The Social Leap. The New Evolutionary Science of who we are, where we come from and what makes us happy by Willian von Hippel.

This book starts by explaining some facts about our evolution as humans. From the Australopithecines, to the Homo Erectus and then us Homo Sapiens, von Hippel explains how apes abandoned the savannah and the safety of trees, a circumstance that forced us to evolve in certain ways for example the Australopithecus was able to walk upright and throw stones. And the Homo Erectus and Homo Sapiens got an increase in brain size. As the “Social Brain Hypothesis” explains, large brains are needed to manage the social challenges of living in groups and dealing with other people. Large brains allowed us collective action, like hunting in groups, and thus become tops of the food chain. It also allowed us some forms of punishment, such as ostracism and collective punishment. Von Hippel states that collective action brought a cognitive revolution which he calls the Social Leap. Homo Sapiens have inherited some traits from the homo erectus like the ability to plan for the future. Homo Erectus also invented “division of labour” and were able to control fire. Homo Sapiens invented Storytelling and were able to manage complex social relationships. 

Once we get into the Homo Sapiens territory, von Hippel explains how Hunter-Gatherers lived. How they had a healthy diet and built groups in which they were “forced” to share. Their way of living was of “immediate return”, that is, they focused on eating today and when they lacked resources they moved away to other locations. Just a few thousand years ago Homo Sapiens invented agricultural which brought significant changes to the way they lived. To start, humans evolved a tolerance to alcohol to survive in their unhealthy living spaces (faecal poisoning). They were exposed to new illnesses, their diets got restricted and their teeth started to rot. With the invention of agriculture we got private property too, which brought “inequality” to human societies. So, people who were better at what they did were could own more than the ones who didn’t. With time, inheritance entered in the picture, and it wasn’t only the people who worked hard the ones who were rich, but maybe lazy children of rich men. One way to justify this is by saying that some “bloodlines” are better than others. Note that bloodlines wasn’t in the picture initially but appeared as a psychological justification of inequality. 

In terms of sexual selection, von Hippel explains how some male animals invest little to no effort in reproducing and parenting. Compared to them human beings devote a lot of time and effort to their offspring. However not in equal parts. Female humans invest much more resources than male humans, in terms of carrying babies, feeding them and looking after them during childhood. Because of this, von Hippel explains, that it is the females of the species who choose their sexual partners. Due of their great investment they want to make sure they get the best deal. Males, as a consequence, have evolved to compete between them to get females attention by showing them that they can be good providers. Signs of good quality men (that women look for) are muscles, brain, strength, sense of humour and symmetry. A sign of good quality women (that men are attracted for) is their fertility which can be shown in their youthfulness and hourglass shape.

There is also an interesting discussion about survival versus reproduction. “Evolution depends primarily on reproduction” so most of our mental and physical traits and abilities focus on us being able to reproduce. Our survival mechanisms are active as they will allow to reproduce at some point. But it is not evolution’s aim to makes us live longer or forever.

More on the Social Brain hypothesis. Our brain grew large to solve social problems, then many of our cognitive abilities might play an important social role. For example, divergent thinking, related to alternative approaches to problems, might facilitate flexibility in social situations. We like to share the content of our minds because it helps us to fit in and to predict others’ actions. We share our knowledge but most importantly our emotions. We exaggerate, or distort our stories, to make sure other people share our emotions. Also, social demands have led to the evolution of self-control. Some people are better at that than others, especially they are able to translate their problems into abstractions which help to swamp temptations. And finally my favourite concept: self-deception. We deceive ourselves in order to deceive others. We think we are prettier or better than we are, and we try to convince others to share our views. In this respect self-deception is a social weapon to help us achieve our goals. We show overconfidence and (fake) happiness. There are a few research studies quoted in this part of the book, which I found extremely interesting and fun. For example, a study on HR consultants who were asked to recommend applicants for managerial positions. Consultants tended to recommend overconfident candidates rather than knowledgeable ones, as they couldn’t differentiate one from the other. 

Another interesting topic is Innovation. Von Hippel says “technical innovation is the defining feature of our species, but most people never invent anything”. True, isn’t it. There are two kinds of innovation: technical and social, both allowed by imagination and simulation (scenario building) in our brains. Social innovation is about solving problems socially rather than by inventing new products. For example, banding together to deal with aggressive individuals. For von Hippel the most important social innovations have been, division of labour, money and waiting in line. There is an interesting study on sex differences on social innovation cited here. The study evaluates SAT scores across several years. Students with high-math and high-verbal skills are separated from students with high-math and moderate-verbal skills. It turned out that the high-math/high-verbal group was 2/3 female and that the high-math and moderate-verbal was 2/3 male. The study also found that students who were only good at maths were more likely to choose a career in the sciences, and that students with an interest in people (and possibly good at maths too) were less likely to choose a career in science. These findings suggest that women’s underrepresentation in math and the physical sciences might not be a problem of barriers for women only but perhaps a matter of personal preferences based on their maths and verbal abilities. This study would also explain why women, who tend to be interested in people, would not much contribute with technical solutions to problems. Most patents are held by men.