looks like Chimps Have weapon proficency Spear

I read a newspaper article (cant remember in what paper) a while back in which a science-type guy was talking about reclassifying chimps as homids (sp?) as in a part of the homo genus.

Cool or what?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Nyaricus said:
I've also heard of two chimp tribes warring in order to kill the other; stuff like clubs and rocks were used to kill. I probably heard that in the last 6 months, if anyone else remembers...

May 1979 edition of National Geographic. I keep telling that story, so maybe you heard it from me.
 

This is why I think chimps should be given at least Int 3.

Granted, they lack complex language, but they have been shown to use and make a variety of tools - from wooden spears to stone hammers to walking sticks etc. Then there is the fact that some chimps and gorillas in captivity have not only learned sign language - they have managed to pass it on to their children without any help from their human friends. Their intellect is stated to be around that of a child of 1.5-3 yrs, with the problem in the fact that it levels off after that rather than continuing to develop as with humans, but that little intellect is capable of truly astonishing results.

I tend to think there should be an animal-only sub-type 'clever' that allows certain animals to have Int up to, perhaps, 5. That would allow them access to some templates, granted, but then the creatures that should have this sub-type *should*, in my opinion, also have access to whatever templates their supposed intellect currently prevents them from accessing.
 

Yeah, animal intelligence varies almost as much as human intelligence does. I've seen some animals, dogs and cats even, outwit forewarned humans. I've seen others dumb as a bag of rocks. Crows have been observed fashioning tools, raccons are friggin clever, parrots pack a frightening amount of intellect into their tiny feathered skulls. I've always had a problem with the int cap of 2. Frankly most animals are smarter than the defective humans that are assumed to comprimise the bottom rung at int 3.
 

Cleverness, as I understand it, has much to do with a body mass to brain mass ratio. Anything over a certain ratio is beyond what is needed to regulate the body, and so the creature comes across as 'clever' compared to others.

This includes everything from squirrels and cats (at the low end of 'above average cleverness, based on this ratio) to dolphins and chimps (at the high end, based on this ratio). Dogs come somewhere between the two, humans are somewhat off the chart compared to these animals, and squids technically - by the chart - should not be as clever as they are, so something is up with them . . . . Or perhaps their neuro structure (not sure if they have enough neuron mass to actually be said to have a brain or not) is more efficient than we realize - and thus they should be considered higher on that chart than they are.

But what you say is true. Humans below, say, Int 7 should not be considered intelligent enough to go on adventures. By Int 3 they should likely not be allowed away from their guardian or family, as they are basically infants in an adult's body.

On the other hand, those animals likely have a 10+ Wis, and recall that Survival - which includes tracking, trailing, finding food, finding shelter, etc - is a Wisdom based skill. Combined with an Int of 2-6, that is more than enough to out-"wit" some humans (of average Int and average to low Wisdom), especially as some animals have racial bonuses to Survival or other Wisdom based skills.
 




(Psi)SeveredHead said:
May 1979 edition of National Geographic. I keep telling that story, so maybe you heard it from me.
I'm not certain, but some for reason, I think it was a story about the first video documentation, not the first actual documentation.

That might be right :confused::\

Well, maybe someone will link to it...

cheers,
--N
 

Remove ads

Top