Comparing Intelligence

Question 1

MISAPPREHENSIONS ABOUT EVOLUTION

Answer 1

1. some species = “more evolved” > others
   ANS = all species have been evolving for equal time
2. evolution necessarily implies “improvement”
   ANS = complexity came about via evolution BUT evolution doesn’t always = ^ complexity
3. evolution necessarily leads in human-like direction

Question 2

CONSEQUENCES OF EVOLUTION MISAPPREHENSIONS

Answer 2

• similar errors made pre-evolution theory
  ANTHROPOMORPHISM
• animal cognition = human cognition but lesser
  ANTHROPOCENTRISM
• “advanced” = more like us
  SOCIAL/POLITICAL BAGGAGE
• placing modern human at top of nature ladder

Question 3

SCALA NATURAE

Answer 3

• we cannot assume there is a “ladder of nature” aka. amoeba (least IQ) -> humans (most IQ)
• what are the alternatives
• why is it appealing? ANS = brain size

Question 4

BRAIN COMPARISONS

Answer 4

• bigger brain = ^ IQ; some evidence of working in some brain areas (ie. hippocampus/spatial memory)
• BUT big animals = bigger brains anyway; doesn’t mean IQ
• encephalisation coefficient (EC) = brain mass/body mass

Question 5

BRAIN COMPARISONS: JERISON

Answer 5

• deviations from brain mass VS body mass plots
• monkeys/apes/humans = higher
• reptiles/amphibians = lower
• some evidence of IQ variation across species
• BUT cautious w/data interpretation ie. alligator EC = low due to time in water

Question 6

MACPHAIL’S NULL HYPOTHESIS

Answer 6

MACPHAIL (1982, 2000)
- no cognitive difs between non-human animals
- more refined version = no difs among non-human vertebrates
- only important dif = human language emergence; language training may confer special abilities
- sophisticated cognition in apes = familiarity w/own cognition; is it actually “superior”?
- contextual variables could be responsible for observed difs in performance > genuine IQ difs

Question 7

MACPHAIL: SUPPORTING EVIDENCE

Answer 7

• simple learning forms (ie. classical/operant conditioning) take place in same way/rate in all vertebrates & some invertebrates
• surprisingly sophisticated learning forms turn up in invertebrates (ie. molluscs/arthropods)

Question 8

SMALL STRONG BRAINS: COLWILL, ABSHER & ROBERTS (1988)

Answer 8

• conditional discrimination in aplysia (marine snails)
• could learn to provide dif responses to same stimuli in dif contexts:
  1. smooth white round bowl w/lemony seawater
  2. dark grey rectangular container w/ridges/turbulence (aerator)
• could learn to withdraw siphon to tactile stimulation in 1 context BUT not other
• sophisticated learning in “simple” animal

Question 9

SMALL STRONG BRAINS: GIURFA ET AL.

Answer 9

• learning in honeybees
• classical/instrumental conditioning
• contextual learning = C1: A+/B-; C2: A-/B+
• categorisation:
  1. bilaterally symmetrical VS asymmetrical
  2. dif abstract pattern types
  3. same VS dif (matching/non-matching sample)
  4. negative patterning (A+/B+/AB-) w/olfactory stimuli

Question 10

SMALL STRONG BRAINS: GILLAN ET AL. (1981)

Answer 10

• 1 evidence type that Macphail concedes = higher order cognitive ability evidence aka. something dif in kind not only quantity
• ie. analogical reasoning in Sarah (Pulmack & Pulmack (1980)

Question 11

SUMMARY

Answer 11

• surprisingly difficult to rank-order animals in IQ terms; should be more impressed by similarities between animals’ cognitive capabilities > difs
• NOT that some specialised adaptations animals possess (ie. spatial navigation/memory) aren’t impressive
• quantitative difs in IQ across species BUT do they reflect general IQ dif/just specific adaptation to particular niche? language-trained chimps = only evidence beyond; impressive BUT not us
• BUT humans = dif; language/IQ other animals simply don’t have