Hearts Beat as One in a Daring Ritual
The study was to see if there were “biological underpinnings of communal rituals”.
I don’t get it. What would “just in the mind” even mean? What is the significance of the use of the word “underpinnings” following the word “biological”?
Why are they surprised by the results? What am I missing?
In the Western tradition we have a pretty clear separation between the mind and the body. It makes sense that people raised in that context would hold onto those beliefs, even if they are scientists. Reading the article it seems that the biggest surprise for the scientists is the difference between related and non-related individuals. They expected it to be the same for everyone in the community. I’m guessing the journalist also took some liberties (which happens a lot in science reporting) and twisted their words a little. Good to go to the primary source.
Good article, good read.
Thanks Xunzian. If you can think of a way for me to access the original article without having to sign up for something…
The article I linked basically said the people who felt most connected to each other, had the most synchronization of heartrate. “Friends and family”, versus strangers. Is there something very specific about this heartrate synchronization that makes this surprising? Because this is not surprising.
PNAS is normally free and available to the public. So I don’t know why the link I gave wouldn’t work, unless it was through my academic server – which is possible. Try googling “PNAS Synchronized arousal between performers and related
spectators in a fire-walking ritual”. That should give you the article.
As for it being surprising, the hypothesis is that collective effervescence applies to all participants within the ritual, which is why rituals are able to function as powerful means of social bonding. That collective effervescence appears to be selective according to kin relationship is surprising since societies are often thought to transcend kin relationship.
I’ve tried, but I can’t access that article without signing up and, I think, paying.
Anyway, I found another article about the study, this one at MedicalXpress.com. It says…
This article describes the study as demonstrating “a new method for quantifying the physiology of shared experience”. Much more straightforward and sober than the NY Times article - and not as misleadingly interesting!
Again, the synchronized heartrates aren’t just among kin (I take “kin” to mean family), but among family and close friends - those with a vested emotional interest. This is very mundane. I don’t know how anyone could be surprised by this.
anon have you changed your understanding of scientists??? do you need more help…
I think it’s the relationship between science, journalism, and marketing that I don’t fully understand.
anon i think you know about that…
Maybe a little, but not fully.