Origins and perspectives of sociality: smart not need a company?

So, everything is already decided, that man is social in the board, and if he does not need in the community, with him "that something is not right." He celebrates his complexes, probably. Some studies, the history of human development and modern psychology provide food for thought in this direction. What if modern man, and especially the intellectual development of man, is not so in need of company?

Reflecting on society, should look into the past (so far as the modern paleontology paleontologists and guesses). Based on interviews paleoneurology, doctors and professors of the Institute of Human Morphology RAMS, SV Savelyev, you can draw several conclusions.

The origins of sociality

Professor argues that the ape-man began to get in packs of about 10 million years ago. To properly solve their problems and to survive, they had to live peacefully and smoothly, so all agents of tranquility corny expelled.

The number of such Screwtape got aggressive individuals, and the most intelligent. Interestingly, until now, in some parts of society, "the most intelligent" is considered an insult. No way, the memory of ancestors.

Smart went to other places to survive and adapt, and the brain grew. And he grew up exactly to the moment, as long as people have migrated, adapted and solved only biological task, that is, to survive. When they settled in a place where full of food, and a pale shadow of famine receded, in all its glory manifested social problems.

Everything went wrong…

Approximately 100 thousand. years ago, it turned out that only have meaning social problems, and the brain has stopped growing. As history has shown, for the socialization of a large brain is not needed. A well-organized and fully socialized crowd Cro destroy intellectual and creative Neanderthal settles everywhere. It reveals a simple truth, that works fine so far:

Against the mass of mediocrity even the strongest genius can not do anything.

Just in the process of evolution talent sacrificed for biological advantages, ie, food, reproduction and domination. The result is a bleak picture:

Well socialized dull individual is integrated into any community is much better than individualist.

And this is proved not only paleoneurology, but recent studies of neural networks in the human brain.

Logic or compassion?

Research Anthony Jack, assistant professor of cognitive science at Case Western Reserve University (Ohio, USA) It showed that for different types of activities people use different neural networks, which thus cancel each other.

The experiment was conducted in 2006, included the use of MRI to monitor brain activity, and the results revealed the following: social problems disable the areas of the brain that are responsible for the analysis and include a charge of socialization.

When a person emotionally communicates with other people, in the neural network of the brain that is used for scientific, logical and mathematical reasoning, neural inhibition is included. That is, the more a person uses logic, the less he has feelings and emotions, which are so necessary when communicating.

It turns out that the more skills adaptation in a society, the less-developed analytical thinking that brings us back to the already mentioned phrase about socialized stupid individuals.

Basically all they eat, drink, multiply and dominate.

That is, do the same thing as 20 million. years ago, but unlike that time, smart is no longer banished. Just poorly understood. A huge number of scientists are not taken in due time, the brilliant eccentrics and other nerd proof.

Well, the more a person uses analytical thinking, the more it affects the ability for empathy and the ability to solve social problems. And I do not want to call all sociable people stupid - far from it.

But why intellectually developed people continue to depend on your own? Why is no need for biological survival all so attracted to the society? The answer to it is possible to look at the psychology.

holiday complex

The first people, meeting a child in this world - his parents, and that they are more responsible for all subsequent installations, desires, and internal problems. There is a theory that it was due to the parent, or rather, because of their mistakes in the upbringing and the perception of their child, and the man becomes so sotsiozavisimym being from what is suffering.

The mother gives the child the love that he needs and provides psychological support. But nothing comes out of nowhere and if the mother at the time did not give love and support, most likely it will not give it to your children. Replacement of love is instinctive concern for posterity, and psychologically just pity. Born model "will be good, I will love, you will not - I will not."

A child deprived of love, grows with psychological trauma and unconsciously requires all pity, literally eats it. Hence, different types of "complainers" who constantly tell all about their problems in search of that mistaken for love. Inferiority and desire to constantly seek approval and love, which they did not know.

The second type is no less painful - eternal winners who live in the pursuit of new achievements, and this is the fault of his father. Dad should give the child a knowledge of the world, and he often sends with them all of their flat concepts of right and wrong, good and bad, and with might and main judge of the child, alleging various oversight. As a result, the child tends to get out from under this yoke, to defeat this government, and makes it all my life, even when of a father is already possible to forget, as a judge.

He continues to be torn to power, new victories and achievements - a brief moment of euphoria and psychological itch to win again.

Vanity Fair and nothingness

It turns out that a defective man constantly strives to society, to its regret on the one hand (Read, loved and recognized that he was not a shit, as he himself says), and on the other - looked at him victory.

A power can be everywhere: in art, in business, even family. Wherever people compare themselves with someone and feel that they are better.

And if we consider all the way, it turns out that society needs people, mainly for self-assertion, for obtaining, at least for some time, a sense of inner peace, when "I is worthy of all, because all I think so. "

If you truly love yourself, you will probably never jealous of anyone, and do not try to adhere to itself, do not get angry, when you lose, and never complain, do not look for the approval of someone else and always do just what you want.

If you - such people (honestly), how do you feel about the society? Depends on it?