Homo erectus had the gait of Homo sapiens in 1978–79. on the shores of Lake Turkana (formerly Rudolph) in Kenya, traces of ancient people aged 1.43 million years were found (that is, 2.2 million years younger than the Australopithecus traces discovered by Mary Leakey in Laetoli). In 2009, three more chains of traces were found there:

Archaic Homo sapiens Our first stop on the way to rendezvous No. 1 will be in the ice age before last - about 160 thousand years ago. I chose this point to view fossils from the village of Herto Buri in the Afar Basin of Ethiopia. People from Kherto are interesting because, according to

Cooperation of males and females in communities in modern African apes and in human ancestors. The variety of types of hierarchical structures in modern humans can be considered as a result of the evolutionary development of social structures in early

Infanticide in monkeys and humans Another often ignored factor that contributes to the development of friendly ties between females is the danger of infanticide (killing young of their own species) on the part of males (as will be shown below, such an adaptation is actually

The ancients said that human education begins with lullabies. It's not often you find a mother singing lullabies these days. For modern mothers, everything is scheduled according to the clock, and the child lives strictly according to the schedule. Nowadays, if mothers sing lullabies to their children, it is only to put them to sleep. And sometimes instead of a lullaby they simply play quiet music, or the child falls asleep to the sound of the TV. Today, few mothers understand the importance of a lullaby as a means of developing a child and communicating with him.

Lullabies were the first tool for raising a child. The lyrics are simple and straightforward, but contain great educational and developmental value. It is not for nothing that in the East they say about an unworthy person: “Apparently, the mother did not sing songs over his cradle.”

The scope of influence of a soothing song on a child is much wider than “putting to sleep and calming down.” “A lullaby not only lays a solid foundation for a person’s physical, mental and moral health, but also represents a kind of hologram of a person’s life, which is subsequently realized. In essence, this is a collapsed personal myth,” says Lilia Demina, candidate of art history.

The character of the little person, his physical health, and the degree of development depend on what songs the mother sang to the child, and whether she sang them at all. Listening to lullabies, the baby protects his psyche from stress and emotional instability. Lullabies relieve anxiety and excitement and have a calming effect on the child. This is facilitated by a smooth melody, a rhythmic combination of words and movement. The child quickly forgets his troubles, he is put to bed with affection, it is affection that is conveyed by a lullaby, even if the child does not yet hear or understand the words, but he feels the love and tenderness of his mother. Children who are sung lullabies in childhood grow up more gentle and kind.

Researchers believe that a good lullaby is akin to active meditation. “The mother first creates a bright image of beauty in her head, and then, on this wave, she transfers the sensations to the child” (Irina Karabulatova).

The sages said that a person’s destiny is determined in early childhood. Happy is the one whose childhood was cloudless. It is very important to form the confidence in the baby that life is bright and joyful. Today psychologists call this basic trust in the world. An adult’s optimism in life and his desire to overcome any adversity are based on this feeling.

Experts say: children who were not sung lullabies as children are less successful in life and more likely to suffer from mental disorders. Psychologists conducted a study in which they observed two groups of children. The mothers sang lullabies to the babies from the first group, and instead of lullabies to the babies from the second they simply played calm music. The results were unexpected and impressive. Children from the first group were calmer, obedient, and intellectually developed. Psychologists explain these results for several reasons. One of the most important is the establishment of a special emotional relationship between mother and baby. After all, the mother, lulling the child, leaves far from his cradle all the worries and worries that have accumulated during the day, turns completely to the baby, affectionately stroking and conveying her warmth and tenderness to him. The baby perceives her intonations, the timbre of her voice, so dear and beloved, which gives him a feeling of warmth and security, which are very important for ending the day and restful sleep.

It doesn’t matter to the child whether the mother has hearing or whether she has a beautiful voice. In the first days of his life, it is important for him to see a kind face, hear smooth, measured speech, and loving intonations. The child reacts, first of all, to the timbre of the voice, to the softness of the performance, the lyricism of the sound, and he does not care who sings the lullaby for him - mother, father, grandmother or grandfather. The main thing is to do it from the heart.

It is best for a child to sing folklore songs: scientists have proven that it is folk melodies that have the best effect on the child’s condition. Experts recommend singing lullabies 2-3 times a day immediately after feeding, and the duration of each song should be about 10 minutes. This does not mean that you need to specially select some long, mournful songs, just that the same lullaby can be sung in a circle several times.

Over time, the meaning of the lullaby changes. For a one-year-old baby, it becomes an important part of the evening ritual. Her turn comes after bathing and feeding. After all, older children no longer react only to their mother’s voice, but also to the ritual itself. At this age, a child needs a gentle song even more than a fairy tale. It is easier for him to perceive melodic stories - lullabies turn into the first lessons of his native language. Songs help the child remember words, their meanings, and the order of words in a sentence. With a lullaby, a child receives his first ideas about the world around him: animals, birds, objects and initial ideas about life. Mom sings about the “babies” who flew in, sat on the bed, and began to coo, about the cats that are “gray but have white tails,” about the “bayushki” and “bayushki,” about the fact that “your neighbors, the polar bears, are sleeping.” . The baby listens, and the words enter his consciousness, and after a while he will recognize where the cat’s tail is and where the bunny’s eyes are.

In addition, recent studies have shown that with the help of melodious lullabies, a child’s phonetic map of the language is gradually formed, he better perceives and remembers emotionally charged words and phrases, which means he will begin to speak earlier. When receiving an emotional experience, the child connects his impressions with words. That is why almost every person remembers the lullabies of his childhood all his life.

Lullabies are very important in the process of a child mastering speech, so they play a significant role in the development of his thinking. Head of the Department of Psychology at Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University, Doctor of Biological Sciences Vitaly Leutin argues that there is a relationship between listening to lullabies in childhood and a person’s intellectual potential in adulthood. Both the level of education and social status largely depend on this potential. “Lullabies promote brain development through the development of speech. What is brain development? Nothing more than the formation of connections between neurons. If the brain is not developed, all neurons will remain unconnected, and in this case there is a high risk of developing psychopathologies” (V. Leutin).

Older children need variety - it develops memory, speech and imagination. Many foreign scientists believe that in the first 6 years of his life a person takes in more developmental information than in the next 60 years. Don’t be afraid to overstimulate your child before bed with songs loaded with meaning!

A lullaby also helps form first impressions that later trigger the need for spiritual words and music. The baby will grow up, and you will be able to introduce him to examples of high poetry, develop his literary taste, and enrich him with new images.

Researchers note another interesting point: the lullaby song is close to ancient folk spells, since both here and there have a special type of performance, a similar structure, and magical elements. It is no secret that many lullabies have preserved pagan mysterious images - Sandman, Beech, a cat, a gray wolf. And in this regard, experts believe that a lullaby is often interpreted not only as a spell with the goal of giving the child sleep and growth in the present moment, wealth and health in the future, but also as a witchcraft text with the goal of improving the child’s health if he is sick, or as a talisman against the negative influence of others. And therefore, experts advise parents: “Create your child as artists, wizards and magicians create. Sing lullabies that will definitely help him become strong, smart, beautiful, and successful.”

Beginning in December 2002, a unique voluntary experiment was conducted at the children's clinic of the regional clinical hospital No. 2 in Tyumen. A “School of Motherhood and Fatherhood” was opened here, in which future and established parents were taught what lullabies and how often they should sing to their children. At the same time, doctors monitored the dynamics of morbidity in children in the first year of life before and during the experiment. Here are the indicators that were identified. If in 2001 pneumonia was registered in 17.6% of children aged 0 to 12 months, then in 2003 - in 12.9%, diarrhea - in 5.7 and 2.8%, respectively, anemia - in 97, 1 and 69.4. %.

The first results obtained allowed doctors to talk about the positive impact of lullabies on the condition of children. Experts especially recommend singing them to children with impaired function or structure of the brain, with breathing and heart rhythm disturbances, with intestinal motility disorders, as well as those born prematurely and with low weight. It has also been proven that the unique rhythm of a lullaby can serve as a preventive measure for motor and speech disorders: tics, stuttering, and coordination problems.

The most “harmless” thing that can result from replacing lullabies with the sounds of TV, computer games, or audio recordings of pop or rock bands is the development of the so-called attention deficit disorder (ADD). This refers to the lack of attention to the child on the part of the parents. Currently, according to the most conservative estimates of domestic psychologists and psychiatrists, this psychopathology occurs in 20-25% of Russian children. ADD is characterized by an inability to concentrate. Children with ADD are typically unable to learn normally. They inevitably have problems in relationships with peers. As adults, people with ADD often suffer from manic-depressive disorders, are prone to violence, and abuse alcohol and drugs. Fortunately, attention deficit disorder is treatable.

But lullabies were sung not only to children. On the battlefield, in order to soothe the pain of being wounded and wait for help, the warriors sang lullabies to themselves, which they knew from childhood. Sometimes I had to hold on like this for more than one day. This means that lullabies also have an analgesic effect!

The very performance of lullabies also has a beneficial effect on the mother’s body, contributing to the rapid restoration of strength after childbirth. Pediatricians note an increase in milk production in nursing mothers who regularly hum something to their children. Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor Irina Karabulatova says that music therapy with lullabies is unique in its effect for the mother, as it is combined with emotional release, facilitating awareness of one’s own experiences.

Why can't modern mothers sing lullabies? According to experts, first they themselves need to “get treatment”, “calm down” their excess internal “noise” with the help of a lullaby, only after that the baby will be able to perceive its singing. For this purpose, it is the ancient lullabies that are best served, which have been verified by time and the wisdom of the people.

Modern physicists claim: rhythmically constructed phrases, melodically reminiscent of a prayer, can have a beneficial bioenergetic effect on a person. The use of a rhythmically organized formula, and the texts of most lullabies are highly rhythmic and are precisely such formulas, by and large resembles a magical means for achieving various practical goals.

Recently, scientists from the University of Göttingen in Germany conducted an experiment: a group of volunteers studied the effect of various medications and lullabies on the quality of sleep. The melodies turned out to be much more effective than medications: after listening to them, the subjects had sound and deep sleep.

German doctors claim that if a patient is given a lullaby to listen to before surgery, the required dose of anesthesia will be reduced by half.

According to the Bulgarian scientist P. Randev, it would be nice for adults to listen to lullabies at night. Since the singing of a lullaby by a mother turns on the mechanism of calming, relaxing and falling asleep in children, subsequently for an adult to hear a lullaby means an instant activation of the same mechanisms. When a person falls asleep to gentle melodies, he dreams good dreams all night long. Through sleep, stress, tension, and resentment are “released.” Popular wisdom says: “you have to sleep with trouble” or “the morning is wiser than the evening.”

To change their emotional state, therapists today advise adults to use music. In a depressed state, people do not perceive cheerful music, but after listening to elegies, nocturnes and lullabies, they experience relief.

Thus, research by scientists proves that lullabies can not only calm and put a baby to sleep, but also protect the psyche from stress and emotional instability, strengthen mental and physical health, develop speech and thinking, and introduce people to the world around them.

A huge number of beautiful animals live on our planet. Scientists and specialists have been trying for a long time to determine who is the smartest among them?.

Today is the second and final part of our big review according to Animal Planet. The first part is located.

5th place: Crows

Crows are incredibly intelligent animals. Scientists believe that their analytical thinking abilities are on par with those of great apes.

Crows are extremely adaptive and are exceptionally adapted to living around humans. Our actions force them to adapt in new ways every time. Crows don't survive with us, they thrive. They are found everywhere on the planet except Antarctica and parts of South America. And throughout the entire territory you are unlikely to meet crows further than 5 km from a human dwelling.

Another incredible study was carried out with a crow from New Caledonia. On this island, crows use twigs to pick insects from the bark of trees. In the experiment, a crow tried to get a piece of meat from a narrow glass tube. But the crow was given not the usual stick, but a piece of wire. She had never had to deal with this kind of material before. In front of the amazed researchers, the crow independently bent the wire into a hook using its paws and beak, and then took out the bait with this device. At this moment, the experimenters fell into ecstasy! But tool use is one of the highest forms of animal behavior, indicating their ability for intelligent activity.

Another example from Sweden. Researchers noticed that crows wait for fishermen to cast their fishing rods into the water, and when they move away, the crows fly in, reel in the fishing rod and eat the fish that was bait.

We can talk endlessly about the intelligence of crows. These observations were made at the University of Washington and indicate crows have amazing memory. Here the researchers had to catch a pair of crows flying around the area. The students went out, caught the birds with a net, measured them, weighed them, and then released them back. And they could not forgive such an attitude towards themselves! Subsequently, the crows flew up to those students as they walked across campus and shit on them, flew around in a flock, in short, ruined their lives in every possible way. This went on for a week. Then this continued for a month. And after the summer holidays...

Author Joshua Klein has been studying crows for more than 10 years. To confirm the presence of intelligence in these birds, he decided to conduct a rather complex experiment. Long story short, he created a special vending machine and placed it in a field with coins scattered around it. The machine was filled with nuts, and to get them, you need to throw a coin into a special slot. Surprisingly, the crows figured out this task quite quickly, picked up the coins, dropped them into the slot and received nuts.

We know a lot about the species that are disappearing from the planet as a result of human habitat expansion, but no one pays attention to the species that are alive and thriving. In Moscow alone there are about 1 million crows. These smartest representatives of birds have perfectly adapted to the human environment.

4th place: Elephant

These are not just lumbering giants with big ears and good memories. The philosopher Aristotle once said that the elephant is “an animal that surpasses others in wit and intelligence."

With a mass of over 5 kg, the elephant's brain is larger than that of any other land animal, but small compared to the total body mass: only ~0.2% (chimpanzees - 0.8%, humans - about 2%). Based on this, one might think that elephants are quite stupid animals. But the evidence suggests that relative brain size may not be an accurate measure of intelligence.

Elephants are animals that are good know how to show their emotions, both positive and negative. Their “facial expressions” consist of movements of the head, ears and trunk, with which the elephant can express all sorts of, often subtle, shades of good or bad mood.

Elephants are extremely caring and sensitive to other members of their group, as well as other species, which is considered a very advanced form of intelligence. For example, elephants feel very deeply the loss of someone from the herd. They can gather near a dead body for several days. There have been recorded cases of “funerals” when elephants covered their dead comrades with a layer of vegetation.

Elephants incredibly good memory. Elephants remember a person who treated them well or badly all their lives. There are many examples when the owner offended the elephant, and only years later the elephant took revenge on him, and sometimes even killed him.

As we already know, use of tools animals directly points to capacity for intelligent activity. To determine this, the following studies were conducted at the Washington Zoo. In the elephant enclosure, fruits and young bamboo shoots were hung high on a tree. The animals, standing on the ground, could not reach them even with their trunks. Not far from this place, the researchers placed a cube-shaped stand and began to observe...

At first, the elephant simply moved the cube around the enclosure, and in fairness it should be noted that he did not immediately figure out what to do: the experiment had to be repeated 7 times. And suddenly inspiration descended on the elephant: he got up, went straight to the cube, pushed it to the place where the treat was hanging and, standing on it with his front legs, took it out with his trunk. After that, even when the cube was out of reach, the elephant used other objects - a car tire and a large ball.

Elephants are believed to have good ear for music and musical memory, and are also able to distinguish melodies from three notes. In general, these huge animals are amazing artists. They are also well known for their ability to draw on the ground while holding a stick with their trunk. In Thailand, they even made an attraction where several Thai elephants painted abstract drawings in front of spectators. True, it is unknown whether the elephants actually understood what they were doing.

3rd place: Orangutans

Apes are considered the most intelligent creatures on Earth after humans. Of course, people are biased in this matter, but the mental capabilities of great apes are difficult to deny. So, In 3rd place on the list of the smartest animals is the orangutan. or "forest man" (orang - " man", hutan - "forest").

They have a high culture and strong social ties. Females stay with their children for many years, teaching them everything they need to survive in the forest. For example, orangutans cleverly use leaves as umbrellas from the rain, or remember the places where trees bear fruit at different times of the year. By the age of 10 years, an orangutan can taste and identify more than 200 species of different edible plants.

Great apes, such as chimpanzees and orangutans, are able to recognize themselves in the mirror, while most animals react to their image in the mirror as if they were another individual.

If intelligence is defined as the ability to solve various problems, then orangutans in this sense have no equal in the animal world.

Researchers have often observed orangutans using tools in the wild. So, one male figured out to use a “pole” left by a man as a spear. He climbed onto the branches hanging over the water and tried to pierce the fish swimming below with a stick.

True, he failed to catch fish in this way, but this impressive example using a spear to catch fish is just one illustration of the high intelligence of orangutans.

2nd place: Dolphins

Dolphins appeared on Earth several tens of millions of years earlier than humans, and they are smarter than almost any creature on the planet.

Like other smartest animals, female dolphins stay with their children for many years, passing on their knowledge and experience to them. Much of dolphin behavior is passed down through generations.

Dolphins can use tools, which, as we already know, is a sign of intelligence. Thus, researchers observed a female dolphin who taught her dolphins to look for food, having first put a sea sponge on her nose so as not to get hurt or burned by a stone fish, which has poisonous spines on its back.

Dolphins are very social animals. They are characterized by self-awareness and division into separate individuals, who, moreover, think about the future. Research shows that dolphin "society" has a complex social structure and consists of individuals who cooperate with each other to solve complex problems, obtain food, etc. In addition, dolphins pass on new behavioral traits and acquired skills to each other.

Dolphins have very well developed imitation behavior. They easily remember and repeat the actions of both their brothers and other individuals from the animal world.

Dolphins are one of the few animals that not only recognize themselves in the mirror, but can also use it to “examine” parts of their body. This ability was previously discovered only in humans, monkeys, elephants and pigs. The ratio between brain and body sizes in a dolphin is second only to that of a human and is much greater than that of a chimpanzee. Dolphins have convolutions similar to those of the human brain, which also indicates the presence of intelligence.

Dolphins love an exploratory approach to everything; they quickly assess the situation and adapt their behavior to it, being well aware of what is happening.

When preparing various attractions with dolphins, it was noticed that they are not only capable of following commands, but can also take a creative approach to the process, and in addition to the necessary movements, invent and add their own tricks with objects (balls, hoops, etc.).

Dolphins remember sounds much better than pictures. Thanks to this, they can distinguish each other well by whistling. The range of sounds in which a dolphin can communicate is very wide - from 3,000 Hz to 200,000 Hz. Each dolphin knows the individuals from its pod by voice and has its own personal “name”. With the help of whistles of different lengths, tonality and melody, dolphins communicate with each other. So, one dolphin, without seeing the other, can “tell” which pedal needs to be pressed in order to open the feeder and get fish.

Dolphins' ability to imitate is widely known. They can imitate the chirping of birds and the creaking of a rusty door. Dolphins can even repeat some words or laughter after a person.

A fact that not everyone knows: the Japanese still eat intelligent dolphins, killing them by the thousands.

1st place: Chimpanzee

These apes are leaders in tool use. Thus, during observations of chimpanzees in the savannah in southeastern Senegal, more than 20 cases of these animals using 26 different tools, from stone hammers to sticks for picking out termites, were recorded.

But the most amazing thing was to watch the production and use of half-meter copies. The chimpanzees not only broke off branches of the required length and thickness, but also cleared them of leaves and smaller branches, peeled off the bark, and sometimes even sharpened the tip of the tool with their teeth.

Anthropologists from the Universities of Iowa and Cambridge, during research in 2005-2006, first discovered how chimpanzees used spears to hunt other vertebrates, and all this is strikingly reminiscent of the early steps of Homo sapiens on his path to becoming an agile hunter.

Just like orangutans, dolphins, elephants, chimpanzees are able to recognize themselves in the mirror, and not see another individual in it.

Another impressive example of the presence of intelligence in chimpanzees. When scientists set the monkeys the task of getting a nut from the bottom of a firmly fixed plastic test tube, some of the monkeys (14 out of 43 individuals) guessed that if they put water in their mouths from a tap and spit it out into a narrow neck, the nut would rise to the surface. 7 chimpanzees completed this task to a victorious end and got to the nut. In addition to chimpanzees, researchers working at an ape sanctuary in Uganda and at the Leipzig Zoo conducted similar experiments on gorillas. However, none of the gorillas managed to lift the nut. to the surface by transferring water in the mouth from the tap to the test tube.

Moreover, in this matter chimpanzees turned out to be smarter than children. Scientists conducted the same experiment with several groups of children: 24 four-year-old children and the same number of six and eight years old. Only instead of a tap, the children were given watering cans so that they would not have to carry water with their mouths. The four-year-old children performed worse than the chimpanzees: only two out of 24 completed the task. The highest success rate, as expected, was found in 8-year-old children: 14 out of 24.

However, we will not overestimate the abilities of these monkeys, although the genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees is so great that it was even proposed to combine them into one genus Homo.

That's it for our review 10 Smartest Animals on Earth according to Animal Planet has come to an end.

Children aged two and a half years cope with tasks of a “social” nature much better than monkeys, although chimpanzees and orangutans are in no way inferior to them in solving “physical” problems. This confirms the "cultural intelligence hypothesis" ( the cultural intelligence hypothesis), according to which the outstanding intellectual abilities that distinguish humans from animals have developed in connection with the social way of life and with the requirements of a complex and flexible social organization. Apparently, the mental abilities of our ancestors developed unevenly during evolution: socially oriented skills developed first, and the rest “caught up” later.

The progressive development of the brain and mental abilities in primates is inextricably linked with the social way of life, with the need to anticipate the actions of fellow tribesmen, manipulate them, learn from them, and also optimally combine altruism with selfishness in one’s behavior. This is the view of most serious anthropologists today. The idea that primate intelligence evolved to efficiently find fruit or, say, pick food out of hard-to-reach places ( "ecological intelligence hypothesis" ), now has few supporters. She cannot explain why primates need such large brains when other animals (say, squirrels) are excellent at very similar tasks of obtaining food, but their brains remain small. Against, "social intelligence hypothesis" is confirmed by many facts: for example, a positive correlation has been identified between the size of the brain in primates and the size of the social group (primates, unlike most herd animals, know all their fellow tribesmen by sight and have certain relationships with each - just like people).

Why did humans become the smartest of all primates? According to one of the most plausible hypotheses, the point here is that people are not just social animals, but “ultrasocial”. Only people are capable of fundamentally shaping different in their structure, collectives that differ in their traditions, norms of behavior, methods of obtaining food, the system of intra-group relations, family structure, etc. No matter how complex the collectives of monkeys are, they have no trace of such flexibility: each species is usually characterized by only one way of social organization, and cultural differences between groups, although they occur, cannot be compared with what is observed among Homo sapiens.

In order to function effectively in a complex and changing socio-cultural environment, people must have developed intellectual abilities of a very specific kind for some time now. We are talking about the ability to communicate effectively, learn, and most importantly, to understand not only the actions, but also the thoughts and desires of one’s fellow tribesmen (this understanding is called “theory of mind” - “ theory of mind"). It is obvious that abilities of this kind must manifest themselves already in early childhood, during the period of active learning and social adaptation, otherwise there will be no great benefit from them.

The question, however, is how people have these abilities. Two alternative hypotheses have been proposed in this regard. Or they arose as a result of the uniform development of intelligence as a whole ( "general intelligence hypothesis" — « general intelligence hypothesis"), or it was a specific, narrowly focused development of socio-cultural abilities, and all others (for example, the abilities for abstract logical thinking, identifying cause-and-effect relationships in the physical world, etc.) developed later, as something additional, secondary ( "cultural intelligence hypothesis" — « cultural intelligence hypothesis»).

We are thus talking about the main direction of the evolution of the human mind. Did we become “generally smarter” (more cortex - more memory - faster and more efficient learning - higher speed of the “processor”; and cultural evolution, as necessary, filled this “hardware” with more and more complex “software”), or did we improve in first of all, strictly defined, socially oriented mental abilities, and all the rest - insofar as.

The “general intelligence hypothesis” seems more plausible at first glance, but a case can be made for the “cultural intelligence hypothesis.” Thus, it is known that in many animals specific mental abilities actually develop very locally, as if “to order,” so that the general intellectual level does not increase or does not increase very much (for example, the unique ability to navigate in migratory birds).

Anthropologists from Germany, Spain and the USA published in the latest issue of the journal Science the results of a remarkable study, the purpose of which was to “push heads” between two hypotheses and obtain direct evidence in favor of one or the other. The authors reasoned that if the “cultural intelligence hypothesis” is true, then in individual human development must be this age, when in terms of “physical” intelligence we are not yet different from the great apes, but in terms of “cultural and social” intelligence we are already significantly ahead of them. This assumption was brilliantly confirmed, and the corresponding age was found.

Representatives of three species of primates took part in the experiments: 106 chimpanzees (ages 3 to 21 years), 32 orangutans (3-10 years) and 105 children aged two and a half years, plus or minus two months. All of them were offered a large set of tests, which included tasks of two categories: “physical” and “social”. The number of subjects was large enough to allow the necessary adjustments to be made for gender, age, and individual temperament (which was assessed using additional tests).

When developing tests, scientists proceeded from the following considerations. The ability to navigate the physical world in primates developed primarily in the context of obtaining food. To do this, primates need to solve problems related to: 1) space (to find food), 2) quantities (to select the best from a variety of possible food sources), 3) cause and effect (to extract food from hard-to-reach places, including including using tools). To adapt to the social world, primates also solve problems of three types: 1) “communication” (to influence the behavior of fellow tribesmen), 2) related to learning, 3) related to “theory of mind” (to anticipate other people’s actions).

In accordance with this, the set of tests developed by the researchers consisted of six thematic blocks. A detailed description of the methodology and video clips are publicly available in the supplementary materials to the article. Each monkey and each child underwent a full battery of tests; it took from 3 to 5 hours.

Children and chimpanzees performed equally well on “physical” tasks; orangutans were only slightly inferior to them (see picture). Orangutans performed worse on “spatial” and “cause-and-effect” tasks, while all three species performed equally well on “quantitative” tasks. In some tests (such as those involving tool use), chimpanzees outperformed children.

In the “social” sphere, the children demonstrated complete superiority over both species of monkeys. Chimpanzees and orangutans showed similar results. It is curious that the social tests revealed several “particularly stupid” among the children, and several “particularly brilliant” among the monkeys (circles in panel B).

The degree of variability (scatter) of the results turned out to be the same for all three species; in the social sphere it is higher than in the physical sphere. However, the authors consider this result not very reliable - the specific features of the tasks included in the two thematic blocks could have affected this.

In all three species, both sexes showed equal performance in solving social problems. When it comes to solving physical problems, girls turned out to be slightly more capable than boys in humans, while the opposite was true for chimpanzees.

In addition, children were generally more timid during testing and showed less interest in new objects than monkeys. In children, there was no correlation between temperament and performance, and among monkeys, bolder ones performed better on physical tasks.

Of course, this cannot be called absolutely rigorous proof. It can be assumed that people differ from monkeys not in specific socially oriented intellectual abilities, but in a more general ability to understand the causes of phenomena hidden from direct observation, including- in the motivation and meaning of other people's actions. But even in this case, it is very likely that this skill initially developed specifically for solving “social” problems, and only then was adapted for everything else.

The authors note another weakness of their study. All tests were carried out by people, including tests of a social nature, in which the subjects had to correctly interpret the behavior of the experimenter. Is it any wonder that little people were better at this than representatives of other species? The authors, however, point out that some of the “social” tests they used were previously modified in such a way that the experimental monkeys had to understand the meaning of the actions of their relatives, and not of people. And, as far as can be judged from the published results, this factor does not affect performance - in other words, if the monkey did not draw the correct conclusions from observations of human behavior, then it will not make them by observing a conspecific performing the same actions.

At what stage of evolution did our ancestors acquire new “socially oriented” intellectual abilities, not typical of monkeys? The authors believe that this happened after the archanthropic stage ( Homo erectus), who lived 1-2 million years ago. Erecti, according to the authors, did not yet have these abilities, because: 1) their brain grew very quickly, more according to the “monkey” than the “human” scenario; 2) there are no facts indicating the existence of significant socio-cultural differences between groups among archanthropes.

The authors intend to apply their test suite to 50 other primate species in the future. This will make it possible to reconstruct in great detail the sequence of development of various intellectual abilities in primates during their evolution.

Source: Esther Herrmann, Josep Call, María Victoria Hernàndez-Lloreda, Brian Hare, Michael Tomasello. Humans Have Evolved Specialized Skills of Social Cognition: The Cultural Intelligence Hypothesis, also available in full text // Science. 2007. V. 317. P. 360-366.

Show comments (14)

Collapse comments (14)

Intelligence is not the sum of skills! Upbringing and education do not shape the intellect, but streamline its application. 35-40 thousand years ago an “intellectual revolution” took place, as a result of which “Homo sapiens sapiens” appeared. His intelligence hasn't changed since then! Intelligence is manifested in the research and creation of the New, which has no direct (obvious) analogues. This is a sign of Creativity. First, there must be a need, not just a need, to find new ways and solutions. Secondly, it is necessary to select an actual problem (range of problems) from the general set and set a task. Thirdly, develop an algorithm for finding a solution and a methodology for implementing this algorithm. And only after this the process of collecting and processing information begins. And if you solve a non-analog problem, and in new works this is almost always the case, then the invariance of the result obtained is a common thing. Evaluation of the results obtained, including the creation of criteria for such evaluation, identification of dead-end directions (the problem may not have a solution in your version of its formulation), ramifications of the problem (in this case, any of the directions can be valuable in itself, which is not always obvious), etc. and so on. It is for working with such indefinite sets that our Intelligence was created by Nature, and not just for collecting information and processing generated databases. There is no need to replace the general with the private. Only already created algorithms can be formalized. Who will create them? Monkey, computer? What to compare? If both the monkey and the PC have no intelligence in principle. At the same time, we must not forget about abstract and figurative thinking, which simply are not formalized. It's the other way around. It is not skills that develop intelligence, but intelligence that develops skills. The information environment is expanding and becoming more complex, and human intelligence creates new optimal skills for new conditions. A continuous interdependent process launched simultaneously several tens of thousands of years ago. In other words, the human intellect itself creates the problem, and itself looks for ways to solve it. Does not adapt to environmental conditions, but strives to change these conditions. Therefore, the monkey collects bananas, catches prey that could not escape, and goes to a watering hole, and the man grows them, and carries the water into the dwelling he built, etc. I simplified my life, but at the same time complicated its principles, which requires the creation of new skills, including social ones. And a person purposefully creates them (skills), and does not “acquire” and “consolidate”. My opinion and assessment may not coincide with yours, which, by the way, is also a result of our having Intelligence.

Answer

• : 35-40 thousand years ago an “intellectual revolution” took place, as a result of which “Homo sapiens sapiens” appeared.

  Revolution?

  : Intelligence is manifested in the research and creation of the New, which has no direct (obvious) analogues.

  Let's look at some examples of the New that a person explores and creates, and that has no obvious analogues. And it would be nice to clarify the term “obvious”.

  : First, there must be a need, not just a need, to find new ways and solutions.

  : Secondly, it is necessary to select an actual problem (range of problems) from the general set and set a task. Thirdly, develop an algorithm for finding a solution and a methodology for implementing this algorithm.

  Does a person approach solving any problem this way? Or is it precisely this approach that is an exclusive sign of “intelligence”, the exclusive owner of which, in your opinion, is a person?

  When you learn to play table tennis or golf, do you develop an algorithm at what angle, in what direction and with what force to hit the ball, and then do it with your hands with the accuracy required by your calculations?

  Also, ask the blonde (this is a conditional generalization) to explain the algorithms that she uses when making decisions. Very often she will not be able to explain. But, firstly, she still makes decisions (and those that allow her to survive), and she is a person, therefore, she should have intelligence.

  And also, what can you say about Intuition? Is this a uniquely human property, or not? Does the presence and use of Intuition contradict the presence and use of Intelligence?

  : In other words, the human intellect itself creates the problem, and itself looks for ways to solve it. Does not adapt to environmental conditions, but strives to change these conditions. Therefore, the monkey collects bananas, catches prey that could not escape, and goes to a watering hole, and the man grows them, and carries the water into the dwelling he built, etc.

  : A continuous interdependent process launched simultaneously several tens of thousands of years ago.

  Answer

  • Revolution?
    Don't like "revolution"? Will “spontaneous mutation” work?

    Let's look at some examples of the New that a person explores and creates, and that has no obvious analogues.
    Let's. Bread and its production technology. Enough?

    How is a need different from a need?
    Did Icarus feel the need to fly, or was it a vital necessity for him?

    Does a person approach solving any problem this way?
    Yes. If we are talking about a problem. When I learned to play table tennis, I memorized the rules and practiced my skills as I played. But if I created this game, it would be a product of my intellect. Why such maximalism - “Always or never.”

    Also, ask the blonde (this is a conditional generalization) to explain the algorithms that she uses when making decisions. Very often she will not be able to explain.
    "Blondes" is good. I love blondes! Especially the plump ones. And you?

    And also, what can you say about Intuition?
    Turn to blondes. This is precisely what they are guided by in the previous case. I include intuition in the general section "Imaginative Thinking".

    And ants raise aphids. And there was a moment when they learned to do this. And what?
    And nothing. Ants do not grow aphids, but graze them. More likely, they simply constantly go to their habitats, as if to a watering hole. Well, don’t you really see the difference between “animal husbandry” and feeding ants?

    Don’t you think that the hypothesis of “simultaneously” endowing a person with something exceptional in relation to other biological species, which you adhere to, is simply made up?
    Look around you and you will easily see the results of such exclusivity. I don’t suck fingers and I don’t advise you to.

    Answer

    • : Let's look at some examples of the New that man explores and creates, and that has no obvious analogues. Let's. Bread and its production technology. Enough?

      No:-). What we see around us (growing and making bread, animal husbandry, etc.) is the result of the long evolutionary development of _mankind_ (not humans). All this did not appear at once, but was developed and invented gradually, in small steps, from simple to complex.

      : How does a need differ from a necessity? Did Icarus feel the need to fly, or was it a vital necessity for him?

      Icarus did not fly to the Sun on wings made of feathers glued together with wax, and the further from the surface of the Earth (within the limits in which a person is able to breathe), the lower the temperature, not higher :-). But this is not the point; you indicated that people _wanted_ this, and, as far as I understand, you insist on the irrationality of such a desire. I don't see anything irrational in this. People have clearly seen from the example of birds that flight allows, firstly, to move more easily, secondly, to more easily detect objects on the ground (prey, dangers, etc.), and thirdly, to hide from predators. It was only natural for people to feel the need to fly, given the convenience it provides. By the way, people ultimately succeeded in the first two points precisely in this way: flight is currently the most effective way to move long distances, and is used to survey the earth’s surface, and they dealt with predators in other ways.

      Human desires were completely natural and did not differ from the desires of animals of other species. It's just that man (or humanity) has developed better _capabilities_ to realize his desires, such as larger brains and more advanced means of communication.

      Yes, they have given, to some extent, an explosive increase in the number and complexity of methods found to satisfy desires. So what? Isn’t all the development of life on our planet proceeding at an increasing speed?

      I found the work extremely interesting. Against the backdrop of the enormous progress achieved recently in understanding the genetic and morphological aspects of the origin of Homo sapiens, the origin of intelligence (and this is certainly something that is inherent in humans or at least developed in them to an incomparably greater extent than in other higher primates) remains a mystery . It is very easy to criticize such studies, but it is very difficult to put forward a hypothesis and propose a system for testing it, to come up with answerable questions (i.e. questions that CAN be answered). Here I saw a real step forward in setting specific challenges for researchers trying to understand the specifics of human intelligence in comparison with that of other great apes. The fact that there were and are stupid people and geniuses (both among “sapiens” and other higher primates) is just natural and understandable. But I still want to think that Homo sapeins survived in the most difficult conditions and spread across all continents thanks to geniuses, and not stupid people. In short, the work is very good and it’s great that it is in the public domain.

      Another explanation is more realistic. Children live in a more complex social environment than monkeys. They have to understand more complex motives and actions of people, unlike monkeys. Naturally, their social intelligence will be higher.

      This version of the explanation can be easily verified experimentally. It is necessary to sort children according to the complexity of the social environment in which they are raised. For example, if there are only two parents and a child in a family, and the child’s social contacts are limited, then his social intelligence on average should be lower than that of a child in a large family with a wide circle of friends. In this case, of course, you need to take into account what psychologists call extraversion.

      Answer

      Write a comment

Comparative psychology deals with the evolution of the psyche, and to do this, studies often compare organisms of different species. But the results of research in this area should be interpreted with caution, since when conducting experiments it can sometimes be difficult to maintain objectivity and ensure fair and equal conditions for participants. Even within the same species, there are difficulties: in order to compare the intelligence of different groups of people, it is necessary to take into account everything that influences this intelligence. It was once believed that this was an innate characteristic, that it was inherited, and comparison seemed simple. But back in 1981, it became known that in addition to genes, the environment in which an individual grows and develops, his education, life experience, and health play an important role.

But if it is difficult to compare people with each other, then what about interspecies differences? Ideally, the intelligence of children and monkeys can be compared only if the monkeys are exposed to the same environmental influences. In tests of social intelligence (language and gesture comprehension), lack of experience with human habits can be especially important and significantly affect test success. Studies have already been carried out with monkeys that grew up with people, in one of them the scientist Winthrop Kellogg “adopted” a young chimpanzee named Gua, who lived and grew up with his young son. However, at present, such a study is unlikely to be replicated and published due to ethical restrictions.

This is just one of the errors that the authors found. They examined several comparative experimental studies from recent decades that dealt with the social intelligence of children and monkeys and, in particular, their ability to interpret and correctly use a pointing gesture (index finger pointing towards an object). In all studies, humans outperformed monkeys in test results, and this was explained by its evolutionary uniqueness. The works were checked for compliance with the criteria that the authors described as necessary to ensure the objectivity of the experiment: equality of environment, preparation, sampling protocols, testing procedure and age of the subjects at testing.

The authors found non-compliance with almost all criteria. The environment in which the subjects lived was not the same, the discrepancy was quite gross, without any attempts on the part of the experimenters to equalize these conditions. In the experiments, monkeys sat in cages, and children, of course, did not, but the presence of physical barriers could negatively affect the results (as was the case with dogs). Also, experimental animals often grew up in sterile laboratory conditions, while children grew up in good conditions that promote cognitive development. This fact also influenced the sample, since the intellectual level of people was higher due to environmental conditions. The sample was also skewed by additional selection criteria among people: in some studies, in order to participate in the test, the child had to have done something similar before. For monkeys, no such criterion was put forward. In terms of training, in studies involving language and gesture, children had much more experience with the subject than monkeys. The testing procedures also differed: in one study, children who failed the task of pointing at an object were given a “second chance” and allowed to answer by placing their palm on it, but still concluded that the person was superior.

Inadequate conditions for comparative studies lead to contradictory results. The results of all the studies analyzed by the authors were later refuted. In the hidden object study, the results indicated that the monkeys did not understand the pointing gesture, but some monkeys still managed to do it. In another study, scientists only partially refuted these results when they found that success in performing the same task was influenced by the distance of hominids in relation to the container.

So do monkeys have social intelligence? While in comparison tests the monkeys do not always perform at the level of a one-year-old infant, other results show that they are at the level of a two- to three-year-old child and are able to understand other individuals' false beliefs. Many studies indicate that monkeys can be taught to speak, for example, sign language, but their speech remains poor and is not transmitted further. The champion in mastering human language among monkeys is considered to be the pygmy chimpanzee Kanzi, who could understand about three thousand words by ear. Winthrop Kellogg's chimpanzee achieved some success, but stopped in social development quite early, as she turned out to be indifferent to communicating with her new parents.

Summarizing the work on errors, the authors make several recommendations for conducting comparative studies. They mention the technique of cross-fostering, as in the Gua chimpanzee experiment, but although it solves many problems associated with unequal conditions, it is not ideal for ethical reasons. Therefore, it can be replaced by adequate training to pass the test: for example, if a child at the age of nine months can navigate by adult gestures (if the gesture points to an object nearby), then the monkey should be trained for at least nine months. In addition, one should be more rigorous in explaining behavioral outcomes and rely only on variables that can be observed and measured. And the sample needs to be made more equal and balanced, paying more attention to the influence of the environment.