A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.
I thought that was QI.
So the variation within a species of slug is greater than the variation between slugs and the African elephant.
Peak Warming Man said:
So the variation within a species of slug is greater than the variation between slugs and the African elephant.
they are different genuses. even different families. etc.
you’re talking about variation, so perhaps more ignore recognizable differences between species (they’re more fixed), consider it statistically
The Rev Dodgson said:
A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.I thought that was QI.
What’s QI (apart from a TV show)?
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.I thought that was QI.
What’s QI (apart from a TV show)?
querulously intriguing. or quite interesting.
transition said:
you’re talking about variation, so perhaps more ignore recognizable differences between species (they’re more fixed), consider it statistically
to dumb it down
elephants have trunks, humans don’t, you might think that’s a big difference, but it’s not, it’s a fixed difference, variation zero
but take the variation of human noses (size for example), and it’s substantial
Peak Warming Man said:
So the variation within a species of slug is greater than the variation between slugs and the African elephant.
Probably not, but I suspect they were looking at closely related species with social behaviour, such as different species of apes.
I’m not sure if the species Homo Sapiens was included in the study or not.
ChrispenEvan said:
Michael V said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.I thought that was QI.
What’s QI (apart from a TV show)?
querulously intriguing. or quite interesting.
Exactly.
Mostly the latter, but with possibilities of the former.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Peak Warming Man said:
So the variation within a species of slug is greater than the variation between slugs and the African elephant.
Probably not, but I suspect they were looking at closely related species with social behaviour, such as different species of apes.
I’m not sure if the species Homo Sapiens was included in the study or not.
so species is defined by groupings where behavioural variation between individuals is greater than differences with closely related species
The Rev Dodgson said:
A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.I thought that was QI.
I think I’d need to read the article. On the face of it, taken most generally, that isn’t true.
dv said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.I thought that was QI.
I think I’d need to read the article. On the face of it, taken most generally, that isn’t true.
I didn’t say it applies to any and all species; obviously it doesn’t.
without qualification, general assertions would reasonably be interpreted as applying generally
SCIENCE said:
without qualification, general assertions would reasonably be interpreted as applying generally
I disagree. If you applied that to everything, almost everything ever written would be misleading.
You have to consider the context when interpreting words.
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
without qualification, general assertions would reasonably be interpreted as applying generally
I disagree. If you applied that to everything, almost everything ever written would be misleading.
You have to consider the context when interpreting words.
Onlty whisperer to the last…
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
without qualification, general assertions would reasonably be interpreted as applying generally
I disagree. If you applied that to everything, almost everything ever written would be misleading.
You have to consider the context when interpreting words.
Onlty whisperer to the last…
‘Onty
Witty Rejoinder said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
The Rev Dodgson said:I disagree. If you applied that to everything, almost everything ever written would be misleading.
You have to consider the context when interpreting words.
Onlty whisperer to the last…
‘Onty
it’s possible there are rare occasions, witty, that by way of an accident you’re marginally imaginative, i’d say try harder, encouraging guy I am, but who has that much time
transition said:
Witty Rejoinder said:
Witty Rejoinder said:Onlty whisperer to the last…
‘Onty
it’s possible there are rare occasions, witty, that by way of an accident you’re marginally imaginative, i’d say try harder, encouraging guy I am, but who has that much time
See if you limit your comments to under 35 words it might actually make sense…
;-p
Witty Rejoinder said:
transition said:
Witty Rejoinder said:‘Onty
it’s possible there are rare occasions, witty, that by way of an accident you’re marginally imaginative, i’d say try harder, encouraging guy I am, but who has that much time
See if you limit your comments to under 35 words it might actually make sense…
;-p
you’re giving me an erection winking jestfully like that
The Rev Dodgson said:
A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.
Wait on. That may be right.
Isn’t Shane Gould reading “Chimpanzee politics” in preparation for “Celebrity Survivor”
Personality variation within species could be a lot bigger than variation between species. The ranges of personality from altruism to egocentricity, from pacifism to violence, from truthful to compulsive liar, from maternal to infanticidal, from cowardly to brave. These ranges could be common to all mammal species and birds. And if so then why not more distant animals? – I’ve recognised personality traits similar to some humans in flies (hatred of imprisonment) and in mosquitos (predator prey theory of mind).
Got any more information about the New Sci article?
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
without qualification, general assertions would reasonably be interpreted as applying generally
I disagree. If you applied that to everything, almost everything ever written would be misleading.
You have to consider the context when interpreting words.
i agree, you are correct to point out that context is a form of qualification
SCIENCE said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
SCIENCE said:
without qualification, general assertions would reasonably be interpreted as applying generally
I disagree. If you applied that to everything, almost everything ever written would be misleading.
You have to consider the context when interpreting words.
i agree, you are correct to point out that context is a form of qualification
OK, I can’t argue with that.
Well I could, but I choose not to.
mollwollfumble said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
A short piece in this week’s New Scientist mentions a study that found variation in behaviour within a species is far greater than the variation between species.
Wait on. That may be right.
Isn’t Shane Gould reading “Chimpanzee politics” in preparation for “Celebrity Survivor”
Personality variation within species could be a lot bigger than variation between species. The ranges of personality from altruism to egocentricity, from pacifism to violence, from truthful to compulsive liar, from maternal to infanticidal, from cowardly to brave. These ranges could be common to all mammal species and birds. And if so then why not more distant animals? – I’ve recognised personality traits similar to some humans in flies (hatred of imprisonment) and in mosquitos (predator prey theory of mind).
Got any more information about the New Sci article?
Nope.
I can’t find it.
Either I read it somewhere else, or I imagined it, or it has returned to its original time line, or it is buried in an apparently unrelated article.
Found it. It was under the heading “can art heal eco blues?”
The source is Degreecoordinates, shared traits of the Hominini (humans, bonobos and chimpanzees) (2015):
UK artist Marcus Coates worked with primatologist Volker Sommer to list questions relevant to all three:
do you resolve conflicts using sex?
Can you use a bottle opener?
Are you preoccupied with hierarchy and status?
…
The differences between individuals of each of the three species far exceed those across species.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Found it. It was under the heading “can art heal eco blues?”The source is Degreecoordinates, shared traits of the Hominini (humans, bonobos and chimpanzees) (2015):
UK artist Marcus Coates worked with primatologist Volker Sommer to list questions relevant to all three:
do you resolve conflicts using sex?
Can you use a bottle opener?
Are you preoccupied with hierarchy and status?
…
The differences between individuals of each of the three species far exceed those across species.
https://www.marcuscoates.co.uk/projects/170-degreecoordinates-publication
The Rev Dodgson said:
The Rev Dodgson said:
Found it. It was under the heading “can art heal eco blues?”The source is Degreecoordinates, shared traits of the Hominini (humans, bonobos and chimpanzees) (2015):
UK artist Marcus Coates worked with primatologist Volker Sommer to list questions relevant to all three:
do you resolve conflicts using sex?
Can you use a bottle opener?
Are you preoccupied with hierarchy and status?
…
The differences between individuals of each of the three species far exceed those across species.
https://www.marcuscoates.co.uk/projects/170-degreecoordinates-publication
“Differences are of degree, not of kind” (Charles Darwin).
Ta, I’ll keep an eye out for it.
The mention of Darwin is interesting. The whole “origin of the species” doesn’t mention fossil evidence for evolution but is based almost in toto about the evolution of personality prototypes. So we could see this new book as a direct sequel to “origin of species”.