• Canaconda@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I bet it has to do with the development of spoken language. That had to have freed up some brainpower that was previously tasked with processing body language, smell, context, etc.

  • Swedneck@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    2 days ago

    god damn austerity, we can’t have shit these days, even our brains have to meet efficiency quotas and “rationalization”.

  • jet@hackertalks.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    It’s coincidental with the human adoption of farming. We changed the food source people have, and that impacted brain and body development. We absolutely see this modern day with malnutrition.

    • solo@piefed.socialOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      It’s coincidental with the human adoption of farming.

      So far it looks like no hypothesis holds water. For example this one about farming is talking about a timeframe of 10.000 years. The shrinkage started 100.000. So there is a 90.000 years gap, that is left unexplained

        • solo@piefed.socialOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          Yes, DeSilva published the 2021 paper you linked. In 2022 he got criticism from Villmoare and Grabowski (see: Did the transition to complex societies in the Holocene drive a reduction in brain size? A reassessment of the DeSilva et al. (2021) hypothesis). Then in 2023 DeSilva revised his argument in (link above, in the description), extending the date back, still not giving anwers about the shrinkage observed since 100.000 years ago.

          • jet@hackertalks.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Then in 2023 DeSilva revised his argument in (link above, in the description), extending the date back, still not giving anwers about the shrinkage observed since 100.000 years ago.

            yeah, from the last 3,000 to within the last 10,000 years, with the sharp decline ~5,000 years ago… which does line up with widespread adoption of agriculture still.

            • solo@piefed.socialOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 day ago

              Of course you can choose to believe what you want.

              The point I was trying to make is that there is no scientific consensus on the topic about how global the decline was, when it began and why it happened - as well as if it is related to the formation of complex societies, farming, language, dietary changes, temperature, or body size.

              • jet@hackertalks.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 day ago

                there is no scientific consensus on the topic

                Agreed. That is why we are here speculating.

                when it began and why it happened

                This is what makes it a super interesting topic!

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    Makes sense. Back then every day was survival and we had to think our way out of a lot of situations, just to live for one more day. Nowadays we wait for our government to feed and cloth us.

    • Smaile@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      2 days ago

      Just a FYI, brain size is not a marker for intelegence or neral activity, the amount of connections is however.

    • Initech_vs_Initrode@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 days ago

      Allow me to read the article for you:

      As smaller and better organised brains were able to perform more complex computations, metabolically expensive larger brains simply became unnecessary

      Tattersall believes that the catalyst that caused this change in thinking style was the spontaneous invention of language. This led to the neural pathways of the brain being reorganised in a more metabolically efficient way, allowing humans to get more “bang for their buck”.

      In other words, as smaller and better organised brains were able to perform more complex computations, metabolically expensive larger brains simply became unnecessary.

      • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        Tattersall believes

        This is just an educated guess. No one really knows why it happened. All we have is a handful of fossilized skulls to base this on.

        While I’ll take their educated guess over my own musings, that doesn’t mean they’re absolutely correct. No one knows for certain.

        • Initech_vs_Initrode@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 hours ago

          Oh, so you’ve heard of this thing called “science” before?

          We can get some idea of what their brains looked like based upon imprints left on the inside of the skull. We can get an idea of relative intelligence based on artifacts, like tools and art. If you know that cranial volume dropped, but you can see imprints indicating more folds, and you can see cave art indicating more sophisticated culture, and more advanced tools, then you know with reasonable certainly that you’re looking at a more intelligent creature despite the smaller brain.

        • Auli@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          Has anyone thought of asking evolution? Its a theory not a guess.

    • Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Fuck man, I wish I had thought of a way out of reading this dumb comment, my brain can’t afford to shrink any further.

    • booscience@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Y’all have a govt feeding and clothing y’all? Mine is just trying to kill me in 100 different ways.

    • 4am@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      You’re free to live in a cave and fight bears everyday or whatever, if you feel that is your calling.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        I’m most states technically speaking you can’t do that. The state will harass you to no end about stuff they claim is for your safety and will being but mostly they’re just offended you exist without owing someone for the luxury to exist.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Density of connections matters more than size…

      Shrinking and getting wrinkled creates more surface area, like how a shoreline will keep increasing in length the more accurate you measure it. A straight line is as short as it can be, but as you adust for smaller and smaller differences it will keep increasing until you’re measuring every grain of sand and your measurement is 10,000x the straight line.

      • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        It is complex, but the brain is stimulated to grow far more by the cacophony of the natural world than it is by the bare, low bitrate information we get from the world most inside people live through.

        The modern world caters to consciousness, which can process about 120 bits of information a second. The natural world caters to the body’s sensory complex, which takes in a billion bits a second, and when you count all the information created by first-order processing, it’s closer to 11 billion bits a second.

        A nervous system grows as a direct reaction to stimulus. More stimulus means more growth.

            • Auli@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 day ago

              But your still speaking out of your ass. Cause your brain grow thing is total …

              • Nouvellalia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Lol wait wait wait, are y’all calling the fact that the nervous system grows as a direct response to stimulus, and neurons seek out new information sources to process, “talking out my ass”?!🤣🤣🤣

                Look, don’t come asking for discussions on things you have less than a middle school education on. If you’re genuinely interested, you’ll have to learn the most basic of basic information yourself before we can talk about anything bigger.

                • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 day ago

                  y’all calling the fact that the nervous system grows as a direct response to stimulus, and neurons seek out new information sources to process, “talking out my ass”?!

                  JFC…Albert Einstein’s brain was studied intensely, they found nothing different for any other brain. This is anal verbage.

    • howrar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      Humane also created and operate this government. Someone somewhere is always doing the work.