A response to David Wong

[petrichor_fizz]

 Hi - I wrote a blog post in response to David Wong's 'Monkeysphere' article in Cracked (which is rather old now). I thought it might be of interest to someone here, and of course I'm open to input and/or criticism of my argument (although, as I point out in the post, I'm very much not an expert, just an interested amateur).

Comments

[caerbannogbunny]

Okay, some issues with your response...

But, first, some suggested articles:

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Hurtado, A. M., & Lancaster, J. (2001). The embodied capital theory of human evolution. Reproductive ecology and human evolution (pp. 293-317). Hawthorne, New York: Aldine De Gruyter.

Kaplan, H., Hill, K., Lancaster, J., & Hurtado, A. M. (2000). A Theory of Human Life History Evolution: Diet, Intelligence, and Longevity. Evolutionary Anthropology, 9(4), 156-185.

(Explains some of the caloric production/intake regarding gender in hunter-gatherer tribes.)

Additionally, google and read up on the recent work on "Parochial Altruism".

What an evolutionary evolved adaptation does is improve the relative efficiency of the organism compared to others of its species or possibly give it some trait that has an advantage. When you talk about the "monkeysphere" concept, there's a correlation between the neocortex size (the part of the brain that's the newest, and most complex) and the number of people an individual typically can and will interact on an individual basis. Because this interaction depends on both remembering and factoring in individual actions/traits/desires for all parties involved, you really shouldn't be shocked there is a limit there somewhere.

So, what happens if you exceed your limit?

You dump non-relevant people. Personally, I no longer care what my psychotic ex-girlfriend's mother thinks of me. Not relevant at all and I just don't care.

You also start using stereotypes. This can be good--if I have a well-informed and mostly correct stereotype--or bad--if the stereotype differs significantly from reality. If it's a good stereotype, I treat police officers with a general level of respect, expect them to be professionally paranoid, and I use friendly, associative terms with them. The result is I have rarely ever had any bad interactions with them. I don't give a care whether most of them plow into a semi after I've left the area, but I extend the stereotype and it's useful to me.

Religion--with its influence on human behavior--is a great source of stereotypes. Especially so when there are associated symbols or locations involved. This simplifies the stereotyping process.

You can also just not deal with people directly, which is where capitalism comes in. Recent studies using an oxytocin inhaler (a hormone associated with pro-social, pro-intimacy behaviors) revealed that humans handle human-computer and human-(inferred)human interactions differently. We behave more rationally/logically with a computer but react emotionally and take into account the other person's feelings even if they are not present.

By using a fixed exchange rate or institution without individual personal investment, we remove the need to factor in other peoples' actions/traits/desires from the problem. By doing so, we can reduce our own stress levels, need to apply stereotypes, parochialism, inter-personal biases, and a lot of other things that are "people-only".

So, historically, what happened with the shift from hunter-gatherer to agriculture? Less human-human face-to-face interaction. More barter, more hierarchical or representative interactions, and more indirect interactions plus the origins of religions...

[petrichor_fizz]

Thank you, I really appreciate the thoughtfulness and thoroughness of your comment. Thanks for the suggestions.

[caerbannogbunny]

I'm an undergrad almost done with a BS in Psych and minors in Biological Sciences, Anthropology, and Sociocultural Anthropology and planning on graduate school in (I hope) evolutionary anthropology.

In many cases, I think most people have difficulty with complexity issues for three reasons: 1) The simplistic way many have been taught in order to lay groundwork for later coursework. 2) The idea that there is--often--only one right answer or one correct/best method or path. 3) They do not understand or are not taught most complex processes are that way because environment, development, the functioning mechanism, and other factors interact to produce the result we see.

I mean, by expecting simple answers--like we're taught in many courses--we ignore a lot.

That and we bring our biases to the table with us. *grin* I'm currently taking a Fossil Hominids course and sort of arguing with the instructor that a lot of the evolution in later Homo (erectus, heidelbergensis, sapiens) could be tied into female mate choice and deception. He's reluctant, but some features just scream "sexual selection" and there's recent genetic data that modern Y-chromosomes are--unlike most other mammals and even chimps--adding more genes and growing...

...something that hints at male-specific adaptations that primarily make sense only in a female-choice driven situation.

[petrichor_fizz]

I should probably admit that I'm a big fan of Elaine Morgan (although you probably gathered from the post), who is obviously a divisive figure, especially as (like me) she came from a humanities rather than a science background - obviously she also talks about looking at evolutionary anthropology from a female perspective. Of course, somebody who hasn't studied physical anthropology, or even biology, academically is at a disadvantage in many ways, but on the other hand being outside that circle CAN at least allow you to come at things from a different angle. I'm sure I (and Morgan) get a lot wrong, but there can be some value in viewing a subject with fresh eyes that haven't been steeped in the received wisdom of the established community. Of course it sounds as though you strike a good balance anyway, I guess I'm just trying to defend my ill-informed dabbling!

[caerbannogbunny]

A general biology/animal behavior/sociobiology background lends a lot to questioning certain biases. Especially when you look at things like the effects of sex on social behavior. One of my favorites though--and if you are a feminist interested in physical anthropology--is primate behavior. There is a lot of variation among primates--especially at the social and sexual levels--that make for interesting comparative and learning models to reduce bias.

(The number/proportion of major primatologists who are women is also of interest.)

In general though, I'm more interested in what's actually there in the system than trying to fulfill some expectation or assumed ideal.