Shyness as an evolutionary advantage

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Fear of leadership and public speaking seems to be very common. Leadership and public speaking classes are a massive industry. Heck, even a large portion of the Wikipedia article Fear is devoted to fear of public speaking.

I was wondering why this is. Evolutionary Psychologist Tony Burns had this explanation:

Being part of a group was critical to our survival. We hunted big carnivores – but could only do that with the help of others. And those big carnivores were also out to eat us - our protection was by being part of a group. You might get ostracized by the group for a variety of reasons, for example, not pulling your weight, speaking or doing something which was disapproved of, or challenging the leader. And to be separated from your group meant almost certain death. So being an accepted member of the group was critical to survival.

Essentially, if you expressed opinions openly, you might be unpopular and be ostracised. I think is obviously wrong. In fact, I think the one trait that will guarantee your continued popularity is confidence in yourself and your opinions. Throughout history it has been leaders and orators who have been winners, not shy unknowns. Even Hitler was unbelievably popular in spite of his aims and views, solely because of his immense charisma. Imagine a tribe of hunter-gatherers. Some of them are very confident and secure individuals, who can express their opinions and don't care what anyone else thinks. The rest are a bunch of insecure and troubled characters who do things because they want validation and approval from the first bunch. We all see this mix of people in our daily lives. Which of them will be most popular? Which of them will be most sexually attractive? Which will be the more evolutionary stable? Obviously the confident first bunch.

I think most people have an inherent fear of leadership for another reason. In our prehistory, leaders had a huge effect on the evolutionary fitness of those who follow them. Cowardly or weak leaders would make cowardly or weak decisions, with devastating consequences on the tribe they were influencing. Their reproduction wouldn't last long.

Now imagine a tribe where everyone is naturally nervous about leading and being in the public eye. Intially that seems like a quite a negative and dangerous trait. Surely having no leaders would be a bad thing? But think about it. Who are the leaders going to be? The individuals most suited to it: those strong enough to master their fear. They would be strong enough to make far better decisions and to keep their calm under great stress

Essentially, I think many humans have a natural fear of public attention, not because being in the public spotlight is dangerous to us personally, but because it can be dangerous to the rest of our group. If you have enough confidence to speak publically, you're automatically suited to it.

[Ancient Aliens]

The ability to speak publically helps the leader, but group dynamics necessitate followers without leadership ability. Imagine a small tribe that was full of alphas; image how chaotic and unsuccessful it would be.

[StealthFox]

I actually read about this before. Just did a quick search and found this; I think it is actually the article I read awhile back.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/op...pagewanted=all

I agree with this article in that shyness or introversion is an evolutionary tactic related to caution or basically "look before you leap."

We even find “introverts” in the animal kingdom, where 15 percent to 20 percent of many species are watchful, slow-to-warm-up types who stick to the sidelines (sometimes called “sitters”) while the other 80 percent are “rovers” who sally forth without paying much attention to their surroundings. Sitters and rovers favor different survival strategies, which could be summed up as the sitter’s “Look before you leap” versus the rover’s inclination to “Just do it!” Each strategy reaps different rewards.

In an illustrative experiment, David Sloan Wilson, a Binghamton evolutionary biologist, dropped metal traps into a pond of pumpkinseed sunfish. The “rover” fish couldn’t help but investigate — and were immediately caught. But the “sitter” fish stayed back, making it impossible for Professor Wilson to capture them. Had Professor Wilson’s traps posed a real threat, only the sitters would have survived. But had the sitters taken Zoloft and become more like bold rovers, the entire family of pumpkinseed sunfish would have been wiped out. “Anxiety” about the trap saved the fishes’ lives.

So, basically, individuals who are cautious, or even labeled as shy, have a certain advantage when it comes to survival.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

So, basically, individuals who are cautious, or even labeled as shy, have a certain advantage when it comes to survival.

You're wrong there. If 20% are shy, and 80% are rovers, surely that means the rovers are better adapted for 80% of survival situations? For every situation you can describe when the shy one would be better off, there are four situations where a rover would be better off. If shyness was an advantage, the whole population would be shy, like in Flamingos.

The ability to speak publically helps the leader, but group dynamics necessitate followers without leadership ability. Imagine a small tribe that was full of alphas; image how chaotic and unsuccessful it would be.

I disagree. In my experience, a large number of independent thinkers with good leadership ability cooperating with each other will be very organized and effective at what they are doing.

An army made up only of officers would be a far more effective army than current armies: officers are trained to be leaders. Leadership is important at every level, and every leader at any level has a superior.

[Copperknickers II]

I disagree. In my experience, a large number of independent thinkers with good leadership ability cooperating with each other will be very organized and effective at what they are doing.

You need only watch an episode of the apprentice to show that a room full of extroverts is not conducive to efficiency. Perhaps if they were all of one mindset and agreed with each other they'd be good, but that is not guaranteed to happen. You say independent thinkers, but it takes more than being opinionated to be effective, it also takes brains. Unfortunately not everyone willing to speak their mind on every available matter has the brains to back it up, in fact they're less likely to do so, hence why psychopaths often make it to management positions: because acting the part of being outgoing and charming in interviews gets you out of actually showing that you can do the job well in practice.

An army made up only of officers would be a far more effective army than current armies: officers are trained to be leaders. Leadership is important at every level, and every leader at any level has a superior.

It wouldn't be if their only skill was leadership. You seem to define 'leader' as 'superman', when in reality one can be an inspiring leader without actually leading by example and doing the grunt work for which you need followers.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

You need only watch an episode of the apprentice to show that a room full of extroverts is not conducive to efficiency. Perhaps if they were all of one mindset and agreed with each other they'd be good, but that is not guaranteed to happen. You say independent thinkers, but it takes more than being opinionated to be effective, it also takes brains. Unfortunately not everyone willing to speak their mind on every available matter has the brains to back it up, in fact they're less likely to do so, hence why psychopaths often make it to management positions: because acting the part of being outgoing and charming in interviews gets you out of actually showing that you can do the job well in practice.

Contestants on The Apprentice are specifically chosen to be poor at everything they do because that makes good television. None of the winners have lasted more than a month at their job. It's not at all like that where competent people are involved. The ability to be responsible for oneself and others is leadership and you can never have enough competent leaders in a group.

It wouldn't be if their only skill was leadership. You seem to define 'leader' as 'superman', when in reality one can be an inspiring leader without actually leading by example and doing the grunt work for which you need followers.

You're the one using extrovert as a synonym for leader.

[Claudius Gothicus]

A certain number of Shy people within a community is a direct advantage for group pattern maintenance and the institutionalization of power politics around a necessary number of individuals. A tribe full of alphas would simply explode.

[Stario]

I think neither strategy has an evolutionary advantage, rather each strategy reaps different rewards.
In animal experiments "rovers" were often the ones to be caught in traps. On the other hand, "sitters" had trouble adapting to new environments (i.e. they were much slower at finding food).

The thing is to find balance. I remember during my internship one of my Professors once said that I over- analysed situations & by doing so actually crippled my problem solving ability (now that I think back to it, the best advice I got actually). On the other hand, too little thinking can lead one to be reckless and miss something important.

[Ancient Aliens]

I disagree. In my experience, a large number of independent thinkers with good leadership ability cooperating with each other will be very organized and effective at what they are doing.

Leadership ability does not necessarily equate to intelligence. A good leader generally isn't the smartest man in the room and he knows it. He listens to the advice of his more intelligent counterparts, and in effect, most leaders throughout history are a reflection of their advisors. Look at Alexanders entourage; you can see why he was such a successful man. The transverse is also true, in that many intelligent people can be socially incapable, and thus have to cling to a charismatic figure. The traits that create a good leader are charisma, public speaking ability, the ability to make decisions on the fly, and the ability to interpret and use advice, and an intelligent person doesn't necessarily have to have any of those qualities. This is all part of group dynamics.

An army made up only of officers would be a far more effective army than current armies: officers are trained to be leaders. Leadership is important at every level, and every leader at any level has a superior.

Leaders do not take orders well, and leaders wouldn't be as effective as the grunts who do not experience leadership training at performing an operation because of this very fact. Being able to take orders is a virtue as well, and no one can truly lead without followers.

A certain number of Shy people within a community is a direct advantage for group pattern maintenance and the institutionalization of power politics around a necessary number of individuals. A tribe full of alphas would simply explode.

Yeah, imagine an army of Julius Caesars.

[StealthFox]

You're wrong there. If 20% are shy, and 80% are rovers, surely that means the rovers are better adapted for 80% of survival situations? For every situation you can describe when the shy one would be better off, there are four situations where a rover would be better off. If shyness was an advantage, the whole population would be shy, like in Flamingos.

You need to read the article and my post again. I stated I agreed with the article, which is backed by professional scientific study. You can come to a different conclusion or interpret the results differently, but that doesn't make my interpretation, or the article wrong.

Also, I never said introversion was in all cases dominant. I simply said that in some instances introversion can have its evolutionary advantage. The article actually states this too:

“There is no single best ... [animal] personality,” Professor Wilson concludes in his book, “Evolution for Everyone,” “but rather a diversity of personalities maintained by natural selection.”

[Phier]

You're wrong there. If 20% are shy, and 80% are rovers, surely that means the rovers are better adapted for 80% of survival situations? For every situation you can describe when the shy one would be better off, there are four situations where a rover would be better off. If shyness was an advantage, the whole population would be shy, like in Flamingos.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). What an ESS is is one that the gene ratios will maintain themselves at that level indefinitely without new outside influences.

A 20% 80% ratio does not mean that the 80% is superior 80% of the time. I means that as a ratio 80-20 will maintain itself with equal survivability.

Would you claim blond hair and blue eyes was evolutionary inferior being they are recessive traits and are only shared by 1% of the world or so genetically?

Being shy keeps your head away from the axe. Evolution is about survival not 'success' in any measurable way beyond reproduction and survival of said offspring. Kings have had great reproductive success, but how many with that phenotype never made it to that level because they were killed on the way up? How many brothers met untimely deaths, how many families were wiped out lest they come later to claim the throne? Only one person gets to be the king, only a select few get to be the nobles, and while they individually may have great reproductive success, as a genetic percentage of the population as a whole they would be the minority.

Being shy is being non-threatening. Its saying 'I'm not worth the risk of trying to kill me, I'm not a threat to your leadership.' In humans the omega males get to breed too in all but extremely stratified societies.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Leadership ability does not necessarily equate to intelligence.Leaders do not take orders well, and leaders wouldn't be as effective as the grunts who do not experience leadership training at performing an operation because of this very fact. Being able to take orders is a virtue as well, and no one can truly lead without followers.

I disagree entirely. The most capable subordinates are those with good leadership ability. They understand and can empathize with the leader, and make decisions he would have made in his absence. Leadership of a group isn't vested in a single person, it's an abstract property of the group controlled by everyone who makes decisions. Leaders influence the choices these subordinate decision make. The vast majority of the world's leaders follow orders as a job. Every single great general was a good order taker. Find me one who wasn't.

Yeah, imagine an army of Julius Caesars.

They would have been unstoppable.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of an evolutionary stable strategy (ESS). What an ESS is is one that the gene ratios will maintain themselves at that level indefinitely without new outside influences.

A 20% 80% ratio does not mean that the 80% is superior 80% of the time. I means that as a ratio 80-20 will maintain itself with equal survivability.

Would you claim blond hair and blue eyes was evolutionary inferior being they are recessive traits and are only shared by 1% of the world or so genetically?

Being shy keeps your head away from the axe. Evolution is about survival not 'success' in any measurable way beyond reproduction and survival of said offspring. Kings have had great reproductive success, but how many with that phenotype never made it to that level because they were killed on the way up? How many brothers met untimely deaths, how many families were wiped out lest they come later to claim the throne? Only one person gets to be the king, only a select few get to be the nobles, and while they individually may have great reproductive success, as a genetic percentage of the population as a whole they would be the minority.

Being shy is being non-threatening. Its saying 'I'm not worth the risk of trying to kill me, I'm not a threat to your leadership.' In humans the omega males get to breed too in all but extremely stratified societies.

We're not discussing the effects of being assertive and dominant on the individual with such traits. We're discussing the effects of leaders who are dominant and assertive, and leaders who are shy and cowardly, on the groups they lead. Surely the latter type of leader would reduce their evoltuionary fitness?

Leadership is not about leading your own arse, it is about leading OTHERS. Who are these "others"? Hmm? Other alphas? Hell no, they want to be chiefs too!
They are the lower ranking males. Alpha who figures out that he should give leadership WITH BENEFITS to lower rank males will have followers who enable him to defeat his competitors. He needs actually followers more than followers need him, because there is always excess of alphas to compete for position on top.

That is why alpha will never declare himself to be king with all the females, because that leads alpha ending up dethroned faster than you can say "death to the king".
And because there can be only one king, there can be only one successful alpha. Other alphas either have to settle to submit or face possible death in attempt to pull a coup. And to pull a coup, he needs followers...

For every successful alpha, there are whole lot of those who do not succeed. Either living miserably as subjects or dead.
But successful lower rank males can be plentiful.

What species are you talking about? Homo sapiens? Because the only people I ever see act like the "alpha" you describe are hopelessly insecure and unpopular omegas trying to fake it until they make it. You've lived and interacted with homo sapiens all your life. You are one.

Leadership of homo sapiens groups is not a violent, brutal power struggle. We see this over and over again every minute of our lives. Leadership is build on cooperation and relationships. People may obery because they're scared. But they will go out of their way to do everything desired of them because they genuinely believe in their leader and actively support him. The biggest supporters are usually those with leadership traits themselves.

Look at armies. Junior officers (2nd Luitenant through to Luitenant Colonel) are a collection of most of the best leaders in a country's population. Junior officers are also the heart of the army's belief system. They are usually extremely supportive of the government and very nationalistic, unlike lower enlisted ranks. Under Hitler they were the biggest believers in national socialism outside of the political bodies. In the US army they are the biggest idealists and patriots. They are simulatenously examples of brilliant leaders and brilliant followers, and you'll find that anyone in possession of one of these two traits is also in posession of the other. You've never heard "learn to obey before you command"?

The best followers are those who also possess leadership traits. They have far mroe empathy and understanding of the leader, and they can function as extensions of his leadership when they are required to make decisions removed from him.

[Ancient Aliens]

I disagree entirely. The most capable subordinates are those with good leadership ability. They understand and can empathize with the leader, and make decisions he would have made in his absence. Leadership of a group isn't vested in a single person, it's an abstract property of the group controlled by everyone who makes decisions. Leaders influence the choices these subordinate decision make. The vast majority of the world's leaders follow orders as a job. Every single great general was a good order taker. Find me one who wasn't.

I agree that good leaders are adept at taking orders; one definitely needs to know how to receive orders in order to give them. I also agree that immediate subordinates should be leaders as well, but when we are discussing armies, there is a command structure. There is no command structure in a tribal unit, the leader of the tribe fights and dies for access to superior food and mates.

They would have been unstoppable.

Let's be realistic, they would be assassinating each other in bids for power.

[Tiwaz]

What species are you talking about? Homo sapiens? Because the only people I ever see act like the "alpha" you describe are hopelessly insecure and unpopular omegas trying to fake it until they make it. You've lived and interacted with homo sapiens all your life. You are one.

Leadership of homo sapiens groups is not a violent, brutal power struggle. We see this over and over again every minute of our lives. Leadership is build on cooperation and relationships. People may obery because they're scared. But they will go out of their way to do everything desired of them because they genuinely believe in their leader and actively support him. The biggest supporters are usually those with leadership traits themselves.

Jesus guy. Have you ever bothered to read history of Homo Sapiens? Apparently not, and yet your next reference to leadership is... Army. Which only has purpose of being means of violent, brutal power struggle.

History of humanity is about being violent and brutal. If you are not with us, you are against us.

You also failed to understand what you read. I precisely pointed out that leaders will try to coddle up to omegas because else they are all alone. Alpha who has no support of omegas will be overrun and eliminated by alpha who has.

To gain support of omegas, you need to give people something to make them like you more than another alpha.

Look at armies. Junior officers (2nd Luitenant through to Luitenant Colonel) are a collection of most of the best leaders in a country's population. Junior officers are also the heart of the army's belief system. They are usually extremely supportive of the government and very nationalistic, unlike lower enlisted ranks. Under Hitler they were the biggest believers in national socialism outside of the political bodies. In the US army they are the biggest idealists and patriots. They are simulatenously examples of brilliant leaders and brilliant followers, and you'll find that anyone in possession of one of these two traits is also in posession of the other. You've never heard "learn to obey before you command"?

And you have never thought that they have to LEARN taking orders because it is essentially an anathema for them? Show me what so brilliant Patton for example had as a follower...
(there are also letters between alpha and omega, for example for describing varied levels of ambition)

The best followers are those who also possess leadership traits. They have far mroe empathy and understanding of the leader, and they can function as extensions of his leadership when they are required to make decisions removed from him.

They are also the least numerous. Make an army from your 2nd lieutnants and above. I show you useless piece of crap which is ground to hell by my army of grunts.
Armies need officers, and they need to be leaders. But army made up of "leaders" is so small that it has no hope in hell to survive in brutal, violent struggle for dominance. What armies need above all else is rank and file troopers, who do the dirty work. Because without those guys with little to no desire to become generals, your alpha pushing pins in the map is just that... Lonely guy with piece of paper and some sharp accessories.


You still have not done anything to disprove that being shy and avoiding conflict, which happens between people competing for same position on the top, is evolutionary advantage because it actually makes you blend in the grey mass. You know the quip "Eagles may soar, but owls don't get sucked into jet engines."

Same is true when we look at the feudal world. When conquering area it is sensible to wipe out enemy royalty and nobility, end their bloodlines as well as you can. But you do not kill the peasants who are your source of wealth.

[Niles Crane]

I knew there was something good about being shy.

[John Doe]

Isn't shyness linked to experiences in childhood and environment, or is it somehow in DNA?

I don't think it's transmitted by ancestors.

[Claudius Gothicus]

Isn't shyness linked to experiences in childhood and environment, or is it somehow in DNA?

I don't think it's transmitted by ancestors.

it can be the product of both enviromental factors triggering certain genetic predispositions, purely enviromental due to biographical reasons as diverse as a violent childhood, distant parents or else.

Human behaviour is quite a mixed process, and biological imperatives have their role.

[Phier]

Isn't shyness linked to experiences in childhood and environment, or is it somehow in DNA?

I don't think it's transmitted by ancestors.

There is an odd, wrong, debate in the idea of evolutionary psychology.

People like me who see genetics as playing a part in human behavior have no problem with the idea that how you are raised plays a part too. Genetics are akin to a recipe (NOT a blueprint) and how you cook it can make a difference in the outcome. Children raised in extreme circumstances will exhibit different behavior than those who are not. Genetics plays a part in much of it, but its not an ALL or NONE arrangement.

The counter argument against evolutionary psychology seems to be that since genetics doesn't account for everything, it therefore accounts for nothing. These are the types that said that male/female behavior is all learned despite study after study showing much of it is innate. They are the school of wishful thinking and were 'in charge' in the 1970's to a large part. I was actually taught in grade school that humans have no instincts. I recall it because it seemed very unfair that other animals get stuff innately that we all had to learn. It was complete crap, that any parent (which I now am) could tell you.

[John I Tzimisces]

There is an odd, wrong, debate in the idea of evolutionary psychology.

People like me who see genetics as playing a part in human behavior have no problem with the idea that how you are raised plays a part too. Genetics are akin to a recipe (NOT a blueprint) and how you cook it can make a difference in the outcome. Children raised in extreme circumstances will exhibit different behavior than those who are not. Genetics plays a part in much of it, but its not an ALL or NONE arrangement.

The counter argument against evolutionary psychology seems to be that since genetics doesn't account for everything, it therefore accounts for nothing. These are the types that said that male/female behavior is all learned despite study after study showing much of it is innate. They are the school of wishful thinking and were 'in charge' in the 1970's to a large part. I was actually taught in grade school that humans have no instincts. I recall it because it seemed very unfair that other animals get stuff innately that we all had to learn. It was complete crap, that any parent (which I now am) could tell you.

Well, the Tabula Rasa (Clean Slate) theory or hypothesis or whatnot has been discarded for good reason. Case in point, that rather infamous episode where a circumcision gone wrong led to the parents and medical/psychological authorities attempting to raise the boy as a girl, going so far as "corrective" surgery and hormone treatment. (for reference, he was born in the 60s, rejected his reassigned sex around the onset of puberty, and committed suicide in the 90s)

In any case, since behavior is a set of traits, one can look at it from a perspective akin to an equation.

Genotype (genetics) + Ontology (culture, life history, environmental factors) = Phenotype (expressed/observable trait or traits)

So, my genetics say I'm going to be a pale guy. If I spend a lot of time in the sun, my expressed trait is that I'm a kinda weird mix of freckly and tan.

Someone might be born with the so-called "warrior gene" which impacts impulse control in regard to aggression. This does not mean an individual is going to be a violent person, commit a violent crime, or whatever. If Einstein's intelligence or capacity for learning had a genetic basis, but he was born 30 thousand years ago, he'd be banging rocks together with the rest of us. And so on.

The same holds true for shyness: there may be a gene or genes (more likely the latter if you'd have to ask me) linked to this behavior, but life experiences and other factors matter big time.

(I'm pretty sure so far I've unintentionally referenced two episodes of Law & Order)

[Claudius Gothicus]

Genotype (genetics) + Ontology (culture, life history, environmental factors) = Phenotype (expressed/observable trait or traits)

I have a friend who got the phenotype equation tattooed on his left arm... he's kinda crazy and studies Anthropology lol