Sep 05 2008
Tools, Language and Intelligence
Words are tools. When trying to do good work it is important to use them wisely. That is why I can get bent out of shape (intellectually/emotionally speaking) when I encounter scientists and reporters of science being sloppy with language. Or using cliches and metaphors that may obstruct our understanding more than enhancing it.
For example, in a piece I discovered today over at ScienceDaily, A Fine-tooth Comb To Measure The Accelerating Universe, I have no problem with the use of “fine-tooth comb.” It is easy to comprehend that those words were used to describe a new technology. The universe has no hair, so there is little risk of misunderstanding. If, however, the piece were about black holes that “hungrily devour their neighbors,” well, that would trip my “bad use of language” alert. Why? Because human beings seem innately primed to project agency and intention into events, and I think it is a bit reckless and ultimately counter-productive to reinforce that tendency.
An article that appeared a few days ago, Evidence Debunks ‘Stupid’ Neanderthal Myth, also tripped my language alert. Debunk? That’s a strong word. I expected there to be some very good evidence, an impressive piece of slam-dunk research, backing up that word. This is part of what I read:
Research by UK and American scientists has struck another blow to the theory that Neanderthals (Homo neanderthalensis) became extinct because they were less intelligent than our ancestors (Homo sapiens). The research team has shown that early stone tool technologies developed by our species, Homo sapiens, were no more efficient than those used by Neanderthals.
Huh? Tool use is the one and only measure of intelligence? That’s the debunking of Neanderthal stupidity (i.e., lesser intelligence)?
The lead author of the paper was quoted as saying, ”Our research disputes a major pillar holding up the long-held assumption that Homo sapiens were more advanced than Neanderthals.”
Stone tools are indeed tools, but so are words. Is it possible that Neanderthals were less adept at language, and, in that respect, were less skilled/advanced/adept/intelligent than their hominid cohorts? What about hunting, art, social relationships, cooking, and who knows what else?
This topic brings to mind the unresolved issue of what, exactly, is intelligence. When we say, for example, that someone is gifted (meaning intelligent), shouldn’t that term be followed-up with the question “at what?”
