The research was conducted by Evolutionary psychologists Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics and Norman Li of Singapore Management University. This research was no trivial theme park of ideas. They went right back to hunter-gatherer days to analyze core behaviors, and came up with some quite new findings.
They surveyed 15,000 people between the ages of 18 and 28, and discovered that population density is a behavioral issue. High density populations decrease life satisfaction. Social contacts with close friends were a positive factor of quality of life in these environments.
For more intelligent people, however, they found that wasn’t necessarily the case.:
“The effect of population density on life satisfaction was therefore more than twice as large for low-IQ individuals than for high-IQ individuals,” they found. And “more intelligent individuals were actually less satisfied with life if they socialised with their friends more frequently.”
Before we go any further — note the cutoff point here in IQs. Exactly what IQ levels aren’t specified. The baseline IQ is 100. Genius level is 140. Nor are occupational issues specified. You’d think that someone with a high IQ in a frequent social contact environment would be adapted to that environment. Behavior on any level, after all, has to be practical. Smart people, you’d think, would also dodge unwanted social contacts on an instant reflex.
The stresses of high density population environments are well known. It’s axiomatic that people who live in smaller groups are happier than in the ‘burbs. It’s called the urban-rural happiness gradient. High populations generate stresses simply because of the sheer volume of interactions with other people. Both rats and humans, in fact, don’t like high density populations at a certain level. It’s quite possible that more people means more complexity, more competition for resources, and other perfectly logical stress factors.
This is where the research gets truly fundamental — the researchers say that ancient social groups, which were much smaller than modern groups, created much stronger bonds. They theorize that the behaviors haven’t evolved as fast as the human environment.
It’s also a natural corollary that the more perceptive you are, the more likely you are to perceive things you don’t like. That would pin down the almost allergic reactions of some people to crowds, noisy environments, and “life clutter” which can also be seen as threats, or obstacles.
The issue with interacting with friends, however, is a new ball game. The theory here is that smarter people can adapt better to new environments. They may also de-clutter their lives, based on that adaptive process. If clutter equates to social interactions, the “fewer contacts” scenario makes good sense.
Let’s take it a step further. Suppose smarter people are the first to perceive a new environment and figure out how to adapt to it. They will naturally react in new ways, and behave differently to navigate the new environs.
There’s such a thing as “social evolution”. Societies continually evolve, new behaviors develop, and it’s natural that the more mentally agile would adapt quicker. For example, most people no longer wander the supermarket and club cheeses to death to get food. The hunting and gathering process has eliminated unnecessary actions and changed to match the environment, and to continue to be allowed to shop in the supermarket. The behaviors are strictly practical.
If social evolution is benchmarked by new behaviors, (and why wouldn’t it be), this may be the first insight in to predictive social evolution. Considering the risk aversion, practical applications, and basic common sense approach to social contacts, I’d say the smarter people are simply doing the obvious, just doing it sooner.
The predictive approach, in fact, may be a fascinating and appropriately ironic study in the human condition. Imagine a new environment full of new tech, people talking about new tech, sparkling business opportunities, and similar life-irritating, verbose, events.
If large numbers of intelligent people take one look at this new environment and run screaming for the exits, the prediction would be that the social issues with the new environment outweigh its real value. Any way you look at it, this research has created lots of work for itself.
Researchers note: Predictive science is also a great way to fund your research with side bets. A practical adaption, wouldn’t you say?
