Reading about toxoplasma (a parasite of rats which can infect humans and alter their behaviour), I recall something about the common cold (a virus) and behaviour. My memory is fuzzy but there was a study that indicated that those with initial stages of a cold seek out human contact more and in the case of women, show more skin. The implication is that the virus seeks to replicate by altering our behaviour to transmit it to as many people as possible and the researchers speculated it could also mean that the common cold might lead to an increase in sex and also becoming a sexually transmitted virus.
Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker.
I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense.
It's fascinating to consider to what extent this false notion of causation and agency may constrain a native English speaker's understanding of the world.
> Kind of a tangent, but the way you phrased it, while much more technically correct, is totally roundabout and unnatural to a native English speaker.
As a native English speaker, I disagree; it is a perfectly natural way for the intended message to be communicated in English.
> I've often postulated that the necessity of a Subject in English sentences causes us to inadvertently project agency in our descriptions of events / phenomena that in reality don't have an "actor" in a meaningful sense.
A subject need not be an (semantic, much less also self-willed) agent (and, when it is, it can , and misleading anthropomorphization is in no way a peculiarity of English speakers.
“Evolution favored variants which enhance host sociability” has a subject, which is a semantic (but not self-willed) agent.
“Variants which enhanced host sociability are favored by evolution” has a subject, which is the patient rather than the agent.
Both are quite natural English expressions, and (unlike attributing will to the virus) accurate (or, at least, describe a plausible phenomenon.)
I had an argument with someone about colds, saying that external temperature favorited infection and they responded by saying the cause is more likely proximity in close warm spaces. I think our system is too complex for a tiny virus to manage to influence such behaviors.. but that's not impossible.
The human body is complex but it has a lot of global variables. All a virus needs to do is twiddle these global variables and sometimes it will have a beneficial effect for propagation. Any part of the body can chuck any molecule into the blood stream and have it transported round the body. Virus evolutionary processes can ‘engineer’ for things to cross the blood brain barrier just like pharmaceutical researchers. Even if you can’t get into the brain, you can still drastically alter behaviour by messing around with the rest of the body.
All it takes is one simple chemical to completely alter a person's mind, mood, or behavior. Surely there are viruses large enough and substances simple enough for a virus to alter the production of a simple mind-altering compound?
I've experienced that. Usually an introvert, but a few days before a cold I'd often go for a walk & drop in on someone randomly, before any symptoms. The decision making is kind of experienced as a drawing back of inhibition
