4 ms·

Why did they previously think they where less cognitive?, just because they looked brute?

mc32 3y ago
Maybe we can’t assert things without evidence. So if we lack evidence we can’t say one way or the other… maybe lack of assertion implies brute?
- readthenotes1 3y ago
  What's that phrase? "Oh you sweet summer child" From William King, the discoverer: "I feel myself constrained to believe that the thoughts and desires which once dwelt within it never soared beyond those of a brute," https://www.livescience.com/65003-how-smart-were-neanderthals.html https://www.livescience.com/65003-how-smart-were-neanderthal...
  - mc32 3y ago
    If Neanderthals discovered a human skeleton, what would they have thought? Woe be us for what thoughts and desires dwelt within its brain will suredly our abilities surpass and reach the moon after we are rendered history by its superior intellect?
- Fricken 3y ago
  Domesticated animals tend to be less intelligent than their wild brethren. I'm not convinced that 10k years of agricultural civilization has done anything to make us more intelligent as individuals. Relative to surviving as a hunter gatherer, you really don't have to be that bright to run a farm. Every cognitive asset we can lay claim to was once essential for our survival. If our ancestors were wolves, then we're dogs.
  - suzzer99 3y ago
    But also with farming came specialization, like blacksmithing, being a priest, being a scribe, trade, etc. So at least some of the population was having their brains taxed on a regular basis.
    - Fricken 3y ago
      Tea, and isolating various behavioral traits of wolves we've made various types of dogs. They're all less than a complete wolf.
- otabdeveloper4 3y ago
  The default assumption would be that if they look very similar to modern humans, then they should act very similar too. Anything else is twisting the evidence for a political or religious foregone conclusion.
huytersd 3y ago
The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber.
- karim79 3y ago
  > The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber. I'm no expert, but that does seem to be something of an oversimplification.[0][1] [0] 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.... [1] https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html
- nicklecompte 3y ago
  I would be cautious about brain-body ratios. In all vertebrates, a huge chunk of the brain is dealing with sensory processing and integration, so brain volume : body size doesn't always scale the way you think it would. The bigger problem is I don't think your numbers are right, Neanderthals had notably larger brains than us. Via wikipedia: Average Neanderthal male height: 165cm Average Neanderthal male brain volume: 1600cm^3 Average pre-industrial human male height: 165cm Average pre-industrial human male brain volume: 1260cm^3 The difference is that Neanderthals also had disproportionately larger eyes than us, yet probably similar visual acuity: their brains had more pixels to process, which takes up quite a bit of volume. In fact it's eye size which seems to be the biggest confounding variable in associating brain size with intelligence. Their cerebellum was actually smaller than ours, which is probably more relevant - but who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
  - huytersd 3y ago
    They were bulkier. Bigger, heavier bones and apparently a significantly higher body mass.
bsza 3y ago
Because it's a less extraordinary claim than the contrary. Attributing intelligence to stuff willy-nilly is why we used to think solar eclipses were caused by sun-eating dragons.
- famouswaffles 3y ago
  Is it so extraordinary? Humans bred with Neanderthals. And it wasn't just a few over-curious, it happened frequently enough there are noticeable traces of their DNA in modern humans despite their Millenia long extinction. This means that were having sex with Neanderthals regularly enough that it's unlikely this was an inherently dangerous activity (i.e try boning a chimpanzee for example). Not just that, they gave birth to their children and then raised them fairly regularly. This resulting offspring didn't just die off either, they mated successfully enough with humans. I just don't see that happening with a species that wasn't in our intelligence band.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - wredue 3y ago
    (Try boning a chimpanzee) Dude. This isn’t evolution. Post Neanderthal humans were not far removed from Neanderthal. As far as evolution goes Populations evolve. It’s not like there was Neanderthal and then big bang boom, modern smart human.
    - famouswaffles 3y ago
      Trying to have sex with a wild Champanzee would be a very dangerous activity to engage in. That's the point of that comment. I know how evolution works.
      - suzzer99 3y ago
        Bonobos would probably be into it. They're horny little suckers.
atleastoptimal 3y ago
Because they were bullish on Rockcoin and stick3
- Terr_ 3y ago
  That makes me think of a fun Mitchell and Webb sketch, involving rock professionals and the introduction of bronze. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyu4u3VZYaQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyu4u3VZYaQ
  - atleastoptimal 3y ago
    > SWE's learning their job has been automated by GPT-5 circa 2025 (colorized)
    - Terr_ 3y ago
      On a more-serious note, nah, I really don't feel threatened: LLMs are good at "throw high-probability results together from samples in training data", but not "logically analyze the final result to ensure it is sane", nor "change it to make it sane." So improving LLMs may replace interns (or low-quality outsourcing) where an SWE has to review/fix everything anyway... but it'll take a fundamentally different kind of model to tackle those trickier essential tasks.

mc32 3y ago

Maybe we can’t assert things without evidence. So if we lack evidence we can’t say one way or the other… maybe lack of assertion implies brute?

readthenotes1 3y ago
What's that phrase? "Oh you sweet summer child" From William King, the discoverer: "I feel myself constrained to believe that the thoughts and desires which once dwelt within it never soared beyond those of a brute," https://www.livescience.com/65003-how-smart-were-neanderthals.html https://www.livescience.com/65003-how-smart-were-neanderthal...
- mc32 3y ago
  If Neanderthals discovered a human skeleton, what would they have thought? Woe be us for what thoughts and desires dwelt within its brain will suredly our abilities surpass and reach the moon after we are rendered history by its superior intellect?
Fricken 3y ago
Domesticated animals tend to be less intelligent than their wild brethren. I'm not convinced that 10k years of agricultural civilization has done anything to make us more intelligent as individuals. Relative to surviving as a hunter gatherer, you really don't have to be that bright to run a farm. Every cognitive asset we can lay claim to was once essential for our survival. If our ancestors were wolves, then we're dogs.
- suzzer99 3y ago
  But also with farming came specialization, like blacksmithing, being a priest, being a scribe, trade, etc. So at least some of the population was having their brains taxed on a regular basis.
  - Fricken 3y ago
    Tea, and isolating various behavioral traits of wolves we've made various types of dogs. They're all less than a complete wolf.
otabdeveloper4 3y ago
The default assumption would be that if they look very similar to modern humans, then they should act very similar too. Anything else is twisting the evidence for a political or religious foregone conclusion.

huytersd 3y ago

The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber.

karim79 3y ago
> The have a lower brain to body ratio than Homo sapiens. That metric pretty much holds true across the animal kingdom so they were probably atleast a little bit dumber. I'm no expert, but that does seem to be something of an oversimplification.[0][1] [0] 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.... [1] https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html https://serendipstudio.org/bb/kinser/Int3.html
nicklecompte 3y ago
I would be cautious about brain-body ratios. In all vertebrates, a huge chunk of the brain is dealing with sensory processing and integration, so brain volume : body size doesn't always scale the way you think it would. The bigger problem is I don't think your numbers are right, Neanderthals had notably larger brains than us. Via wikipedia: Average Neanderthal male height: 165cm Average Neanderthal male brain volume: 1600cm^3 Average pre-industrial human male height: 165cm Average pre-industrial human male brain volume: 1260cm^3 The difference is that Neanderthals also had disproportionately larger eyes than us, yet probably similar visual acuity: their brains had more pixels to process, which takes up quite a bit of volume. In fact it's eye size which seems to be the biggest confounding variable in associating brain size with intelligence. Their cerebellum was actually smaller than ours, which is probably more relevant - but who knows? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal
- huytersd 3y ago
  They were bulkier. Bigger, heavier bones and apparently a significantly higher body mass.

bsza 3y ago

Because it's a less extraordinary claim than the contrary. Attributing intelligence to stuff willy-nilly is why we used to think solar eclipses were caused by sun-eating dragons.

famouswaffles 3y ago
Is it so extraordinary? Humans bred with Neanderthals. And it wasn't just a few over-curious, it happened frequently enough there are noticeable traces of their DNA in modern humans despite their Millenia long extinction. This means that were having sex with Neanderthals regularly enough that it's unlikely this was an inherently dangerous activity (i.e try boning a chimpanzee for example). Not just that, they gave birth to their children and then raised them fairly regularly. This resulting offspring didn't just die off either, they mated successfully enough with humans. I just don't see that happening with a species that wasn't in our intelligence band.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- wredue 3y ago
  (Try boning a chimpanzee) Dude. This isn’t evolution. Post Neanderthal humans were not far removed from Neanderthal. As far as evolution goes Populations evolve. It’s not like there was Neanderthal and then big bang boom, modern smart human.
  - famouswaffles 3y ago
    Trying to have sex with a wild Champanzee would be a very dangerous activity to engage in. That's the point of that comment. I know how evolution works.
    - suzzer99 3y ago
      Bonobos would probably be into it. They're horny little suckers.

atleastoptimal 3y ago

Because they were bullish on Rockcoin and stick3

Terr_ 3y ago
That makes me think of a fun Mitchell and Webb sketch, involving rock professionals and the introduction of bronze. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyu4u3VZYaQ https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nyu4u3VZYaQ
- atleastoptimal 3y ago
  > SWE's learning their job has been automated by GPT-5 circa 2025 (colorized)
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    On a more-serious note, nah, I really don't feel threatened: LLMs are good at "throw high-probability results together from samples in training data", but not "logically analyze the final result to ensure it is sane", nor "change it to make it sane." So improving LLMs may replace interns (or low-quality outsourcing) where an SWE has to review/fix everything anyway... but it'll take a fundamentally different kind of model to tackle those trickier essential tasks.