─────────────────────────────────
CHAPTER 8
─────────────────────────────────
BRAIN'S ROLE IN EVOLUTION
"Aristotle was famous for knowing everything.He taught
that
the brain exists merely to cool the blood and is not involved in the
process
of thinking. This is true only of certain people." Will
Cuffy.
The brain is assembled by many genes. Each gene has had to establish
itself
within a species genome that, by definition, was successful at the time
the
new gene competed for a place in the gene pool. We should assume that
each
brain affecting gene established itself in the human genome at a
different
time from all other brain affecting genes. Obviously, all genes achieve
their
success without the benefit of how well it might work with any future
gene.
Each successful gene has had to compete with existing genes, or at
least
provide a benefit that exceeds penalties from incompatibilities with
existing
genes. From the perspective of the gene, the individual's brain has the
responsibility
of spreading the gene widely into future generations. This is another
way
to express the unavoidable tautological assessment that a gene's
success
is to be measured by how well it spreads in the species genome.
When a new gene modifies the hardwired neural connections of some brain
region
(by creating new connections between neurons or by changing the size of
synapses
of existing connections), the function of the modified brain region is
likely
to be in conflict with other brain regions. Since the purpose of the
brain
is to influence behavior on behalf of the genes, brain regions
necessarily
are in competition with other brain regions for influencing behavior.
Rarely
is the individual aware of this conflict. When the conflict is extreme,
when
it affects emotional state, we might refer to the conscious
manifestation
of the unsettled emotional state as "cognitive dissonance." Almost all
competitions
for influencing thought and behavior are worked out peacefully below
conscious
awareness.
The Brain as a Mechanism
The brain is a mechanism, albeit a "wet chemistry" mechanism. Just as
all
chemical interactions are merely physical interactions at the atomic
and
molecular level, so are all brain interactions ultimately the working
out
of physical relationships between atoms and molecules. When we say that
current
flows along a neuron's axon, we refer to a physical process of the
axon's
membrane becoming more permeable to sodium atoms, allowing charged
atoms
to enter the axon from the surrounding fluid, etc. Every motion of
every
atom is governed by a = F/m and quantum physics (as explained in
Chapter
1). It would be cumbersome to try to understand brain function by
invoking
this basic level of physics since such a task would be incomprehensibly
difficult.
Wet chemistry is a less cumbersome level, but still too daunting for
most
brain studies. A more tractable, and hence powerful, level for
understanding
brain function is to think in terms of neural networks.
A neural network is a partially interconnected group of neurons.
One
network may also have connections with other neural networks. The term
"partially
interconnected" is important, for it is the genes that determine the
overall
pattern of which connections exist. A "fully connected" network is
impractical
when the number of elements (neurons) exceeds a few hundred, since the
number
of possible connections between elements grows as "N 1 factorial."
Synaptic
connections between neurons are either excitatory or inhibitory. In the
brain
a neuron may have many synaptic connections to a specific target
neuron,
and absolutely no direct connections to most other neurons.
Consider all neurons in the network that are connected to one
individual
neuron. At any moment some of them will be in the process of
"discharging,"
causing their synaptic connections to other neurons to become active
(releasing
neurotransmitters across a synaptic gap). Each target neuron sums the
excitatory
and inhibitory discharges on its cell body, and if this sum exceeds a
threshold
it in turn discharges, causing neighboring neurons with which it has
output
connections to possibly also discharge by the same process that led to
its
discharge. A neural network can be made to "resonate," which is a way
of
stating that a pattern of firings within the network continues for many
clock
cycles (tens of milliseconds in the brain) once triggered by an
appropriate
stimulation from the connections that the neural network has with
neighboring
neurons (or neural sub networks). All of this is well understood by
neural
network specialists, and I provided a brief introduction of it here to
give
the reader a taste for the mechanistic, or reductionist nature of brain
phenomena.
An even more useful level for understanding brain function is to speak
of
brain regions in terms of their function. When we use such terms as
"the
reticular activating system" (RAS) we know that the elaborate neural
network
explanation for the region's function is theoretically possible but at
the
present state of brain understanding these a = F/m ways of accounting
for
a regions function are not very feasible or even useful. So we proceed
by
saying, with blatant anthropomorphism, that a cortical region sends a
"request
for activation" to the RAS, and if RAS "grants the request" this
originating
cortical area becomes more active, and this activity enables it to
increases
it's inhibition of "competing" cortical brain areas, allowing it to
succeed
in "achieving behavioral expression." Even that way of speaking is
cumbersome,
but it captures the flavor of the mechanistic competition of one
cortical
neural network, having gene directed hard wirings, with a neighboring
cortical
neural network, having other gene directed hard wirings.
In any description that attempts to achieve brevity, such as this one,
there
are many unmentioned details about which a specialist could complain
when
they are left out. Sure, I didn't mention neurotransmitters, and their
re
uptake, or their breakdown, and dozens of other things going on, but
they
are all mere elaborations of the same basic physical mechanism.
Additional
details are too numerous to mention, but also too similar in terms of
their
ultimately physical action to warrant mention for present purposes.
I have risked boring you with some physics of the brain in order to
show
how in principle brain function can be understood as coming under the
influence
of the genes. For it is the genes that direct the process of "pre
wiring"
the brain. Initially, too many connections are created, and for several
years
after birth approximately half of the neurons and their connections
wither
and are lost. But the starting point at approximately birth and some
years
later (depending on the brain region), the overall placement of neuron
type
and the majority of connections from each neuron to others, is
supervised
in a general way by the genes. Some genes influence one region (i.e., a
neural
network) and not others, while other genes influence several different
specific
regions. Any single neural network is most likely the result of several
genes.
This way of viewing brain development, emphasizing as it does the role
of
evolutionary forces on the architecture and interconnectedness of the
brain,
leads to a perspective in which overall brain function is the working
out
of a competition of mental modules, each endeavoring to express itself
by
maximizing its influence over behavior. The "modularity of mentality"
perspective,
in which modules compete with certain others, is still controversial
(for
reasons I don't understand). And the idea of connecting specific
modules
to specific genes is so amorphous a speculation that it is not yet a
sub
discipline of the brain sciences. Evolutionary psychologists adopt this
view
(see Barkow et al, 1992), and it seems inevitable to me that sometime
in
the 21st century neuropsychologists will also, and maybe late in the
3rd
millennium people who call themselves psychologists will come aboard.
Recent Evolutionary Hotspots in the Human Brain
In humans the prefrontal cortex is proportionately larger than the rest
of
the brain compared with all other animals. Thus, there's an
evolutionary
trend revealing that the prefrontal cortex has been the focus of recent
human
evolutionary adaptations. This makes the prefrontal cortex one of the
most
interesting brain areas to understand.
Comparison with other mammals reveals that the tertiary cortices of the
posterior
lobes are also proportionately larger in humans, indicating that they
also
have been undergoing rapid evolution in recent evolutionary time. The
most
obvious example is Wernicke's Area, located in the temporal lobe's
tertiary
cortex. So add LB posterior lobe tertiary cortical areas to the list of
interesting
human evolutionary "hotspots."
Are there any evolutionary hotspots in the human right brain posterior
lobes?
The short answer is "no." It therefore seems that the left brain has
evolved
more during human history than the right. It is even tempting to
suggest
that what distinguishes humans from other animals is their left brain.
Note one qualification that applies to most usages of the terms "left
brain"
and "right brain": about 2% of the population has laterality
reversed.
In these people language and other sequential tasks are performed by
areas
in their right brain, and holistic functions are performed by their
left
brains. Most of these people are left handed with the unhooked writing
position.
Neuropsychologists use the terms right brain and left brain to refer to
the
specializations found in that 98% of the population with "normal"
lateralization.
So, whenever the terms LB and RB are used, think of the left and right
brains
of the 98% of people who possess the normal lateralization.
Why is the Left Brain Evolving Faster?
What is it about the left brain that gave it the greater burden for
advancing
human evolution? One clue comes from the microscope. The left brain
isn’t
as "white" because fewer neurons are coated with an electrical
insulator
composed of a whitish, fatty substance called myelin. The greater
myelinization
of the right side is required by the greater proportion of right side
neurons
that connect with distant neurons through long axons. In contrast,
neurons
on the left side are more often connected to nearby neurons, and
therefore
require less insulating myelin.
But what does this mean? The left brain is characterized by a neural
architecture
in which isolated neural networks perform their specialized tasks and
then
communicate their results among themselves through a smaller network of
interconnections.
Functionally, this is a better architecture for performing sequential
tasks.
Language is a good example. A sentence consists of a sequence of sounds
that
have to be in their proper place in order to convey the intended
meaning.
Some have speculated that the evolution of lateralization started with
our
fruit eating ancestors, who would use their left arm and hand to
support
themselves and maintain balance while the right hand reached out to
pick
fruit. Fruit picking is somewhat sequential, as the hand must be guided
by
the eyes to reach for the ripe colored fruit, grasp it with fingers
using
just the right force, tear it off the branch, and then bring it to the
mouth
for eating. Recall that the sequentially performing right hand is
controlled
by the left brain, which would therefore be the one requiring a
sequential
neuronal architecture.
If embryological development provided for a sequential brain
architecture
in one part of LB because it evolved in that location by chance for the
purpose
of picking fruit, then when another sequential task became adaptive the
forces
of evolution would more often find a favorable mutation of genes that
code
for the left brain, since fewer mutations would be needed to add to a
pre
existing architectural capability for the task of producing a new
sequential
capability. This, according to one speculation, is why the left brain
took
on most new sequential tasks presented to it by subsequent evolutionary
opportunities.
Brain "Dominance"
Damaging brain strokes in LB tend to produce more noticeable deficits
than
those in RB. This is because LB performs language tasks. For this
reason,
unfortunately, it has become customary to regard LB as the "dominant"
hemisphere.
But, to call LB dominant over RB for this superficial reason is
misleading!
The limbic system (that drives emotions) influences the RB frontal lobe
more
strongly than the LB frontal lobe. This makes RB a better candidate for
playing
a dominant role. RB gives overall shape to behavior, while LB is
relegated
to a supporting role. When LB began its sequential specializations it
must
have been a useful "tool" for RB (which in turn was a tool for the
limbic
system, which in turn was a tool for the genes). "Values" are more
likely
to originate with RB, and I claim that the genes have put in place more
of
their “agenda protection circuits” in RB. The natural condition, I
suggest,
is for RB to be "in control," using LB to help achieve genetic ends.
This
important thought will come up repeatedly in subsequent chapters, and
it
is a basis for the individual to design strategies for individual
liberation
from the genes!
Even though RB has control over decisions that matter to the genes, I
believe
the seat of consciousness is in LB's tertiary cortex. This may seem to
be
a curious arrangement, but upon further thought it makes sense. We
associate
consciousness with planning future activities. Recall that brain
structures
with a more ancient origin usually have veto power over behaviors, as
when
RAS handles requests for action and either "authorizes" or "vetos"
them.
It may happen that RB tasks LB with imagining future scenarios and
their
likely consequences, while RB, in close consultation with the
(emotional)
limbic system, then makes a “judgment call” and decides whether or not
to
proceed with the plan of action that was under consideration. After
imagining
scenarios, one may be accepted while others are vetoed; all of this may
occur
at a subconscious level, with RB working in conjunction with the
ultimate
authority: the limbic system. LB must make sense of the outcome, so it
"confabulates"
an explanation for the chosen plan of action. Michael Gazzaniga names
the
left prefrontal module that performs this confabulation the
"interpreter"
(see Gazzaniga, 1978, p. 146; especially Gazzaniga, 1988, p. 229; and
Gazzaniga,
1992, p. 121).
Rational thought has become an ever more important tool for evaluating
the
consequences of hypothetical actions. This is why LB must have been
such
a "hot spot" for human evolution for probably the past 130,000 years,
and
especially the past 12,000 years.
Before LB began to evolve its unique specializations, perhaps 250,000
years
ago, the function performed by a damaged area of one side could be
easily
assumed by the counterpart area of the other side (relying upon the
corpus
callosum for inter-hemispheric communication). Lateralization brought
with
it risks of lost redundancy, yet this loss was apparently smaller than
the
gains from being able to solve problems that were common in the late
Pleistocene
and Holocene. We must assume that some important need started the
selection
for LB specializations. It may have been the payoffs for improved tool
making,
language, or dealing with a more complicated social setting that
required
logical thinking skills (such as "theory of mind" abilities).
Whatever the original impetus for LB specialization, it seems to have
assumed
the new duties as if forsaking redundancy with abandon. Just consider
the
list of important LB skills that are unique to humans: verbal,
analytic,
logical, rational, time oriented and deductive skills. It seems
inescapable
that LB has acquired more recently evolved, distinctly human
adaptations
than RB. When you damage LB (posterior lobes), you get a regressed,
more
primitive person; but when you damage RB (posterior lobes), you get
someone
handicapped in mostly long standing, primitive traits.
Since recently-evolved traits are the least entrenched, and are most
subject
to disruption by the latest mutations, we should expect to encounter a
wider
variation of ability for the recently evolved traits than long
established
ones. This view correctly predicts that literacy, being a recent human
achievement,
should be more variable than other abilities; whereas verbal language
ability,
having started its evolution much earlier, should be more robust. It
also
explains why everyone is capable of anger, fear, sexual arousal, and
jealousy,
while some people are deficient in logical, rational and analytic
ability.
Brain Modules and Genes
As with any organ, no single gene codes for the construction and
function
of an entire organ; many genes contribute. When several genes
contribute
to the same trait, they constitute a group of "polygenes." For example,
one
gene may play a major role in forming the heart's left ventricle, with
minor
support from other genes; another gene may have major responsibility
for
assemble of the right ventricle, but also contribute to the left
ventricle's
assembly. Both genes belong to a polygene group for constructing the
heart.
The same argument applies to the brain. Many genes are required to
assemble
the primitive brain stem's reticular activating system, for example.
Others
assemble various parts of the limbic system. Finally, other genes
assemble
the surrounding neo cortex, LB and RB, and the interconnecting corpus
callosum.
All brain components are interconnected with other components, and they
function
together as if they were "designed" to work together. When the various
components
work together it is because they have been present in the genome
together
long enough to adapt to each other's presence. Initially, when a new
brain
component is mutating into existence, it is useful to understand that
the
pre existing components were not meant to work together with the new
component.
Each new "addition" occurs against a background of pre existing brain
components
which had worked together successfully prior to the appearance of the
new
component. As components appear, they, as well as the pre existing
components,
co evolve to enhance the working relationship.
When our ancestors began to lose their fur, the fur altering allele had
to
co evolve with the gene(s) that made furry babies irresistibly
attractive
to mothers. There are many baby features that cue the mother to act
like
a mother, and the lack of fur amidst all the other baby features must
have
been disconcerting to mothers during the transition. Today, a cat
resembles
a primitive baby in size, weight and furriness. The fact that many
people
find cats irresistible, and sometimes hold them like a baby and speak
"motherese"
to them, suggests that the ancient collection of cues for eliciting
mothering
behaviors still exist in some residual form.
As the gene for a new brain module is selected, it evolves to be
compatible
with pre existing modules, and the genes for the pre existing modules
simultaneously
undergo modification in response to the new module. The evolution of
genes
that affect the brain is governed by the consequences each gene allele
has
on the success of the individuals carrying the genes to survive and
reproduce.
Or, to be more rigorous, a brain related gene allele's success depends
on
its ability to produce phenotypic changes that work with the prevailing
phenotype
in a way that enhances the individual's success in delivering all of
its
genes to future generations, under a typical range of environments.
Since there are many ways to construct any organ, there will be many
potential
competitions between genes. An allele that produces a larger heart
ventricle
is in competition with alleles that produce smaller ventricles. Natural
selection
achieves a better heart by rewarding individuals having the better
heart,
and thereby rewarding those gene alleles responsible for producing the
"better"
ventricle size.
Whereas it may be easy to comprehend how a gene that codes for anatomy,
such
as heart ventricle size, can be in competition with another gene, it is
more
difficult to imagine the competition between genes that assemble brain
circuits
governing behavior; nevertheless, it happens. A brain gene may be in
competition
with another allele, even while it is "cooperating" with a different
set
of brain genes. (Excuse the anthropomorphizing; if it bothers you just
convert
my brief descriptions to a rigorous lengthy one).
Genes compete for phenotypic expression at impressively high conceptual
levels.
Language ability evolved by creating proto Wernicke's Area circuits and
proto
Broca's Area circuits within LB (plus other cortical areas,
interconnections
and anatomy modifications). This was a major accomplishment, involving
many
small incremental steps. Other frontal lobe traits, such as
assertiveness,
aggressiveness, nurturance, empathy and altruism, are under significant
genetic
control, accounting for approximately 50% of observed variance
(Rushton,
1997).
It has once again become fashionable to think of brain function as
being
"localized." Although "phrenology" deserved to be discredited, it's
ultimate
theme was correct: namely, that most attributes of brain function are
determined
by activity in specific brain regions. They were wrong to place
"combativeness"
where the temporal and occipital lobes join, for example, but it is
localized,
and belongs in the prefrontal lobes (probably in RB). Many functions
require
the participation of several specific areas. Productive language is a
well
studied example, exhibiting involvement of specific parts of the left
frontal,
temporal, and parietal lobes. Physical damage to each region produces
specific,
predictable language deficits. This means that something as complicated
as
language requires the cooperation of regions with specialized
capabilities,
and the fact that these regions aren't next to each other, but are
located
in different lobes, does not undermine the view that brain functions
are
localized.
This reductionist way of viewing brain function is supported by the
notion
that a finite number of genes assemble the brain. Polygenes create
brain
modules, consisting of specific physical networks of interconnected
neurons
along with an approximate set of synapse sizes.
Mental function, like brain architecture, appears to be modular (Fodor,
1983,
Gardner, 1983, Gazzaniga, 1985, Restak, 1986, Cosmides, 1989, Cosmides
and
Tooby, 1992, Restak, 1994). Granted, the modules interact with each
other,
but they can be usefully considered as modules with functional
specifications.
Consider the analogy of a system's analyst parceling out the task of
writing
a large computer program to several teams of programmers. Each team is
charged
with delivering a module of code that meets functional specifications.
A
programming team is like a gene, their code is like a hard wired brain
module,
the function performed by the module is like a mental module, the
joining
of modules is performed by the systems analyst, and the running of the
completed
program code is like a brain performing mental tasks.
Modules compete with each other for "expression." For example, one area
in
the occipital lobe may be able to correctly perceive and identify an
object
from its visual appearance, a cup for example, while another area in
the
parietal lobe may be able to identify the same object by its tactile
feel,
and another area in the temporal lobe may be able to infer the same
object's
identity from the sound it makes when set down upon a table top. Each
will
produce a signal of recognition when the necessary stimuli are
presented,
and somewhere in the adjacent tertiary cortical regions (where the
three
posterior lobes merge) the object identification of "coffee cup" is
made.
It would be ridiculous to conclude from this capability that there's a
"coffee
cup recognition" gene. Rather, there's a polygene created module for
recognizing
curved shapes, another for shadings that contain surface topography
information,
etc. These modules are interconnected so that experience with the
real
world, or at least one that contains coffee cups, allows synapse
strengths
to be modified such that when a coffee cup with arbitrary orientation
is
viewed the various percepts are joined together to trigger the
perception
"coffee cup."
The brain's experience with the real world adjusts synapse strengths so
that
no other region will be triggered to "resonant" activity when a cup is
presented
to the posterior lobes' primary cortex (sensory input) areas. If a
totally
unfamiliar object is presented, there will be a competition to identify
it.
When shown a German beer stein for the first time, the occipital lobe
(sight)
may report "something like a vase," the parietal lobe (feeling) may
report
"something like a large handled cup" and the temporal lobe (hearing)
might
report "like a brick." The discrepant reports would compete, as the
frontal
lobe might want to engage in further exploration to resolve the
discrepancy
(which is a job for “consciousness).
Figure 8.01. Reversible Goblet, illustrating competition
between
brain regions vying for "acceptance" of their respective
interpretations.
Look for the two dark face profiles, facing each other.
The many examples of images with "figure/ground reversal" conveys in
the
most dramatic way how competing modules strive to prevail in having
their
"interpretation" accepted. Escher drawings (Escher, 1961) exhibit a
wealth
of figure/ground perceptual competition.
Identifying situations, such as a "social situation," is subject to the
same
perceptual competition, although the frontal lobes will play a more
active
role in generating competing hypotheses. Context may be an important
"input."
"Do I know the person? Does he have a hostile stance? Does
he
have comrades?"
Consider the metaphor of a school classroom for understanding brain
module
competitions. The teacher poses a question, and the students try to
understand
the question and come up with an answer. Some students will both
understand
the question and have a possible answer, and they will raise their
hand.
The teacher calls upon a student to present an answer, quite often it's
the
student whose hand is waving most excitedly (or maybe the student with
the
best past performance), and after hearing the answer she passes
judgment.
If it is incorrect or inadequate, the teacher calls upon another
student.
This classroom example is a good metaphor for how the brain works. When
a
person is presented with an unusual situation, some modules in the
brain
"recognize" something, and they request activation by the RAS
(reticular
activating system). The RAS, working in coordination with a higher
level
cortical system that keeps score of previous successes and failures,
tentatively
authorizes a module to "present its case" for evaluation. The module
that
wins the first round for presenting its interpretation may be the one
that
most strongly felt it understood the situation and had the correct
interpretation
(like the student who waved his hand most excitedly); its request to
RAS
may have been the strongest among the competing modules. When the first
module
presents its interpretation, some type of evaluation occurs (perhaps
involving
the reaction of other modules), and this interpretation may be
accepted,
or it may be tentatively rejected. If it is rejected, or set aside,
another
round of RAS requests for activation is performed, and another judgment
is
made. At some point, a winner is declared, and the winning module's
interpretation
is what serves as the basis for any required action. The losing modules
do
not simply stop trying to compete for RAS attention, however. As more
perceptions
occur, or as behaviors either validate the accepted interpretation or
invalidate
it, the other modules are ever ready to renew their claim for being
heard.
The example of the "reversible goblet" shows how this process "feels"
for
the domain of visual interpretations.
The process of generating behavior is also a competition between
competing
frontal lobe modules. "Shall I turn and run? Or scream? Or attack?"
Imagine
that one person may inherit a propensity to "attack" in ambiguous
social
encounters, while another may be genetically inclined to "run away."
Just
as animals have inborn temperaments, so do humans. And the mental
process
that precedes an action consists of a competition between brain areas.
To
the extent that one brain area is assembled by a different polygene
group
than another brain area, which is inclined to a different type of
behavioral
response, the genes primarily responsible for wiring the competing
brain
modules are competing with each other for behavioral expression. The
same
classroom metaphor described above can be used to understand this
situation.
After a situation is understood, and when action is necessary, the
frontal
lobe modules will compete for expression (i.e., control of behavior) in
the
same manner that the "understanding and interpretation of the
situation"
modules competed. The RAS (another part of RAS than used for
“adjudicating”
perceptions) receives requests for action, and eventually one module's
proposed
action is "accepted" (given “authorization” for initiating a behavior).
Thus, both perceptions and behaviors exhibit the quality of involving
several
mental modules in competition for acceptance and expression.
Does it matter whether the brain accepts, and acts upon, the perception
that
the sky is angry and the wind god and sun god are arguing, versus the
competing
perception that the wind is bringing clouds from somewhere which cover
the
sun and may cause rain? In the contemporary world it can matter more
than
it did in the ancestral world. For this reason, it matters whether RB
interpretations
versus LB interpretations tend to gain acceptance in an individual's
brain.
To the extent that genes wire brains to be predisposed to some
"interpretation
styles" over others, the respective genes are in competition. The next
chapter
will deal with this subject in greater detail.
Intelligence and IQ
“IQ is what IQ tests measure!” It should be emphasized that IQ, as
measured
this way, is just one of many components of what most people refer to
by
the term "intelligence." Ironically, IQ is not a prefrontal function.
Prefrontal
lesions do not reduce IQ; indeed, in some cases frontal lesions have
enhanced
IQ. This enhanced performance could be explained by a theory that views
the
frontal lobes as being prone to "interfere" with posterior lobe
performance
(such as a tennis player "thinking" too much); by injuring a prefrontal
lobe
the posterior lobes are freer to perform unhindered, boosting measured
IQ.
The WAIS (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale) IQ test has two parts: the
"verbal"
part and "performance" part, and these parts probe left and right
(posterior)
brain function, respectively. The Woodcock Johnson has two parts, also
probing
left and right (posterior) lobes. The WAIS verbal and performance IQ
scores
differ by 3 points, on average. A difference of 10 points should occur
in
only 5% of cases; and differences larger than this are usually caused
by
a lesion to one side of a posterior lobe.
This concordance of IQ scores that separately probe LB- and RB function
invite
speculation on the number of genes that affect posterior lobe
capability
on both sides. However, it is possible that a small number of genes
contribute
to "general" intelligence, and the rest contribute to specific
abilities.
This is consistent with the finding that a person's profile of subtests
will
have a pattern, with some parts of the "verbal" being low, and others
high,
while the average of the verbal parts average about the same as the
average
of the performance subtest parts. Psychometricians continue to find it
useful
to make a distinction between specific sub test performances and
Spearman's
(1927) "g factor" of mental ability. Tests that identify g loaded
performance
afford better correlations with genetic relatedness (i.e., identical
versus
paternal twins), and g loaded test scores are better predictors of
academic
performance than standard IQ tests.
Tests have been developed for assessing frontal lobe performance. The
Halstead
Reitan Battery includes tests of frontal lobe assessment. Components of
the
Montreal Neurological Institute Battery, and also Luria's
Neuropsychological
Investigation, also test for frontal lobe function. The frontal lobes
are
so complex that no single test can capture all significant features.
For
example, effective business executives have especially capable frontal
lobes,
and they excel in the development, evaluation and implementation of
"big
picture" strategies. The business "world of hard knocks" reveals who
some
of these especially well endowed frontal lobe "executive function"
people
are. Bill Gates, Steven Spielberg and Lee Iacoca are examples. It would
be
interesting to know if they would have been identified in childhood as
having
especially talented frontal lobes using existing tests purporting to
probe
frontal lobe function. Some day, tests for executive function may
capture
this elusive capability.
Whereas someone like Bill Gates must have superior scores for both
frontal
and posterior lobe function, it must occasionally occur that people are
born
with disparities. For example, president Jack Kennedy is supposed to
have
scored a mere 125 on IQ tests. He obviously would have scored higher on
any
executive frontal lobe test. It may be more common for people to be
born
with the opposite disparity, in which posterior lobe IQ is higher than
frontal
lobe executive ability. Indeed, this could be the more common disparity
because
frontal lobe function is a more recent focus in human evolution. The
ability
to create culture, and to absorb and use cultural elements that other
people
are observed to use, must have been an important pressure for human
evolutionary
selection during the past 60,000 years. This idea will be taken up in a
later
chapter.
Number of Brain Genes
It has been estimated that as many as half of the entire set of human
genes
have some influence upon intelligence (Weschler, 1974, as cited by
Seligman,
1992). For the calculations that follow, I will assume that 30% of
human
genes affect the brain. In theory, every aspect of brain function can
be
associated with a gene that has the most control over it. (To call such
a
gene the "whatever trait gene" overlooks another fact, that the same
gene
probably affects several other phenotypic traits which are sometimes
unrelated
to the main trait; this is referred to as "pleiotropy.")
If the human genome consists of 35,000 genes (“pick a number!” it keeps
changing),
and if humans share 98.6% of genes with living chimpanzees, then humans
differ
from chimpanzees at approximately 490 gene locations (1.4% of 35,000).
Of
these 490 genes, probably more than 30% have some influence over the
brain's
development. Let us assume that 250 genes are responsible for making
the
human brain different from the chimpanzee brain.
If the common ancestor for modern humans lived 200,000 years ago, and
if
the human/chimpanzee evolutionary split occurred 6 million years ago,
then
it is possible to estimate the number of brain genes that are more
recent
than 200,000 years to be 250*0.2/6 = 8 genes. This calculation assumes
that
the pace of evolutionary change has been constant during the past 6
million
years. Human evolution may have proceeded faster during the past
200,000
years than before this time, and the brain is likely to have been the
focus
of more than 30% of this evolutionary change, considering that major
human
brain expansions occurred at about 1.8 and 0.5 million years ago (Aielo
and
Dunbar, 1993). Hence, modern humans are likely to have more than 8
multi
allelic gene sites that mainly affect the brain. If during the past
200,000
years 80% of the genes that were actively evolving were brain related,
then
the 8 multi allelic number increases to 21. If the evolutionary pace
for
recent times (the past 200,000 years) versus before (6 million years to
200,000
years) is greater by the factor of 10, then there could be 200 multi
allelic
gene sites that affect the brain. This number is compatible with the
estimate
that humans and chimpanzees differ at 490 gene sites. Since each site
may
have many more than 2 alleles per locus, there could be possibly 300
alleles
whose main effect is on the brain and which are still vying for a
presence
in the human genome. This may seem like a small number of gene sites,
but
there are 2N combinations of configurations when each site has two
possible
states, and when N = 300, there are 1090 such states. That's an
incredibly
large number, being larger than the human population by the factor 1080
(a
one followed by 80 zeros)!
The point of these calculations is to prepare the case for stating that
perhaps
half of the present human genetic diversity, and genetic competition
(among
perhaps several hundred alleles), pertains mainly to the brain. The
brain
is a major focus for ongoing evolution for Homo sapiens.
Return to Table of Contents