While human social loners fit the mould, I don't think that's the lone point we should get out of this. What is actually beneficial to society (whether mold or human) is diversity in genetics, neuro-diversity, and in general.
Isn't the point that being a 'loner' is beneficial to the individual (slimemold), regardless of society?
Loners and outcasts are a subset of a diversity.
- do psychopaths prey on and drag down society in most circumstances until there's an "evolutionary bottleneck" and they're the only ones with the will-to-power and ability to bring a "remnant" portion of humanity through dire circumstances that would otherwise lead that portion perishing? ... are they the failsafe?
- is psychopathy an emergent always-negative phenomenon that arises randomly once in a while as a result of random couplings among a pool of people on whom not-quite-psychopathic-behavior-derived-from-genetic-traits confers survival benefits and perhaps overall good to society?
- or are psychopaths on overall good for society? do they always confer benefit even though we perceive them negatively?
- other alternatives?
[edit: punctuation]
could just be a consequence of the model they chose, but interesting to think about nonetheless. I'd be very grateful if someone could remember the name of the paper!
On the other hand if everyone in the village sees tigers behind every bush and stays put within the safe confines of village walls, no one in the village learns how to tame or hunt the tiger.
A Tiger here being a placeholder for any threat/unknown the group faces, requiring talents as yet not known to the group.
If you do find a village that has managed to Not fall victim to both those scenarios think about what it tells you about the distribution of curious/non-curious within the village.
I'm aware that it's accepted Neandertals might've been as capable in many areas of survival, however I'm not aware that it's been accepted they had more advanced brains. Got a source?
I remember hearing somewhere, one source I remember [1], that despite their intelligence, they tended to rove in smaller tribes partly perhaps due to less inter-communication skills, which may've led to a disadvantage in warfare.
Or perhaps, my own thoughts, the 'loner genes', for lack of a better term, iterated more throughout the Neaderthal ancestry which led to smaller tribes. Another guess, maybe forested Eurasia, which may act as natural barriers compared to more open African plains caused a selection for smaller groups or gave way to human genetics that naturally selected for smaller groups. Of course, take it all with a grain of salt.
1. https://www.history.com/news/neanderthals-likely-lived-in-sm...
(Still lots of fun to think about. If I were to hazard a guess, it would be something along the lines of greater neoteny in h. Sapiens sapiens. For an analogy, compare dogs and wolves. Wolves have larger brains, but dogs have a greater ability to read social cues.)
A disadvantage in one situation can be a blessing in another situation. A savant who has Aspergers, someone who has OCD during a Covid-19 epidemic, etc...
> Creative people make for lousy project planners and directors.
That warranted the downvotes I think.