It’s all coming back to me :smack: Gheh, my dog certainly doesn’t: if she’s done something naughty she diligently comes to tell me how sorry she is. Sometimes even when she dreams she’s been naughty…
[QUOTE=Henry L. Tischler]
Koko [a gorilla] has taken several IQ tests and scored just below average for a human child – between 70 and 95 points. However, as Paterson has pointed out, IQ tests have a bias towards humans and the gorilla may be more intelligent than the test indicates.
[/QUOTE]
From: Introduction to Sociollogy
An example of the bias towards humans was the question: “which food do you think is good to eat?” and then a choice of a block, an apple, a shoe, an ice cream and a flower. Koko pointed to apple and flower, because she does like to eat flowers and she had never seen an ice cream before. But the answer was recorded as wrong.
It does show however, that we can measure the intelligence of an ape on the scale we measure our own. Whereas though my dog is a very intelligent dog, she would probably score 0 on a human intelligence test.
In that link in gracer’s post, Tischler is talking about Patterson’s work with Koko. In the book The Education of Koko by Francine Patterson and Eugene Linden, it says that they are very dubious about using intelligence tests on Koko. Yes, at times Koko would test something like a 70 to 90 I.Q. for her age. They noticed, though, that the various mental and physical abilities seemed to develop at different rates in gorillas and humans. Also, they noticed that Koko seemed to often deliberately screw up I.Q. tests, as if she was annoyed that people were constantly wasting her time with such stupid tasks.
An adult chimp, bonobo, gorilla or orang can do many things that an 8-year-old human can’t-- like survive without another member of the species to help him/her. But none of those is ever going to utter a full sentence, understand multiplication and division, understand that the earth revolves around the sun… I don’t even know what it means to have the IQ of a “human child”. I think that concept is more misleading than enlightening.
Uttering a sentence is not a brain issue its a vocal setup issue and smart chimps can sign sentences. Many animals can do math. Many humans did not understand that the earth revolves around the sun until a smart human told them it did any many still fail to understand this concept.
Again what I was asking was this, if a human iq scale is 50-200, and a chimp is at X-Y could Y every reach lower human levels.
And the answer is - nobody knows. Incidentally, the human I.Q. scale is 0 - 200, I suppose. It’s a normal curve around a mean of 100 with a standard deviation of 15. If you were the smartest human that ever lived (among the 100 billion or so such people), your I.Q. would be approximately 200. If you were the stupidest human being that ever lived, your I.Q. would be approximately 0. Both 0 and 200 are six and two-thirds standard deviations from the mean.
I forgot to add that practically it’s impossible to measure an I.Q. outside of the range 40 to 160. I.Q.'s below that level and above that level are too rare. There’s no way to norm such an intellligence test.
No, they cannot. As I mentioned up-thread, chimps can string a few symbols together, but they have never exhibited the ability to understand syntax. A typical chimp signing session will be: “Eat hurry, eat eat hurry hurry”. A chimp has never signed “I want to eat an apple now.”
Which is why I didn’t say “math”, but specified multiplication and division.
And no chimp can understand it even if someone tries to explain it to him.
It’s sort of a meaningless question because IQ is defined around human intelligence. As I said upthread, the chimp would have to mysteriously get the same mutations that gave humans our increased brain capacity. Possible, but highly unlikely, especially since there are more than one it would have to get.
Much as we would like to believe that chimps could be like us with sufficient training, operationally there really is a very significant difference in the way the human brain is wired and it’s innate capacity for processing and grasping certain types of information. There is no amount of “teaching” that will be able to bridge that gulf if we are talking about grasping and working with complex, abstract information.
I think that, rather than saying that no chimpanzees, gorillas, or other members of the great apes (besides humans) can be taught at the same level that we humans can mostly be taught, which is what some posters to this thread are saying, it would be more correct to say that among the relatively small numbers of great apes that we’ve tried to teach such things that we haven’t achieved any such success yet. We simply have no knowledge of what the complete possible range of great ape intelligence is. Comparing several dozen great apes with billions of humans whose intelligence we have some knowledge of doesn’t tell us much.
Incidentally, when it comes to not comparing single instances to the entire relevant population, I get tired of people using “Einstein” as if it were established that he was the smartest person of all time. Some people would say that he’s not even the greatest physicist of all time, since they think that Newton is a greater physicist. Virtually everyone one who has ever lived has had no opportunity to be compared in intelligence with someone like Einstein. Einstein was a pretty smart guy, but it’s absurd to claim that he was the smartest person of all time.
I don’t use him as the avatar for supreme intelligence, but the probable level of his measured IQ aside, I think it’s reasonable for a person to use him as an example or reference point as one of the most seminal intelligences the human race has ever produced, and being representative of the apex of human intellectual achievement.
I think Newton and Einstein are both sufficiently high up there that meaningful comparison between them is impossible. But a club with two members instead of just one is still plenty exclusive.