emotion and intellect are separate. Here, in the ethereal world of neural synapses, emotions apparently trump reason as many times as any romantic poem or novel triumphantly does. But do they really?

Why do people love? Tell a lie or engage in deceit, or tell the truth even against their self-interest? These questions surely have vexed philosophers, as they do so for me at the most unlikeliest of times.

Recently, I was at my friends’ house and observed his daughter Zoya, a toddler, barely 1.5 years old; she accidentally ran into the dining table and started wailing, then when no one paid any attention to her. She promptly accused her older sibling Aliza of beating her; never mind that Aliza, is about 3 and at least 10 feet away.

Now, how and why would a toddler who in full view of adults be capable of blithely telling such a blatant fib?

The answer is so obvious that we tend to brush it off for a more profound answer, in short the reason for such deceit is ‘resource extraction’; this term seems more appropriate in the realm of economics or business, instead I came across in casual reading of evolutionary psychology.

Here, the most basic of human emotions, self-interest and self-preservation is in evidence.

This toddler could not possibly have learned this behavior, a capacity for extraction of resources, (love, and attention etc from adults in the room) by observation; the manipulation at work here is in its rawest and unrefined form. Interestingly enough, here the toddler not only is unaware of, but also incapable of knowing that her deceit has any moral coloring to it; furthermore, she is unaware that her deceit is open and obvious to others, revealing the utter innocence of her conduct. Just when such conduct turns into a need to conceal the deceit and possibly evoke guilt is probably subject to a number of factors, none of which I pretend to know; only wish to speculate on their plausibility.

All of this then begs the question, what has love or deceit has to do with resource extraction? Perhaps not unlike what Tina Turner had in mind in her song.
Let’s explore the concept of love/mate selection, with a proper caveat that the author is indulging in mischievous speculation, one that invites an impolitic examination of a topic not generally talked of in polite company.
Some psychologists suggest that physical attractiveness is important in interpersonal attraction because of an underlying evolutionary rationale. People we perceive as attractive also possess characteristics that guarantee breeding success. This is supported by the fact that many cross-cultural studies have found that the idea of beauty is apparently universal; perfect symmetry of face, skin tone free of blemishes, proportionality in body parts (good health) musculature in men (can bring home the bacon, literally!), soft curves, wide hips in women (fertility) are all indicative of qualities in a mate that can optimally serve the progeny and to lead into the next generation.

Interestingly, similar studies show that we are attracted to people of a similar or higher standard of attractiveness as our own perceived level of attractiveness, while the attraction may not be reciprocated; quoting Don Quixote, "In matters of love, why is that we abhor the ones we can have, yet love and pine for those that abhor us’.

The evolutionary explanations relating to attraction can be further explained by parental investment and evolutionary significant characteristics. Females invest a massive amount in childbirth and child-rearing, 9 months in gestation at a substantial risk to their health during which their partners support and resources is of paramount importance.

It is therefore logical that a female should look for a partner who is willing to provide the support and resources. Look at any entreaties by women in a singles ad, sense of humor is a quality much sought after, perhaps indicative of a man’s willingness to share resources. A female can only have a few offspring (28 or so multiples of 9 months) in their life whereas a male has infinite capacity to reproduce provided they can find enough females to consent. Rather than quality of female, it is appears logical and understandable for males to look for quantity, perhaps explaining why males are apt to be more promiscuous, while females are far more choosy and selective.

In “The Selfish Gene”, Richard Dawkins argues that the emotions involved in mate selection (read love) acquiring love or attention has less to do with ‘love’ but everything to do with optimal utilization of genetic material. The emotions which we experience while in throes of being stung by Cupids arrow, these wonderful pangs of love, lust, and desire to be with the ‘One” are all nothing but executioners of genetic commands.

They care nothing for its carrier’s (you and I) feelings, but only how they can be carried on to the next generation in the most optimal and efficient path. If this sounds rather simplistic, amoral, yet crude and unsettling, welcome to the world of evolutionary psycho-biology. Here the most cherished ideal of the human experience, “love” with all its regal sophistry appears to come crashing down.
In a similar study of evolutionary psychology “The Moral Animal” Robert Wright adds a sort of ‘moral’ shade to our collective norms and behaviors as a species--our morality or lack of it--are predicated upon one singular, primal and paramount goal.

And what is the chief end of humanity? To ensure the passage of one’s genes into the next generation and to enjoy one’s progeny forever.

Time magazine discussed Wright’s book in a cover story, titled "Infidelity: It May Be in Our Genes," and asked: If we are genetically determined by natural selection to live out the never-ending mission to procreate with as many as we can, how can we be monogamous and faithful? Depressingly enough, the message gleaned from here might make us conclude that nothing can or will keep us from infidelity.

Riding to the rescue here, Wright plunges into the moral domain and far from asserting that monogamy is inherently untenable, Wright argues that our genetic predilection for infidelity is by no means all-powerful. Genetic proclivity, similar to biology, is not destiny. "First, to say something is a product of natural selection is not to say that it’s unchangeable; just about any manifestation of human nature can be changed. . . . Second, to say that something is ’natural’ is not to say that it is good."

Wright says that we misunderstand genetic forces if we assume or rationalize that it is only "natural" to be adulterous.

Does true morality exist? Does altruism exist? Does true co-operative spirit exist? Economists, the dull and dour creatures that they are, may suggest that all of these are but mere examples of subtle selfishness; people just act out these ‘nice’ behaviors just to manipulate others. After all, most of capitalistic economic theory is still based upon the idea that people are in the end selfish and opportunistic.
Wright does not deny that individuals can act out of selfishness but he argues that harmony generally prevails over selfishness. This book explains the paradox, that our minds have been built by selfish genes to be social, trustworthy and co-operative. He says we owe our success as a species to these social instincts and morality is a absolute predicate to a successful society.

In short his argument goes like this: Being social, co-operative and trustworthy is a way to thrive and thereby create an evolutionary advantage. These traits are built into our nature by evolution. Simply put, being honest and trustworthy is inherently good in context of genetics, not just for morality!

The message of this book is important. One lesson is that it is wise to teach our children to be good, because in the long run it pays. If you only act rationally (in the sense of the rational man from economic theory) you can only expect to reap short-term benefits....