5 ms·

In a world before intelligence, who is conning us in order to apply evolutionary pressure, and how are they doing so? It seems to me like you need to be an int

In a world before intelligence, who is conning us in order to apply evolutionary pressure, and how are they doing so? It seems to me like you need to be an intelligent creature among other intelligent creatures and to have a theory of mind in order to be a con artist, because cons work by turning someone's intelligence against them.

pcrh 4y ago
In that vein, I remember reading somewhere a proposal that the force driving the evolution of human intelligence was human-to-human competition, since humans don't need as much intelligence as they have to out-smart any other species.
- maxbond 4y ago
  Not my field of study but my initial reaction is skepticism since human communities have always been cooperative and humans have always been reliant on one another. I'd also think that you'd evolve complex displays like peacocks or powerful weapons like rams to compete with each other, intelligence seems more useful to cooperate with each other than to compete. Eg, organizing to take down a mammoth by forcing it over a cliff isn't so much about outsmarting the mammoth as much as understanding the situation your team is in and what you should be doing. Building traps capable of trapping entire herds[1] involves outsmarting them in a sense, sure, but it also involves coordinating a large construction project. I've heard the hypothesis that creatures with a highly varied diet need more intelligence to distinguish between poisonous and nonpoisonous food. If I had to guess, for whatever my speculation is worth, intelligence evolved because we had to be highly cooperative in a rapidly changing environment as the glaciers retreated. And also that animals are much more intelligent than we often credit them for, so it was probably a smaller leap then we might imagine. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_kite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_kite
  - paulryanrogers 4y ago
    Yet even with all the cooperation they were still competing, just against meta-organisms in the form of other communities.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      I dunno about that. Contemporary neighboring communities seem to be largely in cooperation. Depending on what time in history we're talking about, as hominids began to leave Africa, they spread rapidly, so I don't think there would've been much reason to compete (as the resources available in a given area weren't limiting). I think the role of competition in evolution is often overstated. I don't exactly understand the premise here. The advantage of intelligence was that neighboring communities could swindle each other? Think of it as an iterated prisoner's dilemma, does that strategy make sense?
      - pcrh 4y ago
        Inter-tribal conflict is a constant feature of human behaviour.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        maxbond 4y ago
        Granted[1], but that doesn't really suggest that we evolved intelligence in order to compete as either individuals as tribes, or address what I'm saying about how intelligence is more useful for cooperation than competition. [1] I think my wording was confusing, reading my comment I do seem to imply that such competition doesn't exist rather than that I thought it was being overstated, but that was sloppy writing on my part.
        pcrh 4y ago
        Sure, cooperation would be helped by intelligence. However, evolution only occurs under selective pressure, and would cooperation (which reduces pressure) require great intelligence? Cooperation exists widely in the animal kingdom. The question arises in the framework of an evolutionary "arms race", and what feature of the human environment challenges specifically their intelligence, except other humans?
- hgsgm 4y ago
  It's not enough just to be smarter than other species. Humans sacrificed physical abilities in order to obtain intellectual abilities. So they need to be smart enough to He's planning and tools to obtain resources that their bodies cannot directly obtain.
MarcoZavala 4y ago
[dead]
GauntletWizard 4y ago
Parasites. Predators. And prey, too. https://www.wired.com/2014/09/absurd-creature-of-the-week-disco-worm/ https://www.wired.com/2014/09/absurd-creature-of-the-week-di... https://eartharchives.org/articles/aggressive-mimicry-ten-animals-that-are-dressed-to-kill/index.html https://eartharchives.org/articles/aggressive-mimicry-ten-an... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry
- maxbond 4y ago
  For sure, I wouldn't call that a con, but I see your point.
  - GauntletWizard 4y ago
    It's a form of trickery, exploiting your confidence that X is safe or that X is dangerous or that X is food. It's not the same as the form of fraud known as a confidence scheme, but it is a con. Nearby in the conceptual space if not exactly the same.
    - maxbond 4y ago
      Yeah for sure, I don't mean to disagree in a petty way, you've raised a good point & I buy it. Whatever small disagreement about whether that's a con isn't substantial.

pcrh 4y ago

In that vein, I remember reading somewhere a proposal that the force driving the evolution of human intelligence was human-to-human competition, since humans don't need as much intelligence as they have to out-smart any other species.

maxbond 4y ago
Not my field of study but my initial reaction is skepticism since human communities have always been cooperative and humans have always been reliant on one another. I'd also think that you'd evolve complex displays like peacocks or powerful weapons like rams to compete with each other, intelligence seems more useful to cooperate with each other than to compete. Eg, organizing to take down a mammoth by forcing it over a cliff isn't so much about outsmarting the mammoth as much as understanding the situation your team is in and what you should be doing. Building traps capable of trapping entire herds[1] involves outsmarting them in a sense, sure, but it also involves coordinating a large construction project. I've heard the hypothesis that creatures with a highly varied diet need more intelligence to distinguish between poisonous and nonpoisonous food. If I had to guess, for whatever my speculation is worth, intelligence evolved because we had to be highly cooperative in a rapidly changing environment as the glaciers retreated. And also that animals are much more intelligent than we often credit them for, so it was probably a smaller leap then we might imagine. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_kite https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_kite
- paulryanrogers 4y ago
  Yet even with all the cooperation they were still competing, just against meta-organisms in the form of other communities.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    I dunno about that. Contemporary neighboring communities seem to be largely in cooperation. Depending on what time in history we're talking about, as hominids began to leave Africa, they spread rapidly, so I don't think there would've been much reason to compete (as the resources available in a given area weren't limiting). I think the role of competition in evolution is often overstated. I don't exactly understand the premise here. The advantage of intelligence was that neighboring communities could swindle each other? Think of it as an iterated prisoner's dilemma, does that strategy make sense?
    - pcrh 4y ago
      Inter-tribal conflict is a constant feature of human behaviour.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - maxbond 4y ago
        Granted[1], but that doesn't really suggest that we evolved intelligence in order to compete as either individuals as tribes, or address what I'm saying about how intelligence is more useful for cooperation than competition. [1] I think my wording was confusing, reading my comment I do seem to imply that such competition doesn't exist rather than that I thought it was being overstated, but that was sloppy writing on my part.
        pcrh 4y ago
        Sure, cooperation would be helped by intelligence. However, evolution only occurs under selective pressure, and would cooperation (which reduces pressure) require great intelligence? Cooperation exists widely in the animal kingdom. The question arises in the framework of an evolutionary "arms race", and what feature of the human environment challenges specifically their intelligence, except other humans?
hgsgm 4y ago
It's not enough just to be smarter than other species. Humans sacrificed physical abilities in order to obtain intellectual abilities. So they need to be smart enough to He's planning and tools to obtain resources that their bodies cannot directly obtain.

MarcoZavala 4y ago

[dead]

GauntletWizard 4y ago

Parasites. Predators. And prey, too. https://www.wired.com/2014/09/absurd-creature-of-the-week-disco-worm/ https://www.wired.com/2014/09/absurd-creature-of-the-week-di... https://eartharchives.org/articles/aggressive-mimicry-ten-animals-that-are-dressed-to-kill/index.html https://eartharchives.org/articles/aggressive-mimicry-ten-an... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry

maxbond 4y ago
For sure, I wouldn't call that a con, but I see your point.
- GauntletWizard 4y ago
  It's a form of trickery, exploiting your confidence that X is safe or that X is dangerous or that X is food. It's not the same as the form of fraud known as a confidence scheme, but it is a con. Nearby in the conceptual space if not exactly the same.
  - maxbond 4y ago
    Yeah for sure, I don't mean to disagree in a petty way, you've raised a good point & I buy it. Whatever small disagreement about whether that's a con isn't substantial.