To suggest that the only major difference betweeen humans and chimps is social seems kind of stupid to me. The human brain is obviously more advanced and capabile of more complex resoning beyond that of simple social interactions.
I'm sure that is the basis of this guy's argument, but the biggest differences are the physical ones in the brain. Did those physical changes occur due to social pressures? I don't know and neither does the author. It is a weak argument.
What differences are there in the brain besides physical ones? And the point is not that the changes happened because of social pressures, but because more complicated forms of social interaction aided our ability to work in groups to survive.
For example, I don't think it's a major stretch to imagine that rudimentary mathematics might've arisen so that we could communicate to each other hunting distances, necessary food rations, etc...
By the way, I think your point is valid, and I'm not sure why you're being downmodded. It seems that downmod here is becoming more like the reddit disagreement downmod than indicating whether the content of the post is valid, as it should be.
You have to ask how social interaction could increase survival rate.
Take one example: If a group of 20 co-ordinates in a hunting party to fell a large beast, the payoff (i.e., the meat) benefits a much larger group. That increased caloric intake directly affects survival. Mutations that aided social skills would benefit the organ producing those "tools". And on and on for generations...
The evidence used to back up the claims made were very suspect. Saying that parrots have "language" and chimps can make tools so we aren't that different is a huge overstatement. Comparing the IQ of a 2 year old to a chimp is also ridiculous because one of the things that make humans different is an extremely long maturation period.
