It's an interesting thought experiment to draw an analogy between people and other species with regards to physical competition. Few of us tend to be consciously aware that our species competes, or when we're competing ourselves, but the competition is definitely there. For mating partners and for resources mostly. Look to something like an Elk with antlers, it's obvious how males compete, physically. But what is the human analogy?
I think most people could easily draw a quick list of attributes that are important in competition: social skills, displays of wealth, physical appearance, physical health, strength. But if you scale competition back to physical features alone and not outward results of our physical features, I believe we're primarily left with language.
Those who are skilled at receiving, understanding, and expressing language toward the end of living in harmony with other people should be the most successful in terms of reproduction. At a fundamental level a relationship between two people is a long-term bond where communication is happening consistently, every day, and these bonds are likely the most critical aspect of our survival. Those who can maintain relationships with language, romantic or otherwise, are the most successful.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot lately is how difficult managerial roles are. Earlier in my career I didn't have enough respect for what these people do, but as my own role becomes more social I'm realizing that software development is easy, but managing relationships, or managing a team takes a lot more finesse. And someone who is able to lead a large-scale enterprise, even harder. The higher up you go the more linguistic skill you need - we are compensated primarily for this skill.
And I have to wonder if this propensity for language is manifested not in our brain size, but brain shape. Those who have a neural configuration that is well attuned to a good combination of intelligence/sociality tend to be the most successful, not necessarily more fire-power, but the right mix of fire-power.
Anyway, some food for thought. It doesn't seem like we've had many proper science talks lately.
I think most people could easily draw a quick list of attributes that are important in competition: social skills, displays of wealth, physical appearance, physical health, strength. But if you scale competition back to physical features alone and not outward results of our physical features, I believe we're primarily left with language.
Those who are skilled at receiving, understanding, and expressing language toward the end of living in harmony with other people should be the most successful in terms of reproduction. At a fundamental level a relationship between two people is a long-term bond where communication is happening consistently, every day, and these bonds are likely the most critical aspect of our survival. Those who can maintain relationships with language, romantic or otherwise, are the most successful.
One thing I've been thinking about a lot lately is how difficult managerial roles are. Earlier in my career I didn't have enough respect for what these people do, but as my own role becomes more social I'm realizing that software development is easy, but managing relationships, or managing a team takes a lot more finesse. And someone who is able to lead a large-scale enterprise, even harder. The higher up you go the more linguistic skill you need - we are compensated primarily for this skill.
And I have to wonder if this propensity for language is manifested not in our brain size, but brain shape. Those who have a neural configuration that is well attuned to a good combination of intelligence/sociality tend to be the most successful, not necessarily more fire-power, but the right mix of fire-power.
Anyway, some food for thought. It doesn't seem like we've had many proper science talks lately.
