The standard social brain theory seems in conflict with standard anthropologist accounts of ancestral forager lifestyles. Might “man the sly rule bender” resolve this conflict?
Why do we have ginormous brains? Animals tend to have big brains when they have big bodies, but beyond that the main brain pattern is social: bigger brains are found in birds and mammals that compete with predators or prey, and who manage pair-bonding mate relations. The extra costs of big brains is outweighed by benefits of not being out-witted by others.
Primates (and hyenas) hit on the trick of reusing pair-bonding skills to manage friendships in large social groups. Primates have huge expensive brains, which are bigger in species with larger social groups, and these groups spend more of their time managing social relations. Bigger groups better protect against predators, though the coalition politics of dominance gets more complex in bigger groups.
Primates not only manage relations and coalitions, but they also track the relations and coalitions of others. They are adept at judging how to help their coalitions, and when to switch sides. The top chimp is often not the strongest, but instead the one with the strongest coalition, which gets to dominate food and mating, and stay best protected from predators; chimp investments in big brains often pay off handsomely.
Humans have the biggest primate brains of all. Over the last two million years hominid brains grew more where climates were variable, but they grew most where population densities were high. This suggests that human brains were also big mainly due to social pressures. The “mating mind” sexual selection hypothesis seems at odds with this density effect, and with the more general fact that polygamous species tend to have smaller brains. “Man the tool user” stories seem to confuse broad group gains with individual benefits – smaller brains seem sufficient for copying others’ tool skills. But even if social pressures were key, which pressures exactly?
Isolated nomadic forager bands today are “fossils” with crucial clues about our distant ancestors. Anthropologists who study them report that overt dominance is rare, and long distances make war rare (as 4 million year old fossils suggest). Foragers live in tight quarters and use language to express and enforce social norms on food sharing, non-violence, mating freedom, communal decision making, and norm enforcement. Anger, bragging, giving orders, and anything remotely resembling dominance among men is punished by avoidance, exile, and death as required. Human’s unusual hidden female fertility also limits male dominance temptations.
The puzzle here is that consistent enforcement of such norms seems to drastically reduce the payoff to expensive coalition-politics-savvy brains. If you can’t collude to grab the food or the women, and everyone is treated fairly based on their contributions, why bother to be so clever? Yes, some brain innovations were required to support language, and maybe they wouldn’t have occurred in a small brain, but after that innovation human brains could have shrunk (as perhaps with hobbits). Why did humans keep huge expensive brains?
In a messy real world, social norms expressed in language typically have many iffy boundary cases and ambiguities. How much of what sort of food of what quality offered how conveniently counts as food sharing? How big a frown is a grimace? Sex with how close a relative counts as incest? And so on. This wouldn’t matter if boundary cases were decided randomly, but that seems unlikely. Instead big brain gains come five ways:
Unnormed – coalition politics on acts uncovered by norms.
Skirt – keep actions near but not over edge of violating norms.
Cover – politics of observers on if to report an act to others.
Frame – lawyer-like arguing on if acts violate social norms.
Conspire – form coalitions on how to publicly interpet iffy acts.
Most norms have meta-norms against consciously trying to evade them. Self-deception should help here; foragers might sincerely believe they usually just do their job and “tell it like it is”, and then unconsciously try to act, selectively report and frame acts, and support interpretation coalitions, to their advantage. Instead of “man the tool user”, we might be better understood as “man the sly rule bender.”
Gains to rule bending could be greatly reduced via social norms with very clear simple rules. But humans seems to usually prefer complex and ambiguous rules that require “judgment” to apply. For example, foragers often have complex incest rules, forbidding a much wider range of sex partners than is needed to prevent genetic problems. And acts of sorcery are allowed to count as acts of aggression that violate social norms and must be punished, even without concrete evidence showing such acts. Both complex broad incest rules and allowing sorcery complaints greatly increase the scope for gains to large rule-bending brains, and suggest that we tend to prefer to allow such scope.
The idea that the main reason we have huge brains is to hypocritically bend rules seems to me a dramatic change in how we think about human nature. If true, it should change how we understand a great many things in psychology and social science. I’ve been obsessing about his topic for weeks, and last Thursday I ran it past Robin Dunbar, famed for his contributions to the social brain account, and he said it was pretty close to his view on the subject, and he suggested the incest example.
loading...
St 
mikem 
Andy McKenzie 
William H. Stoddard 
anon 
Douglas Knight 
ngvrnd 
Tim Tyler 
jc 
Grant 
michael vassar 
Philo 
Microbiologist 
Pat 
Drewfus 
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sharon Lopez, s w, PJ King, lottery, Amasa Amos and others. Amasa Amos said: "The main reason we have huge brains is to hypocritically bend rules …" -Robin Hanson http://bit.ly/9ONFMa [...]
By Tweets that mention Overcoming Bias : Homo Hipocritus -- Topsy.com March 24, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by Club_Z: Overcoming Bias : Homo Hipocritus http://bit.ly/bq5HRo...
By uberVU - social comments March 25, 2010 at 12:00 pm
[...] argued that central to human nature are deep, subtle, and powerful abilities to give the impression we are [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Homo Hypocritus Ovulates September 20, 2010 at 1:01 pm
[...] via the details of our behavior, I do in fact think that we more self-deceived than not. We are homo hypocritus, creatures built to fool ourselves in order to fool others on why we do things. While our beliefs [...]
By Overcoming Bias : The Most Important Topic December 23, 2010 at 9:07 pm
[...] an idealized image to others, while near minds could focus on managing our less visible actions. Homo hypocritus could see himself from afar, and sincerely tell himself and others that when it mattered he would [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Beware Commitment December 29, 2010 at 9:09 pm
[...] have recently been exploring a Homo Hypocritus (man the sly rule bender) view of human nature, that humans have hugemongous brains in [...]
By Overcoming Bias : The Accidental Hypocrite January 22, 2011 at 8:42 am
[...] homo hypocritus hypothesis is that humans developed huge brains to manage the process of subtly evading social [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Strictness Aids Hypocrisy February 5, 2011 at 8:45 pm
[...] discussed the concept behind Robin Hanson’s Homo-Hypocritus theory . Although Mr. Hanson teaches it from an evolutionary perspective, I have taught a similar [...]
By It’s okay to die. February 14, 2011 at 2:22 pm
[...] often choose to be stubborn and ignore all words. There are also those who pretend to go along but coordinate to violate norms discretely, usually with thinly veiled [...]
By Accelerating Future » Security is Paramount April 30, 2011 at 7:47 pm
[...] economics, overconfidence in designers, making measurements of behaviour of people in spaces and Hanson's Homo Hypocritus (to name a few of the things that I've been looking at) with a project that I did with Angela [...]
By notion parallax – space hacking May 9, 2011 at 5:29 am
[...] careful, you self-absorbed narcissistic humans! Darwinian puppet strings have programmed us to be self-serving hypocrites. I didn’t do it — blame God. [...]
By Accelerating Future » Clues the Post was a Lie July 22, 2011 at 8:15 am
[...] Man the sly rule bender offers a more satisfying explanation: we evolved to overtly and consciously embrace social norms against bragging, dominance, and sub-band coalitions, while covertly and subconsciously signaling our abilities, and loyalties: [...]
By Overcoming Bias : Homo Hypocritus Signals July 29, 2011 at 6:38 pm
[...] Restrict the Low Status Low status people are punished more, restricted more, and their hypocracy is tolerated less. High status people are better at [...]
By Law, Power, and Status « azmytheconomics January 17, 2012 at 3:48 pm
[...] Siamo nel mondo in cui il maschio è breadwinner, conduce la sua vita nella giungla d’ asfalto, un ambiente dove l’ evoluzione ha sagomato una super razza: l’ homo hypocritus. [...]
By Scettri di carta pesta « fahreunblog January 18, 2012 at 2:52 am