4 ms·

One of the most fascinating points, to me, in "Sapiens," is that we have no evidence suggesting homo sapiens were culturally or behaviourally more sophisticated

by netcan 5y ago

One of the most fascinating points, to me, in "Sapiens," is that we have no evidence suggesting homo sapiens were culturally or behaviourally more sophisticated than other species prior to this period. We inhabited a different geography and evidently had a preference for different ecosystems than neanderthals. Skeletal injuries suggest different hunting and/or warfare methods. But, no signs of more sophisticated tool use or such. That changes circa 40kya. I think the answer to the question in this article is the same (unknown) answer to many questions. YNH's hypothesis is that it was language sophistication. Language got to the point where it allowed for different types of culture including cooperation in large groups to emerge. If the neanderthal replacement story is a conflict story, cooperation in large groups, the ability to form alliances and such is a pretty straightforward explanation. Who knows though. A lot appears to have changes in this period. Wolves were domesticated, for example. Wolf husbandry alone might be enough to explain sapien expansion into large game rich territory.

raxxorrax 5y ago
Could very well be that the real uncultured babarians survived as homo sapiens. I don't think more sophistication at this level necessarily leads to more evolutionary success against other intelligent primates.
- agumonkey 5y ago
  Are we walking 'worse is better' ?
wahern 5y ago
Joseph Jordania theorizes that human intelligence preceded articulated speech, which he suggests may have arisen as a simple neurological mutation in East Asia about 40k years ago and quickly migrated back toward Europe and Africa. Jordania is an ethnomusicologist and believes that human vocal chords evolved for polyphonic singing, part of an adaptation (along with dance) permitting humans to act in tight unison for, e.g., defense and intimidation. This social mimicry permitted them to create an ecological niche into which both intelligence and altruism could grow, with articulated speech (i.e. language as we know it today) being the very last and quite recent step, and perhaps the most important distinguishing characteristic--IOW, presumably closely related hominids were nearly as or similarly intelligent and social, just lacking the ability for complex, individual speech with its concomitant benefits (greater specialization and more sophisticated culture?). AFAIU, this is in stark contrast to most anthropologists, who generally believe things happened in the reverse order, with simple language (e.g. sign language) providing the impetus for vocal chord development and articulated speech, which in turn laid the foundation for rapid coevolution of greater intelligence.
- netcan 5y ago
  Hmmm. I think there's been a lot of speculation about human musical tendencies and the relationship to speech and intelligence. Idk if it's wise to hypothesise that "intelligence" arises at any point. We don't have very good definitions of intelligence. Also, brain size of all homo species is massive relative to ancestral species and that seems likely to be related. Certain types of human intelligence abilities are pretty tightly coupled with speech, articulated or otherwise. Also, most primates vocalize communication and even have some vocabulary of semantic words. So, it didn't arise suddenly out of nowhere. All interesting stuff. I'll check out Jordania.
  - wahern 5y ago
    What most intrigued me about Jordania's theory is that it's one of the first and few I've encountered that provides a comprehensive model for the emergence and maintenance of strong, non-kin altruism within a classical genetic evolutionary model. Jordania's complex, unified group singing and dancing displays operate to exclude free riders. If you don't strongly share both the ability to perform the display and to spontaneously exhibit the display in unison, you get eaten. (IOW, no group selection required--just basic selfish gene theory filtering out the non-cooperators.) Furthermore, the neurological mutations that developed to promote these displays would be fundamental to enhanced empathy and, in particular, the capacity and predisposition to strongly conflate group identity with individual identity--again, all with selfish gene theory. Another way of putting it is that strong socialization evolved first and drove intelligence, rather than intelligence driving stronger socialization. This explains how the trajectory of hominin intelligence broke away from other apes and mammals--nature first had to overcome the altruism barrier, which is fundamentally limited by basic sexual fitness and kinship. (Closest examples of pervasive altruism elsewhere in nature tend to revolve around kin matriarchies--bonobos, naked mole rats, and of course colony insects--and are simply modulated by genetic relatedness as would be expected by selfish gene theory.) I have no clue how probable is Jordania's theory, but it's relatively unique in comprehensively providing a plausible and distinguishable (i.e. exactly why it was serendipitous without being a miracle) pathway for the development of human altruism. And I tend to believe that strong altruism is the prerequisite for human-level intelligence. If it weren't, I fail to see how human-level intelligence wouldn't have quickly arisen many times over long before hominins. Strong, non-kin altruism and its capacity for socialization provides a unique ecological niche unto itself into which ever greater intelligence provides the enhanced degree of sexual fitness that it couldn't (and hasn't) otherwise.

by netcan 5y ago

raxxorrax 5y ago

Could very well be that the real uncultured babarians survived as homo sapiens. I don't think more sophistication at this level necessarily leads to more evolutionary success against other intelligent primates.

agumonkey 5y ago
Are we walking 'worse is better' ?

wahern 5y ago

Joseph Jordania theorizes that human intelligence preceded articulated speech, which he suggests may have arisen as a simple neurological mutation in East Asia about 40k years ago and quickly migrated back toward Europe and Africa. Jordania is an ethnomusicologist and believes that human vocal chords evolved for polyphonic singing, part of an adaptation (along with dance) permitting humans to act in tight unison for, e.g., defense and intimidation. This social mimicry permitted them to create an ecological niche into which both intelligence and altruism could grow, with articulated speech (i.e. language as we know it today) being the very last and quite recent step, and perhaps the most important distinguishing characteristic--IOW, presumably closely related hominids were nearly as or similarly intelligent and social, just lacking the ability for complex, individual speech with its concomitant benefits (greater specialization and more sophisticated culture?). AFAIU, this is in stark contrast to most anthropologists, who generally believe things happened in the reverse order, with simple language (e.g. sign language) providing the impetus for vocal chord development and articulated speech, which in turn laid the foundation for rapid coevolution of greater intelligence.

netcan 5y ago
Hmmm. I think there's been a lot of speculation about human musical tendencies and the relationship to speech and intelligence. Idk if it's wise to hypothesise that "intelligence" arises at any point. We don't have very good definitions of intelligence. Also, brain size of all homo species is massive relative to ancestral species and that seems likely to be related. Certain types of human intelligence abilities are pretty tightly coupled with speech, articulated or otherwise. Also, most primates vocalize communication and even have some vocabulary of semantic words. So, it didn't arise suddenly out of nowhere. All interesting stuff. I'll check out Jordania.
- wahern 5y ago
  What most intrigued me about Jordania's theory is that it's one of the first and few I've encountered that provides a comprehensive model for the emergence and maintenance of strong, non-kin altruism within a classical genetic evolutionary model. Jordania's complex, unified group singing and dancing displays operate to exclude free riders. If you don't strongly share both the ability to perform the display and to spontaneously exhibit the display in unison, you get eaten. (IOW, no group selection required--just basic selfish gene theory filtering out the non-cooperators.) Furthermore, the neurological mutations that developed to promote these displays would be fundamental to enhanced empathy and, in particular, the capacity and predisposition to strongly conflate group identity with individual identity--again, all with selfish gene theory. Another way of putting it is that strong socialization evolved first and drove intelligence, rather than intelligence driving stronger socialization. This explains how the trajectory of hominin intelligence broke away from other apes and mammals--nature first had to overcome the altruism barrier, which is fundamentally limited by basic sexual fitness and kinship. (Closest examples of pervasive altruism elsewhere in nature tend to revolve around kin matriarchies--bonobos, naked mole rats, and of course colony insects--and are simply modulated by genetic relatedness as would be expected by selfish gene theory.) I have no clue how probable is Jordania's theory, but it's relatively unique in comprehensively providing a plausible and distinguishable (i.e. exactly why it was serendipitous without being a miracle) pathway for the development of human altruism. And I tend to believe that strong altruism is the prerequisite for human-level intelligence. If it weren't, I fail to see how human-level intelligence wouldn't have quickly arisen many times over long before hominins. Strong, non-kin altruism and its capacity for socialization provides a unique ecological niche unto itself into which ever greater intelligence provides the enhanced degree of sexual fitness that it couldn't (and hasn't) otherwise.