It reallys make me wonder how of human behavior is really just evolution and not conscious choice. some kind of just after fact rationalization
Here's an interesting example of the potential risks: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/how-mouse-utopias-1...
"How 1960s Mouse Utopias Led to Grim Predictions for Future of Humanity"
[Edit: added link].
This was my experience at least.
As mammals we are hardwired to respond to (perceived) life threatening situations by triggering our own the sympathetic brain and entering fight or flight or freeze mode.
Once the situation goes back to normal, the parasympathetic brain is supposed to kick in to "rest and digest" the stress and move on, stronger and more resilient to future stressful situations.
The natural tendency to ohmostasis of the human body at work.
An interesting question could be: why do humans often seem so affected by unresolved stress, causing anxieties, depression, stress related health issues etc...?
In case you want an effective tool to tap into your natural ability to "destress" yourself, start practicing the Trauma Release Exercises, developed by David Berceli.
They are inexpensive to learn, self-administrated and among the most effective techniques I've found to transform what crippled me into my greatest asset.
I really really appreciate it.
My interpretation of this experiment is that social skills play a part in sexual attractiveness for rats, and that traumatizing them as teenagers adversely impacts their social skills.
Convergent evolution- similar problems, similar solutions: but the mechanisms and nuances can be entirely different. And it is these nuances / small but significant differences that differentiate species.
Perhaps the common observation reflects the fact that, in any moderately complex animal "society" or group, certain outcomes are likely given similar circumstances.
However, not withstanding my general dismay at evolution being projected as a hierarchy with humans at the top (while evolution, if at all it is "acting" in a particular direction, is niche optimisation) there are far far too many subtle differences between humans and other primates.
I find it mildly distressing when scientists draw parallels with human society based on animal studies. I strongly feel that we still understand far too little of physiology and behaviour, even for rodents, to be able to draw such parallels. The risk is, we organise and plan actions that impact others according to a false model, which can have disturbing consequences.
To further muddy the waters, here is a paper that showed that fear conditioning in mice can be passed down epigentically to the progeny. It is a very good paper; but if you look at the citations, there is rigorous debate about the interpretation. Do read Brian's statement (the lead author) towards the end of the article. We know far too less right now to make any strong statements.
"Study finds that fear can travel quickly through generations of mice DNA"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/national/health-scien...
And an open access review that discusses some of the current issues that are being debated:
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/281/1785/2014... "Can environmental conditions experienced in early life influence future generations?"
Edits: added links to the review
As child rearing becomes more expensive, the number of children decreases. Do we assume, simply because whales (or elephants) have low birth rates, that their "societies" are living in an utopia?
A single common / overlapping data point is too insufficient, and therefore dangerous to infer that these are parallel processes. Which is exactly my point.
[Edit: refined language]