8 ms·

This is surprising, because elephants have huge brains and giraffes have tiny brains. Size isn't everything apparently. I still think there's no question that e

by eloff 5y ago

This is surprising, because elephants have huge brains and giraffes have tiny brains. Size isn't everything apparently. I still think there's no question that elephants are more intelligent.

bussierem 5y ago
Neanderthals had bigger craniums than homo sapiens (and thus bigger brains), so it does indeed seem like size isn't the biggest factor. Granted, that size difference is much smaller than elephant vs giraffe haha.
- Mikeb85 5y ago
  I mean most anthropologists now believe that Neanderthals were at least as intelligent as homo sapiens, and most of us do have some Neanderthal genes...
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    But not any related to intelligence? Its got do to with depression, addiction, stuff like that? You'd think we'd have their 'brain genes' if they were any better.
    - actuator 5y ago
      Why is depression not related to intelligence?
    - tsimionescu 5y ago
      Given that we know next to nothing about intelligence at this level, no one can say that some gene doesn't have any effect on intelligence, especially if it has any kind of effect on the brain.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      “Intelligence” isn’t synonymous with “evolutionary fitness.” There are plenty of reasons why the genes of a more intelligent species might have had less reproductive success than the genes of a less intelligent species.
      - kdmoyers 5y ago
        Indeed, I think Steven Jay Gould said that the jury is still out on whether intelligence has proved a successful trait for humans, given that we have been around for barely eye blink on evolutionary time scales.
    - Baeocystin 5y ago
      IIRC, the vast majority of Neanderthal genes that have persisted in to Modern human populations relate to immune system function, but I haven't read anything about depression or addiction-related genes being in that set. Is this a new discovery, or have I just missed it?
      - caddemon 5y ago
        Many, many genes can contribute in some (usually very small) way to depression/addiction/other psychiatric disorders, and a single gene can contribute risk to a variety of disorders. So it's not as clear cut of a thing to identify as whether a gene is involved in the immune system. In fact immune system genes have come up towards the top of genome wide association studies for conditions like Schizophrenia. So it doesn't even have a clean relationship with "genes expressed in the brain". All that is just to say that there is evidence that some Neanderthal mutations are linked to depression risk, but I wouldn't go so far as to characterize any of the involved genes as depression-related. Maybe that's just semantics though. More specifically here is a relevant snippet from a study summary [1]: "These analyses supported links to traits such as mood disorders, depression, obesity and different types of keratosis. The most significant associations were for mood disorders and depression, for which Neanderthal SNPs can explain up to ~1% of the risk." IIRC there was also a (less strong) association with nicotine addiction. Not sure about addiction more generally. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.26 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.26
        Baeocystin 5y ago
        Thank you!
- krisoft 5y ago
  I see that your unstated but implied stance is that Neanderthals were less inteligent than homo sapiens. Do we know that? How do we know that?
  - JoeAltmaier 5y ago
    By their art, their technology, the environments they could live in, their slow rate of adaptation to change. On and on.
    - crazygringo 5y ago
      But isn't all that essentially cultural knowledge? If you compare the art and technology of Homo sapiens 50,000 years ago vs 50 years ago... it's clear that 50,000 years ago gives no inkling of Homo sapiens' intelligence. So how could we possibly infer that Neanderthals were less intelligent? How could we possibly separate their intelligence from their state of cultural and technology evolution? Edit: indeed, a quick Google search reveals that the idea that Neanderthals were less intelligent than humans has no real evidence, that it's now considered to be an outdated/discredited view. So wherever you seem to be getting your facts and conclusions from, appears to be wrong.
      - eloff 5y ago
        Not necessarily wrong, but there isn't much evidence either way.
      - darkerside 5y ago
        I've read that Neanderthals were actually more intelligent, but that they were less social than Sapiens. Sapiens ganged up on the more solitary Neanderthals and overwhelmed them through violence or breeding.
    - robbedpeter 5y ago
      There's not a lot of evidence to support that, though there is some. They could have been wiped out by disease, as opposed to any superior intelligence on the part of us sapiens.
- dstick 5y ago
  As the old ice-age saying goes: it’s not the size, but what you do with it ;-)
lancesells 5y ago
I believe octopi have small brains and from and according to research are fairly intelligent creatures. My guess is we've been underestimating the intelligence of most animals.
- LeegleechN 5y ago
  My understanding is that octopus limbs are semi-autonomous, whereas giraffe legs aren't doing any more decision-making than they are for people or cats. Which is not to say that I disagree that most people underestimate animal intelligence.
  - Baeocystin 5y ago
    All cephalopods lack myelination in their neural toolkit. What this means is that signal propagation between neurons is between 10-100x slower than, say, a mammal, and it makes signal integration over distance a hard problem. That evolution has found a way to achieve high relative intelligence against such a strong constraint is endlessly fascinating!
- __s 5y ago
  Same with "bird brain" as an insult, meanwhile corvid's display quite a bit of intelligence
  - jazzyjackson 5y ago
    I’ve always wondered if the corvids notice how bird-brained all the other birds are.
  - the_af 5y ago
    It depends on the bird though, doesn't it? I seem to remember (from one of Konrad Lorenz's books maybe?) that while corvids are extremely smart, some other birds are pretty dumb by human standards... I think some raptors, like eagles and hawks, are very simple-minded. It struck me reading this as a kid because I thought eagles were majestic, how come they aren't also smart? Disclaimer: this may very well be outdated scientific understanding of raptors.
minikites 5y ago
Cephalopods are quite intelligent too, there's plenty of intelligence in non-mammals.
mft_ 5y ago
…and crows are one of the smartest of all, yet have relatively tiny brains.
amelius 5y ago
Reminds me of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344650

by eloff 5y ago

This is surprising, because elephants have huge brains and giraffes have tiny brains. Size isn't everything apparently. I still think there's no question that elephants are more intelligent.

bussierem 5y ago

Neanderthals had bigger craniums than homo sapiens (and thus bigger brains), so it does indeed seem like size isn't the biggest factor. Granted, that size difference is much smaller than elephant vs giraffe haha.

Mikeb85 5y ago
I mean most anthropologists now believe that Neanderthals were at least as intelligent as homo sapiens, and most of us do have some Neanderthal genes...
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  But not any related to intelligence? Its got do to with depression, addiction, stuff like that? You'd think we'd have their 'brain genes' if they were any better.
  - actuator 5y ago
    Why is depression not related to intelligence?
  - tsimionescu 5y ago
    Given that we know next to nothing about intelligence at this level, no one can say that some gene doesn't have any effect on intelligence, especially if it has any kind of effect on the brain.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    “Intelligence” isn’t synonymous with “evolutionary fitness.” There are plenty of reasons why the genes of a more intelligent species might have had less reproductive success than the genes of a less intelligent species.
    - kdmoyers 5y ago
      Indeed, I think Steven Jay Gould said that the jury is still out on whether intelligence has proved a successful trait for humans, given that we have been around for barely eye blink on evolutionary time scales.
  - Baeocystin 5y ago
    IIRC, the vast majority of Neanderthal genes that have persisted in to Modern human populations relate to immune system function, but I haven't read anything about depression or addiction-related genes being in that set. Is this a new discovery, or have I just missed it?
    - caddemon 5y ago
      Many, many genes can contribute in some (usually very small) way to depression/addiction/other psychiatric disorders, and a single gene can contribute risk to a variety of disorders. So it's not as clear cut of a thing to identify as whether a gene is involved in the immune system. In fact immune system genes have come up towards the top of genome wide association studies for conditions like Schizophrenia. So it doesn't even have a clean relationship with "genes expressed in the brain". All that is just to say that there is evidence that some Neanderthal mutations are linked to depression risk, but I wouldn't go so far as to characterize any of the involved genes as depression-related. Maybe that's just semantics though. More specifically here is a relevant snippet from a study summary [1]: "These analyses supported links to traits such as mood disorders, depression, obesity and different types of keratosis. The most significant associations were for mood disorders and depression, for which Neanderthal SNPs can explain up to ~1% of the risk." IIRC there was also a (less strong) association with nicotine addiction. Not sure about addiction more generally. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.26 https://www.nature.com/articles/nrg.2016.26
      - Baeocystin 5y ago
        Thank you!
krisoft 5y ago
I see that your unstated but implied stance is that Neanderthals were less inteligent than homo sapiens. Do we know that? How do we know that?
- JoeAltmaier 5y ago
  By their art, their technology, the environments they could live in, their slow rate of adaptation to change. On and on.
  - crazygringo 5y ago
    But isn't all that essentially cultural knowledge? If you compare the art and technology of Homo sapiens 50,000 years ago vs 50 years ago... it's clear that 50,000 years ago gives no inkling of Homo sapiens' intelligence. So how could we possibly infer that Neanderthals were less intelligent? How could we possibly separate their intelligence from their state of cultural and technology evolution? Edit: indeed, a quick Google search reveals that the idea that Neanderthals were less intelligent than humans has no real evidence, that it's now considered to be an outdated/discredited view. So wherever you seem to be getting your facts and conclusions from, appears to be wrong.
    - eloff 5y ago
      Not necessarily wrong, but there isn't much evidence either way.
    - darkerside 5y ago
      I've read that Neanderthals were actually more intelligent, but that they were less social than Sapiens. Sapiens ganged up on the more solitary Neanderthals and overwhelmed them through violence or breeding.
  - robbedpeter 5y ago
    There's not a lot of evidence to support that, though there is some. They could have been wiped out by disease, as opposed to any superior intelligence on the part of us sapiens.
dstick 5y ago
As the old ice-age saying goes: it’s not the size, but what you do with it ;-)

lancesells 5y ago

I believe octopi have small brains and from and according to research are fairly intelligent creatures. My guess is we've been underestimating the intelligence of most animals.

LeegleechN 5y ago
My understanding is that octopus limbs are semi-autonomous, whereas giraffe legs aren't doing any more decision-making than they are for people or cats. Which is not to say that I disagree that most people underestimate animal intelligence.
- Baeocystin 5y ago
  All cephalopods lack myelination in their neural toolkit. What this means is that signal propagation between neurons is between 10-100x slower than, say, a mammal, and it makes signal integration over distance a hard problem. That evolution has found a way to achieve high relative intelligence against such a strong constraint is endlessly fascinating!
__s 5y ago
Same with "bird brain" as an insult, meanwhile corvid's display quite a bit of intelligence
- jazzyjackson 5y ago
  I’ve always wondered if the corvids notice how bird-brained all the other birds are.
- the_af 5y ago
  It depends on the bird though, doesn't it? I seem to remember (from one of Konrad Lorenz's books maybe?) that while corvids are extremely smart, some other birds are pretty dumb by human standards... I think some raptors, like eagles and hawks, are very simple-minded. It struck me reading this as a kid because I thought eagles were majestic, how come they aren't also smart? Disclaimer: this may very well be outdated scientific understanding of raptors.

minikites 5y ago

Cephalopods are quite intelligent too, there's plenty of intelligence in non-mammals.

mft_ 5y ago

…and crows are one of the smartest of all, yet have relatively tiny brains.

amelius 5y ago

Reminds me of: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344650 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26344650