Is Civilization the Result of Humans' Need to Share?

A 2007 study published in Science shows that young human children perform as well as apes on intelligence tests, but that kids beat apes in social skills. The lead researcher explains why this difference is crucial. Christie Nicholson reports.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

 [Below is the original script. Some textual variations may have been made during the recording of this podcast.]

 

Last August I covered research showing two-year-old kids are remarkably similar in intelligence to the great apes on scores of spatial and quantitative intelligence.

Where humans left the apes in the dust, however, was in social skills, according to Michael Tomasello of the Max Planck Institute.

He claims in a follow-up in The New York Times Magazine that our culture, language, economy and sophisticated tools exist because of our tendency for "collective cognition".

Comparing children and chimps, Tomasello found that humans recognize and commit to group tasks, whereas chimps have no such expectation of others.

Apes communicate to get others to do what they want, but children talk or gesture to share information. (Some say this human need to voluntarily share is why we have language...and may, as a recent aside, explain the popularity of sharing on the Web.)

Also, only children pretend. They imagine a stick is a horse, and Tomasello connects this with our ability to build institutions—that is, assign someone to be president, teacher or husband.

These adaptations, Tomasello writes, set us apart from apes, thereby allowing us to build modern civilization.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


- Christie Nicholson

 

60-Second Psych is a weekly podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast: RSS | iTunes

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe