Well, consider maybe that it has to do with a couple of factors, not just learning, but opportunities to learn, as artificial environments (homes) become more refined, and there's more opportunity to contemplate upon abstractions.
Not only that, but capacity to contemplate, that is to say, relative intellect has likely been augmented by our capacity to self domesticate within such environs.
On the on hand, you have the mirror test for self awareness. But it's tough to construct a comparable structured assessment for self awareness that measures up to the mirror test for self awareness. On the one hand, operating mirrors is an acquired skill. Sentient beings need exposure to a mirror for some time, before they learn to reconcile how to use it for self examination. But without a mirror, other stand-ins, like shadows, masks and palm prints start to reveal an awareness of identity. So we can look to those sorts of artifacts to resolve whether a remote indigenous society has begun to self recognize, in general, for all neary all healthy adult members at large.
But, also consider our evolutionary effect on how smart dogs are. Dogs are pretty smart, in possession of emotion, highly attentive to mood, cooperative, and recognize their own identity according to name. They recognize their own scent, and prioritize that factor of self above their appearance in mirrors, which they eventually learn is not another dog. They also dream, which probably means some dogs have vivid internal processes, even if they don't have an internal monologue.
Human societies have writing though, and it's probably writing that leads to complex societies, and of course, writing enables artifacts that record oral traditions, and eventually theology and mythology.
Really, though, look at it this way. Oral traditions are about entertaining an audience, but eventually, the written word descends into virtue signalling, as intellectuals paint each other into corners.
Ever get caught by the wrong person with a diary entry that spills your guts, telling all about what you think of everyone? How many times did you make that mistake?
That's what this reveals. That the intelligensia gains a collective recognition that failure to moralize is a form of checkmate in the court of public opinion, and virtue signaling in text is the race toward a limit (race to the top, race to the bottom, whatever). Intellectuals start to notice how blackmail works, and stop writing about the evil deeds they (may or may not) understand.
Not all human societies have had writing and even fewer had it in any significant way. Secondly, oral traditions are not always about entertainment nor are they only recorded by writing.
There's a very common trap when considering the past to look for "logical causation". It's almost always incorrect to do so and leads to this sort of wild speculation.
Not only that, but capacity to contemplate, that is to say, relative intellect has likely been augmented by our capacity to self domesticate within such environs.
On the on hand, you have the mirror test for self awareness. But it's tough to construct a comparable structured assessment for self awareness that measures up to the mirror test for self awareness. On the one hand, operating mirrors is an acquired skill. Sentient beings need exposure to a mirror for some time, before they learn to reconcile how to use it for self examination. But without a mirror, other stand-ins, like shadows, masks and palm prints start to reveal an awareness of identity. So we can look to those sorts of artifacts to resolve whether a remote indigenous society has begun to self recognize, in general, for all neary all healthy adult members at large.
But, also consider our evolutionary effect on how smart dogs are. Dogs are pretty smart, in possession of emotion, highly attentive to mood, cooperative, and recognize their own identity according to name. They recognize their own scent, and prioritize that factor of self above their appearance in mirrors, which they eventually learn is not another dog. They also dream, which probably means some dogs have vivid internal processes, even if they don't have an internal monologue.
Human societies have writing though, and it's probably writing that leads to complex societies, and of course, writing enables artifacts that record oral traditions, and eventually theology and mythology.
Really, though, look at it this way. Oral traditions are about entertaining an audience, but eventually, the written word descends into virtue signalling, as intellectuals paint each other into corners.
Ever get caught by the wrong person with a diary entry that spills your guts, telling all about what you think of everyone? How many times did you make that mistake?
That's what this reveals. That the intelligensia gains a collective recognition that failure to moralize is a form of checkmate in the court of public opinion, and virtue signaling in text is the race toward a limit (race to the top, race to the bottom, whatever). Intellectuals start to notice how blackmail works, and stop writing about the evil deeds they (may or may not) understand.