>>13788940The problem is that there are very likely animal outliers as you say that would have roughly equivalent human intelligence (at the very least towards the very low end of the human intelligence spectrum)
The problem is that it would be roughly equivalent insofar as you have to understand that on a pretty fundamental level that these are alien intelligence to our own thought processes. There are naturally going to be a lot of similarities, sure, but at the end of the day these animals brains also just work differently to ours. This makes it very difficult to really gauge properly when an animal is intelligent just how intelligent it actually is, if we even notice it in the first place as it might not display any significant intelligence that we can see casually.
Add onto that the fact that most animal populations are smaller than the human sample sizes we take for granted in big cognitive studies, and the fact that for the most part these animals go unobserved (even farm raised ones, people generally don't care what they're doing so long as they aren't fucking things up), and on top of that that many animals will be chronically malnourished and be lacking in vital nutrients to make their brains go brr, and it's pretty understandable how few exceptional animals we have found.
And we have found a few very deviant animals from time to time.
>>13794965Isn't that specifically Inuit populations? Or was that actually Native Americans in general?
>>13794667I will say that you're citing a single study from 1999 here. Though I'm not going to dismiss it off hand since I haven't read it to know how robust it is.
>>13796760To my understanding animal IQ's are heavily curbed and estimated compared to human IQ measurements, meanwhile human IQ measurements are already very abstract to begin with. IQ isn't really as strong a science as people would like it to be, despite it being reasonably robust to the point that it has high predictive ability for groups.
