South African Psychiatry - February 2019

BOOK REVIEW
POIGNANTLY, EMSLEY FORCES US TO
PONDER OUR OFTEN DUBIOUS ETHICS
OF EATING, AND THE SAD INEVITABILITY
OF THE FOOD CHAIN.
We then move on through the roots of evolutionary
social psychology and the science of facial
expressions and what they may mean (or not).
While this may suggest anthropomorphism to the
uninitiated, there appears to be a sound scientific
basis for the attribution of personality traits to fish.
In one study, some unfortunate guppies were
placed in stressful situations and their responses
measured and compared, and apparently “some
attempt to hide, others try to escape, (and) some
explore cautiously,” according to Dr Tom Houslay,
an evolutionary ecologist then working at Exeter
University, now at Cambridge University. “The
differences between them were consistent over time
and in different situations. So, while the behaviour
of all the guppies changed depending on the
situation - for example, all becoming more cautious
in more stressful situations - the relative differences
between individuals remained intact.” The presence
of predators had an effect on ‘average’ behaviour,
making all the guppies more cautious. But individuals
still retained their distinct personalities.
Professor Alastair Wilson, another member of the
team, explained, ‘We want to know how personality
relates to other facets of life, and to what extent
this is driven by genetic, rather than environmental,
influences. The goal is really gaining insight into
evolutionary processes, how different behavioural
strategies might persist as species evolve.”
In fact, group dynamics among fish appear not to
be too different from those among humans. Kyriacos
Kareklas and his colleagues “tested zebrafish shoals
to examine whether groups exhibit collective
spatial learning and whether this relates to the
personality of group members... There were strong
indications of collective learning and collective
reorienting … but these processes were unrelated
to personality differences within shoals. However,
there was evidence that group decisions require
agreement between differing personalities. Notably,
shoals with more boldness variation were more
likely to split during training trials and took longer
to reach a collective decision. Thus cognitive tasks,
such as learning and cue memorisation, may
be exhibited collectively, but the ability to reach
collective decisions is affected by the personality
composition of the group. A likely outcome of the
splitting of groups with very disparate personalities is
the formation of groups with members more similar
in their personality.” It may be a far stretch from there
to political parties, but the idea is intriguing.
Well then, the idea of a depressed snoek may not be
as far out as might at first glance appear. And so the
unsettling starts: If facial expression has meaning, it
may induce empathy, and being empathic towards
your food is a delicate balancing act, although
one perhaps pioneered by the first peoples of our
country. And what if appearance does indeed say
something about character or mental state, even in
non-human animals? Can one speculate about the
emotional aspects of a particular species’ capacity
to adapt without having direct knowledge of those
emotions?
As Randolph Nesse wrote in 2009, “… Darwin clearly
recognized that evolution shaped not only the
physical characteristics of an organism but also its
mental processes and behavioural repertoires. The
knowledge that natural selection shaped the brain
mechanisms that mediate motivation and emotions
offers a solid foundation on which a modern theory
of emotions is being built.” So Darwin did it all the
time. He even wrote a book about it (The Expression
of the Emotions in Man and Animals: Charles Darwin,
1872).
But adding the possibility of consciousness to
evolutionary adaptation in animals takes us beyond
the descriptive and into the experiential, and makes
us ponder the complexities of our own transitions,
especially over the last 30 odd years. Emsley tells
the story of an unsuccessful adapter, and the
psychopathology that preceded and followed
his failure, and wonders how the personality traits
of snoek might affect their ability to survive the
changing environment (no, Donald, this is no longer
an argument). In the long run, says Emsley, it’s about
balance. And so it is.
I loved this book, and would recommend it to anyone
looking for some fresh thinking on some of life’s really
hard questions. Emsley cuts through shibboleths
and jargon, and gives us an eloquent, undistorted
account of what life looks like from where he sits. In
an age of universal deceit, to borrow a phrase from
George Orwell, it’s rare. It’s also thought-provoking
and destabilising. As I reach guiltily for a seed
cracker smothered in snoek pate…
REFERENCES
1. https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/
lifestyle/2017-09-26-hidden-depths-scientistsconfirm-fish-have-different-personalities/
2. Kareklas, K., Elwood, R. W., & Holland, R. A. Fish
learn collectively, but groups with differing
personalities are slower to decide and more
likely to split. Biology Open, (2018) 7(5), https://
doi.org/10.1242/bio.033613
3. Nesse, RM and Ellsworth PC. Evolution, Emotions,
and Emotional Disorders. American Psychologist
(2009) 64, No. 2 (February–March), 129–139 DOI:
10.1037/a0013503
Sue Hawkridge is Clinical Head of the Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Unit of of Tygerberg Hospital in the Western Cape.
She is a senior lecturer in the Department of Psychiatry, Stellenbosch University and a visiting lecturer in the Department of
Psychology at Rhodes University. Reading, writing, reviewing and editing are how she maintains a semblance of balance.
Correspondence: smh@sun.ac.za
SOUTH AFRICAN PSYCHIATRY ISSUE 18 2019 * 69