Steven Jones wrote:
[...]
SJ> [Chimps are intelligent animals. But being able to handle
SJ>random numbers does not seem to be much of a test of
SJ>mathematical ability. And who says that an average adult human
SJ>given the same training as this chimp, could not remember far
SJ>more than seven random numbers? My take is that if this is
SJ>the *best* that chimps can do, then it just underlines the
SJ>enormous gulf between humans and chimps, even though we
SJ>allegedly share 98% of our DNA. As Elaine Morgan asks, "If we
SJ>are so closely related to them-and everything we have learned
SJ>since suggests that the relationship is even closer than
SJ>Darwin supposed - then why are we not more like them?" (Morgan
SJ>E., "The Scars of Evolution", 1990, p1)]
[...]
This refers to tests of the capacity of short-term memory.
Human performance *has* been extensively studied in this area,
and the results are known to center around the number seven.
"Seven plus or minus two" is how I recall seeing the results
from human research characterized. Some people apparently get
along with as little short-term memory as Ai does, while
others may have up to four more short-term memory slots. In
any case, human and chimp short-term memory performance
appears to overlap, given the results stated. No "enormous
gulf" is supported by the available evidence.
Would that be the same Elaine Morgan who is an Aquatic Ape
Hypothesis enthusiast?
Wesley
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 11:45:27 EST