Close
today i learned (til)

Scary or Social? The Secret Lives of Creepy Creatures

December 5, 2023

If I asked you to think of some “scary” or “creepy” animals, what sorts of creatures would you think of? From tiny bats to massive sharks, there are plenty of animals considered by most people to be “creepy” or even somewhat monstrous. Why do we consider these particular creatures to be the scary ones, though? When we spot an animal with sharp teeth or an ominous color palette, it can sometimes be tempting to assume the worst; however, these creatures are often mischaracterized. Many of them are fascinating to study and express some complex social behaviors. While it would be incorrect to say that animals experience relationships or social lives in the same way we do, you might still find some ways to relate to these creepy creatures if you dare to look a little deeper. Let’s take a peek at a few of those animals and some behaviors of theirs that might make them a little less scary.

Vampire bats might just be the most iconic animals associated with scary stories and Halloween- how could they not be with a name like “vampire bat” and a diet of blood? They’re not cruel creatures, though; in fact, vampire bats are known to form strong social bonds with one another and do “favors” for each other. Female vampire bats are known to share food with other females, including both non-relatives and family (Carter and Wilkinson). Humans often share out of companionship or politeness, but bats do so for a somewhat different reason. Most adaptations in organisms occur in order to increase the organism’s fitness, or likelihood of passing down their genetic code to the next generation. If a bat shares food with a family member, who likely shares much of its genetic code, that family member is more likely to survive and pass genetic material it shares with the initial bat onto offspring (Carter and Wilkinson). But, how does sharing food with other bats that may have very few genetic similarities to an initial bat increase fitness? According to a 2015 study, when a female shares food with another, the receiving bat will often share food with the initial food-donating bat in turn when it is in need (Carter and Wilkinson). In this way, vampire bats can increase the chance that they will survive through a shortage of food or other emergency to pass their genes onto their offspring.

Bat social bonds also become stronger over time, much like our own. According to a 2020 study, when forming a new social bond with another bat, vampire bats will start by grooming the other bat. This is much less risky than sharing food since the bat loses far less resources from it. If the other bat returns the grooming, the two bats will begin to groom each other more frequently until eventually becoming sufficiently able to trust that the other will return favors. From this point, the bats will begin to share food with each other, sure enough that their sacrifice of resources will someday be returned in kind (Carter et al.). Vampire bat social bonds even extend to hunting. A 2021 study showed that vampire bats that spend a lot of time together in their roost will interact with each other more frequently than with other bats while they hunt and may even work together to find food (Ripperger and Carter).

Sharks are widely feared and often depicted as monsters in pieces of popular media like Jaws and The Meg. While sharks are highly effective predators and occasionally attack humans, they’re not mindless monsters; in fact, many types of sharks are fairly social and can even learn from each other. According to National Aquarium museum exhibit curator Jay Bradley in a National Geographic article, whitetip reef sharks, like many other fish, don’t sleep the same way we do, instead resting while still awake (qtd. in Gibbens) in areas of water with a powerful current, which helps them to breathe, and with protection from their own predators (Gibbens). Additionally, according to Birch Aquarium spokesperson Caitlin Scully in the same article, while they don’t interact directly with or cooperate much with each other, these sharks do gather in large groups both to rest and hunt (qtd. in Gibbens). When they rest together, it often looks like they’re cuddling! Additionally, certain sharks are able to learn information and behaviors from each other, a phenomenon called social learning. A 2013 study tasked young lemon sharks with touching a target in order to obtain food. Sharks who had not yet performed the task were more capable of performing it successfully when they were allowed to watch experienced sharks touch the target and obtain food from it (Guttridge et al.). Although not all sharks are social creatures in the traditional sense, they’re certainly more social than their reputation as horrible and often solitary monsters would have you think.

Ravens, crows, and other darker-colored members of the family Corvidae (corvids) are often considered omens of bad things to come in horror stories. In the biological community, however, corvids are considered to be some of the most intelligent members of the animal kingdom, and demonstrate some very intriguing social behaviors. According to a 2012, study, captive ravens can begin to form social connections with one another when they aren’t even a year old yet, with the strongest relationships and least fighting occurring between closely related ravens, or kin. Additionally, as young ravens grow older, they tend to take the side of family members in fights between other ravens rather than defaulting to the side of whichever raven started the fight like very young ravens and even some other social species like hyenas. The study also indicated that ravens may favor ravens that they have social bonds with, but are not biologically related to, in fights, but this was not completely confirmed (Loretto et al.). Ravens also sometimes make up with other ravens whom they are close to after fighting with them and are less likely to fight again after reconciling. This is likely because ravens gain many benefits from social relationships with each other, many of which are similar to what vampire bats get out of their relationships (being groomed, sharing food, and even additional fitness in the case of direct relatives). Reconciling with friends they have fought with ensures that neither raven loses those valuable benefits over a simple fight (Fraser and Bugnyar). Finally, ravens can learn certain behaviors by watching other ravens perform them, a phenomenon called social learning. Ravens are particularly good at social learning, however, when they watch their siblings perform a task (Schwab et al.). These “omens of death” don’t just have deep social lives- they’re no bird-brains, either!

So, what did you think? Does knowing that vampire bats share with each other, that sharks “cuddle” with each other, and that ravens can “forgive” each other after a conflict make them all a bit less scary and a lot more fascinating? There’s often a lot more to animals than what meets the eye, or what popular culture likes to portray them as. Don’t get me wrong- I love a good shark horror movie- but the true secret lives of our world’s “creepiest” creatures can be just as interesting.

Works Cited

Carter, Gerald G., et al. “Development of New Food-Sharing Relationships in Vampire Bats.” Current Biology, vol. 30, no. 7, Apr. 2020, pp. 1275-1279.e3. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.01.055.

Carter, Gerald G., and Gerald S. Wilkinson. “Social Benefits of Non-Kin Food Sharing by Female Vampire Bats.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, vol. 282, no. 1819, Nov. 2015, p. 20152524. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.2524.

Fraser, Orlaith N., and Thomas Bugnyar. “Ravens Reconcile after Aggressive Conflicts with Valuable Partners.” PLOS ONE, vol. 6, no. 3, Mar. 2011, p. e18118. PLoS Journals, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0018118.

Gibbens, Sarah. “Video Shows How Sharks ‘Sleep’ in Large Groups.” National Geographic, National Geographic Partners, LLC, Aug. 2017, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/whitetip-reef-sharks-sleeping-mexico-video-spd?rnd=1697795254296&loggedin=true. Accessed 5 April 2023.

Guttridge, Tristan L., et al. “Social Learning in Juvenile Lemon Sharks, Negaprion Brevirostris.” Animal Cognition, vol. 16, no. 1, Jan. 2013, pp. 55–64. Springer Link, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-012-0550-6.

Loretto, Matthias-Claudio, et al. “Ontogeny of Social Relations and Coalition Formation in Common Ravens (Corvus Corax).” International Journal of Comparative Psychology, vol. 25, no. 3, 2012. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.46867/IJCP.2012.25.03.05.

Ripperger, Simon P., and Gerald G. Carter. “Social Foraging in Vampire Bats Is Predicted by Long-Term Cooperative Relationships.” PLOS Biology, vol. 19, no. 9, Sept. 2021, p. e3001366. PLoS Journals, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001366.

Schwab, Christine, et al. “Enhanced Social Learning between Siblings in Common Ravens, Corvus Corax.” Animal Behaviour, vol. 75, no. 2, Feb. 2008, pp. 501–08. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2007.06.006.

0Likes
About Author

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
The Next Time You Smell Rotten Eggs, It May Be Comet 67
today i learned (til)
Anima-Toons: Koala Caper – Breaking Under
today i learned (til)
Ultraviolet radiation: what you can’t see can still hurt you
today i learned (til)
Adventuring on Mi Teleférico

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.