One hallmark of an intelligent animal is the development of multilevel societies, full of complex relationships. Humans, baboons, giraffes, elephants and even dolphins divide themselves into family units that are part of larger clans that may have ties or relationships to other groups. Keeping tabs on dozens—or even hundreds of social relationships—requires the firepower of big mammalian brains—or so scientists thought.

A new study published this week in the journal Current Biology about an East African bird species with a pretty small brain reveals that animals may not necessarily necessarily need to be smart to be social.

The guineafowl groups were remarkably stable, anchored by several breeding pairs. They also found that certain groups liked hanging out with one another, meeting up at certain times of the day and around certain features in the landscape. Some groups would also spend most of the day off on their own, then meet up with another pack of bird friends to roost at night. In other words, they exhibit the same type of multilevel society as big-brained mammals.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time a social structure like this has been described for birds,” says lead author Danai Papageorgiou, also of Max Planck Institute, in a statement. “It is remarkable to observe hundreds of birds coming out of a roost and splitting up perfectly into completely stable groups every single day. How do they do that? It’s obviously not just about being smart.”

In fact, Farine tells Preston that these particular birds aren’t particularly intelligent.

“They don’t only have small brains relative to mammals,” he says. “They also have quite small brains relative to other birds.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-birds-have-tiny-brains-and-huge-social-networks-1-180973467/

PermeateFree said:

One hallmark of an intelligent animal is the development of multilevel societies, full of complex relationships. Humans, baboons, giraffes, elephants and even dolphins divide themselves into family units that are part of larger clans that may have ties or relationships to other groups. Keeping tabs on dozens—or even hundreds of social relationships—requires the firepower of big mammalian brains—or so scientists thought.

A new study published this week in the journal Current Biology about an East African bird species with a pretty small brain reveals that animals may not necessarily necessarily need to be smart to be social.

The guineafowl groups were remarkably stable, anchored by several breeding pairs. They also found that certain groups liked hanging out with one another, meeting up at certain times of the day and around certain features in the landscape. Some groups would also spend most of the day off on their own, then meet up with another pack of bird friends to roost at night. In other words, they exhibit the same type of multilevel society as big-brained mammals.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time a social structure like this has been described for birds,” says lead author Danai Papageorgiou, also of Max Planck Institute, in a statement. “It is remarkable to observe hundreds of birds coming out of a roost and splitting up perfectly into completely stable groups every single day. How do they do that? It’s obviously not just about being smart.”

In fact, Farine tells Preston that these particular birds aren’t particularly intelligent.

“They don’t only have small brains relative to mammals,” he says. “They also have quite small brains relative to other birds.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-birds-have-tiny-brains-and-huge-social-networks-1-180973467/

To a certain extent Kookaburras do this. Family group is Mum, Dad, Auntie/s & chicks.

>….necessarily need to be smart to be social..”

leans a lot on some assumed shared definition of smart, what I read in the OP, perhaps that’s a little tease

transition said:

>….necessarily need to be smart to be social..”

leans a lot on some assumed shared definition of smart, what I read in the OP, perhaps that’s a little tease

Think you should quote the entire sentence to get an idea of its meaning.

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>….necessarily need to be smart to be social..”

leans a lot on some assumed shared definition of smart, what I read in the OP, perhaps that’s a little tease

Think you should quote the entire sentence to get an idea of its meaning.

sorry if that messed with things

I’ll read it proper shortly

It’s weird then that some of the smartest folks have been very a- or antisocial, such as Newton and Cavendish.

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

transition said:

>….necessarily need to be smart to be social..”

leans a lot on some assumed shared definition of smart, what I read in the OP, perhaps that’s a little tease

Think you should quote the entire sentence to get an idea of its meaning.

sorry if that messed with things

I’ll read it proper shortly

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

transition said:

transition said:

PermeateFree said:

Think you should quote the entire sentence to get an idea of its meaning.

sorry if that messed with things

I’ll read it proper shortly

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

dv said:

transition said:

transition said:

sorry if that messed with things

I’ll read it proper shortly

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

Hive mind?

dv said:

transition said:

transition said:

sorry if that messed with things

I’ll read it proper shortly

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

good design, appropriate design intelligence, for a bee, would be bee intelligence

humans may have bigger brains, more mind tools, expanded adaptive intelligence, broader resources for solving problems, but you think about our notion of intelligence, being mental resources put to work to solve problems, to whatever objective/s

the objective/s can be silly or wrongheaded

a bee doesn’t have as many possibilities to get things wrong, not on the scale humans do

transition said:

dv said:

transition said:

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

good design, appropriate design intelligence, for a bee, would be bee intelligence

humans may have bigger brains, more mind tools, expanded adaptive intelligence, broader resources for solving problems, but you think about our notion of intelligence, being mental resources put to work to solve problems, to whatever objective/s

the objective/s can be silly or wrongheaded

a bee doesn’t have as many possibilities to get things wrong, not on the scale humans do

By now the word, birdbrain, should no longer apply. It isn’t about the size, it is about how well you use it.

dv said:

transition said:

transition said:

sorry if that messed with things

I’ll read it proper shortly

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

Do you know the intellect of other insects to compare? Some are obviously smarter than others, as applies to the Order of most animals.

I reckon caution is required when analyzing structure from relations of social creatures, it’s easy to think oh look A associated with B closely, does so regularly, build your representational framework from that sort of thing, but you know the distance between (space) may be just as (functionally) important

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

transition said:

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

Do you know the intellect of other insects to compare? Some are obviously smarter than others, as applies to the Order of most animals.

Fair point

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

transition said:

went to the page, the link provided

first thing I thought when read the OP was most people would have questioned at some time if sociability reliably correlates with intelligence in humans. Too I note goals are not underpopulated with highly sociable specimens, some might argue_oversocial_

>”…../cut/….The study raises the possibility that multilevel societies aren’t some sort of higher-level function…./cut…”

i’m not sure of the extent most people automatically associate multilevel societies with higher-level function

dunno

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

Do you know the intellect of other insects to compare? Some are obviously smarter than others, as applies to the Order of most animals.

The Hymenopterans, Bees, Wasps and Ants, would I suspect would be amongst the most intellectually advanced of the insects, most being highly social and living in large colonies. They commonly illustrate intelligence at the colony level, with others that forage as individuals being the most intelligent as they learn to negotiate different circumstances.

..Too I note goals..

should have been writ ….too I note jails….

no hiding my stupid, opposite of demonstrating my knowledge, turns around so easy doesn’t it

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

dv said:

I mean I would not have considered bees to be hyperintelligent…

Do you know the intellect of other insects to compare? Some are obviously smarter than others, as applies to the Order of most animals.

The Hymenopterans, Bees, Wasps and Ants, would I suspect would be amongst the most intellectually advanced of the insects, most being highly social and living in large colonies. They commonly illustrate intelligence at the colony level, with others that forage as individuals being the most intelligent as they learn to negotiate different circumstances.

Probably hunt and gather might be a better words to use than ‘forage’, which I considered as searching and gathering food and resources.

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

PermeateFree said:

Do you know the intellect of other insects to compare? Some are obviously smarter than others, as applies to the Order of most animals.

The Hymenopterans, Bees, Wasps and Ants, would I suspect would be amongst the most intellectually advanced of the insects, most being highly social and living in large colonies. They commonly illustrate intelligence at the colony level, with others that forage as individuals being the most intelligent as they learn to negotiate different circumstances.

Probably hunt and gather might be a better words to use than ‘forage’, which I considered as searching and gathering food and resources.

At which, bees excel.

PermeateFree said:

One hallmark of an intelligent animal is the development of multilevel societies, full of complex relationships. Humans, baboons, giraffes, elephants and even dolphins divide themselves into family units that are part of larger clans that may have ties or relationships to other groups. Keeping tabs on dozens—or even hundreds of social relationships—requires the firepower of big mammalian brains—or so scientists thought.

A new study published this week in the journal Current Biology about an East African bird species with a pretty small brain reveals that animals may not necessarily necessarily need to be smart to be social.

The guineafowl groups were remarkably stable, anchored by several breeding pairs. They also found that certain groups liked hanging out with one another, meeting up at certain times of the day and around certain features in the landscape. Some groups would also spend most of the day off on their own, then meet up with another pack of bird friends to roost at night. In other words, they exhibit the same type of multilevel society as big-brained mammals.

“To our knowledge, this is the first time a social structure like this has been described for birds,” says lead author Danai Papageorgiou, also of Max Planck Institute, in a statement. “It is remarkable to observe hundreds of birds coming out of a roost and splitting up perfectly into completely stable groups every single day. How do they do that? It’s obviously not just about being smart.”

In fact, Farine tells Preston that these particular birds aren’t particularly intelligent.

“They don’t only have small brains relative to mammals,” he says. “They also have quite small brains relative to other birds.”

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/these-birds-have-tiny-brains-and-huge-social-networks-1-180973467/

I came to the conclusion, sort of a few years ago, that brains are not all that necessary for either survival or what we call intelligence. They are necessary for what we call consciousness, but consciousness seems to be overrated.

The main use of the brain in most animals is in interpreting visual and smell sensors.

>I came to the conclusion, sort of a few years ago, that brains are not all that necessary for either survival or what we call intelligence. They are necessary for what we call consciousness, but consciousness seems to be overrated

well, you get the ESP function with consciousness, the extra sensory perception, the mind-reading feature, all the spooky action, to some extent at the expense of commensurate instinct awareness, just to add a twist

the added receptivity, the mediator of instinct and desire, employing inhibitory mechanisms, doesn’t necessarily see that what it inhibits, or represses if you will

transition said:

>I came to the conclusion, sort of a few years ago, that brains are not all that necessary for either survival or what we call intelligence. They are necessary for what we call consciousness, but consciousness seems to be overrated

well, you get the ESP function with consciousness, the extra sensory perception, the mind-reading feature, all the spooky action, to some extent at the expense of commensurate instinct awareness, just to add a twist

the added receptivity, the mediator of instinct and desire, employing inhibitory mechanisms, doesn’t necessarily see that what it inhibits, or represses if you will

Coincidentally, I was thinking this morning that brains are very useful for survival and necessary for what we call intelligence, but wondering are they necessary for what we call consciousness?

I think perhaps not.

It may be of course that what I call intelligence/consciousness and what you call intelligence/consciousness are different things.

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>I came to the conclusion, sort of a few years ago, that brains are not all that necessary for either survival or what we call intelligence. They are necessary for what we call consciousness, but consciousness seems to be overrated

well, you get the ESP function with consciousness, the extra sensory perception, the mind-reading feature, all the spooky action, to some extent at the expense of commensurate instinct awareness, just to add a twist

the added receptivity, the mediator of instinct and desire, employing inhibitory mechanisms, doesn’t necessarily see that what it inhibits, or represses if you will

Coincidentally, I was thinking this morning that brains are very useful for survival and necessary for what we call intelligence, but wondering are they necessary for what we call consciousness?

I think perhaps not.

It may be of course that what I call intelligence/consciousness and what you call intelligence/consciousness are different things.

I guess the honest thing is to struggle with our notion/s, I do, it’s an unconclusion, always a work in progress, as many things (for me) are

if any single word ever explained anything, pointed so conclusively, so absolutely, sentences wouldn’t be needed, or paragraphs, or persistence

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>I came to the conclusion, sort of a few years ago, that brains are not all that necessary for either survival or what we call intelligence. They are necessary for what we call consciousness, but consciousness seems to be overrated

well, you get the ESP function with consciousness, the extra sensory perception, the mind-reading feature, all the spooky action, to some extent at the expense of commensurate instinct awareness, just to add a twist

the added receptivity, the mediator of instinct and desire, employing inhibitory mechanisms, doesn’t necessarily see that what it inhibits, or represses if you will

Coincidentally, I was thinking this morning that brains are very useful for survival and necessary for what we call intelligence, but wondering are they necessary for what we call consciousness?

I think perhaps not.

It may be of course that what I call intelligence/consciousness and what you call intelligence/consciousness are different things.

I guess the honest thing is to struggle with our notion/s, I do, it’s an unconclusion, always a work in progress, as many things (for me) are

if any single word ever explained anything, pointed so conclusively, so absolutely, sentences wouldn’t be needed, or paragraphs, or persistence

Those two statements I completely agree with.

I think.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

>I came to the conclusion, sort of a few years ago, that brains are not all that necessary for either survival or what we call intelligence. They are necessary for what we call consciousness, but consciousness seems to be overrated

well, you get the ESP function with consciousness, the extra sensory perception, the mind-reading feature, all the spooky action, to some extent at the expense of commensurate instinct awareness, just to add a twist

the added receptivity, the mediator of instinct and desire, employing inhibitory mechanisms, doesn’t necessarily see that what it inhibits, or represses if you will

Coincidentally, I was thinking this morning that brains are very useful for survival and necessary for what we call intelligence, but wondering are they necessary for what we call consciousness?

I think perhaps not.

It may be of course that what I call intelligence/consciousness and what you call intelligence/consciousness are different things.

I guess the honest thing is to struggle with our notion/s, I do, it’s an unconclusion, always a work in progress, as many things (for me) are

if any single word ever explained anything, pointed so conclusively, so absolutely, sentences wouldn’t be needed, or paragraphs, or persistence

>…../cut/…..but wondering are they necessary for what we call consciousness?……../cut/…….

I think with consciousness you have to look at the journey of the retreat, the cyclic retreats, it’s too easy to see it as, or in the increasing awarenesses, that’s misguided to see it that way, only that way, to see the entire contribution related homeostasis you need see the retreat, which includes regressions, senses folding back with sleep etc, how the surplus mental resources detached from immediate sensory input lend to fluid abstraction, all sorts of try and test

but i’m fairly sure the best way to understand consciousness is in a framework of homeostasis, broader homeostasis, maintenance of the integrity of the organism/s (allowing for group homeostasis)

dv said:

It’s weird then that some of the smartest folks have been very a- or antisocial, such as Newton and Cavendish.

antisocial and apparently less social aren’t the same thing

anyway, you could argue all social behavior involve nuances that limit the extent of it, the where, when, and who with

you don’t conceive two magnets as (interaction) just involving forces of attraction, further every attraction (in the social field) involves displacement of some sort

transition said:

dv said:

It’s weird then that some of the smartest folks have been very a- or antisocial, such as Newton and Cavendish.

antisocial and apparently less social aren’t the same thing

anyway, you could argue all social behavior involve nuances that limit the extent of it, the where, when, and who with

you don’t conceive two magnets as (interaction) just involving forces of attraction, further every attraction (in the social field) involves displacement of some sort

anyway, you could argue all social behavior involve nuances that limit the extent of it, the where, when, and who with

and importantly the what about