Are humans *really* smarter than animals?

[BlueBeard]

First, define smart. If you define smart in terms of logic-based abilities like math or language, or by technological achievements, um, maybe. What dog has built a computer or designed an internet, right? But that sort of stacks the deck.

Is intelligence truly reducible to IQ, SAT and ACT scores? That's an awfully restrictive definition -- and even for humans, the metrics of "standardized" tests are constantly under attack as unreliable, grossly biased or even just plain meaningless. I know someone who boasts an IQ of 174 but trips over her ever-untied shoelaces. Learning how to tie her shoe was too petty for a girl of her intellectual capabilities, she told me. And some people bought her spiel. Not me. And since she's basically worthless in a work environment, she's unemployed. Is she more intelligent than you? Than even your parakeet or ... goldfish?

Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) won widespread accolades from educators who, like him, saw IQ, ACTs and SATs as frustratingly poor indicators of intelligence -- which they had trouble defining. He believed there were actually many *kinds* of intelligence, most of them far more accurate in predicting an individual's successful navigation of their world than their quantified IQ.

Although the multiple intelligences theory has its share of detractors, consider this: Donald Trump is one of the most successful people living today. What's his IQ, you think? (If you measure it by linguistic acuity, holy shit... he'd be institutionalized. Take away "very" (as in "very bad person, very, very, very bad, very bad person), and you'd render him speechless, right?

Guess what else the theory of multiple intelligences does? It harkens back to the historically interrupted investigation into *animal* intelligence.

It may be likely that any stray dog on the street is more "intelligent" than you or me, a girl who can't tie her shoe -- or at least a standing U.S. president (though I don't take sides).

Here are some highlights from one 2013 report (there are others more specific, more recent or perhaps more interesting than this, but it was handy):

• The belief that humans have superior intelligence harks back to the Agricultural Revolution some 10,000 years ago when people began producing cereals and domesticating animals. This gained momentum with the development of organised religion, which viewed human beings as the top species in creation.
• The belief of human cognitive superiority became entrenched in human philosophy and sciences.
• Progress during the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century distracted society for increasing awareness of other animals, just as human interest in animal rights had begun to increase (and is today returning)
• Animals possess different abilities that are misunderstood by humans. The 'intelligences' of animals and humans are not necessarily at different levels, but are just different kinds.
• Compare to when a foreigner tries to communicate with us using an imperfect, broken, version of our language, our impression is that they are not very intelligent. The reality is quite different.
• Just so, animal intelligences are generally under-rated by humans who are fixated on language and technology include social and kinaesthetic intelligence. A few examples:
  • Gibbons produce a large number of varied sounds – over 20 different sounds with clearly different meanings allowing them to communicate across tropical forest canopy. That they do not build houses is irrelevant to them.
  • Many quadrupeds leave complex olfactory marks in their environment. Humans, with their limited sense of smell, are unable to gauge the complexity of messages contained in olfactory markings, which may be as rich in information as the visual world.
  • Mammals, even birds learn how to communicate to us their demands and make us do things they want.

Fun topic to read more about. Browse for something using search term phrases something like "human vs animal intellect"

 

[WildMan]

The fact that we're having this conversation proves it

 

[BlueBeard]

The fact that we're having this conversation proves it

The fact that you just called it a conversation without first reading the post calls your evidence into question.

That might not hurt our side too bad, though, since my dog hasn't read it yet either. Your post just sets the scoreboard back to 0 vs 0. But be careful -- he's about to pass us up, smart enough to wait till he's comprehended the point before responding to it.

 

[Bigpaws_Bear]

it's a curious question,
because it would seem that most mammals are intelligent, and many other Genus show the attributes we associate with intelligence.
So I don't think it's a matter of whose Intelligent & who is not, so Much as it is a question of how do we interpret the data we witness.

a lot of communication in the animal kingdom, is as invisible to us as Radio signals in the atmosphere.

 

[girlwithdalmatiangirl]

When we talk about solving problems using logical thinking its obvious that people are smarter but thats totally ok, dogs dont have to outsmart us to be irreplaceable partners

 

[pferdefreund]

Why do you put "standardized" in quotes? A true IQ-test is both standardized as well as actually does the things allegedly in question. The results are reproducible with small variation depending on daily form and similar. If you pick the correct test, they are not biased afaik (I mean they are calibrated at great costs to give a mean of 100), and they do what they are supposed to do: Measure the ability of people to fill out IQ-tests in order to make a comparison between people. It's an indicator of 'intelligence' as far as it is defined by the IQ test e.g. how fast you resolve a math problem.

I never liked the mudding-up of "IQ". It is completely true of course that the ability to handle emotional situations is just as important and a part of success or whatever is important. But they just had to wedge it into 'intelligence' or more specifically IQ, because of some people's vanity. I have no problem in ranking people by their speed in resolving math problems, but that's all the test does.

 

[BlueBeard]

Why do you put "standardized" in quotes? A true IQ-test is both standardized as well as actually does the things allegedly in question. The results are reproducible with small variation depending on daily form and similar. If you pick the correct test, they are not biased afaik (I mean they are calibrated at great costs to give a mean of 100), and they do what they are supposed to do: Measure the ability of people to fill out IQ-tests in order to make a comparison between people. It's an indicator of 'intelligence' as far as it is defined by the IQ test e.g. how fast you resolve a math problem.

I never liked the mudding-up of "IQ". It is completely true of course that the ability to handle emotional situations is just as important and a part of success or whatever is important. But they just had to wedge it into 'intelligence' or more specifically IQ, because of some people's vanity. I have no problem in ranking people by their speed in resolving math problems, but that's all the test does.

Standarized tests require a different thread, I think, totally tangential to this one. I spent a career in education. I am thoroughly familiar with their weaknesses and would address them in a different discussion.

And I agree with you on so much here. Yes, for one, they're speed tests, basically. How much can you answer correctly in the allotted time -- not, how much further could you have advanced the topic *given* time -- far more important to our species. And they only for how fast you were in *that* aspect, the two hours or whatever given for the test. Why *that* is important is debatable (In a lot of jobs, we actually get *paid more* if it takes us longer). But yep, ENTIRELY measurable as a "test." That's why it's so attractive as a test of intelligence.

How do you quantify social intelligence? How do you rate the importance of situational awareness or spatial coordination? They seem so incredibly important, yet... we never test for things like these. And I would guess, we don't know how. (Where this fits in a thread for a zoophile community, I don't know. But I love this topic, too.)

Is *language* a test of intelligence. Sure, yes. But only one kind. Even on that single test, to "win" a comparison with animals, we have to stack the deck. Our language capability lets us encode music on "scales" (since what? only the time of Pope Gregory? -- or at least as we do it now). We are incredible tool users but designers. That could be a point of comparison. But only one thing.

You could argue we have a great ability to control the living environment of our abode. I'm in Minnesota, USA, right now. In a blizzard currently, tucked inside my domicile, heated slightly above comfortable (reminds me, got to click that thermostat down). And outside, outside the city limits, are herds of deer and cattle, flocks of pheasants and quail, and here in the Upper Midwest, herds of bison, especially, who simply take it in stride. They know exactly how to endure the elements that would *kill* me. Instinctively. Using gifts that, as a species, if we ever had them, we lost eons ago.

Intelligence... intelligence.... is just the ability to read and write books? Build from blueprints? Mine iron and turn it into steel?

Since the industrial revolution, we seem to think so. Limited to just those terms.

 

[BlueBeard]

When we talk about solving problems using logical thinking its obvious that people are smarter but thats totally ok, dogs dont have to outsmart us to be irreplaceable partners

Exactly the point! And a very, very interesting discussion. What *are* we missing? What do they get that we don't? And just how "on level," "on par," are we, if we dismiss our narrow definition of intelligence?

How "intelligent" is it to create gigantic pits simply to extract components we make cement with? -- Let alone the exploitation of rare earth minerals to make this very monitor in front of me possible. That's how we define intelligence?

No, animals don't "ponder" their responsibility. Elephants complete DESTROY the environment around them. But... are they stupider than us?

We judge animal intelligence by how easily we can exploit them. But never forget, we also exploit each other, and have for millennia. Our ability to exploit relationships with African tribal folk, Pacific Islanders, the peoples of Hawaii, forest tribes in South Africa... on and on... only to realize afterward, they are "us."

I love this exploration! Keep going!

 

[pferdefreund]

Standarized tests require a different thread, I think, totally tangential to this one. I spent a career in education. I am thoroughly familiar with their weaknesses and would address them in a different discussion.

Standardized testing as used in the US schooling system is something different to IQ tests.

 

[WesWuff]

Guess it depends on the specific human we're talking about because I've seen people do some pretty stupid things

 

[BlueBeard]

Standardized testing as used in the US schooling system is something different to IQ tests.

Absolutely. IQ tests and tests of academic ability are not the same. But that's a topic for a different thread. If I need to reword something I will. I did not intend it as a distraction from the primary topic at hand. Apologies if it was.

 

[BlueBeard]

Guess it depends on the specific human we're talking about because I've seen people do some pretty stupid things

My cat attacks bugs and birds on our high definition, flat screen tv each night. And our dog barks his head off at them as well.

I hold out hope we'll win this comparison of intellectual capabilities, humans over animals.

 

[IHO]

One of my dogs is more clever than I initially gave him credit for. He seems so dopey and goofy most of the time.
I brought a new puppy into our family about a year ago (a shelter rescue) and she likes to play keep-away with the toys. She'll take one of his toys and keep it from him because she's faster than he is. She'll even taunt him with it, then bolt when he makes a move for it.
One day I'm sitting there while this is going on and he totally pulled one over on her right before my eyes. He stopped chasing her around, realizing he was never going to get his toy back that way, and instead picked up one of her favorite toys. The moment he did, she dropped his toy and went to take her's away from him. He let her take it with no fight and then immediately snatched up his own toy and took it to his favorite comfy spot where he kept it to himself. I looked at him for a few moments like, okay, that was pretty fuckin' slick there buddy! He figured exactly how she would react and exploited it to get his toy back. Totally impressed me.
Not much of an equal-just-different human vs. animal intelligence case, but this topic made me think of it.

 

[Pillar]

I can guarantee you your dog is smarter than me. Dogs can easily pick up social cues that I am completely oblivious to until 15 minutes later.

 

[Tailo]

First, define smart.

I'll ignore this and dodge the question in the title too. But it is an interesting topic indeed!

I would like to note that when we pose the question of smartness in the sense of intelligence, we choose one particular metric that we humans are particularly good at to compare ourselves with others. Why do we do that so often? Why don't we ask nearly as often "Are humans better at fetching all kinds of stuff with their nose than other animals?" or "Are humans better at seeing in the dark than other animals?" or "Are humans more sustainable in their habitat than other animals?"

 

[Tailo]

Is intelligence truly reducible to IQ, SAT and ACT scores? That's an awfully restrictive definition -- and even for humans, the metrics of those "standardized" tests are constantly under attack as unreliable, grossly biased or even just plain meaningless. I know someone who boasts an IQ of 174 but trips over her ever-untied shoelaces. Learning how to tie her shoe was too petty for a girl of her intellectual capabilities, she told me. And some people bought her spiel. Not me. And since she's basically worthless in a work environment, she's unemployed. Is she more intelligent than you? Than even your parakeet or ... goldfish?

Howard Gardner's Theory of Multiple Intelligences (1983) won widespread accolades from educators who, like him, saw IQ, ACTs and SATs as frustratingly poor indicators of intelligence -- which they had trouble defining. He believed there were actually many *kinds* of intelligence, most of them far more accurate in predicting an individual's successful navigation of their world than their quantified IQ.

I do not share the notion that "predicting an individual's successful navigation of their world" should have much to do with intelligence. All living beings we see on our planet today testify that all their ancestors navigated their world successfully. So has every living being with ancestors today been intelligent? You could define intelligence to encompass that, but it wouldn't seem to be a very useful definition to me.

I've even seen stones that seem to get along quite well in this world in their own way!

Animals possess different abilities that are misunderstood by humans. The 'intelligences' of animals and humans are not necessarily at different levels, but are just different kinds.

Yes, and furthermore, different abilities even play a role when discussing the same mental capabilities. Consider for example self-awareness. Our best idea how to identify self-awareness in animals is still the mirror test. It is a visual test. We, as primarily visual animals, came up with it. But we subject animals like dogs to it whose primary sense is olfactory. A dog's self-awareness could be very similar to ours and yet he may "fail" at the mirror test, simply because visual information plays a different and lesser role for him.

 

[Pillar]

I'll ignore this and dodge the question in the title too. But it is an interesting topic indeed!

I would like to note that when we pose the question of smartness in the sense of intelligence, we choose one particular metric that we humans are particularly good at to compare ourselves with others. Why do we do that so often? Why don't we ask nearly as often "Are humans better at fetching all kinds of stuff with their nose than other animals?" or "Are humans better at seeing in the dark than other animals?" or "Are humans more sustainable in their habitat than other animals?"

Dodged the question indeed

 

[pferdefreund]

My cat attacks bugs and birds on our high definition, flat screen tv each night. And our dog barks his head off at them as well.

I hold out hope we'll win this comparison of intellectual capabilities, humans over animals.

You know, when they say they are looking for extra-terrestial intelligence, then some surmise this must be because they couldn't locate terrestial intelligence. Haha

 

[pferdefreund]

I can guarantee you your dog is smarter than me. Dogs can easily pick up social cues that I am completely oblivious to until 15 minutes later.

Why 15 min? What are social cues?

 

[Pillar]

Social cues are when people hint at things with their mannerisms, body language and actions. And it takes me 15 minutes because 98 percent of the time I won't realize what happened until well after it happened.

 

[girlwithdalmatiangirl]

Exactly the point! And a very, very interesting discussion. What *are* we missing? What do they get that we don't? And just how "on level," "on par," are we, if we dismiss our narrow definition of intelligence?

How "intelligent" is it to create gigantic pits simply to extract components we make cement with? -- Let alone the exploitation of rare earth minerals to make this very monitor in front of me possible. That's how we define intelligence?

No, animals don't "ponder" their responsibility. Elephants complete DESTROY the environment around them. But... are they stupider than us?

We judge animal intelligence by how easily we can exploit them. But never forget, we also exploit each other, and have for millennia. Our ability to exploit relationships with African tribal folk, Pacific Islanders, the peoples of Hawaii, forest tribes in South Africa... on and on... only to realize afterward, they are "us."

I love this exploration! Keep going!

I think you might not think about the given possibilities in regards to resource depletion and such enough. A wolf obviously doesnt alter the climate in a bad way but we do of course - does this mean the wolf is smarter in that regard than we are? No, if it was utility maximizing for him and he could build power plants he would probably do it or enslave other wolfes or whatever

 

[Bigpaws_Bear]

I think you might not think about the given possibilities in regards to resource depletion and such enough. A wolf obviously doesnt alter the climate in a bad way but we do of course - does this mean the wolf is smarter in that regard than we are? No, if it was utility maximizing for him and he could build power plants he would probably do it or enslave other wolfes or whatever

The Griz Shakes a fisted paw, "Omega's to the Power Plant!"

 

[Hostler]

Humans are smarter, obviously. If a dog can do advanced math or ponder over the meaning of life, I'll take back those words.

 

[Hewflungpew]

In my op no.

Sure we can create on a scale unique to the animal kingdom.

However I consider us one of the most idiotic species on this planet.

How much we have lost in the pursuit of technology and so called higher learning.
We have lost touch with nature and have become a self imploding disaster.

Seam all our government's like or want to do is bicker and put more money in the pockets of ppl who dont need it.

Even the omega in a pack gets to eat!

I would rather a silverback(gorilla) be in charge of the world.

 

[Hewflungpew]

To me smart is using knowladge responsibly, and earning the knowledge for yourself. Not just jumping off other's shoulders.

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[Pillar]

In my op no.

Sure we can create on a scale unique to the animal kingdom.

However I consider us one of the most idiotic species on this planet.

How much we have lost in the pursuit of technology and so called higher learning.
We have lost touch with nature and have become a self imploding disaster.

Seam all our government's like or want to do is bicker and put more money in the pockets of ppl who dont need it.

Even the omega in a pack gets to eat!

I would rather a silverback(gorilla) be in charge of the world.

I was about to thumbs this up until I read the omega comment. (I want to eat and survive too! Just because I'm someone at the bottom of the barrel that means my life don't count? ?)

 

[Hewflungpew]

I was about to thumbs this up until I read the omega comment. (I want to eat and survive too! Just because I'm someone at the bottom of the barrel that means my life don't count? ?)

Lol and that's what I meant by that! Even the omega eats in the pack

 

[pferdefreund]

I would rather a silverback(gorilla) be in charge of the world.

I am hoping we develop a true universal Artificial Intelligence, it seizes world domination, and then starts to sort everything out. Much like they have dummy-kitchens without electric power in homes for the completely senile. They can "cook" as they were used to, with pretend-mixing flour and eggs, but don't burn down the house every other week with forgetting to turn off the oven.

 

[Tailo]

Humans are smarter, obviously. If a dog can do advanced math or ponder over the meaning of life, I'll take back those words.

Having lived together with a dog for over a decade, I tend to agree that I am better at math despite the attached demonstration of canine capabilities in the field of geometry. I am not sure about pondering life though. My dog hasn't written a paper on it yet, but how would I know what thoughts he has on the matter?

 

[Tailo]

I am hoping we develop a true universal Artificial Intelligence, it seizes world domination, and then starts to sort everything out. Much like they have dummy-kitchens without electric power in homes for the completely senile. They can "cook" as they were used to, with pretend-mixing flour and eggs, but don't burn down the house every other week with forgetting to turn off the oven.

What if sorting everything out would mean for the artificial intelligence to use all available resources recklessly to advance itself as much as possible and spread in the universe? A more advanced intelligence does not necessarily need to be what we would consider benevolent. Indeed, if we humans are the most intelligent species on this planet and eradicate other species as quickly as we do although we understand the mechanisms, then that doesn't shine a very likable light on intelligence.