Back to the Monkeys

[Star-struck]

I was reading the Hundred Monkey posts from last month. You can find many instances in history to support the theory. Some of the breakthroughs mentioned are pyramids, the calendar, and time. Each of these breakthroughs was made contiguously in many parts of the world with seemingly no outside influence. I think though that you can find as many (if not more) instances, in the developmental history of man alone, where this "collective" knowledge theory is not supported. The greatest one that comes to my mind is that of metallurgy. Most of Europe and Asia had made great advances in metallurgy while Africa, Australia (Aboriginal), and the Americas still used tools and weapons of stone. At that, and with exceptions of course, these less technologically advanced societies were still stuck in hunter/gatherer mode. There was no collective consciousness driving these people towards enlightenment. Therefore, it would seem logical to suppose that if two groups of a species, who have no contact with each other and who possess a similar base of intelligence, were posed a problem at roughly the same time, each group would stumble upon a solution at roughly the same time.

[Sayonara]

Presumably it would depend on how large and diverse the groups were, and also what you considered to be 'roughly the same time'.

 

Humans aren't the best sample set (in fact, monkeys aren't either) because we have a tendency to communicate.

[Star-struck]

For experiment (or hypothesis) sake lets assume that each group is equal in size and diversity. Differences in these two variables would obviously effect the outcome. As for timeframe, and for clarity of thought, we can remove the notion that each group has to be posed the problem simultaneously. Lets just say that if two groups similar in size and diversity were posed the same problem, dumb luck aside, each would likely find a solution in a similar amount of time.

[Sayonara]

No, I mean the absolute size of the groups, not the relative sizes.

 

 

Two equal groups of 1,000,000 individuals each have a much better chance of developing a concept that would be inpregnable to two equal groups of 10 individuals.

[Star-struck]

I find it amazing how you continuously pick an insignificant part of a thought, one that has little to do with the main point, and debate it. Are you just argumentative?

[Sayonara]

Actually I was adding the parts you left out that would determine whether or not the outcome was as you predicted.

 

It's called being helpful.

 

"Conditions that affect the theory" is not something I would consider to be insignificant.

[Star-struck]

Okay, then back to your group of 1,000,000 vice group of 10...of course a group of 1,000,000 would likely be far more developed than a group of 10. Their solution to a problem would likely be one that is more advanced than the group of 10 could conceive of. For the sake of the discussion though this is irrelevant. For the sake of the discussion it only matters that the two groups are similar in size and diversity.

[Sayonara]

Isn't that a contradiction though?

 

Even if the groups are the same size and diversity, surely the larger they are and the more diverse they are, the less likely the two populations are to come up with similar solutions.

 

That's what I mean by the absolute size and diversity of the groups affecting the outcome.