Gone to the Dogs: Wild Speculations

Imagery, Memory, and Domestication in Human Evolution

Human cognition and behaviour are shaped by intricate relationships between sensory perception, memory, and social dynamics. These two seemingly distinct areas—how individuals process pain and how domestication influences traits like tameness and aggression—offer profound insights into both our neurological makeup and evolutionary history. By examining the role of pain and emotional imagery alongside domestication theories, we can better understand how these factors may have shaped human development.

Mental Imagery: The Vivid, Muted, Emotional and Painful 

Imagery, the mental ability to visualise and recall sensory or emotional experiences, varies widely among individuals and even species. These variations influence behaviours ranging from empathy to aggression, with implications for how humans relate to pain and emotion—both in themselves and in others.

• Muted Pain and Emotional Imagery in Psychopathy: Psychopathy often involves reduced or absent emotional recall, with a similar dampening effect on pain imagery. This can result in a muted response to others’ suffering, decreased emotional resonance, and heightened resilience to distress. Could this be related to cases of SDAM (severely deficient autobiographical memory) regarding different types of imagery systems, as seen in those with aphantasia? 
• Heightened Pain and Emotional Imagery in Hyperempathy: Hyperempathetic individuals experience amplified recall of emotional and physical pain, often to the point of vividly reliving distressing experiences. This heightened imagery fosters compassion and connection but can overwhelm, leading to avoidance or anxiety.

These extremes in sensory and emotional recall may reflect adaptive responses to different environments or social demands within the mental imagery system, creating conditions such as aphantasia, hyperphantasia and other neurodivergent traits. In some scenarios, a muted response to pain and distress could provide a survival advantage, while vivid recall and hyper-responsiveness might enhance social bonding in cooperative settings. 

Fox Domestication: A Tale of Two Behaviours

The domestication experiments on silver foxes, initiated by Dmitry Belyaev, demonstrated how selective breeding for tameness or aggression could drastically alter behaviour in just a few generations. Tame foxes became affiliative, curious, and less fearful, while aggressive foxes displayed heightened stress responses and reduced sociability.

Interestingly, these behavioural shifts were not underpinned by large, singular genetic changes. Instead, they arose from subtle genetic and environmental interactions, highlighting the malleability of behaviour through evolutionary pressure. To add to this, the offspring of tame and aggressive pairings would be either tame or aggressive themselves, there is no blending of traits, reflecting the observations seen in narcissistic and codependent families. 

Could the behavioural differences between tame and aggressive foxes mirror the sensory and emotional divergences in humans? For example:

1. Dampened Emotional and Pain Imagery in Aggressive Foxes: Aggressive foxes may share parallels with psychopathy, displaying reduced affiliative behaviours and muted responses to social or physical stressors.
2. Heightened Emotional and Pain Imagery in Tame Foxes: Tame foxes might exhibit traits akin to hyperempathy, including stronger social bonds, increased responsiveness to emotional cues, and potentially even heightened pain sensitivity.

These comparisons suggest a continuum of behavioural traits influenced by evolutionary pressures, both in humans and in domesticated animals.

Behavioural Changes Without Genetic Dramas

The fox experiment’s most striking insight was that behavioural shifts—whether towards tameness or aggression—occurred without significant genetic upheaval. This mirrors findings in humans, where behavioural conditions like psychopathy or hyperempathy often stem from complex interactions between genes, environment, and neurobiology rather than singular genetic mutations.

• Aggressive Foxes and Reduced Sensory Imagery: Aggressive foxes often showed heightened stress responses but limited affiliative or social behaviours. This muted emotional engagement could reflect a survival strategy akin to reduced pain imagery in psychopathy.
• Tame Foxes and Amplified Sensory Imagery: Tame foxes displayed exploratory behaviours, curiosity, and strong social bonds, paralleling heightened emotional and pain imagery in hyperempathy.

These parallels provoke questions about the evolutionary utility of such traits. Could tame foxes, like hyperempathetic humans, have benefited from heightened sensitivity to others’ pain and emotions, fostering tighter group dynamics? Conversely, did aggressive foxes, like individuals with muted sensory recall, gain advantages in competitive or high-risk environments?

Reflections on Domestication and Imagery

Humans, too, have undergone a form of self-domestication, with societal pressures favouring cooperation, reduced aggression, and increased social bonding. Yet, just as in Belyaev’s foxes, the genetic underpinnings of these behavioural shifts are subtle and dispersed.

The parallels between human sensory imagery and fox behaviour invite deeper exploration:

1. Dampened Imagery: Could reduced pain and emotional recall in psychopathy or aggressive foxes reflect adaptive strategies for competitive or survival-driven contexts?
2. Heightened Imagery: Might amplified sensory recall in hyperempathy or tame foxes represent evolutionary adaptations favouring cooperation, care, and social cohesion?
3. Pain Perception and Behaviour: How closely are emotional and physical pain linked to behavioural traits like tameness or aggression across species?

The behavioural and sensory spectrum observed in humans and animals offers valuable insights into the forces that shape evolution. As the fox domestication experiments demonstrate, behaviour is not dictated by genetic simplicity but emerges from a complex interplay of biology, environment, and experience.

Conclusion

This exploration of pain and emotional imagery, memory, and domestication sheds light on the intricate interplay of mental processes, behaviours, and evolutionary pressures. While speculative, these musings highlight how the ways we perceive and remember pain might have shaped human behaviours, particularly our capacity for empathy and social bonding.

Drawing parallels between human evolution and animal domestication is a fascinating but limited exercise. The analogy underscores how selective pressures, whether for tameness or aggression, shape behaviours across species, but human evolution is far more complex. Cultural, social, and individual agency add layers that transcend genetic or environmental determinants seen in fox domestication.

The concept of "domesticating" humanity, however, is both compelling and unsettling. What might happen if selective pressures, whether biological or societal, were intentionally applied to amplify or diminish traits like empathy, aggression, or resilience? With advances in genetic engineering and technology, this question is no longer purely theoretical but one that carries profound ethical implications.

As we face a transhuman future, these questions demand careful consideration. Should we selectively enhance traits like empathy or resilience at the risk of diminishing diversity? Could we unintentionally create extremes that undermine the balance essential for human coexistence? These dilemmas are not just speculative but pressing, as the tools to shape our evolution are increasingly within reach.

Ultimately, this reflection offers more questions than answers, encouraging us to consider not only the science of behaviour but also the ethics of intervention. As we navigate the challenges of shaping humanity’s future, we must remember that diversity, complexity, and unpredictability have always been at the heart of human success. Preserving these qualities may be as crucial to our evolution as any trait we seek to enhance.

What are the true consequences of selectively shaping human traits?