The Real Story of What Got Us to the Top of the Food Chain
Natural "narrative selection" was key to turning insignificant apes (who had tools for 2 million years) into the species that now dominates the bio-sphere.
09 March, 2017
<p dir="ltr"><span>1. What got us to the top of the food chain? Yuval Harari says it wasn’t bigger brains and tools. His view of what mattered will surprise fans of evolution’s red-in-tooth-and-claw story.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>2. Going from “stone-tipped spears to… </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=yuval+harari+%22homo+deus%22+%22hunting+mammoth%22#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=yuval+harari+%22homo+deus%22+Over+those+20,000+years+humankind+moved+from+hunting+mammoth+with+stonetipped+spears+to+exploring+the+solar+system+with+spaceships+&*" target="_blank"><span>spaceships</span></a><span>” took us ~20,000 years; meanwhile, our brains have </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=yuval+harari+homo+deus+%22bigger+brains%22#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=yuval+harari+homo+deus+%22+not+thanks+to+the+evolution+of+more+dexterous+hands+or+bigger+brains+(our+brains+today+seem+actually+to+be+smaller)&*" target="_blank"><span>shrunk</span></a><span> ~10% (note: Neanderthal brains were </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/cTb3U2" target="_blank"><span>bigger</span></a><span>). </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>3. But we’ve had tools for ~2 million years (intelligently designed tools have long shaped our </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/our-tools-have-changed-our-genes-for-millions-of-years" target="_blank"><span>genes</span></a><span>).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>4. Harari says the “crucial </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=yuval+harari+homo+deus+%22the+crucial+factor%22#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=yuval+harari+homo+deus+the+crucial+factor+in+our+conquest+of+the+world+was+our+ability+to+connect+many+humans+to+one+another.&*" target="_blank"><span>factor</span></a><span>” was our unique capacity “to cooperate flexibly in large </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DczADQAAQBAJ&pg=PP116&dq=yuval+harari+homo+deus+%22homo+sapiens+is+the+only+species%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgx6qip8XSAhUmM8AKHcihDHoQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=Homo%20sapiens%20is%20the%20only%20species%20on%20earth%20capable%20of%20cooperating%20flexibly%20in%20large%20numbers%22&f=false" target="_blank"><span>numbers</span></a><span>.”</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>5. Cooperation is critical for both types of what biologist E. O. Wilson calls “the social conquest of </span><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/books/review/the-social-conquest-of-earth-by-edward-o-wilson.html" target="_blank"><span>Earth</span></a><span>.” Humans and social insects dominate the biosphere (because, organized groups can always outperform individuals, in combat, and in peacetime productivity). </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>6. Ants and bees were doing large-scale cooperation millions of years before us. But their cooperation is kin-based and </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DczADQAAQBAJ&pg=PP116&dq=yuval+harari+homo+deus+%22ants+and+bees%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5v5yTrMXSAhUJCsAKHRgKBewQ6AEIHDAA#v=snippet&q=%22ants%20and%20bees%22%20%22learned%20to%20cooperate%20en%20masse%20millions%20of%20years%20before%20us%22%20their%20cooperation%20lacks%20flexibility&f=false" target="_blank"><span>inflexible</span></a><span> (adapting genetically = slowly). </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>7. David Sloan Wilson calls teamwork humanity’s “signature </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/how-evolutioneconomics-have-an-equivalent-inclusive-fitness-in-evolution-and" target="_blank"><span>adaptation</span></a><span>,” but Harari describes how scaling beyond team-level cooperation was key. </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>8. This “large-scale human cooperation” requires shared </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=yuval+harari+%22homo+deus%22+no+complex+human+society+can+function+without+commonly+accepted+stories." target="_blank"><span>stories</span></a><span>, because “The human mind is a story processor, not a logic </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=U21BxGfm3RUC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q=%22human%20mind%20is%20a%20story%20processor%2C%20not%20a%20logic%20processor%22&f=false" target="_blank"><span>processor</span></a><span>." Stories transmit what matters in a culture, and configure our “emotional </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/our-storied-nature" target="_blank"><span>grammar</span></a><span>” (aside: Harari usefully calls emotions “biochemical </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DczADQAAQBAJ&pg=PP305&dq=yuval+harari+%22homo+deus%22+biochemical+algorithms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWwobX2snSAhWJ6oMKHdfLCWAQ6AEIIjAB#v=snippet&q=%22thoughts%20emotions%20and%20sensations%20are%22%20%22biochemical%20algorithms%22&f=false" target="_blank"><span>algorithms</span></a><span>”).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>10. We live in a “web of </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DczADQAAQBAJ&pg=PP305&dq=yuval+harari+%22homo+deus%22+biochemical+algorithms&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWwobX2snSAhWJ6oMKHdfLCWAQ6AEIIjAB#v=snippet&q=%22web%20of%20stories%22&f=false" target="_blank"><span>stories</span></a><span>” about what matters. In that sense </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/beauty-and-duty-now-often-clash-how-art-works-on-hidden-brain-system" target="_blank"><span>artists</span></a><span> and “storytellers run the </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/what-stories-run-your-world" target="_blank"><span>world</span></a><span>,” and a culture’s storytelling resources shape its politics and </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=00rsK2Y98gQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=macintyre+after+virtue&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjFq6aL1ufQAhXE6CYKHVpOC7UQ6wEIGzAA#v=onepage&q=the%20chief%20means%20of%20moral%20education%20is%20the%20telling%20of%20%20stories&f=false" target="_blank"><span>moralities</span></a><span> (Alasdair </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alasdair_MacIntyre" target="_blank"><span>MacIntyre</span></a><span>). </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>11. Languages, </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/our-storied-nature" target="_blank"><span>stories</span></a><span>, the arts, religions, </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/moral-sciences-are-back" target="_blank"><span>moralities</span></a><span>, </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/what-the-most-successful-euphemism-in-history-is-doing-to-us" target="_blank"><span>politics</span></a><span>, and </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/how-paleo-economics-shaped-us-physically-and-morally" target="_blank"><span>economics</span></a><span> are all social tools for organizing cooperation. </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>12. We’d be wiser to call ourselves “Homo Storius” or “Homo Narratus” or "Homo Socius" rather than Homo Sapiens (sapiens derives from judgement or </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=Ast1CwAAQBAJ&pg=PP1&dq=becoming+wise&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi1jMb1iunMAhVBHR4KHeSHA_8Q6wEIUDAH#v=onepage&q=connection%20%22root%20of%20the%20word%20sapiens%22%20%22knowledge%20and%20wisdom%20and%20taste%22%20&f=false" target="_blank"><span>taste</span></a><span>). Our wisdom is story-driven and deeply social. </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>13. Stories, like all meaning, are </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/all-meaning-is-relational" target="_blank"><span>relational</span></a><span> (intrinsically social, not individual). We’re likely the most other-dependent species ever (inalienably </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/you-are-by-nature-self-deficient" target="_blank"><span>self-deficient</span></a><span> by nature). Those with life-structuring stories that are fittest for cooperation, win.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>14. Our innate </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/our-storied-nature" target="_blank"><span>story-hunger</span></a><span> enables what Rebecca Goldstein calls our “mattering </span><a href="https://www.edge.org/conversation/rebecca_newberger_goldstein-the-mattering-instinct" target="_blank"><span>instinct</span></a><span>.” We’re driven to connect to cooperative projects greater than ourselves. If a community’s life-shaping stories don’t connect mattering to collective </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/economics-vs-fiction-on-human-nature" target="_blank"><span>survival</span></a><span> (and related </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/15-word-fix-for-major-tragic-mistake-needism" target="_blank"><span>needs</span></a><span>), that community, and those stories, won’t </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/prometheus-vs-tragedy-of-the-commons-myth" target="_blank"><span>survive</span></a><span>.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>15. The story that evolution is all about competition, overlooks widespread cooperation. Symbiosis isn’t rare, it’s the </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/each-of-you-is-a-multitude-heres-why" target="_blank"><span>rule</span></a><span>. Every “selfish gene” must </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/every-self-gene-must-also-cooperate" target="_blank"><span>cooperate</span></a><span>. Every animal cooperates with billions of </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/each-of-you-is-a-multitude-heres-why" target="_blank"><span>microbiome</span></a><span> mates. Trees run redistributive social </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/wow-trees-have-social-security-and-vast-redistribution" target="_blank"><span>safety nets</span></a><span>. </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>16. These cooperation-and-competition-mixing strategies face natural selection, and the most sustainably productive wins. Internal competition that hinders sustainable cooperation becomes </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/do-we-need-to-rescue-rationality" target="_blank"><span>self-defeating</span></a><span>. Humans are how evolution exceeds the limits of individual </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/are-there-logical-limits-to-self-maximization" target="_blank"><span>competition</span></a><span> and slow-changing </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/the-logic-of-genes-and-genesis" target="_blank"><span>genes.</span></a></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>17. A narrative-level natural selection is at work. Communities with story norms that help suppress destructive internal competition, survive better. History shows victory goes to those who “cooperated </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=DczADQAAQBAJ&pg=PP116&dq=yuval+harari+homo+deus+%22ants+and+bees%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi5v5yTrMXSAhUJCsAKHRgKBewQ6AEIHDAA#v=snippet&q=%22history%20provides%20ample%20evidence%22%20%22Victory%20almost%20invariably%20went%20to%20those%20who%20cooperated%20better%E2%80%9D&f=false" target="_blank"><span>better</span></a><span>.” </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>18. It’s clear we can’t live without tools. But it also took large teams and large tales to enable our </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/did-paleo-economics-shape-our-moralities" target="_blank"><span>cooperative</span></a><span> survival and dominance. That’s the bigger story. That’s what matters. </span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p>-- </p> <p><em>Illustration by <a href="http://juliasuits.net/" target="_blank">Julia Suits</a>, </em>The New Yorker<em> cartoonist & author of </em>The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions</p>
Keep reading
Show less
Science And Poetry Both Depend On Metaphors
Science's signature moves share something with good poetry. Good metaphor-making can make geniuses of both kinds. But bad metaphors can mislead whole fields.
12 August, 2016
<p dir="ltr"><span>1. Science, like poetry, depends on </span><a href="http://t.co/ZYUG9C0OAx" target="_blank"><span>metaphors</span></a><span>*</span><span>. They can hide, sometimes causing mischief.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>2. Science’s signature moves deploy two or more metaphors. Pythagoras’s “All things are </span><a href="http://io9.gizmodo.com/what-did-pythagoras-mean-by-all-things-are-number-1717748417" target="_blank"><span>number</span></a><span>.” Plus at least one other, framing what the numbers mean (often tacitly, through tools or models). </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>3. Scientists should “think like poets and work like </span><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/04/09/sciences-cult-of-calculation/" target="_blank"><span>accountants</span></a><span>,” E. O. Wilson advises. Useful number crunching builds on the poet's rarer skill of making good metaphors. </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>4. Good metaphor-making can make geniuses: Energy conservation is like balancing </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=more+heat+than+light+Joule+wanted+to+cost+out+the+amount+of+heat+held+within+vats+of+liquid%2C+in+order+to+compare+it+to+the+cost+of+the+power+required+to+control+it.+With+the+methodical+attitudes+and+predispositions+of+the+accountant" target="_blank"><span>account-books</span></a><span> (Joule). Evolution’s “struggle for existence” is like humanity’s economic </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/PQxkHo" target="_blank"><span>struggles</span></a><span> (Darwin).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>5. But bad metaphors can mislead entire fields: People ≠ biological </span><a href="http://bit.ly/1zmwOY4" target="_blank"><span>billiard balls</span></a><span>. Economies ≠ </span><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/07/19/sciences-mobile-army-of-metaphors/" target="_blank"><span>gases</span></a><span>. (Alarmingly, “economic </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=mccloskey+rhetoric+Becker+%22is+an+economic+poet%22" target="_blank"><span>poet</span></a><span>” Gary Beck metaphorized—>family = “little firm,” kids = “durable </span><a href="https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=mccloskey+rhetoric+%22Becker+is+an+economic+poet%22#hl=en&q=McCloskey+rhetoric+Becker%27s+metaphors%2C+from+criminals+as+small+businessmen+to+the+family+as+a+little+firm.+Becker+is+an+economic+poet%2C+which+is+what+we+expect+from+our+theorists.&tbm=bks" target="_blank"><span>goods</span></a><span>,” heroin = </span><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/2013/05/17/what-rational-really-means/" target="_blank"><span>bowling</span></a><span>.)</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>6. Let the “data do the talking” (preach Freakonomics </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/UuCFax" target="_blank"><span>folk</span></a><span>)? Alfred Marshall noted that can be “</span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=YW6m0tzFhHYC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=reckless%E2%80%A6of+all+theorists%E2%80%A6let%E2%80%A6+figures+speak+for+themselves&source=bl&ots=c5lHLGNDx6&sig=POA0W6r3wFcaPBLUcHwuitQm4Bo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwikscWqmrfOAhUEIMAKHadAAxoQ6AEIIzAB#v=snippet&q=%22facts%20by%20themselves%20are%20silent%22%20%22The%20most%20reckless%20and%20treacherous%20of%20all%20theorists%22%20%22professes%20to%20let%22%20%22figures%20speak%20for%20themselves%22&f=false" target="_blank"><span>treacherous</span></a><span>.” </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>7. You can’t always count on Pythagoras’s number-world move. For example many concepts in biology, </span><a href="http://bit.ly/1QFmG24" target="_blank"><span>economics</span></a><span>, and social science (e.g., fitness, utility, </span><a href="http://bit.ly/1NeIHH9" target="_blank"><span>happiness</span></a><span>) don’t have the mathematical properties of mass or length. They don’t fit a </span><a href="http://bit.ly/2aMZDDW" target="_blank"><span>ratio scale</span></a><span> and aren’t as measurable (=weakens the utility of math).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>8. Many are confused about how quantitative and </span><a href="http://time.com/12551/nate-silver-fivethirtyeight-hiring/" target="_blank"><span>qualitative</span></a><span> relate; e.g., Nate Silver says that those not "quantitatively </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/nqI2Zg" target="_blank"><span>inclined</span></a><span>” risk creating "a lot of </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/2aE3iA" target="_blank"><span>bullshit</span></a><span>." </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>9. But fruitful quantification requires sound qualitative distinctions, otherwise it risks increasing bullshit—>e.g., the average human has ~1 ovary + ~1 testicle. Mixed-types math can be fruitless (≠ apples-to-apples comparison).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>10. Statistical methods are especially slippery number-world tools. They require that underlying phenomena have sufficiently stable representative patterns—valid for physical traits like height variation, but often not for behaviors (different kinds of variability).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>11. Stats harbor new versions of old logic woes, like the fallacy of composition—projecting properties of parts </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_composition" target="_blank"><span>onto wholes</span></a><span> (e.g., apples are made of atoms, all atoms are invisible, therefore apples are invisible). And its opposite the fallacy of division (ascribes properties of wholes onto parts). </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>12. Consider data on shootings by police. Sendhil Mullainathan blunders in claiming that police racial bias has “little </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/GDxZkt" target="_blank"><span>effect</span></a><span>.” That’s a fallacy of division, assuming national data represent </span><a href="http://bigthink.com/errors-we-live-by/is-all-the-truth-we-need-in-the-data" target="_blank"><span>localities</span></a><span> well. Conversely, Rajiv Sethi notes a statistical “fallacy of </span><a href="http://rajivsethi.blogspot.com/2016/07/a-fallacy-of-composition.html" target="_self"><span>composition</span></a><span>,” can stats from one city be of any use in any differently composed city?</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>13. Top researchers often mishandle stats, e.g. </span><a href="http://andrewgelman.com/2016/07/26/29552/" target="_blank"><span>p-value</span></a><span> cherry-picking (in medicine, economics, psychology), multiple </span><a href="http://bit.ly/1Sy6sd7" target="_blank"><span>regression</span></a><span> (social </span><a href="http://bit.ly/1Sy6sd7" target="_blank"><span>sciences</span></a><span>, randomized </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/F0qBf1" target="_blank"><span>trials</span></a><span>). And standard stats moves can’t always help. Randomization still drops the ball on average testicle counts, and more data doesn’t automatically overcome lumpiness (Mullainathan’s misstep).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>14. Three distinct pattern types exist with intrinsically increasing levels of variability: see Newton vs. Darwin vs. </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/GtcPMe" target="_blank"><span>Berlin</span></a><span> patterns. And tools like statistics and algebraic equations yield more in physics than in social sciences.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>15. For example, Diane Coyle calls the seemingly objective GDP a </span><a href="http://pllqt.it/gOkrz7" target="_blank"><span>tarnished</span></a><span> measure. It’s a badly built number, it doesn’t distinguish “</span><a href="http://pllqt.it/DJDpdV" target="_blank"><span>bads</span></a><span>” from genuine goods, and it omits all that isn’t sold (marry your housekeeper—>GDP </span><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=WnU9DAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=who+cooked+adam+smith%27s+dinner&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjb2PLA7arOAhVCGx4KHe0ZDXkQ6wEIHzAA#v=snippet&q=%22if%20a%20man%20marries%20his%20housekeeper%2C%20the%20GDP%20of%20the%20country%20declines%22&f=false" target="_blank"><span>declines</span></a><span>).</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>16. The cult of calculation and data is seductive. And I’m no </span><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/moral-universe/2014/03/25/quantiphobia-and-turning-morals-into-facts/" target="_blank"><span>quantiphobe</span></a><span>. But number crunching has no monopoly on precision or </span><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/2013/08/30/maxims-are-fitter-than-maximization/" target="_blank"><span>truth</span></a><span>. Words, metaphors, non-numerical logic, images, and patterns can be exact and can exceed what numbers can do. </span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>17. A desire to jump to “the numbers” isn’t always wise. We often shouldn’t ignore unquantifiable factors, or the metaphoric or qualitative weaknesses hidden in the number-world mindset.</span></p> <p dir="ltr"><span>*—Deep conceptual metaphors structure most of our thinking (George </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff" target="_blank"><span>Lakoff</span></a><span>). </span></p> <p><span> </span></p> <p><span>Illustration by Julia Suits, author of </span><em>The Extraordinary Catalog of Peculiar Inventions</em><span>, and </span><em>The New Yorker</em><span> cartoonist.</span></p>
Keep reading
Show less
Popular
