Comment author: mhowardthomas 24 July 2013 03:09:34PM 2 points [-]

I'm really sorry I missed this, I saw the notice too late. If there are more, I'll surely attend!

Comment author: knb 27 July 2012 07:44:35AM *  4 points [-]

Another reason given for why human intelligence must be simple, is that we've only had time for a few complex evolutionary adaptations since we split off from other primates. Chimps clearly aren't particularly adapted to, say, doing math, so our ability to do math must come from a combination of some kind of General Intelligence, which can be applied to all kinds of tasks (what Eliezer called "the master trick"), and maybe a few specific adaptations.

I don't think we should assume that the vast difference between human and primate achievement is caused by a vast difference in human and primate general intelligence. There are vast differences in achievement between human groups, but only fairly modest intelligence differences. Some ape experts estimated the IQ of chimps as above 75.

Chimps have been known to use some surprisingly advanced technologies, almost comparable to the more primitive human groups (like Tasmanian Aborigines). Sometimes, chimps notice other chimps doing these things and copy them, but they don't teach these new techniques to each other in any comprehensive way. This strikes me as the main advantage humans have, rather than raw mental firepower.

It seems likely to me that the main biological adaptation that made humans so much more successful at learning was not general intelligence, but rather a more advanced theory of mind and communication skills that followed from it. I'm sure general intelligence improvements played a role, but my guess is g was secondary to social learning.

Comment author: mhowardthomas 31 July 2012 09:30:45PM 3 points [-]

Michael Tomasello posits precisely this theory in The Cultural Origins of Human Cognition. He emphasizes (1) the human ability to understand intention made possible by, (2) imitation versus the non-human primate mode of emulation, and (3) the ensuing ratchet effect of cultural knowledge through discourse and artifact. I think the theory of mind to which you refer is developed out of imitation, see Tomasello's discussion.

Comment author: Psy-Kosh 22 February 2011 04:42:46PM 0 points [-]

Nice to meet you too. (Er, which one were you again? (Was nice to meet all of you, so I can make the statement honestly even without knowing that particular info. :)))

Comment author: mhowardthomas 23 February 2011 09:03:30PM 0 points [-]

I was the smaller of the guys with a baby. I was the one who was complaining about people having inconsistent metrics for assigning value. I'm rather new to this site, and I wouldn't surprise me to find these issues covered previously, I may just need to do some digging. It was great meeting you and so many similarly interested individuals. If only more people cared about being less wrong!

Comment author: realitygrill 20 February 2011 07:39:23PM 0 points [-]

So, I was the incentive guy.

Comment author: mhowardthomas 20 February 2011 08:59:53PM 0 points [-]

Nice to meet you!

Comment author: arundelo 20 February 2011 07:46:26PM 1 point [-]

We had a turnout of 10 by my count (not counting two younglings). Thanks to Psy-Kosh for starting this.

For reference: I was near the northeast corner of the table, next to Psy-Kosh. My real-life name is Aaron Brown.

Here's Doug Engelbart's mouse-tastic 1968 "Mother of All Demos" (and the Wikipedia entry).

Comment author: mhowardthomas 20 February 2011 08:59:37PM 0 points [-]

Great to meet you, Aaron. And great to meet all of you! Thanks to Psy-Kosh for setting this up, we should do more. My real life name is Michael Thomas, I was the shorter of the two guys with the babies, bald and with a mustache. I sat next to Aaron.

Comment author: mhowardthomas 20 February 2011 03:40:09PM 1 point [-]

My wife and I plan on attending with another interested couple, plus one baby each for total of 6 people.