For the Review, I’m experimenting with using the predictions feature to poll users for their opinions about claims made in posts.
Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis: humans evolved big brains in order to be able to maintain [complicated, detailed, arbitrary-seeming cultural knowledge like 20+ step Inuit seal hunting techniques]. Everything that separates us from the apes is part of an evolutionary package designed to help us maintain this kind of culture, exploit this kind of culture, or adjust to the new abilities that this kind of culture gave us. Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis: humans evolved big brains in order to be able to maintain [complicated, detailed, arbitrary-seeming cultural knowledge like 20+ step Inuit seal hunting techniques]. Everything that separates us from the apes is part of an evolutionary package designed to help us maintain this kind of culture, exploit this kind of culture, or adjust to the new abilities that this kind of culture gave us. Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis: humans evolved big brains in order to succeed at social manuevering and climbing dominance hierarchies.Machiavellian Intelligence Hypothesis: humans evolved big brains in order to succeed at social manuevering and climbing dominance hierarchies.For most of history, a human attempting to use reasoning to do things like cooking, crafting, or planning (instead of using inherited cultural heuristics, like omens or folk wisdom), would have been substantially worse off, and faced a major increase in their risk of death (without a commensurate increase in life quality).For most of history, a human attempting to use reasoning to do things like cooking, crafting, or planning (instead of using inherited cultural heuristics, like omens or folk wisdom), would have been substantially worse off, and faced a major increase in their risk of death (without a commensurate increase in life quality).
The first two cites Scott almost verbatim, but for the third I tried to specify further.
Feel free to add your predictions above, and let me know if you have any questions about the experience.
For completion, here’s the prediction on the naive theory, namely that intelligence is instrumentally useful and evolved because solving plans helps you survive:
Instrumental Intelligence Hypothesis: intelligence evolved because it is useful for solving tasks and making plans in nature, and the only reason why humans don't have more of it is because there are metabolic costraintsInstrumental Intelligence Hypothesis: intelligence evolved because it is useful for solving tasks and making plans in nature, and the only reason why humans don't have more of it is because there are metabolic costraints
Instrumental Intelligence Hypothesis: intelligence evolved because it is useful for solving tasks and making plans in nature, and the only reason why humans don't have more of it is because there are metabolic costraintsInstrumental Intelligence Hypothesis: intelligence evolved because it is useful for solving tasks and making plans in nature, and the only reason why humans don't have more of it is because there are metabolic costraints
For the Review, I’m experimenting with using the predictions feature to poll users for their opinions about claims made in posts.
The first two cites Scott almost verbatim, but for the third I tried to specify further.
Feel free to add your predictions above, and let me know if you have any questions about the experience.
For completion, here’s the prediction on the naive theory, namely that intelligence is instrumentally useful and evolved because solving plans helps you survive:
Strange indeed… but, here is a working version: