I was listening to Quirks & Quarks on CBC radio in my car a few months ago and they were discussing the incredible intelligence of octopuses. As my old chemistry teacher would say, they can adapt: take whatever situation they’re in and turn it around to their advantage. For example:
In 2016, an octopus named Inky made a daring escape from the national aquarium in New Zealand. The eight-armed Houdini squeezed through a tiny gap a maintenance worker left at the top of its tank.
Inky slithered across the floor and made his escape down a drain pipe that exits into the ocean.
Source: a CBC web page
The guest, Piero Amodio, was explaining that their high intelligence was surprising because as commenter Melo has noted, intelligence is often selected in social animals and octopuses are very solitary. Also, as r/K theory would predict, bigger brains are more common in long-lived species and octopuses have short lives.
But because intelligence is arguably the ultimate evolutionary adaptation, it seems to have evolved even under very different selection pressures from other intelligent animals like primates and crows.
One possibility suggested by Amodio is that octopuses needed to be smart because they didn’t have a shell to protect them from predators. If commenter RR were conducting the interview, he would immediately complain that that’s a just-so story as he does for all attempts to explain how intelligence evolved.
However Amodio plans to test the hypothesis by seeing if there’s a correlation between cephalopod brain size and the number and variety of predators in their environment. If a positive correlation is found, the hypothesis made a meaningful prediction and is not a mere just-so story. That wouldn’t satisfy RR, but it would satisfy the scientific community.
A lot of us tend to think of intelligence as a property of the brain but commenter Melo has argued it’s a function of the entire nervous system. I suspect Amodio would agree with Melo because an octopus can move its arms without getting signals from its brain, or one could even argue most of its brain is in its arms. Amodio states:
Two thirds of their neuron cells, they are not located in the brains, but they are located in their arms. In octopus, there is a big level of independence of movement for the arms. It’s something completely different from our way of thinking about brains and of course about apes and crows…
You can listen to the brief interview here.
Pumpkin Person 
Octupuses are people too. End the discrimination.
What is ”people”*
“One possibility suggested by Amodio is that octopuses needed to be smart because they didn’t have a shell to protect them from predators. If commenter RR were conducting the interview, he would immediately complain that that’s a just-so story as he does for all attempts to explain how intelligence evolved.
However Amodio plans to test the hypothesis by seeing if there’s a correlation between cephalopod brain size and the number and variety of predators in their environment. If a positive correlation is found, the hypothesis made a meaningful prediction and is not a mere just-so story. That wouldn’t satisfy RR, but it would satisfy the scientific community.”
That’s the definition of a just-so story (ad hoc hypothesis). I don’t see how “a correlation between cephalopod brain size and the number and variety of predators in their environment” would raise the probability of the hypothesis (“octopuses needed to be smart because they didn’t have a shell to protect them from predators”) being true. You need evidence that the trait in question increased fitness in the octopuses OEE. If you lack said evidence, then you’re telling just-so stories.
The hypothesis is ad hoc because the conclusion is known in advance (octopuses are more “intelligent” than other sea creatures) and so, the flawed reverse engineering method is used. Nevermind the fact that current adaptiveness isn’t evidence that trait X is an adaptation nor that trait X was selected-for. A trait can be adaptive without being an adaption; a trait can also be an adaptation without being adaptive.
So to recap: Even if “there’s a correlation between cephalopod brain size and the number and variety of predators in their environment”, that wouldn’t raise the probability of the hypothesis being true since current adaptiveness isn’t evidence for the claim that it increased fitness in the OEE. Traits can be adaptive without being an adaptation and traits can be an adaptation without being adaptive, so appealing to current adaptiveness of trait X is useless, too.
The hypothesis is ad hoc because the conclusion is known in advance (octopuses are more “intelligent” than other sea creatures) and so, the flawed reverse engineering method is used. Nevermind the fact that current adaptiveness isn’t evidence that trait X is an adaptation nor that trait X was selected-for. A trait can be adaptive without being an adaption; a trait can also be an adaptation without being adaptive.
It’s already established that octopuses are relatively intelligent, the question is why? His hypothesis is they had more predators. If true, we should expect a positive correlation between cephalopod brain size and number and variety of predators. This is not known in advance because the data has not been collected yet. If the correlation turns out to be statistically insignificant or negative, then you’re right it was ad hoc. But if the correlation turns out to be positive, then it explains a larger pattern than just octopuses, which is the opposite of ad hoc.
Nevermind the fact that current adaptiveness isn’t evidence that trait X is an adaptation nor that trait X was selected-for.
why would there be a positive correlation between cephalopod brain size and number/variety of predators if it wasn’t selected for? If such a correlation is found, as his hypothesis predicts, the onus shifts to skeptics to explain it without invoking adaptionist theories. His theory would have made a prediction, placing the burden on you to do the same.
A trait can be adaptive without being an adaption; a trait can also be an adaptation without being adaptive.
That’s very true, but if cephalopods have bigger brains in the very environments where it’s most adaptive (more predators), how would such a predicted correlation occur without it being an adaptation to said environments? If his predicted correlation proves true, the onus is on skeptics to explain the correlation while making a new prediction.
“It’s already established that octopuses are relatively intelligent”
I’m saying the conclusion is known in advance, so they attempt to reverse engineer scenarios to explain the conclusion they already have (that octopuses are more intelligent).
“then you’re right it was ad hoc. But if the correlation turns out to be positive, then it explains a larger pattern than just octopuses, which is the opposite of ad hoc.”
How would that be evidence for the hypothesis thst trait X went to fixation in the OEE of octopuses? How is any modern day study on the ecology of any animal any evidence whatsoever for any adaptation hypothesis?
” why would there be a positive correlation between cephalopod brain size and number/variety of predators if it wasn’t selected for?”
What do you mean by “selected for”?
“such a correlation is found, as his hypothesis predicts, the onus shifts to skeptics to explain it without invoking adaptionist theories. His theory would have made a prediction, placing the burden on you to do the same.”
Nope. Due to what I explained about traits being adaptive but not adaptations and adaptations but not adaptive.
“That’s very true, but if cephalopods have bigger brains in the very environments where it’s most adaptive (more predators), how would such a predicted correlation occur without it being an adaptation to said environments? If his predicted correlation proves true, the onus is on skeptics to explain the correlation while making a new prediction.”
Of course it’s true. Again: evidence for current adaptiveness is not evidence that a trait moved to fixation in virtue of its contribution to reproductive success in the octopuses OEE.
I’m saying the conclusion is known in advance, so they attempt to reverse engineer scenarios to explain the conclusion they already have (that octopuses are more intelligent).
They know in advance that octopuses are intelligent, but they don’t know in advance if there’s a positive correlation between cephalopod brain size and number/variety of predators in the environment. If no such correlation is found, the predator explanation is debunked.
How would that be evidence for the hypothesis thst trait X went to fixation in the OEE of octopuses? How is any modern day study on the ecology of any animal any evidence whatsoever for any adaptation hypothesis?
If the modern environment doesn’t reflect their ancestral environments, then no correlation should be found between the modern environment and traits that evolved in the past. Similarly, if today’s arctic animals didn’t live in the snow thousands of years ago, there wouldn’t be a correlation between white looking fur (camouflage) and living in the snow today.
What do you mean by “selected for”?
big brained genotypes became more common in high predator environments.
“such a correlation is found, as his hypothesis predicts, the onus shifts to skeptics to explain it without invoking adaptionist theories. His theory would have made a prediction, placing the burden on you to do the same.”
Nope. Due to what I explained about traits being adaptive but not adaptations and adaptations but not adaptive.
but for a trait to be more common in the very environments it’s adaptive, means that trait is an adaptation to those environments, because octopuses lack the phenotypic plasticity to change their brain size in one generation, so the only explanation is evolution.
Again: evidence for current adaptiveness is not evidence that a trait moved to fixation in virtue of its contribution to reproductive success in the octopuses OEE.
Obviously a trait can become adaptive in a particular environment by chance without any selection pressures, but when you see the same trait (brain size) consistently being larger in the same environments (high predator) across an entire class of animals (cephalopods), then it’s obviously an adaptation, because why else would that particular environment predict that particular trait? Why would arctic animals tend to look white unless whiteness was an evolved adaptation to the snow?
“They know in advance that octopuses are intelligent”
Right, then my reverse engineering critique comes into play.
“but they don’t know in advance if there’s a positive correlation between cephalopod brain size and number/variety of predators in the environment. If no such correlation is found, the predator explanation is debunked.”
If no such correlation is found, surely the researcher would try to rescue his hypothesis. Nevermind the fact that adaptationism itself is never tested.
“If the modern environment doesn’t reflect their ancestral environments, then no correlation should be found between the modern environment and traits that evolved in the past.”
This is dumb. My critique above holds.
“Similarly, if today’s arctic animals didn’t live in the snow thousands of years ago, there wouldn’t be a correlation between white looking fur (camouflage) and living in the snow today.”
A physical vs. intentional state? Really?
“big brained genotypes became more common in high predator environments.”
How do you know that brain complexity wasn’t “selected-for”?
“so the only explanation is evolution.”
You mean “the only explanation is evolution [by natural selection].” How do you know that selection acted on what you believe it to have acted on and not another, correlated trait? In any case, “natural selection” does not explain “octopus intelligence.”
“Obviously a trait can become adaptive in a particular environment by chance without any selection pressures, but when you see the same trait (brain size) consistently being larger in the same environments (high predator) across an entire class of animals (cephalopods), then it’s obviously an adaptation, because why else would that particular environment predict that particular trait? Why would arctic animals tend to look white unless whiteness was an evolved adaptation to the snow?”
Were polar bears selected-for matching their environments or their color?
There are no “obvious” adaptations; all adaptationist “explanations” are inherently ad-hoc—they’re just-so stories.
Right, then my reverse engineering critique comes into play.
Any hypothesized caused of a known effect is “reverse engineering” by that standard. What’s your point RR?
“but they don’t know in advance if there’s a positive correlation between cephalopod brain size and number/variety of predators in the environment. If no such correlation is found, the predator explanation is debunked.”
If no such correlation is found, surely the researcher would try to rescue his hypothesis.
You could say that about any hypothesis in any field. People always try to rescue their theories. Should we therefore throw out the whole scientific method just because some people are in denial about being wrong?
Nevermind the fact that adaptationism itself is never tested.
The correlation between high predator environments and brain size tests the hypothesis that brain size was an adaptation to more predators. If skeptics have a non-adaptionist explanation for said correlation, the onus is on them to state it and make predictions that can differentiate it from the adaptionist model.
“If the modern environment doesn’t reflect their ancestral environments, then no correlation should be found between the modern environment and traits that evolved in the past.”
This is dumb. My critique above holds.
No, what’s dumb is you denying long-term environmental stability in cases where current environment predicts anciently evolved traits. If animals that live in colder environments have traits that help them survive the cold, and if those traits took thousands of years to evolve, then likely it was cold for thousands of years. Duh!
“big brained genotypes became more common in high predator environments.”
How do you know that brain complexity wasn’t “selected-for”?
you could test for that too.
How do you know that selection acted on what you believe it to have acted on and not another, correlated trait?
Because we are never called upon to prove a negative. This is a basic rule of logic. You might as well ask how I know they weren’t genetically engineered by aliens? RR, don’t be absurd.
There are no “obvious” adaptations; all adaptationist “explanations” are inherently ad-hoc—they’re just-so stories.
How many times do I have to explain to you what “ad hoc” means? It means picking a particular explanation for a particular case. But if there’s a correlation between brain size and high predator environments across cephalopods in general, then it’s no longer ad hoc, because it’s part of broader pattern. Get it?
“Any hypothesized cause”
Do you not see the problem with reverse engineering?
“You could say that about any hypothesis”
When one adaptionist hypothesis is disproved, the researcher just proposed a new hypothesis for trait X. It’s never proposed that trait X is not an adaptation. The idea of adaptationism is never tested.
What is the “scientific method”?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-method/#SciMetSciEduSeeSci
I don’t see how, if there is a correlation, that would raise the probability of the hypothesis being true.
“current environment predicts ancestrally evolved traits”
I’ve already addressed this. Evidence for trait X being currently adaptive in environment E is not evidence that trait X was selected-for in virtue of its contribution to reproductive success in its ancestral environment.
“you could test for that too”
Selection theory can’t distinguish. Which is the point and why I asked you why you said “selection for.”
“a basic rule of logic”
All traits are coextensive with an infinitude of traits. When two traits are correlated, how can selection theory distinguish between the fitness-enhancing trait and the free-rider?
“How many times do I have to explain to you what “ad hoc” means?
Just-so stories are what’s also called “ad hoc fallacies.”
Do you not see the problem with reverse engineering?
I see the problem with post-hoc sophistry, that’s why a good theory explains not only what we already know, but predicts what we will discover.
When one adaptionist hypothesis is disproved, the researcher just proposed a new hypothesis for trait X. It’s never proposed that trait X is not an adaptation. The idea of adaptationism is never tested.
There’s nothing stopping non-adaptionists from proposing their own theories to explain the evolution of trait X. A theory is never proven. It’s simply judged to be the best explanation we have so far until a better explanation comes along. You can trash adaptionist theories all you want, but until you replace them with better theories, they’ll continue to dominate.
I don’t see how, if there is a correlation, that would raise the probability of the hypothesis being true.
Because if X causes Y, we’d expect Y to increase as a function of X. If weight lifting causes muscle mass, we’d expect there to be a correlation between how often people lift and how big their muscles are. If no such correlation were found, we’d question the point of weight lifting. Similarly if predators select for intelligence in cephalopods, we’d expect a correlation between number of predators and brain size (a proxy for intelligence).
“current environment predicts ancestrally evolved traits”
I’ve already addressed this. Evidence for trait X being currently adaptive in environment E is not evidence that trait X was selected-for in virtue of its contribution to reproductive success in its ancestral environment.
The point is not whether X is currently adaptive in environments E, the point is whether X is correlated with environments E. Why would values of X be higher in environments E unless E had selected for X (or something correlated with X) in the past, regardless of whether X is currently adaptive?
“you could test for that too”
Selection theory can’t distinguish. Which is the point and why I asked you why you said “selection for.”
The theory is that predators selected for intelligence and they’re using brain size as a proxy for intelligence.
All traits are coextensive with an infinitude of traits. When two traits are correlated, how can selection theory distinguish between the fitness-enhancing trait and the free-rider?
Distinguish it from which free-rider? The theory is that intelligence is the fitness-enhancing trait and a prediction consistent with that theory has been made. If skeptics think intelligence is just a free-rider and the actual fitness-enhancing trait is X, then the onus is on them to say what X is & if they make a good argument, then future predictions can be made that would tease apart the two variables.
But you don’t dismiss a theory from the outset simply because there are other possibilities, otherwise every theory in the history of science is dismissed.
“I see the problem with post-hoc sophistry, that’s why a good theory explains not only what we already know, but predicts what we will discover.”
There’s a difference between hypotheses that make testable predictions (scientific hypotheses) and one’s that explain the data they purport to explain and only the data they purport to explain (just-so stories, non-scientific since they make no testable predictions).
“There’s nothing stopping non-adaptionists from proposing their own theories to explain the evolution of trait X”
Non-adaptationists don’t need to; all non-adaptationists need to do is show that the story is ad-hoc.
“It’s simply judged to be the best explanation we have so far until a better explanation comes along”
IBE (inference to best explanation) is not sufficient either. That a hypothesis is “‘fruitful” or “coherent” or “parsimonious” is irrelevant; they have been selected to be “fruitful” and “coherent” and “parsimonious.” Just-so stories are always consistent with the observations because they are selected to be so.
“but until you replace them with better theories, they’ll continue to dominate.”
Anti-adaptationists do not need to “replace them with better theories.” One does not need to “replace” adaptation hypotheses; one does not need to propose something “better” to be justified in rejecting just-so stories.
“Similarly if predators select for intelligence”
How can they do that?
“The point is not whether X is currently adaptive in environments E, the point is whether X is correlated with environments E. Why would values of X be higher in environments E unless E had selected for X (or something correlated with X) in the past, regardless of whether X is currently adaptive?”
That trait X is currently adaptive in environment E licenses the inference to storytellers that trait X was useful in the OEE and it gave a fitness increase which helped reproductive success in the OEE.
“The theory is that predators selected for intelligence”
How do they do that?
“The theory is that intelligence is the fitness-enhancing trait and a prediction consistent with that theory has been made. If skeptics think intelligence is just a free-rider and the actual fitness-enhancing trait is X, then the onus is on them to say what X is & if they make a good argument, then future predictions can be made that would tease apart the two variables.”
No. The onus is on the adaptationist to prove that trait X was selected for and not trait Y; but if they are correlated then selection theory cannot distinguish between them. X is selected and so is Y; Y is selected and so is X. NS cannot distinguish between coextensive traits because there is no mind (agent) to appeal to counterfactuals and there are no laws of selection for trait fixation.
There’s a difference between hypotheses that make testable predictions (scientific hypotheses) and one’s that explain the data they purport to explain and only the data they purport to explain (just-so stories, non-scientific since they make no testable predictions).
And the octopus hypothesis is the former since it’s making a testable prediction.
“There’s nothing stopping non-adaptionists from proposing their own theories to explain the evolution of trait X”
Non-adaptationists don’t need to; all non-adaptationists need to do is show that the story is ad-hoc.
I’ve already replied to the ad-hoc criticism in this discussion and several others. You need to adapt your arguments to rebuttals instead of just repeating them unchanged.
IBE (inference to best explanation) is not sufficient either. That a hypothesis is “‘fruitful” or “coherent” or “parsimonious” is irrelevant; they have been selected to be “fruitful” and “coherent” and “parsimonious.” Just-so stories are always consistent with the observations because they are selected to be so.
Parsimony is not fully sufficient but it’s a damn good start. It’s not easy to find a theory that explains many of the known facts. Finding one that explains unknown facts (makes predictions) is even harder, and that’s what the octopus theory seeks to do.
“Similarly if predators select for intelligence”
How can they do that?
By eating everyone too dumb to hide from them, leaving only the more intelligent as survivors each generation.
“The point is not whether X is currently adaptive in environments E, the point is whether X is correlated with environments E. Why would values of X be higher in environments E unless E had selected for X (or something correlated with X) in the past, regardless of whether X is currently adaptive?”
That trait X is currently adaptive in environment E licenses the inference to storytellers that trait X was useful in the OEE and it gave a fitness increase which helped reproductive success in the OEE.
But in this particular case, we’re discussing a trait that evolved in the distant past. If an anciently evolved trait is more common in certain kinds of environments, then obviously something ancient about those environments must have caused (directly or indirectly) that trait to evolve. What other mechanism is there for the correlation? This is the key point that you keep ignoring because you have no response to it.
No. The onus is on the adaptationist to prove that trait X was selected for and not trait Y
How can they do that when you can’t state what Y is? Unless you’re willing to be specific, your criticism is entirely open-ended and thus not scientific. Essentially your argument is “how do you know some other factor wasn’t the cause?” That kind of vague speculation can debunk virtually every theory ever. That which debunks everything, debunks nothing.
”A trait can be adaptive without being an adaption; a trait can also be an adaptation without being adaptive.”
It’s sound impossible.
Examples [always] required.
A trait which is non-adaptive in given species can turn out very adaptive in another. A trait which is not adaptive on monkeys can turn out adaptive on us.
”I can be nervous wthout being in bad moodness”
It’s sound impossible
No it’s very true. It’s actually the most intelligent thing he’s ever said.
Intelligence is an adaptation that is no longer genetically adaptive in (First World) humans.
Intelligence is not just do IQ tests, there are thousand ways to be smart.
Highly intelligent people on avg, live better than most people, govern us [sadly because they tend not to be wise but opportunistic], reinvent the world [not necessarily in the best way possible]…
So, how ”high intelligence is not longer an adaptation**”
Adaptation is highly dependent on context, it’s mean, what is adaptive today, or viewed as an adaptation can stop to be tomorrow.
Adaptation is not the trait per si, is the combination of given trait with given environment.
In the end of day, the problem about very recent AND parcial maladaptation of highly intelligent people is not due to intelligence itself but lack of qualitative one, or wisdom. For example, the hordes of highly educated people who believe 1000% of every leftist point of view.
1. That is not the conclusion. They are making a prediction on an outcome. A very stark difference to just assuming it was already true. Why does that have to be spelled out?
2. So now you changed the definition of ad hoc again to a correlation between two variables?
Unrelated, out of around 600 candidates participating in math Olympiad, 50 get a gold medal (1 in 12 by construction) wich corresponds to a score above 31.
Average candidate get a 16 with is above the average score in the test for University math professors who accepted to participate (14).
Each year 2 to 4 people get a 42 perfect score. This year it’s a Chinese educated in the USA (Exeter, Harvard) and à Indian (Bangali Brahmin) studying in Scotland. This one scored a perfect score at UK Mensa test when 13 yo.
Math Olympiad is the most loaded g test and has the highest predictive value because base on average high school level knowledge, it predicts 40% of future Medal Fields (wich is more competitive than Nobel prizes in physics)
https://imo-official.org/year_individual_r.aspx?year=2018&column=total&order=desc
https://www.exeter.edu/news/james-lin-’18-ties-first-harvard-pre-collegiate-economics-competition
https://inews.co.uk/news/scotland/scottish-maths-prodigy-remarkable-perfect-score/
BTW I love octopus documentaries 😊
I think physics olympiad could be the most g loaded. What do you say PP?
I don’t know enough about physics to say but pumpkinhead & Steve Hsu would probably agree with you.
I guess the only thing blacks are worse than whites is abstraction.
Octopi don’t have the same DNA strand of polymerase that we do. They might not even be from this planet. But yet we’re superior to them.
I think it’s their mRNA that’s different. Honestly, I dunno much else. I took AP Biology and scored a 5 but hardly remember anything. I did well on plenty of AP tests, but college is a lot harder.
Certainly education helps in attaining a higher intelligence. The brain is a muscle, that means that any development that you can do fundamentally alters your behavioral and thought patterns.
brain is an organ sir.
It is an organ, but functions as a muscle would. When I write this out, I hope no one takes it literally, but instead finds the deeper meaning behind what I’m saying. There are infinite meanings and usually, there is no one right answer haha.
The brain is highly malleable. So it is trainable, as a muscle would be. But largely, I would agree with you and classify as an organ rather than a muscle.
That combination of social and intellectual dominance makes us a very lethal threat. We’re not the most physically dynamic, but with regular cognition we definitely change our physical abilities as well. We become a very dynamic creature because of that.
Blacks are really, really good at visual-verbal output and imagination, maybe analogical abilities too. There’s a lot of really promising things about blacks cognitively.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v39/n17/amia-srinivasan/the-sucker-the-sucker
I am working on a hypothesis that our greater intelligence as humans comes from avoiding and or “bunkering down”/ against natural disasters. Humans are one of the few animals that can walk on two legs, and we have the unique ability of tilting our heads, all the way back to look at the stars and the sky. We are able to see comets, asteroids, weather in the sky, etc. And react accordingly, while most other animals see what is in front of them and down. Take the T rex for example its skeletal structure prevents it from looking up at the sky. It grows 2 long massive legs and a horizontal body so it can munch on anything in its path below. However that giant asteroid, meteor, or divine retribution from the sky. They did not see it coming and were wiped out. We learned from their mistakes, and to look up in the sky and have respect for the planets,stars, sky weather, the astronomical forces that ultimately how life on earth plays out. and if you are religious/ spiritual. The celestial bodies are the closest things to Gods in our solar system.
In summary we are intelligent instead of massive monsters, because being able to dodge, and bunker thru natural disasters is the ultimate survival adaption. Praise the stars above.
So in this sense we are ahem “The Gods” greatest creations, because their constant barrage of life extinguishing projectiles, causes organisms to adapt, and now no organism is as big and monstrous as the t rex, praise the stars.
The largest land animals currently are the elephant and the giraffe, both creatures are capable of looking up at the sky and are HERBIVORES. They have to look up to get herbs from hi trees, this gives them an advantage in being able to see comets hurtling towards them at hi speeds.
I believe it’s not possible for animals to get as big as they do eating an omnivorous/carnivorous diet. As far as I’m aware, all of the biggest-bodied animals ever have eaten a shit-ton of plants. This is seen in the sexual dimorphism between great apes, too. The kcal drives their body size, for without it, they wouldn’t be able to be as massive as they are.
Meat is more energy and nutrient dense. So I don’t think carnivores/omnivores (humans are omnivores) can ever get to the size that herbivores do.
You can clearly see a T rex would have eaten everything in its path, plant, and animal.
Your belief is debunked by common sense.
He’s not wrong. Carnivores/Omnivores had smaller guys and I think higher metabolisms. So they usually are smaller. That doesn’t mean they can’t become large though
My theory regarding this is that due to the fact that carnivores do not have a regular access to food(given that their food can run away from them) they don’t have the consistent nutrient supply during the pivotal period of growth. As such herbivores have the ability to get larger due to regular and abundant supply of food.
We can see this with humans, growth can be stunted if one is deprived of proper nutrition during adolescence.
As such I would have to reject your hypothesis and cite nutritional frequency as a cause and not the type of food that leads to greater size. In fact it may be the reverse, a carnivorous diet might actually lead to greater size exactly because of the energy and nutrient density provided it is regular.
Another growth stunter is stress which is why lions in captivity tend to be larger than lions in the wild as they are fed more regularly and endure much less stress.
I believe there is a fine line between malnutrition and evolving a smaller body size to compensate for less kcal. The latter is what RR is endorsing.
Mikey, it’s a known fact that carnivores/omnivores have smaller guts than herbivores. Thus, they can consume way fewer kcal than herbivores do.
What does this have to do with being able to look up at the sky and dodge natural disasters?
Hopefully this week, I will have enough pieces of the puzzle put together to form an Astro-Evolution youtube channel.
Pumpkin, Pill, Race, Loaded, thoughts? I know this to be true, just curious on your individual thoughts.
Yeah, I think you’re absolutely right. I think that natural disasters imprints on the mind and natural selection is almost a mirror of that mindset, is what you’re trying to say I think.
I think it’s brilliant if that’s what you meant. I think that you need to talk to Aeoli Pera on that matter, he knows what’s up with that in particular.
See, I think that’s a great idea, but I think there are more metaphysical properties involved than the brain can really think about that gives us the advantage. We really don’t know how the cognition of other animals works so that might hinder some of the progress we’d make in trying to find the answer to this question. However, I think that it’s theoretical properties are masterful. It shows the framework for something that is possibly the explanation for behavior, something I’ve long-sought on doing. Anyway, endure the night and we shall endure the day as well.
People might be more intelligent but are extremely primitive as well. I think that violence and egotistical behavior has existed as much as it has to this point. I think that people are becoming really entitled and really narcissistic as they achieve cognitive enhancement. I don’t think it’s good for everyone, but it’s certainly good for smart people.
I guess as to what Mikey was saying, yes he is right, but there’s no distinction between life and compounds. I think different compounds exist, that are randomly forming life is the true existence of any compound. To biologically produce new life. It’s so simple yet unpleasant to the human mind.
Wow, this was retarded, scratch this.
I can already see why this Andrew Yang character will not get elected. He’s too much of a Bernie Sanders. He is going to do so much for the people and make great reform. That is not what being president is about. Its about speaking elegantly, captivating, and motivating the people, thru words, and unapologetic presence, and instilling false trust in the people. 100% chance trump will be re-elected.
Intelligence is the collection and storing of information about the environment and the organization of that information for the best way to change the environment to get what you want.
octopi are intelligent because to get what they want they need to change the world in more complex ways than the marine life around them. and so, they need more information about their environment and they need to organize the information in the right way compared to the organisms around them.
Brains organize information about the world to change the world. Specialization means you only need to change the world in a limited way. You only need to organize information pertinent to the impact desired. Generalization organizes larger/broader amounts of information because generalization can change the world in a larger/broader/more complex number of ways.
Intelligence organizes information to changer the world in the greatest number of ways possible to get what you want.
200 Alchemist
190 Adept
180 Übermensch
170 Generalist
160 Luminary
150 Scientist
140 Inventer
130 Theoretician
120 Engineer
110 Technician
100 Mechanic
90 Operator
80 Janitorial
70 ::
Intelligence:
organize information
change the world
get what you want
Intelligence is the adaptability to use whatever body & environment you’re in to advance whatever goal you have.
Wow that seems like the perfect definition.
Which one?
Intelligence is the adaptability to use whatever body & environment you’re in to advance whatever goal you have.
120-130 is the worst IQ range to be in. You feel like you could be smart, but constantly have your perception shattered by just how much smarter other people are. It’s like you can see the other side, and understand it, but you can’t live there. A terrible tease.
It’s better to be well-roundedly smart or simply average. To be a midweight is a curse.
I can actually see where your coming from. I am 6ft 2. 95th height percentile. technically I am tall, although I never ‘feel” tall because when I walk into a place with more than 50 people sometimes even as little as 20. I am never the tallest guy in the room.
It is pretty shitty, it gets shittier when you have no social skills to back it up. But, I’d argue that it’s an amazing range to be in if you’re extroverted and have good social skills. If you’re nerdy, ambi or introverted, than it’s a pretty shitty range. You still have to work hard in the advanced high school classes, and you pretty much have to work hard all your life.
This is the curse of being 1-2 SD beyond the median of any important trait.
Yup, you need to work hard, and you’re alienated by everyone.
The intelligence of Octupuses has been hypothesized to be from RNA editing which would explain why they dont follow the usual trend in highly encephalized organisms. The evolution of their brain was probably not as gradual or holistic as compared to humans.
Hey PP, can you estimate Conor McGregor IQ ?
He seems very smart in his own way, especially for a fighter,
I love the way he completly dominate psychologically his opponent before the fight, and look up his fights he is very coordinate precise and creative also very good vision of the fight
he is also by far the richest fighter in the world
I’m sur he is very smart
The richest fighter in the world is Floyd Mayweather, the guy who beat Connor McGregor in a boxing match. I think the man would be bright but again, IQ tests test relevant information and a lot of fighting is subconscious stimuli being responded to in a manner that allows for the information to not be processed. IQ tests only measure the conscious effects of this.
“precision beats power, timing beats speed”
Look at the way he speaks, he is clearly smart
I agree but that’s precisely not my point there are fighters with better fighting abilities than his.
You’ll see many athletes with a similar gift of speaking as he does. I don’t think he’s out of the norm. I could list off a bunch of athletes who I think are smarter than him, actually.
LeBron James is one, a lot of commentators are really good at speaking but also being technically informative about their craft. I think that he might be somewhere in the low 100s, maybe 110 at a maximum.
I think this guy have something more, may be it’s more social intelligence than verbal but I think he is high on both, plus fine motor skills and possibly good spatial abilities.
I wonder the number of people who talk about high-level athleticism in these kinds of ways have ever trained a high-level athlete or know what it takes to be a high-level athlete.
I’d guess that, on this blog, the number is zero.
Being a high-level athlete wouldn’t change anyones opinion on his statement. It’s not wrong and very intuitive.
I doubt LeBron James would be dumb enough to think his hand-eye coordinatation had nothing to do with athleticism.
You don’t think that having specific knowledge of X would change your perception of it from the average person?
It’s inherent that we experience things subconsciously. Only brilliant people can turn this subconscious tune of mind into something relevant. However, they score low on IQ tests as well because they don’t know how to differentiate information that is relevant and what is not. Why would this be a disadvantage? because people can bombard you with information and make it frustratingly difficult to comb through pockets of information that can leave you brainwashed or brain-dead. you need to be able to gauge what is the relevant information, what is the right information, what is real and existing in front of me today. Not the theoretical notions of what is happening. Unfortunately, you can get lost in your abstractions and your beliefs and find madness. That’s what usually happens with great creators.
I don’t know what the ideal intelligence is but it’s all arbitrary anyways except maybe for survival. the only way we could test what intelligence really is is if we eliminate all emotional constraints of this world and only let people associate life with survival and death with failure. almost like all subjective experience is taken away and only the profound judgment of life and death exists.
Anyways, my personal belief is that being a specialist in anything is the only way we gain social superiority. The more things you can specialize in the better, but no one will remember you unless you were really, really good at something.
Humans are attracted to things far far above the average, they have the ability to recognize the above average, but they don’t exactly recognize them.
Far, far above average makes sense. A tad bit different from the norm is going to be more detrimental than valuable. It’s a reaction to seeing something brand new, something inherently different instead of something that tries to be different. I don’t know if human logic makes a lot of sense. Honestly, life is all about how you experience things, forming the basis of how you’ll see things for the rest of your life. Previous experiences hold so much gravity for us. No new experience will ever attain as much information as an old piece of information. This is a pretty important concept if you want to start identifying the actions of people. A new experience will only be shaped in terms of the mold of previous experiences.
Not that humans are attracted to things above average, I actually disagree with this. We need people that are far above average, but we are attracted to normality, to conformity, to average and plain. We are attracted to patterns. We are attracted to things that make sense. Not a lot of things do so we become fixated with things that do and unfortunately, that leads to a stagnation in thought.
Giardian has a piece from the aussie lanour ‘diversity and multiculturalism’ minister. bBasically the whole article is a pr piece with quotes from him. Doesnt give the ither side of the story at all.