8 ms·

A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

111 points by hacknrk 8y ago

blacksqr 8y ago
Funny, Freud suggested something very similar in _Totem and Taboo_, and faced a lot of ridicule for it. Would be interesting if he were finally vindicated to some extent.
- sshine 8y ago
  His theory of evolution has at least become mainstream in parts of the world.
  - Filligree 8y ago
    Are you sure you aren't mistaking him for Darwin?
    - gumby 8y ago
      I assume sshine was talking about Freud's conjectures on evolutionary biology and the evolutionary conservatism of archaic structures in the brain. Much of that work is on its surface unremarkable today, though not at the time. But as it wasn't really central to his most influential work, it also hasn't been (IMHO) particularly influential
    - ganzuul 8y ago
      It isn't a novel idea of Darwin's: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thou...
      - gnulinux 8y ago
        It really is. In modern context "evolution" doesn't mean "any type of evolution e.g. Lamarckian evolution, evolution from natural selection or Pokemon evolution from leveling up". It really just means "evolution from natural selection" which is not only a novel idea proposed by Darwin, but Darwin also pioneered to research on this idea (i.e. going around the world and collecting specimens that could potentially falsify his hypothesis but instead support it). That Plato thought your mind transfers from your previous souls and this is called "evolution" is simply an accident of language.
- WhompingWindows 8y ago
  He's been vindicated time and time again, his theories are the most influential of any one writer in psychology. I took a great books course and had to struggle through MULTIPLE made up case studies, and pretend these are "great" when it's just BS. Still, thousands reading his works every year and universities vindicating his theories doesn't mean he didn't fabricate data, espouse cocaine use, and all of the other negatives people bring up time and again.
  - mercer 8y ago
    Freud is far from 'vindicated'. At least over here (The Netherlands, and probably most of Western Europe/US), Freud is seen as an important figure historically, but (most of?) his work is not considered valid. EDIT: I mean in academia; I suppose his ideas are still quite popular culturally.
- tossaccount123 8y ago
  Common sense would tell you there's some truth to it. For centuries we killed murderers and rapists and thus removed them from the gene pool. Data shows testosterone levels, which are correlated with violence, have dropped massively over the last few decades, whether that is genetic or environmental and to what extent for each is up for debate WWI and WII basically selected to kill off Europe's bravest and most nationalistic men, those who immediately signed up to fight and were thrown in the meat grinder. I'm partly convinced that's why America is so different from Europe, we managed to avoid most of the carnage of those wars
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    Don't forget that immigrants to America were probably skewed toward certain personality types. And, of course, all personality traits are heritable to some degree.
  - iguy 8y ago
    There is a neat paper I can't find which runs the numbers. So from memory: For about 1000 years, we know that west-european states executed about 1% of each generation. Assume it's the most violent 1%, and that violence is 50% heritable. Plugging these into standard formulas for animal breeding, and I believe the answer is that this explains about half the decline in the murder rate over this period. Obviously there are some giant caveats here. But it's super-interesting that a back-of-the-envelope calculation gets you the right order of magnitude. I'm dubious though of wars doing much. The big 20th C meat-grinder was largely conscripts. And anyway I'm not sure how correlated with blood-thirst most recruiting was. Whereas getting yourself hanged for murder in peacetime was pretty tightly correlated.
danieltillett 8y ago
This is the old theory that the nobility domesticated peasants while the peasants were domesticating animals.
- navaati 8y ago
  In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    I agree. But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. However, it's arguably not about the group "pruning of the most violent individuals". Rather, it's about pruning individuals with low social status who resort to violence. That is, individuals who don't follow orders. Morgan's Black Man (aka 13) is an interesting take on this.
    - heavenlyblue 8y ago
      >> But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. Also, no reason that the peasants have enabled the mobility to be in control so that it would be easier to domesticate each other. You seem like a person who's just read a book and are trying to mention it everywhere.
      - mirimir 8y ago
        Sure, that's possible. And yes, I do mention science fiction and fantasy ~frequently. And I do like Richard Morgan's stuff, and people who are independent, and often violent, are a recurring theme. But actually, it's Matthew Stover's "Caine" series that I love the best. His central theme is Aleister Crowley's Law of Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Love is the law, love under will." And there's a key point that's often missed by assholes. If you habitually hurt others, except in self defense, others will choose to exile, imprison or kill you. Because, you know, that's an expression of their love for each other. And if I were really going on about it, I'd get into William S. Burroughs' stuff about killing the assholes (5-10% of the population) who impose their will on others. But I won't.
Proven 8y ago
Unlike today's fake laws, Natural Law helped the advancement of humanity. I can't say I'd be surprised if that theory was true.
c3534l 8y ago
New? This was part of the philosophy in Fight Club. I remember hearing Chuck Palahniuk talk about it. Ted Kaczynski (of all people) believed humans had domesticated ourselves. I'm not sure what to make of an article that boldly claims "Wrangham grapples fully for the first time" with a theory older than I am. Certainly the author of the article didn't do his homework. Perhaps in the book the author acknowledges he didn't come up with the theory - I can't say without reading it. But clearly someone is grossly misrepresenting the facts here.
- krustyburger 8y ago
  From TFA: “In fact, Wrangham’s notion of human evolution powered by self-domestication has an ancient lineage: The basic idea was first proposed by a disciple of Aristotle’s named Theophrastus and has been debated several times since the 18th century. This latest version, too, is bound to provoke controversy, but that’s what bold theorizing is supposed to do.“
  - drilldrive 8y ago
    Okay, but the headline does say "bold theory", which is a mischaracterization, yes?
- duckerude 8y ago
  This is in the book: > The notion that humans are a domesticated species is at least as old as ancient Greece. [...] Two thousand years later, the topic of human domestication re-emerged in the intuitions of an influential early anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. And this is in the article: > In fact, Wrangham’s notion of human evolution powered by self-domestication has an ancient lineage: The basic idea was first proposed by a disciple of Aristotle’s named Theophrastus and has been debated several times since the 18th century.
Toine 8y ago
This is just one more "proof" of René Girard's mimetic theory. The scapegoat mechanism at the core of all human societies was heavily explained and documented 50 years ago. René Girard, whose theories heavily influenced the world vision of Peter Thiel and many more, is still dramatically absent in this kind of articles. I'm not sure why. His mimetic theory absolutely revolutionized the field of anthropology, theology, and many more should come. I strongly suggest reading Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Changed my life.
- devoply 8y ago
  I really wonder how these ideas are such a revelation, we are still domesticating people just look at the prison system, what do you think that's all about?
  - Toine 8y ago
    I'm not sure I can summarize such a global theory in a comment, but basically, he started from a simple truth : the mimetic nature of humans. You want what you want, not because of the intrinsic qualities of objects, but because you're imitating others. Inevitably, this leads to rivalry and conflict. Animals deal with this violence with what we call dominance patterns : the loser will very often yield to the now dominant animal, and the entire society will be ruled with complex hierarchies based on this. However, humans are too mimetic to be able to end violence like that. In our species, unrestricted violence ends in death. It can then rapidly spread across the community and bring chaos. The way primitive humans have dealt with this conflict is to turn the blame on someone else, the scapegoat, which suddenly turns into a primitive sacred being. At first, he is seen as an evil being responsible for all the chaos. Then, after being sacrificed, he is seen as the ultimate savior of the community. You now have the mechanism creating primitive religions. English isn't my native language, I hope I've been clear enough so that you can imagine the enormous consequences of such a ground-breaking theory on every aspect of human life. I suggest reading the books.
- photojosh 8y ago
  Same here, last year I devoured tons of writing on mimetic theory. And now I'm moving on to think about how we reconcile mimetic theory with theories of origin of consciousness, so this article was quite useful. Where I would push back slightly on your comment: what's described in the article isn't scapegoating in the Girardian sense of the word. Because if when a man kills multiple others, then is killed for doing so, he actually is guilty (and a scapegoat isn't). But... it is likely rather the source of the development of scapegoating. I think that scapegoating then develops when there is chaos in a society that isn't caused by the actions of an individual or the individual responsible can't be discovered. These primitive humans has seen already that violence/chaos can be stopped by putting an end to the cause of it, such as in the case of a violent man. There's chaos, there must be a cause, so who do we blame? Violá, our scapegoat.
vmh1928 8y ago
Bonobos compete for genetic dominance at the level of sperm. They are what we would call promiscuous, the females mate with multiple partners. He with the greatest volume of seamen and sperm washes out the competition. There's no need to be aggressive in person. Bonobo testicles are very large compared to, say, humans. Southern right whales are very similar in their mating habits. On the other hand, species where the male physically secures the females - elk, blue whales, humans, have much smaller testes and rely on physical ability to fend off other male challengers and secure their own genetic future. These traits were set in place long before "culture" developed. Culture is the result of these physical / genetic traits, not the cause.
- klyrs 8y ago
  So you're saying that it's the culture of everybody fucking everybody that brings world peace. Hippie
hyperpallium 8y ago
Neoteny is the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. The constellation of traits that emerge when selecting for friendliness (foxes: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox) seem to be neotenous. So dogs are puppies, cats are kittens, and men and women are children. Friendly people are selected for, by the benefits of cooperation, trade and civilization. tl;dr the civilization of humans was their domestication
sadris 8y ago
Yeah of course. Violence, like all traits, is moderately heritable 1. Europeans engaged in a multi century eugenics program after the Christian church took over society 2. They executed 2% of their most violent every generation. This resulted in a severe decline in criminality across the European population group. 1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-011-9483-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-011-9483-0 2. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915013001...

111 points by hacknrk 8y ago

Funny, Freud suggested something very similar in _Totem and Taboo_, and faced a lot of ridicule for it. Would be interesting if he were finally vindicated to some extent.

sshine 8y ago
His theory of evolution has at least become mainstream in parts of the world.
- Filligree 8y ago
  Are you sure you aren't mistaking him for Darwin?
  - gumby 8y ago
    I assume sshine was talking about Freud's conjectures on evolutionary biology and the evolutionary conservatism of archaic structures in the brain. Much of that work is on its surface unremarkable today, though not at the time. But as it wasn't really central to his most influential work, it also hasn't been (IMHO) particularly influential
  - ganzuul 8y ago
    It isn't a novel idea of Darwin's: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thou...
    - gnulinux 8y ago
      It really is. In modern context "evolution" doesn't mean "any type of evolution e.g. Lamarckian evolution, evolution from natural selection or Pokemon evolution from leveling up". It really just means "evolution from natural selection" which is not only a novel idea proposed by Darwin, but Darwin also pioneered to research on this idea (i.e. going around the world and collecting specimens that could potentially falsify his hypothesis but instead support it). That Plato thought your mind transfers from your previous souls and this is called "evolution" is simply an accident of language.
WhompingWindows 8y ago
He's been vindicated time and time again, his theories are the most influential of any one writer in psychology. I took a great books course and had to struggle through MULTIPLE made up case studies, and pretend these are "great" when it's just BS. Still, thousands reading his works every year and universities vindicating his theories doesn't mean he didn't fabricate data, espouse cocaine use, and all of the other negatives people bring up time and again.
- mercer 8y ago
  Freud is far from 'vindicated'. At least over here (The Netherlands, and probably most of Western Europe/US), Freud is seen as an important figure historically, but (most of?) his work is not considered valid. EDIT: I mean in academia; I suppose his ideas are still quite popular culturally.
tossaccount123 8y ago
Common sense would tell you there's some truth to it. For centuries we killed murderers and rapists and thus removed them from the gene pool. Data shows testosterone levels, which are correlated with violence, have dropped massively over the last few decades, whether that is genetic or environmental and to what extent for each is up for debate WWI and WII basically selected to kill off Europe's bravest and most nationalistic men, those who immediately signed up to fight and were thrown in the meat grinder. I'm partly convinced that's why America is so different from Europe, we managed to avoid most of the carnage of those wars
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Don't forget that immigrants to America were probably skewed toward certain personality types. And, of course, all personality traits are heritable to some degree.
- iguy 8y ago
  There is a neat paper I can't find which runs the numbers. So from memory: For about 1000 years, we know that west-european states executed about 1% of each generation. Assume it's the most violent 1%, and that violence is 50% heritable. Plugging these into standard formulas for animal breeding, and I believe the answer is that this explains about half the decline in the murder rate over this period. Obviously there are some giant caveats here. But it's super-interesting that a back-of-the-envelope calculation gets you the right order of magnitude. I'm dubious though of wars doing much. The big 20th C meat-grinder was largely conscripts. And anyway I'm not sure how correlated with blood-thirst most recruiting was. Whereas getting yourself hanged for murder in peacetime was pretty tightly correlated.

danieltillett 8y ago

This is the old theory that the nobility domesticated peasants while the peasants were domesticating animals.

navaati 8y ago
In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I agree. But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. However, it's arguably not about the group "pruning of the most violent individuals". Rather, it's about pruning individuals with low social status who resort to violence. That is, individuals who don't follow orders. Morgan's Black Man (aka 13) is an interesting take on this.
  - heavenlyblue 8y ago
    >> But there's no reason that nobility could not also have domesticated peasants. Also, no reason that the peasants have enabled the mobility to be in control so that it would be easier to domesticate each other. You seem like a person who's just read a book and are trying to mention it everywhere.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Sure, that's possible. And yes, I do mention science fiction and fantasy ~frequently. And I do like Richard Morgan's stuff, and people who are independent, and often violent, are a recurring theme. But actually, it's Matthew Stover's "Caine" series that I love the best. His central theme is Aleister Crowley's Law of Thelema: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. ... Love is the law, love under will." And there's a key point that's often missed by assholes. If you habitually hurt others, except in self defense, others will choose to exile, imprison or kill you. Because, you know, that's an expression of their love for each other. And if I were really going on about it, I'd get into William S. Burroughs' stuff about killing the assholes (5-10% of the population) who impose their will on others. But I won't.

Proven 8y ago

Unlike today's fake laws, Natural Law helped the advancement of humanity. I can't say I'd be surprised if that theory was true.

c3534l 8y ago

New? This was part of the philosophy in Fight Club. I remember hearing Chuck Palahniuk talk about it. Ted Kaczynski (of all people) believed humans had domesticated ourselves. I'm not sure what to make of an article that boldly claims "Wrangham grapples fully for the first time" with a theory older than I am. Certainly the author of the article didn't do his homework. Perhaps in the book the author acknowledges he didn't come up with the theory - I can't say without reading it. But clearly someone is grossly misrepresenting the facts here.

krustyburger 8y ago
From TFA: “In fact, Wrangham’s notion of human evolution powered by self-domestication has an ancient lineage: The basic idea was first proposed by a disciple of Aristotle’s named Theophrastus and has been debated several times since the 18th century. This latest version, too, is bound to provoke controversy, but that’s what bold theorizing is supposed to do.“
- drilldrive 8y ago
  Okay, but the headline does say "bold theory", which is a mischaracterization, yes?
duckerude 8y ago
This is in the book: > The notion that humans are a domesticated species is at least as old as ancient Greece. [...] Two thousand years later, the topic of human domestication re-emerged in the intuitions of an influential early anthropologist, Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. And this is in the article: > In fact, Wrangham’s notion of human evolution powered by self-domestication has an ancient lineage: The basic idea was first proposed by a disciple of Aristotle’s named Theophrastus and has been debated several times since the 18th century.

Toine 8y ago

This is just one more "proof" of René Girard's mimetic theory. The scapegoat mechanism at the core of all human societies was heavily explained and documented 50 years ago. René Girard, whose theories heavily influenced the world vision of Peter Thiel and many more, is still dramatically absent in this kind of articles. I'm not sure why. His mimetic theory absolutely revolutionized the field of anthropology, theology, and many more should come. I strongly suggest reading Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World. Changed my life.

devoply 8y ago
I really wonder how these ideas are such a revelation, we are still domesticating people just look at the prison system, what do you think that's all about?
- Toine 8y ago
  I'm not sure I can summarize such a global theory in a comment, but basically, he started from a simple truth : the mimetic nature of humans. You want what you want, not because of the intrinsic qualities of objects, but because you're imitating others. Inevitably, this leads to rivalry and conflict. Animals deal with this violence with what we call dominance patterns : the loser will very often yield to the now dominant animal, and the entire society will be ruled with complex hierarchies based on this. However, humans are too mimetic to be able to end violence like that. In our species, unrestricted violence ends in death. It can then rapidly spread across the community and bring chaos. The way primitive humans have dealt with this conflict is to turn the blame on someone else, the scapegoat, which suddenly turns into a primitive sacred being. At first, he is seen as an evil being responsible for all the chaos. Then, after being sacrificed, he is seen as the ultimate savior of the community. You now have the mechanism creating primitive religions. English isn't my native language, I hope I've been clear enough so that you can imagine the enormous consequences of such a ground-breaking theory on every aspect of human life. I suggest reading the books.
photojosh 8y ago
Same here, last year I devoured tons of writing on mimetic theory. And now I'm moving on to think about how we reconcile mimetic theory with theories of origin of consciousness, so this article was quite useful. Where I would push back slightly on your comment: what's described in the article isn't scapegoating in the Girardian sense of the word. Because if when a man kills multiple others, then is killed for doing so, he actually is guilty (and a scapegoat isn't). But... it is likely rather the source of the development of scapegoating. I think that scapegoating then develops when there is chaos in a society that isn't caused by the actions of an individual or the individual responsible can't be discovered. These primitive humans has seen already that violence/chaos can be stopped by putting an end to the cause of it, such as in the case of a violent man. There's chaos, there must be a cause, so who do we blame? Violá, our scapegoat.

vmh1928 8y ago

Bonobos compete for genetic dominance at the level of sperm. They are what we would call promiscuous, the females mate with multiple partners. He with the greatest volume of seamen and sperm washes out the competition. There's no need to be aggressive in person. Bonobo testicles are very large compared to, say, humans. Southern right whales are very similar in their mating habits. On the other hand, species where the male physically secures the females - elk, blue whales, humans, have much smaller testes and rely on physical ability to fend off other male challengers and secure their own genetic future. These traits were set in place long before "culture" developed. Culture is the result of these physical / genetic traits, not the cause.

klyrs 8y ago
So you're saying that it's the culture of everybody fucking everybody that brings world peace. Hippie

hyperpallium 8y ago

Neoteny is the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. The constellation of traits that emerge when selecting for friendliness (foxes: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox) seem to be neotenous. So dogs are puppies, cats are kittens, and men and women are children. Friendly people are selected for, by the benefits of cooperation, trade and civilization. tl;dr the civilization of humans was their domestication

sadris 8y ago

Yeah of course. Violence, like all traits, is moderately heritable 1. Europeans engaged in a multi century eugenics program after the Christian church took over society 2. They executed 2% of their most violent every generation. This resulted in a severe decline in criminality across the European population group. 1. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-011-9483-0 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10519-011-9483-0 2. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114 http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1474704915013001...