What Really Led To Our Success As A Species

[Kahalachan]

I won't post this in the science forum cause my hypothesis is a bit Ad Hoc as of now. (Wish woo believers would get this by the way) But it could definintely be an interesting science question.

So a lot of people attribute human success to our large brains. Which is no doubt the case. But we see increasing evidence that animals are smarter than we give them credit for. Take for example, the recent study showing chimps have better short term memory than we do. It seems our social structure is largely ignored in questioning why humans were such a successful species. Let me explain.

Were we like the ants who build, fight, protect, and are completely altruistic towards their species, we would not be asking "Why is there evil in the world?" because we would be so self sacrificing it would not be an issue.

Were we like the snake who could not, because of its manner of ingestion, possibly share its kill, and were almost completely non-social, we would not be moral creatures.

We are a bit of an in-between. We are cooperative enough to get together and create space shuttles. We are competative enough to want to be the alpha male and gain fame for being the first to land on the moon.

I would say some of the reason is our largely evolved brains, but also we just happen to have the right social psychological balance to make us both competative and cooperative; both angels and demons.

Without aforementioned desire for competition, we would be more moral and not cheat or try to supplant another, but we would lose out on overcoming the elements and as a whole, striving the make our existence better.

This is what makes us human. We are cruel and we are caring, and the sum of these attributes have taken us to where we are today. I would say it is more due social psychological phenomena that we are a successful species than it is due to our cognitive psychological capacity.

[Darth Rotor]

What Really Led To Our Success As A Species
The invention of beer. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer)

That was the tipping point. (Or was it the tippling point?)

DR

[bethanythemartian]

One of the things that pushed us towards the creation of society was the very large brain pans human have.

If a child were born with a full-sized head, the mother would die. So there was an adaptation- human children are born with under-developed brains. The creation of society was to teach those children how to live, and we've been developing that ever since.

Which is why the childhood has become so... almost canonized.

But since we're not born with instincts, we must learn everything. (I believe technically we're born with a few basic instincts, but they're few and one of them is how to suckle.) Because we must learn, we can adapt our behavior to surroundings. So, instead of physically evolving, we mentally evolved. Sometimes... we slip back a little.

But it's the fact that we start so fresh- tabula rasa, as the one man said- that we can learn new things and innovate. That is what makes us stand out.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Language.

[Mobyseven]

Opposable thumbs, language and social interaction. Mainly opposable thumbs.

[Soapy Sam]

Define "successful".

[m_huber]

It's not brain size so much as brain size to body mass ratio. Dolphins and humans have the largest brain size/body mass ratio, and parakeets rank next. Other primates weigh in soon afterwards. We had upright walking and opposable thumbs prior to brain size increase. It also seems (from anthropological evidence) that human brain size increased prior to modern language development. However, there is certainly a relationship between language and brain development that allowed us to get where we are.

[Dancing David]

It all starts with maybe the upright gait and the restriction of the pelvis leading to neotany and accelerated brain growth ... the need to have a compenstation mechanism for the smaller pelvis... walking upright is cool.

Then there is a very long period of scavengerdom, learning to play nice with others, running from the predators, picking up bits of stick, stone, making string, glue and whammo next thing you know you have an Xbox.

[Dancing David]

One of the things that pushed us towards the creation of society was the very large brain pans human have.

If a child were born with a full-sized head, the mother would die. So there was an adaptation- human children are born with under-developed brains. The creation of society was to teach those children how to live, and we've been developing that ever since.

Which is why the childhood has become so... almost canonized.

But since we're not born with instincts, we must learn everything. (I believe technically we're born with a few basic instincts, but they're few and one of them is how to suckle.) Because we must learn, we can adapt our behavior to surroundings. So, instead of physically evolving, we mentally evolved. Sometimes... we slip back a little.

But it's the fact that we start so fresh- tabula rasa, as the one man said- that we can learn new things and innovate. That is what makes us stand out.

Thank you for telling the truth. The rooting instinct and the some foot reflex and one more I think... you would not believe the arguments you can get into here about instincts and humans....

[madurobob]

Define "successful".

Seconded. Are we really anywhere near as "successful" as the cockroach?

[Wowbagger]

It's not jsut a matter of brain size or brain-to-body-mass-ratio. I would add that it is the plasticity of the brain as well: How effectively it can mold and shape and rewire itself, especially in youth, according to social environment, that had lead to our success.

Plus, having opposable thumbs helps, as well.

[Limbo]

This is what makes us human. We are cruel and we are caring, and the sum of these attributes have taken us to where we are today. I would say it is more due social psychological phenomena that we are a successful species than it is due to our cognitive psychological capacity.


Well...whatever makes us "successful", whatever it is that "has taken us where we are today" seems to be related to shamanism.

Shamanism and Cognitive Evolution

Michael Winkelman, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University

Abstract

Shamanic referents in Upper Palaeolithic cave art indicate its pivotal role in the Middle–Upper Palaeolithic transition. Etic models of shamanism derived from cross-cultural research help articulate the shamanic paradigm in cave art and explicate the role of shamanism in this transition. Shamanism is found cross-culturally in hunter-gatherer societies, constituting an ecological and psychosociobiological adaptation that reflects the ritual and cosmology of early modern humans. Shamanism played a role in cognitive and social evolution through production of analogical thought processes, visual symbolism and group-bonding rituals. Universals of shamanism are derived from innate modules, particularly the hominid ‘mimetic controller’ and music and dance. These induced altered states of consciousness, which produce physiological, cognitive, personal and social integration through integrative brain-processing. Shamanic altered states of consciousness have the cross-modal integration characteristic of the emergent features of Palaeolithic thought and facilitated adaptations to the ecological and social changes of the Upper Palaeolithic. Cross-modular integration of innate modules for inferring mental states (mind), and social relations (self/others), and understanding the natural world (classificatory schemas) produced the fundamental forms of trope (metaphor) that underlay analogical representation. These integrations also explain animism (mental and social modules applied to natural domains); totemism (natural module applied to social domain); and guardian spirit relations (natural module applied to self and mental domains).

[Kahalachan]

Define "successful".

Good question.

When we tend to focus our anthrocentricism, we look at things only we can do that no other animal has done. Gone to the moon, compose symphonies, build automobiles, etc.

It's the extreme complexity we are capable of and the ability to alter the environment.

In fact, an increasing tendency to divorce ourselves from natural selection might be the best indicator.

The optimum and theoretical success for humans as I use it, would be to not be subject to any form of natural selection. We can control the earth's distance from the sun, climate, weather, geology, can make ourselves immortal, and ourselves decide when and how we die.

[m_huber]

Good question.

When we tend to focus our anthrocentricism, we look at things only we can do that no other animal has done. Gone to the moon, compose symphonies, build automobiles, etc.

It's the extreme complexity we are capable of and the ability to alter the environment.

In fact, an increasing tendency to divorce ourselves from natural selection might be the best indicator.

The optimum and theoretical success for humans as I use it, would be to not be subject to any form of natural selection. We can control the earth's distance from the sun, climate, weather, geology, can make ourselves immortal, and ourselves decide when and how we die.

It has been proposed that a new geologic epoch be added to the time scale to represent human activity: the Anthropocene. There are so many chemical and physical traces of our existence that future geologists will recognize our increase in usage of technology as a major event.

I think it is interesting, though perhaps tangential to this discussion, to note how we have changed from the original upright man to Roman man (who was technologically about on the level of 1600's man) to the Dark Ages man, then to Modern Man. Many more steps could be added to this, but the point is that we have "risen" and "fallen" at different points. What we have done in the last 300 years is unparalleled in the history of the Earth. Currently, the doubling rate of knowledge in the world is 10 years. If we had not been knocked backwards into the Dark Ages, would we be where we are now, or behind where we are, or ahead?

But generally, I agree with your notion of success. Departure from the natural order is the ultimate marker of a successful species. However, by that marker, we can note many organisms that have invaded areas where there are no natural predators, so we can again note animals that are arguably equally successful with humans.

[MG1962]

1/ Community. we collected into larger tribes than our competitors, ultimately this extended linking showed its value

2/ Our absolute passion for stand off weapons. Survival rates in hunts increase when you dont have to grab the beast and hit it

3/ We are useless at just about everything else. Our motion detectors and periphieral vision is about the best in the business. But other than that we needed to get smart and fast

[Loss Leader]

Our omnivorous diet.

As we can live off such a large variety of food, our brains needed to develop the capacity to: 1) let us remember all of the possible foods; and 2) to let us communicate to others which foods were edible and which were not.

It's all here (http://www.amazon.com/Omnivores-Dilemma-Natural-History-Meals/dp/0143038583/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204596514&sr=1-1).

[NobbyNobbs]

Me.

[ail]

The Monolith (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tycho_Magnetic_Anomaly_TMA-1)

[charlie-d]

I won't post this in the science forum cause my hypothesis is a bit Ad Hoc as of now. (Wish woo believers would get this by the way) But it could definintely be an interesting science question.

So a lot of people attribute human success to our large brains. Which is no doubt the case. But we see increasing evidence that animals are smarter than we give them credit for. Take for example, the recent study showing chimps have better short term memory than we do. It seems our social structure is largely ignored in questioning why humans were such a successful species. Let me explain.

Were we like the ants who build, fight, protect, and are completely altruistic towards their species, we would not be asking "Why is there evil in the world?" because we would be so self sacrificing it would not be an issue.

Were we like the snake who could not, because of its manner of ingestion, possibly share its kill, and were almost completely non-social, we would not be moral creatures.

We are a bit of an in-between. We are cooperative enough to get together and create space shuttles. We are competative enough to want to be the alpha male and gain fame for being the first to land on the moon.

I would say some of the reason is our largely evolved brains, but also we just happen to have the right social psychological balance to make us both competative and cooperative; both angels and demons.

Without aforementioned desire for competition, we would be more moral and not cheat or try to supplant another, but we would lose out on overcoming the elements and as a whole, striving the make our existence better.

This is what makes us human. We are cruel and we are caring, and the sum of these attributes have taken us to where we are today. I would say it is more due social psychological phenomena that we are a successful species than it is due to our cognitive psychological capacity.

The thing that is uniquely human is the adaptability the big brain provides. Fitness for any other predator is constrained by their physical attributes. For us it's about making better weapons and tools. It's really the ability to "what if"; to symbolically conceive of alternatives that are not available to our cousins who are stuck with the "what is". We got so good at it that we now have our own habitat that we carry around with us.

[Radrook]

One of the things that pushed us towards the creation of society was the very large brain pans human have.

If a child were born with a full-sized head, the mother would die. So there was an adaptation- human children are born with under-developed brains.....

So how were the mothers surviving before the adaptation?

[JoeEllison]

Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again....

:D

[Radrook]

Yikes! A simple question and the guy goes berserk!

[Wowbagger]

So how were the mothers surviving before the adaptation? Perhaps brains were originally born as fully developed as they would ever be, just NOT as capable as our brains are, now.

Over time, our potential brain development capacity increased, as our brain was born in a less as less developed state.

[m_huber]

Perhaps brains were originally born as fully developed as they would ever be, just NOT as capable as our brains are, now.

Over time, our potential brain development capacity increased, as our brain was born in a less as less developed state.

Buh?

[Dancing David]

So how were the mothers surviving before the adaptation?


The ones with smaller pelvic passages weren't. Part of upright gait is a narrowing of the pelvic passage. Too small and then you have death in childbirth.

So those who have neonate children will survive at a higher rate.

[Dancing David]

Buh?

Upright gait>narrow pelvis>neotany>potential for increased development.

[latent aaaack]

Why do you equate innovation with competetiveness and then competetiveness with cruelty and why do you believe that an ant like social structure would be incapable of human-like technological achievement?

Insects are insanely successful and build lots of stuff. If they had our brain power they'd know the value of innovation and would assign the task to several mental slave ant groups.

[Wowbagger]

Buh?
Perhaps if I rephrased that, it will be clearer:

The idea is that being born with an underdeveloped brain was an adaptation that allowed our brains to develop throughout our life (mostly early in life). Being born with an underdeveloped brain has allowed our brains to develop in ways more flexible, and potentially more powerful, than if we were born with a fully-developed (or nearly fully-developed) brain, in the first place.

And, chances are, our ancient ancestors might have been born with a nearly-fully-developed brain (though smaller). And, because of that, they could not develop the flexibility and power we can develop in our own brains, in our life time.

Radrook asked the question: How could mothers survive, before the adaptation of being born with a less-developed brain. I answered it by pointing out that the brains of our early ancestors, while born (nearly) fully developed, were always smaller, and not a challenge for mothers to give birth to. The ability to develop more brains, after birth, was an adaptation that may have came later: Brains are still born small, but can grow in their early life. Still not a challenge for mothers.

ETA: As others point out: "Neotny" has a lot to do with it, and serves as a good sumamrizing word, for the under-developed brain stuff, I just wrote.

[bokonon]

I think language is the big one, and within that, written language. It's enabled people to pass along what they learn, to sift and consider ideas we (as individuals) would never think of on our own, and to build on the work of those who are now long dead. Without written language, we'd be forced to demonstrate to teach, and transferring an abstract concept from one mind to another would be much more difficult and much more error-prone.

Living on land, and an upright gait which freed the hands for toolmaking helped too. I don't give a lot of weight to opposable thumbs per se; I think a lot could be accomplished with "opposable forearms" if nothing else were available. But language is the big sine qua non.

[m_huber]

Perhaps if I rephrased that, it will be clearer:

The idea is that being born with an underdeveloped brain was an adaptation that allowed our brains to develop throughout our life (mostly early in life). Being born with an underdeveloped brain has allowed our brains to develop in ways more flexible, and potentially more powerful, than if we were born with a fully-developed (or nearly fully-developed) brain, in the first place.

And, chances are, our ancient ancestors might have been born with a nearly-fully-developed brain (though smaller). And, because of that, they could not develop the flexibility and power we can develop in our own brains, in our life time.

Radrook asked the question: How could mothers survive, before the adaptation of being born with a less-developed brain. I answered it by pointing out that the brains of our early ancestors, while born (nearly) fully developed, were always smaller, and not a challenge for mothers to give birth to. The ability to develop more brains, after birth, was an adaptation that may have came later: Brains are still born small, but can grow in their early life. Still not a challenge for mothers.

ETA: As others point out: "Neotny" has a lot to do with it, and serves as a good sumamrizing word, for the under-developed brain stuff, I just wrote.

Ok, I'm with it now.

[Dogdoctor]

Much of everything that we are is shared by other animals (they have the same DNA). We are mammals and primates and share numerous traits common to those groups. It is pure arrogance that makes people think we are so different from them. Are other animals smart? Not even close to us, but still smarter than some are willing to admit. Is that so surprising? Not to me.

[charlie-d]

Much of everything that we are is shared by other animals (they have the same DNA). We are mammals and primates and share numerous traits common to those groups. It is pure arrogance that makes people think we are so different from them. Are other animals smart? Not even close to us, but still smarter than some are willing to admit. Is that so surprising? Not to me.

We are still animals. No matter how "smart" we are; no matter how good we get at manipulating physical reality; no matter how much of the habitat becomes the one we invented, we are still animals and still a part of nature. We are not animated by reason but by our subconscious animal drives; both our self-serving drives AND our social drives. We have succeeded in becoming ubiquitous upon the face of the earth, but we have not succeeded in changing who we are. There is no moral progress. Our motivations have not changed, even if how we serve them has.

[Radrook]

Much of everything that we are is shared by other animals (they have the same DNA). We are mammals and primates and share numerous traits common to those groups. It is pure arrogance that makes people think we are so different from them. Are other animals smart? Not even close to us, but still smarter than some are willing to admit. Is that so surprising? Not to me.

Sharing of similar DNA or physical traits could be due to our living on the same planet and requiring similar things to make survival possible. If I make a machine that will function on Jupiter, then I shouldn't be surprized if othere machines which are also designed to function on Jupiter look similar to mine.

[Dancing David]

Radrook,

If you were designing machines, would you make the archaebacteria and other bacteria have 90% of the genetic diversity and limit fungi, plants, animals to 10%?

[Dogdoctor]

Sharing of similar DNA or physical traits could be due to our living on the same planet and requiring similar things to make survival possible. If I make a machine that will function on Jupiter, then I shouldn't be surprized if othere machines which are also designed to function on Jupiter look similar to mine.

No you wouldn't be surprized, however you would be surprized if the creator of such machines defied known science in making them.

[fishbait]

Roller disco and plastic see-thru pants.

[Radrook]

No you wouldn't be surprized, however you would be surprized if the creator of such machines defied known science in making them.

Why would he need to defy known science to make them? Actually, if my understanding of
the laws of nature were not up to par with his-I might just view his methods as being in defiance of nature.

[Dogdoctor]

Why would he need to defy known science to make them? Actually, if my understanding of
the laws of nature were not up to par with his-I might just view his methods as being in defiance of nature.

I was merely pointing out that if the machines were created in a manner that was unexplainable by science then you should be surprized .

[Radrook]

I was merely pointing out that if the machines were created in a manner that was unexplainable by science then you should be surprized .

Would you please provide a hypothetical example.

[Dogdoctor]

Would you please provide a hypothetical example.

Sure. You find that someone created a Jupiter landing craft that looked similar to others except it had circuit boards that could not be created by any known processes. Or it had a power source that was unknown and did not appear to follow the laws of physics. On inquiring about it the creator said it just appeared out of nothing by his thinking about it. Something like that.

[Moochie]

Language.


Yep, the ability to spread BS undoubtedly helped. But will it always?


M.

[Dogdoctor]

It's not only language but the ability to test ideas and pass on valid information to offspring (so they don't have to make the same mistakes) that has really helped us.