Teamwork made Man brainier, say scientists

 Enlarge

Learning to work in teams may explain why humans evolved a bigger brain, according to a new study published on Wednesday.

Compared to his hominid predecessors, Homo sapiens is a cerebral giant, a riddle that scientists have long tried to solve.

The answer, according to researchers in Ireland and Scotland, may lie in social interaction.



Working with others helped Man to survive, but he had to develop a brain big enough to cope with all the social complexities, the experts believe. – Reuters Photo

In a computer model, the team simulated the human brain, allowing a network of neurons to evolve in response to a series of social challenges.

There were two scenarios. The first entailed two partners in crime who had been caught by the police, each having to decide whether or not to inform on the other.

The second had two individuals trapped in a car in a snowdrift and having to weigh whether to cooperate to dig themselves out or just sit back and let the other do it.

In both cases, the individual would gain more from selfishness.

But the researchers were intrigued to find that as the brain evolved, the individual was likelier to choose to cooperate.

"We cooperate in large groups of unrelated individuals quite frequently, and that requires cognitive abilities to keep track of who is doing what to you and change your behaviour accordingly," co-author Luke McNally of Dublin's Trinity College told AFP.

McNally pointed out, though, that cooperation has a calculating side. We do it out of reciprocity.

"If you cooperate and I cheat, then next time we interact you could decide: 'Oh well, he cheated last time, so I won't cooperate with him.' So basically you have to cooperate in order to receive cooperation in the future."

McNally said teamwork and bigger brainpower fed off each other.

"Transitions to cooperative, complex societies can drive the evolution of a bigger brain," he said.
"Once greater levels of intelligence started to evolve, you saw cooperation going much higher."

The study appears in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, a journal published by Britain's de-facto academy of sciences.

Commenting on the paper, Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary anthropologist at Oxford University, said the findings were a valuable add to understanding brain evolution.

But he said there were physiological limits to cooperation.

Man would need a "house-sized brain" to take cooperation to a perfect level on a planet filled with humans.

"Our current brain size limits the community size that we can manage ... that we feel we belong to," he said.
Our comfortable "personal social network" is limited to about 150, and boosting that to 500 would require a doubling of the size of the brain.

"In order to create greater social integration, greater social cohesion even on the size of France, never mind the size of the EU, never mind the planet, we probably have to find other ways of doing it" than wait for evolution, said Dunbar.

By Mariette le Roux AFP

Give but be gracious in receiving as well

IT'S a common enough scene at restaurants, diners fighting to pay the bill. Some say it's a Malaysian thing.

We also know that some people give the impression of wanting to pay and are able to cleverly ensure that the wallet would conveniently stay in the pocket when the bill arrives.

I was having lunch with my wife at a restaurant recently and two gentlemen at an adjoining table, after finishing their meal, did just that. It was quite a scene, though in a good-humoured way, with the waiter caught in the middle.

I was quite tempted to tell them that if they were both so keen about paying, how about settling my bill as well.

I am not sure who paid in the end but it got me thinking about the joy of giving and receiving.
You cannot have one without the other.

And while we may say that it is better to give than to receive, without the act of receiving, you cannot let the other person experience the joy of giving.

Let me be clear here that I am not talking about bribery where it is absolutely wrong to be either the giver or the receiver, even if the corrupt think there is much joy in the process.

It is part of our human nature to give, be it of our time or our money. We feel good when we help someone who is going through a bad patch, donate to a charity or volunteer to teach at an orphanage.

And it is even better when we do all this without drawing attention to ourselves.

A wise saying puts it this way: “When you give to someone in need, don't let your left hand know what your right hand is doing.”

But what about receiving?

People who are very generous in their giving are sometimes highly uncomfortable when it comes to receiving.

Perhaps they think there is an ulterior motive involved.

So, instead of simply saying thanks, they give us the impression that the reason for our giving is suspect.

And then there are those who, even if they receive your gift, will take the next opportunity to give you something back, often of equivalent value.

So, the true spirit of giving and receiving is totally lost here.

A general rule of thumb when we are blessed by someone is to pass on the blessing, not to reciprocate or pay for it.

Because of my stints as a full-time househusband and also working for a charity organisation, it is quite normal for my friends to pay whenever we have a meal together.

Perhaps, out of habit, they still do so and I have to remind them that I can now afford to pay the bill.

Normally, to avoid a scene, I would leave my credit card or money with the waiter ahead of the meal.

Last Sunday, I was having breakfast with two dear friends when an elderly man at the next table recognised me although we had never met before. He was reading The Sunday Star and we had a nice chat.

He said goodbye and then the waiter came up to us and said our bill had been settled. Thank you Mr Wong, I certainly receive this breakfast treat from you with a grateful heart.

So, friends, today as you go out for a meal, remember this. Though it is better to give than to receive, be gracious in receiving as well. You could make someone really happy. There really is no need to fight over the bill.

> Deputy executive editor Soo Ewe Jin appreciates being on the receiving end of kind words, sincere fellowship and heart-to-heart conversations, underscoring the fact that the best things in life are not only free, but priceless.

Related posts:
Give, you should receive! 
Recognise talent and help others to soar 

FCC Proposes: Fine for Google Wi-Fi snooping 'obstruction'

By TheStreet Staf

WASHINGTON -- The Federal Communications Commission has proposed fining Google(GOOG_) $25,000 for obstructing an investigation into the company's collection of data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks in 2010, according to a published media report.

Although the FCC has decided there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the data collection violated federal rules, the commission said Google deliberately impeded the investigation, The Wall Street Journal reported Saturday.
The probe looked at whether Google broke rules designed to prevent electronic eavesdropping when its Street View service collected and stored the data from the Wi-Fi networks, the newspaper reported.

The FCC proposed the fine late Friday night, the Journal said.

Google may appeal the proposed fine before the commission makes it final, the Journal said. The company has said that it inadvertently collected the data and stopped doing so when it realized what was going on, the newspaper added.

Shares of Google closed Friday down $26.41 at $624.60.


FCC proposes fine for Google Wi-Fi snooping case 'obstruction'By Zack Whittaker

Summary: The U.S. FCC has proposed a $25,000 fine after Google “impeded and delayed” an investigation into collecting wireless payload data from unencrypted Wi-Fi networks.

The U.S. Federal Communications Commission is proposing a $25,000 fine against Google for “deliberately impeded and delayed” an ongoing investigation into whether it breached federal laws over its street-mapping service, the Wall Street Journal reports.


The FCC initiated an investigation in 2010 after Google collected and stored payload data from unencrypted wireless networks as part of its Google Maps Street View service. Its intended use, Google says, was to build up a list of Wi-Fi network hotspots to aid geolocation services on mobile devices through ‘assisted-GPS’.

The U.S. followed suit after many European countries, including Germany, which has some of the strictest data protection and privacy laws in the world. But the European nation went one step further and told Google to withdraw its Street View cars from the country altogether.

Google also drew fire from the UK’s data protection agency after it was told it committed a “significant breach” of the UK and European data laws when it collected wireless data from home networks. It was audited by the regulator and was told it “must do more” to improve its privacy policies. Google said it had taken “reasonable steps” to further protect the data of its users and customers.

But the FCC stopped short of accusing Google of directly violating data interception and wiretapping laws, citing lack of evidence. The federal communications authority did not fine the company under eavesdropping laws, as there is no set precedent for applying the law against ‘fair-game’ unencrypted networks.

The FCC took the action after it believed Google was reluctant to co-operate with the authorities after the scandal emerged. An FCC statement added that a Google engineer thought to have written the code that collected the data invoked his Fifth Amendment rights to prevent self-incrimination.

Google can appeal the fine. Despite the fine being a mere fraction of the company’s U.S. annual turnover, not doing so until its legal avenues are exhausted would almost be an admittance of guilt.

The search giant eventually offered an opt-out mechanism for its location database by adding text to the networks’ router name. But further controversy was drawn after another Silicon Valley company offered an opt-out only solution.

Facebook also drew fire from the regulators after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission allowed the social networking giant to settle, allowing users to opt-in to its sharing privacy settings, rather than opting-out; seen as a major win for U.S. users’ privacy on the site.

 

Newscribe : get free news in real time
 

Related articles and posts:

• Google passes Street View audit, but ‘must improve’ privacy policies
• Google offers Street View opt-out for Wi-Fi mapping; Unethical snooping, yet we must opt-out?
• Facebook to make all sharing privacy settings ‘opt-in’
• Germany gets new privacy tool from Google
• Lawyers Claim Google Street View Wi-Fi Sniffing 'Is Not ... 
• Google in hot water
• Google+ face-lift triggers jibes over extra white space 
• Google plans major revamp for search engine 
• Google acquires more IBM patents