I think I see more people believing in the “social brain” hypothesis than the EDSC hypothesis
I took these to be the same thing. From the section of the Wikipedia article cited:
As a result the primary selective pressure for increasing human intelligence shifted from learning to master the natural world to competition for dominance among members or groups of its own species.
The question I have is whether intelligence foomed because it’s useful for everything, or primarily because it’s useful for social skills (“competition for dominance”).
Ah, I think I misread the “to” as “for,” but the second paragraph makes clear that my initial impression wasn’t the intended one.
The question I have is whether intelligence foomed because it’s useful for everything, or primarily because it’s useful for social skills (“competition for dominance”).
So, the more selection pressure, the better—so I think the fact that intelligence is useful for everything can only help. But is social skills enough to cause a foom by itself? It seems possible.
I took these to be the same thing. From the section of the Wikipedia article cited:
The question I have is whether intelligence foomed because it’s useful for everything, or primarily because it’s useful for social skills (“competition for dominance”).
Ah, I think I misread the “to” as “for,” but the second paragraph makes clear that my initial impression wasn’t the intended one.
So, the more selection pressure, the better—so I think the fact that intelligence is useful for everything can only help. But is social skills enough to cause a foom by itself? It seems possible.