Randolph Nesse, and Robert Wright and Mismatch

There are a couple of lessons in the interchange between Randolph Nesse and Robert Wright with some peanut shells that I (and several hundred other people) cast.

First, talent by opportunity produces outcomes. Randolph Nesse and Robert Wright are two very talented guys. Bubbles of fascination with evolution have appeared on the internet and in the world of real life, where things incubate longer but where there are still great contrasts between the outcomes of different actors, contrasts that rival those seen on the internet.

Second, who knows what? One feature of "nonshared environment" is our tendency to collect information, tools, friends, and even memories that are peculiar only to us. (In some regards, Donne was wrong, every man IS an island.) For example, my screen had a message (by way of Ian Pitchford who has done us all a world of service through his sharing of scientific information on the internet) about Wright's article in "Slate."

I checked the article, giggled with my automatic thought of "First Gould, now Nesse. Bob certainly gets around." (See reviews of "Nonzero" in which Wright devotes more than a few paragraphs to slamming Gould one more time.)

My impulsive reaction followed and was posted to Ian's list.

Randy Nesse also posted, immediately after me in time, but on a different list, but one also managed by Ian. Thus, I don't even "know" if Nesse saw my comments or his comments were coincidental!

Such things happen often in human interactions; that reality is as much a function of the viewer as it is of externals.

Third, Buss and Thornhill and Ghiglieri are 3 recent books in which there are more personalized anecdotes than customary. These guys and their publishers are mass market. No surprise. As Wright observed as did Mitch Waldrop ("Complexity"), the first on the scene to exploit it effectively inhibits future arrivals and redefines the landscape for them. And as Dunbar (Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language) observed, sharing stories is one of those things we do very well. An evolutionist who doesn't include some stories is foolish, especially if the relevant stories are about mating, rape, war, and murder!

However, scientists traditionally did not put new information in mass media until after Carl Sagan's adventures on the Carson show and similar adventures that gave him a quite powerful lever to manipulate political events (See biography by Keay Davidson --- LOTS of gossip!) Sagan gained influence; he also was ostracized by his scientific peers for sometimes outrageous remarks and for making them to huge audiences. I'm glad things are changing, that even psychologists can now talk to the media.

I envy Nesse's luxury and annoyances of having John Brockman for an agent. John has been an effective showman in developing a mass market for popularized science. He's also a salesman and may emphasize features that make sales rather than publishing whole truths if such were sent to him in the first place. (For example, I expect to see Amy Parish, a brilliant and also beautiful lady who sometimes studies chimpanzee anatomy, on the cover of Geoff Miller's new book on "The Mating Dance." It would sell more copies even with a disclaimer that states, "This book was NOT written by Amy Parish!)

Finally, the entire episode smacks of what we already know about altruism and tit for tat. That is, cooperation is more likely during extended relationships. One shot contacts are the arenas for hype and cheating and sometimes violence. Hard copy to a restricted audience (journals) will be more cautious than hard copy to a mass audience (Tom Clancey). Internet will be even less cautious: no money exchanges hands (usually) and the participants in a transaction may not even be aware that one has occurred.

Enough! Enjoy the following.

Jim Brody

====================
From "Slate" (http://slate.msn.com/Earthling/00-03-03/Earthling.asp)

Is Prozac Driving Wall Street?
By Robert Wright
Posted Friday, March 3, 2000, at 10:30 a.m. PT

Read Nonzero, the book that has been shown in clinical tests to be twice as uplifting as the leading antidepressant.

Back in college, I once heard a guy fantasize about somehow getting cocaine into Wall Street's water supply and making a fortune by betting on the bull market this would trigger. Or, for that matter, he could bet on the bear market that would ensue a couple of hours later. In psychopharmacology, after all, what goes up must come down.

At least, that was the thinking back then, before Prozac. With Prozac, you supposedly can defy the law of gravity: get the bull moods without the bear moods—and, presumably, get a bull market without an immediately ensuing bear market.

Don't laugh. One noted psychiatrist is now speculating that maybe Prozac and other antidepressants are being gobbled in such volume as to account for the stock market's seemingly unshakeable self-esteem. Randolph Nesse, author (with George Williams) of Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine, estimates that about 20 million Americans are on antidepressants. And at least some people who take these drugs "become far less cautious than they were before, worrying too little about real dangers. This is exactly the mind-set of many current investors." If indeed "investor caution is being inhibited by psychotropic drugs," a Wall Street bubble "could grow larger than usual" before popping "with potentially catastrophic economic and political consequences."

Nesse's theory was mass-e-mailed to journalists (e.g., me) by his agent, John Brockman. Brockman asked his clients to opine on the subject of "today's most important underreported story," then sent their opinions far and wide. The idea, of course, is to turn these underreported stories into overreported stories, thus turning his underpublicized clients into overpublicized clients.

In this case, Brockman's plan may work. Nesse, a professor at the University of Michigan, is a personable, articulate (and smart, if it matters) guy who comes off well on video. Coupled with his Wall-Street-on-Prozac theory, he now becomes a wildly proliferating sound bite just waiting to happen. I give him a 50-50 shot at being on CNBC within a week--maybe even one of the networks.

After all, there is an issue here that goes beyond Wall Street. What happens when the serotonin-specific antidepressants render some users nearly numb to caution, impervious to negative feedback, in various realms of life? Do they get uppity with bosses and get fired? Do they quit jobs, certain that they can succeed in any endeavor of their choosing? Do they become babbling, obnoxious bores?

Take it away, Dr. Nesse.

(Dr. Nesse's response is now up at the Slate URL. He sent a different one to the list serves.)

==============
==============
Comments by Randolph Nesse on the evolutionary psychology list.

Bob Wright's story is an unfortunate example of Slate Slant--web journalism that gives a sensational spin on a story without fact-checking or references. He could easily have provided the URL for my article (www.edge.org), but he did not. If he had, many readers would have seen my
cautious tone, and my suggestion that the economy might be benefiting from the improved health and productivity of people whose depression is controlled by medications. But readers couldn't check for themselves, so many sent howling notes to Slate, based on one or another misconception about my thesis. By contrast, Richard Teitlebaum provided an accurate summary in the Sunday New York Times Business Section.

Mine is just one of 100 interesting responses to the question, "What is today's most unreported story?" All are available on the Edge website. The majority of the authors are not clients of John Brockman, and I do not yet have a new book to promote.

My original article is below.
-----------------------
From EDGE
www.edge.org

The Third Culture Randolph M. Nesse, M.D.

Is the Market on Prozac?

The press has been preoccupied with possible explanations for the current extraordinary boom. Many articles say, as they always do while a bubble grows, that this market is "different." Some attribute the difference to new information technology. Others credit changes in foreign trade, or the baby boomer's lack of experience with a real economic depression. But you never see a serious story about the possibility that this market is different because investor's brains are different. There is good reason to suspect that they are.

Prescriptions for psychoactive drugs have increased from 131 million in 1998 to 233 million in 1998, with nearly 10 million prescriptions filled last year for Prozac alone. The market for antidepressants in the USA is now $6.3 billion per year. Additional huge numbers of people use herbs to influence their moods. I cannot find solid data on how many people in the USA take
antidepressants, but a calculation based on sales suggests a rough estimate of 20 million.

What percent of brokers, dealers, and investors are taking antidepressant drugs? Wealthy, stressed urbanites are especially likely to use them. I would not be surprised to learn that one in four large investors has used some kind of mood-altering drug. What effects do these drugs have on investment behavior? We don't know. A 1998 study by Brian Knutson and colleagues found that the serotonin specific antidepressant paroxetine (Paxil) did not cause euphoria in normal people, but did block negative affects like fear and sadness. From seeing many patients who take such agents, I know that some experience only improved mood, often a miraculous and even life-saving change. Others, however, report that they become far less cautious than they were before, worrying too little about real dangers. This is exactly the mind-set of many current investors.

Human nature has always given rise to booms and bubbles, followed by crashes and depressions. But if investor caution is being inhibited by psychotropic drugs, bubbles could grow larger than usual before they pop, with potentially catastrophic economic and political consequences. If chemicals are inhibiting normal caution in any substantial fraction of investors, we need to know about it. A more positive interpretation is also easy to envision. If 20 million workers are more engaged and effective, to say nothing of showing up for work more regularly, that is a dramatic tonic for the economy. There is every reason to think that many workers and their employers are gaining such benefits. Whether the overall mental health of the populace is improving remains an open question, however. Overall rates of depression seem stable or increasing in most technological countries, and the suicide rate is stubbornly unchanged despite all the new efforts to recognize and treat depression.

The social effects of psychotropic medications is the unreported story of our time. These effects may be small, but they may be large, with the potential for social catastrophe or positive transformation. I make no claim to know which position is correct, but I do know that the question is important, unstudied, and in need of careful research. What government agency is responsible for ensuring that such investigations get carried out? The National Institute of Mental Health? The Securities and Exchange Commission? Thoughtful investigative reporting can give us preliminary answers that should help to focus attention on the social effects of psychotropic medications.

Randoph M. Nesse, M.D., is Professor of Psychiatry, Director, ISR Evolution and Human Adaptation Program, The University of Michigan and coauthor (with George C. Williams) of Why We Get Sick: The New Science of Darwinian Medicine.
====================
by Jim Brody and posted on the evolutionary psychiatry list.

About Prozac: I'm a clinician and have seen manic episodes triggered by Prozac. People have sold businesses and left marriages prematurely but other people have ended abusive relationships that were tolerated for 15 years before Prozac. Which is the greater evil? The medicine or the clinician who doesn't capably monitor the outcomes or our nature that wants to have selfish
fun?

While Prozac can feed the Wall Street tornado, Wall Street also depends on access to electronic cash and to instant communications (as described in Nonzero); Wall Street, like American culture, will erode when resources vanish or move to a different set of controls.

About Nesse: Randy had me fooled --- I thought he was too "ethical" for these games, but he may be getting more obviously selfish as he also gets older. Brockman's involvement indicates as much and promoting Nesse will draw other evolutionary types to Brockmans' agency. The relevant principle, described in Nonzero and in Waldrop's book, Complexity, is that clever early arrivals to a new opportunity often dominate whomever arrives later. It applies to Wall Street and to Brockman and is really yesterday's news printed again for tomorrow.

However, blaming Prozac for Wall Street replays the fundamental error that Nesse and Williams committed in Darwinian Medicine, one that blames human tools for not fitting human nature. However, we choose tools that suit our evolved natures, including one that says "feeling better is more fun that feeling sad." If there are some disasters --- as there always have been --- we use the tools differently next time around. The Titanic did not stop our making fast ships; we simply steer them differently. So it will be for Prozac. So it will be for the concept of mismatch.

There are several kinds of "mismatch" that are more subtle than Nesse and Williams' concept. First, "mismatch" is within each of us, that we may not balance long and short term gains. We also don't balance competing needs such as that of having sex with an awesome partner vs. avoiding retaliation from our own spouse.

Most important, NONE of us is the same and each of us will have a unique profile of preferences, a profile heavily shaped by our biological identity. "Mismatch" is most annoying when we are coerced into solutions that fit better to someone else's nature than to our own. Omega 3 minds become trapped on low fat diets and most of us, despite our individual quirks, use Microsoft products because escaping the discomforts is too expensive. Cultural restrictions, environmental deprivation, and loss of choice all produce restrictions. Apathy, hopelessness, and anger are some outcomes; so are resistance, rebellion, and migration (including death).

Indeed, anyone who accepts Nesse's concept of mismatch as the fault of our tools probably is depressed and should give Prozac a try.

Jim Brody
http://www.behavior.net/forums/evolutionary/

Nancy Segal: "Twins & Us," July 17-21, 2000 (http://www.cape.org)

Replies:

There are no replies to this message.

| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |

Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.