On favour of humans, people have usually seen the numbers thousands to millions of times in their lifetimes, while chimps would have seen them few dozens of times at best. So "training the same time" for humans and chimps is def misleading, would love to see this with an abstract or uncommon characters like Japanese (for a Western audience).
四,六,八 is "four, six, eight" in English. These are the names of the numbers, not the numbers themselves. In Japanese they write the numbers the same as in English ("4, 6, 8")
> In Japanese they write the numbers the same as in English ("4, 6, 8")
Modern Japanese has two numeral systems - Arabic and Chinese. The Arabic numerals were introduced to Japanese relatively recently (only in the modern period). In pre-modern Japanese, only the Chinese numerals existed. In contemporary Japanese, Arabic numerals are more common, but Chinese numerals are still used in some contexts (especially texts written vertically)
I don't know about you, but I write my 1 in just one stroke of the pen. Also I use a space as a thousands separator, and you need to write 一万 in Japanese for 10 000, not just 万 by itself. That makes for a closer game:
一 / 1 (one stroke vs one)
十 / 10 (two strokes vs two)
一万 / 10 000 (or 10K) (four strokes vs five)
When you get to numbers like 5462, there's no contest versus 五千四百六十二.
Despite the correction, I still expect to see (perhaps only slight or niche) skills with their corresponding mental attributes which great apes and extinct hominids possess(ed) which outweigh our own
An example which springs to mind is the utterly absurd physical traits and likely corresponding hand-eye coordination Homo naledi possessed in order to perform their burial rituals
It took world-class climbers risking their lives to even reach the burial chamber, let alone do it repeatedly without modern climbing gear or even light
Despite their size and build being advantageous, I do not see how their mental attributes wouldn’t be more conducive to related skills than even trained (but tool-less) Homo sapiens
One possible resolution: homo sapiens really is physically weak. We route a lot of energy into our brains. Our strongest body builders, probably augmented with chemicals, still don't reach what a normal gorilla does. A homo non-sapiens who isn't routing quite as much energy to their brain and is another 50% stronger than homo sapiens climbers may not find the climb so challenging. (I would expect climbing strength to non-linearly improve climbing skill; once you rise to "I can just barely lift myself" you'll get rapid climbing improvements as you incrementally improve past that, a sudden takeoff in the strength versus climbing skill chart.)
Humans have a lot of advantages; obviously our high-quality brains, fantastic eye sight, wonderful hands, etc. but I would argue that the fact we are physically weak, in the literal "strength" sense of that, even when we do exercise and strengthen to our very limits, is perhaps our biggest disadvantage compared to the rest of the animal kingdom.
(So, it isn't just a science fiction trope that there's a lot of things stronger than us. However, if the Klingons and the Vulcans and pretty much every other alien species in Star Trek can outwrestle a human, one does sometimes wonder how they can do that but also still have human, or slightly better than human, intelligence. Perhaps arguably the Vulcans should be a little weaker yet.)
Homo did not need to evolve to be strong when the prevailing theory is that we used our long distance running ability to chase and kill by exhausting large prey - strength is irrelevant to that kind of predator. It makes sense evolution did not select for this trait with homo, because there’s been no selective pressure for it and the species has been extremely successful without it.
Persistence hunting as a major driver of human evolution, or a common mode of hunting, is a theory that has caught the popular imagination, but has precious little actual evidence behind it, sadly. Most of the pop culture articles cite a list of facts, that are not true (Humans are uniquely efficient, humans are some of the only animals that sweat to cool themselves, only humans can travel long distances at a moderate pace). While persistence hunting is possible, modern experiments have shown that it has an incredibly low success rate, especially considering the level of effort necessary.
“debunked” is a rather strong word to use here since it’s a theory that’s inherently untestable - the reality being that humans likely used a variety of hunting methods, and since that’s one that could have been used, it’s likely it was used.
It is untestable, sure, but some of the main arguments in the proposed theory are based on untruths, and none of the evidence that we would expect to have found to support it being widespread has been found yet. We have found plenty of evidence pointing to humans using other hunting strategies, so it seems odd that there is no evidence pointing to persistence hunting and that the strategy that we evolved so many traits for would have died out in all but one or two remaining primitive cultures.
Simply put, a group of humans gambling 10s of thousands of calories each in order to possibly capture a single large animal miles away from the rest of the tribe is an absolutely horrendous survival strategy.
Funnily enough, when you put people into primitive situations it is one of the techniques that they adopt when they can't make better things work:
> Lacking guns and even bows, they could hunt only by digging traps or pursuing prey across the mountains until the animals collapsed from exhaustion. Dmitry built up astonishing endurance, and could hunt barefoot in winter, sometimes returning to the hut after several days, having slept in the open in 40 degrees of frost, a young elk across his shoulders.
Again, I'm not saying that humans can't persistence hunt.
I'm saying that there is not a lot of evidence of it being widespread, or that it was a driver of human anatomy in evolution.
The theory is based on a handful of papers, some with major bad assumptions, and a few anecdotes. The arguments against it being widespread or common are just as strong or stronger than the arguments for.
My objection is just that the Outdoor magazine and Joe Rogan set like to cite it as if it is more or less settled.
You are right and I apologize - My original post made it sound I believe it was a driver of human evolution. I do not actuay believe that, but I do believe it was a factor. it’s very very difficult to prove either way and I do think the science has not been decisive either way.
In the book, Sapiens, they talk about how, while important, homo sapiens ability to socially coordinate allowed the species to hunt, protect from/attack neighboring homo species (i.e. Neanderthals). Our brains gave us the ability to coordinate large groups (social groups, hunting groups) without the restriction of instinct giving our group members to pivot as necessary.
This isn't an attack on humans. It's only to be expected that given all the other stat maxing we've done we need a dump stat somewhere, to borrow gaming terminology. Our list of attributes that is either simply the best, or very competitive, is quite absurdly long.
You say that humans are weak in terms of physical attributes[1] and then ignore the substance of the argument when someone replies and points out that humans are the best animal at long-distance running. Which is not a fitness attribute that anyone serious disregards… any human that is, to be fair.
[1] But you have the “literal strenght” narrow fallback though.
It’s such a glaring thing to miss. We have bad explosive strength (… contra slow-twitch endurance power, contra this whole thing that people actively exercise to get better at.) It’s impossible to not see the incongruity after the fact.
> One possible resolution: homo sapiens really is physically weak. We route a lot of energy into our brains.
Humans are weak, but that's not because we're using the energy elsewhere. We have comparable muscle mass to chimpanzees. We don't have comparable strength; our anatomy is what makes us weak, not a diversion of energy to other purposes.
Chimps use something like 25% less calories than a human, so yes strength and energy usage are not strongly coupled. What makes humans weaker is less fast twitch muscle, and this gives us finer motor control.
It's about fast-twitch vs slow-twitch kinds of muscle fibers: the former are good for strength, the latter for endurance. We evolved to be distance runners, so our muscle composition changed, decreasing our strength.
I think you forgot to account for lifespan. Relatively long-lived mammals have a tendency to raise their offspring over many years (e.g. Orangutans 6-8 years, ~9 years for Elephants, etc.).
Define "physically weak". Chimpanzees are certainly better climbers, but we can run for hours on end, far longer and further than any other land animal. Not all physical strength is just lifting heavy things.
Physically weak, as in, what people expect when people say physically weak. We do not have good strength. We do, or at least can, as you say, have best-in-class endurance, but that's endurance, not strength.
I get your point, but I also still think you are wrong. there is no one measure for 'strength'.
humans can throw a punch much harder than a chimp even though a chimp's arm is stronger. humans can kick harder, etc, even though a chimp would usually tear a person up in a 'fight'.
humans can throw a ball faster and harder than any other primate, likewise we can swing a stick harder and with more precision.
some people will play down human skills saying, 'thats because they are trained and specialized, the average human cant do that'.
THATS LITERALLY OUR SPECIAL ABILITY. Humans are adaptable both physically and mentally to do virtually any task. adaptability means we aren't inherently good at any one of those tasks without training and practice. Its a feature, not a bug.
I mean a chimp the same size as you would rip your arms off and beat you to a pink mist with them and barely break a sweat. Endurance is typically not counted as a strength Stat, but on its own metric.
The difference isn’t quite that extreme. Pound per pound “chimpanzee muscle exceeds human muscle in maximum dynamic force and power output by ∼1.35 times” they are strong largely because they are extremely muscular not simply stronger on a pound per pound basis.
However, there’s inherent strength vs endurance tradeoffs involved. Space taken up by mitochondria is in direct competition with the cellular machinery that turns ATP into motion. Similarly, increased capillary density can supply more nutrients and oxygen, but again displaces more directly useful muscle tissue.
I think there is more to it than just the muscle pull force. My understanding is that the chimpanzee muscle skeleton system is configured for much greater leverage for many motions and this is a much larger Factor.
Leverage is another trade-off. Humans are well adapted to throwing a baseball sized rock, spear, or javelin much farther than a gorilla can, but a gorilla can throw a 200kg stone farther.
Maybe that's the same as what I'm saying but it strikes me differently. As I understand it, the trade-off is between range and diversity of motions versus strength in one specific set of circumstances.
The further your muscle Anchor Point is from the pivot, the greater the mechanical lever. For example, the human bicep anchors only inch or two from our elbow pivot. You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting Force, and in fact many animals do exactly that.
It's hard for me to imagine the comparative kinematics in your example, but I would think throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through essentially the same motion. Attempt might be far better at an overhand throw than a human, but a temp might be simply incapable of performing an underhanded or side pitch
> You could anchor twice as far and double the resulting force
> throwing a baseball and a heavier Rock would go through the same range of motion
I think you’re missing a key detail here. Muscles can only contract at a finite percentage of their total length per given unit of time even with near zero load. This is mostly irrelevant when lifting something, but means very fast motions want the anchor point near the point of rotation. People are really quite extraordinary in how far the can throw light objects but it’s a real tradeoff.
The fact they could get to that chamber is enough to make my original point though
It is unlikely homo sapiens have equal or better neurological attributes for certain domains. In this example Homo naledi likely possessed superior balance and motorskills for the average naledian to be able to make it that deep
See also this paper by one of the foremost researchers in the field and colleagues for how Berger and his team haven't been rigorous with their methodology with Homo naledi
Chimps destroy us at the number memory test. Maybe it's just with that specific test but it suggests they have a larger working memory and probably faster visual/pattern processing than us.
No, it is clear that cheating was involved in getting the Chimps to a score of 1, and thus I refuse to give them that score. (the Chimps didn't cheat, but there was still cheating)
To make any unbiased claim, we'd need results from chimps who've captured live humans. Short of that, I'm fairly certain it was always Humans 1, Chimps 0.
The chimp got extensive training because he did not attend school.
The humans had more than 20 years of training, going through mandatory education and then college.
It is not a competition between species. It's a competition between quality training on the one hand and on the other, the notion that some species are somehow born with skills.
I wonder if chimps understand where they are headed after the tests. i.e. the nice room were they play games for treats, or the other room where they get injected with various concoctions for unfathomable reasons.
I think humans tend to naively apply our own constructs to describe what we think defines intelligence, but this habit does not necessarily generalize onto other species. As an aside, for similar reasons I'd wager generalized AI will be a surprise event rather than an incremental discovery.
Recent studies described Goldfish that can remember certain types of problems beyond a year later. Far beyond what anyone assumed possible for such a simple creature.
Some people are unique, as I met one lady that could remember 93 non-sequential digits. While she was not successful academically, it would be unwise to play card games with that person for money. =)
Primates belong in their own habitats, and should be left alone unless people have a well defined _necessary_reason_ to exploit them as subjects.
Having volunteered at an ape rescue centre, I've heard some horrific stories about what happens when a chimp fights a person. Example scenarios include people who keep chimps as pets and zoo keepers who don't close a door correctly. Example injuries to the humans include fingers and other parts being bitten off, or being blinded. A worst case scenario for a zoo involves a group of chimps getting out and then getting frightened, and fighting.
Of course a gun will solve this problem, hence my comment about 'baseline'. Perhaps I should have said 'unaugmented'.
Part of that is most humans' ingrained resistance against being murderously vicious. It's easy to gouge eyes out, but it's hard for most people to actually do it.
They are pretty horrible to each other at times too. More or less illustrates the somewhat Hobbesian idea of continual reduction of violence since probably the last common ancestor to today.
What I find fascinating is the bifurcation of R-rated behaviors between chimps (violence) and bonobos (sex). I read somewhere about a similar bifurcation in species of dolphins or porpoises where there were was one species which would exhibit high levels of violence and another which was all about the sexy fun time, but that was 30 years ago or so I read it and I have little hope of ever recovering that information (assuming it’s even true, which is not guaranteed for popular science reporting).
Would it really have been so bad to be inferior at such a specific task?
Great apes are hard for humans to match in e.g. upper body strength, so we are not strictly superior anyway...
I strongly believe that human intellectual superiority will come to an end within a lifetime, will be quite interesting to see how our species deals with it (to be clear: talking about AI there, not apes :P).
Back in the day, there were lots of websites where you could play the game.
You can improve your performance at this game by playing in extremely high contrast, so you can use the retinal afterimage to give you more time to study the numbers.
Similar to how that "LSD" video requires you reconstruct persistence of visionsl while watching a too-slow animation of light painting.
Such a weird case, since any human could directly objectively test the claim on their own.
The period of "closed science", which really took on steam after the extensions of copyright in 1976 and 1998, will be look backed upon as rampant with dishonesty and corruption.
If you are in academia and you are not publishing your stuff to the public domain, including your git repo, please take some time to think about this and do what you need to do to pivot.
