Behold the Homind

I can't imagine why you would think that. You would do better to look at prairie dogs or naked mole rats, for at least those are intensely social species.

I've been wondering why you are even bringing them up in your reply to me. I didn't mention them. But I suppose it is because I mentioned other social species (prairie dog, native mole rat).I think you missed my point. You were asking about intelligence. My point is that intelligence is mainly a social adaptation. We use our intelligence most importantly for social interactions. That our intelligence is greater than that of other social species, is related to the complexity of our social interactions being greater than with other social species.Sure, we also use intelligence to explore space, design aircraft, etc. But our ability to use intelligence in that way is mainly a side effect of a social adaptation.

Maybe we are miscommunicating. Sorry about that. I'll stop commenting in this thread, at least for a while.

I don't think there is a circularity problem. You can sometimes describe the same events in different ways, as in the chicken-egg riddle. Yes, that is precisely what I am suggesting.It's opinion, of course. The last time I checked, fossils didn't come with IQ reports.I can readily see how there could be selection for social cohesion. I find it hard to come up with a scenario where there could be selection for intelligence. It is often remarked that the most intelligent produce less children than average. I cannot prove that this was always so, but I do suspect that. The most intelligent are often social misfits.

I pretty much agree with that. It's one of the things I would expect to contribute to social cohesion.