4 ms·
Lots of papers reaching for that conclusion, but put it all together and it would take giving every benefit of the doubt to a dozen sites to believe it. In oth
by JoeAltmaier 3y ago
Lots of papers reaching for that conclusion, but put it all together and it would take giving every benefit of the doubt to a dozen sites to believe it.
In other words, maybe they were high-functioning, it's just possible. But I wouldn't bet on it.
- EnigmaFlare 3y agoNot only sites but more Neanderthal DNA also corresponds roughly with higher IQ in modern human populations. It's still very weak evidence though.
- jgilias 3y agoMight as well be that the cause and effect is reversed here. Such as, populations that were in contact with the Neanderthals had to become smarter to outcompete them.
- enasterosophes 3y agoSo you think the odds are against it? I think that seems like a strong take, but I'm not an expert in the field. In as much as I can see why "no significant intelligence" is the null hypothesis, I'd still be inclined to word doubts more cautiously. There is a difference between "we don't have strong enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis" and "I think the null hypothesis is more probable."
- xetplan 3y agoEven if they were in the ball park intelligence wise, humans are absolutely ruthless animals. Personally, I don't think there is all that much mystery what happened. Animals seem to have this habit of vanishing when humans move in.