I feel that I am not familiar with this literature enough to offer or to even form a good idea of whether and why it makes sense to talk about a 'social brain'. Even after these readings, I am confused by what exactly we mean by ‘social brain’ or what would be the best way to define it. I guess that part of this difficulty lies in the fact that this definition varies depending on what account one endorses with respect to how sociality plays a role in our lives and with respect to how it develops and what are its origins. However, what I wonder is whether there are certain stable or core assumptions that one makes when talking about the ‘social brain’ regardless of other specifics of different accounts. It would be helpful to understand exactly what these assumptions might be before being able to answer the question of whether I agree that it makes sense to talk about a ‘social brain’.
However, and for example, when reading Atzil and colleagues’ paper I formed the impression that they made quite a few overstatements, like when they put forward the idea that the ability to learn or think abstractly might be explained by social factors. To connect this to my previous reflection, one thought that comes to mind is that if thinking of a 'social brain' means wanting to elevate at all costs sociality as the 'explanation to everything', that is something that I feel a little skeptical about.