In his article “Revenge of the Nerds”, Steven Pinkler analyzes how and why humans, of all the animals on the planet, evolved on the cognitive niche and became the dominant species. His main claim is that human ancestors’ particular characteristics, namely visual orientation, social living, particular hand development, and hunting, made them more apt to evolve causal reasoning than any other animal on the planet. The article is clearly organized and structured in order to create a strong argument in favor of his thesis. He bases his claims on different types of evidence which try to prove not only that his claims are correct, but also that the standard anthropological views on the matter are incorrect. By showing how the physical traits and lifestyle helped to develop their intelligence, Pinkler stands opposed to standard anthropological views which delay the dawn of intelligence and mark it at a specific moment in time.
Here, however, the author acknowledges the claim of other researchers who maintain that this need to become smarter in order to have better chances to survive and reproduce may have been the reason behind human evolution itself. However, the author responds to this claim by arguing that “a cognitive race by itself was not enough to launch human intelligence” (Pinkler 193). His reason for believing that this is true is that other social animals did not engage in the same kind of escalation of brain power. This is not precisely an acknowledgement of a counterargument, because it does not contradict nor substantially modify his argument, but it “was not enough to launch human intelligence” (Pinkler 193). Therefore, he does not completely dismiss or contradict it; he merely responds to it saying that this was probably not the only or main reason for his main claim.
Pinkler’s third reason for the development of intelligence in humans, namely the hands is also believed to be the second most important one. Upright walking is believed to be a consequence of having specialized hands. Pinkler also examined other biological reasons for upright walking. For example, he states that “Bipedal walking is a biomechanically efficient way to retool a tree-hanging body to cover distance on the flat ground” (Pinkler 194). However, he dismisses other reasons as powerful enough, and restates his claim that “carrying and manipulation must have been crucial inducements”. Upright position was an essential step in intelligence development because it allowed humans to use their hands for other purposes.
Pinkler provides evidence in favor of hunting last, because this is his most important reason for the development of intelligence. He first acknowledges opposition to this claim from feminist research which tried to prove that women also evolved at the same time, and their tasks were as important in the development of intelligence. His response to this challenge of the hunting theory is that, although it is true that “women as foragers” (Pinkler 296) were important in human evolution, hunting was nevertheless “a major force of evolution”. He credits this theory to other researchers, namely Tooby and DeVore, in order to five more credibility to this claim. He then uses a warrant to expand upon the evidence provided by the two researchers. The author explains that it allowed humans to change their diet, integrating concentrated nutrients, which can better develop brain tissue. Pinkler also argues that meat was “a major currency of our social life” (Pinkler 196), as the difficulty that hunting poses makes its product of great value.
While in the first part of his argument, Pinkler provides an explanation regarding the characteristics that humans needed to have in order to be able to evolve, in the second part of the argument, he shows that upright posture developed before primates had evolved into intelligent beings (Pinkler 200). This change also propelled other anatomical changes, due to a change in diet and way of life. With this he shows that anatomical change propelled intelligence to develop, rather than the other way around. , as previously believed by researchers.
In another section, the author argues that the standard timetable in paleoanthropology does not provide an accurate picture regarding the time when human intelligence began to evolve. He contradicts this theory in powerful terms. He says that, “I suspect that our ancestors were penetrating the cognitive niche for far longer than that” (201). He also responds to the idea that earlier species lacked intelligence stating clearly, “that can’t be right”. He provides strong evidence in favor of his claim, using anatomical evidence from fossils and denying the evidence brought by standard views. He thus says, “it’s not so clear that they had chimp-sized brain” (201). Furthermore, he brings evidence from another researcher, Yves Coppens, who argues that the brain of this early species is larger than generally admitted, and that hey also left traces of tool using. The author concludes that the generally accepted story of evolution began too late, but also claims that it stopped too early, because humans continued to evolve long after that, thus dismissing the reliability of standard anthropological views.
Works Cited
Pinkler, Steven. “Revenge of the Nerds.” How the Mind Works. NY: W.W. Norton and Company, 2009. 191-205.
