[strogonoff]

Considering human intelligence is very social, I wonder if bias to focus on individual humans leads us to a wrong way of understanding why it arose…

One of my pet theories is that it may be related to vocal cord development[0], where losing certain physiology that allows apes to be louder allowed humans to be more specific, if quieter, with enhanced pitch control and stability offering higher information density communication. This unlocks more complex societal interactions and detailed shared maps. (In Iain McGilchrist’s terms, it let the Emissary—the part of the brain shown to specialize in classification and pattern recognition, the requisite building blocks for efficient communication—to take priority.)

This is an example highlighting how it is not about individual humans “becoming smarter”, evolving larger brains, etc., but rather about humans becoming capable of working together in more sophisticated ways. In fact, human brain shrunk in the last few thousands of years, in concert with growing size of our societies and labour specialization[1], which in turn in no small part is helped by communication density offered by our vocal cords. Really, humans in this way are closer ants[2], where being part of human community is the defining part of our nature.

[0] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/aug/11/how-quirk-of...

[1] https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240517-the-human-brain-...

[2] Ants that farm and have stronger division of labour have smaller brains: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-ants-becam...

[Rediscover]

> ... vocal cord development ...

I've read, from a few separate sources that were not research papers, something similar that claimed the development was a result of existing in semi-aquatic environments such as home on land but swimming for food/safety. I neither agree or disagree (not my field, I don't possess appropriate background/information), but I do think of it when evolution of vocal cords is mentioned.

I don't recall the sources ATM, possibly something out of CoEvolution Quarterly or Bucky Fuller. Again, not research papers.

[Mitochondriac]

Semi-aquatic environments make sense if you look at our brains dependency on DHA (seafood is a rich source) and the hypothesis that our fingers get wrinkly in water after a while to improve grip.

[usrnm]

Aren't we a lot more evolved for hunting animals on foot? The whole thing with us losing our fur and sweating with the whole body, adaptations to running and throwing stuff, all of this makes us better hunters, but not necessarilly fushermen.

[m0llusk]

The two go together. Living with water requires control of breathing. Hunting animals on land requires strong endurance and probably also an ability to carry water.

[AlotOfReading]

Depending on which factors you weigh most heavily, sociality theories usually fit into either individual or group selection categories. They're sort of the default consensus, but not one that's firm.

Your idea would be what's called a spandrel hypothesis, basically that language (or culture etc) is a side effect of other adaptive traits.

[strogonoff]

It is not my idea per se, of course… I only gathered (well, it seems sort of obvious) that, given the overwhelmingly social nature of human intelligence, communication with high information throughput is likely the key differentiator between HS and other apes; the rest was ~1 minute of googling.

As to “side effect”, given better communication and consequently cooperation and potential for more complex collectives lead to persistent survival of the species in the environment, they seem like a pretty straightforward evolutionary advantage that would be expected to be naturally selected for in the first place. If anything, chances are in long term the great larynx update is the real side effect, it just happened to be a trait enabling all the above evolutionary advantages.