It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Is Intelligence Inversedly Proportional to Might?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 06:37 AM
Is Intelligence Inversedly Proportional to Might?

By John SkieSwanne

Postulate 1: Intelligence is the ability to solve a problem whose solution is unknown (not to be confused with the ability to solve a problem whose solution is already known, which is not true intelligence but actually a mere work of the memory).

Postulate 2: In nature, might is principally the ability to overcome a problem using physical power.

Why are the most intelligent species on Earth not those with the greatest physical strenght? Why are bottlenose dolphins able to recognize their own reflection, yet white sharks are not? Why are crows capable of using (and even manifacturig) tools, but eagles are not?

Proposition: intelligence is not porportional to might. If anything, lesser physical strenght actually stimulates intelligence in overcoming a problem.

To be or not to be is not only a famous quote from Shakespeare - it is also the primary drive of life. Survival. When an animal such as a predator has enough physical strenght to succeed in killing every life forms below it in the food chain, then the animal's existence gets practically assured - not only is the threat of fatal attacks against the predator nullified, but also is the predator's physical strenght sufficient in itself for a guaranteed regular food income. In this sense the animal satisfies Postulate 2 in its entirety. Such an animal need only to use its might to achieve either goals, but this has a major downside: every problems this animal encounters get to be solved by rather the same way, that is, use force. The solution is alreay known, for it is always the same. On the other hand, when an animal such as a crow needs to, for instance, access food lodged in an unaccessible area, this animal does not possess enough physical strenght to tear the area apart. Thus the animal has to devise a new solution for this problem. And thus the animal discovers how to use tools to nudge the food out of the area. When the crow's beak lack the strenght to crack a nut open, the bird devises a method to use cars as nut openers. And thus, the animal gets to satisfy the critera for actual intelligence - unlike the predator who uses the same old solution for any problems, the less mighty animals do not have this luxury, and actually need to think up new solutions to diverse problems.

And this explains why the mighty is not always the smartest.

At Time's End,


posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 06:56 AM
Interesting theory.
Of course it all breaks down when you get people who are "mighty" AND "intelligent" ( the range of intra species intelligence in Humans seems to be wider than in other species IMO).

This lot for example:

A list of people who would not only make you cry like a little girl in the ring but also outmatch the average human intellectually.

edit on 21-1-2015 by Jukiodone because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 07:17 AM
a reply to: swanne

To answer your question in the thread title...It might be.

Ha. Ha. Ha.

But seriously, I don't think you're too far off, and I'm quite certain that this idea has been discussed in science before. It makes sense--if you can't move a rock because you're too weak, you must figure out a way if it's important enough of a task to accomplish. BAM! Now we have the use of a lever.

Intelligence generally breeds innovations that make life easier--it used to just be physically easier, so intelligence was still a major player in daily life for many people. But now, innovations are make life so easy that it's bleeding into the need to use our intelligence (or a lack of a need to use it), and I think the human race is evolving into a weaker species not just physically, but mentally as well.

Luckily, many of us still retain the intelligence to know that we should work out our bodies and our minds to keep both in peak condition, but, sadly, that mentality is going the way of the Dodo--a bird that probably could not manufacture tools.

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 08:59 AM
The word intelligence is often bound to official things which make one easily usable.
Also the IQ score is based on how easily someone elses questions can put you to use.
If you are only used and take no action on your own, of course you are not at might.

The more harming one is, the easier he gets to power, since he does not limit himself by trying to not cause harm in comparison to only caring for might. Official intelligence traits however, disguise harm on others by strategies like in psychology.

The wiser people are, the more they understood how things work and the more different areas they combined or know of, the more they seem to care for others from my experience. I had communicated with over 550k people in my life.
Why is that? Well, there are multiple things to realize. Like karma - in other words harming back and rewarding through others, by making changes to the person, for example. Then there's the simple if all would unconditionally give in attempt to max out the fun of all, most would be at an advantage. The deep understanding requiring to understand how the world works or - the simple way, estimating by the subconscious mind - lead to the thought that damaging another damages yourself, because death does not mean a separated world or permanent non existence. in nearly all cases I have met.
In my case we are most likely all one being already and I feel fun of others.
edit on 21-1-2015 by oneoneone because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 21 2015 @ 12:29 PM
Well viewing things from the angle of natural selection, it is not necessarily who is stronger, but who adapts the best to a particular environment. Of course brute strength means that there is no need to develop anything else, as long as that strength is enough to get the job done. If not, the animals will die. Smaller animals generally had to fill a niche. Usually they were smaller, meaning they could eat things the larger animals could not, or they were faster, smarter, etc...I know this was not exactly what you were talking about, but I think it is related. And it is impossible to avoid this particular angle when talking about animal intelligence, considering that all animals are subject to the laws of nature.

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:42 AM
a reply to: JiggyPotamus

Yes. But here the question is not "do intelligent animals survive longer than mighty ones?" but really "is intelligence inversely proportional to might". But I certainly acknowledge the fact that natural selection will cutoff species which are unadapted.

It is interesting to notice that those animals which has the most intelligence are those who can easily flee such as birds - the magpie, the parrot, the pigeon, the crow. Chimpanzees can swing away from tree to tree, dolphins can hide in cold waters.

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 05:50 AM
Tall people are not human IMHO

posted on Jan, 22 2015 @ 07:26 AM
a reply to: Mehmet666Heineken

Um... why?

new topics

top topics


log in