DanArmak comments on Contrarianism and reference class forecasting - Less Wrong

26 Post author: taw 25 November 2009 07:41PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (90)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: DanArmak 26 November 2009 04:41:34PM *  1 point [-]

By greater do you mean greater than those of H. sapiens who lived at the same time? AFAICS, the Wikipedia articles seem to state the opposite: that Neanderthals, late ones at least, were technologically and culturally inferior to H. sapiens of the same time.

The paragraph right after the one you quoted from your second link states:

There once was a time when both human types shared essentially the same Mousterian tool kit and neither human type had a definite competitive advantage, as evidenced by the shifting Homo sapiens/Neanderthal borderland in the Middle East. But finally Homo sapiens started to attain behavioural or cultural adaptations that allowed "moderns" an advantage.

The following paragraphs (through to the end of that section of the article) detail tools and cultural or social innovations that were (by conjecture) exclusive to H. sapiens. There are no specific things listed that were exclusive to Neanderthals. What "greater achievements" do you refer to?

Also, I see no basis (at least in the WP article) for "the obvious fact that Neanderthals were highly intelligent", except for brain size which is hardly conclusive. Why can't we conclude that they were considerably less intelligent than their contemporary H. sapiens?

Comment author: SilasBarta 26 November 2009 08:35:51PM 0 points [-]

Okay, I confess, it's above my pay grade at this point: all I can do is defer to predominant theory in the field that Neanderthals were more intelligent at the level of the individual.

Note that this doesn't mean they were more "collectively intelligent". If they were better at problem solving on their own, but weren't as social as humans, they may have failed to pass knowledge between people and ended up re-inventing the wheel too much.

Comment author: DanArmak 27 November 2009 11:19:20AM 3 points [-]

predominant theory in the field that Neanderthals were more intelligent at the level of the individual.

But that's just what I'm asking about! Can you please give me some references that present or at least mention this theory? Because the WP articles don't even seem to mention it, and I can't find anything like it on Google.

Comment author: timtyler 03 January 2010 01:09:25PM 0 points [-]

The theory is that they had bigger brains - e.g. see the reference at:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/165/how_inevitable_was_modern_human_civilization_data/124q

Comment author: DanArmak 03 January 2010 05:04:53PM 0 points [-]

Yes, but they also had more massive bodies, possibly 30% more massive than modern humans. I'm not sure that they had a higher brain/body mass ratio than we do and even if they had, a difference on the order of 10% isn't strong evidence when comparing intelligence between species.

Comment author: wedrifid 26 November 2009 09:25:31PM 0 points [-]

Note that this doesn't mean they were more "collectively intelligent". If they were better at problem solving on their own, but weren't as social as humans, they may have failed to pass knowledge between people and ended up re-inventing the wheel too much.

Given the circumstances that would have been quite some achievement!