Our Entire Species is Based on Lies!
July 2, 2004 2:07 PM Subscribe
Scientists speculate that the reason that we have such big brains is so we can lie effectively. Even our primate cousins fool each other so that they can sneak off for extra grub or enjoy a quick round of illicit monkey sex. Apparently, it all comes down to the neocortex.
Good link, Zimmer is great. Here's a previous post about an article he wrote on neuroethics.
posted by homunculus at 2:39 PM on July 2, 2004
posted by homunculus at 2:39 PM on July 2, 2004
I was just getting ready to sneak off for some illicit monkey sex. Cuz' my brain is feeling really big.
Um, I don't think that's your brain...
(What, no link to 'illict monkey sex'?) Quite an interesting article though.
posted by SenshiNeko at 2:41 PM on July 2, 2004
Um, I don't think that's your brain...
(What, no link to 'illict monkey sex'?) Quite an interesting article though.
posted by SenshiNeko at 2:41 PM on July 2, 2004
homunculus - muchas gracias for the pointer - I didn't know that that Zimmer had written so much good stuff!
posted by rks404 at 2:46 PM on July 2, 2004
posted by rks404 at 2:46 PM on July 2, 2004
"Check out the big brain on Brett!"
Dinna help him now did it? Maybe he should have spent more of his lyin' time having illicit monkey sex instead of trying to steal a case from Marcellus.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:16 PM on July 2, 2004
Dinna help him now did it? Maybe he should have spent more of his lyin' time having illicit monkey sex instead of trying to steal a case from Marcellus.
posted by WolfDaddy at 3:16 PM on July 2, 2004
Another theory, much more encompassing, is that we developed alrge braisn for both use of language and in order to develop into social anaimals, using that langujage--leading, eventually to groups or bands, able to work together with various tasks...lying would under this view be but a part of a larger evolutionary development.
If we evolved in order to lie, then the best liars would predominate...not sure this would help the species, unless the liars went into politics.
posted by Postroad at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2004
If we evolved in order to lie, then the best liars would predominate...not sure this would help the species, unless the liars went into politics.
posted by Postroad at 3:37 PM on July 2, 2004
it all comes down to the neocortex.
Which explains the proclivity for lying among neoconservatives. (And neoliberals, too...)
(surprised you didn't get to this first, Postroad...)
posted by wendell at 3:46 PM on July 2, 2004
Which explains the proclivity for lying among neoconservatives. (And neoliberals, too...)
(surprised you didn't get to this first, Postroad...)
posted by wendell at 3:46 PM on July 2, 2004
More precisely, I think they're saying the evolution of self-awareness is driven by this, not just "intelligence" in general. That is, to be introspective and draw analogies and think of how convinced you would be by the lie in their shoes. Which brings you closer to the whole "I-thou" recognition that you're really the same sort of thing as the other monkeys.
This is a good idea, but enhanced communication in general is another effect of this development, which as we've seen in the end made for an even better survival skill than just deception.
posted by abcde at 4:05 PM on July 2, 2004
This is a good idea, but enhanced communication in general is another effect of this development, which as we've seen in the end made for an even better survival skill than just deception.
posted by abcde at 4:05 PM on July 2, 2004
More other-awareness than self-awareness, I think, abcde. Lying requires you to be able to construct a mental model of the thoughts of the person you are lying to. I think a purely self-aware, but not other-aware, creature wouldn't be able to lie as such, because it wouldn't be aware of the difference between what it knows and what others know.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:47 PM on July 2, 2004
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:47 PM on July 2, 2004
Bah. Another theory about big brains?
I can come up with those by the ton, no problem.
A couple of examples:
1. Humans are the only species to travel on two legs, without having a tail to balance with.
As anyone who has tried to balance a broomstick knows, it's easier to balance an upright object if much of its weight is at the top end - hence the disproportionally large head and heavy shoulders of humans.
2. Detecting the direction of sound is important to animals.
Most animals facilitate this with movable ears. Humans, lacking the means to effectively alter the directional sensitivity of our ears, need another means of improving direction detection.
Improved directional sensitivity can be achieved by placing a large, dense body between the ears - brains, in other words. This theory is strengthened by the fact that other animals without movable external ears (dolphins, whales, elephants) also have disproportional large brains. (Yes, I know elephants can move their ears - but they do so to cool their bodies, not to determine the direction of sounds.)
Complete bunk, of course, but no less valid than the baseless assumption that our brains evolved so that we may lie better.
In fact, most liars I have met are sloped-forehead simians who, unable to grasp reality, lie as much to themselves as to others.
posted by spazzm at 7:14 PM on July 2, 2004
I can come up with those by the ton, no problem.
A couple of examples:
1. Humans are the only species to travel on two legs, without having a tail to balance with.
As anyone who has tried to balance a broomstick knows, it's easier to balance an upright object if much of its weight is at the top end - hence the disproportionally large head and heavy shoulders of humans.
2. Detecting the direction of sound is important to animals.
Most animals facilitate this with movable ears. Humans, lacking the means to effectively alter the directional sensitivity of our ears, need another means of improving direction detection.
Improved directional sensitivity can be achieved by placing a large, dense body between the ears - brains, in other words. This theory is strengthened by the fact that other animals without movable external ears (dolphins, whales, elephants) also have disproportional large brains. (Yes, I know elephants can move their ears - but they do so to cool their bodies, not to determine the direction of sounds.)
Complete bunk, of course, but no less valid than the baseless assumption that our brains evolved so that we may lie better.
In fact, most liars I have met are sloped-forehead simians who, unable to grasp reality, lie as much to themselves as to others.
posted by spazzm at 7:14 PM on July 2, 2004
I think the whole thing stems from a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is. We didn't evolve brains in order to do anyting - evolution has no purpose or goal, evolution is a brute-force problem-solving algorithm.
posted by spazzm at 7:17 PM on July 2, 2004
posted by spazzm at 7:17 PM on July 2, 2004
"If we evolved in order to lie, then the best liars would predominate...not sure this would help the species, unless the liars went into politics."
Well, looking at politics today everywhere around the world, in every nation, I'd say that your interpretation makes a hell of a lot of sense, eh what? Looks like the best liars are predominating from where I sit.
Postroad, I'd say you've nailed it.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:03 PM on July 2, 2004
Well, looking at politics today everywhere around the world, in every nation, I'd say that your interpretation makes a hell of a lot of sense, eh what? Looks like the best liars are predominating from where I sit.
Postroad, I'd say you've nailed it.
posted by zoogleplex at 10:03 PM on July 2, 2004
I think the "big brain strategy" came from an initial, random mutation that enabled (among other things) greater social and linguistic complexity....
- and then things went downhill from there.
posted by troutfishing at 7:11 AM on July 3, 2004
- and then things went downhill from there.
posted by troutfishing at 7:11 AM on July 3, 2004
spazzm - Although it is correct to say that evolution has no goals or purposes, it does have an end result - the duplication of genes which are better suited for the current environment.
I don't think it is too hard to imagine that in a small hunter-gatherer group, a smarter individual that has a better "social intelligence" would be more likely to control social interactions so that they have better access to food or they have better access to mates. This would allow the brainy individual to pass on their brainy genes to mates.
It is a theory - and the link that I posted is just the write-up for the laymen. According to the article, there's a full paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London which I'm sure has more detail.
You also might want to look at the linked article in New Scientist
I also found the line "I think the whole thing stems from a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is" to be a little funny. These are neuroscientists studying the evolution of the brain, I'm pretty sure they've got a good understanding of "what evolution is"!
posted by rks404 at 8:42 AM on July 3, 2004
I don't think it is too hard to imagine that in a small hunter-gatherer group, a smarter individual that has a better "social intelligence" would be more likely to control social interactions so that they have better access to food or they have better access to mates. This would allow the brainy individual to pass on their brainy genes to mates.
It is a theory - and the link that I posted is just the write-up for the laymen. According to the article, there's a full paper in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London which I'm sure has more detail.
You also might want to look at the linked article in New Scientist
I also found the line "I think the whole thing stems from a complete misunderstanding of what evolution is" to be a little funny. These are neuroscientists studying the evolution of the brain, I'm pretty sure they've got a good understanding of "what evolution is"!
posted by rks404 at 8:42 AM on July 3, 2004
"pass on their brainy genes to mates."
whoops! strike out "mates" and replace it with "offspring."
posted by rks404 at 8:58 AM on July 3, 2004
whoops! strike out "mates" and replace it with "offspring."
posted by rks404 at 8:58 AM on July 3, 2004
There's another side to this coin that hasn't been explored yet; namely, that one needs a large brain and a sharp mind to figure out if people are lying to you. Once you introduce that into the equation, then you have a complete positive feedback loop - an arms race between liars and skeptics, where each hominid is both, and each innovation on one side allows for further development on the other.
Social cooperation, in and of itself, is not sufficient to explain the change. After all, ants and bees live in societies and communicate amongst themselves in order to coordinate mutually beneficial activity, yet individual ants and bees are not smart. If you think about what occupies our daily thoughts the most (in my completely anecdotal understanding), it's not our jobs, or the stars, or the nature of the universe. It's other people - what they're thinking, what they're hiding from us, how to get what we want out of them, and so on. We wonder where our boyfriends were last night, we think up better pick-up lines, we worry about whether our bosses noticed us playing that flash game just now, we gossip about our friends when they're not around. Something as simple as keeping one's feelings to oneself - the most basic element of deceit - is also the kernel of impulse control, a crucial human social skill.
I think deceit leads to skepticism, which leads to examining the world empirically in order to evaluate the claims of others, which leads to abstract reasoning, which leads to a refinement of language, which leads to more skillful deceit. And so it goes. High intelligence and language skills are just fringe benefits of this arms race.
posted by skoosh at 9:12 AM on July 3, 2004
Social cooperation, in and of itself, is not sufficient to explain the change. After all, ants and bees live in societies and communicate amongst themselves in order to coordinate mutually beneficial activity, yet individual ants and bees are not smart. If you think about what occupies our daily thoughts the most (in my completely anecdotal understanding), it's not our jobs, or the stars, or the nature of the universe. It's other people - what they're thinking, what they're hiding from us, how to get what we want out of them, and so on. We wonder where our boyfriends were last night, we think up better pick-up lines, we worry about whether our bosses noticed us playing that flash game just now, we gossip about our friends when they're not around. Something as simple as keeping one's feelings to oneself - the most basic element of deceit - is also the kernel of impulse control, a crucial human social skill.
I think deceit leads to skepticism, which leads to examining the world empirically in order to evaluate the claims of others, which leads to abstract reasoning, which leads to a refinement of language, which leads to more skillful deceit. And so it goes. High intelligence and language skills are just fringe benefits of this arms race.
posted by skoosh at 9:12 AM on July 3, 2004
These are neuroscientists studying the evolution of the brain, I'm pretty sure they've got a good understanding of "what evolution is"!
Textbook = infallible
posted by Satapher at 9:38 AM on July 3, 2004
Textbook = infallible
posted by Satapher at 9:38 AM on July 3, 2004
I think the "big brain strategy" came from an initial, random mutation that enabled (among other things) greater social and linguistic complexity....
see also William S Burroughs' : The Job
posted by Satapher at 9:42 AM on July 3, 2004
see also William S Burroughs' : The Job
posted by Satapher at 9:42 AM on July 3, 2004
"These are neuroscientists studying the evolution of the brain, I'm pretty sure they've got a good understanding of "what evolution is"!"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that article was not written by a scientist - it was written by a science journalist.
Two very different things. Not that scientists are infallible eithter, of course.
posted by spazzm at 11:07 AM on July 3, 2004
Correct me if I'm wrong, but that article was not written by a scientist - it was written by a science journalist.
Two very different things. Not that scientists are infallible eithter, of course.
posted by spazzm at 11:07 AM on July 3, 2004
Taking a purely Darwinian approach, if you needed a big brain, first you would need it just to survive.
One of the biggest discriminators against people in the wild is starvation--something that kills usually before they could reproduce. So the First Order of Business (FOB) of having a big brain is food.
And while even primitive creatures use raw numbers to insure survival, offspring *quality* is far better for larger species--they just can't crank out a thousand kids, so the ones they do make have to be good. So how do you insure that your offspring are *quality*? Training. They have to learn, so you have to teach.
The next step could be any or all of what could be called "negative" personality traits. Things such as greed, or the accumulation of more than you need; cowardice, the avoidance of risk; theft; and even combat or war. All of these push a person to be endlessly creative for survival.
There is a lot more driving this, I'm sure.
posted by kablam at 11:35 AM on July 3, 2004
One of the biggest discriminators against people in the wild is starvation--something that kills usually before they could reproduce. So the First Order of Business (FOB) of having a big brain is food.
And while even primitive creatures use raw numbers to insure survival, offspring *quality* is far better for larger species--they just can't crank out a thousand kids, so the ones they do make have to be good. So how do you insure that your offspring are *quality*? Training. They have to learn, so you have to teach.
The next step could be any or all of what could be called "negative" personality traits. Things such as greed, or the accumulation of more than you need; cowardice, the avoidance of risk; theft; and even combat or war. All of these push a person to be endlessly creative for survival.
There is a lot more driving this, I'm sure.
posted by kablam at 11:35 AM on July 3, 2004
Hmm, not saying that scientists are infallible. That is certainly why the original paper is referenced. If you can spot a fundamental error in the theory or the research, you should seriously document it and send it up for review. You might be able to make a career for yourself.
Yes, this write-up is done by a journalist as opposed to the original scientists but it doesn't appear that there are any major distortions and it jives with other things that I've read in the field. Once again, if you see something way off kilter, you ought to seriously catalog it.
The nice thing about the scientific process is that it is amenable to correction.
posted by rks404 at 11:38 AM on July 3, 2004
Yes, this write-up is done by a journalist as opposed to the original scientists but it doesn't appear that there are any major distortions and it jives with other things that I've read in the field. Once again, if you see something way off kilter, you ought to seriously catalog it.
The nice thing about the scientific process is that it is amenable to correction.
posted by rks404 at 11:38 AM on July 3, 2004
Damn those scientists, They're so, so....reasonable!
They should work for large corporations. Then, they'd have to be secretive - for monetary reasons - and so our march towards the Singularity would be retarded a little.
posted by troutfishing at 8:34 PM on July 3, 2004
They should work for large corporations. Then, they'd have to be secretive - for monetary reasons - and so our march towards the Singularity would be retarded a little.
posted by troutfishing at 8:34 PM on July 3, 2004
"If you can spot a fundamental error in the theory or the research, you should seriously document it and send it up for review. You might be able to make a career for yourself."
Surprisingly, I already have a career which is similar to what you outline.
But thanks for the tip :)
What I intended to point out, is that it's a far cry from "our species is based on lies" to "brain size is correlated to the complexity level of social interactions, including but not limited to deception".
Also, the author of the linked article somehow turns this:
"I'm sure if we could have measured cooperative skill, we'd have found a similar result," says Byrne. "Cooperation and outwitting are not opposed - they're both about being socially subtle."
into this:
"Bigger brains mean more trickery. They were able to statistically rule out a number of other factors that might have created a link where none existed."
It looks like the proponent of the "deceitful=smart" theory is trying to, in a sense, deceive us.
posted by spazzm at 10:15 PM on July 3, 2004
Surprisingly, I already have a career which is similar to what you outline.
But thanks for the tip :)
What I intended to point out, is that it's a far cry from "our species is based on lies" to "brain size is correlated to the complexity level of social interactions, including but not limited to deception".
Also, the author of the linked article somehow turns this:
"I'm sure if we could have measured cooperative skill, we'd have found a similar result," says Byrne. "Cooperation and outwitting are not opposed - they're both about being socially subtle."
into this:
"Bigger brains mean more trickery. They were able to statistically rule out a number of other factors that might have created a link where none existed."
It looks like the proponent of the "deceitful=smart" theory is trying to, in a sense, deceive us.
posted by spazzm at 10:15 PM on July 3, 2004
Wow, I can't believe anyone's still reading this thread! Cheers to us for not hosting a flamewar!
"our species is based on lies" was just my attempt at a tongue-in-cheek, mock-sensationalistic headline. It was meant in the same vein as the term "illicit monkey sex" in my original write-up and was not meant as a precis on the original paper. I think it's a little unfair to criticize the popular science writeup or the fpp for being simplified versions of the final paper - simplification is inherent to the process here.
What I am objecting to are the two major points that I got out of your first two posts:
1) the brain size as a contributor to fitness idea is just a crock - we are just as likely to have developed a large brain as a ballast for our bipedal gait.
2) they (presumably the authors of the research) don't understand evolution.
In your later responses, you state "brain size is correlated to the complexity level of social interactions, including but not limited to deception" which is a statement that I can agree with.
Otherwise, I don't have access to the original paper and probably won't ever read it - so I'll just end my bloviating now and bid you "Good night!"
posted by rks404 at 12:06 AM on July 4, 2004
"our species is based on lies" was just my attempt at a tongue-in-cheek, mock-sensationalistic headline. It was meant in the same vein as the term "illicit monkey sex" in my original write-up and was not meant as a precis on the original paper. I think it's a little unfair to criticize the popular science writeup or the fpp for being simplified versions of the final paper - simplification is inherent to the process here.
What I am objecting to are the two major points that I got out of your first two posts:
1) the brain size as a contributor to fitness idea is just a crock - we are just as likely to have developed a large brain as a ballast for our bipedal gait.
2) they (presumably the authors of the research) don't understand evolution.
In your later responses, you state "brain size is correlated to the complexity level of social interactions, including but not limited to deception" which is a statement that I can agree with.
Otherwise, I don't have access to the original paper and probably won't ever read it - so I'll just end my bloviating now and bid you "Good night!"
posted by rks404 at 12:06 AM on July 4, 2004
I'm not critisizing this post - as a matter of fact I find it interesting and well written.
What I'm expressing concerns about is how (specifically) the research is presented in the linked article and (generally) how science can be distorted when popularized by laymen such as Zimmer.
"1) the brain size as a contributor to fitness idea is just a crock - we are just as likely to have developed a large brain as a ballast for our bipedal gait."
That was not what I meant, and I apologize for failing to express my meaning clearly enough.
What I meant is that the article's suggestion that deception as the single most important force behind brain development is not, as far as I can see, a notion that is supported by the original research. The NewScientist article (which is slightly less sensational) also clearly quotes the researcher as saying that deception is not the only factor.
Pointing to a correlation between brain size and deception, and concluding that the one must have caused the other is not much more valid than pointing to absence of movable outer ears or bipedal gait .
"2) they (presumably the authors of the research) don't understand evolution."
I'm confident that the researchers understand evolution, but I'm not sure the author of the linked article does.
I, too, will now cease bloviating. ;)
posted by spazzm at 2:02 AM on July 4, 2004
What I'm expressing concerns about is how (specifically) the research is presented in the linked article and (generally) how science can be distorted when popularized by laymen such as Zimmer.
"1) the brain size as a contributor to fitness idea is just a crock - we are just as likely to have developed a large brain as a ballast for our bipedal gait."
That was not what I meant, and I apologize for failing to express my meaning clearly enough.
What I meant is that the article's suggestion that deception as the single most important force behind brain development is not, as far as I can see, a notion that is supported by the original research. The NewScientist article (which is slightly less sensational) also clearly quotes the researcher as saying that deception is not the only factor.
Pointing to a correlation between brain size and deception, and concluding that the one must have caused the other is not much more valid than pointing to absence of movable outer ears or bipedal gait .
"2) they (presumably the authors of the research) don't understand evolution."
I'm confident that the researchers understand evolution, but I'm not sure the author of the linked article does.
I, too, will now cease bloviating. ;)
posted by spazzm at 2:02 AM on July 4, 2004
« Older Important to reach out to every single supporter | Gen Art Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 2:11 PM on July 2, 2004