3 ms·
Yeah, I read “largely compatible” as sort of left-handed or like, not fully the same. And no, I don’t think there’s a noticeable difference in terms of intelli
by lovehashbrowns 2y ago
Yeah, I read “largely compatible” as sort of left-handed or like, not fully the same.
And no, I don’t think there’s a noticeable difference in terms of intelligence between us and someone from 30,000 years ago or even something more extreme like 300,000 years ago. We’re still the same species after all.
I do think you’d be more open to that idea if we had records of their thoughts and ideas. The early humans who came up with epic tales and the explorers who went on grand expeditions to unexplored territories. The people who used an early scientific method to come up with ways to preserve food or figure out what plants were safe to eat. The people who figured out better ways to build clothing for extreme weather. These weren’t dumb people.
- taeric 2y agoI also think you are taking the worst version of my question. I'm not claiming they were dumb. Any more than I think my kids are dumb. But I have seen some of my kids and family where certain mental things "click" far faster than they do for others. To the point that I don't have much trouble claiming some of my family is more intelligent than others. Many of them more so than I am. Many less so, of course. To that general idea, I similarly have zero issue with claiming some dogs are dumber than other dogs. They obviously all fail at what we would call language skills, in they can form a rudimentary problem solving ability just fine. And, I can't remember what thread I said it in, but I do stress this isn't a transitive property. It is a lot like someone can be better at sports than someone else, but worse specifically at a specific sport.