*greedily rubs palms together*

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49417140)

Look at fucking penguins. They all look exactly the same.

But if you're a penguin, i'm sure you're like, wow look at how crazy different penguins look like!

Someone with a 90 IQ can basically do almost every single thing someone with an IQ of 130 can. The only differentiator is maybe the ability to do some math that the 130 IQ person never uses in real life.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49418289)

also you are a literal retard if you think the only diff between 90 and 130 iq is some math noone uses.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49418595)

Maybe you're right, but personally i have no clue if dogs have more or less variance in intelligence and not sure i trust any scientist who wastes his time studying it.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49419226)

1. In absolute terms, the spread is going to be smaller in dumber creatures to have the same overall variance.

2. We don't spend nearly as much effort studying animal intelligence as we do with human intelligence. We already assume they're dumb and tend to disbelieve evidence to the contrary.

3. We understand animal intelligence much less and bias it with human values and interpretation. It was only recently, for example, that scientists realized the mirror test may be a poor test for dogs whose primary sense is smell, and when they used tests based on smell, there was indication of self recognition. But our bias towards sight kept us from realizing this for decades.

4. Without the ability to speak to animals, it is hard to properly calibrate intellectual ranges based on the mundane things we are able to test for. If you couldn't speak to people, and had to simply rely on retarded tests like aroma recognition, would you really recognize the difference between Einstein and your average 100 IQ person? Almost surely not.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49419653)

Its trivially true that some variance exists within any cognitive species--dogs differ in attentiveness, memory, flexibility, learning etc. But my point wasn't that animals have zero variance, it was about relative cognitive dispersion under fixed physiological constraints. Humans exhibit an unusually large spread in abstract problem solving and metarepresentational ability.

Your point that "spread is smaller in dumber creatures to have the same overall variance" -- is actually close to my original argument stated backwards. Variance measured in absolute cognitive terms does compress in simpler systems, precisely because their architectures saturate early. A small difference in cortical column density or working memory in a human can produce enormous downstream consequences (mathematics, toolmaking, theory building) while equivalent variation in a dog mostly affects trainability or task retention. That's because the effective dimensionality of the system is lower. There are fewer interacting subsystems to diverge along.

On bias and calibration-- yes our tools for measuring animal intelligence are crude. But even accounting for that, there's no evidence of anywhere near the logarithmic spread humans display between median and extreme outliers like Gauss or Von Neumann.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49419805)

Dogs do have impressive sensory and social circuitry. Their olfactory cortex is enormous--far denser than ours. And they have top tier associative learning tied to smell, gesture and tone. Where they fall short is in symbolic abstraction. Their cognition is concrete and relational. It is great for pattern generalization within familiar domains, poor at cross domain analogical reasoning

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49419907)

Wow dogs are worse at reading than humans? Holy shit, let’s discuss further!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5795591&forum_id=2!#49420241)