|
Are Tigers 'Brainier' Than Lions?
|
 (02-02-2018, 03:01 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: IMO tigers are more effective/intelligent as individuals, while lions are more effective/intelligent as a group. Somewhere I read that tigers are smarter because they live in more complex environment. This high intelligence is also one of the reasons for their extraordinary adaptability I value your opinion and I think that sounds pretty good. However lions also have a extraordinary adaptability. When it comes down to individual intelligence, I think it comes down the the individual. Back to brain size and intellgience. Brain size can have a determination of intelligence, to a point. However then again explain to me this. Two people with the same sized brain and same growing environment, however one is smarter than the other. Same goes for similar sized animals. Orangutans and chimpanzees are similar in size, the chimpanzee has a slightly larger brain, but the orangutan is said to be more intelligent.  (02-02-2018, 02:53 AM)Polar Wrote:(02-01-2018, 03:40 PM)paul cooper Wrote: What else is there to say? It is a wild tiger, lol. Look up animals going to humans for help on google, and see what kind of animals do that.. (02-02-2018, 01:06 AM)TheLioness Wrote: Like I mention pckts, different studies will result in different results. This is why we can debate on this topic. I know you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you. However I appreciate the information you provide and it helps your point, as do mine. We can agree to disagree. I beleive lions are smarter in some areas and tigers are smarter in other areas. Even if I beleive lions may be more intelligent, it is slight. But there is no other study, all you have is 7 tigers vs 21 lions. I have one even smaller sample. You can believe whatever lol. 
Lioness:
"However lions also have a extraordinary adaptability." But probably not the same as tigers. "However then again explain to me this. Two people with the same sized brain and same growing environment, however one is smarter than the other." Because his brain can be of higher quality for some reason (or for variety of reasons). This is to a certain extent an individual matter. But something else is to consider this question from an aggregate point of view. For example, body weight is related to body height. At same height one man can be heaiver. Even a shorter man can be heavier than the taller one. But from an aggregate point of view, we can safely say that taller people tend to be heavier. Yes, you an say that lions brain is on average smaller but on the other hand relatively more effective than tigers brain. But you dont have any evidence to support such claim. Brain size indicates higher intelligence of tigers. This assumption is supported by opinions of scientists, breeders and trainers. 2:0 for tigers, so far... "Orangutans and chimpanzees are similar in size, the chimpanzee has a slightly larger brain, but the orangutan is said to be more intelligent." Oh really, I always though that chimpanzee is considered to be themost intelligent primate. Anyway, orangutan is more solitary than chimpanzee, so if he was more intelligent, it would deny your theory about higher intelligence of more social animals :-)  (02-02-2018, 04:14 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: Who is more social: japanese people or african people? There is no doubt that african people are more social. But are they more intelligent than japanese people? African people are more openly social and expressive (more like Americans), but Japanese people are just as social within their close-knit group. Basically the latter has more barriers and barricades when it comes to introducing people, much like many Europeans. Now intelligence, I believe that all races have similar intelligence and that these intelligences differ between individuals of every races. But Africans didn't need to have the instruments and progressions that Europeans needed because they didn't need them in the first place! When you are living in a more tropical place, what much good is a fortified shelter going to do (too costly and too much time). What good are steam machines or mechanical processes going to do when you are out in the wild hunting prey and trying to live a fast life everyday, that tech would only complicate things. But I am not saying that Africans would develop the same things even if they were on the Europeans place, but different, yes. Your example does not even relate to the differences of intelligence between lions and tigers.  (02-02-2018, 04:14 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: Who is more social: japanese people or african people? There is no doubt that african people are more social. But are they more intelligent than japanese people? Be careful when you enter the human department, Amnon. Our world, partly as a result of overpopulation, is very complicated in nearly all respects. In order to get to some clarity, humans often indulge in classifications. I understand, but they are an easy way out. Same for generalisations. As to the topic discussed. It depends on the perspective used. At the university, I saw people who passed every test with ease. As I was living in two different worlds, I also saw people hardly able to express themselves. The first group did very well in life. They used their qualities to adapt and got to the top. The second group struggled all the way. Many died well before their time. A confirmation of the importance of intelligence, background, training and contacts? No question. But the well-bred had to adapt to the conditions created by people with a similar training and background before them. If not, it was game over. Adapt? Yes, the higher you fly, the more you need to adapt. You need to sacrifice a few ideas if you want to score a few points in life. If I was to say you need to leave fundamental structures as they are, I would be close. Over here, these structures were created by people a few centuries ago. Quite a few could have had good intentions back then, but in the end hawks always take over when it is about power. Did I see a lot of intelligent people at the top? Yes. Did I see people with insight? Only few. Did they see it coming? Overpopulation and destruction, I mean? Same answer. Did I see compassion? Well, erm, ehh. And what about those unable to qualify for the race? They didn't fit in and had to prepare for an uphill struggle. A few of them ended up in crime and perished at a young age. Others decided for a different approach, but in most cases they too left our planet way too soon. One of them was one of my brothers. He didn't fit in, but had qualities one only very seldom sees. His music was appreciated and his ability to knock people down even more, but at the level of fundamentals he seemed to be on his own. Most people say they care about insight, commitment, compassion, creativity, true love and things like that, but in the end they appreciate some things more than others. Quite a few seem fascinated by kingdoms and all that. That's why we have the same system everywhere, that's why we see the same results everywhere and that's why we're heading for the exit real fast. My brother said many people were unable to feel and understand. At that level, they're absent. This often results in a lack of identity, a lack of cohesion and isolation in the end. Many people don't seem to be really here. They survive. How come? The system used to educate young people produces people able to participate, but it doesn't produce what is needed: adults with a clear identity, awareness, compassion and insight. This is why so many people in the western world in particular feel empty and that's why they need products enabling them to escape from reality. The system we use has benefits (material wealth as well as a long life) and costs (overpopulation, loss of purpose and destruction of the natural world). Most of us know that the costs will outweigh the benefits in the end, but the attempts to change a few things failed every time. One of the reasons is that the system in use only selects those willing to adapt. As those with a different view are rejected at a young age, one could argue that education doesn't produce what is really needed. As to animals and intelligence. All wild animals that made it to adulthood are capable in all respects. In spite of that, many perish well before their time. Coincidence often is underestimated. Captive big cats are mere shadows of their wild relatives. Tigers often are more interested in interaction than lions. The reason is that captive tigers often live on their own. Not seldom, they're bored to death. Lions can interact with other lions. They don't care that much about humans or other animals, because they live in their own world. The scenery changed, but they didn't. Are people living in the western world and part of Asia (Japan, China and India) better trained than people in, say, Africa? Most probably. But it came at a huge cost (a lack of development of the identity and a lot of stress). Furthermore, one has to remember that formal training and intelligence are two very different things. As to training. If the situation in Africa changes in the near future, chances are that there will be invested in education. Many Africans in my neighbourhood 'know' that every human is connected to an animal when he's born. I agree. They tell their children. At school, these children will be told that one has to distinguish between reality and myth. Chances are they will drop most of the ideas and views considered as 'myths' if they want to 'succeed' in life. I fear the day all of them 'succeeded'. Wisdom and training are different things. 
Interesting debate, I hope you guys will not hurt each others sentiment during exchange of words
I disagree with Amnon when comparing Japaneses and African. Social development of country and people highly depends on Government policy, education system and culture of people. Developing weapon, gadget, and technology can not be related to intelligence. Its more or less government policy and education system of country. For me intelligence of Lions, Tigers, Leopard and other cats is of same level and individual variation is expected base on its daily activity and nature. Most of the experiment you guys are talking are done on captive animals. Wild animals are different, they use different tactics and develop some very good instinct base on surrounding they are living. 
Intelligence and smartness of an animal depends on how tough their life was in previous generations IMO. Due to the extreme toughness, they must have learned lessons by hard fought battles in life. Those quality experiences themselves develop into intelligence over some generations IMO. How tough are the surroundings and circumstances also indicates their intelligence. Man too must have developed intelligence while being solitary and must have become social and got coordinated and must have developed civilizations imo.
I second @parvez on this one. Having interacted with some rural & tribal people of India, i can say that the ones living closest to nature are stubbornly simple, & from the historical consistency of indigenous communities being duped by "explorers", i believe this i had been the case all over the world.
They are not dumb, but any outsider who doesn't understand them will have every reason to think so... For example, they will believe literally everything you tell them, simply because they feel you don't have any reason to lie. Their straightforward interpretation of things have made them superstitious to the point of ridiculousness. Unfortunately, the modern world under the banner of industrialization had come to them as a rude awakening! Many have lost their ancestral lands to mining corporations & now earn a megre living as a miner or labourer. Their children are raised absolutely without conscience like men who've given up on humanity, hardened for dog-eat-dog.
In the pleistocene, whites may have experienced such harsh conditions that enable them to emerge as smart and intelligent creatures. Now it is the turn of the blacks in the southern hemisphere who are facing unparalleled wildlife compared to Northern hemisphere. Before the civilizations, they must have been facing these tough challenges all over.
(02-02-2018, 05:45 PM)Rishi Wrote: I second @parvez on this one. Having interacted with some rural & tribal people of India, i can say that the ones living closest to nature are stubbornly simple, & from the historical consistency of indigenous communities being duped by "explorers", i believe this i had been the case all over the world. Agree to this completely, but we are a bit off track now. We are discussing lions vs tigers in terms of intelligence here. (02-02-2018, 12:30 AM)TheLioness Wrote: Nice story though, I'm not denying that tigers are highly intelligent, I'm merely stating that I believe lions tend to be more intelligent, not by much. Brain size is not a proven factor of intelligence, if it was then other experiments proven that it isn't wouldn't exist. Its not a story, i was reciting what i saw at the zoo. I have a friend who saw the same thing. I doubt lions will do that. Tigers and bobcats/lynx are the smartest of all cats 
As @Polar stated, this topic fell off the rails fast. Things like this happen when we rely too much on non-numerical, individual observation. For those wanting a good overview on quantifying intelligence, please read the link in this post.
What I said:
1. Africans are more social. Polar said "African people are more openly social and expressive (more like Americans), but Japanese people are just as social within their close-knit group. Basically the latter has more barriers and barricades when it comes to introducing people, much like many Europeans." I basically agree. Although I think that african people have better verbal skills (they seem to be better at communication - japanese mentality is more introvert). And I think that this can be compared to social behavuiour of lions and tigers (who are in fact more social than it seems at first sight). Anyway...as I noticed, even within ther close-knit groups japanese (or asian) people behave more like introverts, their communication is much more quiet and not that intense. And for japanese people (as well as for some nordic Europeans) is typical high number of people who live so solitary life, that it can be regarded as some kind of social isolation (but discussion about the mentalities of human races or nations is not my intention). Anyway, I still believe that my statement that Africans are more social is at least to some extent correct. 2. Did I say that Japanese are more intelligent than african people? No. Did I say anything wrong about any people? No. 3. What is my point? Social skills are only part of what we call intelligence. Open, expressive, extrovert, communicative etc. people are (as a group) not overall more intelligent than introverts (better communication skills of extroverts are often compensated by better skills of introverts in other fields). If one group is more social, it doesnt make them more intelligent than the other group (which can be characterized as more solitary). I used that simple illustrative example with african and japanese people, because for me they represent opposite poles when it comes to extrovert/introvert or social/solitary mentality. Why I used this exapmple? To show that more social beings (animals, people) are not automatically more intelligent than more solitary beings. On the other hand I belive, that on average, skills of extrovert/introvert people or social/solitary animals is distributed in somewhat different way. I could use different example - extrovert communicative managers vs introvert (sometimes anti-social) programmers. Who is overal more intelligent? Hard to say - probably equal. Are there any differencies in the distribution of abilities? Probably yes. Lions are more like managers, tigers are more like experts. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 2 Guest(s) |