Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
We are becoming increasingly aware that we are not the only intelligent life
-
06-08-2010 3:50pm#1
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
I've been beaten in many games of chess by inferior humans (okay, my brothers
) but then I haven't yet found a reason to turn my >cough< considerable intellect on a board game. I'd rather spend my brainpower on something I find interesting, fulfilling, or useful.
Just what proportion of humans spend their time willingly studying and enjoying it?
(my older brothers played chess competitively and took it verrry seriously
) 0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 59144
Yes an interesting one that. Now the hand axe technology that lasted that long wasn't "us" as such. It was Homo Erectus(though I would personally put them closer to us than some. Hobby horse of mineJuliusCaesar wrote: »Thought the early humans nearly died out? What caused us to stand out? Because our inventiveness was a long time coming wasn't it? Stone axes of same design for thousands of years? Genuinely curious, interested in the whole evolution thing but not knowledgeable.
). A fascinating bugger they were. The first humans to get the old wanderlust and spread out worldwide from Africa.
Interesting aside on wanderlust. ADHD. A gene(DRD?) associated with the condition is found more and more the further you get away from African populations(though present in that population). People with this mutation are more likely to exhibit risky behaviour, restlessness and novelty seeking(eh look where I'm explaining this. Coals to bloody newcastle). In the modern world a right pain in the arse in many, but one very handy mutation for early exploratory humans. In this case us, Homo Sapiens, as the gene appears to show up around 50,000 years ago around the time of when our expansion really kicked off. What drove the earlier Erectus is up for grabs, but they had equally itchy feet. The ones closest to us the Neanderthals didnt seem to be nearly as twitchy. Very staid and settled. So the next time the disruptive kid with ADHD irritates, just bear in mind he may be an example of one of the triggers that made us "human".
There were a couple of bottlenecks where we nearly died out. Funny enough it was fully modern humans who nearly faded out, even with their new tech. It was down to a few factors, mostly climactic and situational. We had yet to get the wanderlust so were isolated anyway. An island species and they're not very robust when it comes to change.
When Neanderthals came along they brought to bear a lot more innovation in tool use and design. They also brought a more complex culture. They buried their dead which was a first for hominids, they wore jewelry and body paint(they may even have had music). For many years it was assumed this body adornment had been copied from the new kids on the block, us. But when a few researchers started to look at the dates this made no sense. They were many 1000's of years before Sapiens showed up in Europe. Indeed Homo Sapiens while showing some cultural use of ochre and other pigments, didnt really kick off in a big way until after the time they and Neanderthals had contact. So it may well be that we copied them. Obviously we took it much further and in so many novel ways, but its at least possible they were a catalyst. The new research into the DNA shows that modern humans in Europe and Asia have up to 4% of their DNA shared with Neanderthals. It may be more. Its early days yet so that cross fertilisation may have changed us more than we know. True heavy duty art and culture shows up in us after the posited meeting point. Neanderthals may have died out as a species, but the echo remains in us and it may well have been a tuneful echo.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Yep like dogs. Dogs are one of the most common placental mammals on the planet. Yet their wolf brothers(the same species) are dying out all over the place. Interesting studies have shown that humans, even non dog lovers are very very good at picking up emotional cues from the vocalisations dogs make. Equally dogs are very good experimentally at picking up moods of humans. Wolves make fewer vocalisations in the wild. Well fewer audible ones. Interestingly people who have worked with wolves in the wild have regularly noted that after a while of even distant human contact wolves start to vocalise more. Much more in the case of wolves in captivity. They seem to realise we're deaf as posts compared to them so shout louderseensensee wrote: »Take cats for example, they have a canny ability to gain shelter in a centrally heated house, get fed on a regular basis and have their illnesses attended to at the veterinary clinic. they are doing well better than some humans.;). The act of petting a dog releases oxytocin in the human and the dog. Our closest ape rellies are not nearly so good at spotting these differences. EG apes dont understand the concept of pointing at things(neither do cats in general, but they're better than apes). Dogs do. well there are dogs called "pointers" so no expensive research required .
What makes this interesting is the interaction of two species minds in a cooperative way. Another interesting thing is we're the first humans to have dogs. Neanderthals didnt, nor any of the others. They may have been another trigger for us being different.Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
steddyeddy wrote: »These experiments also involved rearing newborn monkeys with surrogate mothers, ranging from toweling covered cones
I always remember a photograph of this that is in one of the main life-span development books - Santrock's Life-Span Development. A little infant monkey with its thumb in its mouth clinging to a wire mesh figure with soft toweling around it. It always made me sad.
edit: check this out, pretty impressive:
0 -
apes dont understand the concept of pointing at things(neither do cats in general, but they're better than apes). Dogs do. well there are dogs called "pointers" so no expensive research required.
I've never seen any research on when human babies start to understand pointing - I just remember trying to point out things of interest to my son when small, and falling around laughing as he'd just stare intently at my finger! Can't remember when he started to cop on.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Now that is fantastically interesting! It puts some perspective on calling it a "disorder".Interesting aside on wanderlust. ADHD. A gene(DRD?) associated with the condition is found more and more the further you get away from African populations(though present in that population). People with this mutation are more likely to exhibit risky behaviour, restlessness and novelty seeking(eh look where I'm explaining this. Coals to bloody newcastle).0 -
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
Yea it is fascinating how a disorder today could have been an advantage in the past. Other traits might be similar.
Contrary to popular belief, we have evolved more genetically in the last 40,000 than we have in our history. Obvious ones are adaptations to novel foods(lactose in milk, gluten in wheat). the brain and mind have also changed.
Genes associated with serotonin, glutamate and dopamine production have also changed, interestingly in the last 10,000 years. Possibly due to the invention of farming. In a hunter gatherer society, aggression is less an issue. People can just walk away and avoid each other. Not when you're stuck in one place. Plus farming communities are larger and more complex. So the brain/mind had to adapt to that. Our arousal levels had to be reduced. We had to talk through issues more etc.
Funny thing is you can see the exact same changes when you domesticate animals. Dogs a classic example. Wolves which are the same species have very different behaviours. For a start they mature. Dogs are neotenous. They're basically juvenile wolves. My mad theory is that ancient humans(the same species as us) were more similar to wolves and we're more similar to dogs. We've become more neotenous over time and in the last 20,000 odd thousand years. We've domesticated ourselves along with the dog and that domestication was more and more advantageous as we got into bigger and bigger social groups. You can even see that or argue for that in our bodies. Just like the wolf/dog. Wolves: More muscular, bigger stronger teeth, longer midface, bigger more robust skulls, bigger in general. Older(60,000 yrs say) homo sapiens: More muscular, bigger stronger teeth, bigger in the midface(much bigger in previous humans), bigger more robust skulls. Those traits in us have reduced bit by bit. My really mad theory is that women are among the biggest the drivers and facilitators of this domestication in men and humans.
As well as ADHD, other conditions traits we see as troublesome today, may also be genetic and behavioural throwbacks to our pre agricultural minds. Psychopaths or psychopathic behiviours may have been very useful in the past. Others may be because some may have the more "primitive" minds not good at dealing with the more complex emotional and social society.
EG Modern hunter gatherers show much lower levels of depression than westerners. Yet have more stressful lives in many ways. On the surface at least. I'd always considered that it was because of better community support, or a better diet higher in omega fatty acids, but maybe there's more to it? Maybe why more rates of depression are found in modern societies is down to the older genetic influence. A genetic make up that is more suited to the pre agricultural society? It might explain why the genes have survived(I gather something like 1 in 4 may suffer or be susceptible to this).
If this is true this might also open up treatment ideas or explain why and how current ones work. Maybe the alternative health types have a point re diet. Hunter gatherers have a much more varied diet than farmers, they also have a different ratio of omega 3 to omega 6. The people with the more modern makeup who dont suffer may simply metabolise the modern diet better? Its interesting to think about anyway, even if it turns out to be all hooey Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,217 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Join Date:Posts: 59144
In an increasing larger and settled society being less aggressive or impulsive would proffer a serious group advantage. Yu require more politicians than warriors. The physical changes I would contend come about as part of the domestication process. You see very similar changes in most domesticated animals. Cattle, sheep, even cats though they show less changes than the dog.Wibbs what fitness advantage could being less aggressive or having less muscles / smaller midface/ less robust skulls have?
Not really no, I would contend that women tend to be the primary selectors of male traits. In general they have a wider range of traits they select for when compared to men. Pick 3 sex symbols, male and female. More women will go "ick, no doesnt do it for me" than the men will. Though Johnny Depp seems to buck that trend. The bastard.When you say that women are the drivers in this are you talking about random mutation in the female brain resulting in certain sexual selection of random traits? This is advantageous in case the environment changes.
But mainly I was considering women as the social brakes on young mens excesses. While young men will often act up to impress young women, more often than not when the young women tut tut at this behaviour it reduces those acts. Yes the impulsive mad bastard type will still attract some women, the more considered person gets more. Depending on the environment of course. You see this reflected in cliches about men and women. "Women mature faster" "Men never grow up". A single man in a group of men will have less pressure to "settle down" the same man will have more of his women friends and his male friends partners seeking to set him up. It's almost like he's a loose cannon on deck.
Meh Im rambling here(no shock). Long day. Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.
0 -
Genes associated with serotonin, glutamate and dopamine production have also changed, interestingly in the last 10,000 years. Possibly due to the invention of farming. In a hunter gatherer society, aggression is less an issue. People can just walk away and avoid each other.
I'm not sure about that. A clash of an agricultural/industrial armies may look impressive and have huge casualties (in terms of actual population), but even these casualties may be tiny as a % of the overall population. Hunter gatherer conflicts are obviously smaller and not as "sexy" as The Somme yet the impact is greater.
According to Steven Pinker, between 20% and 80% of modern male hunter gatherers will die a death due to violence. And I know that you will probably say that modern hunter gatherers are not the norm compared to those people 12000 years as today's hunter gatherers live in the unappetising fringe of the modern world, pushed to boundary by farmers. Yet again and again, archaeologists find graves of prehistoric people with smashed skulls.
And to be honest, alot of people would wish there to be an Eden where we weren't that violent in our "natural state" because they see things that they don't like in the modern world and wish it were better. Like, how many reports over the years have their been of these discovered tribes who have no word for "war" and live peacefully, when it has turned out to be false or deliberately faked?
Not when you're stuck in one place. Plus farming communities are larger and more complex. So the brain/mind had to adapt to that. Our arousal levels had to be reduced. We had to talk through issues more etc.
I'd disagree with this. In my opinion, the state (and states always arise in the presence of agriculture) monopolises the violence. Violence is in the control of the state and is meted out appropriately, like an accountant balancing the books. The price of not being killed by your enemy is not being able to kill your enemy.:pac:
Funny thing is you can see the exact same changes when you domesticate animals. Dogs a classic example. Wolves which are the same species have very different behaviours. For a start they mature. Dogs are neotenous. They're basically juvenile wolves. My mad theory is that ancient humans(the same species as us) were more similar to wolves and we're more similar to dogs. We've become more neotenous over time and in the last 20,000 odd thousand years. We've domesticated ourselves along with the dog and that domestication was more and more advantageous as we got into bigger and bigger social groups. You can even see that or argue for that in our bodies. Just like the wolf/dog. Wolves: More muscular, bigger stronger teeth, longer midface, bigger more robust skulls, bigger in general. Older(60,000 yrs say) homo sapiens: More muscular, bigger stronger teeth, bigger in the midface(much bigger in previous humans), bigger more robust skulls. Those traits in us have reduced bit by bit. My really mad theory is that women are among the biggest the drivers and facilitators of this domestication in men and humans.
As well as ADHD, other conditions traits we see as troublesome today, may also be genetic and behavioural throwbacks to our pre agricultural minds. Psychopaths or psychopathic behiviours may have been very useful in the past. Others may be because some may have the more "primitive" minds not good at dealing with the more complex emotional and social society.
I'd agree with that. Especially the domesticating ourselves part. You eventually become the loyal floppy eared "pet" to the tribe and later to the state.:pac:
EG Modern hunter gatherers show much lower levels of depression than westerners. Yet have more stressful lives in many ways. On the surface at least. I'd always considered that it was because of better community support, or a better diet higher in omega fatty acids, but maybe there's more to it? Maybe why more rates of depression are found in modern societies is down to the older genetic influence. A genetic make up that is more suited to the pre agricultural society? It might explain why the genes have survived(I gather something like 1 in 4 may suffer or be susceptible to this).
If this is true this might also open up treatment ideas or explain why and how current ones work. Maybe the alternative health types have a point re diet. Hunter gatherers have a much more varied diet than farmers, they also have a different ratio of omega 3 to omega 6. The people with the more modern makeup who dont suffer may simply metabolise the modern diet better? Its interesting to think about anyway, even if it turns out to be all hooey
Yeah, it would be interesting to see how people who follow the so called "paleolithic" diet fair compared to modern post industrial diet in terms of depression and general mental health. I've seen people reporting positively in terms of physical health, such as having more energy, but haven't seen anything about mental health as regards the paleolithic diet.0 -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJAH4ZJBiN8
Advertisement