Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Fake Banner
By Gerhard Adam | March 9th 2009 07:27 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
There is no question that humans are unique among living things in possessing a rich communications vehicle like language. However, by itself, this is insufficient to explain why such a thing should exist, so it might be useful to examine what is it that makes humans unique among animals?

Often we hear arguments about consciousness, or intelligence, or some other element, but to my mind these are too vague to be of much use, since we often see similar capabilities among animals that do not possess a language.

In the previous two posts, I have argued that the role of a belief system, or worldview is a fundamental function of the brain based on the organization of data. That it is taught and formed by adults and society, it becomes the basis for the values that ultimately shape the adult. I will continue to argue that it is these values which form the basis for what we call culture.

A people’s culture is based on a common set of beliefs and values, which are often enforced by experience and rituals that are intended to enforce the sense of belonging to the group. One important element of this is that it will tend to operate in a hierarchy with the lowest level (closest to the family) having the most influence up to higher more removed levels. Therefore we tend to see strong loyalties to family, friends, and local groups with less demonstrated, for example, to the government.

As an example, while patriotism is often viewed as loyalty to the country/government, it truth it is actually a manifestation of loyalty to the branch of service, and then the local unit, and ultimately to friends. An individual typically isn’t fighting for their country as much as they are fighting for their friends and unit. However, it is also highly probable that the initial sense of patriotism was actually taught by parents and family rather than as something learned in adulthood from the government.

This is another reason why we see such intense loyalty to specific groups, whether they be as innocuous as a favorite sports team, to a neighborhood street gang. Each promotes identification with the group and conveys a sense of “cultural” values which tends to unite those that participate within that group.

Having said all this, there’s an important ingredient missing; how can we convey this to each other? In this instance, I will argue that all this structure has culminated in the development and evolution of language. It is the one mechanism that is absolutely required in order to be able to pass on these values, as well as identifying those that would share them.

Since the development of culture and values is essential in forming the worldview we hold. It is equally important in determining how we approach the world and will directly relate to our ability to survive in it. Therefore it becomes quite relevant to consider how one goes about finding a mate that shares these values and ideas. In my view, this can only occur with the development of language.

Most of the elements associated with values and beliefs do not exist in the physical world, so the only way to exchange information about them is verbally. They are very much a product of the mind, so language becomes an important mechanism for sharing this data, and creates a “selection pressure” to ensure language evolves. In particular, the selection pressure would occur if the ability to communicate more specific information resulted in finding better mates, allowing better cohesion in groups that shared the same values, and consequently improving the survivability of the group.

In conclusion, it is my contention that the development of language is a direct consequence of our brain’s data organization function which gives rise to a data framework, or belief system. As a result, it is this need to articulate the particulars of this belief system which would have created a selection pressure where language would have made group cohesion and mate selection a strong advantage over those groups that only had limited communication capability.

The Nature of Belief Systems
Belief Systems - Part 2

Comments

I think that "executive functions" (EF) provide a useful metaphor for the differences btwn humans & animals, along with the usages of language. The research behind EF is rather fascinating. They’re hard to define, but executive dysfunction is the sort of thing that clinicians just know when they see it. Generally, it’s thought to encompass areas like future goal-oriented behavior & a basic sense of time, staying reasonably organized, emotional control, starting/switching tasks, inhibition, self-monitoring, short-term working memory, & mental adaptability. Unlike much of intelligence/IQ research, the field formed thru the study of people severely lacking EF, at first thru brain damage, & currently thru certain mental conditions. Also unlike intelligence, it’s only studied thru a deficit model, which is to say that there’s no such meaningful thing as having “high” EF, only not having low EF. Arguably there’s some meaningful variation of EF in the general population , but not too much. All of which I think goes to suggest that EF is basic part of what makes us human; it’s the sort of thing that we only notice when it’s lacking.

The foundations of language are at least partly built upon EF (particularly the use of language to gauge the future), & some have argued that social-living was necessary for them to evolutionarily develop (eg, along the lines of the complex types of thinking necessary for social living that Trivers discussed). What’s so fascinating about them is that they’re a bridge to higher cognition: They roughly form a framework to inhibit/filter sensory/data input, & they’re not so specific as to actually constitute the content of such data; but they’re more basic than say consciousness, which is a higher less tangible form of cognition.

All of this I’d think would play into belief systems, but I’m not sure how, aside from a few fleeting ideas, such as the comfort of the known & fear of the unknown.

Gerhard Adam's picture

Part of the problem is that belief systems aren't intended to provide comfort, etc.  They are simply a means of organizing data to provide meaning to the world and allow us a mechanism by which we can assess how much value to place to new data (in or out). 

In humans, part of the problem with values/culture is that because we have a much larger capacity for abstract thought, we can literally experience "analysis/paralysis" when it comes to making decisions.  So we develop short-cuts, rituals, ways of organizing our habits, procedures, etc. to make ourselves be as effective or efficient as we can be.  So when you extrapolate this to our ancestors, the "ideas" or "beliefs" that were developed to be successful would be important to share with others that held similar views.

As we've all seen in our encounters with humans, people can have a wide range of opinions, and some of them can be quite adamant about them.  So to put this into perspective (so you can see where I'm going with the values and culture concept) ... imagine that one group of people believes that hunting game should be conducted silently and from hidden vantage points, while another group believes in being noisy and driving the game into a corner for a confrontation.

Each might have a reason for their perspective, but it is the abstraction of this method of hunting that is important to express.  It can only be done with language.  It wouldn't be sufficient to try and signal intent during the hunt itself, and unless the group is unified in its objectives, they would be working to cross-purposes, even though both methods might work when applied uniformly. 

My point is that there is a reason why people are so opinioniated about how the world, or society should work.  They have been selected for it, with group success or failure being determined by the ability to share successful strategies.  This is contrasted with other social animals, because it isn't the process of socialization that requires it, but rather the diversity of opinions which are a direct result of our ability to abstract.  Most animals have few choices in how they pursue their particular evolutionary strategy, but the human ability to abstract situations gives rise too a wide-range of choices (and crackpot ideas) that warrants ensuring that whatever group you're associated with shares similar views.

It is my contention that it is no coincidence that the uniqueness of human culture is based on this premise that each group perceives themselves as having the "best" worldview with which to succeed. 

The only problem with the Executive Function perspective, is that it's another one of those things that we can attribute to animals as well.  It's not truly unique, because this functionality can be observed in a wide range of animals, so the degree to which it is different in humans (I suspect) is ultimately linked to our ability to abstract and therefore fits precisely into my point about belief systems.  After all, it is important to remind ourselves that "belief systems" aren't arbitrary but represent how our particular brains have organized the data with which we view the world.



Gerhard Adam's picture
Regarding EF:

"future goal-oriented behavior&a basic sense of time, staying reasonably organized, emotional control, starting/switching tasks, inhibition, self-monitoring, short-term working memory, & mental adaptability"

Animals that store food, set things aside, etc. could certainly be engaged in "future goal-oriented behavior".  Animals also have a sense of time since they can accommodate changes in the length of the day and seasons.  While you could argue that they don't have the same sense as humans, the problem with that is that humans have abstracted time, but beyond that don't have any better sense of it when we remove all our artifacts from consideration (watches, clocks, etc.). 

Starting/switching tasks can be readily seen just from observing my dog playing to reacting to a stranger approaching (as well as paying attention to my own reaction to the circumstances).  Inhibition is routinely practiced by animals that have to contend with pack/herd leaders. 

All the rest can also be seen by simple observation, so I'm not clear on how this is differentiated in humans.  Examining brain-damaged humans doesn't tell us much, because they also tend to function below the levels of most animals, so while it may be useful from the perspective of brain architecture, it isn't unique.

I see your point with the EF's being linked to animals, & all I can say is that I need to think about more, maybe go back to some of the material, & not to overlook differences of EF just b/c some of them maybe more quantitative rather than qualitative.

As for people being opinionated...I think the problem is that all too often our opinions really don't affect our survival. There's the common saying that the toughest intellectual battles are where the stakes matter the least - particularly in academia. This principle has a lot of truth when it comes to opinions, particularly when people begin to place more emphasis on opinions than substance. When I'm at a party or something, & a conversation begins to turn a bit intellectual, I always half roll my eyes when someone's like "Well, *I* think" or "It's *my* opinion that", as if we were all interested in who the opinion belongs to, or the opinion itself, rather than the real world. Maybe that's just a pet-peeve of mine, but I've always seen opinions as a kind of luxury of freedom which range from a weak heuristic to mildly self-serving. From an international perspective as well, I think you could argue that opinions are largely a Western phenomena.

But along these lines I do see the value of drawing lines across cultures. I just finished Greenspan's autobiography & he had this point that we often draw ideological distinctions of capitalism vs. socialism/communism, but there are distinct modes of how free markets work across cultures. For instance, he mentioned a talk he had with a Japanese foreign minister, where Grensspan asked him how the country how the country would respond when its social security system - structured much like ours - becomes too over burdensome. His response was that the Japanese gov't would simply cut back on the promised benefits, & while this wouldn't be seen as a good thing, everyone would simply understand that it was in the best interest of the county. This is in obvious contrast to the civil unrest that would erupt should our gov't explicitly do the same thing. But such different solutions to the same problem, he argued, speaks volumes to cross-cultural differences (Greenspan called these differences "modes of capitalism").

Gerhard Adam's picture

You've hit on another problem regarding our "belief systems".  In the past, I'm asserting that they had more of a survival advantage, however in modern society, much of our survival has been given over to society, so that survival is virtually guaranteed.

In this respect, it gives rise to all sorts of beliefs that ultimately have no consequences, so we can indulge ourselves and make absurd claims like "everyone's entitled to their opinion".  In the distant past, such a position would've been confirmed by the ability of that individual or group to actually survive.

Without that filtering, it's giving rise to all kinds of strange ideas that people think are worth pursuing.  In some cases, you can still see how dangerous it can be, for example, when cults engage in suicide pacts ... it becomes clear that beliefs do have consequences, although it isn't as stringent as it once was.

This is also why people can engage in perpetual debates from different belief systems, because ultimately no matter how ridiculous the position, it doesn't actually cost anyone anything to believe it.  This is another reason why I'm put off by the creationist arguments against evolution, because that belief system is ultimately protected by researchers and doctors still providing treatment for disease with a full understanding of the evolutionary consequences in germs.  This is another example of how if people actually had to live with their belief systems, then their success would be much easier to assess.



Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.