• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Humans started making art when their personalities got 'gentler'

rousseau

Contributor
Joined
Jun 23, 2010
Messages
13,508
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...art-when-their-personalities-got-gentler.html

Humans started making art work when their personalities got gentler and their faces more feminine, a study suggests.
Researchers found that culture boomed around 50,000 years ago when there was an apparent reduction in testosterone.
This led people to have gentler personalities and saw the making of art and advanced tools become widespread.

The new study, published in the journal Current Anthropology, found that human skulls changed in ways that indicate a lowering of testosterone levels at around the same time that culture was blossoming.

The study's lead author Robert Cieri, a biology graduate student at the University of Utah in the United States, said: "The modern human behaviors of technological innovation, making art and rapid cultural exchange probably came at the same time that we developed a more cooperative temperament."
Related Articles

The study, which is based on measurements of more than 1,400 ancient and modern skulls, makes the argument that human society advanced when people started being nicer to each other, which entails having a little less testosterone in action.

Heavy brows were out, rounder heads were in, and those changes can be traced directly to testosterone levels acting on the skeleton, according to Duke University anthropologist Steven Churchill, who supervised Cieri's work.

What they can't tell from the bones is whether these humans had less testosterone in circulation, or fewer receptors for the hormone.
The research team also included Duke animal cognition researchers Brian Hare and Jingzhi Tan, who say this argument is in line with what has been established in non-human species.
In a study of Siberian foxes, animals that were less wary and less aggressive toward humans took on a different, more juvenile appearance and behaviour after several generations of selective breeding.

Dr Hare, who also studies differences between our closest ape relatives - aggressive chimpanzees and mellow, free-loving bonobos, said: "If we're seeing a process that leads to these changes in other animals, it might help explain who we are and how we got to be this way.

He said chimps and bonobos develop differently, and they respond to "social stress" differently. Chimpanzee males experience a strong rise in testosterone during puberty, but bonobos do not. When stressed, the bonobos don't produce more testosterone, as chimps do, but they do produce more cortisol, the stress hormone.
He said their social interactions are profoundly different and their faces are different, too.
Dr Hare added: "It's very hard to find a brow-ridge in a bonobo."

Cieri compared the brow ridge, facial shape and interior volume of 13 modern human skulls older than 80,000 years, 41 skulls from 10,000 to 38,000 years ago, and a global sample of 1,367 20th Century skulls from 30 different ethnic populations.

The trend that emerged was toward a reduction in the brow ridge and a shortening of the upper face, traits which generally reflect a reduction in the action of testosterone.
There are a lot of theories about why, after 150,000 years of existence, humans suddenly leapt forward in technology. Around 50,000 years ago, there is widespread evidence of producing bone and antler tools, heat-treated and flaked flint, projectile weapons, grindstones, fishing and birding equipment and a command of fire.

The study argues that living together and cooperating put a premium on agreeableness and lowered aggression and that, in turn, led to changed faces and more cultural exchange.
Cieri added: "If prehistoric people began living closer together and passing down new technologies, they'd have to be tolerant of each other.
"The key to our success is the ability to cooperate and get along and learn from one another."

I guess this happened around the cultural explosion approx 45-50 thousand years ago, and I guess might have been a major step in the beginning of 'civilized' civilization. Pretty interesting stuff, I feel like I understand English majors a lot better now. :biggrina:
 
The article talks about 13 skulls used to define all of humanity 50,000 years ago.

Is it possible that by sheer chance those 13 skulls had the features in question?
 
The article talks about 13 skulls used to define all of humanity 50,000 years ago.

Is it possible that by sheer chance those 13 skulls had the features in question?

Possible, but given that our current anatomy is reflective of those skulls, this change seems to be what became of us. The real question is whether the change in Testosterone was the cause of cultural change. It's really a best guess, albeit a good one.
 
And the reverse? That something else made "nice" looking persons more fuckable?

I dont give much for that sort of guesswork.
 
The article talks about 13 skulls used to define all of humanity 50,000 years ago.

Is it possible that by sheer chance those 13 skulls had the features in question?

Possible, but given that our current anatomy is reflective of those skulls, this change seems to be what became of us. The real question is whether the change in Testosterone was the cause of cultural change. It's really a best guess, albeit a good one.
There still are plenty of people living today with the features mentioned.
 
And why not check testosterone levels against artistic or violent temperament and reintroduce cranial criminology? I am serious!
 
Possible, but given that our current anatomy is reflective of those skulls, this change seems to be what became of us. The real question is whether the change in Testosterone was the cause of cultural change. It's really a best guess, albeit a good one.
There still are plenty of people living today with the features mentioned.

The amount of testosterone would vary by individual along a spectrum. The spectrum shifts to the right, but still has people along the extreme left.
 
There still are plenty of people living today with the features mentioned.

The amount of testosterone would vary by individual along a spectrum. The spectrum shifts to the right, but still has people along the extreme left.
My point.

How do we know that these 13 skulls are not, by chance, a very skewed picture of what humans in general were like at the time?
 
The amount of testosterone would vary by individual along a spectrum. The spectrum shifts to the right, but still has people along the extreme left.
My point.

How do we know that these 13 skulls are not, by chance, a very skewed picture of what humans in general were like at the time?

We don't, that's the problem with the theory, but like any theory based on evidence that existed 50 000 years ago, it's going to be a bit tenuous.

That said, if variation existed you'd likely notice it amongst those 13 skulls. Say (complete wild guess) 20 000 humans existed amongst the population back then. The odds of pulling 13 random skulls out of that population which all show similar characteristics, but are not representative of the greater population, is unlikely. All that said I have no idea where all of the skulls were found in reference to each other, if the sample is truly random. The point is, based on the evidence found and giving the researchers the benefit of the doubt, this was what they found. It's not a certainty, but I'd tend to believe it's a good theory.
 
My point.

How do we know that these 13 skulls are not, by chance, a very skewed picture of what humans in general were like at the time?

We don't, that's the problem with the theory, but like any theory based on evidence that existed 50 000 years ago, it's going to be a bit tenuous.

That said, if variation existed you'd likely notice it amongst those 13 skulls. Say (complete wild guess) 20 000 humans existed amongst the population back then. The odds of pulling 13 random skulls out of that population which all show similar characteristics, but are not representative of the greater population, is unlikely. All that said I have no idea where all of the skulls were found in reference to each other, if the sample is truly random. The point is, based on the evidence found and giving the researchers the benefit of the doubt, this was what they found. It's not a certainty, but I'd tend to believe it's a good theory.
It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis with nothing, as far as I can tell, but the shape of 13 skulls to support it.

And I don't see how we can possibly determine the probability of these 13 skulls as being representative of humanity in general. We don't know how many humans were living then or how they were dispersed.

I see biases all over this. Particularly the bias that men with higher basal testosterone levels are somehow less cooperative.
 
We don't, that's the problem with the theory, but like any theory based on evidence that existed 50 000 years ago, it's going to be a bit tenuous.

That said, if variation existed you'd likely notice it amongst those 13 skulls. Say (complete wild guess) 20 000 humans existed amongst the population back then. The odds of pulling 13 random skulls out of that population which all show similar characteristics, but are not representative of the greater population, is unlikely. All that said I have no idea where all of the skulls were found in reference to each other, if the sample is truly random. The point is, based on the evidence found and giving the researchers the benefit of the doubt, this was what they found. It's not a certainty, but I'd tend to believe it's a good theory.
It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis with nothing, as far as I can tell, but the shape of 13 skulls to support it.

And I don't see how we can possibly determine the probability of these 13 skulls as being representative of humanity in general. We don't know how many humans were living then or how they were dispersed.

I see biases all over this. Particularly the bias that men with higher basal testosterone levels are somehow less cooperative.

Who said anything about men? Are you sure you aren't biased?

In any case, have you ever tried to reason with someone who's on steroids? Good luck not getting your face ripped off.
 
It's not a theory. It's a hypothesis with nothing, as far as I can tell, but the shape of 13 skulls to support it.

And I don't see how we can possibly determine the probability of these 13 skulls as being representative of humanity in general. We don't know how many humans were living then or how they were dispersed.

I see biases all over this. Particularly the bias that men with higher basal testosterone levels are somehow less cooperative.

Who said anything about men? Are you sure you aren't biased?

In any case, have you ever tried to reason with someone who's on steroids? Good luck not getting your face ripped off.
This was a study that used skulls to postulate basal testosterone levels in the blood.

I agree introducing certain steroids on top of this basal level can increase aggression.

But I know of no study that shows people with higher basal testosterone levels are less cooperative.
 
The reality is that we know absolutely nothing about the behaviors and cultures of humans 50,000 years ago. Even if there was (and that is a big if) a decline in testosterone and an increase in artistic expression at that time there is nothing to indicate that two are related and certainly nothing to indicate that one is causal. Any conclusion that some cultural anthropologist claims about the matter is nothing but wishful thinking or belief based on the cultural biases of today’s society.
 
Back
Top Bottom