I've got an article in today's New York Times about animal personalities.
Update: I'm not ashamed to admit I'm a regular visitor to the gossip site Gawker. But I have to say I was surprised to see the personality article turn up there. Will hordes of New York hipsters discover the strange joys of evolution, of comparative psychology? We can only hope.
More like this
Today I've got an article in the New York Times about the report in Nature that starlings can recognize syntax-like patterns in songs, and what that might mean--if anything--for the evolution of language. The blogs have been buzzing about the study since it came out on Wednesday, with the Language…
Due to annoying stuff at work and good stuff personally, I didn't have time to grind out my usual bit of Insolence, either Respectful or not-so-Respectful, today. Fortunately, there is a long history on this blog, full of good stuff that I can repost. So, as I did when I went to TAM7, I'm picking a…
Most of my reaction to this weekend's Emily Gould article in the Times was "Gosh, who knew that writing for Gawker might have a corrosive effect on your personal life...," but there were some interesting bits. She did a nice job explaining how blogging can be sort of addictive, and also had some…
Like every kid who went on family outings to the NJ shore, I ended up coming home with any number of hermit crabs over the years. I'd make sure the sponge was wet, that they had food, that they were really in their shells and not just hiding elsewhere (probably terrorizing them in the process), but…
Very nice!
Question:
This quote:
"Each year the birds fight for territory where they can feed and breed. Bold birds are more aggressive than shy ones, and that sometimes helps them win territory. But the scientists have found that when bold birds lose, they are slow to recover. They end up at the bottom of the hierarchy, and in many cases just fly away. "They go to other places to try to become No. 1," Dr. Drent said.
This struggle might balance the birds between bold and shy personalities. If there are a lot of shy birds, the few bold ones will rise to the top. But if there are a lot of bold birds, they will fight a lot, and that will result in a lot of bold birds flying away. In these cases, the few shy birds will thrive. "So one of the personalities can never disappear completely," Dr. Drent said. " appears in the interview with Drent. Are there data supporting this notion?
Does the idea appear in any scientific paper or review?
Also, quite a lot of work has been done on personalities of birds that point to organizational effects of hormones. Thus, selective breeding would affect the mechanism (whatever it is, likely different in different groups of birds - I have some ideas but will not talk until I publish the data first) for differential allocation of hormones (e.g.., steroids) in the egg-yolk. Thus th egenetic story you present in the article is oversimplified (for the benefit of the NYT audience - they read David Brooks, after all).
Just wanted to let you know the 'Gawker' link is broken, it doesn't have the http:// it needs.
Interesting article, but not entirely surprizing that animals would have some level of personality. I have three cats in my household, and they each have very distinct personalities.
Now that may be surprizing since a cat is basically a breathing muscle with very little brain-power that seems to run entirely on instinct.
When I read your article I thought, "I instantly know how this article got onto Gawker. He's talking about scientists who study great tits!" But I was wrong.