CARTA: Domestication and Human Evolution - Richard Wrangham: Did Homo sapiens Self-Domesticate?

(Visit: www.uctv.tv) In this talk Richard Wrangham (Harvard Univ) puts forth the theory that Homo sapiens are, in fact, a self-domesticated species. He defines “self-domestication” as the evolution of a reduced propensity for reactive aggression (compared to an immediate ancestor), without the active involvement of another species. He then shows that communal sanctions practiced by hunter-gatherers, which depend on proactive aggression, provide a leading candidate mechanism selecting against high levels of reactive aggression. He therefore proposes that human self-domestication is an ironic consequence of a particularly well-developed facility for proactive aggression, and concludes that humans did indeed self-domesticate, providing a critical underpinning for inter-individual tolerance and cooperation.
Recorded on 10/10/2014. Series: "CARTA - Center for Academic Research and Training in Anthropogeny" [Science] [Show ID: 28902]

[@johns4775]

Just finished reading The Goodness Paradox, his new book. The theory of self-domestication furnishes answers to a very large number of puzzles and is supported by a lot of evidence.

[@markstuber4731]

This lecture was fascinating.

[@publicopinion3596]

Man, I love this channel!!! Thanks for sharing all this highly informative videos!❤

[@AG86UK]

Low reactive aggression, high proactive aggression: why? An individual's genetics are most likely to survive in a tribe whose genes lead it to fight proactively against neighbouring tribes and, due to reduced reactive aggression, can form a s stronger social unit.

[@SixMillionDollarGasBill]

That's sounds very "racist" of you.

[@jimimased1894]

huh? no it doesnt. its just that youre a racist flat earther injecting that bs into everything you see. get out of here

[@tadficuscactus]

@@jimimased1894 Are you displaying reactive aggression?

[@slbumkim2925]

"Don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing." This sentence is like a veteran carpenter's hand skills and a performer who plays both hand instruments, (such as piano and guitar) If the head orders- You have to divide the use of your right hand and left hand separately. It means don't do it in a symmetrical way. It means not to mix or skip each use. (including all two-handed instruments, farmers, fishermen, soldiers, tailor, hairdressers, boxers, etc.) When you work, when you eat, when you breast-feed your baby. And the structure of the sentence- writing down the thoughts in your head and reading and speaking them are not symmetrical.) Imagine you're holding a tool. First of all, the right hand- Apply force to the tool and use it at the 'right' point. But you don't use it for the 'wrong' point. and then you relax. And the left hand must point to a place where the use of the right hand is better, But if the direction is wrong, you have to fix it. The result of using both hands differently to help each other: The carpenter's work is intact. The guitarist makes a natural sound. The right hand should not apply force to 'useless place' The left hand should not be directed 'where you don't know'. ->The carpenter will make a wrong work, The performer will play "dissonance." There is no one who doesn't feel dissonance The uncomfortable chair is uncomfortable. Logical Design of Human Intelligence: The power of the right is obtained in the right place, and not in the wrong place. The left's wish is to head for a better place, but to be honest. It's 'different' and also 'together', so it is-'As one'. This 'Pureness' can be seen in your 'body' and 'mind'. You prove it yourself. Also, when there is dirt in your mind, With the "eye" of the truth that we've realized, You can see it. I also confess. I looked at the world based on materialism so, Many parts of me were against the truth. Now I can see the shape of our minds. It naturally makes sense why humans, unlike other animals, have been able to achieve the present civilization. The "selfishness" of a human being with the tools of knowledge and information It's the instinct that no one can deny. It is necessary for the life and satisfaction of individuals and families But the current society has become informative and anonymous. People don't handle inputs with their own hands on online People don't have to face the result offline. Everyone is making money and excreting their emotions without having to face each other. It's full of insensitive antisocial profit-seeking, extreme need for show-off and content addiction. The space that harms others who don't even know their faces is growing in everyone's mind. But never get me wrong. Never! It's not about stopping or not using tools. for a long time, in two pairs of axles: Right leg-left arm// left leg-right arm=X&Ypositioning We've been using tools to use both hands separately and together and help each other harmoniously. So we can develop the left and right brains respectively, We've reached our present intelligence. Whether or not our own selfishness has stepped on the line can be felt with our own minds. You can manage wisely so that day-to-day developed tools can be used in a beneficial way. If someone's selfishness is endless, we can stop it together. We can discuss how to become a better society, and the public can easily spread the moment when justice collapses. I hope you wake up. Sooner or later, due to rapid changes in the global environment, All kinds of crises can come. And for a long time, there are people in the world who follow unnatural intelligence. They have a spirit that has become symmetrical with only one axis. (like a bird) If you take after them for the survival of a few, It must be a retrogression of the intelligence and ethics that mankind has achieved. Let's always check the facts on our own to prepare for a crisis. Let's not leave our intelligence to any particular person, group, media, religion and scripture, special notions, symbols. If there are reasonable suspicions, let's take a look and develop our ability to suspect and withhold-judge with diverse knowledge and information. Let's look into both 'truth' and 'selfishness' and let the truth control the selfishness. It's not about being a strict instrument player and scolding a clumsy player. Let's not criticize and hate each other by using fundamental moral principles. Let's thank the truth and conscience are breathing in us. If people all around the world join together in ethical and intellectual forces, we can overcome the crisis and move on to the future. Please send this message to the world (regardless of the source) I emphasize again. See the "Truth" from "Self"! (not others) Thank you, everyone.

[@discontinuedaccount9186]

Bruh

[@SSNewberry]

There are some disagreements but a compelling lecture.

[@yepremkhan4202]

Great talk. I am a bit disappointed that the formation of human State is not discussed or mentioned at all. Self domestication of humans was not done in a pure democracy, but is widely associated by experts with sedentary settlements that arose out of agriculture of grains: wheat, barley and wet rice among others. The development of civilizations about 6-7k BC can be the turning point of domestication, where the State took domestication to a different level all together. Prof. Wrangham is totally silent about this definite fact in human history. So, we know elements of slavery, executions, even some agriculture was present in the Barbarians, savages, hill or swamp people, as the States called the "primitives", but Pro-active aggression was instituted and perpetuated by the very first states, not by the humans that were outside it's realms. He mentions hunter gatherers but stays quiet on how the creation of the State by humans further evolved us and contributed to the Domestication of the human kind. This talk is so detached from early human history, it penalizes some of its great talking points and amazing conclusions.

[@johnchao2422]

Well put. I drew many of the same conclusions as you, but it would have been nice to make it explicit

[@iotaje1]

He mentions a new guinea tribe where aggressive men are executed at a rate of 15% of the total male population, which is enormous in terms of evolutionnary pressure. All modern humans, including hunter-gatherers, practice proactive aggression. A state is simply a phenomemon where a group of hunter gatherers, having become sedentary, experiences high population growth due to higher food efficiency and productivity. The outcome of wars are usually determined by logistics, and so when these early states wage wars against neighbors who have remained hunter gatherers, these people stand no chance.

[@patrickturner6878]

Makes a lot of sense. In group aggression that was an obvious threat to group survival had to be dealt with. Especially for those in high positions of the social hierarchy. This pressure over about 250,000 years would have serious biological effects. We developed the concept of law and order long before we could articulate it in language or writing.

[@antoniomargallo5317]

I often say that we've grown further apart from what makes us humans, he are a evolved form of a domesticated simian. I just wonder how much of that proactive agression is brought upon by social interactions rather than by individual and psychological factors. Thank you.

[@alextupa5573]

what makes us humans is completely subjective though

[@nickhockings443]

This talk presupposes that the individual killed by the group was culpable, and not just an individual who had been isolated and so made vulnerable, for malign reasons. Mob justice is not known for its judicial accuracy, rationality or moral integrity. The victims of mobbing need not have done any harm to others. It might more simply be explained by the fact that a pack is a more powerful aggressor, than single individual.

[@z.deutch1334]

Perhaps proactive aggression occurs during population increase/competition among peers.

[@Spectonimous]

Such an educated man couldn't provide a plausible explanation for proactive aggression. It's pretty obvious. Humans are highly intelligent and social creatures that live in close-knit groups. Proactive aggression includes war and this could be used to take out neighboring groups and steal their resources and land. Reactive aggression is pointless and destroys social cohesion as well as one's chances of survival.

[@jonswap9097]

I am not sure whether Paedomorphic traits in humans are to do with the need for reduced aggression. I think the reason for it is to develop the brain later in order to allow late assignment of brain cell function in order to facilitate their assignment to language and other aspects of abstract thought. Our lack of brow ridges, which happens to be our most paedomorphic characteristic is unique among our species of hominid - all other species, including large brained ones like neanderthals had heave brow ridges, and so it is presumably our species that is malformed - heavy brow ridges are arguably a better adaptation to protect the eyes. I would suggest that the reason for this paedomorphic trait is that our brain development is delayed so that it can take place outside the womb when we are exposed to the programming input of language and other symbolic input. This would explain why humans have such an astonishing ability to learn language between the ages of two and six, and why if this window is missed, we have such difficulty in learning language (as is the case in feral children). Possibly adolescence is a second similar learning phase where other kills are learned. The fact that our brains take 20 to 25 years to develop, our extraordinary ability in language and other symbolic representation, and our odd brain case and brow ridge shapes, are what makes us stand out from other hominids - lack of aggression, not so much when you consider our species' propensity for violence to each other and the trail of mass extinctions we have left in our wake - including all other hominid species. Our paedomorphic traits are of course just a by-product of the genes that promote late brain development.

[@trishayamada807]

Jonswap mother’s care for cuter babies. Keep childish looks keeps you being cared for. They did a study in dogs, and the age that humans found puppies most cute was at 8 weeks which coincides with weaning by the mother dog, but the baby look remains and humans take over care. Little children have that same appeal and have it for longer as it assures care. Without care a brain won’t develop, a child will not survive.

[@ZaeemKhaliqAwan]

does it has any relation to autism???

[@search895]

What if bonobos are the basic Pan type, and chimpanzees the variation? They are the ones specially agressive amongst the great apes. Orangutans and even gorillas are nearly as chill as bonobos. There is the hypothesis that chimps evolved to be agressive warrior-type because of sharing habitat with gorillas. None of the other apes, including gorillas themselves, have that problem. Also it is believed that humans were less into war before civilization. So maybe lower ranges of agressive behaviour are the original characteristic of all hominid ape groups.

[@squatch545]

Why would a murderer in a tribe be called a 'reactive aggressor'? What are they 'reacting' to? Shouldn't the murderer be called 'proactive aggressor'? And the people doing the capital punishment be called 'reactive'? They are reacting to the murderer.

[@fabian5002]

Reactive aggression is a type of aggression caused by the heat of the moment. It involves the amygdala screaming louder than the frontal cortex, so people act without thinking things through. On the other hand, proactive aggression requires planning ahead, and cooperation within group members which is the frontal cortex knowing exactly what will be the outcome of the situation and its repercussions.

[@iotaje1]

Reactive aggression is someone getting into a road rage situation, where their anger compels them to assault people they are irritated with. You can see it every day in your local pub : people will fight because someone looked at them wrong. This type of violence rarely leads to death, it's point is mostly to establish dominance. It's Chimp politics. Proactive aggression would be you and a friend coming back the the pub for revenge. Because you left the situation, cooled down, made a plan and came back, this is not a simple reflexive reaction anymore.

[@squatch545]

@@iotaje1 Seems like splitting hairs. We react in the moment, and then calm down with time, but still harbour the original reactive anger, and harness it to seek revenge.

[@iotaje1]

@@squatch545 It's not splitting hairs, all legal systems understand the difference between premeditated murder and homicide. "Murdered in cold blood" seems barbaric because proactive violence is the monopoly of the state.

[@squatch545]

@@iotaje1 False. Homicide is an umbrella term that includes murder and other types of killing. Did you know that suicide falls under the term homicide? It's splitting hairs because you are basing differences on motivation and psychological factors rather than on the physical act of murder itself, which is the same physical act.

[@boreopithecus]

Wish they would change the music, it's really creepy.

[@zmkdco8956]

That's a woman. And the music sounds like it's from The Exorcist

[@rck2894]

The cultural paradigm is misplaced here. It is a coarsely construed explanation and an insignificantly summative view - just the same hundred-year-old, anthropological functional equation placed conjecturally across the top of what is actually biological (and more recently genetic) data. No need for a general sociocultural, functional attribution of cause for its sensationalist, vaguely construed, humanism-aggrandizing appeal or benefits: numerous biological and genetic traces exist in domesticated pets and livestock (vs. tame and wild species) to show artificial selection as the cause of any large cluster of domesticated-event-type group of traits. The "pet and livestock cluster" of domestication traits exists as evidence of domestication in humans: reduced brain-to-body ratio, increasingly gracile bones and feminine-like features, lighter muscle-mass, the development of numerous breeds, giant and dwarf breeds, vast skin and hair variations in color, hairless and super-haired breeds, increased docility, shortened-snout pug faces, and reduced sexual dimorphism. None of this needs culture as a generic intermediary. Postulating a "domesticator" or God would be a more succinct and precedented multiple-species cause. Why not a domesticator for man? Ans. atheism... Want a chronical of human domestication, biological trace evidence at work? Read the Book of Genesis from an epigenetic viewpoint.

[@belliotrungy9107]

Idk why this is solely focused on aggression when it's part of a limbic axis. You don't need as much modeling capacity or dramatic energetically taxing body change if you're not constantly in the 4 Fs. Bonobos choose one F and get away with it. Sounds smarter to me. Domestication or evolution away from counterproductive behaviors? The bias towards somewhat pointless escalation is ironic as we push our environment into chaos. Clearly all the "maturation" and increased cognitive capacity have not tempered a fiery core that the hippy bonobo have dealt with their own way. 🤷 The ultimate irony of homosexuality in humans is the massive number of heterosexual inmates. What kind of domestication is that? As evolution once again gets co-opted into culture wars these simplifications based on flawed teleology could have very bad implications for human freedom.

[@duckmanjoel]

A better theory is dogs domesticated humans while humans domesticated dogs.

[@tadficuscactus]

Mutual domestication.

[@marcussurleyadventures1928]

The royal family’s of the world did help us a little

[@knockhello2604]

Mhm

[@tadficuscactus]

Why do the brains of domesticated animals become 15% smaller? Does being more aggressive require more intelligence?

[@approachinggnosis4613]

Nothing to do with aggression, but the size of the animal. The larger the animal, the more motor neurons it needs and the same goes for smaller animals (which is the paedomorphism). To be clear, brain size =/= to intelligence. Neanderthals had much larger brains but Homo sapiens have far more surface area.

[@sjobang]

@@approachinggnosis4613 Then how could huge dinosaurs do with so small brains?

[@approachinggnosis4613]

sjobang why do we need such big brains?

[@sjobang]

@@approachinggnosis4613 To answer questions in an intelligent way, I suppose.

[@belliotrungy9107]

It's not just aggression but fight or flight freeze etc in general. If your environment is generally stable and safe and you're rewarded for stable friendly behavior you don't need a lot of brain devoted to a wild environment and threats to survival.

[@tadficuscactus]

Neanderthals had larger brains than homo-sapiens, so maybe we are the domesticated version of Neanderthals.

[@SimonSozzi7258]

Birds 🐦 are self-domesticated Dinosaurs 🦕 🤯

[@tharpinup7861]

This could be evidence for us being domesticated by the Annunaki XD HAHA

[@TheWanderbugChannel]

We were domesticated by a super intelligent extra terrestrial civilization

[@knockhello2604]

Nur huh

[@mchepen]

why self? why not another race or species? like.. jews?