Selfishness in Anthropology

[fight4thefuture]

The following is an excellent article from Live Science that I came across. I bolded the part that I thought was particularly interesting though.

Where Words Come From

By Meredith F. Small, LiveScience's Human Nature Columnist

posted: 02 January 2009 11:25 am ET

http://www.livescience.com/culture/090102-hn-words.html

I want to tell you something. Wait, wait, I'm searching for the right word to begin. I just can't remember it. Oh, there it is ...

We all fumble around for the right word, and once you get to a certain age, that fumbling often ends with, "Ah, another senior moment," and the secret worry that dementia is around the corner.

Researchers at Rice University in Houston have just discovered that there is a particular part of the brain that guides us when choosing words. On an MRI brain scan, the left temporal cortex and the LIGF, an area that encompasses Broca's area, which is known for speech production, light up when people are trying to choose between two words. The researchers were also able to pinpoint those two areas as the spots for word choice when testing subjects with brain damage.

Any research that informs us about language production is important because words are what make humans special.

No one knows when people began to speak, but anthropologists assume that talking came when we emerged as fully human, about 200,000 years ago. Of course, there was communication before that. All animals have ways to convey their feelings to others — dogs bark, birds sing, monkeys screech — but in most cases individuals are calling out their immediate situation. That communication is important because those calls can mean the difference between life and death.

But it gets interesting when animals have something else to say besides, "Help! That eagle is going to eat me." And it's not just humans who choose the right words.

Anthropologists have dragged recorded equipment into the field to figure out exactly what nonhuman primates say to each other. They recorded the animals in various social situations and then replayed the recordings to see the animals' reactions. It turns out that monkeys can identify calls from individual troop mates, that is, they "know" each others' voices, and they use this information selectively. And the grunts, calls, and screams of primates carry more information than the emotional reaction of fear or contentment. In other words, they have words, of a sort.

For example, rhesus monkey mothers can tell if their kids are really in trouble. When a juvenile is being attacked by a relative, it seems, they call out in a fake-y way and mothers ignore them. But if the kid is being attacked by a non-relative, someone who really might hurt them, the mother goes running. And the kid does this using "words" alone.

The words we primates choose are especially important in social interactions.

Anthropologist John Mitani of the University of Michigan analyzed the shape of the male chimpanzee's classic "pant-hoot," a call that starts out with a low "huh, huh, huh" and then builds to a scream. He compared this call from two sites in Tanzania and found that males modulate their voices to sound like each other, much as we take account of the accent of another country or culture when we move around. Sounding like each other, Mitani thinks, is important to male chimps because they are tightly bonded. Males hang out together, patrol the borders of a territory together and hunt together.

We don't know why exactly humans developed their word play beyond grunts and screams. But in doing so, we gained the ability to talk about more than predators and more than each other.

Unlike other primates, we can choose the right words to describe a dream, or talk about our goals. We can tell a story, or write a column, if only we can find the right words.

That's right. You usually hear people saying that we developed communication to build a better community (which is true to a certain extent), but that is not the main reason. We could already do that before. The real benefit came in being able to communicate to oneself, which until then was impossible.

[BaalChatzaf]

That's right. You usually hear people saying that we developed communication to build a better community (which is true to a certain extent), but that is not the main reason. We could already do that before. The real benefit came in being able to communicate to oneself, which until then was impossible.

Efficient communication between people made for better food gathering (especially hunting). This promoted survival. The groups of hominids with good communication skills had a survival advantage. Being able to talk to one's self, is most likely a side effect of the characteristic selected by nature.

William H. Calvin in is book -The Throwing Madonna- attributes our facility in speech to our ability to sequence our fine control body movement such as those required for throwing missiles accurately. Speech facility uses the same brain circuits (in the temporal lobe) as required for accurate throwing, so our ability to articulate speech might be a side effect of an ability that was promoted by Natural Selection.

Nature does not care if you are smart. It cares if you live long enough to reproduce your kind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Nature does not care if you are smart. It cares if you live long enough to reproduce your kind.

True. This is why the dinosaurs didn't go to the moon--leaving behind artifacts--or build great cities, the remnants we could still see.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Nature can make value judgments?

Dayaamm!

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Nature can make value judgments?

Dayaamm!

Michael

An anthropomorphic way of saying reproductive success is the characteristic which determines which genes go to the next generation. Those characteristics of individuals which contribute to their reproductive success are the ones that count. Anything else is irrelevant with regard to evolution.

Intelligence matters only insofar is it contributes to reproductive fitness.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

Not so fast.

I don't speak for Julian and I only see an insinuation, but I believe his premise is that self-awareness is more than a random byproduct of the God Nature.

It's a top-down thing, except human beings get to have a top, too. Not just the God Nature.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I speculate that the human brain partially evolved to its present-day status to give it an advantage against other monkeys and apes and then other human-like species. I don't think our unsuccessful human-like competitors simply died out, I think they were killed off. This is even reflected intra-species. Anglo-Europeans are killing off Africans by depriving them of DDT or intervention in Zimbabwe where stupid, power-driven Marxists are killing off their own subjects. Productivity isn't the only need for survival, so is warfare. Out-numbered and out-bred, Jews have a real problem. It's not even so much envy directed against them but that they are perceived as different, a tribe within a tribe--okay in the United States (now), but extremely difficult for Jews in Israel. Arab culture either enslaves or destroys others. Enslaves Africans; destroys Jews, who cannot, will not be enslaved. Without the geo-political patronage of the US Israel would literally have to conquer Gaza killing or deporting everyone and bulldozing the place in its entirety letting the West Bank know what was coming for them if they don't get real nice real fast. With the patronage the problem gets bigger and bigger without resolution so far. The mighty advantage Arab-Muslims have is not their religion, which gives them cohesion, but demographics. With such they are slowly taking over in Western Europe.

--Brant

[fight4thefuture]

Bob,

Not so fast.

I don't speak for Julian and I only see an insinuation, but I believe his premise is that self-awareness is more than a random byproduct of the God Nature.

It's a top-down thing, except human beings get to have a top, too. Not just the God Nature.

Michael

Correct, Michael. I know absolutely nothing about anthropology, but this struck me as a potential area for more science-minded egoists to investigate.

That's right. You usually hear people saying that we developed communication to build a better community (which is true to a certain extent), but that is not the main reason. We could already do that before. The real benefit came in being able to communicate to oneself, which until then was impossible.

Efficient communication between people made for better food gathering (especially hunting). This promoted survival. The groups of hominids with good communication skills had a survival advantage. Being able to talk to one's self, is most likely a side effect of the characteristic selected by nature.

William H. Calvin in is book -The Throwing Madonna- attributes our facility in speech to our ability to sequence our fine control body movement such as those required for throwing missiles accurately. Speech facility uses the same brain circuits (in the temporal lobe) as required for accurate throwing, so our ability to articulate speech might be a side effect of an ability that was promoted by Natural Selection.

Nature does not care if you are smart. It cares if you live long enough to reproduce your kind.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf, I think you are being too dismissive of self-awareness/communication. What you say may be true of animals, but I'd think it is much more important and vital to humans. It is not a mere byproduct to our nature; it is an essential component.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Julian

[kiaer.ts]

Bob is correct that the mental circuits which allow fine motor control of the hand were coopted to allow fine motor control of the mouth. Speech is a type of oral gesture.

Brant is correct that the development of a large brain was due to a runaway arms race. If a herbivore grows horns, its predator grows faster or stronger in response. For hominids with bigger brains, other hominids were both potential predator and prey. This is most strongly influential with neighboursw and close kin - not with othe species or tribes and nations at a distance. It is not the smart Englishman killing off the stupid Dodostanis, but rather smarter Englishman outbreeding their less smart English relatives.

Julian is correct that the ability to talk to oneself is both revolutionary and underappreciated. Language lets us talk to ourselves, otherwise known as thinking. Rand pointed this out when she argued that the purpose of language is not to communicate, per se, but to have something to communicate.

I recommend

Julian Jaynes The Origin of Consciousness

Jeff Hawkins On Intelligence

Merlin Donald Origins of the Modern Mind

[Brant Gaede]

Julian is correct that the ability to talk to oneself is both revolutionary and underappreciated. Language lets us talk to ourselves, otherwise known as thinking. Rand pointed this out when she argued that the purpose of language is not to communicate, per se, but to have something to communicate.

Gee, when you say something wonderfull about Rand like this, you need to reference it.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

Ba'al Chatzaf, I think you are being too dismissive of self-awareness/communication. What you say may be true of animals, but I'd think it is much more important and vital to humans. It is not a mere byproduct to our nature; it is an essential component.

Can you show that self awareness increases reproductive success? That is the bottom line.

Bacteria are the most reproductively successful organisms on earth and they have little or no self-awareness. After them come the insects which have no self awareness. From a reproductive standpoint (which is the only one that matters for evolution) self-awareness is highly overrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

It isn't so much that humans have been superior in reproductive success - it's more that we have decreased our mortality and this has been possible because of our knowledge of our environments. This knowledge is in the structure of our language and passed from one generation to the next (science) and this is the main survival value for humans, as opposed to animals who are at the mercy of their environments.

[BaalChatzaf]

It isn't so much that humans have been superior in reproductive success - it's more that we have decreased our mortality and this has been possible because of our knowledge of our environments. This knowledge is in the structure of our language and passed from one generation to the next (science) and this is the main survival value for humans, as opposed to animals who are at the mercy of their environments.

Decreasing mortality, especially early mortality is a step toward reproductive success. In order to reproduce one must live long enough to have the opportunity to reproduce. So decreasing childhood mortality is a step in that direction. Increasing life span beyond the reproductive years has relatively little effect on the evolutionary development of the species. There might be some indirect benefits however. Older folks with the wits can invent stuff that keep younger folks alive. So there is an indirect effect, or there could be.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Julian is correct that the ability to talk to oneself is both revolutionary and underappreciated. Language lets us talk to ourselves, otherwise known as thinking. Rand pointed this out when she argued that the purpose of language is not to communicate, per se, but to have something to communicate.

Gee, when you say something wonderfull about Rand like this, you need to reference it.

--Brant

My guess would be ItOE, but I have no idea. I understand, I don't memorize.

[bmacwilliam]

Nature can make value judgments?

Dayaamm!

Michael

Those characteristics of individuals which contribute to their reproductive success are the ones that count. Anything else is irrelevant with regard to evolution.

Not quite.

Reproductive success of one's genes, not necessarily of oneself.

This is NOT the same thing. It may seem like a subtle difference on the surface, but it's not. Often this mistaken position is the basis of much confusion over evolutionary concepts. The distinction is very important and has surprisingly profound implications on behaviour.

[Brant Gaede]

Julian is correct that the ability to talk to oneself is both revolutionary and underappreciated. Language lets us talk to ourselves, otherwise known as thinking. Rand pointed this out when she argued that the purpose of language is not to communicate, per se, but to have something to communicate.

Gee, when you say something wonderfull about Rand like this, you need to reference it.

--Brant

My guess would be ItOE, but I have no idea. I understand, I don't memorize.

One out of two isn't bad.

--Brant

doesn't memorize either

[fight4thefuture]

Reproductive success of one's genes, not necessarily of oneself.

This is NOT the same thing. It may seem like a subtle difference on the surface, but it's not. Often this mistaken position is the basis of much confusion over evolutionary concepts. The distinction is very important and has surprisingly profound implications on behaviour.

Good point. I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, the famed evolutionary biologist, and in Chapter 6 (pgs. 248-9) he says, "The whole idea of the selfish gene, with the stress properly applied to the last word, is that the unit of natural selection (i.e. the unit of self-interest) is not the selfish organism, nor the selfish group or selfish species or selfish ecosystem, but the selfish gene. It is the gene that, in the form of information, either survives for many generations or does not. Unlike the gene (and arguably the meme), the organism, the group and the species are not the right kind of entity to serve as a unit in this sense, because they do not make exact copies of themselves, and do not compete in a pool of such self-replicating entities."

Ba'al Chatzaf, I think you are being too dismissive of self-awareness/communication. What you say may be true of animals, but I'd think it is much more important and vital to humans. It is not a mere byproduct to our nature; it is an essential component.

Can you show that self awareness increases reproductive success? That is the bottom line.

Bacteria are the most reproductively successful organisms on earth and they have little or no self-awareness. After them come the insects which have no self awareness. From a reproductive standpoint (which is the only one that matters for evolution) self-awareness is highly overrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to that standard bacteria would be a more advanced species than humans.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Julian

[Dragonfly]

Bacteria are the most reproductively successful organisms on earth and they have little or no self-awareness. After them come the insects which have no self awareness. From a reproductive standpoint (which is the only one that matters for evolution) self-awareness is highly overrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to that standard, bacteria would be a more advanced species than humans.

"Advanced" is not the same as "succesful".

Considering all living beings, self-awareness is certainly not a decisive factor for success, as the examples of bacteria, worms and insects show. However, in a narrower context it may be an important factor, as we're certainly doing better than many if not most of our closer relatives among the vertebrates. But we shouldn't judge too quickly, after all those dinosaurs that are often thought of as a failure managed to survive a thousand times longer than the human species did so far, so the jury still has a long wait ahead before we can claim our superiority in surviving.

[fight4thefuture]

Bacteria are the most reproductively successful organisms on earth and they have little or no self-awareness. After them come the insects which have no self awareness. From a reproductive standpoint (which is the only one that matters for evolution) self-awareness is highly overrated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

According to that standard, bacteria would be a more advanced species than humans.

"Advanced" is not the same as "succesful".

Considering all living beings, self-awareness is certainly not a decisive factor for success, as the examples of bacteria, worms and insects show. However, in a narrower context it may be an important factor, as we're certainly doing better than many if not most of our closer relatives among the vertebrates. But we shouldn't judge too quickly, after all those dinosaurs that are often thought of as a failure managed to survive a thousand times longer than the human species did so far, so the jury still has a long wait ahead before we can claim our superiority in surviving.

No, but they are directly proportional. The more advanced something is the more successful it will be.

Edited January 7, 2009 by Julian

[Dragonfly]

No, but they are directly proportional. The more advanced something is the more successful it will be.

Certainly not. Being more advanced often means also being more vulnerable. Bacteria that lived billions of years ago survived large numbers of far more advanced species. Cockroaches will probably survive us.

[fight4thefuture]

No, but they are directly proportional. The more advanced something is the more successful it will be.

Certainly not. Being more advanced often means also being more vulnerable. Bacteria that lived billions of years ago survived large numbers of far more advanced species. Cockroaches will probably survive us.

How does it mean being more vulnerable? Advanced means improved. Something that is improved is less vulnerable, not more vulnerable. And I refuse to believe that a cockroach is more successful than me.

[kiaer.ts]

Advanced, improved, and vulnerable are all contextual. In biology, success means nothing more than reproductive success. Cockroaches have been around for 300,000,000 years, modern humans for 75,000. By biological criteria, cockroaches are quite successful, and humans have a few hundred million years to go to beat them.

Surely it is not unfamiliar to you that words often have different meanings in different contexts. Success in a human life means a bit more than hatching a lot of baby cockroaches under the fridge. It is silly to insist on one use of the word s-u-c-c-e-s-s. Biologists define that word in their context one way, and humans use the same word to mean a different concept in their own lives.

The same goes for "advanced." In biology an advanced feature is a derived feature later in time. "Primitive" birds have wings designed for flight but the penguin shows an "advanced" state where the wing has become a flipper. Regardless as to whether you consider a flipper an improvement over a wing, in biology, the word is used with that meaning.

There is little point in saying that you refuse to use a word in the way a biologist does. each of you has a different context. Each of you could simply make up a new word. What is important is the definition of the underlying concept. Each of you is using a different concept. there is little point in fighting over the mere word, the mere sequence of sounds, which is only the arbitrary name of the concept. If you are interested in these concepts in biology I recommend the popular works of Stephen J gould and the more ntechnical works of Ernst Mayr both of whom you will find in a large Borders or Barnes and Noble.

[Selene]

Yep.

That is why we define our terms in debate methodology, so as not to waste time and effort arguing about a word with two different conceptual frameworks or foundations.

Adam