I think one of the strongest arguments for humans being the smartest animals is that the social environment that language and human culture created lead to a massive increase in returns to intelligence, and I think there’s some evidence from what we know about evolution that the human neocortex ballooned around the same time that we’re theorized to have developed language and culture.
The increase in human brain size seems more due to increased ability to get enough calories to fuel it than it does to the benefits of intelligence. See Suzana Herculano-Houzel’s book The Human Advantage for evidence.
Basic question: how can this be a sufficient explanation? There needs to be *some* advantage to having the bigger brain, it being “cheap” isn’t a good enough explanation...
OK I understand. JTBC, my original statement was: ” language and human culture created lead to a massive increase in returns to intelligence”, not that larger brains (/greater intelligence) suddenly became valuable.
I second this recommendation. Not just for this reason—it clears up a lot of foggy definitions and longstanding misapprehensions about comparative neuroscience in a wonderfully neat, tidy package.
Your take is contrarian as I suspect you will admit. There is quite a bit of empirical evidence, and if it turned out that humans were not the most intelligent it would be very surprising. There is probably just enough uncertainty that it’s still within the realm of possibility, but only by a small margin.
If there’s good empirical evidence I suspect that it will be easy to show me. I pointed out in the post what type of empirical evidence I would find most compelling (cognitive tests). I am still reading comments, but so far people have only given me theoretical reasons.
Sorry, I could have been clearer. The empirical evidence I was referring to was the existence of human civilization, which should inform priors about the likelihood of other animals being as intelligent.
I think you are referring to a particular type of “scientific evidence” which is a subset of empirical evidence. It’s reasonable to ask for that kind of proof, but sometimes it isn’t available. I am reminded of Eliezer’s classic post You’re Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof.
To be honest, I think the answer is that there is just no truth to this matter. David Chapman might say that “most intelligent” is nebulous, so while there can be some structure, there is no definite answer as to what constitutes “most intelligent.” Even when you try to break down the concept further, to “raw innovative capacity” I think you face the same inherent nebulosity.
TBC: I’m alluding to others’ scholarly arguments, which I’m not very familiar with. I’m not sure to what extent these arguments have empirical vs. theoretical basis.
I think one of the strongest arguments for humans being the smartest animals is that the social environment that language and human culture created lead to a massive increase in returns to intelligence, and I think there’s some evidence from what we know about evolution that the human neocortex ballooned around the same time that we’re theorized to have developed language and culture.
The increase in human brain size seems more due to increased ability to get enough calories to fuel it than it does to the benefits of intelligence. See Suzana Herculano-Houzel’s book The Human Advantage for evidence.
Basic question: how can this be a sufficient explanation? There needs to be *some* advantage to having the bigger brain, it being “cheap” isn’t a good enough explanation...
My point is that the advantage to bigger brains existed long before humans.
This paper suggests that larger brains enable a more diverse diet.
OK I understand. JTBC, my original statement was: ” language and human culture created lead to a massive increase in returns to intelligence”, not that larger brains (/greater intelligence) suddenly became valuable.
I second this recommendation. Not just for this reason—it clears up a lot of foggy definitions and longstanding misapprehensions about comparative neuroscience in a wonderfully neat, tidy package.
That’s a good theoretical argument, but I want to see good empirical evidence too.
Your take is contrarian as I suspect you will admit. There is quite a bit of empirical evidence, and if it turned out that humans were not the most intelligent it would be very surprising. There is probably just enough uncertainty that it’s still within the realm of possibility, but only by a small margin.
If there’s good empirical evidence I suspect that it will be easy to show me. I pointed out in the post what type of empirical evidence I would find most compelling (cognitive tests). I am still reading comments, but so far people have only given me theoretical reasons.
Sorry, I could have been clearer. The empirical evidence I was referring to was the existence of human civilization, which should inform priors about the likelihood of other animals being as intelligent.
I think you are referring to a particular type of “scientific evidence” which is a subset of empirical evidence. It’s reasonable to ask for that kind of proof, but sometimes it isn’t available. I am reminded of Eliezer’s classic post You’re Entitled to Arguments, But Not (That Particular) Proof.
To be honest, I think the answer is that there is just no truth to this matter. David Chapman might say that “most intelligent” is nebulous, so while there can be some structure, there is no definite answer as to what constitutes “most intelligent.” Even when you try to break down the concept further, to “raw innovative capacity” I think you face the same inherent nebulosity.
TBC: I’m alluding to others’ scholarly arguments, which I’m not very familiar with. I’m not sure to what extent these arguments have empirical vs. theoretical basis.