The ROBA Hypothesis Simplified

The Goal

The goal of the ROBA Hypothesis is to identify the minimal human property (MHP).

(You can read an unabridged version of the hypothesis here:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380099651_The_ROBA_Hypothesis_-_A_Thermodynamic_Model_of_Human_Violence_and_Language)

The Problem with minimal human property (MHP) theories

Most MHP theories attempt to draw on various universal MHPs like symbolic language, incest avoidance, tool usage, and religion which are shared by all existing human groups. The problem with these MHPs is that 1) there is always a counterargument that animals have some seed of these: many animals have complex communication, tend not to procreate with siblings, will use their own tools, and have various deferential qualities shared with religion. And 2) there are ways to show these MHPs are not universal in humans: “feral children” who don’t use language, ancient royal families engaging in incest, failure to use tools, and atheism supposedly being non-religious.

All such MHPs face this problem: while they may still be exclusive to humans and universally human, they are not minimal enough, as they are falsified too easily by pointing to the traits existing in animals or hypothesizing their existence in extinct “protohuman” species. Such species like A. africanus and H. erectus are hypothesized as having intermediary versions of these MHPs. All this is seen as evidence that humans gradually evolved from the last common ancestor (LCA) shared with other primates, and that these MHPs all gradually evolved over time, blurring the line between animal and human. The question, “What is a human?” therefore remains unanswered when trying to follow this path.

ROBA is more Minimal

The ROBA Hypothesis posits instead that there is another human universal that is not covered in any scientific books: recursive, object-based aggression (ROBA). ROBA is the same thing as human violence.

Humans are the only beings known to use objects recursively in combat. If ROBA can be demonstrated to use the same recursive function as found in language, and if ROBA can be isolated solely to humans, then ROBA is a more minimal human property than language. The recursive property itself, which is upstream from language and violence/ROBA, would therefore be the most minimal human property.

If the recursive property is the most minimal human property, then it’s up to the biological sciences to decide whether to attempt to trace its origin to other species. The ROBA Hypothesis posits no such origin. It simply states that recursion is most minimal, which gives us new insight into the shared origins of violence and language.

ROBA Defined

Some terms must be defined:

Objects: the environment, rocks, sticks, knives, nukes, anything that can be used outside the body.
Aggression: the intention to engage in combat.
Combat: refers only to intra-specific (chimp-vs.-chimp, human-vs.-human) combat, not predation.
Recursion: nested within itself (“I thought that you thought that I thought that you would bring a knife”, etc.)
Communication: Any signal which produces a response. By this definition, chimps communicate with chimps, flowers communicate with bees, etc.
Language: Any communication which is utilized by the recursive property, producing shared attention, sign language, spoken language, etc. By the ROBA Hypothesis, only humans have language.

Animal Combat is optimized

In animal combat, the antagonists will enter the mutual assessment phase (MAP) to determine the threat level of the opponent. Since animals do not use ROBA, there is no wildcard, no objects being hidden. Animal antagonists automatically know the maximum weapon capacity of the opponent. The animals are designed for combat using these weapons and their combat loop reflects this. We can draw some simple conclusions about animal combat:

Since combat-related deaths are rare, animals are more likely to enter combat.
Animals are designed to withstand their own weapons.
Animal combat sets the hierarchy.

Therefore, animal combat is optimized for setting the hierarchy.

possible Exceptions

Chimpanzees use objects in combat, but only for intimidation. They might use an object to attack once, but there is no follow-through, no attempt to reacquire the object, and no assumption that other chimpanzees will bring objects for combat.

Chimpanzees, orangutans, crows, sea otters, octopuses and other species will use tools intelligently, sometimes for predation, but not reliably for combat, and never recursively.

Chimpanzees will kill each other in combat, but death comes through beatings using their natural weapons, not using objects.

In summary, no animal is capable of ROBA.

Human violence is unoptimized

In human combat, the object or weapon is a wildcard. The opponent might have brought a hidden object or weapon, might pick one up mid-fight, and might feign defeat to come back with a bigger weapon or backup. Because of the recursive nature of violence, humans naturally engage in a lengthy series of recursive battle tactics wherein 1) both parties attempt to anticipate the future moves of the other, assuming objects might enter the fray, and 2) both parties understanding that the opponent is also anticipating them in kind.

These recursive battle tactics result in an escalation to extremes¹ whereby all parties will attempt to maximize their own potential violence in order to guarantee victory over their opponent. This produces an apocalyptic scenario which can 1) kill everyone involved, 2) bring in more members, and 3) trigger contagious violence resulting in feud, civil war, and world war.

All human members would rather remain in the tactics phase to avoid mutually assured destruction (MAD). However, if the recursive memory limit of humans is 6², then humans will only be able to plan 6 movements into the future. And since this memory limit is exhausted even more quickly once one considers other members entering the scene, other objects entering the fray, etc., then it is hypothetically in any one member’s best interest to make a preemptive move before another.

These are the conclusions we can therefore draw regarding human combat:

Humans are not designed to withstand blows, stabs, or cuts from objects.
The wildcard of ROBA results in an escalation to extremes that can result in mutually assured destruction (MAD).
The threat of ROBA is a natural deterrent to entering into combat.
Human combat cannot reliably set the hierarchy without destroying all the members involved.

Therefore, human combat is unoptimized for setting the hierarchy.

MAD would be guaranteed, and yet we tend not to see this in human communities. Rather, humans almost always defer violence via language.

The First Word

Since ROBA cannot reliably set human hierarchies, a different means must be sought. Humans overwhelmingly choose language over violence³. The ROBA Hypothesis minimizes this process by claiming that language and violence are two different states of recursion.

To make a simple illustration, when humans threaten to come to blows, the apocalyptic threat of violence looms. This same threat is encapsulated into symbolic form: a word with the same recursion, the same infinite depth as apocalyptic combat, is substituted for combat. This is how the first word is created.

The word can now act as a proxy for setting the human hierarchy. The use of this word in future apocalyptic scenarios will continue to defer violence, until it becomes inadequate. The word will then be parsed: it will be picked apart, a new word is made, and so on. The new words will have their own places in the hierarchy, whether they be nouns of different categories or words in different grammatical forms.

The unoptimized nature of human combat demands that we let words do the fighting for us.

Chicken Or Egg?

Violence might not have brought on the first word. The first word might have appeared first, and the threat of ROBA/violence came only when this word became inadequate, demanding it be parsed.

The ROBA Hypothesis makes no claim as to whether violence or language came first. Rather, it only asserts that recursion, which is upstream from violence and language, is the MHP.

A New Rubicon

Communication scientists have been trying to trace how animal communication transitioned into human language. When or how, they ask, did we cross this Rubicon? The ROBA Hypothesis posits that there is no bridge across this Rubicon. Rather, the Rubicon itself is recursion, the MHP, and human communication is a small subset of language bounded by recursion.

Thermodynamics of Recursion

Recursion, the MHP, comes in 2 states: an active form (violence) and a symbolic form (language). When recursion is in its active form of apocalyptic violence, humans must use Parsing to encapsulate it back into its symbolic form. When in a symbolic form, recursion can safely increase in “heat”: magic can be broken down into scientific formulas, weapons can be repurposed for agriculture, inventions can alleviate suffering. Linguistic “heat” thus expands to produce economies, polities, mass media, kinship systems, etc.

Once Parsing within the symbolic state of language fails, recursion will leak out into its active state of violence, and the cycle must be repeated.

Lithics as Language

The ROBA Hypothesis also posits that the first linguistic signs might have been symbolic violence deferral in the form of stone knapping. Oldowan and Acheulean “handaxes” might have originated not as utilitarian objects but rather shared symbols which signaled one’s preference for deferral. They would therefore tend to be universally shaped and in abundant quantities, which the archaeological record confirms. Only later did these linguistic objects become tools.

Sanctioned Combat

Human aggression can be vented but only within linguistic boundaries. Contact sports, sanctioned combat, and even international warfare are tightly constrained by language (laws, contracts, treaties, etc.). Raw, lawless violence escapes only when these linguistic boundaries break down.

Self-Domestication

Humans have developed hairlessness, white sclera, white palms, and other traits which are attributed to self-domestication. The ROBA Hypothesis argues that these traits all aid in the use of language and, therefore, might be driven by the recursion transfer process. This process is only possible when object usage and combat are connected, since this is the minimal connection point we see exclusive to humans and not in any animal. Whether all recursion transfer results in self-domestication, or if some recursion transfer could result in the opposite feralization, is an area worth exploring.

Questions for Evolutionary Biology

The ROBA Hypothesis presents a scenario that appears to be incompatible with gradualist evolutionary biology, and so I humbly ask anybody in that field to respond to any propositions laid out here.

Questions I propose:

Why do no other animals have ROBA?
Why is violence recursive?
If the MHP is recursion, where did it come from?

A Scientific Blind Spot

No scientific literature has ever mechanically distinguished human violence from animal combat in a simpler way. The ROBA Hypothesis is the first time this simple differentiation has been made.