Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How do humans differ from other species?
Options
Comments
-
Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 90,811 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 89051
We can recognise individuals in larger groups than most other animals.
Other animals live in larger herds but we can interact with 150 individuals
Also we can lie.
Other animals give themselves away with tells0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »This is highly intriguing. What makes you think that, given the extinction of Neanderthals (almost definitely due to weaker, smaller homo sapiens intrusion on their territory during the Ice Age), they were also smarter than homo sapiens?
It would seem to me that intelligence was the only advantage homo sapiens had in that context.
It could have been any number of reasons: diets not suiting them as much, not mating enough, human treachary/cruelty, being very intelligent but not having a lingual intelligence (fossils reveal that they could not use their voices the way we do so it might have been much harder for them to vocalize words). The Neanderthals were considerably shorter, they were stockier but probably about the same size as humans overall. Their size certainly didn't give them much of an advantage anyway. The bigger size would be just as much a disadvantage as an advantage because you need to eat more to support it. You see you can't make an argument like that because there is always the opposite side to it.
The difference in brains would also have had a negligible impact on it, if you're using that as the reason you think humans are smarter you just have to look at war-torn regions in the modern world. Do you really believe that those people are there because they're smarter? No, you're falling into the trap of thinking that "more intelligent = better" again, in reality there is no reason the more intelligent should pull through than the less intelligent. You can't say "all things being equal" because there is always a flip-side to it. Because the more intelligent will have to do more to maintain it. I think it's much more likely that Neanderthals needed so much energy and nutrition to support their brains that they couldn't deal with the shortages of food while the human, who had a more basic brain, got by. However I wouldn't put that forward as an argument because there's little basis for saying it, there is for saying they were more intelligent based on EQ.Cavehill Red wrote: »I'd concur with you that we are CURRENTLY becoming less intelligent (in the last few decades), due to the eradication of the link between genetic selection for beneficial traits, as a result of explosive population, caused by better hygiene and nutrition.
But 200,000 years ago? What makes you think that?
Uhh... no, not in the last few decades, I'm talking about in the past 10s or 100s of thousands of years. Our brain size reached a peak and has been decreasing ever since I have no idea whether or not the human race is currently becoming less intelligent but I wouldn't speculate about that. The human race is obviously evolving towards whoever wants to have more children now.
What makes me thing that? Uh.. maybe because I've read it and have a clue about what I'm talking about.
Also remember that we are 1-4% Neanderthal as shown by the latest genetic evidence.0 -
SuperInfinity wrote: »It could have been any number of reasons: diets not suiting them as much,
Implausible, given that they located in Europe millennia before homo sapiens, and had the body hair to deal with the cold.SuperInfinity wrote: »not mating enough,
But they were previously? This assumes homo sapiens interfered with their breeding somehow.SuperInfinity wrote: »human treachary/cruelty,
I'll buy that for a dollar. But that does go towards the intelligence of homo sapiens.SuperInfinity wrote: »being very intelligent but not having a lingual intelligence (fossils reveal that they could not use their voices the way we do so it might have been much harder for them to vocalize words).
Again, this predicates upon homo sapiens intervening somehow, since they had that trait prior to our arrival.SuperInfinity wrote: »The Neanderthals were considerably shorter, they were stockier but probably about the same size as humans overall. Their size certainly didn't give them much of an advantage anyway. The bigger size would be just as much a disadvantage as an advantage because you need to eat more to support it. You see you can't make an argument like that because there is always the opposite side to it.
The consensus seems to be that a neanderthal would have destroyed a homo sapiens in a one-on-one, given their body shapes and masses. But that rarely if ever happened (according to the fossil evidence.) Either homo sapiens was already smarter, or else the neanderthals were exceptionally pacific.SuperInfinity wrote: »The difference in brains would also have had a negligible impact on it, if you're using that as the reason you think humans are smarter you just have to look at war-torn regions in the modern world. Do you really believe that those people are there because they're smarter? No, you're falling into the trap of thinking that "more intelligent = better" again, in reality there is no reason the more intelligent should pull through than the less intelligent. You can't say "all things being equal" because there is always a flip-side to it. Because the more intelligent will have to do more to maintain it.
As a gambler who examines odds, I can tell you that a value bet is one where you estimate the likelihood of an event occurring to be greater or lesser than those quoted by the authorities (bookies.)
Similarly, the effort used to 'maintain' human intelligence (greater expenditure of energy) is not equivalent to the cost of being less intelligent when it came to an inter-species race for resources during the Ice Age. In other words, we won because being smarter was more crucial a benefit than the cost of being smarter was a deficit. It was a value bet.SuperInfinity wrote: »I think it's much more likely that Neanderthals needed so much energy and nutrition to support their brains that they couldn't deal with the shortages of food while the human, who had a more basic brain, got by. However I wouldn't put that forward as an argument because there's little basis for saying it, there is for saying they were more intelligent based on EQ.
Both intriguing hypotheses, I have to say. Obviously the dominant theory is that humans won out because they were more adaptable and smarter (IQ).SuperInfinity wrote: »Uhh... no, not in the last few decades, I'm talking about in the past 10s or 100s of thousands of years. Our brain size reached a peak and has been decreasing ever since I have no idea whether or not the human race is currently becoming less intelligent but I wouldn't speculate about that. The human race is obviously evolving towards whoever wants to have more children now.
I agree with your last point, but believe it supports my previous suggestion that since the 30s in the Western world and the 80s or 90s in other parts, humans have become less smart because population mass has exploded due to the benefits accrued from hygiene and nutrition (and food production skills, etc, etc.)
It's the idea that we're less intelligent (or have less capacity for intelligence) than 200,000 years ago that intrigues me.SuperInfinity wrote: »What makes me thing that? Uh.. maybe because I've read it and have a clue about what I'm talking about.
Didn't suggest for a minute you weren't very knowledgeable on the topic. I'm just keen to understand your perspective better, because it's one I haven't come across before.SuperInfinity wrote: »Also remember that we are 1-4% Neanderthal as shown by the latest genetic evidence.
As a possessor of the receptor-1 gene myself, like many Irish people, I can only concur!0 -
Abstract thought and speech.0
-
scientific1982 wrote: »Abstract thought and speech.
I would say the only exclusive trait there is speech abstract thought i would say is common to the other apes. Even the speech is not a matter of intellignece but vocal chord structure.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cavehill Red wrote: »But they were previously? This assumes homo sapiens interfered with their breeding somehow.
No it doesn't. If you take any two different mating patterns and put them through something that greatly threatens their species like the Ice Age, there's a good chance one of them will get through it and one of them won't. Humans don't have to have ever interacted with them for that.Cavehill Red wrote: »I'll buy that for a dollar. But that does go towards the intelligence of homo sapiens.
Rubbish. I can't believe you're actually suggesting that cruelty and plundering shows intelligence. The Neanderthals would have been capable of that as well. I'm NOT SAYING THERE IS NO INTELLIGENCE INVOLVED IN CRUELTY AND PLUNDERING I AM SAYING THAT IT IS NOT A SIGN OF INTELLIGENCE IN BEINGS WITH MORE INTELLIGENCE THAN A WORM.
Newsflash: Caucasian humans nearly came in and wiped out the native indians as well (with a few surviving that will after thousands of years have interbred with us) but you don't say it was because the native indians were "less intelligent".
These are all just your own theories that are very ill-thought out and presumptuous, based on biases and prejudices... etc. and frankly worthless. It's a trap people often fall into at first about evolution, they speculate everything, it's a case of "cold-reading", the "placebo effect", "selection bias", etc.
However I find it really offensive and maddening that you claim that it's because humans were "smarter" that they survived. If someone comes into your house tomorrow and blows your head off, takes all your money and gets away with it does that make him smarter than you are? Of course not.Cavehill Red wrote: »Again, this predicates upon homo sapiens intervening somehow, since they had that trait prior to our arrival.
It does not. It has NOTHING to do with humans "intervening somehow". It means that their vocal chords/voicebox allowed something which could have been a coincidence. Chimps also have a restricted voicebox, they can't make all the sounds we do. It could have been pure fortune that our voices allowed such a range of sounds while theirs did not. It could also be that humans had language skills while the Neanderthals did not as they were intelligent in a different way. Nothing to do with humans ever intervening at all.Cavehill Red wrote: »The consensus seems to be that a neanderthal would have destroyed a homo sapiens in a one-on-one, given their body shapes and masses. But that rarely if ever happened (according to the fossil evidence.) Either homo sapiens was already smarter, or else the neanderthals were exceptionally pacific.
No, you can't speculate on any of that. There is little reason to think humans and neanderthals ever even fought or were hostile to each other.Cavehill Red wrote: »As a gambler who examines odds, I can tell you that a value bet is one where you estimate the likelihood of an event occurring to be greater or lesser than those quoted by the authorities (bookies.)
Similarly, the effort used to 'maintain' human intelligence (greater expenditure of energy) is not equivalent to the cost of being less intelligent when it came to an inter-species race for resources during the Ice Age. In other words, we won because being smarter was more crucial a benefit than the cost of being smarter was a deficit. It was a value bet.
No, there is no way to assess it at all. Your idea that bigger brain size is always better in harsh times is at odds with the reality. The shortage of resources and cold could or would have made less brain size much easier to survive with if anything. According to your "theory" the smartest would always survive an Ice Age (or anything else) which is nonsense.Cavehill Red wrote: »Both intriguing hypotheses, I have to say. Obviously the dominant theory is that humans won out because they were more adaptable and smarter (IQ).
The dominant idea of whom? Many people have different theories, I wouldn't say one of them is obviously dominant.Cavehill Red wrote: »I agree with your last point, but believe it supports my previous suggestion that since the 30s in the Western world and the 80s or 90s in other parts, humans have become less smart because population mass has exploded due to the benefits accrued from hygiene and nutrition (and food production skills, etc, etc.)
It's the idea that we're less intelligent (or have less capacity for intelligence) than 200,000 years ago that intrigues me.
Didn't suggest for a minute you weren't very knowledgeable on the topic. I'm just keen to understand your perspective better, because it's one I haven't come across before.
As a possessor of the receptor-1 gene myself, like many Irish people, I can only concur!
Okay.0 -
SuperInfinity wrote: »No it doesn't. If you take any two different mating patterns and put them through something that greatly threatens their species like the Ice Age, there's a good chance one of them will get through it and one of them won't. Humans don't have to have ever interacted with them for that.
But the odds are strongly in favour of the species better acclimatised, which were the neanderthals. In any case, humans definitely interacted with them. You yourself stated that 1-4% of huma genes are neanderthal. That didn't happen by magic.SuperInfinity wrote: »Rubbish. I can't believe you're actually suggesting that cruelty and plundering shows intelligence. The Neanderthals would have been capable of that as well. I'm NOT SAYING THERE IS NO INTELLIGENCE INVOLVED IN CRUELTY AND PLUNDERING I AM SAYING THAT IT IS NOT A SIGN OF INTELLIGENCE IN BEINGS WITH MORE INTELLIGENCE THAN A WORM.
Utilising cruelty in order to survive shows intelligence, however.SuperInfinity wrote: »Newsflash: Humans nearly came in and wiped out the native indians as well but you don't say it was because the native indians were "less intelligent".
They didn't have the wheel. It mightn't be PC to say so, but they were certainly less developed than the European invaders. In any case, it's generally accepted that it was the diseases brought to the Americas by the Europeans which did the most damage to the native Americans.SuperInfinity wrote: »These are all just your own theories that are very ill-thought out and presumptuous, based on biases and prejudices... etc. and frankly worthless. It's a trap people often fall into at first about evolution, they speculate everything, it's a case of "cold-reading", the "placebo effect", selection bias.
Not sure where you get that from. Care to elaborate?SuperInfinity wrote: »However I find it really offensive and maddening that you claim that it's because humans were "smarter" that they survived. If someone comes into your house tomorrow and blows your head off, takes all your money and gets away with it does that make him smarter than you are? Of course not.
But I am not a species. I'm an individual. Different rules apply.SuperInfinity wrote: »It does not. It has NOTHING to do with humans "intervening somehow". It means that their vocal chords/voicebox allowed something which could have been a coincidence. Chimps also have a restricted voicebox, they can't make all the sounds we do. It could have been pure fortune that our voices allowed such a range of sounds while theirs did not. It could also be that humans had language skills while the Neanderthals did not as they were intelligent in a different way. Nothing to do with humans ever intervening at all.
If that's what did them in, then why didn't it do so BEFORE homo sapiens invaded their living space?SuperInfinity wrote: »No, you can't speculate on any of that. There is little reason to think humans and neanderthals ever even fought or were hostile to each other.
Other than the weapon wounds on fossil fragments, and the displacement of neanderthal populations into ever-decreasing locales during the homo sapiens invasion, that is.SuperInfinity wrote: »No, there is no way to assess it at all. Your idea that brain size is always better in harsh times is at odds with the reality. The shortage of resources and cold could or would have made less brain size much easier to survive if anything. According to your "theory" the smartest would always survive an Ice Age (or anything else) which is nonsense.
The adaptibility of homo sapiens to all manner of climates and terrains would suggest otherwise.SuperInfinity wrote: »The dominant idea of whom? Many people have different theories, I wouldn't say one of them is obviously dominant.
Let's run with this. You suggested we're less intelligent than we were 200,000 years ago, prior to the emergence of homo sapiens from Africa when the species was still what is known as 'archaic' homo sapiens.
I'm still keen for you to present something to support that, frankly staggering, suggestion.0 -
We can recognise individuals in larger groups than most other animals.
Other animals live in larger herds but we can interact with 150 individuals
As can chimps and bonobos hence their different facial markings
Also we can lie.
As can Tufted capuchin monkeys.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »Let's run with this. You suggested we're less intelligent than we were 200,000 years ago, prior to the emergence of homo sapiens from Africa when the species was still what is known as 'archaic' homo sapiens.
I'm still keen for you to present something to support that, frankly staggering, suggestion.
I am no longer interested in this thread but I would like to point out that this is a well-accepted fact. Their brains were significantly bigger, whether that makes them smarter or not may be up for debate.
It's not a staggering fact at all to people who know about the field. Some people claim hominids with brains about 0.4 bigger than the current existed at some point, although that's a minority view.
Try not to act so surprised that we're not actually the smartest beings to have ever existed.
All of civilization came about in the past 10,000 years, for the previous 190,000 years to that people were at least as smart as they are now. If you put 100,000 babies out in the wild now they wouldn't automatically start "civilization" and wouldn't for hundreds of thousands of years. Civilization is something that you need to have a ball rolling for, it has to take off first.
Here they talk about the decrease in brain size (about 10% in the past 30,000 years). http://adhominin.com/index.php?id=4152453199173583192
They speculate there that it's offset by better consumption by the brain as you were saying, but IMO there is not great evidence for this and not enough for the massive over 10% decrease.
They are starting out with the assumption that we are smarter or at least as smart and build their theory to explain that. However they don't seem to even consider that we are dumber, something which some paleontologists do hold to.
I'm not saying it's set in stone that we are dumber, just that I believe we are. It makes a LOT of sense, don't let your preconceptions get in the way of scientific thought. Do you at least accept it as a possibility, given that we know they had bigger brain sizes than we do? (not compared to Neanderthals who had much bigger brains but who had different metabolism which allegedly makes up the difference).0 -
SuperInfinity wrote: »I am no longer interested in this thread but I would like to point out that this is a well-accepted fact. Their brains were significantly bigger, whether that makes them smarter or not may be up for debate.
I've been consistently saying that it was energy expenditure on thought as opposed to cranial capacity that was the defining issue.SuperInfinity wrote: »It's not a staggering fact at all to people who know about the field. Some people claim hominids with brains about 0.4 bigger than the current existed at some point, although that's a minority view.
Try not to act so surprised that we're not actually the smartest beings to have ever existed.
Whales have significantly bigger brains than us, but no one suggests they're smarter. I stated earlier that neanderthals had larger cranial capacity. But that doesn't support your assertion that they were smarter.SuperInfinity wrote: »All of civilization came about in the past 10,000 years, for the previous 190,000 years to that people were at least as smart as they are now. If you put 100,000 babies out in the wild now they wouldn't automatically start "civilization" and wouldn't for hundreds of thousands of years. Civilization is something that you need to have a ball rolling for, it has to take off first.
Here they talk about the decrease in brain size (about 10% in the past 30,000 years). http://adhominin.com/index.php?id=4152453199173583192
They speculate there that it's offset by better consumption by the brain as you were saying, but IMO there is not great evidence for this and not enough for the massive over 10% decrease.
They are starting out with the assumption that we are smarter or at least as smart and build their theory to explain that. However they don't seem to even consider that we are dumber, something which some paleontologists do hold to.
I'm not saying it's set in stone that we are dumber, just that I believe we are. It makes a LOT of sense, don't let your preconceptions get in the way of scientific thought. Do you at least accept it as a possibility, given that we know they had bigger brain sizes than we do? (not compared to Neanderthals who had much bigger brains but who had different metabolism which allegedly makes up the difference).
I accept it as possible, that's why I was asking you to support your assertion. I find it fascinating, but I haven't seen you present any strong evidence for believing that early hominids or neanderthals were smarter than homo sapiens sapiens. I'd be of the opinion that we use more energy for thought than either, and probably more efficiently too.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cavehill Red wrote: »I've been consistently saying that it was energy expenditure on thought as opposed to cranial capacity that was the defining issue.
Yeah, I agree your story of it is consistent in that regard.Cavehill Red wrote: »Whales have significantly bigger brains than us, but no one suggests they're smarter. I stated earlier that neanderthals had larger cranial capacity. But that doesn't support your assertion that they were smarter.
But whales have a much lower EQ than we do. Neanderthals didn't. I don't know why you seem to be just ignoring EQ, EQ is like brain metabolism but we can actually measure it to some degree of accuracy.Cavehill Red wrote: »I accept it as possible, that's why I was asking you to support your assertion. I find it fascinating, but I haven't seen you present any strong evidence for believing that early hominids or neanderthals were smarter than homo sapiens sapiens. I'd be of the opinion that we use more energy for thought than either, and probably more efficiently too.
I agree it's fascinating. I know I haven't presented very compelling evidence, I just think it's more likely. I definitely respect your viewpoint as being a valid and reasonable one, but I do think there is also a "wing" or facet of certain people (not saying you are a part of it), that think that we must be obviously the smartest beings that ever existed, with arguments that boil down to something like: "well if people were so smart 100,000 years ago, how come they didn't have the internet?". They refuse to accept on principle that any species or subspecies or our ancestors could ever have been smarter than us.0 -
-
SuperInfinity wrote: »But whales have a much lower EQ than we do. Neanderthals didn't. I don't know why you seem to be just ignoring EQ, EQ is like brain metabolism but we can actually measure it to some degree of accuracy.
We can only assume neanderthals didn't, being hominids. But I'm happy to accept that. I don't know a tremendous amount of EQ (or EI) except it has been posited in a wide variety of models as representing everything from self-awareness levels to the capacity to manage different social relationships. It seems fuzzy and highly debated to my limited knowledge, so I'm intrigued that it apparently is more concrete and measurable than that.SuperInfinity wrote: »I agree it's fascinating. I know I haven't presented very compelling evidence, I just think it's more likely. I definitely respect your viewpoint as being a valid and reasonable one, but I do think there is also a "wing" or facet of certain people (not saying you are a part of it), that think that we must be obviously the smartest beings that ever existed, with arguments that boil down to something like: "well if people were so smart 100,000 years ago, how come they didn't have the internet?". They refuse to accept on principle that any species or subspecies or our ancestors could ever have been smarter than us.
That smells like a 'God of the Gaps' argument to me. At the very least it's a highly homo sapiens-centric view of evolutionary history, and I wouldn't concur at all with it. As I said earlier, if cetaceans or primates evolved to divert sufficient energy towards thought, it's likely that they would become as smart as us, though obviously expressed in an entirely different way to how we've expressed our intelligence (superstition, civilisation, conurbation living, war, etc.)
As you said earlier, the trappings of civilisation came about late in the day and very quickly (demonstrating man's ability to learn from each other and spread information by communication quickly.)
It's highly possible that some early hominids might have been smarter and died out for varying reasons, including the neanderthals. With the latter, though, we know a bit more about them, and can certainly conclude that they were at least not as adaptable as homo sapiens, and likely not as smart either.0 -
KindOfIrish wrote: »Only humans can ask this question on boards.ie
I'm fairly certain that's within the capabilities of basic artificial intelligences too. Maybe even chimps, with the right training.0 -
Eh.. if you read that link it says; "The decrease in brain size during the late Pleistocene was also accompanied by a decrease in body size"SuperInfinity wrote: »Here they talk about the decrease in brain size (about 10% in the past 30,000 years). http://adhominin.com/index.php?id=4152453199173583192
Anyway the whole brain size thing is a generalisation. It is known that we do not use all of the brain 100%, so if a piece is removed in an accident or in surgery , another part can sometimes take over the function. Intelligence output or performance cannot be measured in fossils. Phrenology was also once thought to be significant to intelligence, but not any more.
I'm sure plenty of gorillas have glimpsed the ocean before turning back into the forest. The key to our success seems to lie in our flexibility and adaptability.Cavehill Red wrote: »Slightly off the subject, there's a 'Planet of the Apes' type theory than runs that if gorillas had made it to the coast first and began eating fish (rich in those Omega oils the brain just eats up), then we'd be the species in the zoos and they'd be the ones inventing space travel technology.
It's no surprise we're genetically closest to chimpanzees. Like us, but unlike their close cousins the bonobos, we're an aggressive, warlike species. Bonobos and gorillas are much more pacific.
Playing counter-history for a moment, one wonders what a gorilla or bonobo dominant planet might have been like. Likely, it would be a less competition-based, more pacifist society than our own, and on those grounds, possibly preferable.
Similar arguments have been made for the Neanderthals too.
There is no reason to believe the neandertals were pacifists; I would would guess they were both aggressive and intelligent. They were big game hunters, so they needed both these qualities. It seems they weren't interested in eating fish or fruit. It is also quite possible that early H. sapiens were allowed to scavenge at a mammoth kill after the neandertals had finished. Being more specialised would have left the neandertals vulnerable when the big game ran out though.
As an analogy, consider how lions and hyenas interact. Lions will occasionally kill a particularly annoying hyena scavenging at their kill. A group of hyenas will occasionally kill a weakened lion. Mostly they just co-exist. Hyenas can also hunt down large prey and kill it, but they are not as proficient as lions. However if the big game ran out, the hyenas would still get by, but the lions would be extinct.
In this analogy, we are the hyenas.
I suppose being more flexible in outlook is a sign of our superior kind of intelligence, but the difference may have been smaller than is often supposed.
That leaves the question; does our flexible intelligence derive from eating fish, or did we fish because of our flexible intelligence?0 -
By EQ or EI are you referring to Emotional Intelligence? Just wondering, as I thought first you were talking about a measure of how much energy the brain consumes, proportional to bodily requirements.
EQ (emotional intelligence) isn't a single ability, it's a whole rake of abilities. It gained popularity with Golman's book, but that doesn't mean that it is entirely accepted within psychology.0
Advertisement