wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

The Primordial Cheer

Thursday, August 14, 2008

A new study says that our reactions to winning are a genetic remnant from our primate ancestors. Jessica Tracy, Psychology Professor at the University of British Columbia and co-author of the report talks about its findings.


Comments

  • [1] michaelw from INWOOD August 14, 2008 - 10:13AM

    It's a good thing Phelps is white because if he was black and we were comparing his reaction to winning to Apes there would be riots in the street.


  • [2] eva August 14, 2008 - 11:37AM

    Maybe the reaction to winning in the Olympics has changed because of the increasingly corporatized incentives and pressure. Ditto the doping. Every Olympics the swimmers look a little different, i.e. longer and leaner and more dramatically gigantic shoulders - a lot of that seems entirely legitiimate - given the changes in training, their bodies should look different as the training changes. But this year, they look superhuman, and I'm not talking about Phelps. It's the entire group, overall. What's UP?


  • [3] ab August 14, 2008 - 11:56AM

    Ummmm...we needed a study to tell us this? REALLY???????????


  • [4] eva August 14, 2008 - 12:01PM

    ok, ab, I'll admit: I thought it was interesting that even the congenitally blind athletes do the same thing. That is, the response is coded pretty deeply into our behavior. And I feel less embarrassed by our winning athletes strutting around if such behavior is THAT deeply embedded.


  • [5] a woman from manhattan August 14, 2008 - 12:02PM

    This is utter nonsense! In an age when everyone has TV and people have instructors (even the blind) lifting their arms for them in victory, you're going to try and tell me this isn't learned behavior?

    I never made that gesture till I observed it in sports, myself. I imitated. It did not come to me naturally.

    What's the deal lately? So many people seem to be trying to prove that stuff is "hard-wired" into humans these days, it's looking really fishy.

    Are we trying to establish a version of "normal" behavior by proving certain things are "hard-wired"? This is kind of insidious.


  • [6] eva August 14, 2008 - 12:58PM

    #6,

    you're right, I never made that gesture until I observed it, tho I wonder if, as women, we were picking up on more subtle clues that demanded quiet behavior and quiet gestures? Which came first - the urge to stifle what may or may not be a "hard-wired" behavior - or the learned behavior?

    But you have a good point that there's too much research claiming this or that is "hard-wired." I think it's an offshoot of having the first sequencing of DNA - everyone wants to trace everything back to something tangible and inherent, as opposed to more confusing external cues.


Leave a Comment

Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.

Your comment


* required
The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party.
 
Back to Episode