5 ms·

But it could! I’ve always suspected some form of domestication syndrome affecting our species. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_syndrome https://en

But it could! I’ve always suspected some form of domestication syndrome affecting our species. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_syndrome https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_syndrome

Nursie 5y ago
That doesn't suggest a reduction in intelligence .. ?
- Symmetry 5y ago
  Yes, but being able to work productively in larger groups often means more for sophisticated tool use than an individual's intelligence.
  - astrange 5y ago
    "Intelligence" is a vague complementary attribute like "attractiveness" and it doesn't seem like you can do anything with the concept except make post-hoc fallacies with it. Nothing that "lacks intelligence" (a monkey, a person with dementia, a person who reads slowly) behaves all that similarly or is actually lacking the same single thing that causes them to "not be intelligent".
    - canadianfella 5y ago
      >"Intelligence" is a vague complementary attribute like "attractiveness" and it doesn't seem like you can do anything with the concept except make post-hoc fallacies with it. That’s just something unintelligent people say. It’s very easy to make predictions based on intelligence that are easily testable.
  - namenotrequired 5y ago
    Intelligence of the members is exactly what allows working productively in larger groups. See for instance: dunbar's number and how it was derived
- nsonha 5y ago
  but it could be
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
Wasn’t that the premise for Idiocracy?
blacksqr 5y ago
I have wondered if the best explanation for domestication syndrome and neoteny in humans is that our species was bred into existence as pets by another humanoid race.
- edgyquant 5y ago
  Doubtful, humans would make terrible pets.
  - swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
    Not quite the same, but all races of humans have had/been slaves at various points in history. It's not a pleasant subject, but we should not be blind to it, especially when underground and even open air market human trafficking still happens in many places around the world.
    - edgyquant 5y ago
      There is a difference between a pet and a beast of burden
  - Mountain_Skies 5y ago
    Great, now I'm going to have that Porno For Pyros song from the 90s stuck in my head all day.
kristopolous 5y ago
I've never understood this brain size correlates with intelligence idea. I keep seeing it and it just makes me think "what? really? still?" There's dozens of easy non-intelligence hypothesis that can be readily tested: Maybe the skull was larger because it helped balance the weight better for swinging through trees, maybe it was more protective against impact. We can sit around and make up lots of stories to explain this. Besides, human brains are about the same weight as walruses. If size = intelligence, I'd expect to be chatting with walruses on the phone, working with them at the office... Or what about elephants? Their brains are 4 times bigger! There's no way it makes sense upon any cursory analysis. It's just a carryover from phrenology.
- Juliate 5y ago
  > If size = intelligence, I'd expect to … Your understanding of “intelligence” is quite anthropo-centered, of the XXth century-office-work style… Nothing ever _requires_ that intelligence has to express itself in a consistent/compatible way across species and their own environment. Perhaps, for instance, some large brain species did not “evolve” as homo sapiens did, because they were more intelligent of their surroundings.
- dr_dshiv 5y ago
  But brain size does correlate with intelligence, 0.3-0.4. It accounts for about 15% of variability. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/#:~:text=In%20healthy%20volunteers%2C%20total%20brain,overall%20variability%20in%20general%20intelligence https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-m....
  - likecarter 5y ago
    Within the same species, that makes sense. Same architecture, more folds, more neurons.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kristopolous 5y ago

Nursie 5y ago

That doesn't suggest a reduction in intelligence .. ?

Symmetry 5y ago
Yes, but being able to work productively in larger groups often means more for sophisticated tool use than an individual's intelligence.
- astrange 5y ago
  "Intelligence" is a vague complementary attribute like "attractiveness" and it doesn't seem like you can do anything with the concept except make post-hoc fallacies with it. Nothing that "lacks intelligence" (a monkey, a person with dementia, a person who reads slowly) behaves all that similarly or is actually lacking the same single thing that causes them to "not be intelligent".
  - canadianfella 5y ago
    >"Intelligence" is a vague complementary attribute like "attractiveness" and it doesn't seem like you can do anything with the concept except make post-hoc fallacies with it. That’s just something unintelligent people say. It’s very easy to make predictions based on intelligence that are easily testable.
- namenotrequired 5y ago
  Intelligence of the members is exactly what allows working productively in larger groups. See for instance: dunbar's number and how it was derived
nsonha 5y ago
but it could be

ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago

Wasn’t that the premise for Idiocracy?

blacksqr 5y ago

I have wondered if the best explanation for domestication syndrome and neoteny in humans is that our species was bred into existence as pets by another humanoid race.

edgyquant 5y ago
Doubtful, humans would make terrible pets.
- swagasaurus-rex 5y ago
  Not quite the same, but all races of humans have had/been slaves at various points in history. It's not a pleasant subject, but we should not be blind to it, especially when underground and even open air market human trafficking still happens in many places around the world.
  - edgyquant 5y ago
    There is a difference between a pet and a beast of burden
- Mountain_Skies 5y ago
  Great, now I'm going to have that Porno For Pyros song from the 90s stuck in my head all day.

kristopolous 5y ago

I've never understood this brain size correlates with intelligence idea. I keep seeing it and it just makes me think "what? really? still?" There's dozens of easy non-intelligence hypothesis that can be readily tested: Maybe the skull was larger because it helped balance the weight better for swinging through trees, maybe it was more protective against impact. We can sit around and make up lots of stories to explain this. Besides, human brains are about the same weight as walruses. If size = intelligence, I'd expect to be chatting with walruses on the phone, working with them at the office... Or what about elephants? Their brains are 4 times bigger! There's no way it makes sense upon any cursory analysis. It's just a carryover from phrenology.

Juliate 5y ago
> If size = intelligence, I'd expect to … Your understanding of “intelligence” is quite anthropo-centered, of the XXth century-office-work style… Nothing ever _requires_ that intelligence has to express itself in a consistent/compatible way across species and their own environment. Perhaps, for instance, some large brain species did not “evolve” as homo sapiens did, because they were more intelligent of their surroundings.
dr_dshiv 5y ago
But brain size does correlate with intelligence, 0.3-0.4. It accounts for about 15% of variability. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/#:~:text=In%20healthy%20volunteers%2C%20total%20brain,overall%20variability%20in%20general%20intelligence https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-m....
- likecarter 5y ago
  Within the same species, that makes sense. Same architecture, more folds, more neurons.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kristopolous 5y ago