[scoofy]

Whoa... whoa... let's unpack all the intense presuppositions you're packing in here:

"Domestication" is just a word for a natural evolutionary processes in a symbiotic system. The concept that "domestication" is like, actually a thing apart from evolution is a vastly more difficult idea to parse than it appears on it's face.

>Domesticated animals are all dumber than their wild counterparts.

I mean... again... there are so many things to unpack here. What do we mean by "dumb" and which parts of the brain are being used, and how their size relates to their usefulness. I think it would be extremely difficult to argue any of these claims on their face beyond: small brain -> less brain function, which is extremely spurious.

Homo neanderthalensis had notably larger brains than us, yet they did not survive. Hardly an argument for the idea of greater intelligence -> greater brain size. AFAIK, specific areas in the prefrontal cortex is the primary point of interest when it comes to intelligence, and it's a relatively small section of the brain compared, say, to the visual cortex.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/neanderthal-br...

Finally... the most absurd of all the ideas packed in here is that natural selection for smaller brain size would even be a thing. Human mating is openly available for study, I see little-to-no argument for this being plausible beyond some sort of idiocracy world (is this the domestication thesis you hold? I see in the article they are treated separately), which is genuinely problematic. Possibly that certain types of brain sizes are predisposed to certain behavioral patterns. However, the idea that there is even a single evolutionary pattern for billions of humans is pretty ridiculous. We don't have evolutionary islands like other animals do.

[hchasestevens]

> "Domestication" is just a word for a natural evolutionary processes in a symbiotic system. The concept that "domestication" is like, actually a thing apart from evolution is a vastly more difficult idea to parse than it appears on it's face.

In mammals, there is a well-established "domestication syndrome" with a specific proposed underlying mechanism and associated symptoms, including many observed in humans in comparison with other hominids (smaller jaws/muzzles, smaller teeth, smaller brain, greater docility). See https://www.genetics.org/content/197/3/795#skip-link for more information.

[scoofy]

The concept that some animals are able to be domesticated, generally, while other's are not, lends itself to the idea that drift toward docile qualities is probably working in the domesticator's favor, and is not an inherent quality of domestication as a concept.

The idea that we have an idea of a thing we can readily point at, does not mean that thing is the driving force behind it. It's just a post hoc argument. We can't domesticate zebras, we can domesticate horses. The idea that 'domestication' is a force, rather than a result of evolutionary pressure of a symbiotic relationship shows that the domestication can't be the driving force. It's just evolution.

I'm not arguing the concept that domestication syndrome doesn't exist. I obviously defer to these experts, I'm just arguing that the concept that free, independent humans 'domesticate themselves' is effectively nonsensical on it's face, as domestication, as such, requires symbiosis and controlled breeding, and is simply not possible for many species.

[akomtu]

Domestic animals have safe, boring and predictable environment. It's expected that they'd simplify their brain - the organ that consumes so much energy. If domesticated animals started playing chess, that would be a different story, but they spend their life mindlessly walking between a food dispenser and a litter box, taking naps in between.

[scoofy]

>they'd simplify their brain

This is not how evolution works! They are not in control of their breeding. Evolution is not some intelligent agent with goals. It is like a river, responding to to the path of least resistance in reproduction.

Intelligence and/or brain size not a dominant evolutionary factor unless they are specifically bread for intelligence and/or brain size. Domesticated animal's dominant evolutionary qualities have nothing to do with the animal preferences for mating, thus brain size in fairly arbitrary, and we should suspect it to be some sort of drift, rather than rationally getting smaller.

[algebraically]

This is a good point but it does seem like people consistently select for less intelligence because less intelligent animals are more tame and easier to control.

[scoofy]

You don't have evidence for that. You presume that less intelligent animals are easier to control, but that's not at all necessarily true. The smaller brain -> less intelligence isn't even something we know.

[algebraically]

I definitely have evidence that wolves are smarter than dogs. [1][2] You're welcome to nitpick but it's obvious that wolves are smarter than dogs.

1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soe-mONHGMc

2: https://www.studyfinds.org/wolves-smarter-dogs-logic/

[KittenInABox]

That doesn't mean that humans are dumber now, though, nor does it mean that dogs were bred to be dumb, nor does it mean that dumb animals are easier to control. Humans with intellectual disability can in fact be extremely hard to control in my understanding!

[hypertele-Xii]

I think you're conflating biological evolution with evolution as a whole. Technology and culture also evolve. Just differently. Evolution is a much wider aspect of existence than mammalian genetic evolution, or even sexual evolution. I absolutely can simplify my brain consciously, by choosing to remember useful, compact things and by choosing to forget useless, complex ones. And then pass that knowledge through our cultural transfer mechanisms.

[scoofy]

The subject here is biological evolution.