“Why are we more likely to discuss a gossipy rumor at a party than a policy error that can actually make a material difference to our own lives?” That’s a question Washington Post reporter Shankar Vedantam takes up in his story “Why Fluff-Over-Substance Makes Perfect Evolutionary Sense.” It’s worth a read if you’ve ever found it frustrating to connect with everyday citizens about important issues like the the science and policy of nature protection and pollution control.

Vedantam quotes several “evolutionary psychologists” who explain modern human conduct by examining behavior that would have increased an individual’s odds of survival back in stone age. Professor Hank Davis at the University of Guelph in Ontario believes that because humans evolved in small hunter-gatherer clans, our brains are fine tuned to questions of:

…who needs a favor, who is in a position to offer one, who is trustworthy, who is a liar, who is available sexually, who is under the protection of a jealous partner, who is likely to abandon family, who poses a threat to us.

Professor Frank T. McAndrew at Knox College in Illinois believes that for this reason:

…people will tend to choose leaders they can relate to personally — and reject the leaders with whom they cannot see having a personal relationship.

You can probably guess why I thought this article was blog-worthy: I believe that nature protection and pollution control experts need to work harder to become leaders that everyday citizens can relate to. An that means keeping shop talk in the shop and using the water words that work in your outward-bound communications.

I’m no scientist, so I’ll put the question to those of you out there who are: Does this theory hold water?

Read the Washington Post story: Why Fluff-Over-Substance Makes Perfect Evolutionary Sense

2 Responses to “Maybe We Should Just Grunt Like Cavemen”