Social Brain Hypothesis Essay

I have realized that whenever someone is asked for some reason the difference that we humans have with animals, most say something like our intelligence, or that we communicate with each other and they do not. Social brain hypothesis is a proposal that strives to explain that in comparison to all vertebrates, the primates have naturally larger brain size to the body mass. This theory goes ahead to demonstrate that the primates acquire the wider brains as a result of their struggle to manage their complex social systems. According to La Mattrie the human being has always tried to understand it in reference to animals but there is another very current reference machine. However, the relationship with both referents is not the same as the human being is evolutionarily linked to animals. Instead, the machine is a human product. This hypothesis may appear to fall short of explanation on the social behavior of birds, which also live in a somewhat complicated social class. Recent research has proved that the social brain hypothesis takes different forms in different categories of animals. The theory cannot be used in a comparison of animals of vast biological disparities. The research may only hold when
considering other factors like phylum, class, order, and family among others. This article strives to prove that animals with large brains are relatively more docile than those with smaller brains and also to show that the more the mind develops to carry out more social responsibility, there is a loss of instinct (Gerhard & Ursula 21).
The results of this inquiry may sound like a typical phenomenon, yet it is essential to take into account the research evidence that has been compiled. Animals with larger brain relative to body mass are useful in problem-solving (Lefebvre et al, 34). Their ability to critically analyze a situation, look for a set of available solutions and to choose the most feasible solution requires a tremendous cognitive capacity. Such animals will only resolve to violence after exhausting all the possible peaceful solutions. This explains why they are rated to be docile and friendly. They have a high level of intelligence and self-control (Lefebvre et al, 23).
The development of these brains is necessitated by the fact the social animals need the superior intellect to accommodate, respond to and even engage the other members of the society. The relative size of the brain of an animal can be employed in predicting whether the animal will accomplish a given task. A practical example is a parrot (Gerhard & Ursula 33). This is a bird that can learn and do any work which is practically possible, including talking singing, reading and even sending letters.
Social animals are therefore expected to stand a better chance to perform a task of solving a problem than their counterparts who live in solidarity. It is also a common say that as iron sharpen iron so does the brain of a man sharpen the other (Lefebvre et al, 49). Learning among the highly social animals and the subsequent brain development is made possible since the animals tend to learn from one another (Gerhard & Ursula 54).
To test the relationship between relative brain size and docility, the researchers made a metal box containing food. Members from each species of animals were then challenged to try and open the container (Gerhard & Ursula 67). A total of 140 animals from 39 different species of mammalian carnivore were involved in the test. The sizes of the vessels were made to suit every animal species. Wolves, polar bear, and tigers were involved in the research. The researcher presented different food materials in every container so that every species of animals was served with the diet of its taste. While striving to open the box, the researcher continued providing a more challenging task once the animal passed the first test (Lefebvre et al, 45).
In the results obtained, “brain size relative to body mass was a very accurate predictor of the outcome. The researcher also carefully noted that it is not the absolute brain size that matters but brain size to body mass ratio (relative brain size). The matter concludes that the task was performed and finished in time according to their social lives. Those living as a social clan finished far much ahead of their counterparts who live in solidarity (Lefebvre et al, 55). Again there is the loss of instinct among those with mind gain for there is little fear since they have at hand many solutions to their problems. In Conclusion, La Mattrie was right humans do have some similarly with human.
What guarantees that an animal is intelligent is the socialization with humans and at the same time the coexistence with its own species in a natural environment. The social brain hypothesis, researchers have proposed that the animals that live in high social structures have better brain development than their counter parts of different species that live in unity. This explains why primates and most specifically man have greater brain capacity than the rest of the animals. An experimental research maintains that the species of social animals are highly engaged in carrying out their social activities, trying to engage and accommodate one another and the entire
group. Such activities increase their brain capacity as well as the brain size. Since their brains are developed enough to deal with many life-threatening challenges, they will always strive to employ all logical means to their problems, applying violence as the solution of the last resort. The most observable trait is conclusive that the animals with a broader brain are docile while their counterparts with smaller ones are fierce. The intelligent group loses instinct since they are not faced with the fear of being attacked by predators for they will always find a way out.