5 ms·

Firstly, this is completely orthogonal. But it's also improper reasoning. If Neanderthal had bigger brains (they did) or had different cognitive abilities, the

by echelon 6mo ago

Firstly, this is completely orthogonal. But it's also improper reasoning. If Neanderthal had bigger brains (they did) or had different cognitive abilities, there's a chance they were baseline smarter than homo sapiens at the time. Being perhaps a little smarter doesn't mean you win the evolutionary game. There are so many factors at play.

dismalaf 6mo ago
> Being perhaps a little smarter doesn't mean you win the evolutionary game. There are so many factors at play. Considering most human groups have a % of Neanderthal DNA, they didn't exactly lose... Based on the % of Neanderthal vs. Sapien DNA, it seems Neanderthals were simply outnumbered.
- hrimfaxi 6mo ago
  What does it mean to lose evolutionarily if not be outnumbered?
  - tsunamifury 6mo ago
    Ants won over humans? Worms?
    - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
      When you are in direct competition? I should have said outcompeted, which in this case I think outnumbered is a fair proxy.
  - dismalaf 6mo ago
    Are numbers everything? Are sardines more evolved than whales? Anyhow, the traditional view is that Neanderthals were brutes who were actually out-competed and killed off by Sapiens. The more realistic view considering the evidence is that Neanderthals were much closer to Sapiens, equally or even more sophisticated, but less numerous, and thus their contribution to our DNA is smaller than Sapiens. But do keep in mind the Neanderthals live on because Europeans and Asians are all part Neanderthal.
    - junofan 6mo ago
      I think especially given TFA and our inferred history with them that they were terrifying apex predators who occasionally raped human women. I don’t much believe the friendly smiling museum depictions that have lately become fashionable. Their eyes alone would have made them something you didn’t want to run into at night.
      - dismalaf 6mo ago
        > TFA and our inferred history with them that they were terrifying apex predators All humans are. Neanderthals, Sapiens, modern humans, we are all apex predators. > occasionally raped human women The article doesn't suggest that. While it's plausible, there's also evidence of Sapien/Neanderthal cooperation and mingling: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260412071005.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260412071005.h... And lets not forget that all hominins fight amongst themselves, rape each other, etc... The assumption that Neanderthals were particularly brutish is just that, an assumption.
        card_zero 6mo ago
        There is however a suggestion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding > According to Svante Pääbo, it is not clear that modern humans were socially dominant over Neanderthals, which may explain why the interbreeding occurred primarily between Neanderthal males and modern human females. Unless read as suggesting "Neanderthal males were hugely charismatic"?
        pegasus 6mo ago
        ...or "Neanderthal males were huge, thus charismatic" :)
        dismalaf 6mo ago
        In current-day interracial dating dynamics there are preferred race and gender combos and this is shown through lots of statistics. The answer isn't necessarily rape...
card_zero 6mo ago
Hmm, more smarter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Cranial_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Cranial_capacity Not the lady Neanderthals: > average Neanderthal cranial capacity for females was 1300 cm3 and 1600 cm3 for males. [Modern humans, 1473 cm3.] Nor the dude Neanderthals, since they were using the swollen brainparts for vision and coordination: > Neanderthals had larger eyes and bodies relative to their height [...] when these areas were adjusted to match anatomically modern human proportions it was found Neanderthals had brains 15-22% smaller than in anatomically-modern humans. Edit since I don't even agree with the concept: even if the extra capacity was differently distributed such that they had more ... powerful? ... executive functions, what's smartness? More imagination, OK, more self-restraint, more planning. More navel-gazing, more doubt, more ennui. Or it could be more communication, often proposed as what gave sapiens the edge. Chattering bipeds. It's an association between the brain doing something and the species proliferating, that's what we're calling smart, but doing what? It could just mean our ancestors were compulsively busy. Same thing as smart, perhaps.
- otherme123 6mo ago
  We will never get that the cranial volume is not the same as inteligence/brain function, or whatever you might call it. Reminder that Einstein brain was smaller than average, and female brain are smaller than male. Phrenology will haunt us forever, in one form or another. Most likely, some Neanderthals were asimilated into modern humans, most were exterminated in tribal clashes. Reminder also that our almighty specie was almost wiped out from history around 800,000 years ago (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487), being the most intelligent organism ever existed.
geysersam 6mo ago
I don't think that matches archeological findings. From what I understand the reason neanderthals are understood to have been less intelligent than sapiens is because neanderthal tools found are cruder than sapien tools from around the same periods and areas.
dyauspitr 6mo ago
But all their tools are rudimentary, their rituals infrequent compared to sapiens.
- wazoox 6mo ago
  The minuscule sample of tools we have are more primitive, but we don't have any examples of their wooden tools, nor any trace of most of their activities, languages, rites, etc. They could have invented animal husbandry and wool spinning and build awesome wooden cities and we have no way to know because everything would have disappeared without a trace, crushed by glaciers of later ages. We know almost nothing of them.

by echelon 6mo ago

dismalaf 6mo ago

> Being perhaps a little smarter doesn't mean you win the evolutionary game. There are so many factors at play. Considering most human groups have a % of Neanderthal DNA, they didn't exactly lose... Based on the % of Neanderthal vs. Sapien DNA, it seems Neanderthals were simply outnumbered.

hrimfaxi 6mo ago
What does it mean to lose evolutionarily if not be outnumbered?
- tsunamifury 6mo ago
  Ants won over humans? Worms?
  - hrimfaxi 6mo ago
    When you are in direct competition? I should have said outcompeted, which in this case I think outnumbered is a fair proxy.
- dismalaf 6mo ago
  Are numbers everything? Are sardines more evolved than whales? Anyhow, the traditional view is that Neanderthals were brutes who were actually out-competed and killed off by Sapiens. The more realistic view considering the evidence is that Neanderthals were much closer to Sapiens, equally or even more sophisticated, but less numerous, and thus their contribution to our DNA is smaller than Sapiens. But do keep in mind the Neanderthals live on because Europeans and Asians are all part Neanderthal.
  - junofan 6mo ago
    I think especially given TFA and our inferred history with them that they were terrifying apex predators who occasionally raped human women. I don’t much believe the friendly smiling museum depictions that have lately become fashionable. Their eyes alone would have made them something you didn’t want to run into at night.
    - dismalaf 6mo ago
      > TFA and our inferred history with them that they were terrifying apex predators All humans are. Neanderthals, Sapiens, modern humans, we are all apex predators. > occasionally raped human women The article doesn't suggest that. While it's plausible, there's also evidence of Sapien/Neanderthal cooperation and mingling: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260412071005.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2026/04/260412071005.h... And lets not forget that all hominins fight amongst themselves, rape each other, etc... The assumption that Neanderthals were particularly brutish is just that, an assumption.
      - card_zero 6mo ago
        There is however a suggestion here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal#Interbreeding > According to Svante Pääbo, it is not clear that modern humans were socially dominant over Neanderthals, which may explain why the interbreeding occurred primarily between Neanderthal males and modern human females. Unless read as suggesting "Neanderthal males were hugely charismatic"?
        pegasus 6mo ago
        ...or "Neanderthal males were huge, thus charismatic" :)
        dismalaf 6mo ago
        In current-day interracial dating dynamics there are preferred race and gender combos and this is shown through lots of statistics. The answer isn't necessarily rape...

card_zero 6mo ago

Hmm, more smarter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Cranial_capacity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_size#Cranial_capacity Not the lady Neanderthals: > average Neanderthal cranial capacity for females was 1300 cm3 and 1600 cm3 for males. [Modern humans, 1473 cm3.] Nor the dude Neanderthals, since they were using the swollen brainparts for vision and coordination: > Neanderthals had larger eyes and bodies relative to their height [...] when these areas were adjusted to match anatomically modern human proportions it was found Neanderthals had brains 15-22% smaller than in anatomically-modern humans. Edit since I don't even agree with the concept: even if the extra capacity was differently distributed such that they had more ... powerful? ... executive functions, what's smartness? More imagination, OK, more self-restraint, more planning. More navel-gazing, more doubt, more ennui. Or it could be more communication, often proposed as what gave sapiens the edge. Chattering bipeds. It's an association between the brain doing something and the species proliferating, that's what we're calling smart, but doing what? It could just mean our ancestors were compulsively busy. Same thing as smart, perhaps.

otherme123 6mo ago
We will never get that the cranial volume is not the same as inteligence/brain function, or whatever you might call it. Reminder that Einstein brain was smaller than average, and female brain are smaller than male. Phrenology will haunt us forever, in one form or another. Most likely, some Neanderthals were asimilated into modern humans, most were exterminated in tribal clashes. Reminder also that our almighty specie was almost wiped out from history around 800,000 years ago (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abq7487), being the most intelligent organism ever existed.

geysersam 6mo ago

I don't think that matches archeological findings. From what I understand the reason neanderthals are understood to have been less intelligent than sapiens is because neanderthal tools found are cruder than sapien tools from around the same periods and areas.

dyauspitr 6mo ago

But all their tools are rudimentary, their rituals infrequent compared to sapiens.

wazoox 6mo ago
The minuscule sample of tools we have are more primitive, but we don't have any examples of their wooden tools, nor any trace of most of their activities, languages, rites, etc. They could have invented animal husbandry and wool spinning and build awesome wooden cities and we have no way to know because everything would have disappeared without a trace, crushed by glaciers of later ages. We know almost nothing of them.