Humans tend to put our own intelligence on a pedestal. Our brains can do math, employ logic, explore abstractions and think critically. But we can’t claim a monopoly on thought. Among a variety of nonhuman species known to display intelligent behavior, birds have been shown time and again to have advanced cognitive abilities. Ravens plan for the future, crows count and use tools, cockatoos open and pillage booby-trapped garbage cans, and chickadees keep track of tens of thousands of seeds cached across a landscape. Notably, birds achieve such feats with brains that look completely different from ours: They’re smaller and lack the highly organized structures that scientists associate with mammalian intelligence.

  • dbtng@eviltoast.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 days ago

    Heh. You both make perfect sense. I agree with both of your somewhat opposing viewpoints.

    • bitcrafter@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 days ago

      I am fine with someone arguing that maybe the traits we consider to be a sign of intelligence are defined too narrowly–though in this case it is a really weird take because the article authors would clearly completely agree with this sentiment! I am not so fine with them calling the people they disagree with things like “intellectual supremacists”.

      • dbtng@eviltoast.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 days ago

        Take it easy. It’s the internet. Hyperbole is a thing.

        And what’s the issue with that term? Really. As you say, the article does in fact support this very viewpoint. “Intelligence doesn’t come with an instruction manual. It is hard to define, there are no ideal steps toward it, and it doesn’t have an optimal design”.

        • bitcrafter@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 days ago

          That entire comment is specifically being derisive of the article authors, so it is calling them “intellectual supremacists”, rather than agreeing with them.