Intelligence can be seen as the capacity to coordinate many different skills at once. Indeed, one can have good verbal, spatial, mnemonic or social abilities, but this is not always useful if they do not merge together to generate coherent and balanced behaviours. In this scenario, attention (the ability to maintain that coherent integration in time and space regardless of internal and external distractions) can represent a sort of “limiting factor”. Limiting factor means that, independently from the punctual efficiency of the cognitive process, to be really fruitful, it must be sustained at least for a given amount of time, and focused on a selected amount of space. As pointed out by Henri Poincaré, the main target of our observations are not the things themselves, but instead their relationships. And to see those relationships, you must pay (or, in languages with Latin roots, at least lend) attention.
Most human-specific activities and behaviours strongly depend on a focused and selective attentional capacity. Indeed, the attention system is widely studied in neurobiology and cognitive sciences. The outstanding complexity of our technological and social resources intimately relies on our capacity to select and maintain a proper array of sensorial stimuli, discarding (many) others. It is hence to be expected that attention played a key role in the evolution of the human genus, and in particular of our species. The attention system relies on distinct neural pathways, so we may also expect that the evolution of attention was not linear, and not the same for every hominid taxon. A patchwork and mosaic pattern probably characterized the evolution of our attention system, which is, furthermore, quite sensitive to training, and thus influenced by subtle biocultural feedbacks (including the elusive –but indeed crucial– Baldwin effect).
Despite the importance of attention for our evolution, to date this topic has yet to be investigated in hominid paleobiology. Few scattered comments can be found here and there, but they are based on general statements (largely influenced by folk science, as often happens when fossils are involved) and not on proper scientific evidence. Here, I am pleased to introduce the first perspective review on attention and human evolution, based on a critical assessment of the evidence in paleoneurology and cognitive archaeology.
The article contains two main messages. First, it integrates the fossil record and the archaeological record into the debate regarding the evolution of our attention system. Which is, definitely, necessary to develop consistent theories on human cognition. The review presents issues associated with the evolution of the parietal cortex, lithic technology, social structure, visuospatial integration and working memory. Of course, working with extinct species has inevitably some important limitations, so many hypotheses cannot be tested, and a certain dose of cautious speculation is inevitably required. However, this information is necessary to support or discard specific assumptions or expectations, and to channel targeted and dedicated experimental approaches. This latter point is crucial because, although theoretical considerations are essential, they must be necessarily followed by experimental (and quantitative) approaches.
The second point concerns the ambivalent nature of the parietal cortex, which is involved in antagonistic processes. On the one hand, the parietal lobe is a core element of the attention system. But, at the same time, it is also a central component of the default mode network. In particular, the dorsal region (the precuneus) is largely responsible for somatic and visual integration, and hence crucial for our (unique) capacity to project visual images in the past (memories) and in the future (predictions). This is a great super-power of Homo sapiens but, at the same time, like in many tales from Greek mythology, its damnation. In fact, on the one hand, a large part of our behavioural complexity depends on the capacity of handling past and future simulations. But, at the same time, the same ability generates mind wandering, rambling and recurrent thoughts, and those never-ending ruminations that characterize the pandemics of stress, anxiety and depression typical of most human societies. All philosophical, spiritual and psychological traditions have recognized, ever since, a basic fact: humans do suffer. Indeed, it seems that this is an intrinsic and implicit human condition. Curiously, among those features that “make us humans”, two very specific ones are crying and suicide. The sad primate. This is why such suffering has represented a central topic for many diverse but converging perspectives, ranging from Buddhism to Stoicism, from Patañjali to Schopenhauer. In recent decades, our Western culture has rediscovered the importance of taking care of the present moment to achieve a proper balance with past and future projections through meditative practice and attentional training. This is mostly happening thanks to the principles of mindfulness meditation, which implies a profound training of body cognition, and the management of the transitions between the default mode network (ruminations) and the attention system (sensorial engagement with the present moment).
This perspective review on attention and human evolution does not aim to provide conclusions or firm statements. Instead, its scope is to call attention (literally) to these aspects, and to trigger future discussion (and research) on this topic. Such a view is necessary in order to provide robust theories on our cognitive abilities, but also to provide an evolutionary background to many psychological aspects (and limitations) of our amazing –albeit fragile– human mind.
***
Here a share-link to a free download of the paper.
(valid until August 17th, 2022)