Indeed, except that (based on research over the last 10-20 years) I would say you are understating the case. It’s not just that our successes are through being social. Humans seem to have such a unique ability for collaboration that the case is being made that this ability is the defining feature of humans, from which all other human traits flow. And it’s not just even that we are as apes — apes qualitatively lack the level of collaboration that humans demonstrate. Technically, they show dyadic and triadic interaction but not collaborative interaction. They seem to not have dialogic representation, ie the ability to understand a system involving the other from a “birds eye perspective”. It’s literally only humans that have this. Apes are competitive, not collaborative. Humans are collaborative first and foremost.
Thoughts on Libertarianism
- Thread starter Serene
- Start date
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It’s the bit in italics I’d personally step back from. Over the years it’s become clear to me that everything once claimed to be unique to humans has turned out not to be.
But the rest of what I’ve quoted, yes, precisely.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
I particularly like all the references to Franco, the Falange, Carlism, the CNT, the UGT, the FAI, Basque, Catalan and Galician nationalism, Guernica, Durrutti, the May Days in Barcelona, the International Brigade, Italian and German intervention, Stalin's interventions and all that stuff.
Possibly. The work of Tomasello is interesting, though. For example, if you ignore the spurious evolutionary just-so stories in the latter section of this 2005 paper and concentrate on his actual work with the apes:
Understanding and sharing intentions: the origins of cultural cognition - PubMed
We propose that the crucial difference between human cognition and that of other species is the ability to participate with others in collaborative activities with shared goals and intentions: shared intentionality. Participation in such activities requires not only especially powerful forms of...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I agree with the sentiment - supercooperators is one term I've seen used. I'm with Danny on being suspicious of claims of uniqueness, though. Other apes probably aren't the best comparison. Orcas would be better.
Yes and, closer to home, the likes of Tomasello conspicuously ignore the species that has spent the last 50,000 evolving towards rather than away from humans — dogs. If you focus on the cognitive map of the part being claimed as unique, however, it’s hard to object much to the claims being made
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I'll give that a read.
But there is a very long list of things once claimed as unique to humans, only to be found in other animals. You don't even need a big brain for some of them. Various claims once made about the uniqueness of human teaching are disproved by the pedagogical ability of bees! Teaching, tool use, morality, fairness, culture, trade, 'theory of mind', recognition of own mortality... it's a long list
I push against this stuff because the scientific study of other animals' minds was verboten for a long time after Skinner. And that was a very bad mistake.
But there is a very long list of things once claimed as unique to humans, only to be found in other animals. You don't even need a big brain for some of them. Various claims once made about the uniqueness of human teaching are disproved by the pedagogical ability of bees! Teaching, tool use, morality, fairness, culture, trade, 'theory of mind', recognition of own mortality... it's a long list
I push against this stuff because the scientific study of other animals' minds was verboten for a long time after Skinner. And that was a very bad mistake.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Ok so I don't have access to the full text, but the first sentence of the abstract already has me bristling a bit.
'We propose that the crucial difference between human cognition and that of other species is the ability to participate with others in collaborative activities with shared goals and intentions: shared intentionality.'
Orca don't do that?
The comparison with our closest genetic relatives doesn't actually prove anything with regards to a difference between human cognition and that of other species. It merely shows, perhaps, that we're the only ape that does it. There's more to animal intelligence than apes.
'We propose that the crucial difference between human cognition and that of other species is the ability to participate with others in collaborative activities with shared goals and intentions: shared intentionality.'
Orca don't do that?
The comparison with our closest genetic relatives doesn't actually prove anything with regards to a difference between human cognition and that of other species. It merely shows, perhaps, that we're the only ape that does it. There's more to animal intelligence than apes.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
It's not just that they collaborate. Many animals collaborate incredibly closely - social insects, for instance, but they do so in a specific way that follows certain rigid patterns.
It's that they collaborate in a way that is sometimes specific to just their pod, which is a culture of their pod that needs to be learned. Active pedagogy is something else often claimed just for humans, but you have to do mental summersaults to deny that orca actively teach their young. And then collaborate in a very precise, learned way to achieve a common goal that they all know they're working towards.
It's that they collaborate in a way that is sometimes specific to just their pod, which is a culture of their pod that needs to be learned. Active pedagogy is something else often claimed just for humans, but you have to do mental summersaults to deny that orca actively teach their young. And then collaborate in a very precise, learned way to achieve a common goal that they all know they're working towards.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
As for setting up hedge funds or the various other artefacts of modern life, I wouldn't put too much store in that wrt intelligence. Modern life has given us a certain collective ability, but it's done little for our individual abilities and intelligence. Jared Diamond reckons that the people he lived with in upland Papua New Guinea need to learn to identify around 10,000 different plants. Identify, know where they grow, what properties they have, what other things grow with them, what animals eat them. In many important ways, they're way cleverer than your average technological human.
Hey, try this sci-hub link:
The thing is that culture is uniquely human. No other species has built institutions transmitting behaviour, beliefs and knowledge down generations. So you need an explanation of what is is about humans that allows culture to form.
The thing is that culture is uniquely human. No other species has built institutions transmitting behaviour, beliefs and knowledge down generations. So you need an explanation of what is is about humans that allows culture to form.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Doesn't open for me.
Problem when discussing institutions is that yes, it's hard to argue that other animals have established institutions in that way. But for most of the history of modern humans, we didn't either. Some humans still don't. So we can say that such institutions are a possibility of humans but not that they're a necessity for humans, and you're on shaky ground, imo, citing developments of the last 12,000 years or so as evidence of a particular unique ability.
Obviously I haven't read the paper, but one direction you can go in with recent history is to say that we have externalised many of our cognitive abilities. That could be said to be part of our extended phenotype, for sure. But again, it's not universal to humans, it's merely one possible way we have been able to go. And you can argue that, on some levels, that externalisation has made us thicker as individuals even if we're much cleverer as a collective.
Problem when discussing institutions is that yes, it's hard to argue that other animals have established institutions in that way. But for most of the history of modern humans, we didn't either. Some humans still don't. So we can say that such institutions are a possibility of humans but not that they're a necessity for humans, and you're on shaky ground, imo, citing developments of the last 12,000 years or so as evidence of a particular unique ability.
Obviously I haven't read the paper, but one direction you can go in with recent history is to say that we have externalised many of our cognitive abilities. That could be said to be part of our extended phenotype, for sure. But again, it's not universal to humans, it's merely one possible way we have been able to go. And you can argue that, on some levels, that externalisation has made us thicker as individuals even if we're much cleverer as a collective.
Kevbad the Bad
Amiable Bowel Syndrome
Dunno what you're on about.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
It was known this wasn’t true even when Attenborough was making Life on Earth. The famous scene with the Japanese Macaques washing sweet potatoes was used to illustrate the point.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
I think it’s the opposite. We’ve been so desperate to be special we’ve tried to rule out the fact we’re actually animals. There were so many things supposedly unique to humans that I was taught when I studied psychology that have subsequently had to be abandoned. We have to get used to the fact that we are not as unique as we think we are.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
A set of knowledge, customs and social behaviour that is passed down through learning rather than genetics from one generation to the next within a particular group.
Nope, not exclusively human.
Nope, not exclusively human.
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
Opposable thumbs are part of the human story for sure. But some frogs have opposable thumbs.
Humans walk upright, freeing up those dextrous hands to explore the world, which is also part of the story no doubt. Elephants have something very similar with their trunks.
There is no single thing about humans except, possibly, human language - the ability to generate an infinite number of meanings using a symbolic system that allows us to talk about what was, is, will be, might be or never can be, to talk about here, over there and nowhere at all, with new meanings generated through metaphor. It is true that nothing equivalent is known in other animals, although I'd stop short of completely ruling it out, and there is evidence that other animals have the ability to think metaphorically - Alex the African grey parrot taught to talk made up new words for new things using metaphorical association.
Humans walk upright, freeing up those dextrous hands to explore the world, which is also part of the story no doubt. Elephants have something very similar with their trunks.
There is no single thing about humans except, possibly, human language - the ability to generate an infinite number of meanings using a symbolic system that allows us to talk about what was, is, will be, might be or never can be, to talk about here, over there and nowhere at all, with new meanings generated through metaphor. It is true that nothing equivalent is known in other animals, although I'd stop short of completely ruling it out, and there is evidence that other animals have the ability to think metaphorically - Alex the African grey parrot taught to talk made up new words for new things using metaphorical association.
It’s not about there being “a thing” that makes humans unique, though. It’s about all the things combined — the emergent property of the interaction of those set of things. And it’s about degree — having an opposable thumb is not the same thing as using it in fine tool use. Passing on a particular ritual is not the same thing as developing a set of complex social norms. Hunting in packs us not the same thing as both having distinct roles and also having the concept of the others’ roles, such that you can understand the top-down system and perform role-reversal as necessary. Being able to communicate that a predator is here is not the same thing as using language to plan an activity in advance. If your chain of reasoning leads you to conclude that humans are not cognitively unique as a species, I’d suggest that you take a look at the outcome of human endeavour and then try to work out what you’re missing, rather than just conclude that humans are actually, logically, the same as a frog or an elephant.
Language, by the way, is an example of something that needs collaborative interaction, not just triadic interaction. Language in the full, rich, cultural tool sense of that idea. To converse, you have to know that the other person knows that you know something. You have to have the joint intention to make sense of that thing. You have to play roles as part of making sense of it. You need to switch between those roles, which requires understanding the concept of conversation. Animals can learn a lot of words. They can learn to respond to commands. They can learn to sign or articulate particular words. But we’ve never been able to reach them to converse, they can’t use the planning function of language. They can’t articulate abstract ideas about the future. There is a limit beyond which they can’t go, because they don’t have dialogic representation.
Language, by the way, is an example of something that needs collaborative interaction, not just triadic interaction. Language in the full, rich, cultural tool sense of that idea. To converse, you have to know that the other person knows that you know something. You have to have the joint intention to make sense of that thing. You have to play roles as part of making sense of it. You need to switch between those roles, which requires understanding the concept of conversation. Animals can learn a lot of words. They can learn to respond to commands. They can learn to sign or articulate particular words. But we’ve never been able to reach them to converse, they can’t use the planning function of language. They can’t articulate abstract ideas about the future. There is a limit beyond which they can’t go, because they don’t have dialogic representation.
Last edited:
Just to take it back to the point of this thread: my contention is that collaboration is not just a very human thing to do, it is the essence of being human. If there is any such thing as a “human nature”, this would be it, the thing that everything else comes from. So the idea that we are best served by an individualist set of beliefs, or atomised structures, or structures that isolate us in the name of individual free choice is nonsense. Such a society dehumanises us and its objectifying nature will always lead to the kind of problems of living that we are currently seeing grow all around us.
Just thought I'd (rather arrogantly) re-post this as it is related to Libertarianism -
Just wanted to say that I am interested in council communism at the moment (which is a type of libertarian communism), but am kind of unfamiliar with it (especially the economic side of it) and need to try to learn more about it.
It seems to me, unless I'm not focussing enough on it myself, that maybe theres not enough of a focus on the economic side of things with anarchism (and maybe that anarchist economics are kinda vague) and I am interested in the economic side of left libertarianism and need to learn more. It also seems to me that maybe theres more of a focus on the political side of things though, when the economic side is also very important (though ofcourse the economic is also political).
Just wanted to say that I am interested in council communism at the moment (which is a type of libertarian communism), but am kind of unfamiliar with it (especially the economic side of it) and need to try to learn more about it.
It seems to me, unless I'm not focussing enough on it myself, that maybe theres not enough of a focus on the economic side of things with anarchism (and maybe that anarchist economics are kinda vague) and I am interested in the economic side of left libertarianism and need to learn more. It also seems to me that maybe theres more of a focus on the political side of things though, when the economic side is also very important (though ofcourse the economic is also political).
Last edited:
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
I find this entire endeavour misguided, though. The quest for a unique human ability that definitively sets us apart is a symptom of a way of thinking that sees humans as the measure of all things, as the pinnacle of evolution. That paper's abstract betrays some of this in the way it naturally assumes that we need only compare ourselves with our closest relatives to see how high we are.
And recent scientific history all points one way - at humans missing or underestimating the abilities of other animals, assuming that other animals can't possibly do certain things before discovering that they can.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
To be fair, the whole “are humans animals?” thing is another thread. The answer is yes, but there are threads that can be resurrected.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
A major difference imo between humans and other animals is that humans will pursue their prey for as long as it takes, as opposed to eg lions or cheetahs who will let prey go if they lose a short chase. And you see this in lots of areas of life, dogged determination to see something through, which imo is one of the human traits that have led us to our current predicament
littlebabyjesus
one of Maxwell's demons
None of what I've said is to deny that humans really are supercooperators, with all the abilities to collaborate, plan for the future, etc, that are being claimed. That's clearly true and it absolutely should feed into political thinking.
As a very general rule of thumb, I think we should see how societies are organised, including such things as morality and law, as emerging as a result and reflection of how we are as opposed to the Freudian idea that somehow lawgivers needed to impose rules on us to control our base natures. That's a fundamentally wrongheaded view, provably so in many instances.
The comparative study of humans with other animals can give insight into our evolutionary inheritance, but only imo if we take the opposite approach from one that sees humans as the measure of all things. For example, if we look at other apes such as chimps and bonobos with a view to seeing what they have in common with us while also exploring how and why they are different from us and from each other, keeping an open mind as to whether or not they might have something to teach us, that can shed some light on what we are. I'd go as far as to say that it's impossible to understand humans and 'human nature' in isolation, without also considering other animals.
As a very general rule of thumb, I think we should see how societies are organised, including such things as morality and law, as emerging as a result and reflection of how we are as opposed to the Freudian idea that somehow lawgivers needed to impose rules on us to control our base natures. That's a fundamentally wrongheaded view, provably so in many instances.
The comparative study of humans with other animals can give insight into our evolutionary inheritance, but only imo if we take the opposite approach from one that sees humans as the measure of all things. For example, if we look at other apes such as chimps and bonobos with a view to seeing what they have in common with us while also exploring how and why they are different from us and from each other, keeping an open mind as to whether or not they might have something to teach us, that can shed some light on what we are. I'd go as far as to say that it's impossible to understand humans and 'human nature' in isolation, without also considering other animals.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Agreed.
Anyway, back to Rush.
Anyway, back to Rush.
Tbh you're right really and I do agree with you.
Similar threads
