Overcoming The Obstacle Of Distance

[The Holy Therns]

I mostly can't really tell if you're thinking you're funny about it.

Recently I told a friend that a while back I had discovered a horde of tiny white snails in my garden. A few days later we were talking on the phone and she said that she thought she had found one of the tiny white snails on one of the plants that I had given her. She sent me a pic. It wasn't a tiny white snail... it was a tiny white scale (Ceroplastes sp). I gave her a hard time about confusing a scale for a snail. She said her identification error was only a misdemeanor and I said it more like a felony. For some reason that made her laugh.

I don't think I'm very funny. But I'm guessing that I'm funnier in real life than online. Then again, it's not like I can see if I make you chuckle. What's the evolutionary explanation for laughter anyways? Why do we provide feedback in the form of laughter when we think something is funny? How much would our behavior change if people didn't naturally, and often automatically, provide laughter feedback when they thought we did, or said, something funny?

Here are some relevant passages...

In human society, "primitive" as well as "civilized," a similar instinctive reaction is very strongly developed. It is perhaps possible to distinguish three steps or gradations of rising intensity in the social-defense attitude of the crowd. The first is laughing at an individual who behaves in an abnormal way. This serves the function of forcing the individual back into normal, that is to say conventional behavior. The next and higher intensity reaction is withdrawal; the individual has made himself "impossible" and his companions ignore him. This, viewed from the aspect of biological significance, is a still stronger stimulus to the abnormal person to behave normally. The highest intensity reaction is one of definite hostility, resulting in making the individual an outcast, and, in primitive societies, even of killing him. In my opinion it is of great importance for human sociology to recognize the instinctive basis of such reactions, and to study them comparatively in other social species. - Nikolaas Tinbergen

But this is precisely what the great artist does. He is able to bring together clashing colors, forms that fight each other, dissonances of all kinds, into a unity. And this is also what the great theorist does when he puts puzzling and inconsistent facts together so that we can see that they really belong together. And so also for the great statesman, the great therapist, the great philosopher, the great parent, the great inventor. They are all integrators, able to bring separates and even opposites together into unity.

We speak here of the ability to integrate and of the play back and forth between integration within the person, and his ability to integrate whatever it is he is doing in the world. To the extent that creativeness is constructive, synthesizing, unifying, and integrative, to that extent does it depend in part on the inner integration of the person.

In trying to figure out why all this was so, it seemed to me that much of it could be traced back to the relative absence of fear in my subjects. They were certainly less enculturated; that is, they seemed to be less afraid of what other people would say or demand or laugh at. They had less need of other people and therefore, depending on them less, could be less afraid of them and less hostile against them. Perhaps more important, however, was their lack of fear of their own insides, of their own impulses, emotions, thoughts. They were more self-accepting than the average. This approval and acceptance of their deeper selves then made it more possible to perceive bravely the real nature of the world and also made their behavior more spontaneous (less controlled, less inhibited, less planned, less "willed" and designed). They were less afraid of their own thoughts even when they were "nutty" or silly or crazy. They were less afraid of being laughed at or of being disapproved of. They could let themselves be flooded by emotion. In contrast, average and neurotic people wall off fear, much that lies within themselves. They control, they inhibit, they repress, and they suppress. They disapprove of their deeper selves and expect that others do, too. - Abraham Maslow, Toward a Psychology of Being

In the market economy the realization of technological innovations does not require anything more than the cognizance of their reasonableness by one or a few enlightened spirits. No dullness and clumsiness on the part of the masses can stop the pioneers of improvement. There is no need for them to win the approval of inert people beforehand. They are free to embark upon their projects even if everyone else laughs at them. Later, when the new, better, and cheaper products appear on the market, these scoffers will scramble for them. However dull a man may be, he knows how to tell the difference between a cheaper shoe and a more expensive one, and to appreciate the usefulness of new products. - Ludwig von Mises

That was probably the farthest from a "yes" or a "no" I've seen anyone go.

[Camicon]

Recently I told a friend that a while back I had discovered a horde of tiny white snails in my garden. A few days later we were talking on the phone and she said that she thought she had found one of the tiny white snails on one of the plants that I had given her. She sent me a pic. It wasn't a tiny white snail... it was a tiny white scale (Ceroplastes sp). I gave her a hard time about confusing a scale for a snail. She said her identification error was only a misdemeanor and I said it more like a felony. For some reason that made her laugh.

I don't think I'm very funny. But I'm guessing that I'm funnier in real life than online. Then again, it's not like I can see if I make you chuckle. What's the evolutionary explanation for laughter anyways? Why do we provide feedback in the form of laughter when we think something is funny? How much would our behavior change if people didn't naturally, and often automatically, provide laughter feedback when they thought we did, or said, something funny?

Here are some relevant passages...

That was probably the farthest from a "yes" or a "no" I've seen anyone go.

For Xero, this is pretty normal. It's like they have a pathological aversion to simple, straight-forward answers.

[The Holy Therns]

That was probably the farthest from a "yes" or a "no" I've seen anyone go.

For Xero, this is pretty normal. It's like they have a pathological aversion to simple, straight-forward answers.

I wasn't surprised, just making sure Xero knows.

[Xerographica]

Some researchers repeatedly set out a small amount of food for some monkeys in nature. The top ranking monkeys would tend to eat all of it and there wouldn't be any left for the lower ranking monkeys. What the researchers observed is that sometimes a lower ranking monkey would use a cheap signal to pretend that a predator was present. The higher ranking monkeys would quickly leave the food and seek shelter. This would give the lower ranking monkey the opportunity to eat some of the food.

If you agree that the monkey transmitted inaccurate information about the presence of a predator... you can't logically then argue that the lower ranking monkey didn't transmit any information.

Dollars to donuts, the monkey didn't trick his buddies into thinking there was a predator nearby with money. I don't know what study you're talking about, because you didn't cite it (*hint*hint*), but Im guessing the monkey used their voice in some manner.

Here's the third Google search result for "monkey deception"... Monkeys Use False Alarms to Scam Food?

Of course the monkey didn't use money to trick his buddies. That's why I said "cheap signal" rather than "costly signal". If false alarms were actually costly, then obviously fewer of them would be made.

You think that money is only a costly signal when somebody doesn't have much of it. What if we remove money from the equation? I have a surplus of arrowheads but a shortage of food. You have a shortage of arrowheads but a surplus of food. So we make a trade. I sacrifice some of my arrowheads to gain some of your food. You sacrifice some of your food to gain some of my arrowheads.

We both made a sacrifice. We both made a costly signal.

But why were costly signals necessary? Why was it necessary for both of us to prove our interest?

I think it's important to know how many arrowheads are being traded for food. This accurately informs the members of our society whether more food or arrowheads are needed. In the absence of these costly signals... we couldn't trust the accuracy of cheap signals. Plus, if you could simply get without giving... then where would be the incentive to produce?

The incentive to produce arrowheads is a good thing... unless there's too many arrowheads and not enough food. Just like with a bow and arrow, incentive is only beneficial when it's correctly aimed. Maybe costly signals don't perfectly aim incentive, but they do a much better job than cheap signals.

[Xerographica]

Recently I told a friend that a while back I had discovered a horde of tiny white snails in my garden. A few days later we were talking on the phone and she said that she thought she had found one of the tiny white snails on one of the plants that I had given her. She sent me a pic. It wasn't a tiny white snail... it was a tiny white scale (Ceroplastes sp). I gave her a hard time about confusing a scale for a snail. She said her identification error was only a misdemeanor and I said it more like a felony. For some reason that made her laugh.

I don't think I'm very funny. But I'm guessing that I'm funnier in real life than online. Then again, it's not like I can see if I make you chuckle. What's the evolutionary explanation for laughter anyways? Why do we provide feedback in the form of laughter when we think something is funny? How much would our behavior change if people didn't naturally, and often automatically, provide laughter feedback when they thought we did, or said, something funny?

Here are some relevant passages...

That was probably the farthest from a "yes" or a "no" I've seen anyone go.

Oh, maybe the problem was that you forgot the question mark.

[The Holy Therns]

That was probably the farthest from a "yes" or a "no" I've seen anyone go.

Oh, maybe the problem was that you forgot the question mark.

I don't think you're the right person to lecture me about clear communication.

[Xerographica]

Oh, maybe the problem was that you forgot the question mark.

I don't think you're the right person to lecture me about clear communication.

Well, in my defense, it was a pretty short lecture.

[The Holy Therns]

I don't think you're the right person to lecture me about clear communication.

Well, in my defense, it was a pretty short lecture.

I know! Happy to see that from you.

[Camicon]

Dollars to donuts, the monkey didn't trick his buddies into thinking there was a predator nearby with money. I don't know what study you're talking about, because you didn't cite it (*hint*hint*), but Im guessing the monkey used their voice in some manner.

Here's the third Google search result for "monkey deception"... Monkeys Use False Alarms to Scam Food?

A Nat-Geo article, while better than, say, the Daily Mail, is not a study and not what I asked for.

Of course the monkey didn't use money to trick his buddies. That's why I said "cheap signal" rather than "costly signal". If false alarms were actually costly, then obviously fewer of them would be made.

Honestly, I'm still somewhat confused as to why you brought the up in the first place. It made no point and served no purpose.

You think that money is only a costly signal when somebody doesn't have much of it.

Yeah, that's how it works. A man making $20,000 misses a ten dollar bill. A man making $5,000,000 doesn't.

What if we remove money from the equation? I have a surplus of arrowheads but a shortage of food. You have a shortage of arrowheads but a surplus of food. So we make a trade. I sacrifice some of my arrowheads to gain some of your food. You sacrifice some of your food to gain some of my arrowheads.

We both made a sacrifice. We both made a costly signal.

No, we didn't.

I had a surplus of food, and given that arrowheads are the primary means of getting food it wasn't food I could preserve for myself. Trading food for arrowheads makes sense, because that food will spoil if not consumed, but arrowheads will keep until I need them.

You had a surplus of arrowheads and no food. Clearly you are not an accomplished hunter. You need food more than arrowheads that you apparently can't use to get food for yourself.

This is not a sacrifice on either end, this is a symbiotic relationship: you provide the means by which I hunt food for us both. I focus on what I'm good at, you focus on what you're good at, and we both prosper.

But why were costly signals necessary? Why was it necessary for both of us to prove our interest?

There was no costly signal made.

I think it's important to know how many arrowheads are being traded for food.

Information which is useless without knowing how many arrowheads you have in the first place, why you have that many arrowheads, etc.

This accurately informs the members of our society whether more food or arrowheads are needed.

No, it doesn't. Could simply be that you're really good at making arrowheads but shit at using them.

In the absence of these costly signals... we couldn't trust the accuracy of cheap signals. Plus, if you could simply get without giving... then where would be the incentive to produce?

There is no costly signal made. More accurate information would be conveyed by our conversation as we barter; I would discover why you have a surplus of arrowheads and no food, you would discover why I have a surplus of food and no arrowheads.

The incentive to produce arrowheads is a good thing... unless there's too many arrowheads and not enough food.

Which is not the situation you established, because I have too much food and not enough arrowheads.

Just like with a bow and arrow, incentive is only beneficial when it's correctly aimed.

This is a terrible analogy.

Maybe costly signals don't perfectly aim incentive, but they do a much better job than cheap signals.

Sure, but economic transactions are not necessarily costly signals, and are extremely limited in what information they are able to convey at the best of times.

[Xerographica]

A Nat-Geo article, while better than, say, the Daily Mail, is not a study and not what I asked for.

What did you ask for? The study itself?

Sure, but economic transactions are not necessarily costly signals, and are extremely limited in what information they are able to convey at the best of times.

Imagine a dozen people stranded on a deserted island. The only two goods in this scenario are fish and coconuts. The only resource in this scenario is labor. Shells are used for money.

Labor is a limited resource. This means that one additional person catching fish is one less person that can harvest coconuts. The optimal division of labor will provide the optimal supply of fish and coconuts.

The point of spending money is for the consumers to communicate how they want the island’s labor to be divided between catching fish and harvesting coconuts.

No matter how many resources or goods we add to this scenario, the point of spending money would be for the consumers to communicate how they want the island’s resources to be divided between the production of all the different goods.

What say you?

[Camicon]

A Nat-Geo article, while better than, say, the Daily Mail, is not a study and not what I asked for.

What did you ask for? The study itself?

Yes.

Sure, but economic transactions are not necessarily costly signals, and are extremely limited in what information they are able to convey at the best of times.

Imagine a dozen people stranded on a deserted island. The only two goods in this scenario are fish and coconuts. The only resource in this scenario is labor. Shells are used for money.
*snip*

There would be no reason for such a small group, with so few resources, to use any kind of money or even a barter system. Their continued survival would depend on everyone working together for the benefit of the group.

[Xerographica]

What did you ask for? The study itself?

Yes.

I never had the study itself. It's been a while but I think I heard about it on Netflix.

Imagine a dozen people stranded on a deserted island. The only two goods in this scenario are fish and coconuts. The only resource in this scenario is labor. Shells are used for money.
*snip*

There would be no reason for such a small group, with so few resources, to use any kind of money or even a barter system. Their continued survival would depend on everyone working together for the benefit of the group.

You'll have to elaborate. From my perspective, there would be two reasons to spend money...

1. Inform: signal when there's a shortage of something
2. Incentivize: reward people who improve the supply

From your perspective, in my scenario it wouldn't be necessary for money to do these two things. So how, exactly, would these two things be accomplished? You're simply going to say, "We need more coconuts" and everyone is just going to stop catching fish and start harvesting coconuts? You're simply going to direct people as you see fit?

[Camicon]

Yes.

I never had the study itself. It's been a while but I think I heard about it on Netflix.

Don't cite anything that you aren't able to actually provide a citation for.

There would be no reason for such a small group, with so few resources, to use any kind of money or even a barter system. Their continued survival would depend on everyone working together for the benefit of the group.

You'll have to elaborate. From my perspective, there would be two reasons to spend money...

1. Inform: signal when there's a shortage of something
2. Incentivize: reward people who improve the supply

From your perspective, in my scenario it wouldn't be necessary for money to do these two things. So how, exactly, would these two things be accomplished? You're simply going to say, "We need more coconuts" and everyone is just going to stop catching fish and start harvesting coconuts? You're simply going to direct people as you see fit?

We moved from the barter system to a currency because it's easier to carry coins than it is to carry goats. And when you've got a small group stuck on a desert island all depending on each other for their continued survival, a barter system becomes irrelevant, as does currency. When the survival of one depends on the survival of all then the resources necessary for survival must necessarily be communal, and shared more or less equally.

Whoever has demonstrated the best aptitude to managing our small group would direct those decisions necessary for our continued survival, but given the small size of the group it would effectively practice informal direct democracy. If I was that decision making individual, and I determined we needed more coconuts, then I would point to our lack of coconuts and demonstrate to everyone that what we have is not enough. Same for fish.

This isn't that hard to grasp. Spending money is not this magical "perfect signal" that you seem to think it is. Our ancestors communicated just fine without it, for millennia.

[Computer Lab]

You sir are an interesting individual. There are several things I take issue with.

First of all, economics isn't required to understand history properly. In some ways it can help, but in many cases it doesn't add anything. Economics is *a* way to describe occurrences and motivation. If I'm doing something... say going to war with another group because of religious differences, you could translate that to economics and say that I'm valuing the nonexistence of the other group over the cost in human life to my group or valuing a chance of the afterlife over a comfortable life in the here and now... but that is needlessly complicating things to shoehorn in an economic viewpoint. It sure as hell makes sense to simply say that I'm going to war with them over religious differences. You can even look at times when people made decisions that directly harmed them economically for religious reasons. It just doesn't help at all to approach everything from economics. It actually makes arguments less understandable and clear.

Now onto your hypothetical American horses... This is a doozy.
Even if we assume that North American tribes did decide to domesticate wild proto-horses for some reason, and got something similar to modern horses, then they still wouldn't have spread throughout the Americas. Migrations don't happen just because. They occur because the current home can't support its inhabitants or they find a better home. Otherwise you would be leaving a place that can support you for a place that you don't even know exists (a better home than where you are). In light of that fact, the horse people of NA would stay in the location suitable for their lifestyle until they expanded to fill all available horse space (we'll be generous to you and say all of NA). Then they begin to migrate into MesoAmerica... which is not suited for horses. If I'm traveling to find a new home because my old one can't support me, my main goal is survival. Even if I have this thing I really like that is really useful elsewhere (say a horse or a large heavy turtle shell I used as a pot), when I realize it is making my chances of survival more difficult, I would leave it behind. I'm not going to take the pot with me as I try to ford a deep swift moving river, no matter how nice it is for soup, and I'm not going to take a horse with me that can't graze on any of the plants around, gets stuck in bogs and vines and other such things, and requires me to frequently take care of injuries. The only location in the South that horses would flourish is the Pampas in Argentina... which happen to be the southernmost part of South America and thousands and thousands of horse-unfriendly territory away from North America's Great Plains.

Horses wouldn't have helped in Peru, Ecuador, or any number of other places in the Americas.


Lastly, this suggestion that trade only exists to improve communication is absurd. When I buy a drink from a coffee shop the only thing I am saying is that I find the drink worth the value the store is selling it for. It says nothing about why I buy it, how valuable I find it in comparison to other objects (I could think that other items are under or over priced). I could even think that the drink is underpriced. All of these things could be discovered simply by me talking to someone about said drink.

You can get some information from economic decisions, but nowhere near as much as actual communication (whether written or spoken).

[Xerographica]

Computer Lab, let me start off by saying that I appreciate your analysis. I disagree with most of it, but I still appreciate it. Unfortunately, you're the kind of poster that rarely sticks around. This is simply because you can't see the demand for your analysis. Just like we can't see the demand for defense/war.

The demand for war has never ever been known. We know the demand for donuts and computers... but we've never ever known the demand for war. Defense is a public good. People can benefit from it (or be harmed by it) regardless of whether or not they pay for it. For most of history a strong ruler would collect taxes and decide what percentage to spend on defense/war. The only way the demand for defense could be known is if taxpayers were given the opportunity to directly decide how many of their own tax dollars to spend on defense. Then, and only then, would we know the demand for defense.

Of course the question is whether it would be beneficial to actually know the demand for defense. Does it matter how important defense is to each and every taxpayer? I sure think it does. Just like it matters how important good analysis is to every member of this forum. In the absence of this information, it's a given that the supply of good analysis will be suboptimal.

Regarding why you buy coffee... you're right that the amount of money that you spend on it doesn't provide this information. But there's absolutely no need for you to explain, or justify, your spending decisions. Even though producers don't have this information, they don't need it to act correctly. If the demand for coffee increases, the incentive is there for producers to supply more coffee. If the demand for coffee decreases, then so will the incentive/supply. The supply automatically and correctly adapts to changes in demand. I'm basically channeling Hayek...

We must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function—a function which, of course, it fulfils less perfectly as prices grow more rigid. (Even when quoted prices have become quite rigid, however, the forces which would operate through changes in price still operate to a considerable extent through changes in the other terms of the contract.) The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned. It is more than a metaphor to describe the price system as a kind of machinery for registering change, or a system of telecommunications which enables individual producers to watch merely the movement of a few pointers, as an engineer might watch the hands of a few dials, in order to adjust their activities to changes of which they may never know more than is reflected in the price movement. - Friedrich Hayek, The Use of Knowledge in Society

If the price of coffee goes up, then more jungle is slashed and burned to grow coffee. We've never ever known the actual demand for conservation just like we've never known the actual demand for defense.

Slashing and burning is hardly a new invention. Actually... I'm guessing it isn't. Is it? But given the presence of numerous giant pyramids in the jungles of America, it's clearly the case that the natives were capable of clearing huge swaths of jungle. They probably cleared more of it than we realize since it has a tendency to grow back over time.

If the earliest Americans did realize the full benefit of horses, then I'm sure that they would have made and maintained adequate roads through the jungle. You're correct that much of the terrain in Peru and Ecuador isn't suitable for horses. But if you look at a map of South America you can see that most of it is relatively flat. Serious mountains are the exception rather than the rule.

Really the hard part is appreciating how much progress the earliest natives in North America would have made if they had used horses to reduce the cost of trade. You don't appreciate the necessity of knowing the actual demand for defense or conservation so it's a given that you don't appreciate the necessity of knowing the actual demand for anything.

Too much defense being supplied isn't just a matter of having too many tanks, it also means that too few cars and computers and other necessary things were produced. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Trade gives people the opportunity to strengthen the weakest links. Horses, by greatly reducing the cost of trade, would have greatly facilitated the development of the natives in North America. So they would have had no problem adapting the jungle to fit their needs. They would have had better knowledge and better tools and I'm guessing that they would have also invented the wheel. Of course it's pure speculation to try and guess their innovations/discoveries.

The challenge is to understand that a reduction in the cost of trade would have increased the quantity of trade which would have resulted in far more progress.

For me the weakest link of this forum is a scarcity of good analysis. And yeah, obviously I can use my words to transmit this information. But if words were adequate and reliable and trustworthy then why spend money at all? The point of spending money (making a sacrifice) is to prove that something is important to us. It functions as credible evidence of importance. So trade is all about providing credible evidence of importance. If this forum greatly reduced the cost of trade, then the weakest links would be quickly strengthened and far more progress would be made. We'd all learn and understand the most important things in far less time... which would facilitate even greater understanding.

While you're still here, let me try and suck as much sweet analysis as I can from your brain breast. Hmmm... I think that's one of the iffiest sentences that I've ever written. For that fact I felt compelled to leave it. I apologize in advance.

There are several theories that attempt to explain why humans are exceptionally intelligent. One theory is that humans are exceptionally intelligent because they are exceptionally good at allocating resources. This is my theory.

Would you agree that humans are exceptionally good at allocating resources? I don’t mean because we have trucks, trains, boats and planes. These are all the consequence of our exceptional intelligence. I mean because we walk upright and have arms and hands that can simultaneously carry different things. We can efficiently move many resources from point A to point B. Other animals can certainly allocate resources but they are limited by the fact that all their limbs are dedicated to locomotion. This limits the amount of selection pressure that is put on their intelligence.

Clearly it was advantageous for our ancestors to become more and more bipedal. However, being better and better at allocating resources meant having to make harder and harder choices… which required more and more intelligence. What is the optimal combination of food and tools to carry? This is a hard problem to solve. Individuals that were better at solving harder allocation problems were more likely to survive and produce more offspring.

If this theory is true, then the invention of bags would have made the allocation problem even harder and put even more selection pressure on intelligence. Same thing with the discovery that horses and other animals could also be used to carry things. This would mean that, because the native Americans did not discover that horses could be used to carry things, they were subject to somewhat less selection pressure on intelligence. IQ tests would not of course reveal the difference because they don't test for people's ability to solve exceptionally hard allocation problems.

Right now people still make good and bad carrying decisions but it doesn't usually have much impact on their reproduction. So we've reached peak intelligence.

Of course it could be a coincidence that humans are...

1. the most intelligent animals
2. the best at allocating resources

But what if it isn't a coincidence? Would it be a surprise that this theory isn't widely known or discussed? Biologists don't study economics and economists don't study biology. My intelligence theory is based on biology and economics. My horse theory is based on history and economics. If either of these theories are true, then you have to wonder how many other true theories aren't known because intellectual labor is overly divided.

[Camicon]

*blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah*
Of course it could be a coincidence that humans are...

1. the most intelligent animals
2. the best at allocating resources
*blahblahblah*

Has it ever occurred to you that other animals don't allocate resources like we do because they have no reason to do so, lacking the physical ability and mental capacity to actually utilize those resources in a meaningful way?

Let's get one thing straight: humans became the dominant species on planet Earth because of our physical ability and mental capacity to manipulate our environment. It's let us live in places that we have no business living in, and combine the things around us into fantastical tools that don't exist in the natural world. Our social order was not unique in any way.

[Xerographica]

*blahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblahblah*
Of course it could be a coincidence that humans are...

1. the most intelligent animals
2. the best at allocating resources
*blahblahblah*

Has it ever occurred to you that other animals don't allocate resources like we do because they have no reason to do so, lacking the physical ability and mental capacity to actually utilize those resources in a meaningful way?

Let's get one thing straight: humans became the dominant species on planet Earth because of our physical ability and mental capacity to manipulate our environment. It's let us live in places that we have no business living in, and combine the things around us into fantastical tools that don't exist in the natural world. Our social order was not unique in any way.

Here are the most popular theories for our exceptional intelligence.

[Camicon]

Has it ever occurred to you that other animals don't allocate resources like we do because they have no reason to do so, lacking the physical ability and mental capacity to actually utilize those resources in a meaningful way?

Let's get one thing straight: humans became the dominant species on planet Earth because of our physical ability and mental capacity to manipulate our environment. It's let us live in places that we have no business living in, and combine the things around us into fantastical tools that don't exist in the natural world. Our social order was not unique in any way.

Here are the most popular theories for our exceptional intelligence.

The evolution of our "exceptional intelligence" is a separate matter from what caused us to develop it in the first place, and is only one part of the equation in any case. But this is getting away from the topic.

[Xerographica]

Here are the most popular theories for our exceptional intelligence.

The evolution of our "exceptional intelligence" is a separate matter from what caused us to develop it in the first place, and is only one part of the equation in any case. But this is getting away from the topic.

Horses made it less costly to move resources from point A to point B. However, the same is true of our ancestors walking upright. Decreasing the cost of allocating resources increased the frequency of allocation. More frequent allocation meant more frequent allocation problems.

When monkeys, lions, whales and birds migrate they generally don't have to worry about what they'll take with them. It was a different story with our ancestors. They were able to carry many resources at the same time so they were forced to figure out what to take.

Our ancestors needed weapons for defense and for hunting. If they carried too few weapons then they might be killed by wild animals or other groups. But if they carried too many weapons then it would mean carrying inadequate amounts of food and other necessary resources. So they were constantly struggling to get the balance right. Being better at getting the balance right depends on information. So groups that were better at storing, processing and sharing information were more successful than other groups. Trade provided information about the importance of things. This information helped people make better carrying decisions. Clearly it's better to carry more, rather than less, important things. So groups that traded more were more successful than other groups. Trading is facilitated by horses, which the native Americans didn't have, which is why they were far less successful than the groups that did have them.

[Camicon]

The evolution of our "exceptional intelligence" is a separate matter from what caused us to develop it in the first place, and is only one part of the equation in any case. But this is getting away from the topic.

Horses made it less costly to move resources from point A to point B. However, the same is true of our ancestors walking upright. Decreasing the cost of allocating resources increased the frequency of allocation. More frequent allocation meant more frequent allocation problems.

We didn't evolve larger brains and greater dexterity because walking upright allowed us to move things long-distance more easily. Walking upright allowed us to use our hands for things other than walking, like making tools, crafting clothes, and building structures.

When monkeys, lions, whales and birds migrate they generally don't have to worry about what they'll take with them. It was a different story with our ancestors. They were able to carry many resources at the same time so they were forced to figure out what to take.

Fucking what? You're putting the cart before the horse, Xero.

Our ancestors needed weapons for defense and for hunting. If they carried too few weapons then they might be killed by wild animals or other groups. But if they carried too many weapons then it would mean carrying inadequate amounts of food and other necessary resources.

You know there's an upper limit to how many weapons a person can use at any one time, right? That, more than the weight of those weapons, is what determines what a hunter takes with them. Our ancestors couldn't use two bows or two spears at the same time, so they took one bow and one spear. Modern soldiers can't use three handguns at once, so they take one handgun.

So they were constantly struggling to get the balance right. Being better at getting the balance right depends on information. So groups that were better at storing, processing and sharing information were more successful than other groups.

Yeah, groups that developed more complex systems of language and writing were more successful.

Trade provided information about the importance of things.

No, trade provided goods that weren't available in the immediate area.

This information helped people make better carrying decisions. Clearly it's better to carry more, rather than less, important things. So groups that traded more were more successful than other groups.

You're suggesting that the extremely simple concept of inventory management was only realized through trade? And that's why societies which traded with other societies were successful? Are you fucking serious?

Trading is facilitated by horses, which the native Americans didn't have, which is why they were far less successful than the groups that did have them.

Do you know anything about Native American history? Or the development of ancient human societies in general? This comment suggests you know less than nothing.

[Xerographica]

Horses made it less costly to move resources from point A to point B. However, the same is true of our ancestors walking upright. Decreasing the cost of allocating resources increased the frequency of allocation. More frequent allocation meant more frequent allocation problems.

We didn't evolve larger brains and greater dexterity because walking upright allowed us to move things long-distance more easily.

Walking upright isn't good for making things, it's good for carrying things. Being good at carrying things meant having to solve harder carrying problems. This put exceptional pressure on our intelligence.

[Neanderthaland]

We didn't evolve larger brains and greater dexterity because walking upright allowed us to move things long-distance more easily.

Walking upright isn't good for making things, it's good for carrying things. Being good at carrying things meant having to solve harder carrying problems. This put exceptional pressure on our intelligence.

It's amazing that - in addition to being such an expert on economics - you also find the time to solve the unsolved questions of human evolution that biologists have been arguing over for a hundred years.

[Xerographica]

Walking upright isn't good for making things, it's good for carrying things. Being good at carrying things meant having to solve harder carrying problems. This put exceptional pressure on our intelligence.

It's amazing that - in addition to being such an expert on economics - you also find the time to solve the unsolved questions of human evolution that biologists have been arguing over for a hundred years.

Well... they are biologists... but the answer requires economics... so... yeah.

To be clear, I'm not trying to take credit for the carrying explanation for bipedalism. There's already a Wikipedia entry for it. My claim is that the advantage of more efficiently allocating resources also put exceptional pressure on our intelligence. Obviously biologists aren't going to come up with an economic explanation for intelligence. And usually economists focus on the economy rather than on intelligence.

[Neanderthaland]

It's amazing that - in addition to being such an expert on economics - you also find the time to solve the unsolved questions of human evolution that biologists have been arguing over for a hundred years.

Well... they are biologists... but the answer requires economics... so... yeah.

So... in that case you should support an eccentric view every credible critic tells you you have misunderstood?

To be clear, I'm not trying to take credit for the carrying explanation for bipedalism. There's already a Wikipedia entry for it. My claim is that the advantage of more efficiently allocating resources also put exceptional pressure on our intelligence. Obviously biologists aren't going to come up with an economic explanation for intelligence. And usually economists focus on the economy rather than on intelligence.

No, indeed I know you didn't come up with it on your own. I just find it strange that you can speak with such confidence about which of the many models must be true. Given that you have no expertise on the subject.

And unsurprisingly, it's the one that serves your preconceived notions (or, at least, the on you think supports your preconceived notions.) What a shock.

[Xerographica]

Well... they are biologists... but the answer requires economics... so... yeah.

So... in that case you should support an eccentric view every credible critic tells you you have misunderstood?

The most recent expert that I shared my theory with didn't say that I've misunderstood something. He essentially said that it was outside his area of expertise.

To be clear, I'm not trying to take credit for the carrying explanation for bipedalism. There's already a Wikipedia entry for it. My claim is that the advantage of more efficiently allocating resources also put exceptional pressure on our intelligence. Obviously biologists aren't going to come up with an economic explanation for intelligence. And usually economists focus on the economy rather than on intelligence.

No, indeed I know you didn't come up with it on your own. I just find it strange that you can speak with such confidence about which of the many models must be true. Given that you have no expertise on the subject.

And unsurprisingly, it's the one that serves your preconceived notions (or, at least, the on you think supports your preconceived notions.) What a shock.

I'm the preeminent expert on the economic explanation of human intelligence. Well... I'm the only expert. But please, by all means, find some biologist or economist to refute my theory. They'll all tell you the same thing... that it's outside their area of expertise.