Cooperation and the evolution of intelligence

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... .0206.full

The high levels of intelligence seen in humans, other primates, certain cetaceans and birds remain a major puzzle for evolutionary biologists, anthropologists and psychologists. It has long been held that social interactions provide the selection pressures necessary for the evolution of advanced cognitive abilities (the ‘social intelligence hypothesis’), and in recent years decision-making in the context of cooperative social interactions has been conjectured to be of particular importance. Here we use an artificial neural network model to show that selection for efficient decision-making in cooperative dilemmas can give rise to selection pressures for greater cognitive abilities, and that intelligent strategies can themselves select for greater intelligence, leading to a Machiavellian arms race. Our results provide mechanistic support for the social intelligence hypothesis, highlight the potential importance of cooperative behaviour in the evolution of intelligence and may help us to explain the distribution of cooperation with intelligence across taxa.

and that intelligent strategies can themselves select for greater intelligence, leading to a Machiavellian arms race.

This sounds as if it's in opposition to the "cooperation" mentioned in the headline, but it's the hypothesis I've always leaned towards.

As I've written previously:

Second, while intelligence does help to some degree with basic survival, it doesn't take a huge amount of intelligence to mentally keep up with nature or predators/prey on a daily basis. Most things in nature are reasonably predictable given the amount of intelligence in, say, a squirrel. But an intellectual "arms race" between members of the same social species would continually be strongly favoring the individuals who could stay one jump ahead of their competitors, which requires having a higher intelligence, the kind that can make its own plans for handling competition and/or enlisting allies, while *also* being smart enough to perceive and thwart the plans of one's competitors, while perceiving how potential allies might be persuaded to cooperate. It would be a constant upward spiral -- as the sharpest individuals prospered, the next generations would become smarter still, favoring the individuals who were even smarter yet to get a leg up on the competition. There's nothing in the natural world as complex or mentally challenging (nor as directly related to reproductive success and/or survival) as pitting your wits against other people who are trying to get ahead of you at the same time.

Nothing in nature would strongly select for extremely high analytical intelligence, but that would.

I've heard on some nature show that most dolphin intelligence is devoted to getting laid.

Seems this was suggested in The Dead Poet's Society. The reason for verbal fluency.

[GSlob]

There is intelligence and there is intelligence. The word is used in more than one meaning. One meaning relates to the human qualities needed to earn a Fields Medal, or a hard sciences Nobel. Another meaning pertains to the qualities needed for the similarly prominent social success - say, for one's rising through the ranks to become a politburo member, or an executive VP in a large Western company. Those of you, gentle readers, who have had the opportunities to observe people in both channels, would probably agree with me that these meanings and qualities are not merely different, but - beyond certain, and rather low, level - incompatible.

Last edited by GSlob on Wed Apr 11, 2012 4:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

collectivism or Adam Smith's division of labor?

collectivism or Adam Smith's division of labor?

Neither. What they call cooperation is really playing a tough, competitive game. In the mathematical sense of game.

collectivism or Adam Smith's division of labor?

Neither. What they call cooperation is really playing a tough, competitive game. In the mathematical sense of game.

Yeah, but I can see where someone might go with this.

collectivism or Adam Smith's division of labor?

Neither. What they call cooperation is really playing a tough, competitive game. In the mathematical sense of game.

Yeah, but I can see where someone might go with this.

yep. As I mentioned upthread, making an official career can easily be considered a tough, competitive game. And would you call the [known to you] grandmasters in that game the possessors of highly evolved intelligence? - say, harry reid? obaa?

collectivism or Adam Smith's division of labor?

Neither. What they call cooperation is really playing a tough, competitive game. In the mathematical sense of game.

Yeah, but I can see where someone might go with this.

yep. As I mentioned upthread, making an official career can easily be considered a tough, competitive game. And would you call the [known to you] grandmasters in that game the possessors of highly evolved intelligence? - say, harry reid? obaa?

Those particular examples? No.