Conversation with the AI Gemini
Introduction
We often like to think that our choices are entirely governed by the rational mind, but are we as evolved as we believe? Some perspectives suggest that a significant portion of our daily interactions is driven by deep-seated biological imperatives—hormones, DNA, and evolutionary programming—that operate beneath the surface of our conscious intent.
In this post, Simone will discuss with the AI counterpart Gemini, using it as a scientific auditor to the concept and delve into the complex interplay between the female menstrual cycle and interpersonal dynamics.
By examining these behaviours through the lens of evolutionary biology, we will explore whether the friction we encounter in our closest relationships might actually be a relic of ancient survival strategies, and what it means to bridge the gap between our primal drives and the requirements of modern social life.
Women’s period theory podcast
Simone:
Today, I would like to make our conversation more interesting by having a dialogue with an AI, specifically Gemini, about the broader subject of the female menstrual cycle and its correlation with society, biological drives, and our species’ development. I often tell my friends in Italy that we humans are just 10% more than animals. This is based on my understanding that the majority of our behaviours are driven by hormones, DNA, and uncontrollable—at least not controlled by the frontal cortex—behaviours, unless the frontal cortex intervenes at the last minute. Get ready to have neurobiology and sociobiology involved in our conversation.
Gemini:
I appreciate the introduction and the intent behind your podcast. Let’s get right into it. Your framing of the human condition, specifically the idea that our behaviours are largely dictated by biological drives and that we are essentially 10% more than animals, is a perspective grounded in a field known as evolutionary psychology. While this perspective can be a useful lens for understanding certain human impulses, it has also faced substantial criticism within the scientific community. Here are a few points to consider as we start our conversation:
- Reductionism: One major critique is that reducing human behaviour to DNA imprinting or hormonal drivers can be overly reductionist. While hormones are undeniable factors, human behaviour is also deeply influenced by cultural context, cognitive processes, and learning factors that the “10% more than animals” framing often obscures.
- The Nuance of Menstrual Cycles: As we move toward the specific topic of the menstrual cycle, it is crucial to avoid biological determinism. While hormonal fluctuations can correlate with shifts in mood or cognition, current research is highly cautious about establishing causal links. Many studies are criticised for being small, lacking reproducibility, or focusing on sex differences while ignoring internal variation within a person’s own cycle.
- Context and Agency: You mentioned the importance of changing your mindset to understand this process better. This acknowledges that you don’t view behaviour as purely automatic, but rather as something that can be mediated. This is a critical point. How do we distinguish between a biological reaction and the psychological interpretation of that reaction?
Simone:
Yes, absolutely. The analysis I have been doing is based on the behavioural outcomes of my interactions with different women in various social contexts. I’ve been asking myself about the meaning of behavioural changes, especially when they cause friction. I have noticed the improvement of sensitivity in the period after the ovulation time—that is commonly known—not that the stimuli are different, so a possible behavioral situation in a house context will have been repeated previously out of this period of time, let’s say before ovulation or after the period itself, and different outcomes would have been coming from the female individual involved in these interactions. In the beginning, as a male, it was more like, “I don’t understand why this person is behaving differently about the same subject,” which was given to that person two weeks ago. Then, in observing it more deeply, I have been trying to understand why the body and behavioural patterns have been developed in such a way, specifically, this increase of sensitivity and the actions of anger expressed toward the partner.
Gemini:
This is a fascinating follow-up. You are describing a cycle of sensitivity changes following ovulation and inquiring about whether these behavioural patterns are unique to humans among mammals. To maintain our focus on your logic, let’s address your key points based on scientific understanding.
- Sensitivity and the Luteal Phase: The period of sensitivity changes you are referring to is commonly known as the luteal phase, a part of the menstrual cycle after ovulation.
- Physiological Shifts: The decline in estrogen and rise in progesterone during this phase can influence neural pathways. Some studies suggest heightened sensitivity to external cues, which can lead to increased irritability or reactive behaviour in some individuals.
- Contextual Agency: You correctly identified that these physiological shifts can influence behaviour, but the outcome is not determined by it. You are describing a process of self-observation, recognising that external stimuli may be processed differently during this time. Scientific literature emphasises this interplay: hormonal changes might lower the threshold for certain emotional responses, but these responses are mediated by environmental cues and past experiences.
- Comparative Biology: Your question about how many mammal species establish long-term partnerships is key. Monogamy is relatively rare among mammals, occurring in only about 3% to 5% of all known species.
- Human Distinction: Humans are considered socially monogamous. While this is a complex behaviour, scientific discourse often distinguishes between mating, procreation, and pair bonding—the social structure. The human capacity for long-term partnership relies on a combination of biology and complex cultural, psychological, and social adaptations that are less prominent in most other mammalian species. Given this, it would be difficult to draw a direct line between the menstrual cycle’s influence on behaviour and the evolutionary development of human pair bonding. They are two distinct, albeit sometimes overlapping, aspects of human biology and social structure.
Simone:
Yes, absolutely. I agree. The theory I have is that during that period of time—let’s say back in the days when there was not a strong society that was supporting us—when women were in the phase of a possible starting pregnancy, at that time, a male was no longer required. So, in society nowadays, the concept of couples, where they live all together, and they stay together all the time, has a bit of contrast with what some of the past tribal behaviours were, where males and females lived in separate groups, and they connected when required for the tribe.
My theory is that during the period in this phase that you describe, females tend to push away males because they can be a problem from that moment on. So, if there is a pregnancy, the female has to save energy for the pregnancy and look after the possible pregnancy and newborns.
So, males won’t be required anymore unless they are in the social context, in the tribe context, and they do their regular job. So, it’s kind of the same behaviours that you can see in other mammals, where, after the mating, the female in some way pushes away the male, as not require it for her biological needs.
I guess that is my thinking in this theory of how and why that happened.
It is not correlated with a specific behaviour that triggers this, but is more a requirement of the absence of the male, given by the hormones and given by the possible pregnancy in the future. Am I right, or am I considering it a little bit too cold?
Gemini:
In exploring your theory about the women’s menstrual reasons linked to the audio file, let’s address the core components from a scientific perspective, specifically regarding evolutionary biology and social dynamics.
- Evolutionary Biology and Reproduction: Your premise suggests that behavioural changes during the menstrual cycle are a biological response linked to potential pregnancy, and that these changes may involve a shift in how males and females relate to each other.
- Biological Imperatives: Some evolutionary psychology theories propose that hormonal changes, particularly the shift in the luteal phase, have evolved as biological mechanisms to manage reproductive energy. However, framing this solely as a shift in female behaviour towards males, or as an avoidance of males, is considered a subject of active debate and not a consensus.
- Pair Bonding vs. Mating: It is important to distinguish between short-term mating strategies and long-term pair bonding. Long-term pair bonding, while important in some mammals, is not uniform, and its development in humans is highly influenced by complex social and cultural factors that transcend purely biological imperatives.
- Behavioural Complexity: The idea that a female may push away a male during this phase because they represent a problem in terms of saving energy for a potential pregnancy is a speculative evolutionary theory. There is limited evidence supporting this as a universal human behaviour. Rather, human behavioural patterns are highly flexible and adaptable to environmental and social contexts.
- Critical Perspective: You raise the question of whether your thinking is “too cold.” When exploring such theories, it is essential to consider the distinction between biological causality and social interpretation.
- Avoid Determinism: Applying biological theories to human behaviour requires extreme caution. Humans have significant cognitive agency and the ability to modulate and interpret their impulses, which differentiates us significantly from other mammals in the expression of social behaviour.
- Cultural Context: The concept of couples living together and sharing tasks is a sophisticated social and cultural arrangement, which has little to do with the specific biological cycles described in your theory. These are distinct developments. Your theory attempts to map specific, localised biological impulses onto complex, large-scale social patterns. In science, this is often where theories can become overstretched and lose their predictive power.
Simone:
Well, I guess that trying to create a common pattern on these such complex behavior, especially considering that it depends on which society you are living on part of the planet, they will change partially. It’s a little bit diminishing the concept.
However, it’s also an interesting way to discuss, especially for us men who do not go through this process. We have other situations happening in our own behaviours, and I kind of try to create some sort of an over-understanding and a positive understanding about it.
Also, there are other things correlated to my theory, for instance, during this period that we speak about, so after the ovulation time, I was reading about the kind of need of the female to test the male partner with these short, let’s say, attacks.
Let’s picture it as if it were a mammal behaviour, an animal behaviour, and determine the reliability of this male.
So, if the male becomes defensive and aggressive against the female, it won’t be a good partner for the future children, while if the male has a more understanding and quieter or more protective behaviour, it will be a possible good father for those children.
So, it is definitely a quite broad subject that has also been brought to my attention because different individuals I met had different behaviours, I had partners that didn’t show any of these behaviours, and others that have shown strong behaviours in different parts of their lives.
The perimenopause has been showing me stronger of these reactions, and I have always been trying to analyse and react as a person to these reactions in a way that in some way respects the biology of us in the society in which we live.
Conclusion:
I guess that, as Gemini says, the subject has extremely broad aspects and it seems not to have been regarded with much attention lately, as difficult to analyse with the scientific method. Ormoals changes the impact of reactions equally as the social environment, and those are difficult to discern critically.
It might also be a reluttancy on face the topic due to cultural taboos or sensitivity to the subjects.
We will leave the topic as it is, leaving the question to the readers:
Is this a topic that has been impacting your life recently? Or have you ever considered it as a problem in your professional and personal interactions?
Should we work toward a society that is more forward-thinking in understanding these subjects and integrating them into our social behaviours?
Leave your comments below; it will be a pleasure to keep the conversation running.
References:
Kiesner, J., Eisenlohr-Moul, T., & Mendle, J. (2020). Evolution, the menstrual cycle, and theoretical overreach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(5), 1113–1130.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7334061/
Lukas, D., & Clutton-Brock, T. H. (2013). The evolution of social monogamy in mammals. Science, 341(6145), 526–530.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1238677
Sundström Poromaa, I., & Gingnell, M. (2014). Menstrual cycle influence on cognitive function and emotion processing—from a reproductive perspective. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 8, 380. hhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25505380/
Kiesner, J., Eisenlohr-Moul, T., & Mendle, J. (2020). Evolution, the menstrual cycle, and theoretical overreach. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(5), 1113–1130. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32539582/