Sexy is . . . Decapitated???

Lessons on Nature -v- Nurture

I always appreciate newsbits such as this because they provide insight as to some of the precise mechanisms which show that the decisions of human organisms really are so danged logical, despite so many of their readily apparent logical inconsistencies.

When us "higher forms" use Logic to figure out what our best next moves are, studies such as this one provide ever more strong evidence that we really need to check our premises before before falling in love with our conclusions. . .
[Link] The researchers swapped the male and female versions of the gene in fruit flies and observed the consequences. Males with the feminine gene used female fighting tactics, while the females with the masculine gene fought like the boys.

People have a lot to learn about the biological basis of aggression, said Harvard neurobiologist Edward Kravitz, one of the study's authors.

"It goes without saying aggression, as well as violence, in society is a serious problem. It has to have biological roots. And the biological roots will have genetic components and experiential components," Kravitz said in an interview.

It is important to learn about such complex behaviors in a simple organism, and then apply this knowledge to higher and higher forms while ultimately trying to gain insight into human behavior, Kravitz said.
There are a couple of different, and equally important, instructive points being made there for extrapolation to my primary field of interest; Sociology.

Studies such as this one provide insight into the biological nature of all life forms on our planet, and such are intrinsic to our gaining a fuller, more rational understanding of our species evolution, both leading up to the present and, more relevant to this blog's frequent focus on our ability to survive
our own activities, going forward abetted by a Conscious and Moral human paradigm.

In order to ensure the survival of our species, we must continue to accumulate extraordinarily vast quantities of data about our own activities during our ascension to the top of the Food Chain. In order to empirically ensure our interpretations of those data are accurate and logically precise, we've got to fully understand the underlying biology which we share with
every other living thing in the history of the Earth and beyond!

Okidoke. Lemme end this on a lighter, though far more gruesome, note. This is, of course, still along the lines of discovering a rational and empirical definition of morality:

People do not have an exact equivalent to the "fruitless" gene, Kravitz added, but probably have other human genes serving similar functions.


Kravitz said his team, pondering how to instigate fruit fly fights, settled on food and mating -- or, in this case, necrophilia.

They set up the insect world's equivalent to a steel-cage match -- a chamber with glass walls and a lid with air holes, a dish of fly food and a mate -- and sent in the combatants. But when they used a live female fly as a lure for the males, she often would just fly off.

"My student discovered when he transferred the female to the dish and accidentally crushed her head that the males didn't care whether she had a head or not. That's a true story of what led us to cutting the heads of the females off in subsequent studies," Kravitz said.

"They'll court the dead, headless female fly, and try to copulate with her sometimes."

[Read the rest . . .]
That last part of the study might just shed some light on the motivations of one of Neil Shakespeare's newly crowned Super Heroes in the News.

Once again you are ahead of the pack in your searing satiricals, Neil! It looks like they're already working out some potential causes of that dude's
proclivities. . .


  1. I always suspected that guys would compete over a hole in a tree stump, but competing over a female minus a head? haha

  2. Yeah... Guess it's why women are really better off takin' that ol' "you've got beautiful eyes" routine, with a grain o' salt, eh?


  3. the males didn't care whether she had a head or not.


    Oh my God. How typical.

    Good post, MB.

  4. So is that why some men prefer blondes?

  5. I don't remember where I read it, but the article said that women who were defending their home or their children were many times more aggressive than their male counterpart, brutal actually. There must be some gene that links to that. Good post - serious and funny hand in hand.

  6. Hmm... when you meet enough men who look you in the breasts when talking to you, this kind of scientific conclusion is not as surprising. ;-)

    "You've got beautiful eyes" - yeah, right...

  7. "I always suspected that guys would compete over a hole in a tree stump, but competing over a female minus a head?" need for a paper bag.

    Anyways, ugggh. Lol.


Post a Comment

Popular Posts