Baumard offers an interesting perspective on the psychological origins of the Industrial Revolution by combining Life History Theory (LHT) with sociological, historical, and economic information. However, he downplays the importance of what may well be the most immediate candidate for explaining a revolution most aptly characterized by its shrewd inventions and smart solutions: increases in intelligence. In particular, Baumard dismisses the possibility that secular gains in cognitive ability, produced by the unprecedented affluence of eighteenth-century England, may have played a role, because “individuals living in scarcity will not show impaired cognitive or behavioral performance” (sect 2.4, para. 4). However, this thesis does not sit well with the evidence. At least five sources of evidence support a robust association between affluence and cognitive ability, which is likely to be at least partly causal in nature.
First, human and animal studies have shown that poverty and related daily stressors limit cognitive ability via a biological causal pathway (Hackman et al. Reference Hackman, Farah and Meaney2010). Stress in mothers during pregnancy increases prenatal risks comprising fetal growth and neurodevelopment, and continuing postnatal stress subsequently leads to less parental involvement and care, with adverse (epi)genetic and neurodevelopmental consequences. Second, chronic stress is correlated with a less stimulating home environment, while animal studies have shown the positive effect of environmental enrichment on brain organization and function (Kempermann et al. Reference Kempermann, Kuhn and Gage1997). Third, poverty impedes cognitive capacity directly through a psychological pathway (Mani et al. Reference Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir and Zhao2013): people simply make less prudent and wise decisions when under financial stress. In addition, because the continuing stressful daily hassles of a life in poverty result in limited cognitive resources, it is difficult to escape negative feedback loops of shortsighted decisions and adverse consequences in order to focus on long-term goals (Haushofer & Fehr Reference Haushofer and Fehr2014). Fourth, there is strong evidence showing massive secular gains in intelligence across the world during the twentieth century (Flynn Reference Flynn1987; Reference Flynn2007), and the speed and size of these changes almost certainly imply a causal role for an increasingly wealthy environment, probably through a feedback mechanism with ability (Dickens & Flynn Reference Dickens and Flynn2001). Fifth, reported associations between geographical location and cognitive performance are largely predictable from scores of the relevant locations on United Nations and World Health Organization standards of living which are direct indicators of affluence (e.g., water quality, nutrition; Wicherts et al. Reference Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan2009).
Thus, contrary to Baumard's claim, the empirical evidence does in fact support a link between affluence and the distribution of cognitive ability in the population via a host of biological, psychological, and environmental pathways. This accords well with modern conceptions of intelligence, in which IQ is not seen as fixed property but as an index that reflects the outcome of mutualistic developmental relations between biological, psychological, and environmental processes (Van der Maas et al. Reference Van Der Maas, Dolan, Grasman, Wicherts, Huizenga and Raijmakers2006). Anything that promotes the growth rate or carrying capacity of one or more of these processes can increase the end state of cognitive ability. Combining these lines of evidence, it seems likely that the cognitive ability distribution has undergone a shift in the unprecedented period of affluence preceding the Industrial Revolution. In our view, the direct relevance of cognitive ability to the technical innovations that triggered the Industrial Revolution strongly suggests that it should be included in the explanation of this process.
Importantly, such an explanation need not be contradictory to the LHT account that Baumard proposes. On the contrary, if a slow general increase in living standards provided the physical and environmental conditions for a boost in intelligence across the English population, this implies that, with accruing time and money, general health could improve and the home environment could, in turn, provide a more stable context with more cognitive stimulation (e.g., reading and education), supported by the invention of devices that themselves promote these processes (e.g., technology that requires cognitive effort for its successful operation). With a changing economic system, it may indeed have become more adaptive for individuals to invest their intelligence and attention in complex (industrial) problems that required patience and a focus on long-term goals, as Baumard suggests – challenges that require and train executive functioning. As such, technological progress and the subsequent increased standards of living may have become a dynamic intertwined self-reinforcing process of cognitively prepared individuals and cognitive demanding industrial-technological challenges. If so, the interaction between cognitive ability and the environment may have instantiated essentially the same multiplier effect that is generally seen as the most likely explanation for the Flynn effect as observed in the twentieth century (Dickens & Flynn Reference Dickens and Flynn2001).
This feedback process may itself have catalysed the sudden acceleration of technological innovation that characterizes the Industrial Revolution as a revolutionary rather than an evolutionary process. Interestingly, abrupt transitions are commonly observed in complex systems with feedback and often show characteristic behaviour (“early warning signals”) prior to such transitions (Scheffer et al. Reference Scheffer2009). Therefore, viewing history through the lens of complex dynamical systems may offer an explanatory and data-analytic framework that may reveal considerable insight into the nature of the Industrial Revolution and, possibly, other historical processes (Scheffer Reference Scheffer2009). In our view, it is likely that cognitive ability would have to be a key element in such a framework.
You have
Access
Baumard offers an interesting perspective on the psychological origins of the Industrial Revolution by combining Life History Theory (LHT) with sociological, historical, and economic information. However, he downplays the importance of what may well be the most immediate candidate for explaining a revolution most aptly characterized by its shrewd inventions and smart solutions: increases in intelligence. In particular, Baumard dismisses the possibility that secular gains in cognitive ability, produced by the unprecedented affluence of eighteenth-century England, may have played a role, because “individuals living in scarcity will not show impaired cognitive or behavioral performance” (sect 2.4, para. 4). However, this thesis does not sit well with the evidence. At least five sources of evidence support a robust association between affluence and cognitive ability, which is likely to be at least partly causal in nature.
First, human and animal studies have shown that poverty and related daily stressors limit cognitive ability via a biological causal pathway (Hackman et al. Reference Hackman, Farah and Meaney2010). Stress in mothers during pregnancy increases prenatal risks comprising fetal growth and neurodevelopment, and continuing postnatal stress subsequently leads to less parental involvement and care, with adverse (epi)genetic and neurodevelopmental consequences. Second, chronic stress is correlated with a less stimulating home environment, while animal studies have shown the positive effect of environmental enrichment on brain organization and function (Kempermann et al. Reference Kempermann, Kuhn and Gage1997). Third, poverty impedes cognitive capacity directly through a psychological pathway (Mani et al. Reference Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir and Zhao2013): people simply make less prudent and wise decisions when under financial stress. In addition, because the continuing stressful daily hassles of a life in poverty result in limited cognitive resources, it is difficult to escape negative feedback loops of shortsighted decisions and adverse consequences in order to focus on long-term goals (Haushofer & Fehr Reference Haushofer and Fehr2014). Fourth, there is strong evidence showing massive secular gains in intelligence across the world during the twentieth century (Flynn Reference Flynn1987; Reference Flynn2007), and the speed and size of these changes almost certainly imply a causal role for an increasingly wealthy environment, probably through a feedback mechanism with ability (Dickens & Flynn Reference Dickens and Flynn2001). Fifth, reported associations between geographical location and cognitive performance are largely predictable from scores of the relevant locations on United Nations and World Health Organization standards of living which are direct indicators of affluence (e.g., water quality, nutrition; Wicherts et al. Reference Wicherts, Borsboom and Dolan2009).
Thus, contrary to Baumard's claim, the empirical evidence does in fact support a link between affluence and the distribution of cognitive ability in the population via a host of biological, psychological, and environmental pathways. This accords well with modern conceptions of intelligence, in which IQ is not seen as fixed property but as an index that reflects the outcome of mutualistic developmental relations between biological, psychological, and environmental processes (Van der Maas et al. Reference Van Der Maas, Dolan, Grasman, Wicherts, Huizenga and Raijmakers2006). Anything that promotes the growth rate or carrying capacity of one or more of these processes can increase the end state of cognitive ability. Combining these lines of evidence, it seems likely that the cognitive ability distribution has undergone a shift in the unprecedented period of affluence preceding the Industrial Revolution. In our view, the direct relevance of cognitive ability to the technical innovations that triggered the Industrial Revolution strongly suggests that it should be included in the explanation of this process.
Importantly, such an explanation need not be contradictory to the LHT account that Baumard proposes. On the contrary, if a slow general increase in living standards provided the physical and environmental conditions for a boost in intelligence across the English population, this implies that, with accruing time and money, general health could improve and the home environment could, in turn, provide a more stable context with more cognitive stimulation (e.g., reading and education), supported by the invention of devices that themselves promote these processes (e.g., technology that requires cognitive effort for its successful operation). With a changing economic system, it may indeed have become more adaptive for individuals to invest their intelligence and attention in complex (industrial) problems that required patience and a focus on long-term goals, as Baumard suggests – challenges that require and train executive functioning. As such, technological progress and the subsequent increased standards of living may have become a dynamic intertwined self-reinforcing process of cognitively prepared individuals and cognitive demanding industrial-technological challenges. If so, the interaction between cognitive ability and the environment may have instantiated essentially the same multiplier effect that is generally seen as the most likely explanation for the Flynn effect as observed in the twentieth century (Dickens & Flynn Reference Dickens and Flynn2001).
This feedback process may itself have catalysed the sudden acceleration of technological innovation that characterizes the Industrial Revolution as a revolutionary rather than an evolutionary process. Interestingly, abrupt transitions are commonly observed in complex systems with feedback and often show characteristic behaviour (“early warning signals”) prior to such transitions (Scheffer et al. Reference Scheffer2009). Therefore, viewing history through the lens of complex dynamical systems may offer an explanatory and data-analytic framework that may reveal considerable insight into the nature of the Industrial Revolution and, possibly, other historical processes (Scheffer Reference Scheffer2009). In our view, it is likely that cognitive ability would have to be a key element in such a framework.