Jaynes postulates, in passing, a genetic basis for bicamerality (which I assume you mean by “this kind of thinking”), for instance p.311: ”...there was probably a strong genetic basis for this type of remaining bicamerality. It is, I think, the same genetic basis that remains with us as part of the etiology of schizophrenia”.
Does that help ?
To defend or critique Jaynes properly (well, any better) I’d have to reread him. I picked up his book out of curiosity a few years ago when I was going through Dennett’s consciousness books; he cites Jaynes approvingly a few times. However, Dennet does not directly cites his bicameral theory, just his contention that language (more specifically “a capacity for self-exhortation”) played a key role in the development of minds capable of formulating plans. The other hook was Stephenson’s “Snow Crash”, which features Jaynes’ theory prominently.
I found this interesting pdf of a discussion involving Jaynes (and Dennett) and it makes clear what he believed, which was that the change was mostly cultural, and that uncontacted tribes might be bicameral, but there were none left. ( I’m not sure this is true—anyone reading this have an anthropologist handy ? ) Also contains a very odd fact (?) about children.
EDIT: Oops, didn’t notice it was on Jaynes’ own website. So presumably quite a lot more stuff there.
peoples who have culture and genes unchanged in the last 3000 years
To quote the pdf you dug up:
Anthropologists once had the assumption that if you find a hunter-gatherer tribe nowadays, it
is in a stone age similar to a pre-civilized era. This is not true. Each has had a history just as long
as we have, and perhaps a complicated history of going through a bicameral phase somewhere...
How does Jaynes explain the lack of this kind of thinking among peoples who have culture and genes unchanged in the last 3000 years ?
Jaynes postulates, in passing, a genetic basis for bicamerality (which I assume you mean by “this kind of thinking”), for instance p.311: ”...there was probably a strong genetic basis for this type of remaining bicamerality. It is, I think, the same genetic basis that remains with us as part of the etiology of schizophrenia”.
Does that help ?
To defend or critique Jaynes properly (well, any better) I’d have to reread him. I picked up his book out of curiosity a few years ago when I was going through Dennett’s consciousness books; he cites Jaynes approvingly a few times. However, Dennet does not directly cites his bicameral theory, just his contention that language (more specifically “a capacity for self-exhortation”) played a key role in the development of minds capable of formulating plans. The other hook was Stephenson’s “Snow Crash”, which features Jaynes’ theory prominently.
I found this interesting pdf of a discussion involving Jaynes (and Dennett) and it makes clear what he believed, which was that the change was mostly cultural, and that uncontacted tribes might be bicameral, but there were none left. ( I’m not sure this is true—anyone reading this have an anthropologist handy ? )
Also contains a very odd fact (?) about children.
EDIT: Oops, didn’t notice it was on Jaynes’ own website. So presumably quite a lot more stuff there.
Just a nitpick: Jaynes is dead; the site you refer to is that of the Julian Jaynes Society, which promotes his ideas about bicameralism.
Are you talking about the bit about imaginary friends on page 5?
Indeed. (I thought it would be a bit of a spoiler to be more specific)
To quote the pdf you dug up:
...and Jared Diamond’s “Guns, Germs and Steel” explains why this long history doesn’t result in industrial capability.