Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 69 posts

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#51

Post by simonh »

porpoisely wrote: post #33
pdpi wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you missed a very important detail: Everything you wrote talks in terms of groups. There's a cutoff level of aggression past which individuals wouldn't be able to function as a group. Evolution doesn't work in terms of positively selecting the "strong", it works by selecting out the "weak". In this case, the point isn't that we positively selected the most peaceful. Instead, we selected out those so violent t…

But "tribalism" predates humans. Living in groups is a trait that humans inherited, not something we developed. Now we may have refined it and grown it to form tribe of tribes, but the point still stands. When it comes to humans, we have to talk in terms of groups because that's the human experience. Humans don't exist outside of a group. Humans never have existed outside of a group. The "group" is what we inherited…

Domesticated isn’t the same thing as non-violent or even ‘tame’ as the term is usually used. It doesn’t even mean civilised. Rottweilers are domesticated. A small pet dog ate half the face off its owner, while she was alive, in France when she collapsed at home and it got hungry, yet it was a normal domestic pet dog.

I would agree that communal group living as seen in many primates is a precursor to the sort of domestication we’re talking about here. It’s a first step on a long road.

Yes Genghis Khan was violent and brutal, but he was also an inspiring leader that built alliances and administered a vast empire. He ate his meals using utensils, at regular times of the day, was able to be cordial and open minded about strangers.

He was first and foremost extremely disciplined and self-controlled. He was able to be taught and trained as a child, learn rules and commands and was able to control his immediate biological needs and desires especially when under external discipline.

Even that isn’t the whole story though. Cows and pigs are domesticated and display all the adaptive characteristics that come with it.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#52

Post by munk-a »

tropo wrote: post #41
porpoisely wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed…

Females did select, in multiple ways. First, they sometimes cheated. Second, arranged marriage is normally set up by people who largely share DNA with those getting married. (the parents negotiate) Since the DNA is pretty much the same, genetically it's as if the bride herself got to choose. Third, opinion of the bride was not universally ignored.

1. Both partners cheated, I don't know enough historically to say if one gender cheated more, but I'd guess it's pretty even in monogamous cultures and in non-monogamous cultures there usually was a dominant gender that was permitted to be non-monogamous and the vast majority of these allowed non-monogamous activity on the part of males (I'm including having multiple wives here once dedicated relationships entered society, not just non-binding relationships, that last category was actually, to my understanding, dominated by female choice, but it's a very tiny sliver)

2. I don't see how this favors either gender in particular, outside of the general trend of a society to be more matriarchal or patriarchal (and most people have lived in societies that have skewed towards the patriarchal end)

3. I agree but given the skew of societies I'd say that the opinion of the bride was ignored more often than the opinion of the husband.

There are comments all over the place so I'd clarify my overall point, it appears that male-driven choice and female-driven choice have both contributed, neither gender was entirely sidelined or even close to that state, but from what I've seen male choice has traditionally had a larger voice in terms of reproduction. So females did select in multiple ways, (anyone who says it's all males is being silly) but their selection power was below the selection power held by males.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#53

Post by lurquer »

debacle wrote: post #47
lurquer wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Men are shaped, in their most formative years, by their mothers. That's nearly universal. Consequently, you may want to consider Ghengis Khan's and Charlemagne's mothers... those two ladies, due to the manner in which the raised their offspring, had their genes spread throughout a good portion of the planet.

> Men are shaped, in their most formative years, by their mothers. [citation needed]

Cite needed?

Wallace, Willian Ross; "The Hand that Rocks the Cradle is the Hand that Rules the World." http://www.potw.org/archive/potw391.html

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#54

Post by thaumasiotes »

pdpi wrote: post #30
porpoisely wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see that theory about female selection being pushed a lot lately, but it's a fairly easily debunked theory. Female selection didn't occur in human society. Females didn't get to choose who they married. Rather it was the men who decided which females marry which male. Also, there is far less diversity in the Y chromosome than the X. The best possible explanation is during ancient tribal war, the winning side killed…

I think you missed a very important detail: Everything you wrote talks in terms of groups. There's a cutoff level of aggression past which individuals wouldn't be able to function as a group. Evolution doesn't work in terms of positively selecting the "strong", it works by selecting out the "weak". In this case, the point isn't that we positively selected the most peaceful. Instead, we selected out those so violent t…

> Evolution doesn't work in terms of positively selecting the "strong", it works by selecting out the "weak".

This is incorrect. Evolution works by a differential in the rate of reproduction. If weak couples have three kids (who survive and reproduce in turn) each, while strong couples have seven, then there is a strong selective pressure on "strength" and the population will grow stronger and stronger over time, but nobody's getting selected out. Weaks are an ever dwindling share of the population, but in absolute terms their numbers are constantly growing.

And this kind of thing is common, as with selection for higher fertility and lower age of first reproduction in the New World.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#55

Post by devoply »

Toine wrote: post #50

This is just one more "proof" of René Girard's mimetic theory. The scapegoat mechanism at the core of all human societies was heavily explained and documented 50 years ago. René Girard, whose theories heavily influenced the world vision of Peter Thiel and many more, is still dramatically absent in this kind of articles. I'm not sure why. His mimetic theory absolutely revolutionized the field of anthropology, theology…

I really wonder how these ideas are such a revelation, we are still domesticating people just look at the prison system, what do you think that's all about?

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#56

Post by iguy »

tossaccount123 wrote: post #34
blacksqr wrote: post #2

Funny, Freud suggested something very similar in _Totem and Taboo_, and faced a lot of ridicule for it. Would be interesting if he were finally vindicated to some extent.

Common sense would tell you there's some truth to it. For centuries we killed murderers and rapists and thus removed them from the gene pool. Data shows testosterone levels, which are correlated with violence, have dropped massively over the last few decades, whether that is genetic or environmental and to what extent for each is up for debate WWI and WII basically selected to kill off Europe's bravest and most natio…

There is a neat paper I can't find which runs the numbers. So from memory:

For about 1000 years, we know that west-european states executed about 1% of each generation. Assume it's the most violent 1%, and that violence is 50% heritable. Plugging these into standard formulas for animal breeding, and I believe the answer is that this explains about half the decline in the murder rate over this period.

Obviously there are some giant caveats here. But it's super-interesting that a back-of-the-envelope calculation gets you the right order of magnitude.

I'm dubious though of wars doing much. The big 20th C meat-grinder was largely conscripts. And anyway I'm not sure how correlated with blood-thirst most recruiting was. Whereas getting yourself hanged for murder in peacetime was pretty tightly correlated.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#57

Post by yesenadam »

navaati wrote: post #5
danieltillett wrote: post #3

This is the old theory that the nobility domesticated peasants while the peasants were domesticating animals.

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

Might be a silly question, but what is "the TFA"? Googling didn't help me.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#58

Post by vmh1928 »

Bonobos compete for genetic dominance at the level of sperm. They are what we would call promiscuous, the females mate with multiple partners. He with the greatest volume of seamen and sperm washes out the competition. There's no need to be aggressive in person. Bonobo testicles are very large compared to, say, humans. Southern right whales are very similar in their mating habits. On the other hand, species where the male physically secures the females - elk, blue whales, humans, have much smaller testes and rely on physical ability to fend off other male challengers and secure their own genetic future. These traits were set in place long before "culture" developed. Culture is the result of these physical / genetic traits, not the cause.

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#59

Post by hyperpallium »

Neoteny is the retention of juvenile characteristics into adulthood. The constellation of traits that emerge when selecting for friendliness (foxes: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_red_fox) seem to be neotenous. So dogs are puppies, cats are kittens, and men and women are children.

Friendly people are selected for, by the benefits of cooperation, trade and civilization.

tl;dr the civilization of humans was their domestication

Re: A New Theory Proposes That Humans Tamed Themselves

#60

Post by Componica »

yesenadam wrote: post #57
navaati wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my reading of the TFA, it's not. It's the idea that less aggressive individual were naturally selected, partly via sexual selection of the males by the females, partly by pruning of the most violent individuals by the whole group. Nothing to do with the domestication of one group by another.

Might be a silly question, but what is "the TFA"? Googling didn't help me.

The F'ing Article
Post reply on HN