Tool use and exploration may be just side effects of social
skills.
By Michael Balter|Posted Friday, Oct. 26, 2012, at 9:33 AM
ET
“What would you do with a brain if you had one?” Dorothy’s
question to the Scarecrow in The Wizard of Oz elicited one of the movie’s most
delightful songs, in which her straw-filled friend assured her that, among
other things, he could “think of things I’d never thunk before.” But the
Scarecrow seemed to do quite well without one, thus avoiding the high energy
costs of fueling and cooling a human brain—which, with an average volume of
about 1,400 cubic centimeters, is humongous relative to our body size.
How did our brains get so big? Researchers have put forward
a number of possible explanations over the years, but the one with the most
staying power is an idea known as the social brain hypothesis. Its chief
proponent, psychologist Robin Dunbar of Oxford University, has argued for the
past two decades that the evolution of the human brain was driven by our
increasingly complex social relationships. We required greater neural
processing power so that we could keep track of who was doing what to whom.
Our expanded brains could have been practical for other
things, of course, such as innovations in tool use and food gathering. Most
researchers, including Dunbar, agree that these hypotheses are not mutually
exclusive. Whatever the reasons for the very large human noggin, there is a lot
of explaining to do, because big brains have a lot going against them.
The oversized Homo sapiens brain let us take over the
planet, build cities, send space probes to Mars, and do all the other marvelous
things that we humans are so proud of. But none of these things makes us much
better at reproducing, and in terms of evolution, that’s really all that
matters. It’s not so obvious why Darwinian natural selection should have
favored the brain’s dramatic expansion given the huge costs. Although the human
brain is only about 2 percent of total body weight, it siphons off about 20
percent of our total calorie intake; this overall percentage varies little
whether we are engaged in hard mental tasks or just zoning out.
If having a large brain were all that advantageous, it seems
that every animal would have one. And yet most species have been content,
evolutionarily speaking, with relatively small ones. The brain of our closest
living cousin, the chimpanzee, is less than a third the volume of ours, even
though chimps weigh almost as much as humans.
Our primate lineage had a head start in evolving large
brains, however, because most primates have brains that are larger than
expected for their body size. The Encephalization Quotient is a measure of
brain size relative to body size. The cat has an EQ of about 1, which is what
is expected for its body size, while chimps have an EQ of 2.5 and humans nearly
7.5. Dolphins, no slouches when it comes to cognitive powers and complex social
groups, have an EQ of more than 5, but rats and rabbits are way down on the
scale at below 0.4.
Natural selection already had something to work with, if
Dunbar’s hypothesis is correct, because many primates have complex social
relationships. The best proxy for this social complexity, Dunbar argues, is the
size of an animal’s social group. The social brain hypothesis really got
cooking back in 1993, when Dunbar, along with anthropologist Leslie Aiello,
crunched a bunch of numbers from the hominid fossil record and observations of
living apes. The larger a species’ group size, they found, the larger its
brain—particularly the neocortex, the outer layers where most of the serious
thinking goes on. They concluded that the correlation among group size, brain
size, and neocortex size held pretty tightly throughout our lineage, from the
australopithecines more than 3 million years ago to modern-day humans.
The average group size for today’s Homo sapiens, the pair
concluded in a widely cited paper in Current Anthropology, is about 150
people—a figure often called Dunbar’s number, and which refers to the number of
people with whom the average person can maintain close personal relationships.
(The Australopithecus afarensis Lucy had a group size of 60 to 70, as do most
living apes such as chimps, but Neanderthals were a close social-group match
with modern humans.)
Dunbar and Aiello also suggested that our ancestors banded
together to avoid predators, such as hyenas and other large carnivores, which
early humans may have been particularly vulnerable to as they moved from living
in trees to walking upright on the land. And to maintain all that social
proximity, Dunbar and Aiello say, humans evolved language, thus fueling even
more brain expansion.
Coming up with direct evidence for this hypothesis is tricky
because researchers have to establish that enlarged brains and big social
groups led to oversized reproductive success. Unfortunately, language and
romance don’t leave a fossil record. But scientists working with baboons have
demonstrated an important correlation between social relationships and
reproductive fitness. A team led by anthropologist Joan Silk, now at Arizona
State University, showed in 2003 that the offspring of female baboons who have
stronger social bonds with their peers survive longer. Another team
demonstrated a similar effect of social bonds in horses.
Recently, some researchers have gone right into the brain
itself to study the relationship between brain size and sociality. They are
using neuroimaging to look at the correlation between the size of key brain
regions and that of social groups and networks. A study in Science found a positive correlation between the
amount of gray matter (especially in parts of the brain linked to sociality) in
the brains of 23 rhesus monkeys and the size of the groups they belonged to; a
report this year found a link between the density of gray matter in the brains
of humans and the number of Facebook friends they had.
A new neuroimaging study in humans by Dunbar and his
colleagues, now being prepared for publication, found that tasks requiring the
so-called Theory of Mind—the ability to understand the thinking and motivations
of other people—fired up key brain regions linked to social relationships.
Subjects were required to read a short story and then answer increasingly
difficult true-or-false questions about the motivations of the characters. The
study found that parts of the brain linked to Theory of Mind and sociality were
activated at a much higher level than when subjects were asked to answer
factual questions about the story. The results, Dunbar says, demonstrate that
social relationships require greater processing power in the brain.
Despite this new evidence and the large amount of research
the social brain hypothesis has generated over the past two decades, some
researchers are not entirely convinced. They argue that the hypothesis is too
narrow and simplistic and does not take enough factors into account, including
the quality of social relationships rather than the sheer number of them. One
alternative idea, called the “cultural intelligence hypothesis,” was recently
proposed by primatologist Carel van Schaik of the University of Zurich in
Switzerland and his co-workers. This hypothesis puts more emphasis on social
learning, the ability to transmit information and ideas—such as about food
foraging strategies and technical innovations—rather than social skills alone.
Perhaps it’s just as well that the Scarecrow never got the
brain the wizard promised him. If he had, he might have spent his days—like
many researchers now do—trying to figure out where it really came from.
