Following up on Saturday's "
Why Did Humanity Take So Long To Do Everything?" we return to Meteuphoric:
I asked why humanity took so long to do anything at the start, and the Internet gave me its thoughts. Here is my expanded list of hypotheses, summarizing from comments on the post, here, and here.
Inventing is harder than it looks
Inventions are usually more ingenious than they seem. Relatedly, reality has a lot of detail.
There are lots of apparent paths: without hindsight, you have to waste a lot of time on dead ends.
People are not as inventive as they imagine. For instance, I haven’t actually invented anything – why do I even imagine I could invent rope?
Posing the question is a large part of the work. If you have never seen rope, it actually doesn’t occur to you that rope would come in handy, or to ask yourself how to make some.
Animals (including humans) mostly think by intuitively recognizing over time what is promising and not among affordances they have, and reading what common observations imply. New affordances generally only appear by some outside force e.g. accidentally. To invent a thing, you have to somehow have an affordance to make it even though you have never seen it. And in retrospect it seems so obvious because now you do have the affordance.
People fifty thousand years ago were not really behaviorally modern
People’s brains were actually biologically less functional fifty thousand years ago.
Having concepts in general is a big deal. You need a foundation of knowledge and mental models to come up with more of them.
We lacked a small number of unimaginably basic concepts that it is hard to even imagine not having now. For instance ‘abstraction’, or ‘changing the world around you to make it better’....
...
MORE
