Slashdot Mirror
Human Language May Have Evolved To Help Our Ancestors Make Tools
sciencehabit writes: If there's one thing that distinguishes humans from other animals, it's our ability to use language. But when and why did this trait evolve? A new study concludes that the art of conversation may have arisen early in human evolution, because it made it easier for our ancestors to teach each other how to make stone tools — a skill that was crucial for the spectacular success of our lineage. The study involved getting a number of college students to try to make their own primitive stone tools, some using language, others not. The team discovered that only those that used language were able to make effective tools.
PC LOAD LETTER? What the fuck does that mean?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
From what I can tell from TFA, this study purports to test the hypothesis that language evolved as a means to transmit the knowledge of how to make tools. The researchers found that present-day humans (college students, to be exact) can best teach other how to make a stone tool if they are allowed to talk to each other. The authors interpret this as evidence in support of their hypothesis.
The obvious problem, though, is that they ran the experiment on a bunch of subjects that have spent their entire lives (minus the first year or so) using language as their primary means of communication. So what result would you expect with this study population? The experiment is hardly a test of the conditions under which early language might have evolved.
The study involved getting a number of college students to try to make their own primitive stone tools, some using language, others not. The team discovered that only those that used language were able to make effective tools.
Did they also try hunting a mammoth with language vs. without language? Or caring for an elderly tribe member with/without language? Or building a hut?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Yes, we can't build a time machine and go back in time to check. But we can make educated guesses about it. We can't also travel to a quasar and check if our theories about the behaviour of quasars are right, but we can make educated guesses about them, and there is no reason to throw out everything we hypothetize about quasars or call research into quasars pseudo-science, just because we can't get there.
Yes, this is how science works. It is obvious that talking will help people make flint tools. We all know that. But how do we know that? Saying 'it's obvious' is not helpful. It is also obvious that you can get better at making tools when you can watch someone who is good at it. But you can get plenty of people how have never chipped flint tools, and see how much better they are when they watch someone, when they mutely interact with someone, and when they talk. Some gifted people can pick up musical instruments just by watching, but making flint tools seems to be helped a lot by language.
The article also says that this is suggestive, but could not be considered a proof. They know they have not got ancient people to experiment on. It is not practical to try the same tests with a mammoth hunt. It's not a time machine, but we use what we have.
Then you get a +5 'insightful' mark-up for jeering at it.
There are many more animals that are known to communicate through sound, some rather sophisticated. Various whales and dolphins are known to use different calls, some primates, even some species of bat are believed to exchange information such as where to find food through sounds. Calls are also a common way of parents finding their children when living in big groups. Of course it's not as advanced as human speech, and almost certainly not useful to communicate about abstract topics. To me, it is a form of speech nonetheless.
Language provides a capacity for learning that is collective and cumulative. The usefulness of language in tool-making and vast numbers of other tasks is obvious.
First, that doesn't tell us whether tool-making preceded language or the reverse.
Second, it doesn't tell us anything about how humans acquired language. Using sounds and/or gestures as symbolic communication elements is hard enough, but that's the easy part, and it can't happen until there is a common set of thoughts to exchange. You need shared language inside the head before you can start speaking and being understood - that's the hard part that linguists puzzle over.
Speaking as someone who is rather clumsy at carpentry, I reckon it was the other way round.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
s/talking/arguing/
Ugg: That pointy stick rubbish! This pointy stick good!
Ogg: Stupid neckbeard.
Ugg. We cavemen. All neckbeards. Everythingbeards.
Ogg: True, LOL!
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
I studied comparative cognition (anthropology branch) and I can tell you that there are many studies that show that Dolphins use complex, syntactically based language in the wild. Chimps can learn complex language in the lab, but they don't have it in the wild like Dolphins do.
Dolphins also aren't known to use tools. So, this seems to be a obvious counter example to their hypothesis.
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.