Zombies in Nature and lessons for human beings

This piece in the New York Times reports on research done on parasites. Various parasitic organisms infect their hosts and make their hosts act against their default nature. Spiders, for example, get infected by a virus wasp which programs the spider to build a different kind of web suitable for the wasp larva to breed. Worms sitting inside gammarids make it jump to the surface of a pond, where it inhabits, instead of hiding in the mud. So, instead of protecting itself from predator birds, gammarids become easy prey thus serving the worm's purpose - to move from the gammarid into the bird.

This report focuses on the biological processes which these parasites use to control the brains of their hosts - hence the use of the term zombie to describe them.  For humans, there is the potential case of toxoplasma which they can get from cats. The report says this disease can cause schizophrenia.

While parasites controlling the brains of their hosts is not new knowledge, researchers say the process of how the brain gets manipulated is now understood.

I see a parallel with human activity. In communities which face certain challenges, often there are people who enter these communities and through various processes of endearments and inducements, get these communities to act in ways which may not be optimal or beneficial to them. For example, a politician who wants to maintain a vote base amongst the poor and oppressed classes may brainwash them to act in ways which provides them with some immediate relief but in the long term further cements their poor and oppressed status, thus ensuring more votes in the future.

In the case of religion, it is not uncommon to see priests and clerics direct people to do wrongful acts by controlling their powers to think through a barrage of "divine" messages.

In nature, with the biological processes understood, it may be possible to reverse or control the zombification of species. But in human thought, there is still a long way to go.

The Pros and Cons of Meritocracy

Does meritocracy really serve society?

The conventional wisdom is that the best and most intelligent people are taken aside and kept together so that they can be given the best education, resources and tools to further society. They cross pollinate amongst themselves and grow even more intelligent and wiser. They understand and appreciate the systems, are able to design solutions and provide a fair and just administration.

But the argument against meritocracy, based on empirical sociological evidence, is that meritocracy creates homogeneity. This homogeneity often leads to uni-dimensional thinking. Highly intelligent people start thinking in the same way - thus if one person is stuck for answers, everybody gets stuck. The problem becomes unsolvable. Anyone coming out with a radically new idea will automatically be deemed as "nonsensical" or "mad" or simply "dreamer".

Where this argument makes most impact is in selection of students for an educational program - take the best people and put them together or get diversity?

Martin Reuf, a Princeton sociologist, did this interesting research on over 600 entrepreneurs. The main point that he makes is:

Business people with entropic networks were three times more innovative than people with predictable networks. Because they interacted with lots of different folks, they were exposed to a much wider range of ideas and “non-redundant information”. Instead of getting stuck in the rut of conformity – thinking the same tired thoughts as everyone else – they were able to invent startling new concepts.

 Jonah Lehrer in Wired is troubled:

There is something unsettling about Ruef’s data. We think of entrepreneurs, after all, as individuals. If someone has a brilliant idea for a new company, we assume that they are inherently more creative than the rest of us. This is why we idolize people like Bill Gates and Richard Branson and Oprah Winfrey. It’s also why we invest in the meritocracy: We believe that we can identify talent in isolation. But Ruef’s analysis suggests that this focus on the singular misses the real story of entrepreneurship. Unless we take our social circle into account – that collection of weak ties and remote acquaintances who feed us unfamiliar facts - we’re not going to really understand the nature of achievement. Behind every successful entrepreneur is a vast network.

In a way, strangers represent the unknown. Meeting strangers is an opportunity to widen your own view of the world. If you restrict yourself and stay among people of your own "interests", you will just end up being a dogmatic network spouting the same rubbish all the time.