Rank the Inteligence (IQ) of Groups of Zoo Animals from What You Have Seen

[Hyak_II]

Here is my take on things, especially after working with several out of this group.

1.) Elephants
2.) Certain dolphin species (notably Orca, Pseudorca, Bottlenose, and Roughtooth Dolphins)
3.) The great apes
4.) Corvids (mainly ravens and certain crows)
5.) Gibbons and larger new and old world monkey's
6.) Cockatoos and Kea
7.) Pigs
8.) Sea Lions and other certain dolphin species (Commerson's, pilot whales,belugas, etc...)
9.) Other larger parrots (macaws, amazons, eclectus, greys, etc...)
10.)Bears

 

[Mr. Zootycoon]

That being Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are, I'm assuming? I bought it a couple of months ago; definitely a good book for anyone who's interested.

Sure is! Most of his work is great.

 

[Batto]

I would recommend Nikola to start by reading this book, among others: www.goodreads.com/book/show/498329.If_a_Lion_Could_Talk
The objective evaluation of animal intelligence is all too often flawed by anthropocentrism; the more an animal is similar to us (highly social, proactive problem-solving skills etc.), the more it connects with us on a personal level (i.e. the cockatoo example) and the better it does at tasks we have designed, the more intelligent we deem it. But does that really give credit to the actual intelligence of the animal? https://goo.gl/images/0dTFjZ
Let me exemplify this: Border Collies are often considered the smartest, most intelligent dogs, as they have been bred to be most adaptive and responsive to human commands and signals. Therefore, they tend to excel at obedience shows (even though there are exceptions of the rule, i.e. "dumb", less responsive Border Collies). An Akita Inu, a Basenji or a Caucasian Shepherd Dog are, on the other hand, more independent breeds from different cultural backgrounds and with a different breed purpose that are harder to train and do not usually excel at obedience tests. But are they therefore "dumber"? Not necessarily.
Finally, you should ask yourself: do we actually have the means to measure animal intelligence fairly and adequately in all species? https://goo.gl/images/kiEwd7

 

[Giant Panda]

I pretty much agree with @Batto. Unless we can agree on a definition of intelligence, the question is meaningless. Give a kea and a Goffin's cockatoo a physical cognition task and the kea will usually win. Give them a physical cognition task involving extractive tool-use and the cockatoo will usually win. Who's smarter: the tool-user or the problem-solver? Depending on your definition, you could make the argument for either. Personally, I think anthropocentrism is inherent in the question of intelligence. It's notable that @Carl Jones belongs to the species his criteria fit most closely

 

[Carl Jones]

@Carl Jones[/USER] belongs to the species his criteria fit most closely

A great point that is of couse correct since it was a concept originally used, and still used, to describe or compare fellow humans.

 

[SealPup]

Intelligence is simply the measure of the ability to adapt to novel situations by overcoming instinct. Cockatoo and kea intelligence are the same thing.

 

[Carl Jones]

Intelligence is simply the measure of the ability to adapt to novel situations by overcoming instinct. Cockatoo and kea intelligence are the same thing.

It is not so straightforward, and intelligence and learning are based on the foundations of instinct, and are not in conflict with it. Read the work of the early ethologists like Lorenz and Tinbergen.

 

[SealPup]

It is not so straightforward, and intelligence and learning are based on the foundations of instinct, and are not in conflict with it. Read the work of the early ethologists like Lorenz and Tinbergen.

Of course learning has a biological basis. But what else is intelligence but thinking beyond instincts?

 

[Giant Panda]

Intelligence is simply the measure of the ability to adapt to novel situations by overcoming instinct. Cockatoo and kea intelligence are the same thing.

There's nothing simple about distinguishing between seemingly intelligent and "instinctive" behaviours, or even drawing a line between the two. Why does intelligence only apply to novel situations? Why shouldn't it involve instinct? Can't organisms "overcome instinct" in novel situations without intelligence? etc.

To take a simple example, some species/individuals approach foraging tasks with more exploratory behaviour than others, making them more likely to solve the tasks by trial-and-error. This is a novel situation and their behaviour patterns aren't instinctive (in the strict sense), but are they displaying intelligence?

And the point of the cockatoo/kea study* was to demonstrate that cognition isn't always the sole, or even main, determinant of success in cognitive tasks. The kea's beak isn't adapted to dexterous tool manipulation, so it will fail those tasks based on physical parameters. To a human observer, however, it's easy to assume the kea just isn't smart enough.


*Having just checked, it was actually kea and New Caledonian crow, although the author has also done research on cockatoos. Check out the paper here: Flexibility in Problem Solving and Tool Use of Kea and New Caledonian Crows in a Multi Access Box Paradigm

 

[Birdsage]

…it is very hard to put "intelligence" into perspective…
Humans tend to measure animal intelligence by comparing their cognitive properties to humans, using human methods. Of course animals that are a lot alike us score higher.

Here are 2 videos that illustrate this very point.