This is probably what you mean, but I imagine it's just a lack of negative evolutionary reinforcement of behaviours cause those behaviours to proliferate.

That being said, I'm convinced we continue to deeply underestimate the intelligence and competence of numerous species, even today when we like to talk about how ridiculously smart dolphins and whales and dogs and birds and primates etc... are.

I remember thinking, "I will be that dad who does not underestimate my kids capabilities. I won't hold them back." And my 5yo is still absolutely blowing me away with his ability to build complex redstone machines in Minecraft. I think humans are just really good at underestimating competence.

Our very definition of intelligence is part of the issue. There's no question that animals exceed our knowledge in specific domains, a bird who can fly must be vastly more knowledgeable about variable wind conditions than we are. There's a great scene in Lev Grossman's The Magicians where they speak to a talking bear, but all the bear wants to talk about is caves, and area in which his knowledge is so complete that the humans cannot really even talk to him. But our definition of intelligence is narrowed to domains which we live in. That tends to be a wider than most animals, but it's hardly complete.

Reminds of the Geifer grizzly. It raided human dwellings for food, signing its death warrant. It wore a radio collar, so it seems like it shouldn't have been a problem to track down. Yet, it evaded hunters for over a year, while still raiding houses for food, without ever being seen. It learned it could cross into Canada for safety when the pressure from the hunters tracking it got to be too much, and then return and invade more houses.

Eventually, it was shot and killed by a random hunter in Canada who had no idea who that bear was. The bear didn't know Canadians could also be dangerous, otherwise it probably wouldn't have let anyone see it there either...

I think a lot of animals are probably very good at what they've evolved to do. Bears are great at tracking and surviving being tracked (probably more typically by bigger bears); reading about it felt like getting a glimpse into another animal's domain and being totally outmatched.

We have baboons and they are smart. They can open all sorts of doors. They ignore you if you are a woman or don't have anything in your hand that could cause them harm. They know how to bluff an attack making you throw away food that is in your hands. The stand upright make scary noises and charge at you. Quite frightening and most just throw whatever it is in your hands away. So yes animals can be smart.

Thats a great story!

I used to be arrogant about this in my teens and think that people who aren't good at maths and science have a lower IQ. Till one day I learnt about the different types of intelligence - linguistic, logical, geospatial, social, musical, empathetic etc. - that really made me rethink how I look at people, and how flawed the whole IQ thing is. When we talk about someone having a "gift" or a knack for something, we don't realise we are appreciating the intelligence of that person in that area.

I have gotten into fishing this summer and _damn_ do those pro/YouTube dudes know a lot about fishing. They study bass behavior and do all kinds of experimentation with tackle and lures and the time of day and every conceivable variable that could affect the bite.

When I was getting into weightlifting, which I had always dismissed as a pursuit for dumb bro types, I was similarly impressed with the knowledge out there about nutrition, anatomy, the way that muscles tear and repair and grow, etc.

I think it's an all too common "nerd social fallacy" to assume that people who don't have that "traditional" scientific/math intelligence aren't smart, but as I've gotten older it seems to me that, on average, most humans are pretty damn smart about one thing or another.

>I think it's an all too common "nerd social fallacy" to assume that people who don't have that "traditional" scientific/math intelligence aren't smart

Dunning-Kruger effect. It's all too common on places like HN.

Eh we are a bubble. Many people assume because you are good at math or something that you must be skinny and weak and not into weightlifting or fly fishing, or you can’t get a partner.

I think that is a natural consequence of being young. You tend to evaluate others by comparing their skill in what you are good at.

In my case it was more due to the media hype around "Intelligent Quotient" and how it was measured.

> but all the bear wants to talk about is caves, and area in which his knowledge is so complete that the humans cannot really even talk to him

I talk to people like that at work often.

Do you think they might actually be bears?

In Lem's "Golem XIV" Golem (a machine built to help plan World War III) explains to the humans that its intelligence isn't just greater than theirs along some singular dimension, like it understands way more about high energy physics or jazz or ethics than they do, but is instead categorically greater - and worse that it is definitely categorically impossible for humans to achieve such intelligence.

The humans really don't like that and Lem's story struggles to really sell it because of course Lem was human, so it's hard to play the role of "Machine which is just categorically more intelligent than my whole species" effectively.

One of the clever tricks in Vinge's "Tatja Grimm's World" is that Tatja is way more intelligent than everybody else on her planet, yet because of why she's more intelligent than everybody else Vinge doesn't need to somehow imagine being far smarter than he is.

A good analogy is looking at how chess grandmasters talk about playing against computers, especially early on when it wasn’t known whether the best computers would ever be able to beat the best humans. They say it’s like playing a super intelligence.

Interestingly, I believe the engine + grandmaster combination can still defeat the best engines.

Kasparov also believes this to be true, but the last example I can recall of top level player teaming up with a computer was in 2014, when Nakamura played exhibition match with engine against Stockfish and lost 1.5/0.5, since then computers only got better. Maybe someone dedicated to playing computers could perform better, but I doubt it, since anti-computer chess haven't really been a thing outside of bullet and maybe blitz for years, now that computers search way deeper and prune better.

What an excellent show (although very weird and crazy too). The books showed what to me is one of the more interesting ways for an author to come up with a systematic system of magic. It isn't just saying a spell or anything like that. In the book (spoilers), only the most intelligent people can begin to take all the variables into account in doing a spell (hand signs, words, positions of the planetary bodies, temperature, humidity, constellations, phase of the moon, mood of the caster, and a ton of other things are all factored in and tables are cross-referenced. The author did a better job of explaining it.

In relation to your above comment I felt they did a good job throughout the series showing the difficulties in communicating amongst lowly people and entities and creatures that are higher up in the pecking order.

In Philosophical Investigations Wittgenstein famously said that "if a lion could speak, we could not understand him".

As with spiders' k. domains it seems. More limited than I thought. My garden orb weaver found a dried leaf as large as herself in her huge web and proceeded to truss it up as nicely as she could before belatedly realizing that the operation was not going to be to her advantage.

This is way too fast of a timescale for some selective effect to be the cause.

That's plenty of time for selection pressures to modify a culture. Culture—shared knowledge—is communicated much more quickly than genetic changes.

Yeah that's very true. Perhaps I don't mean "evolution" in a classical sense but rather: animals probe the world, and behaviours that aren't discouraged somehow are more likely to be replicated among the community.

Instead of evolution, some sort of epigenics or something?

How about memetics? I see no reason why memes are only for humans. The orcas must be communicating an idea even if they aren't using words.

I think it's the converse: after we've hunted orcas to near extinction, that very intelligent species realized they were no longer the apex predator, and could never win against a land-based species. There are ZERO documented incidents of orcas attacking humans in the water. They've chosen a cultural taboo against hurting humans, in hopes that we would no longer see them as an enemy and stop hunting them. And it worked!

Guessing the rudder attacks are either teenage pranks or misunderstanding that boats belong to humans.

Cetaceans have been recorded to have been non-aggressive, even helpful towards humans throughout history. That's why we have religious mythologies and regional/national mythologies in which cetaceans are told to save humans or they are treated as deities or spirit figures to appeal to.

300 years ago, if a fisherman got eaten by an orca, would that have been recorded as "eaten by an orca" or "eaten by a fish/sea monster"? It wasn't until the mid 18th century that cetaceans were asserted to not be fish, it took another century or more for this perspective to permeate popular culture.

For instance, in Moby-Dick (1851) Herman Melville dedicates an entire chapter to explaining the taxonomy of cetaceans and says they aren't fish because they breath air, have lungs, have horizontal tails, etc. But then he says whalers scoff at this distinction and consider them fish because they live in the water.

The word we use to describe them derives from the ancient greek "sea monster"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetus_(mythology)

> 300 years ago, if a fisherman got eaten by an orca, would that have been recorded as "eaten by an orca" or "eaten by a fish/sea monster"?

300 years ago the society had names for these species. Especially local fishermen would know.

> There are ZERO documented incidents of orcas attacking humans in the water.

Minor correction: Not in the wild.

In captivity, there have been some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca_attack

Yah but that is a bit of an extreme situation, you can't blame an intelligent sentient being that needs stimulation and freedom from turning murderous after it was abducted from its family in the wild and caged up in a tiny pool for an excrutiatingly decades long life. The violent part is putting orcas into that situation in the first place, they are orders of magnitude too smart and curious for that. The murder that followed can't really be said to be an example of a species being prone to attacking a human in general, it is a very specific set of circumstances.

> In captivity, there have been some: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orca_attack

I'll side with the orca on that one.

> There are ZERO documented incidents of orcas attacking humans in the water.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Keltie_Byrne

i bet these teenagers attacking boats were hurt by a sail once… or some of them were and taught others (orca attack in Portugal region are not a phenomena exclusively to the article publication year) . orcas have different behavior patterns on different groups roaming the ocean

>I'm betting some very intelligent animals realized humans are very reluctant to cause them direct harm (read: very illegal to hurt an orca) and have decide to have some fun with the humans.

didn't work for that walrus Freya. You just need a few not even very bad just not very good humans, especially if they happen to be government bureaucrats. Hope there is more protection for orcas.

Volgons are the worst.

>are very reluctant to cause them direct harm

After we’ve hunted them into endangered status.

So you are saying the Orcas are running their own YouTube channel, and they are doing so humans upload videos, and get the views up? :-)