Chapter 34 Damn it!

Is there anything more boring than sitting "on your knees" in a waiting room waiting for a doctor?I don't think so.But no, this situation happened again today.Usually, the essential reading for such a place—a few back issues of magazines of little value—didn’t appeal to me, so I started watching people, because you’re never alone in the waiting room.A mother sat across from me with two children, and the two little ones were exactly alike.I figured they were about three years old, identical twins.After waiting for a long time, the little ones started to complain.Mom tried to keep them both quiet until the doctor came to free her.She pulled out all the tricks that every mother has, from glares, distractions, and cuddles.This last act intrigued me.So I picked up a back issue anyway, pulled out my pen, drew a vertical line across the cover, and started counting.The left side of the vertical line represents the boy on the left, and the right side represents the boy on the right.Whenever my mother gave one of the children a hug, a kiss, or touched their little heads twice, or said something nice, I drew a line in the corresponding area.I can't make it too obvious, that mother is already very nervous for me, an old guy.The children's grandmother also came, sat next to the mother, and asked softly, "Do they both have to go in for a check?" "No, only Jesp, he's sick again." Mom's words do nothing, so I don't know who Jesper is.But I'm sure I can figure it out before the doctor comes, just keep counting.Twenty minutes later, footsteps were heard in the corridor, so I counted the number of lines drawn on the left and right.As a result, there are sixteen on the left and thirteen on the right. "Okay," I said to myself, "the one on the right is Jesper." The doctor opened the door to the waiting room, and the mother and the child on the right stood up, leaving the other child and the grandmother to wait here for a while.I quickly swung my fist into the air, then retracted it immediately, as if pulling the emergency brake valve, and shouted: "Yes!" Everyone looked at me angrily, but I guessed right again.

What am I guessing right?First of all, I would advise all moms to stop reading.This is not an article suitable for mothers who love children, because what I will talk about next will be cruel and related to the discrimination of parents against children.The mothers who still insisted on reading must be furious by now, thinking whether to sue me.Maternal love is sacred, and children will not be discriminated against at all!Take this book away!Ladies, though, don't mistake the innocent.I just want to provide the reader with some scientific information from which they can learn something particularly interesting about the evolution of human behaviour.

This is related to the famous "healthy baby assumption".This hypothesis predicts that mothers will pay more attention to children who are relatively healthy.The hypothesis goes like this: If a child is healthier than his older siblings, then parents invest more in him.In other words, he gets (or will get) more attention, cuddles, playtime with his parents, etc.The thinking behind this view is cold, but it can be explained from an evolutionary perspective.We are descended from our distant ancestors because they reproduced successfully.Here, reproduction means not only being able to produce children, but also grandchildren.If a person's sons or daughters are unable to produce children, then that person is not considered reproductively successful.In the distant past, children with weak health had less chance of surviving, so investing in these children was equivalent to losing money, or at least it was not profitable.

Healthy and strong offspring provide greater security for reproduction, meaning that, on average, parents who invest in healthy offspring at the expense of frail offspring have more grandchildren who borrow This expands the chances of becoming our ancestors.In this way, the behavioral system determined by evolution has been passed down from generation to generation until today.From this, it can be deduced that in a family, healthy children earn more, which is the origin of the "healthy baby hypothesis". I know you're angry right now, thinking that the last few years of research in behavioral biology and evolutionary psychology have gone terribly wrong.But before your harsh criticism, can we calm down and look at the results of scientific research?Research in the United States shows that disabled children—that is, children with lower chances of reproduction—are more likely to be neglected by parents than healthy children, given up for adoption or abandoned in an institution (provided that it is not for medical treatment) chances are also greater.This certainly still won't convince you, because disabled children are a bit of a stretch, at best a special case.So I'm going to give the results of a study done on twins.The study was planned in great detail and conducted with precision.On the one hand, the health status of the twins was compared, and on the other hand, the attention given by the mothers was compared.The results were astounding.When the babies were four months old, half of the mothers gave more attention to the healthier twin than the other half.By the time the baby is eight months old, all mothers have the above tendencies.This is consistent with that hypothesis, although it sounds bleak and cold.

Let me defuse this icy atmosphere.Often, the difference between how mothers treat healthy and sick children is minimal.Ouch, relief at last! It takes rigorous and careful observation to see the difference.However, no matter how small the difference is, it still exists after all!You can of course look up scientific information about it again, but it's not necessary now.The above conclusions are enough to prove that we usually have a wrong image of human behavior, and describe ourselves as too rational and too loving.At the same time, there is always an unexplained and unintentional drive, originating in the very distant past, which tends our behavior in one direction or another.

After messing with mom, I'm going to mess with grandparents again.Hey, even when it comes to their grandchildren, they show discrimination.It is not the state of health of the grandchildren that determines the attitude of the grandparents, but the people who brought them into this world, the sons and daughters of the grandparents.Even that is a hassle.See, in animals that conceive through internal fertilization - such as humans, the male is never sure if he is the father of the young (we call the child) conceived in his partner's belly, or if another man left the sperm In her body, and that person is the real father of the child.In the animal world, cheating is really nothing special, including you and me.Throughout human evolution, this so-called "paternal uncertainty" has partly determined men's behavior.Of course, this is all unintentional!Men stand to gain by helping mothers raise their children, because if the children do not survive, there is no reproduction.However, it is still profitable for men not to devote all their energy to their children, but to leave some to have a child with another woman, which can increase their income.I guess I don't need to point out to you that these are not rational behaviors, but unconscious motives.Mothers, on the contrary, are always sure that since the baby came out of their own womb, they are not plagued by those doubts.No matter who the father is, the mother is sure.So mothers will try their best to take care of their children, and they still do to this day.Now, why in all cultures and nationalities, mothers always take care of their children more than fathers, it is easy to explain.This is actually an economic motto: the more certain you are, the more you invest.

And what does this have to do with grandparents?Let's look at grandpa first.He had a grandson through his son, and the genetic relationship between him and the grandson created double doubts.Is he himself the son's father?If yes, is the son the father of his child?Here, the grandmothers behave on the contrary, they are extremely sure of their relationship with their daughter's children.From this, it can be expected that the mother of the mother gives the grandson and granddaughter the most, such as pocket money, gifts, attention, education, affection, etc., while the father of the father gives the least.Dad's mom and mom's dad are in the middle.Now all the grandparents are going to be mad at me!But a lot of studies done on thousands of grandchildren and grandparents show that this kind of evolutionary discrimination does exist, as I just said, mother's mother gives most, and father's father gives least.Others are in the middle.Again, the difference here is not huge, but it does exist. "Okay," the grandpas exclaimed, "if I'm very sure about my relationship with my son and son and grandson, will my investment change?" No, because it's an unconscious motivation, our own. Inherited from ancestors.At the time, they couldn't say for sure, because blood typing and DNA analysis didn't exist.

While we don't like such conclusions, the behaviors shown in families are clearly influenced by evolution and can only be seen through Darwin's glasses.There is little point in insisting on rational explanations of human behavior for our own amusement when the love of parents and grandparents is undeniable.The mechanisms that ensured reproduction have guided human behavior for millions of years, and we certainly cannot just erase them today. Jesper came back with her mother, called the other child and went out with the grandmother.In order to reward the inspection just now, Jesp thought he should eat an ice cream.I saw him staring at his big watery eyes, trying to get his mother to agree to his request.My mother frowned, as if she was hesitating whether to make this investment.Just listen to Jesper swearing: "I promise to be a good kid in the future. And, my brother will too." See, this is how culture affects genes.