Speaker 1: Hey, this is Annie and Samantha and welcome to stuff.
Speaker 1: Mom never told you a prodiction of Iheartradias how stuff works.
Speaker 1: So this is actually something I've been thinking about a
Speaker 1: lot lately, um, especially around this time of year. And
Speaker 1: I've been through a lot of pretty serious life changes lately,
Speaker 1: and it's kindness. And I've learned that kindness is one
Speaker 1: of my most valued traits. I that's I think that's
Speaker 1: why I connects so strongly to the media that I do.
Speaker 1: And it's really funny because right after my dad died, Um,
Speaker 1: I for some reason, I wanted to watch How to
Speaker 1: Train Your Dragon the whole series, like over and over,
Speaker 1: and in the second one spoiler alert, the dad dies
Speaker 1: and people were shot. They were like, why why sing this?
Speaker 1: And what made me start crying? Not that is that
Speaker 1: I was like, look how kind hiccup? I started crying
Speaker 1: and it's just stuck with me and and Lives Out
Speaker 1: is a movie that I love right now. And one
Speaker 1: of the things I love about that movie, that entire
Speaker 1: movie is a murder mystery about kindness or kindness is
Speaker 1: at the heart of it. And so, um, it's just
Speaker 1: as we close out this decade, I move into a
Speaker 1: new decade thinking about the value of kindness. And you
Speaker 1: never know how much impact being kind to someone else
Speaker 1: has because it really so many things people do. I'm
Speaker 1: sure they have no idea how much it meant to me,
Speaker 1: but it did so And the words of Michelle McNamara,
Speaker 1: the world is chaos to be kind and that just
Speaker 1: really is something that I'm gonna I'm gonna stick to
Speaker 1: you and I I appreciate so many of you listeners
Speaker 1: because you are so kind when you contact us, and
Speaker 1: it really really really means so much. So please enjoy
Speaker 1: this classic episode on why are humans helpful? Welcome to
Speaker 1: Stuff Mom Never told You from how Stuff Works dot Com. Hello,
Speaker 1: and welcome to the podcast. I'm Kristen and I'm Caroline,
Speaker 1: and I'm about to start things off with a statement
Speaker 1: that might um cause outrage from our more science minded
Speaker 1: and very knowledgeable listeners. I'm nervous out there, yeah, because
Speaker 1: we've got we have a number of whip smart scientists
Speaker 1: who listen in. So I'm just gonna go ahead and
Speaker 1: say this from my layman's perspective. Okay, so scientists out there,
Speaker 1: keep in mind, I'm just trying to cleverly possibly te
Speaker 1: up this episode about the evolution of cooperation. So what
Speaker 1: I was going to say was that, really, if we
Speaker 1: are thinking of this podcast universe that we magically live in,
Speaker 1: and in evolutionary terms, you and I really shouldn't be
Speaker 1: sitting at the same table, Caroline. Why because we should
Speaker 1: probably have separate podcasts, you know, because of survival of
Speaker 1: the fittest and everything. Like. Humans are naturally selfish, right,
Speaker 1: inherently selfish creatures. So I would really want to start
Speaker 1: the Kristen Show so I could battle it out on
Speaker 1: the charts and the Caroline our Christians limiting me, I
Speaker 1: really would talk for an hour. Maybe we should do
Speaker 1: it um. But as a matter of fact, it sort
Speaker 1: of does make sense that we are sitting across the
Speaker 1: table talking, cooperating, we're helping each other get ahead together,
Speaker 1: we are getting are there than possibly we would separately.
Speaker 1: Although you know, the theory behind cooperation and defecting, not
Speaker 1: helping other people, being selfish and acting in one's own
Speaker 1: self interest is that you know, as a defector, theoretically
Speaker 1: you would you would get ahead because you're not You're
Speaker 1: not helping your neighbor, so you're not doling out anything
Speaker 1: you're not incurring any costs. But then your neighbor doesn't
Speaker 1: get anything from you, doesn't get any help, so she
Speaker 1: won't get ahead. So but if you both help each other,
Speaker 1: then you both get ahead. And since we like talking
Speaker 1: about success stories and this is just maybe the grand
Speaker 1: success story of the human species is perhaps cooperation, because
Speaker 1: scientists would refer to us as super cooperators, because without cooperation,
Speaker 1: we wouldn't even be able to sit here, because we
Speaker 1: wouldn't have this technology, we wouldn't have language, thumbs thumbs
Speaker 1: sort of bat things around caps. I guess um. But
Speaker 1: the whole idea behind us is that cooperation is a
Speaker 1: driving force in evolution. And Martin Noack, who is from
Speaker 1: Harvard University, in two thousand six wrote that the emergence
Speaker 1: of genomes, sells, multicellular organisms, social insects, and human society
Speaker 1: as a whole are all based on cooperation, right, which
Speaker 1: is counterintuitive because I made the reference to evolution earlier,
Speaker 1: because the theory is based on competition in the idea
Speaker 1: of rewarding selfish behavior. But when you actually look at
Speaker 1: biological organization, you find so much cooperation and self sacrifice
Speaker 1: in a lot of instances yeah, and and I know
Speaker 1: you might be thinking this sounds way more science e
Speaker 1: than we normally get. But don't work. Don't worry, we'll
Speaker 1: get to the gender stuff. We are reliable, We are
Speaker 1: cooperating in this. We bring it around a gender every time, right.
Speaker 1: But yeah, cooperation essentially means that selfish replicators, you know,
Speaker 1: they're looking out for themselves, they forego some of their
Speaker 1: reproductive potential to help one another. So, like I said earlier,
Speaker 1: everybody gets ahead, everybody wins, and no whak you mentioned
Speaker 1: from Harvard University UM establish a theory of five mechanisms
Speaker 1: for the evolution of cooperation how all of this works.
Speaker 1: And the first one makes a lot of sense, and
Speaker 1: that is kin selection. We want to perpetuate our our genes,
Speaker 1: and so naturally we are more willing to cooperate with
Speaker 1: people that we are related to. And the closer they're
Speaker 1: related to us than the more likely we are to
Speaker 1: lend a helping hand. Right, And that's the whole theory
Speaker 1: behind that. As we share more genes obviously with people
Speaker 1: were more closely related to. So there's the whole saying
Speaker 1: of I will jump in the river to save two
Speaker 1: brothers or eight cousins. That's sort of the idea behind
Speaker 1: that UM. There's also network reciprocity, which is formed in
Speaker 1: a mixed population of cooperators and defectors. UH. Cooperators are
Speaker 1: busy helping each other and forming network clusters, while defects
Speaker 1: are getting left out because they're not benefiting their neighbors
Speaker 1: at all. And then those clusters of cooperators end up
Speaker 1: out competing the defectors because, like we said, they're pushing
Speaker 1: each other ahead to succeed. And then we have group
Speaker 1: selection UM, which maintains that competition is not only between
Speaker 1: individuals but also between groups, and a group of cooperators
Speaker 1: will not so surprisingly grow faster than a group of
Speaker 1: defectors because they can actually work together. And this is
Speaker 1: something that will also come up in later research on
Speaker 1: like teamwork and sports. UM that it's also come up
Speaker 1: and one thing that you guys might have heard of
Speaker 1: possibly is the prisoner's dilemma, which is a test and
Speaker 1: activity that's been reproduced in several studies that's known as
Speaker 1: a direct reciprocity. Basically, if I cooperate now, you might
Speaker 1: cooperate later. Tip for tat you owe me, I owe
Speaker 1: you UM and This relies basically on repeated encounters between
Speaker 1: the same two individuals, and it's basically, to quote the
Speaker 1: study like a barter economy based on the immediate exchange
Speaker 1: of goods. So first, let's outline quickly what the prisoners
Speaker 1: the limit is, just because this comes up so often
Speaker 1: in this line of scientific literature. Yeah, so, if Kristin
Speaker 1: and I are both suspects who have been arrested on
Speaker 1: suspicion of a crime, uh, they separate us and you know,
Speaker 1: good cup, bad cop, and they're just like beating us
Speaker 1: down mentally, trying to get one of us to confess
Speaker 1: or both. The theory goes and tests have shown that
Speaker 1: when one of the suspects confesses, So like let's say
Speaker 1: Kristin confesses to the crime like she did it or
Speaker 1: we did it or I did it or whatever. She
Speaker 1: she confesses but I don't, then she's the one who's cooperating.
Speaker 1: She receives preferential treatment, favorable treatment, so she might not
Speaker 1: go to prison, or might not go to prison for
Speaker 1: as long because she cooperated. When both of us confess,
Speaker 1: the outcome is worse because it's like, well, you've lost
Speaker 1: your leverage. And even though we both cooperated. We're both
Speaker 1: like super guilty. We do not get favorable treatment either
Speaker 1: one of us when both of us keep silent though
Speaker 1: we're cooperating with each other, we haven't offered up any information.
Speaker 1: Neither one of us goes to prison and gets shanked
Speaker 1: or shived or half shoved, half or shoved. Uh. And
Speaker 1: so the outcome is better for both of us. We
Speaker 1: might both end up going to prison for a little while,
Speaker 1: but we didn't confess we cooperated with each other. So
Speaker 1: the outcome ends up although it's not the best for
Speaker 1: one of us, it's the better for both of us. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So it's a roll of the dice and this prisoner
Speaker 1: prisoner's dilemma game that these researchers will often play with
Speaker 1: participants to see how selfish we are, whether or not
Speaker 1: we will go for the more cooperative option and just
Speaker 1: hope for the best of The other person in the
Speaker 1: game is also thinking cooperatively. Um. But it's it's interesting
Speaker 1: how to see how those kinds of games shake out.
Speaker 1: And again this will come up when we talk more
Speaker 1: about gender. And let's briefly touch on that fifth mechanism,
Speaker 1: which is indirect reciprocity, which is fueled by reputation. It's
Speaker 1: essentially the idea of doing something in order to burnish
Speaker 1: your reputation in case of a rainy day kind of. Yeah, Basically,
Speaker 1: you help somebody, and you don't necessarily expect immediate help,
Speaker 1: but you do expect other people to take note, possibly
Speaker 1: inform others, and based on your now sterling reputation, you
Speaker 1: expect down the line to get some perks. And the
Speaker 1: study shows that this is a very human attribute, this
Speaker 1: idea of indirect reciprocity, because we have to have the
Speaker 1: ability to actually, like remember, keep track of our social network,
Speaker 1: remember who's done what, who's benefited home, and kind of
Speaker 1: keep talli's of you know, who's who's helping each other. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and that whole idea of the social network dynamics UM
Speaker 1: has received some more insight from a two thousand eleven
Speaker 1: study out of Harvard University, which found that UM, when
Speaker 1: it comes to cooperation and helpfulness within the social networks,
Speaker 1: everything is constant and changing in response to those networks,
Speaker 1: the people in those networks behaviors. Yeah, when we have
Speaker 1: when you have a dynamic social network, basically you get
Speaker 1: to choose the people that you want to keep hanging
Speaker 1: out with the people who give you the greatest benefits,
Speaker 1: who you like the best. Um, you end up with
Speaker 1: big groups of cooperators because nobody wants to hang out
Speaker 1: with the selfish guy. Yeah, and the sweet little moral
Speaker 1: of the scientific story is that nice guys can finish
Speaker 1: first because you want you're a coo cooperator exactly, exactly,
Speaker 1: and uh yeah, So these dynamic groups where you can
Speaker 1: pick and choose who you hang out with, end up
Speaker 1: having very high level levels of cooperation because you're rewarded
Speaker 1: for cooperating by getting to hang out with the cool kids.
Speaker 1: If you're the selfish guy who's not cooperating, then you
Speaker 1: typically end up getting shunned. And so you learn from
Speaker 1: that mistake. You learned from the little sting of being shunned,
Speaker 1: So then you try to cooperate, whether it's heartfelt or not.
Speaker 1: You want to be part of the group. So it
Speaker 1: keeps us in It keeps us in check as well
Speaker 1: our behaviors, your reputation and social networks and basically thinking
Speaker 1: that people are watching you. Now, there's something that comes
Speaker 1: up a lot in this podcast that's going to put
Speaker 1: a wrinkle in our cooperative or non cooperative behavior, and
Speaker 1: that would be hormones. Yes, there is known evidence that
Speaker 1: the hormone oxytocin, the cuddly feely hormone released in the
Speaker 1: female brain, especially during an orgasm that promotes bonding. A
Speaker 1: little boost of oxytocin will make us more cooperative. Studies
Speaker 1: have shown that a boost of oxytocin in our brain
Speaker 1: will make us more cooperative, which makes sense, you know,
Speaker 1: if you think about all of the different traits that
Speaker 1: are associated with oxytocin. Now, on the flip side of that,
Speaker 1: a study published in January of two thousand twelve from
Speaker 1: the University College London's Welcome Trust Center for neuro Imaging
Speaker 1: found that testosterone. Yep, testosterone makes us less cooperative. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it kind of blinds you to other people's point of
Speaker 1: view and makes you overvalue your own opinions at the
Speaker 1: expense of cooperating. And so they did the study. They
Speaker 1: had seventeen pairs of female volunteers working together, and they
Speaker 1: did they had a little asterisk and they said that,
Speaker 1: you know, we did seventeen pairs of female volunteers because
Speaker 1: testosterone levels naturally low, and so they could have some
Speaker 1: of the women take a pill or whatever. To raise
Speaker 1: their testosterone levels, whereas if they did that in men,
Speaker 1: when you raise an already high testosterone level at backfires
Speaker 1: and make some I don't know, weepy or something. Um.
Speaker 1: But so they have these pairs of female volunteers working together,
Speaker 1: and when given a placebo, the pairs cooperated well, performed
Speaker 1: their assigned task better. But when they were given a
Speaker 1: testosterone supplement, the benefit of cooperation was reduced. Individuals acted
Speaker 1: ego centrically, and they tended to decide in favor of
Speaker 1: their own ideas over those of their partner. So watch
Speaker 1: out for that. Uh yeah. Dr Nick Right, who was
Speaker 1: the lead researcher, said, too much cooperation and we may
Speaker 1: never have our way. But if we're too self motivated,
Speaker 1: we are likely to ignore people who have real insights.
Speaker 1: So there is a balance to cooperation. And I mean,
Speaker 1: if you're constantly rolling over for someone else, well, good grief,
Speaker 1: don't do that. But then it can't be too hardheaded either. Well,
Speaker 1: so does this mean that men and women are inherently
Speaker 1: different as far as how they cooperate? Is there a
Speaker 1: huge difference there? Well, I think that's the question we're
Speaker 1: going to answer next in this podcast because you would
Speaker 1: assume based on that study that we decided about testosterone,
Speaker 1: we know that men tend to have higher levels of
Speaker 1: testosterone running through their bloodstream. Yeah, so you might think, well, sure,
Speaker 1: guys aren't going to be as cooperative as women and
Speaker 1: women are just you know, sweet little pancakes of helpfulness.
Speaker 1: I don't know why pancakes, but you know, fluffy, they're
Speaker 1: fluffy and you can put butter and um. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I keep going. And there is some support for something
Speaker 1: called the male warrior hypothesis. Yeah, and that's basically the
Speaker 1: men's social behavior and psychology are more strongly intergroup driven
Speaker 1: than women's. And there's all this stuff about like you know,
Speaker 1: evolutionary theory and men hunting the willed beast and everything
Speaker 1: and taking it home to their women. But basically, researchers
Speaker 1: from the universities of Kent in England and Tilburg I
Speaker 1: believe in the Netherlands in two thousand and seven found
Speaker 1: that men contributed more to their group if the group
Speaker 1: was competing against other groups. So that's that that can
Speaker 1: lead us later into a bunch of like sports theory
Speaker 1: and and team theory and stuff like that. But they
Speaker 1: found that female cooperation was pretty much unaffected by intergroup competition. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and there was a September two to leven study published
Speaker 1: by the American Psychological Association that looked at fifty years
Speaker 1: of research because there are a ton of studies examining
Speaker 1: gender and helpfulness and cooperation, and they found that men
Speaker 1: are more cooperative kind of like you just said, particularly
Speaker 1: when the interests of an individual are pitted against those
Speaker 1: of a group. Um, and men cooperate with other men,
Speaker 1: this was interesting, better than women cooperate with other women.
Speaker 1: We should really not be getting alonger right now. Competition
Speaker 1: and we're two women, um, and women will cooperate more
Speaker 1: than men in mixed sex interactions. So basically, everybody cooperates
Speaker 1: with men better. It sounds That's what it sounds like.
Speaker 1: And you know I touched on evolutionary theory a second ago.
Speaker 1: But uh, if they basically say that if everyone acted
Speaker 1: according to self interest in hunting and warfare back in
Speaker 1: the day with the wild a beast and the mastodons, uh,
Speaker 1: no food would be provided and all wars would be
Speaker 1: lost because everybody would be looking out for themselves. Like
Speaker 1: I don't want to get hurt. I'm just gonna kill
Speaker 1: this world debes for my woman and myself, not for
Speaker 1: the rest of you guys. And so basically, men had
Speaker 1: to develop strategies to cooperate with each other. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: theory behind women's interaction and cooperation, according to the studies
Speaker 1: lead author, is that ancestral women migrated between groups you know,
Speaker 1: as wives are wont to do and quote, So the
Speaker 1: dynamics among women would have been rife with sexual competition. Uh,
Speaker 1: stereotypes about cattie women goes all the way back back
Speaker 1: to evolutionary times. But before I get too bummed out
Speaker 1: about that, doctor Art Markman, who's the executive editor of
Speaker 1: Cognitive Science UM, looked at some meta analysis on all this,
Speaker 1: because yes, we see some gender differences here and there,
Speaker 1: depending on group versus individual versus who's sitting across the
Speaker 1: table from you versus whether or not you're being an
Speaker 1: environment that's being mono turn and he found that despite stereotypes,
Speaker 1: the gender differences when it comes to cooperation is very small.
Speaker 1: It's almost statistically insignificant. He says, Wow, it does affect
Speaker 1: how how likely people are to cooperate to some degree,
Speaker 1: it is not the most important factor. Yeah, it's definitely
Speaker 1: fostering temmunity and trust that helps people cooperate, feel comfortable
Speaker 1: working together, rather than focusing on a gender balance. So
Speaker 1: I mean you shouldn't try to get you know, a
Speaker 1: room full of men, or make sure you have an
Speaker 1: exact balance of men and women necessarily, just make sure
Speaker 1: that the people you hire you know you're fostering that
Speaker 1: teammunity feeling. Although it is interesting to see what does
Speaker 1: happen when uh say, we're in the room our studio
Speaker 1: by ourselves having to cooperate away from the prying eyes
Speaker 1: of all of our listeners. But if are you know,
Speaker 1: when we could we could stop and you know, not
Speaker 1: be so cooperative with each other. But chances are when
Speaker 1: you're being watched, are monitored by some kind of an
Speaker 1: audience then and your reputation is kind of more on
Speaker 1: the line. It does change how men and women will interact.
Speaker 1: It does. And this is a study from you see
Speaker 1: Santa Barbara, and they had men and women playing a
Speaker 1: game in front of an audience of the same or
Speaker 1: opposite sex, either in their home room or in an
Speaker 1: away room. And so the theory is that while both
Speaker 1: males and females wish to gain approval of their in
Speaker 1: group members. In other words, the people in their home room.
Speaker 1: The actions that are socially desirable differ across gender, So
Speaker 1: males wish to signal that they're formidable, while females wish
Speaker 1: to signal that their cooperative. So it has a lot
Speaker 1: to do not so much with your gender a little bit.
Speaker 1: Basically we cooperate the same amount, but we cooperate kind
Speaker 1: of differently. So men cooperate less quote unquote at home
Speaker 1: in their home room than do females, and cooperate more
Speaker 1: went away, and they actually cooperate most when in front
Speaker 1: of a single sex audience. Um. Well, I thought it
Speaker 1: was interesting that this uh that that study from UC
Speaker 1: Santa Barbara also supports um A date a little bit
Speaker 1: dated study in the Social Psychology Quarterly that found that
Speaker 1: again there was a minor gender difference in cooperation, but
Speaker 1: no matter what side, women came out on whether or
Speaker 1: not they're being more cooperative, cooperative, excuse me, or defectors.
Speaker 1: We tend to assume that we have the moral high ground. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well yeah, we think we're more cooperative and altruistic and
Speaker 1: all that stuff, And that that actually reminded me of
Speaker 1: our Women's Intuition podcast, like, if you think in your
Speaker 1: brain that you're supposed to be a certain way, you
Speaker 1: just assume that your actions are more that way than
Speaker 1: somebody else's. Kind of yeah. Well, and also we tend
Speaker 1: to not get as even this is all an experimental settings,
Speaker 1: but not to get as emotionally worked up about having
Speaker 1: to hash something out with someone else. Often though, the
Speaker 1: men were more likely to leave, um one of these
Speaker 1: prisoner's dilemma esque games, very agitated and upset, whereas we
Speaker 1: were like, it's fine. I mean I was being as
Speaker 1: altruistic as I could possibly be, so fluffy pan kicks
Speaker 1: of cooperation for everyone. Um. Now, we said we'd get
Speaker 1: into a little bit of sports theory, and by that
Speaker 1: I mean just a little itty bitty bit. Um. But
Speaker 1: a two thousand four study in the Journal of Personality
Speaker 1: and Social Psychology had a behavioral task assigned to these
Speaker 1: people that involved shooting a basketball, and in this intergroup competition,
Speaker 1: which is a combination of cooperation and competition, it led
Speaker 1: to higher levels of intrinsic motivation, which we already kind
Speaker 1: of talked about, where men were more likely to cooperate
Speaker 1: if they were going up against a group. So basically
Speaker 1: intergroup competition has positive effects on enjoyment of the sport,
Speaker 1: and so they recommend The study recommends structuring recreational activities
Speaker 1: to include both competition and cooperation because that can facilitate
Speaker 1: high levels of both intrinsic motivation and performance. I don't
Speaker 1: think it supplies to me because I hate competition or whatever,
Speaker 1: but that's probably why. I mean, we join up with
Speaker 1: REX sports teams because it is fun. I mean, the
Speaker 1: competition level is there enough that it's stimulating, but then
Speaker 1: you also get the whole cooperative benefits. You get to bond,
Speaker 1: you get to do the all hands in high five
Speaker 1: cheer thing, and pour big tubs of sports strengths on people. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I've never done that. I should do that sometimes, short
Speaker 1: circuit our equipment. Um And this whole competitive structure versus
Speaker 1: cooperative structure translates not so surprisingly into the workplace, and
Speaker 1: it is interesting see how they compare in terms of outcome,
Speaker 1: because a study published in two thousand three in the
Speaker 1: Academy of Management Journal found that competitive structures enhance speed
Speaker 1: and a cooperative one enhances accuracy. Yeah, and it makes
Speaker 1: sense if you think about it because if you're competing. Again,
Speaker 1: if if if Kristen and I had different podcasts and
Speaker 1: we're recording at the same time, and that's somehow how
Speaker 1: the universe work. That we had to see who could
Speaker 1: record the best, the best podcast the fastest, we we
Speaker 1: would probably be focused, yeah, more on who would do
Speaker 1: it the fastest, because so you would have the Caroline hour,
Speaker 1: like you said, maybe I'd have the Conger minute minute.
Speaker 1: Just pump those podcasts out. Yeah, but um, the cooperative
Speaker 1: environment is really good for teams with extroverted and agreeable members. Uh.
Speaker 1: Teams low on these attributes function better under a competitive structure,
Speaker 1: which I thought was interesting. So I guess if you're
Speaker 1: extroverted friendly, you're more likely to want to talk about
Speaker 1: stuff with your coworkers to reach a solution. So I
Speaker 1: wonder if someone who swings a little more introverted like myself,
Speaker 1: does that mean see, I don't know, I was I
Speaker 1: was thinking about that too, because you don't typically see
Speaker 1: introverted people like being really cut throat in the workplace,
Speaker 1: but they do work more independently, and so yeah, that
Speaker 1: that whole competitive system is really good for people who
Speaker 1: do work independently because it emphasizes performance differences, and it
Speaker 1: rewards individuals with high performance. So it can actually the
Speaker 1: good on the good the good side, it can promote efficiency.
Speaker 1: On the bad side, it can lead individuals to place
Speaker 1: their goals higher than those of the organization. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: then there's the whole challenge with a cooperative system that
Speaker 1: works well, like you said, with people who are extroverted
Speaker 1: and agreeable, because if you put them in more of
Speaker 1: a competitive reward structure, at least according to this study,
Speaker 1: they made twice as many mistakes. So they're rushing around
Speaker 1: me and like, but I want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about it. So essentially we need some kind of balance
Speaker 1: between it all. You know, we can't be too competitive,
Speaker 1: we can't be too cooperative. We gotta get things done. Essentially,
Speaker 1: we all need listen, everybody, just be perfect, no pressure,
Speaker 1: no pressure at all, you know, keep those oxy oxytocin
Speaker 1: levels high but not too high. Yeah, not too high.
Speaker 1: We don't want to be hugging all the time. Yeah.
Speaker 1: But then with testosterone, you know, yeah, low but not
Speaker 1: too low. So I do want to ask our listeners,
Speaker 1: you know, do they consider themselves to be more cooperators
Speaker 1: or quote unquote defectors. Are you more likely to feel
Speaker 1: like you're getting ahead if you're working closely with other people?
Speaker 1: Do you like helping others? Do you ever feel like
Speaker 1: you're helping others at the expense of your own success?
Speaker 1: And was anyone surprised by the lack of gender difference
Speaker 1: but in cooperation? Yeah, because a lot of people stereotypically,
Speaker 1: you know, anecdotally, people think that women are inherently more cooperative.
Speaker 1: Not necessarily true, Yeah, but that might be used as
Speaker 1: misused as an adjective for subservient. I digress. Send us
Speaker 1: an email. Mom. Stuff at Discovery dot com is where
Speaker 1: you can send them. Okay, this is uh an email
Speaker 1: from Claire about our Kathy episode. She says, I'm a
Speaker 1: fourteen year old enthusiast of comic books and Liz Lemon
Speaker 1: Woo go Claire, and read plenty of Garfield and Cathy
Speaker 1: comics in my childhood. I wasn't aware of the feminist
Speaker 1: backlash against Kathy until your podcast, and frankly, I disagree
Speaker 1: with it. Not only do I think she shouldn't be
Speaker 1: held to a standard that other comics are not held to,
Speaker 1: but if being a prominent woman cartoonist means that she
Speaker 1: has to uphold some responsibility of progressing women and having
Speaker 1: some sort of big, meaningful character arc when Garfield has
Speaker 1: only gotten fatter and John Lonelier are the two genders
Speaker 1: in the media truly equal. I appreciate feminism and think
Speaker 1: anyone's involvement in it is a fantastic thing to do.
Speaker 1: But to assign someone a role like that for something
Speaker 1: as to be blunt mediocre as a newspaper comic strip,
Speaker 1: I think is over the top. Well, I have one
Speaker 1: here from Madison, and it is in response to our
Speaker 1: episode about erotica and which we mentioned uh b D
Speaker 1: s M themes in erotic literature, and she writes, I'm
Speaker 1: a confident woman who incorporates b D s M into
Speaker 1: my sex life. I don't think safe, sane, consensual, kinky
Speaker 1: sex among adults is damaging to women. Men can be
Speaker 1: subs to. If getting tied up and stuff is really
Speaker 1: hot to you, then find someone else who's into it.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you guys acknowledge a difference between actual violence
Speaker 1: and consensual violent play of b D s M. The
Speaker 1: key word here is that b D s M is
Speaker 1: play dan savage love whom describes sex role play as
Speaker 1: cops and robbers for adults with your pants off and
Speaker 1: orgasm so true. One of my problems with fifty shades
Speaker 1: is that it paints a picture that only screwed up,
Speaker 1: broken people participate in b d usim screwed up broken
Speaker 1: people participate in vanilla relationships to emotional and physical abuse
Speaker 1: is never okay, especially in the kink community. The last
Speaker 1: thing that we need on the news is evil. Kinky
Speaker 1: people do something sex crazed and evil. It's a great headline.
Speaker 1: Most kinksters I know are extremely polite and will only
Speaker 1: whip you if you ask nicely while you're sober. The
Speaker 1: bottom really controls what's happening to them, since nothing else
Speaker 1: happens without their permission. And I, on a side note,
Speaker 1: am blushing. So thank you to Madison for that insight
Speaker 1: on the b D s M community, and to everyone
Speaker 1: who has written in. We have gotten a lot of
Speaker 1: email about our erotica episode, so much in fact, I
Speaker 1: haven't even gotten around to rootin now, so that and
Speaker 1: more for the next episode. Mom Stuff at Discovery dot
Speaker 1: com is where you can send your letters. You can
Speaker 1: also find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
Speaker 1: At mom's Stuff podcast, and you can head over to
Speaker 1: our website during the week to see what we're up
Speaker 1: to you. It's how stuff works dot com. For more
Speaker 1: on this and thousands of other topics, visit how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com.