The article isn't true. It was once thought that cordyceps and other parasites control the mind of their hosts but something much more sinister happens; the invaders take control of the nervous system of the creature moving the limbs against the will of the host.
Intuitively, minds are so idiosyncratic that it would be very difficult to generalize a behavior like this.
That was quite a panoply of different species and cross phylum? parasites. A couple of wasp parasites were mentioned - recently a paper was published speculating that there are more wasp species than any other because almost every insect they studied has a separate wasp parasite for both the adult form and juvenile form. It's just that some of them are so small they didn't know to look for them.
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/04/parasiti...
it actually got better for me later on. The first half was horrifying. But at the emerald cockroach wasp and onwards I wasn't as repulsed, as cockroaches are disgusting, and the rest - toxoplasmosis, rabies, influenza - aren't easy to visualize.
Although Cordyceps is often portrayed as a thing that's only found in tropical rainforests or the highlands of Tibet, this isn't actually accurate. You can find it relatively easily in NYC parks.
The ones here aren't medicinal though, nor do they make for super dramatic YouTube videos, so most people don't know they exist.
Very interesting article. Being taken over is the ultimate body horror.
Several games have explored the concept so far- mostly by having "zombiefied" versions as opponents.
It would be interesting to have this concept in a game where you as a AI hijack humans with apps, to act against there own interests.
Fascinating article. I was glad to see toxoplasmosis mentioned since when it comes to humans I think it’s relegated to being “a cat thing” and solely viewed as something only pregnant women need to worry about it.
I read an article years ago about how there’s a high incidence of toxo in motorcyclists who ended up in the hospital ERs (and had blood tests detecting toxo), which suggests how in humans toxo correlates with reckless behavior and wanting to go fast.
Relevant excerpts and links:
“Between 30 and 60% of people are infected by T. gondii. But it's less clear that the parasite affects human behaviour. In 2006 Kevin Lafferty of the US Geological Survey in Santa Barbara, California found some evidence of personality changes in people infected by the parasite. So far this is only a correlation, which is far from conclusive. Nevertheless, Lafferty says: "my money is on cause and effect".
“Toxoplasmosis is also unusually common in people with schizophrenia, but again it's not clear what that means or how significant it is. ‘Schizophrenia is a complicated syndrome, perhaps with multiple causes,’ says Lafferty. He adds that there are plenty of infected people that don't have schizophrenia, and plenty of people with schizophrenia who aren't infected. ‘Still, I am comfortable in saying that Toxoplasma is a correlated risk factor for schizophrenia.’”
Now what I didn’t know about and am utterly fascinated by is how influenza affects infected human hosts. Holy shit! Including here for those who skipped or just skimmed the article:
“ … people given a flu vaccine interacted with significantly more people, and in significantly larger groups, in the 48 hours after being exposed, compared with the 48 hours before. The infected hosts were more likely to head out to bars and parties.“
I love to know about the world of bugs. They seem like little aliens to me. Imagine if humans had developed some of those cool exo-skeletons or wings. (And why didn't we?? I'm jealous!)
Despite my fascination with them - I freak out if I ever find a bug on my person when I wasn't expecting it. I wonder if that's just a primal instinct?
I had to laugh when loading the page. It had all these social media share buttons pop up big like and I first though it was a parody on those sites controlling their hosts' minds.
>They found that people given a flu vaccine interacted with significantly more people, and in significantly larger groups
I have a personal hypothesis that the coughing and sneezing that come with the flu are also an adaptation of the virus. Getting people to cough and sneeze is a great way to spread an airborne disease.
>They found that people given a flu vaccine interacted with significantly more people, and in significantly larger groups, in the 48 hours after being exposed, compared with the 48 hours before. The infected hosts were more likely to head out to bars and parties.
I wonder if, as a control, they gave some people a placebo immunization (I couldn't tell from the abstract). I'm wondering if it is the exposure to the pathogen that is actually driving the behavior, or if it is the sense of security conveyed by having an immunization shot that really drives the sociability.
I believe there's already some evidence in psychological research that the rates of infection disease in a society affects the degree of openness and trust towards outsiders/strangers. Low disease rates, perhaps combined with "purification rituals" reduce people's uneasiness around large groups.
"or if it is the sense of security conveyed by having an immunization shot that really drives the sociability."
Yeah, not accounting for that hurt the article's credibility a bit for me. It's more obvious when you picture yourself as the person concerned enough to get a vaccine. Maybe enough go reduce contact a bit just before that as it's on your mind. Then, doc says you're safe and good to go. Ok, now that the risk is knocked out, lets go out and have some fun with the crowds.
I think the point was that they were noticing a change in sociability among those who were already taking the vaccine. Having a higher baseline level of sociability wouldn't be relevant.
Intuitively, minds are so idiosyncratic that it would be very difficult to generalize a behavior like this.
Citation: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/how-the-...