Another reason given for why human intelligence must be simple, is that we’ve only had time for a few complex evolutionary adaptations since we split off from other primates. Chimps clearly aren’t particularly adapted to, say, doing math, so our ability to do math must come from a combination of some kind of General Intelligence, which can be applied to all kinds of tasks (what Eliezer called “the master trick”), and maybe a few specific adaptations.
But it recently occurred to me that, even if the human brain hasn’t had time to gain a lot of complex functions since splitting from chips, it’s entirely possible that the chimp brain has lost a lot of complex functions. My guess would be that our ancestors started becoming anomalously intelligent a long time ago, and only the human line has continued to get smarter, while all our relatives have “reverted to the mean”, so to speak.
Could anyone with more knowledge on the subject tell me whether this is reasonable? Even if it’s pure conjecture, it seems like the mere possibility would nullify that particular argument for human intelligence being simple / general.
Another reason given for why human intelligence must be simple, is that we’ve only had time for a few complex evolutionary adaptations since we split off from other primates. Chimps clearly aren’t particularly adapted to, say, doing math, so our ability to do math must come from a combination of some kind of General Intelligence, which can be applied to all kinds of tasks (what Eliezer called “the master trick”), and maybe a few specific adaptations.
I don’t think we should assume that the vast difference between human and primate achievement is caused by a vast difference in human and primate general intelligence. There are vast differences in achievement between human groups, but only fairly modest intelligence differences. Some ape experts estimated the IQ of chimps as above 75.
Chimps have been known to use some surprisingly advanced technologies, almost comparable to the more primitive human groups (like Tasmanian Aborigines). Sometimes, chimps notice other chimps doing these things and copy them, but they don’t teach these new techniques to each other in any comprehensive way. This strikes me as the main advantage humans have, rather than raw mental firepower.
It seems likely to me that the main biological adaptation that made humans so much more successful at learning was not general intelligence, but rather a more advanced theory of mind and communication skills that followed from it. I’m sure general intelligence improvements played a role, but my guess is g was secondary to social learning.
It looks like there is a new/emerging field called primate archaeology aimed at studying more than just the hominins. If other primates show more advanced prehistoric tool use than they have now it would be evidence for your hypothesis.
Cool. Looks like there’s no evidence yet one way or another.
Isn’t there a place lesswrongers post predictions like this to check their calibration? I’d be willing to go on record with, say, 75% confidence that the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps had more advanced tool use than modern chimps.
Yes, PredictionBook.com, but your prediction would be difficult since it has no clear due date, and no clear judging—it’d be hard to date most recent common ancestor, date tools, or prove that the former was using the latter.
Shouldn’t we consider the fact that no such evidence has yet emerged as strong evidence against this hypothesis? Advanced prehistoric tool use would be a huge discovery—and, one would expect, confer an evolutionary advantage resulting in widespread evidence across space and time. We observe neither of these things
Another reason given for why human intelligence must be simple, is that we’ve only had time for a few complex evolutionary adaptations since we split off from other primates. Chimps clearly aren’t particularly adapted to, say, doing math, so our ability to do math must come from a combination of some kind of General Intelligence, which can be applied to all kinds of tasks (what Eliezer called “the master trick”), and maybe a few specific adaptations.
But it recently occurred to me that, even if the human brain hasn’t had time to gain a lot of complex functions since splitting from chips, it’s entirely possible that the chimp brain has lost a lot of complex functions. My guess would be that our ancestors started becoming anomalously intelligent a long time ago, and only the human line has continued to get smarter, while all our relatives have “reverted to the mean”, so to speak.
Could anyone with more knowledge on the subject tell me whether this is reasonable? Even if it’s pure conjecture, it seems like the mere possibility would nullify that particular argument for human intelligence being simple / general.
I don’t think we should assume that the vast difference between human and primate achievement is caused by a vast difference in human and primate general intelligence. There are vast differences in achievement between human groups, but only fairly modest intelligence differences. Some ape experts estimated the IQ of chimps as above 75.
Chimps have been known to use some surprisingly advanced technologies, almost comparable to the more primitive human groups (like Tasmanian Aborigines). Sometimes, chimps notice other chimps doing these things and copy them, but they don’t teach these new techniques to each other in any comprehensive way. This strikes me as the main advantage humans have, rather than raw mental firepower.
It seems likely to me that the main biological adaptation that made humans so much more successful at learning was not general intelligence, but rather a more advanced theory of mind and communication skills that followed from it. I’m sure general intelligence improvements played a role, but my guess is g was secondary to social learning.
It looks like there is a new/emerging field called primate archaeology aimed at studying more than just the hominins. If other primates show more advanced prehistoric tool use than they have now it would be evidence for your hypothesis.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090715131437.htm
Cool. Looks like there’s no evidence yet one way or another.
Isn’t there a place lesswrongers post predictions like this to check their calibration? I’d be willing to go on record with, say, 75% confidence that the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps had more advanced tool use than modern chimps.
Yes, PredictionBook.com, but your prediction would be difficult since it has no clear due date, and no clear judging—it’d be hard to date most recent common ancestor, date tools, or prove that the former was using the latter.
Shouldn’t we consider the fact that no such evidence has yet emerged as strong evidence against this hypothesis? Advanced prehistoric tool use would be a huge discovery—and, one would expect, confer an evolutionary advantage resulting in widespread evidence across space and time. We observe neither of these things