Life... Don't Talk to Me About Life

It’s often claimed that academics live in bubbles. Bubbles are definitely cheaper than ivory towers (and academics don’t get that much—whatever you may read below). But actually what we live in are webs. There is the worldwide web of course, but even before that was woven there were networks of colleagues, of research areas, of overlaps between the often arbitrary divisions of the academy. Disciplines that hermetically seal themselves off from other disciplines are really amputating themselves from the body that gives them life. But, on the other hand, theories that unify disparate areas are highly prized—especially if they can make interesting and surprising predictions across those fields.

Life, just not as we know it.

One such unifying theory is life history theory. This is a set of well-validated predictions and descriptions about how organisms maximise their chances of becoming ancestors to other organisms. It turns out that, just as there is more than one way to skin a cat, there are multiple ways to succeed at the game of life. Some of these are nice. Some of them are not so nice. But our genes don’t care about nice and nasty (although that’s no reason for us not to). They just care about replicating themselves.

And the way genes do this is to build bodies to carry them through the world. These bodies (like you and me) are vehicles which have an array of sensors—like eyes and ears--to pick up local and immediate threats and opportunities, such as a sudden BMW driver pulling out without signalling.* But these vehicles are also calibrated at other levels. Imagine you are hiring a vehicle at the beginning of a journey. Do you go for the sporty model or the jeep? If your vehicle is likely to go over rough terrain it had better have solid chunky tires. Chunky tires are great for off-road—but much slower if the roads are reliably good. In the case of flat reliable roads, the sporty model gives you a better ride.

Replicators and Vehicles

It turns out that biology is just as good at predicting likely journeys (or, as we call them, “life”) as we are. Our genes can pick up cues that they are likely destined for a bumpy ride and build the vehicle according to this. Of course—the mechanism is far from perfect. Which is why you often see the equivalent of a four-wheeled urban tank (with little Timmy strapped into what is basically a shuttle re-entry module in the back) for the dangerous half-mile journey to a pleasant suburban school around the corner.

Sometimes the effects can be profound. For years we thought that Hooknose and Jack Salmon were separate species—so different are they in shape, size, and demeanour. But actually they are a single species (Coho). One is calibrated for a life of predictable ease while his brother is calibrated for a life of risk and violence.

Which is where our study comes in. A few years back a large (N = 3025) representative (professionally surveyed) set of data were collected to help understand men’s health in the UK. I am part of the team brought in to analyse and present the data and it's coming out in a series of papers, one of which was recently published online.

Spoiler alert

And what we’ve found, if you want the executive summary is that, as life history theory predicts, sets of fast-life history (e.g. rough road) traits and behaviors cluster together. Tendencies to violence. Willingness to take risk. Propensity to abuse drugs and alcohol. In extreme cases, sexual coercion may become more likely. They don’t cause one another (at no point do we suggest this) but they hang out together non-accidentally. In just the same way that (say) four wheel drives and chunky tires tend to cluster together. Or low slung chassis and slick tires tend to be found on the same car. They are, as doctors say, risk factors.

Back to the bubble

So, it was interesting to see this story picked up by the national press. And, if comments were anything to go by, the public were interested in the account.

Some thought it was obvious

lodge60, abergavenny, 19 minutes ago said:

More revelations from the University of the B.... Obvious

Harvestmoon, Glasgow, 2 hours ago agreed:

STOP PRESS.......The Pope has a balcony, and Bears DO $hit in the woods.

Some thought it was obviously wrong—usually relying on anecdotes to do so

Suzy, London, 4 hours ago opined:

My Dad and one of my brothers liked a bet. They were never violent - ever

Hemingway 5952, Newcadtle [sic] upon Tyne, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago cautioned:

Hold on! I worked in a university halls of residence and saw more violent behaviour towards staff and student on student than I saw anywhere else! Academics live in a bubble.

Piggy, Melbourne, 10 hours ago was having none of it:

It's nonsense. I have been gambling for all of my life and I never hit my wife and my children, then no one. Where did she research that kind of rubbish? What I understanding about self-claim experts was nothing more than delusion person?

Although there was some encouragement for us from some of the readers on the anecdote issue

burnfield, manchester, United Kingdom, 11 hours ago was on our side:

So you've done a study on a group of size 1. And you think that out trumps a study on a group size of 3025? You sir...are an idiot

Some misunderstood the nature of the study as implying causation.

caplo2015, Dublin, Ireland, 1 hour ago got hold of the wrong end of the stick:

I reckon its [sic] the other way round; violent men are more likely to take risks and therefore gamble more. It does not mean I'm going to attack my wife because I put 20 quid on the odd football match.

Some had some very weird ideas about the academy

whirls, PORT PIRIE, Australia, 5 hours ago is being optimistic:

Another study well you have to give these academics something to do to do to work (earn) the $500,000 a year jobs they do, poor fellows.

(Incidentally: You do all know that scientists don't get to pocket the grants they are awarded, don't you? They are not some sort of "bonus". Every cent has to be accounted for--and rightly so! But, I know senior academics who try to avoid getting grants becuase of the headaches involved in administering them.)

Some were just rude

Beach Lover, Melbourne, Australia, 11 hours ago shouted:

What a load of cr*p.

Golf Pro, Tee Side, United Kingdom, 11 hours ago scored a lucky guess:

Ridiculous research by drunk scientists. I know a hardcore gambler who wouldn't hurt a fly. Most gamblers I know do it for escapism and nothing more.

Some thought it was part of a conspiracy on the part of nefarious feminists (No, I never see this sort of thing coming either)

Michael, Sudbury Ontario, Canada, 8 hours ago was on a mission:

Tomorrow, the report by Dr Amanda Roberts on female gamblers will be featured here, I'm sure

Some think that a sample of 3000+ is on the small side:

PassingByToday, London, United Kingdom, 8 hours ago said:

Another flawed study because the samole [sic] size is to [sic] small

Or that we were cheating

Ash_, Sydney, Australia, 11 hours ago was also on the lookout for conspiracies:

Another 3000 hand selected 'scientific study' paid for by the government

Some went for the humorous angle

here or now, manny, United Kingdom, 4 hours ago chortled:

A fiver says this is bull, And if you don't pay I'll beat you up

Some had read some science before commenting

Harry Dolby, Hereford, United Kingdom, 6 hours ago suggested:

Actually this does make sense from a logical point of view, problem gamblers much like alcoholics and drug addicts (not the popular culture's definition, which claims anyone who smokes even one blunt is an addict) all have different dopamine signalling which makes them more impulsive and self-reinforces the addictive behaviour. Cat and mouse problem would be if the signalling is the root cause or an effect.

Some had even thought about the nature of science journalism

tooright, Melbourne, Australia, 10 hours ago replied:

Or otherwise, men who are violent are more likely to gamble - OR more likely, men who have poor impulse control are more likely to both gamble and be violent! Association is not the same as causation. High school kids should know this, doesn't need a study to prove it.

To which was (then) replied

Nic, Somerset, United Kingdom, 1 hour ago took this up:

I read it and thought exactly the same. I suspect that if you read the report rather than the journalist's interpretation it would be saying these behaviour traits go hand in hand

(And he or she is right)

In conclusion

I did try to log on and answer the questions point by point. After all—taxes pay for us to do science and you are entitled (within reason) to some answers, However, Mail Online only allows me to make ten responses. But—if you want specific things answered then comments section below is free to take them. I hope I’ve given a reasonable background to the research, and why it matters above and I’ve deliberately stayed away from technical details. But—I’m more than happy to expand on them if needed.

References

1) Stearns, S. C. (1976). Life-history tactics: a review of the ideas. Quarterly review of biology, 3-47.
2) Roberts, A., Coid, J., King, R., Murphy, R., Turner, J., Bowden‐Jones, H., ... & Landon, J. (2016). Gambling and violence in a nationally representative sample of UK men. Addiction.
3) Dawkins, R. (1982). Replicators and vehicles. Current problems in sociobiology, 45, 64

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/add.13522/full

*It’s always BMW drivers