Bluepill me on behavioral sink / John B. Calhoun's Mouse Utopia

[dick brain]

For the unfamiliar,

Explain to me why this isn't a viable model for (some of) the social and behavioral changes in humans in the last 100-200 years.

 

[whatever I feel like]

Because humans in the west have significantly more privacy and personal space now than they did 100-200 years ago, even if they do live in a city. Your ideal might have been a nice life on a farm but its far more likely that you were crammed nine deep with your siblings in a five room misery box working 12 hour days in a sweatshop.

 

[Paul Ryan]

It doesn't replicate, and IIRC he never actually released a proper paper about it. He just wrote a popular science book about it.

 

[Beautiful Border]

The issue is that you can't really infer human behavior from mouse behavior. It's an experiment based on a misuse/misunderstanding of why mice are generally used in clinical trials. They're used in the context of testing experimental pharmaceutical drugs because their brains and central nervous systems are similar enough to humans' that we can generally infer what effect it will have on the brain of a human based on what it does in the brain of a mouse. Give a drug to a mouse that slows its brain down and makes it lethargic and it will probably act similarly in a human's, for example.

This simply doesn't apply to social psychology. Mice do not have complex interpersonal relationships or societies in the way humans do. They don't have religions, or political ideologies, or philosophy. They operate on base instinct. You can't place a mouse in a situation and expect humans to react in the same way. You can't even place two people in a situation and expect them to react the same way. We're more complicated than that.

It's very similar to the kind of faulty logic that causes people to become vegans and be horrified by zoos and factory farming. They see cattle held in pens, think to themselves "Oh my goodness, I wouldn't want that to happen to me" and then conclude the cows are miserable. But they aren't. Their basic needs are all being met: They're fed, they're safe from predators, and they're milked. That's all they actually want. They're not depressed because their situation means they can't take a gap year hiking the Appalachian Trail before heading off to college to discover themselves. They don't think like us.

 

[Gog & Magog]

They don't think like us.

That's what our bovine overlords want us to think.

 

[SphinxItOver]

For those interested in reading the actual papers of the experiments you can find them here: https://johnbcalhoun.com/papers/

The original experiment was done on rats. A provably social animal. Limitations on population density and size due to space and food requirements was cause for the shift from rats to mice. The rat experiment was tainted by removal/testing on pop and issues from compromised food sources. Any future test to reproduce Behavioral Sink theory would be smart to go back to rats. This would be difficult for the same reasons as before with the addition of animal testing laws.

Things that may or may not be possible to test via multiple test groups against a base J.B.C. set up. Territory perception. Aesthetic comforts. Behavioral adaptation via timed environmental stress such as seasons or natural 'disasters', or scheduled predation. As stated before in the thread, things that can not be tested would include theologies, ideologies, and theory of mind.

IMHO, it's very difficult to test behavioral issues/skills in environments that fail to have enough complexity of stimuli at scale. While I understand that it was part of the test to remove external stimuli, which should be tested again, it was flawed from the start since most behaviors are in response to external stimuli. Food was a core issue in all experiments. This major component manipulated foraging and territory behavior as intended but not in any way that is accurate to society at large scale or a way that could be viewed as a true removal of food scarcity.

If there's anything to take away from the experiments is that it's a starting point to learn more. That's all before diving into the r/K arguments and social group classifications as a survival mechanism versus innate behavior.

 

[cybertoaster]

On one hand as others have said the science behind this wasn't very solid. I think the problem was the focus on food but you've to see that on the context of the time it was made: back in the 70's there was serious talk about the world running out of food. This is before the green revolution started and when food was already more expensive than it is now, making up more than a third of the average family's income.

That's not an issue anymore but I think some of the social aspects of the experiments are more important. The social atomization, the female mice abandoning their pups or not having any, and of course the "beautiful ones" are all things we're seeing nowadays even in some third world countries.

 

[Legalize Asbestos]

The stated consequences of the experiment are better explained by the caloric surplus than the crowded conditions. Every culture on the planet - even our currently fucked up one - tries to institute fasting/dieting to deal with the negative effects of a steady food supply on a biology designed to regularly go hungry and prune its own cells.

In short, mouse utopia is a problem as old as civilization, and the cure of eat, sleep and exercise is as unpopular as it's always been.

 

[C. G. B. Spender]

Because humans in the west have significantly more privacy and personal space now than they did 100-200 years ago, even if they do live in a city. Your ideal might have been a nice life on a farm but its far more likely that you were crammed nine deep with your siblings in a five room misery box working 12 hour days in a sweatshop.

Big chinese cities are the place to look at for some mouse utopia comparisons. Its no way for a human to live, makes 1800s europe look like a paradise in comparison.

 

[Pine Tar]

They’re fucking rats who lack the brainpower to recognize that such behaviors are problematic.

If humanity goes down that same path, it’s because we refused to use our brainpower to solve this issue

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

> Make an experiment resulting with unnatural conditions for animals too dumb to adapt to them leading to the animals having mass deaths.
> Make general parallels to modern societal issues you are against as if they are equivalent.

 

[Paul Ryan]

On one hand as others have said the science behind this wasn't very solid. I think the problem was the focus on food but you've to see that on the context of the time it was made: back in the 70's there was serious talk about the world running out of food. This is before the green revolution started and when food was already more expensive than it is now, making up more than a third of the average family's income.

Any time you read about a study that's being heralded in a religious or dogmatic manner as The One True Truth Of The Universe, you should remember all the times during the past 5 years or so when The Science was blatantly used to validate whatever The Powers That Be wanted to do at the moment. And especially all the times during which The Science Has Changed.

 

[cybertoaster]

@Otterly any thoughts on this?

> Make an experiment resulting with unnatural conditions for animals too dumb to adapt to them leading to the animals having mass deaths.
> Make general parallels to modern societal issues you are against as if they are equivalent.

Our current living conditions are not natural, haven't been natural in over 12,000 years or more, and the ones right now are the most unnatural we've ever had. For 4 million years we were running half naked hunting mammoths and other megafauna, then suddenly we start eating seeds, wearing clothes and living in homes.

 

[Sparkletor 2.0]

@Otterly any thoughts on this?

Our current living conditions are not natural, haven't been natural in over 12,000 years or more, and the ones right now are the most unnatural we've ever had. For 4 million years we were running half naked hunting mammoths and other megafauna, then suddenly we start eating seeds, wearing clothes and living in homes.

If God didn't want us to live in houses, he wouldn't have made Jesus a carpenter.

Checkmate!

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

@Otterly any thoughts on this?

Our current living conditions are not natural, haven't been natural in over 12,000 years or more, and the ones right now are the most unnatural we've ever had. For 4 million years we were running half naked hunting mammoths and other megafauna, then suddenly we start eating seeds, wearing clothes and living in homes.

That's where the second half of the sentence comes in. Even dogs and cats are intelligent enough to adapt biologically and behaviourally to modern society.

 

[cybertoaster]

That's where the second half of the sentence comes in. Even dogs and cats are intelligent enough to adapt biologically and behaviourally to modern society.

What's there to adapt to? they get free food and shelter. Strays just revert to their natural scavenging and hunting behavior. They certainly haven't adapted to cars...

 

[Otterly]

> Make an experiment resulting with unnatural conditions for animals too dumb to adapt to them leading to the animals having mass deaths.
> Make general parallels to modern societal issues you are against as if they are equivalent.

The unnatural conditions were the point. I have had mouse colonies with work, and mice are an odd mix of fragile and indestructible. They like low density but a bit of company in smaller spaces and they need environmental enrichment (I used to sneak mine bits of hobnob biscuits and we always gave them tunnel and things to interact with.) a bit like humans.
The experiment is interesting. Nothing like this is supposed to be a 1:1 correlation to a city, it’s supposed to give you some general thoughts and pointers and be a general metaphor.

any thoughts on this?

Yes. I am convinced that density is toxic psychologically to humans past a point. On another thread, @~nogger~ (sorry for tagging you yet again) pointed out that the internet creates an artificial sense of density by allowing or even forcing us to internet with multitudes daily. Cities have very low reproduction rates (I think I remember seeing 0.17 or similar) and they are known as ‘IQ shredders’ for a population. They rely on a constant inbound stream of people from rural areas to maintain population. When everyone’s urbanised, that stops.
We also see the degenerate behaviour more in two places; cities and online, which is where density creates an artificial buffer and cloak for it. You cannot do that in a small rural village without being beaten

That's where the second half of the sentence comes in. Even dogs and cats are intelligent enough to adapt biologically and behaviourally to modern society.

Cats benefit from modern society but where they benefit they still live at low density (human household.) ditto dogs - we have Co evolved in one to one or small pack relationships with dogs, it’s a low density relationship. a more accurate replication would be a feral cat colony in an abandoned house, where someone is putting out unlimited food allowing unlimited breeding and that does lead to inbreeding and disease and problems

I think mouse utopia has things to tell us.

 

[cybertoaster]

and they are known as ‘IQ shredders’ for a population

Got more on that? any links?

BTW I mean your thoughts on the U25 experiment in general not what particular quote.

 

[Brightstar777]

why retards are using mouse behavior and compare it to humans what a fucking retarded apes

 

[the clap]

Happy to be corrected, but didn't Calhoun say this probably wouldn't happen to humans because we have creative expression that prevents that sort of breakdown of society?