The Eveish selection theory creates a plausible method for humans to have evolved the ability to speak and understand sentences. With the ability to generate sentences about one’s environment and thoughts, there arise conflicts with other speakers of the language representing different ways of speaking about the same thing.

We are aware that elephants will probably feel different, look different, smell different and taste different depending upon how they are approached, even though most of us have no close-up experience of elephants. As we grow to adulthood we realize that other people’s perceptions are different from ours and to maintain harmonious relations we tolerate their expressing themselves in ways incompatible with our perceptions. Most of us also learn to appreciate these different ways of seeing things, like elephants, because we realize a different point of view might be valuable to us at some time.

With a spoken language the problem of the foolishness of a person’s behavior comes to the fore in two main guises. First is some foolish behavior because of not knowing some particular piece of information, and that is usually forgiven when the facts are made available and whatever foolish behavior that came about because of the lack of information stops. The second kind of foolishness comes about when a person has available correct facts and for some unaccountable reason still maintains some form of counterproductive behavior.

Does our tolerance for the second kind of foolishness, the stupid kind, come about because of our tolerance for the first kind, the lack of correct information kind? Is this tolerance a wholly learned attribute we associate with our culture and limit to our own tribe? Or, is there a genetic component to tolerance? Not a hardwired genetic response, like a reflex, but more like the DNA that humans have that permits us, as children, to learn a language easily. We learn tolerance for our own kind of people easily and intolerance for outgroups just as easily. This trait seems so universal it seems there must be a genetic component to it. How could that arise?

Women in their mate selection must make a similar balance when they choose a man who will defend them but not be so aggressive that he will harm them. A man who will defend the tribe but not combat excessively with tribe members. A man who is sensitive to verbal truths and acts upon them but is willing to tolerate unknowable speculations about things and hesitates to act.

We have evolved to tolerate human stupidity because it makes society possible?