#2 in Books about evolutionary psychology
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are
Sentiment score: 4
Reddit mentions: 5
We found 5 Reddit mentions of Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. Here are the top ones.
Buying options
View on Amazon.comor
Specs:
Color | White |
Height | 8.27 Inches |
Length | 5.52 Inches |
Number of items | 1 |
Release date | August 2006 |
Weight | 0.63 Pounds |
Width | 0.83 Inches |
We have a very good understanding of their intelligence. They are probably some of the most well studied species in terms of behaviour and cognitive abilities on this planet. In ELI5/TLDR* most researchers would characterize their intelligence of being equivalent to a 2-3 year old human child. Just a short list of things that characterize these species:
...
I suppose another way of looking at this is what do we have that they lack. What makes humans unique?
We know of some factors that contributed to our awareness and unique intelligence as compared to other living species. It is important to know that this is a very active area of study in many different disciplines (psychology, biology, animal behaviour, psychiatry, physiology, anthropology, neurology, linguistics, genetics, archeology...).
These two traits, shared intentionality and cumulative culture, led to the development of other aspects of our being which are unique (e.g language). Everything else that we can do is just a happy by-product of these two traits: being able to go to the moon, or build a super dam, or create art, or think in the abstract, maths, industrial agriculture...Those things are by-products of our level of cognition. Our uniqueness is derived from shared intentionality and cumulative culture plus a couple of random physical traits that we were lucky enough to inherit from our distant ancestors - a big brain, bipedalism, and opposable thumbs. We are not the only species with a large brain-to-body ratio, we are not the only bipedal species, and we are certainly not the only species with opposable thumbs - these are physical characteristics that we inherited from our distant primate ancestors. These traits built the foundation for what was to come.
Whatever the pressure around 40,000-50,000 years ago we notice a significant shift in the archeological record. All of a sudden humans are making cave art, our hunting tools are changing rapidly, we began to engage in long distant trade, we made jewellery and we even had symbolic figures - perhaps the seeds of language. This is known as the period of behavioural modernity. Not only did these humans look like us, they acted like us too. Its hypothesized that an infant from this time could be raised in a modern context with little to no intellectual deficit...we wouldn't be able to pick them out of a crowd. Humans haven't gotten more intelligent over time. It is hypothesized that a human from 50,000 years ago is anatomically and behaviourally modern.
So, if we aren't any smarter - why do we have cell phones and galaxy print jeggings and people didn't way back then? Increasing complexity - we know more than people in the past because we've built upon what they've learned. Humans have always been smart, and our great benefit is that we build on other people's discoveries. Someone figured out how to domesticate plants, someone figured out how to sew cloth, someone figured out how to weave materials, someone figured out synthetic materials and dyes, someone put it all together in those jeggings. We just build on what other people have found out. This is cumulative culture in action. Humans today are not more intelligent than humans living 50,000 years ago - we both have the same potential. The difference between us and them is we have a wealth of shared knowledge to draw upon, and they did not. Humans 5000 years from now could be asking the very same question..."Why didn't they invent warp travel, its so easy!"...well we don't have the wealth of another 5000 years of experience and scientific study to draw upon. We only have what our ancestors gave us. As more and more knowledge is accumulated we should in theory progress faster and faster.
Some interesting books on the subject:
Age of Empathy
Our inner ape
Moral lives of animals
Affective neuroscience
Mothers and others
just curious: If you are a Christian who believes in evolution, that means that you believe evolution is the mechanism or means through which God reveals his creation, right? Can you believe that He intervenes in your life personally? or in historical events? Or controls the weather?
Let me ask you this: What does understanding evolution teach you about the Almighty and His plan for your life? Is he a loving, caring 'father' ? Or a cold, uncaring bitch? How could you watch an Attenborough BBC special without experiencing cognitive dissonance. Rape, infanticide, cannibalism - all these things are perfectly 'natural' and happen everyday as part of normal animal behaviors. Are we to believe all animals are under the power of 'sin' in a 'fallen' world controlled by Satan? In a 'perfect' world, would no whale be a killer? Would sharks eat seaweed instead of fish?
Where do we even get these ideas of right and wrong? I used to think that it was God who created this conscience within us. But now i think that these systems of thought, taught to us by our parents and teachers, which condition us to be appalled at such behaviors, evolved naturally long,long ago out of the desires of our ancestors to live peaceful lives.
Dawkins summed it up: we would never want to live in a society founded on 'Darwinian' principles. It would have no tolerance for any weakness; only the winners matter. Think Road Warrior here.
I think the whole of human progression has been a long escape from this harsh and uncaring 'dog eat dog' world where 'survival of the fittest' is the law of the jungle. Life in the trees was short and brutal. Banding together,for protection at first, we moved out onto the plains and have co-evolved for millions of years as social animals, living in communities where weaker members have been able to survive and even reproduce; where coalitions of the less powerful have usually been able to control the ambitions of the 'alpha' and keep the tribe peaceful. A peaceful environment with plenty of food leaves lots of free time for doing things like pondering the mysteries of existence and creating new pieces of culture
Fascinating book: Our Inner Ape
> I believe people do act selflessly everyday but I don’t think I makes rational sense to live this way. Why would I ever serve anyone’s ends other than my own
To put it bluntly, this isn't what the word "rational" means. Rationality is about taking the optimal path to a specified goal. It doesn't say anything about what that goal is. And that goal is always subjective and arbitrary, regardless of whether you are rational about achieving it.
So, in economics, they often talk about the rational, profit-maximizing business strategy. But "rational" and "profit-maximizing" are totally different things - maximizing profit is a subjective goal, and there are less and more rational ways to achieve it. I could just as easily talk about the rational cost-minimizing business strategy, which is a different objective that recommends a different path. Or an irrational profit-maximizing strategy that is clearly inferior for that goal.
So I dismiss your implicit claim that you are being more "rational" than an altruist who gives away all his money to the poor, because that's conflating the objective idea of rational decision-making with a subjective goal.
As a result, there's not really much for us to argue about, because it's not clear exactly how you've gotten to your conclusion, besides a misunderstanding of the word rational.
If you want to get into an empirical argument about humans, I think there's plenty of evidence that can change your view.
It's no good to say people who jump on hand grenades or donate blood are "really" selfish because it makes them feel better or something, because you've essentially defined "selfish" to be "anything people do". If you take a stricter, more commonplace definition of selfish like "consistently chooses one's own material benefits at the expense of others'", then no, humans are exceptionally non-selfish among organisms on our planet.
Np, also I had a bit of a typo in my comment, my pet theory was actually that our higher cognitive function allows us to deviate from primal instinct to some extent but ultimately not enough to where we are perfectly moral, non-animalistic creatures-- we are very much driven by basic need, since that helps us survive and gets propagated throughout generations, the other things our intellect affords us such as awareness of our insignificance in the grand scheme of things or philosophy, art, etc. are just fortunate by-products of our abstraction ability, which was selected due to it's ability to aid us in survival and reproduction, consequently it is subservient to those basic drives.
Some other books I haven't even touched yet (but plan to) but which also have a good reputation:
https://www.amazon.com/Our-Inner-Ape-Primatologist-Explains/dp/1594481962
https://www.amazon.com/Chimpanzee-Politics-Power-among-Apes/dp/0801886562/ref=pd_lpo_sbs_14_t_2?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=6KQC849RMQDHAHCNND0J
https://www.amazon.com/SEX-AT-DAWN-STRAY-MEANS/dp/B00KEVTNSK/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1498547954&sr=1-1&keywords=sex+at+dawn
https://www.amazon.com/What-Do-Women-Want-Adventures/dp/0061906093/ref=pd_sim_14_5?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0061906093&pd_rd_r=2RBWQA67MBBA734QWF20&pd_rd_w=B1B9p&pd_rd_wg=HueSP&psc=1&refRID=2RBWQA67MBBA734QWF20
https://www.amazon.com/Moral-Animal-Science-Evolutionary-Psychology/dp/0679763996/ref=pd_sim_14_89?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=0679763996&pd_rd_r=Q4WSH2CZDEQX8RASGQ0T&pd_rd_w=oCsRh&pd_rd_wg=mKnBF&psc=1&refRID=Q4WSH2CZDEQX8RASGQ0T
Our Inner Ape