Our ability to throw objects hard, fast, and with accuracy is unique in the animal kingdom. That helps explain the emergence of modern human power dynamics.
Jul 5, 2023·edited Jul 5, 2023Liked by Brian Klaas
Fascinating perspective! Thank you
Conjured for me opening scenes of Arthur C Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, where different from the movie, the monolith ‘teaches’ an ape to throw rocks as a weapon/tool in an epic inflection point in the evolution of intelligence. It never sat right with me the film adaption where instead, the apes learn to use bones as bludgeoning weapons. Now I know better why. It sure does make sense that use of throwing weapons is the particular advance that is the key turning point where intelligence bests bodily strength as human’s most critical security asset.
In the original Odyssey, it is Odysseus’s cunning and resourcefulness that wins the day over and over. Maybe Homer was trying to remind the Greeks how dumb/disastrous it is to embrace Chimpy instincts and hide behind ‘strong men’ when threatened.
When you can no longer tell who is most dangerous by sizing them up from a distance, it sure changes the game.
Just picked up Corruptible, btw, looking forward to it!
How humans progressed from the flat, egalitarian model of society to the hierarchical one we know is intriguing. If the societal changes occurred in times of crisis, there’s brain chemistry to consider as well: flight or fight bypasses the prefrontal cortex, making it impossible to think your way out while you’re gripped by fear. I also wonder if this (the perceived need for strength in the face of crisis) reinforced the importance of larger group sizes, since societies larger than the bands you talk about can’t be held together as easily with personal relationships, and the larger the society the better it can defend itself.
Great point - and yes, there are divergent views on this. In "Corruptible," I refer to the "war and peas" hypotheses, the notion that hierarchy emerged either from conquering other groups and creating larger societies through conquest or from agriculture, which created sedentary human societies that grew and became more socially vertical over time. Others, such as Wengrow and Graeber, dispute this simple explanation, so the debate lives on, but there was a major change in human societies around 12,000 years ago when agriculture took root (literally).
Brian, an interesting and fresh take as always. As an observation, you point out in times of crisis people choose somebody whose is physically imposing from the perspective of strength and size. With this I disagree. Look at all “strongmen/authoritarian” types historically. Putin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Papa Doc, and of course Trump. These men are either quite short in stature, and hardly physically imposing or maybe large, but not in ways that are strong...fat and lazy is more apt physical description.
However, they all have one thing in common: a sociopathic or psychopathic personality that lacks empathy for human pain/suffering/death around them and a malignant narcissism. These are things you have well documented! But why is it “small” men in the cases I am citing? They project an aura of toughness, but physically are not so. It is toughness through manipulation of most peoples’ fear and flight instincts. Chances are those with strong fear and flight instincts, like evolved over time, are more easily manipulated.
These strongmen act tough by finding an enemy...the other...and blame all ills on them and it gives an easy way for those with high fear to the attribute their misfortune to the other, rather than stepping back and looking at it rationally. Strongmen are great at providing “easy answers” to inherently tough and complex problems.
Ah, but here's the rub: they present themselves as strong men. Everything about Putin is about his masculine strength, even if he's not a towering figure. Stalin's posters showed him towering above everything else, as did Hitler's propaganda. Saddam Hussein's statues towered over the city. Propaganda can overcome the issue, but they tapped into the latent strongman template in our minds even while not being so physically imposing. But yes, reality is more nuanced and wrinkly than one can ever capture in a theory.
Agreed that propaganda and slight of hand works wonders. Of course back in those days, social media for better or worse could not call these inconsistencies out. Hence the portrayal of Trump as being some hyper-masculine being when the truth is quite the opposite. It goes to what people want to believe, rather than the reality of it all. I think the movie Idiocracy with the character Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho played by Terry Crews sums it up!
Your reference to the shirtless Putin reminded me of the way Ruth Ben-Ghiat included "virility" in the qualities of a "strongman." (Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present) Since reading her, I've wondered if this is one reason trump cultists seem not to care about his attitude--and actions--towards women. For them, "grab them by" is a feature, not a bug.
Thanks, but the US Kindle version is beyond my budget and Kindle is all my aging eyes and hands can deal with. No library version here. I'll look at your podcast, but I'm not really into podcasts. On the other hand, I DO have to clean the kitchen for arriving guest--so I guess I can include dictators with all the other dirty dishes 😉
Quite revealing and thought provoking article! I find it interesting however that your meme of the chimp attempting to “catch” a ball was utilized, instead of “throwing a ball.
I wonder how much human progressiveness or evolution was involved in the act of catching. Could it also be key to our development?
Could have been a way to dominate over foes attempting to hurl projectiles at us? Could it still be a way for us to show courage in the face of current enemies who hurl darts at us?
Everything does. Literally everything. Evolution is happening constantly, and every decision we make slightly affects the trajectory, which is built upon billions and billions of individuals, interacting with our environment, in complex ways. But yes, climate change, environmental change, technology, all of those big picture changes can affect the evolutionary trajectory.
It occurred to me some time ago that virtually every human competitive physically active sport involves combinations of striking an object or person with a ball often using a club, and chasing somebody or something. Soccer being a semi-exception, little throwing, but replaced by kicking, and lots of chasing. Why do we so love to throw, hit, and chase?
Because we are programmed by evolution to love doing these.
As someone who used to do competitive Judo, I can attest to the fact that there is, at times, nothing more satisfactory than consensually and mutually engaging in physical combat with people you like (or love!) within the confines of rules (so that no one is seriously hurt), and with a deep admiration of, and honour for, the other. I met a boyfriend doing Judo together, it was super hot, great foreplay. Sometimes I think adult men just need an excuse to "angrily" roll around with each other (wrestling, sumo, etc.) as a way to get our human need for physical connection met without feeling "weird" about it.
Fascinating perspective! Thank you
Conjured for me opening scenes of Arthur C Clarke’s 2001: A Space Odyssey, where different from the movie, the monolith ‘teaches’ an ape to throw rocks as a weapon/tool in an epic inflection point in the evolution of intelligence. It never sat right with me the film adaption where instead, the apes learn to use bones as bludgeoning weapons. Now I know better why. It sure does make sense that use of throwing weapons is the particular advance that is the key turning point where intelligence bests bodily strength as human’s most critical security asset.
In the original Odyssey, it is Odysseus’s cunning and resourcefulness that wins the day over and over. Maybe Homer was trying to remind the Greeks how dumb/disastrous it is to embrace Chimpy instincts and hide behind ‘strong men’ when threatened.
When you can no longer tell who is most dangerous by sizing them up from a distance, it sure changes the game.
Just picked up Corruptible, btw, looking forward to it!
How humans progressed from the flat, egalitarian model of society to the hierarchical one we know is intriguing. If the societal changes occurred in times of crisis, there’s brain chemistry to consider as well: flight or fight bypasses the prefrontal cortex, making it impossible to think your way out while you’re gripped by fear. I also wonder if this (the perceived need for strength in the face of crisis) reinforced the importance of larger group sizes, since societies larger than the bands you talk about can’t be held together as easily with personal relationships, and the larger the society the better it can defend itself.
Great point - and yes, there are divergent views on this. In "Corruptible," I refer to the "war and peas" hypotheses, the notion that hierarchy emerged either from conquering other groups and creating larger societies through conquest or from agriculture, which created sedentary human societies that grew and became more socially vertical over time. Others, such as Wengrow and Graeber, dispute this simple explanation, so the debate lives on, but there was a major change in human societies around 12,000 years ago when agriculture took root (literally).
Brian, an interesting and fresh take as always. As an observation, you point out in times of crisis people choose somebody whose is physically imposing from the perspective of strength and size. With this I disagree. Look at all “strongmen/authoritarian” types historically. Putin, Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Papa Doc, and of course Trump. These men are either quite short in stature, and hardly physically imposing or maybe large, but not in ways that are strong...fat and lazy is more apt physical description.
However, they all have one thing in common: a sociopathic or psychopathic personality that lacks empathy for human pain/suffering/death around them and a malignant narcissism. These are things you have well documented! But why is it “small” men in the cases I am citing? They project an aura of toughness, but physically are not so. It is toughness through manipulation of most peoples’ fear and flight instincts. Chances are those with strong fear and flight instincts, like evolved over time, are more easily manipulated.
These strongmen act tough by finding an enemy...the other...and blame all ills on them and it gives an easy way for those with high fear to the attribute their misfortune to the other, rather than stepping back and looking at it rationally. Strongmen are great at providing “easy answers” to inherently tough and complex problems.
Ah, but here's the rub: they present themselves as strong men. Everything about Putin is about his masculine strength, even if he's not a towering figure. Stalin's posters showed him towering above everything else, as did Hitler's propaganda. Saddam Hussein's statues towered over the city. Propaganda can overcome the issue, but they tapped into the latent strongman template in our minds even while not being so physically imposing. But yes, reality is more nuanced and wrinkly than one can ever capture in a theory.
Agreed that propaganda and slight of hand works wonders. Of course back in those days, social media for better or worse could not call these inconsistencies out. Hence the portrayal of Trump as being some hyper-masculine being when the truth is quite the opposite. It goes to what people want to believe, rather than the reality of it all. I think the movie Idiocracy with the character Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho played by Terry Crews sums it up!
Your reference to the shirtless Putin reminded me of the way Ruth Ben-Ghiat included "virility" in the qualities of a "strongman." (Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present) Since reading her, I've wondered if this is one reason trump cultists seem not to care about his attitude--and actions--towards women. For them, "grab them by" is a feature, not a bug.
Yes, indeed. Check out Valerie Sperling's work on this, which is excellent. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Politics-Putin-Political-Legitimacy/dp/0199324352 I also interviewed her for an episode of my podcast on dictators, which you can listen to here: https://podcasts.apple.com/gr/podcast/from-dictator-to-demigod/id1458750622?i=1000445841759
Thanks, but the US Kindle version is beyond my budget and Kindle is all my aging eyes and hands can deal with. No library version here. I'll look at your podcast, but I'm not really into podcasts. On the other hand, I DO have to clean the kitchen for arriving guest--so I guess I can include dictators with all the other dirty dishes 😉
Quite revealing and thought provoking article! I find it interesting however that your meme of the chimp attempting to “catch” a ball was utilized, instead of “throwing a ball.
I wonder how much human progressiveness or evolution was involved in the act of catching. Could it also be key to our development?
Could have been a way to dominate over foes attempting to hurl projectiles at us? Could it still be a way for us to show courage in the face of current enemies who hurl darts at us?
Could it be the difference between fear and Love?
Most informative, Brian….curious though, you named one section, "shoulder surgery." Why "surgery?"
Because evolution performs surgery to every species - it just takes a very long time!
Aaahh, of course.
This article is quite thought provoking. What may cause a pause in development or the evolutionary changes in species….human activity, climate change?
Everything does. Literally everything. Evolution is happening constantly, and every decision we make slightly affects the trajectory, which is built upon billions and billions of individuals, interacting with our environment, in complex ways. But yes, climate change, environmental change, technology, all of those big picture changes can affect the evolutionary trajectory.
It occurred to me some time ago that virtually every human competitive physically active sport involves combinations of striking an object or person with a ball often using a club, and chasing somebody or something. Soccer being a semi-exception, little throwing, but replaced by kicking, and lots of chasing. Why do we so love to throw, hit, and chase?
Because we are programmed by evolution to love doing these.
As someone who used to do competitive Judo, I can attest to the fact that there is, at times, nothing more satisfactory than consensually and mutually engaging in physical combat with people you like (or love!) within the confines of rules (so that no one is seriously hurt), and with a deep admiration of, and honour for, the other. I met a boyfriend doing Judo together, it was super hot, great foreplay. Sometimes I think adult men just need an excuse to "angrily" roll around with each other (wrestling, sumo, etc.) as a way to get our human need for physical connection met without feeling "weird" about it.