Chimps. beat human
- Thread starter zioburosky13
- Start date
Vault Senior Citizen
No bigger surprise if true. We probably had far superior photographic memory back when we were living in the wild, too, because humans rely on their sight the most, at least to recognize places and things. I guess chimps, being related, do too. Key to survival.
Selection pressure should be expected to be higher on chimps who could actually DIE if they fail to memorise something trivial as opposed to humans who generally don't have to fight against predators on a weekly (daily?) basis.
So, yeah, chimps should be better at some things. We don't have the eyesight of eagles, so why should our memorisation skills not be surpassed by other animals?
So, yeah, chimps should be better at some things. We don't have the eyesight of eagles, so why should our memorisation skills not be surpassed by other animals?
The Vault Dweller
always looking for water.
The test was conducted with chimps vs. university students...I wonder how drunk they were?
No seriously I'm sure a prerequisite was being in good health prior to the test and it is exactly as Ashmo says. Chimps need to be aware constantly to avoid predation/aggression and such whereas humans live in an environment that is very laid back.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
No seriously I'm sure a prerequisite was being in good health prior to the test and it is exactly as Ashmo says. Chimps need to be aware constantly to avoid predation/aggression and such whereas humans live in an environment that is very laid back.
Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller
It's less abstract than that. Stupid chimps get eaten, smart chimps don't. Stupid humans still get plenty of time to reproduce and thus spread their bad memorisation skills compared to stupid chimps.
Evolution doesn't make things necessary "better", it only makes things "good enough".
Humans don't NEED to be as good at memorisations as chimps, so there's really no pressure.
I was only simplifying because the abstraction tends to attract wrong ideas about how evolution works.
Chimps as a whole become better at memorisation because chimps who don't become better at memorisation fail to produce offspring (generally either by failing to mate, e.g. through sexual pressure; or by dying before they reach maturity, e.g. by getting eaten). There doesn't seem to be sexual selection pressure in memorisation skills, so it's likely that chimps need those skills to survive long enough to mate. Ergo, natural selection favours chimps that are better at memorisation (or rather, better than humans).
Of course investment is also an important variable, but the cost of better memorisation skills is apparently not very high (e.g. in terms of energy needed by the brain).
Anyway. The point remains: evolution means adaptation, not universal perfection.
Humans don't NEED to be as good at memorisations as chimps, so there's really no pressure.
I was only simplifying because the abstraction tends to attract wrong ideas about how evolution works.
Chimps as a whole become better at memorisation because chimps who don't become better at memorisation fail to produce offspring (generally either by failing to mate, e.g. through sexual pressure; or by dying before they reach maturity, e.g. by getting eaten). There doesn't seem to be sexual selection pressure in memorisation skills, so it's likely that chimps need those skills to survive long enough to mate. Ergo, natural selection favours chimps that are better at memorisation (or rather, better than humans).
Of course investment is also an important variable, but the cost of better memorisation skills is apparently not very high (e.g. in terms of energy needed by the brain).
Anyway. The point remains: evolution means adaptation, not universal perfection.
I dunno, I think it'd be a pretty easy guess to say that many humans in many settings produce more offspring for being more mentally sufficient to survive and prosper in the world around them.
Not the case in America, clearly, where the only people willing to produce children are the poor and stupid.
I realize that evolution doesn't mean progressive growth, this isn't the yesteryear where we still have an "evolutionary ladder", that is why I took the liberty to say "evolving progressively".
I do believe I have read published reports of humans pre-modern evolution, making claims that our pre-frontal cortex is still developing in a positive and more functional way as a species. (I can;t verify though, I don't remember where I read it)
Not the case in America, clearly, where the only people willing to produce children are the poor and stupid.
I realize that evolution doesn't mean progressive growth, this isn't the yesteryear where we still have an "evolutionary ladder", that is why I took the liberty to say "evolving progressively".
I do believe I have read published reports of humans pre-modern evolution, making claims that our pre-frontal cortex is still developing in a positive and more functional way as a species. (I can;t verify though, I don't remember where I read it)
It's pretty obvious that certain capabilities would devolve once the selection pressure for them is gone, though.
Same would be the likely reason for chimps being better at memorising. We probably were as good at memorising (an interesting question is whether apes used in laboratory tests are generally better at memorising, thus nullifying the results) when we had to face the same selection pressures.
In turn, we probably face selection pressures in other areas which don't apply to chimps.
Same would be the likely reason for chimps being better at memorising. We probably were as good at memorising (an interesting question is whether apes used in laboratory tests are generally better at memorising, thus nullifying the results) when we had to face the same selection pressures.
In turn, we probably face selection pressures in other areas which don't apply to chimps.
I also question the nature of the memorization, not all memory tests are equal, and humans are also beset with trying to remember more and perhaps suffer from too much memory.
Like trying to find a file in an archive that is just way too big, a simpler smaller memory may function faster or more efficiently at the cost of quantity.
"better" on the test does not necessarily equate to "better" in all aspects of memory.
Like trying to find a file in an archive that is just way too big, a simpler smaller memory may function faster or more efficiently at the cost of quantity.
"better" on the test does not necessarily equate to "better" in all aspects of memory.