Many Minds

There's a story about of our past that you know well. It goes like this: At some point earlier in human evolution, we started to hunt. Men in particular—perhaps channeling some deep-seated aggressive impulses—began to seek out big game. This new food source, this bonanza of calories, was what allowed our brains to expand. It changed our bodies and our societies and sent our species off on a whole new track. In short, Man the Hunter made us human. This story—told in different versions, with different points of emphasis—has circulated for decades. It's been debunked and revived, rejected and reimagined. What is the history behind the Man the Hunter idea? How does it square with our current understandings of evolution? Is it, in fact, pure fiction?
My guest today is Dr. Vivek Venkataraman. Vivek is an evolutionary anthropologist at the University of Calgary, and an editor-in-chief of the journal Hunter Gatherer Research. He and his collaborators recently published an article on the different layers and meanings of the Man the Hunter idea.
Here, Vivek and I lay out those meanings. We talk about how the phrase refers, first, to that popular myth about our evolution, but also to a landmark scientific conference in the 1960s, and to a major finding of research on contemporary hunter-gatherer groups—namely, that men generally do do most of the hunting. We do a little crash-course on the field of hunter-gatherer research, including the kinds of questions it asks and frameworks it uses. We dig into some of the key ingredients of the Man the Hunter myth: the idea that we have aggressive tendencies, the idea that only men hunt, and the idea that hunting played a transformative role in our evolution. We walk through three recent, high-profile studies challenging Man the Hunter ideas in various ways. And we talk about the ever-present danger of projecting our current norms and ideals back in time. Along the way, Vivek and I touch on 2001: A Space Odyssey; reasons why contemporary hunter-gatherers may differ from the hunter-gatherers of long ago; giant sloths; extractive foraging; the case of the Agta, a society in which women do engage in big-game hunting; the forest people and the fierce people; risk and cooperation in sexual divisions of labor; persistence hunting and endurance activities; caregiving and cognition; and honey.
Alright friends, I think you'll enjoy this one. On to my conversation with Dr. Vivek Venkataraman.
 
Notes
3:30 – The article by Dr. Venkataraman and colleagues, 'The Meaning and Dividends of Man the Hunter.' Commentaries on the article can be read here. A recent popular essay by Dr. Venkataraman on the same ideas.
5:00 – Raymond Dart's "killer ape" was originally laid out in a 1953 article 'The Predatory Transition from Ape to Man' (unavailable online) and then developed in Robert Ardrey's book, African Genesis. 
8:30 – The "dawn of man" scene from 2001: A Space Odyssey.
16:00 – The 1966 conference titled 'Man the Hunter' resulted in a 1968 volume of the same name.
27:00 – A philosophical discussion of the use of the "ethnographic analogy" in reconstructions of the past. The paper describing the "tyranny of the ethnographic record."
33:00 – The classic ethnography, The Forest People; the classic ethnography, Yanomamö: The Fierce People.
36:00 – The article by Chris Boehm on the concept of "reverse dominance hierarchy." See also his book Hierarchy in the Forest.
37:00 – Our earlier episode with Brian Hare. 
38:00 – Steven Pinker's widely read and contested book, The Better Angels of our Nature. 
44:00 – A study of the Agta, a society in which women hunt for big game. 
48:00 – The paper by Judith Brown about childcare and subsistence. A paper by Haneul Jang and colleagues about how young girls help mothers during foraging. 
55:00 – For a book-length treatment of hunting in evolution and history, see Matt Cartmill's A View to a Death in the Morning.
1:01:00 – For the 2023 paper by Anderson and colleagues on the prevalence of women's hunting across cultures, see here. For Dr. Venkataraman and colleagues' commentary on the paper, see here. For the related study by Dr. Venkataraman and colleagues about women's hunting, see here.
1:05:00 – For the 2020 paper by Haas and colleagues about female hunters of the Americas, see here.
1:13:00 – For the academic 'Woman the Hunter' papers by Lacy and Ocobock, see here (for the physiology paper) and here (for the archaeology paper). For their article in Scientific American, see here. For an interview on the podcast On Humans with Cara Ocobock, see here.
1:14:00 – For the recent study on persistence hunting in the ethnographic record, see here.
1:20:00 – The authors of the three critiques discussed here have all written commentaries on Dr. Venkataraman and colleagues' paper. These commentaries and others can be read here. 
1:24:30 – For the commentary emphasizing the links between popularization and science, by Nadine Weidman, see here.
1:28:00 – For our earlier episode with Alison Gopnik, in which we discuss the overlooked cognitive capacities involved in caregiving, see here.
1:29:00 – For papers on the importance of honey in human evolution, see here and here. For one of Dr. Venkataraman's own honey-related studies, see here.
 
Recommendations
Creatures of Cain, by Erika Lorraine Milam
The Killer Instinct, by Nadine Weidman
 
Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd.
Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!
We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.
For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).

It's kind of astonishing, really, that kids ever learn words. Each one poses a little riddle. Does this sound string refer to a person? A category of things? Or maybe some other feature of the blooming, buzzing world? And yet word learning happens. In fact, we now know it begins earlier in infancy than we realized. And we now know, further, that dogs (or at least some dogs) understand words as well. So how does this happen? What do babies and dogs really know about words? And how might we go about figuring this all out?
My guests today are Dr. Elika Bergelson and Dr. Claudia Fugazza. Elika is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at Harvard University, where her lab studies how infants learn language. Claudia is a Researcher at Eötvös Loránd University in Hungary, where she and her collaborators study dogs who are especially gifted word learners. 
In this conversation, Elika, Claudia, and I talk about the thorny question of what it means to understand a word—and whether there are different degrees or kinds of understanding. We consider the challenges posed by different types of words—by nouns, by names, by verbs, by function words, size terms, and more. We discuss why it is that some dogs are so good at learning words, and why infants of a certain age seem to get so much better at it. We talk about learning in different contexts and situations. And we circle the question of how different word learning really is in dogs and babies. 
Alright friends, before we get to it, one tiny ask: If you've been enjoying Many Minds, you can help us grow by leaving a review or comment or a rating, or by sharing us with a friend or colleague. We would greatly appreciate the support!
Without further ado, on to my interview with Claudia Fugazza and Elika Bergelson. Enjoy!
 
Notes
3:30 – A paper on infants' understanding of proper nouns like "Mommy."
6:00 – For our earlier audio essay on names across the animal kingdom, see here.
11:00 – For Dr. Bergelson's early study showing that 6-month-old infants already understand the meanings of some words, see here.
13:30 – For more on the "comprehension boost" in infants after age one, see Dr. Elika's paper here.
16:30 – For Dr. Fugazza and colleagues' first studies on gifted word-learning dogs, see here and here.
20:00 – See earlier studies on Rico and Chaser.
24:00 – For more on the qualitative changes that infants may undergo as they learn to learn words, see a paper by Dr. Bergelson and a colleague here.
30:00 – A study by Dr. Fugazza and colleagues comparing personality profiles and playfulness of gifted word learner dogs and typical dogs.
31:30 – A recent New York Times article consoling readers that having a "dumb" (i.e., non-gifted) dog is okay.
39:30 – A study by Dr. Fugazza and colleagues showing that dogs can extend labels of toys ("pull," "fetch") to new objects that are used in the same way.
43:00 – A study by Dr. Bergelson and a colleague on how broadly (or narrowly) infants apply labels like "foot" or "juice." A study by Dr. Bergelson and colleagues looking at how familiarity affects infants' understanding of words.
52:00 – For an example of a study on the so-called noun bias in early word learning, see here. For work on the (lack of) a noun bias in Tseltal infants, see here. For a sample discussion of the so-called shape bias, see here.
54:00 – For Dr. Fugazza and colleagues' work on dogs' biases toward shape or texture when generalizing about objects, see here.
57:00 – For the work by Asifa Majid (former guest!) on odor words in Jahai, see here. For the work on scent-tracking in humans, see here.
1:02:00 – On "dog-directed speech" and its consequences, see here and here. For comparisons of dog- and infant-directed speech, see here and here.
1:04:00 – For the study finding that Tseltal-speaking children learn honorific terms (which are never addressed to them), see here.
1:06:00 – For the study by Dr. Fugazza and colleagues, "examining exclusion-based choice" in dogs, see here. For the study by Dr. Fugazza and colleagues showing that gifted word learner dogs can learn by over-hearing labels, see here.
1:10:00 – For the study showing that children seem to request labels for objects by pointing to them, see here.
1:12:00 – For some of the first scientific studies on the use of soundboards for communication in dogs, see here and here. For our earlier episode with Dr. Federico Rossano discussing some of this research, see here.
 
Recommendations
'The Invention of Language by Children,' by Lila Gleitman and Elissa Newport
'Concept-based word learning in human infants,' by Jun Yin and Gergely Csibra
'Syntactic bootstrapping as a mechanism for language learning,' by Mireille Babineau et al.
The Genius Dog Challenge YouTube channel
 
Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd.
Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!
We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.
For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).

Newton saw in the human hand proof of the divine; Darwin saw a key to our species' success. Many others, too, have described the hand in hyperbolic terms, as a paragon of design, a cornerstone of human uniqueness, an engine of our achievements. But what makes the human hand so powerful? Is it the proportions of the fingers? Is it the opposability of the thumb? Or, could it be none of this? Could it be that the real power of our hands lies—not in the physical design—but elsewhere, out of sight? 
My guest today is Dr. Matt Longo. Matt is Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at Birkbeck, University of London. He's the author of the recent book, The Invisible Hand, a wide-ranging tour of the human hand and how it's geared into the brain.
Here, Matt and I talk about the difference between the "visible hand"—that is, its physical structure—and the "invisible hand"—its representation in the brain. We consider the evolution of the visible hand and whether there really is anything truly distinctive or impressive about it. We talk about the biology of touch. We tour the invisible hand, discussing how—through cortical magnification—the hand becomes over-represented in the brain's sensory maps. We catalogue a few ways that the hands can go awry. And we talk about whether we should feel any nostalgia for all the hand-based activities and crafts that we're losing. Along the way, we also touch on star-nosed moles and raccoons; tetrapods and the primitive archetype; hand dominance; the parallel between a horse's knee and a human's wrist; tool use, plasticity and abstraction; homunculi; the rubber-hand illusion; supernumerary fingers; the Third Thumb project; and the question of what it might unlock if dolphins had hands.
Alright, friends, this is a fun one. On to my interview with Dr. Matt Longo!
 
Notes
3:00 – For discussion of the many traits and behaviors that have been proposed as uniquely human, see our earlier audio essay. 
5:00 – For an example of the "if only dolphins had hands" thought experiment, see here.
8:00 – See The Principles of Anatomy as Seen in the Hand by Frederic Wood Jones.
10:30 – Dr. Longo's book, The Invisible Hand, is available open access here. 
16:00 – For discussion of how—in horses and other species—the five digits have been reduced or otherwise tweaked over evolution, see here. For an image showing examples of homology between the human forelimb and the forelimbs of other creatures, see here.
19:00 – For a brief discussion of "thumb opposability," see here. For an influential discussion of hand morphology and human hand grips, see work by Mary Marzke here.
30:00 – For our earlier episode on the brain's many maps, see here.
34:00 – For a discussion of Penfield's work and the idea of a "homunculus" in the brain, see here. 
42:00 – For an illustration of a "homunculus" with big lips and hands, see here. 
44:30 – For more on the star-nosed mole and its distinctive appendage, see here.
49:00 – For the report that first coined the term "numbsense," see here. For recent work on "anarchic hand," see here. For more on phantom limbs, see here. For a classic study of the "rubber hand illusion," see  here. 
59:30 – For a discussion of hand-dominance across primate species, see here.
1:03:00 – More on the "Third Thumb" project. 
1:06:00 – A classic case of "motor equivalence" is seen in handwriting.
 
Recommendations
Marco Catani, 'A little man of some importance'
Tracy Kivell, 'Evidence in hand: Recent discoveries and the early evolution of human manual manipulation'
Hands, by John Napier
 
Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd.
Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!
We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.
For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).

Hi friends! We're skipping a beat to take care of some spring housekeeping tasks. We will be back in May! In the meanwhile, enjoy this listener favorite from our archives!
-----
[originally aired April 30, 2025]
We humans have a hard time becoming invisible. For better or worse, we're basically stuck with the skin and body we have; we're pretty fixed in our color, our shape, our overall appearance. And so we're fascinated by creatures that aren't—creatures that morph to meet the moment, that can functionally disappear, that can shape-shift on a dime. And no creatures are more skilled, more astonishing, more bedazzling in their abilities to do this kind of thing than the cephalopods. But how do they do this exactly? What's going on in their skin? What's going on under their skin? And what's going on in their brains that makes this all possible?
My guest today is Dr. Tessa Montague. Tessa is a neuroscientist in the Axel Lab at Columbia University; she studies the brain and behavior of the dwarf cuttlefish, with a special focus on the biology of their dynamic skin behaviors.
Here, Tessa and I talk about how cuttlefish and other cephalopods exhibit the most impressive camouflaging abilities on the planet. We discuss how they change their skin's appearance with remarkable speed and fidelity—and not just when trying to blend in, but also when hunting, courting, fighting, and more. We talk about whether these behaviors are flexible and whether they're voluntary. We linger on the cruel irony that cuttlefish seem to be colorblind. We talk about the idea that a cephalopod's skin is kind of a window into their brain. We lay out the cells and organs in the cephalopod skin the make these behaviors possible—especially the tiny pigment-bearing structures called "chromatophores." And of course we also dive deep into the cephalopod brain and its sometimes bizarre and poorly understood structures.
Excited to share it with you friends—I think you'll enjoy it. Without further ado, here's my chat with Dr. Tessa Montague.
 
A transcript of this episode is available here.
 
Notes and links
3:00 – For more on Dr. Montague's recent expeditions to the Philippines, including photos, see here.
7:30 – Dr. Montague has published two recent reviews of dynamic skin behaviors in cephalopods—see here and here. We previously discussed cephalopod intelligence in a 2021 episode with Dr. Alex Schnell and a 2023 episode with the novelist Ray Nayler.
18:30 – For discussion of a recent "renaissance" in new model organisms, see here.
20:30 – For more on how chameleons change color, see this video.
25:00 – A video primer on cuttlefish camouflage, featuring the researcher Dr. Robert Hanlon.
30:30 – A recent paper on the details of pattern matching in cuttlefish camouflage.
31:00 – For more on the mimicking plant Boquila trifoliolata, see this popular article. See also our earlier episode with Dr. Paco Calvo and Dr. Natalie Lawrence.
35:00 – A video about the so-called mimic octopus. 
40:00 – For the hypothesis about color discrimination via chromatic aberration and pupil shape, see here.
44:00 – For more on the "split body" skin behaviors observed in some cuttlefish, see here.
51:00 – For the David Attenborough clip about a cuttlefish hypnotizing a crab, see here. For the recent New York Times article on cuttlefish hunting behavior, including videos, see here. For the academic article that inspired the New York Times piece, see here.
58:00 – A recent scientific study on the possibility of octopus skin activity during dreaming. A video that helped popularize the idea of cephalopod skin activity as evidence of dreaming. Our earlier episode on why we—and other creatures—dream.
1:06:00 – For a study on chromatophore development from the lab of Dr. Gilles Laurent, see here.
1:11:00 – For more on papillae, including videos, see here. 
1:17:00 – To explore an animated model of the cuttlefish brain, see this page of Dr. Montague's website, Cuttlebase.
 
Recommendations
Monarchs of the Sea, Danna Staaf
Other Minds, Peter Godfrey-Smith
Cephalopod Behavior, Roger Hanlon & John B. Messenger
 
Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala.
Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!
We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. 
 
For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter (@ManyMindsPod) or Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).

Deep in our past, in the dark depths of caves, our ancestors did something strange and beautiful. Working by firelight, some doodled little designs. Others made hand stencils. Some saw a bulge of rock, or a crack in the wall, and thought to turn it into a horse or a bison. Why did they make this art? What did it mean to them? Who were these artists? These questions are old—very old—but thanks to new methods and new interpretive frameworks, archaeologists are beginning to see them in a new light. 
My guest today is Dr. Izzy Wisher. Izzy is an archaeologist at Aarhus University in Denmark, specializing in Paleolithic art. 
Here, Izzy and I talk about why we in the present are so drawn to cave art. We lay out the basic timeline, geography, and categories of Paleolithic art. We consider the difference between figurative and non-figurative art, and why it might be that non-figurative art came first. We discuss hand stencils. We talk about an ongoing shift in archaeology known as the "sensory turn." We dig into some of Izzy's work on the role of pareidolia, palimpsests, and children in cave art. And we touch on an ongoing project she is involved in trying to understand the earliest symbolic marks that our species made—and what they could have been used for. Along the way we touch on the site known as El Castillo, Werner Herzog, hunting magic, why hand stencils are so often missing fingers, graffiti, tectiforms and flutings, why depictions of humans are actually quite rare in cave art, stages in children's art production, the use of virtual reality as a research method, and the idea of archaeology as world-building. 
I think you'll enjoy this one friends. Who among us—after all—doesn't feel drawn to these caves, to these most enigmatic of human creations? Without further ado, here's my conversation with Dr. Izzy Wisher.
 
Notes
3:00 – For more on El Castillo cave, see here and here.
9:00 – Werner Herzog's film—Cave of Forgotten Dreams—is being briefly re-released in April 2026.
12:00 – For some of Dr. Wisher's popular writing on cave art, see here and here. 
16:30 – One example of a recent rock art finding in Sulawesi.
20:30 – Our  earlier episode with Dr. Eleanor Scerri and Dr. Manuel Will, in which we discuss the mostly retired idea of a "cognitive revolution" in Europe in the Upper Paleolithic.
22:00 – For more on the recently discovered rock art panel in Colombia, see this news story and this recent academic study.
25:00 – The relative rarity of humans in Paleolithic art has provoked much discussion, both among scholars and the public. 
27:00 – On the idea that Venus figurines might be self-representations—made from the perspective of the artist viewing her own body—see here.
29:00 – For a recent treatment of the "missing fingers" in hand stencils, with some overview of different hypotheses, see here. For more on the idea that such stencils could constitute a system of hand-signs, see here.
34:00 – A popular article by Dr. Wisher about one example of portable art—a deer-tooth necklace with engraved designs.
36:00 ­– For a discussion of the earliest non-figurative art, see here. For one account of the transition from non-figurative to figurative art, including discussion of hand stencils, see here.
42:00 – A paper in which Dr. Wisher and a colleague discuss the "sensory turn" in archaeology and how her work contributes to it.
51:00 – Dr. Wisher's studies on pareidolia are here and here.
59:00 – For Dr. Wisher's study of palimpsests in cave art, see here. 
1:07:00 – For an influential early study on cave marking by children, see here. For Dr. Wisher's recent study of children's art in the caves, see here. A book by Dr. John Matthews on the development of drawing in children.  
1:14:00 – The website of the eSYMB project is here. An important early publication by this group is here. A recent overview of the project and its context by Dr. Wisher and colleagues.  
1:18:00 – A recent paper arguing that certain systems of marks represented a "phenological calendar." Another recent paper providing evidence that certain Paleolithic marks constituted a system of conventional signs.  
1:22:00 – The paper arguing that archaeology is "world-building." 
 
Recommendations
Kindred, by Rebecca Wragg Sykes (former guest!)
Homo sapiens rediscovered, by Paul Pettitt
 
Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, which is made possible by a generous grant from the John Templeton Foundation to Indiana University. The show is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd.
Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!
We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.
For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Bluesky (@manymindspod.bsky.social).