It is a known fact that humans are afraid of snakes. Is it an innate trait that developed through an evolutionary process? New research shows that it is
Miriam Dishon-Berkowitz, "Galileo"
Many experience fear when they encounter a snake sticking out of a bush during a walk in nature. Indeed, fear reactions to the sight of snakes are widespread, and snakes rank first as the object of anxieties and phobias. Fear of snakes has also been documented in the behavior of monkeys. The high prevalence of fear of snakes has led to the theory that humans have developed an evolutionary predisposition to associate snakes with fear. Venomous snakes were a survival threat for most mammals, so mammals (including humans) who learned to avoid them increased their chances of survival.
Empirical validity for this theory has been obtained from studies in adult humans, which indicate a higher frequency of fear responses (eg, an increase in heart rate) when images of snakes are projected in front of them compared to situations where other images are projected in front of them. Monkeys also learn very quickly to be afraid of snakes after seeing another monkey react with fear to the sight of a snake.
According to the same evolutionary line of thought, it must be assumed that not only that, people learned to fear snakes (and other threats in their environment), but they also learned to recognize them among other stimuli more quickly since quick recognition increases the chances of survival. This indeed turned out from a series of experiments in which people were presented with a stimulus of a frightening nature (for example, a picture of a snake) located between stimuli of a neutral nature (for example, pictures of flowers). The participants were asked to find a fearful stimulus among the neutral stimuli and vice versa. The general finding from these experiments is that people recognize a picture of a snake among pictures of flowers more quickly than they recognize a picture of a flower among pictures of snakes.
This finding was obtained in adult subjects, who during their lives probably gained some knowledge about snakes, and some of them even met them in practice. If the evolutionary claim that humans have developed the ability to identify threatening stimuli in the environment extremely quickly is true, then one can expect that even humans who have no prior knowledge of snakes or experience with them will identify snakes more quickly. In an article published in the journal Psychological Science, Vanessa LoBue and Judy DeLoache tested whether even very young children recognize images of snakes more quickly than images of flowers.
120 children aged 3 to 5 and their parents participated in the three experiments. Before the experiment, the parents were asked if the child had ever seen a real snake, and if he or they themselves were afraid of snakes.
In the first experiment, the participants were asked to identify a picture of a snake among pictures of flowers and a picture of a flower among pictures of snakes. The images, of course, flashed in front of them at high speed. The analysis of the results shows that, as could be expected according to the findings of previous studies, adults recognized an image of a snake among images of flowers more quickly than an image of a flower among images of snakes. The interesting question is, if this pattern of performance also exists among children. It turns out that the answer to this is positive. Like the parents, children were faster at identifying a picture of a snake among pictures of flowers.
These findings support the claim that humans have developed a special sensitivity to threatening stimuli in their environment. Furthermore, the results even indicate that previous experience with snakes has no effect on sensitivity to them, since the 3- to 5-year-old children who participated in the experiment had little (if any) previous exposure to snakes or information about them. Beyond that, no difference was found in the speed of identification between children who had met snakes in the past and children who had never seen a snake.
If the evolutionary claim according to which humans have developed the ability to identify threatening stimuli in the environment is true, then this ability should also be expressed in identifying a threatening stimulus (snake) among a wider spectrum of non-threatening stimuli, and not just flowers. Therefore, check if the pattern of findings obtained in the first experiment will be reproduced even when the flowers are replaced by animals similar in their physical characteristics to snakes. The second experiment used images of frogs, which resemble snakes more than flowers. The experiment was conducted among 3-year-old children, while maintaining the same experimental characteristics as those of the first experiment. Indeed, the analysis of the findings of the second experiment shows that children, like adults, recognized threatening stimuli (snakes) among non-threatening stimuli (frogs) more quickly than non-threatening stimuli (frogs) among threatening stimuli (snakes).
To strengthen the evolutionary claim about the human ability to recognize threatening stimuli in the environment, the third experiment was conducted, in which pictures of larvae were used as stimuli. Caterpillars are even more similar to snakes than frogs, and they share striking physical characteristics with them such as their long, coiled shape. The findings of the third experiment show that, as in the two previous experiments, children identified threatening stimuli (snakes) among non-threatening stimuli (this time caterpillars) more quickly than non-threatening stimuli (larvae) among threatening stimuli (snakes).
In the ancient mythologies of many peoples, the snake is considered cunning and dangerous. Already in the book of Genesis it is described as an extremely cunning and harmful animal and it is cursed for generations (Genesis XNUMX:XNUMX): "And enmity will I put between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed, he shall shed his head and you shall bruise his heel." Psychological studies have shown in the past that adult people have an ability (innate according to the evolutionary approach) to quickly identify snakes. Now it becomes clear for the first time that this ability does exist among small children, who have hardly encountered, if at all, snakes during their lives.
The article was originally published in the May issue of "Galileo" magazine
11 תגובות
It's quite stupid to write about snake phobia and put a picture of a snake - because as someone who is terrified of the subject I didn't read the first part of the article
I, on the other hand, love snakes and almost all reptiles from a young age I raised snakes of all kinds and also one scorpion, I think it was innate to me
First of all we all come from the same place. And everyone's story ends at some point.
A point will always remain a point. The will does not want, the person with the will wants.
to the point
I'm coming far, far away, from the never-ending story, so we won't start, and for sure, we won't start
To fight, and I don't want to brag, when it becomes a question mark, and maybe a bar to answer, maybe
Once, if the right will will, you will find the required connection points..
In the meantime, keep bickering with Michael..and the other stolen talkbacks..bye.
Apart from that, there are some bloody partners in this intersection, and there is great respect for what is happening and unfolding in the context of the articles..for the rest of the things, life.
Hey?
I did not raise any long-term point of view. Totally an attempt at an alternative and simpler explanation, an explanation that exists for many other phenomena we know.
And regarding the rest of the paragraph, could you elaborate a bit more about yourself?
And what interests me more is where your point of connection with science is.
To the point, you brought up in the initial response to this article, a long-term point of view and even
Brilliant, for me.
On the one hand, this is the rooted-innate fear, in our memory...which includes the repeated fall
And we fell again and again to the tree of knowledge, called to lose our innocence, from the dead.
On the other hand, the mythical serpent keeper, a huge secret, which indeed arouses wonder at the things that were
In our ancient world, and the lineage of God (plural).
Apparently, it turns out, it is impossible and impossible to destroy the entire memory of the ages, nor is it possible
To program for memory or oblivion.. the tremendous intelligence of the supreme nature that exists
Anywhere..he will always win over all the choirs of time..A person is left to learn his lessons
to trace, with the delicacy necessary for the wonders of the legality of all the phenomena and the things that really are
Intriguing.. and slowly.. and maybe also quickly, or suddenly.. after a long human work
range and integrated. The sky will clear up,,, for those who really want to understand, and are gifted with morals
Upper developed.
Hopefully, this time my words will be smooth..bye.
point:
Your explanation is neither simpler nor true.
Why would a long and flexible object arouse wonder?
The fact that you present him as special does not make him special, and the fact that humans are wary of him does not negate the fact that other animals are also wary of him - does he inspire wonder in them as well? Why are they not wary of television? To me it is much more wonderful! Do you want to claim that every animal that is wary of a snake has experienced a bite in the past?
The number of examples of knowledge stored in DNA is huge and actually far exceeds the number of examples of knowledge stored in the brain.
Why, in your opinion, do animals tend to mate only with animals of the same type (and each type is different - that is - it is different knowledge in each type)? Why is everyone afraid of their madmen? How does everyone learn to walk (or crawl, or swim - each animal depending on its species)? Why do the birds migrate and how do they know when and where?
How do animals know they should eat? How do they know how to have sex? (These are not trivial questions - the fact that they enjoy it or that it makes them stop suffering is not the explanation because to know this fact they must try to perform the action and prove it!)
And regarding the other claims that there are supposedly examples of pre-brain programming of knowledge of the type of learned (neurological) knowledge in DNA. First of all it requires a closer inspection to find out what exactly is programmed there.
And in any case, this does not affect my argument because the number of examples of learned knowledge that is found in DNA is negligible compared to the number of examples of learned knowledge that is not found in DNA.
Michael, my explanation is still simpler. The reaction is not created after identifying a snake, but after identifying a strange shape that the brain is not used to. There is nothing more dangerous about snakes than other creatures (of which the child is not particularly afraid). Snakes have a weirder order geometrically.
point:
In my opinion, the conclusions of the article are absolutely logical and there is nothing to be surprised that man - as well as other animals - tends to identify certain types of animals and develop negative feelings towards them.
Evolution develops such traits in all animals and even if man has lost some of these tendencies in favor of learned adaptation - it is still very likely that a trace of innate recognition and fear remains.
Do other animals learn to fear snakes?
Do the frogs learn to identify insects?
What about dogs and cats?
And all of this is of course dwarfed when you look at the innate ability of certain birds to build magnificent nests. How do you program the DNA for this? I don't know - but it is a fact that it happens.
Such claims require a somewhat more complex explanation, how DNA can be programmed to create a brain that has not yet learned anything to recognize snakes.
It seems to me that the explanation for this is simpler. Instead of identifying the snake with an object that leads to the perception of their threat, it is more correct to identify the snake as stimulating the wonder of a long and flexible object. And it can certainly correspond to the fact that the brain is usually used to seeing things that do not have a high elongation, so a snake is different and causes wonder. And wonder and fear, as we know, are not far apart.