Chimps have an average IQ around 40. I know IQ isn't fully equivalent to intelligence, but the average human is about 2.5 times as smart as the average chimp. Chimp IQs over 70 have been recorded. The difference is very significant, but not astronomical. Interestingly, chimps nurtured by humans since infancy have significantly higher IQs than less-domesticated chimps.

As apophenia points out, our instinctive teaching of our young is highly significant and is a large part of the difference between us being the most clever animal and being the most clever animal that builds supercomputers. Go back 40,000 years and the relative technological achievements of chimps and humans would not be in nearly such high contrast.

We're much smarter than chimps, but not so much smarter that it's evolutionarily mysterious, and our technological achievements are dependent on knowledge and infrastructure developed over our lifetime as a species through our cultures, not a function of sheer intelligence. If we weren't around and chimps were, chimps would the cleverest animal. We are around, and there's nothing on earth that we know runs a higher IQ, so it's us. At least for a few more years.

Quote:Chimp IQs over 70 have been recorded.

Hmmm..... if chimps designed the tests I wonder how we would score?

I'd agree with CapnAwesome. We are VERY distinct. We are capable of destroying almost every single species on the planet, but we are a product of these species. Do you see animals talking to eachother about plans to build a nuclear missile? Do you see dogs and cats making mountains out of limestone? Do you see them make their own clothes, or cook food over a fire? Do you see them capable of destroying us? No. We are probably the most powerful thing in the universe (other than the big bang and twinkies ) and we are the only living thing on earth that understands molecules, atoms, cells, etc. All living things do things for one purpose: Reward, and survival. The only reason those chimpanzees can understand 3,000 words is because we taught them that they need to know that for a reward. Animals understand NOTHING. They just go along with nature and evolution. You know what's sad? If it wasn't for us, their ass' wouldn't be saved from the supernovae that is about to happen in 6 Billion years. All I have to say, is they better be thankful that we're their only chance of survival, and we'll help them out. I believe that our survival is more important than theirs, because we're the only damn species we know of that can possibly prevent the end of the universe. We are the only ones that can harness science for the better condition of the universe. We may be small in this large universe, but trust me, it's very possible that humans may never go extinct.

---

(February 24, 2013 at 7:31 pm)ManMachine Wrote:

(February 16, 2013 at 6:05 am)Meylis Wrote: Any thoughts on why humans differ so much from other species in terms of intelligence?

We aren't. We just like to think we are.

MM

However, we're the only animals to think we are smarter than the others.

(February 27, 2013 at 11:53 pm)Severan Wrote: However, we're the only animals to think we are smarter than the others.

I don't know about that. It's not like we can ask other animals their opinions of themselves.
In the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, for example, Dolphins and humans both thought themselves superior to the other based on the same criteria but having different perspectives as to what constituted greatness in those criteria, ie. man believed that building projects, war, &c. made them great, whilst dolphins just splashed around in the water, where as dolphins viewed splashing around made them superior to man and his wars and buildings.

We're also likely the only animal to invent religion. That's got to count, like, ten internets against us.

Sorry, I'm late to this game. I think the evaluation of intelligence needs to be reassessed. I'll allow Ridley Scott to speak for me:

"You know Burke, I don't know which species is worse. You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamned percentage."

The things that distinguish us are an emergent property of the interaction between building blocks of behavior. The building blocks of our behaviors are individually an emergent property of our organic neurological chemistry. We can reduce our distinction by arguing that since the building blocks of our behavior are individually not too different from those of many other animals, and therefore we are not very different from chimpanzees or dolphins. But we can also extend the argument and claim since our organic neurological chemistry is little different from a horseshoe crab, therefore we are not very different from horseshoe crab, or a velvet worm, or a flat worm.

Ultimately, we are all neutrons, protons and electrons, so we are little different from saw dust.

In biology, these is a camp called lumpers, and a camp called splitters.

Human = saw dust would be lumping carried to obscure extreme.

You see where this is going.

Yet much as both we and gorilla are not much different from saw dust in some way of seeing, it is we who count the gorillas we didn't kill and whether that number represent enough genetic diversity for these to be gorillas in 100 years, and not the gorillas us.

Clearly the difference in emergent property is these.

So the distinction is the emergent capacity to let us count, organize, to learn and graspmmore complex behaviors.

(February 28, 2013 at 3:30 am)Chuck Wrote: The things that distinguish us are an emergent property of the interaction between building blocks of behavior. The building blocks of our behaviors are individually an emergent property of our organic neurological chemistry. We can reduce our distinction by arguing that since the building blocks of our behavior are individually not too different from those of many other animals, and therefore we are not very different from chimpanzees or dolphins. But we can also extend the argument and claim since our organic neurological chemistry is little different from a horseshoe crab, therefore we are not very different from horseshoe crab, or a velvet worm, or a flat worm.

Ultimately, we are all neutrons, protons and electrons, so we are little different from saw dust.

In biology, these is a camp called lumpers, and a camp called splitters.

Human = saw dust would be lumping carried to obscure extreme.

You see where this is going.

Yet much as both we and gorilla are not much different from saw dust in some way of seeing, it is we who count the gorillas we didn't kill and whether that number represent enough genetic diversity for these to be gorillas in 100 years, and not the gorillas us.

Clearly the difference in emergent property is these.

So the distinction is the emergent capacity to let us count, organize, to learn and graspmmore complex behaviors.

We're likely the only animals who know that we're made of neutrons and protons.

Something that took us tens of thousands of years to discover probably shouldn't be counted in the 'innate distinction from chimps' column. For that we've still got mainly 60 points of average IQ, teaching our young, pointing, and complex language.