Disconnecting Sapience from IQ

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Ravens have a Machinist/TL0* skill. They can and do make tools (not very complex tools admittedly).

More-liked the One-Task Wonder Perk which allows them to make a few simple tools.

To be fair, the same perk might apply to certain proto-hominids.

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by SilvercatMoonpaw

More like "food watched over by hoomans isn't safe to snatch", am I right?

Pretty much.

Remember that many of the "tricks" humans teach domesticated animals are actually just "hacks" of animal social dominance behaviors.

A subordinate canine wouldn't dare take food directly from an alpha, but if the alpha "abandons" that food, then the Law of the Pack says the underdog gets to eat it.

Likewise, a canine wouldn't dare to defecate or urinate in a den it shares with an alpha, because that's a direct leadership challenge.

That's the reason that dogs ask to be let outside to "do their business," and why a healthy dog deliberately choosing to poop and pee indoors is a bad sign - it's making a play to be alpha in the absence of firm human leadership.

The same deal sort of applies to cats. Cats eliminate at the edge of their territory, both to fool predators and to serve as a warning to feline interlopers. They typically cover their poop and pee to help disguise the scent, especially if the cat is a subordinate sharing overlapping territories with a bigger, meaner, fiercer cat. Humans just hack natural feline inclinations by providing a handy box of sand-like material in a quiet, out of the way place.

A dominant cat, or a cat that's not secure in its territory, might creatively poop and pee "outside the box" to send a message.

In game terms, it's a bonus to Animal Handling skill because you're getting the animal to do something it would already do naturally.

[SilvercatMoonpaw]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

...and why a healthy dog deliberately choosing to poop and pee indoors is a bad sign - it's making a play to be alpha in the absence of firm human leadership.
...
A dominant cat, or a cat that's not secure in its territory, might creatively poop and pee "outside the box" to send a message.

Or a medical issue.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by TGLS

An IQ 10 Neanderthal is probably rolling at -5 or worse to drive a car. An IQ 5 chimpanzee has the same penalty, but can't attempt the roll because their effective skill is less than 3. If, say, the penalty was -2 (perhaps this is a self driving car), then the Chimpanzee gets to attempt the roll (despite the improbability of success). An IQ 4 Lemur doesn't get to make that roll, as again, effective skill is less than 3.

Why on earth do you assume a chimpanzee couldn't figure out how to get a car going and underway? Like. Certainly they couldn't if it was a stick-shift. Neither could a child or a neanderthal. And if they'd never seen a car before or seen anyone driving one or anything and had no reference I don't know that any of the three of a neanderthal, child, or chimpanzee would give the car much thought besides maybe a source of shelter. But if they'd seen a human turn a car on and drive it, and they'd been in a car and seen them driving around, a absolutely bet you that you would not want to leave that Chimp alone in a car with the keys because it would definitely try to get the car going and would almost certainly succeed. It would fail it's driving check and likely crash the car. But then I bet a child would do the same (because I did when I was 5) and a Neanderthal would too. All three would probably freak out upon successfully getting the car moving the first time.

Originally Posted by naloth

Neither of your definitions fit how I view Beastial. From Basic, it's anyone lacking a concept of morality (right/wrong), propriety (manners), or property (ownership in the abstract). Animals don't worry about sniffing each other, defecating in public, or making others feel bad even if they are domesticated. Animals regard toys and treats as fair game for whomever can claim it. You'll find these behaviors in domestic as well as wild animals.

Why do people always assume animals can't handle any abstract concepts? Like, their brains work on abstractions the same way ours do. They're not computers that run on very literal code. They're just less complex and struggle to handle complex abstract concepts that require a lot of nuance or a lot of layers of abstraction. And while they may not be great at applying these concepts to other beings (which requires an extra layer of abstraction in their mind that they might struggle with, especially if they have never been encouraged to develop those values, which is also a problem for a lot of people btw), they absolutely have concepts of property (for example: dogs are very protective of their toys and treats and definitely do not regard their own toys or treats as fair game for someone else who happens upon them). They also can have good or bad values and recognize good or bad values in others and are able to discern if someone is treating them poorly in at least basic obvious ways like physical abuse, abandonment, etc, and are able to formulate concepts of whether to expect that from people at large, or to apply it only to individuals, and then use that information to judge whether they should look out for someone in general or not (which is a basic form of moral reasoning). And some animals do worry about defecating in public and won't do it, so they also can demonstrate social awareness and social anxiety. For the record: medieval humans seem to have had no problem defecating in public either. "Manners" are a relatively recent invention.

So no. I don't think they are lacking those concepts. I think they are limited to very basic conceptualizations of those concepts lacking in a lot of nuance or complexity, as one might if they lack the language, semantics, and abstracted bigger picture perspectives necessary to formulate a complex or nuanced understanding of them.

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Pretty much.

Remember that many of the "tricks" humans teach domesticated animals are actually just "hacks" of animal social dominance behaviors.

A subordinate canine wouldn't dare take food directly from an alpha, but if the alpha "abandons" that food, then the Law of the Pack says the underdog gets to eat it.

Likewise, a canine wouldn't dare to defecate or urinate in a den it shares with an alpha, because that's a direct leadership challenge.

That's the reason that dogs ask to be let outside to "do their business," and why a healthy dog deliberately choosing to poop and pee indoors is a bad sign - it's making a play to be alpha in the absence of firm human leadership.

The same deal sort of applies to cats. Cats eliminate at the edge of their territory, both to fool predators and to serve as a warning to feline interlopers. They typically cover their poop and pee to help disguise the scent, especially if the cat is a subordinate sharing overlapping territories with a bigger, meaner, fiercer cat. Humans just hack natural feline inclinations by providing a handy box of sand-like material in a quiet, out of the way place.

A dominant cat, or a cat that's not secure in its territory, might creatively poop and pee "outside the box" to send a message.

In game terms, it's a bonus to Animal Handling skill because you're getting the animal to do something it would already do naturally.

You know Alpha's aren't a thing right? Social dominance behaviors are not ingrained parts of animal or human psychology. That's not how canine psychology works. The guy who pitched the concept of alpha's spent the rest of his life trying to correct everyone's impression because he'd gotten it wrong in the first place. Wolves look to their parents for education, protection, and leadership until they've grown up, then they continue to pay them respect but also work together as peers, or just decide to go join a different pack. Domesticated dogs never fully "Grow up" out of that hierarchical social structure of wolf cubs (because we bread them to not grow up). But the hierarchy isn't about challenging leadership or dominance or anything like that: they see us as their parents (caretakers, protectors, authority, but also maybe in need of support, or maybe abusive.)

So when they poop and pee where we tell them too? It might be because they're scared of us if we're abusive dominant "parents" or it could be because they're parents taught them that they should pee outside. They eat the food of the floor that we drop because we let them. Sometimes they misbehave. Sometimes that's rebelling (more often because they want more freedom or feel their needs are not being met then because they want to be in charge of you), sometimes it's because they lack long term decision making skills and aren't good at weighing the consequences of their actions and maybe that chicken looks so good and maybe that's worth mommy and daddy being mad at me for a few minutes. It's only about dominance when they've been taught to make things about dominance by having dominance obsessed abusive "parents." And that usually also leads to rebelling behaviors sooner or later.

[naloth]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

Why do people always assume animals can't handle any abstract concepts? Like, their brains work on abstractions the same way ours do. They're not computers that run on very literal code. They're just less complex and struggle to handle complex abstract concepts that require a lot of nuance or a lot of layers of abstraction.

I wasn't trying to convey that impression. In fact I only referenced three types of relatively abstract constructs: morality, manners, and abstract ownership. I also didn't address any reasons why animals don't generally comprehend these things. It could be that we just lack the way to convey the meaning to them. For that matter, I'd consider Beastial just as appropriate for a wild human that's never had any exposure to those concepts.

My point was that Beastial is just as appropriate for domestic as wild animals. I haven't heard of a significant difference in a domestic vs wild animal's ability to distinguish between morality, manners, or property ownership.

[oneofmanynameless]

Originally Posted by naloth

I wasn't trying to convey that impression. In fact I only referenced three types of relatively abstract constructs: morality, manners, and abstract ownership. I also didn't address any reasons why animals don't generally comprehend these things. It could be that we just lack the way to convey the meaning to them. For that matter, I'd consider Beastial just as appropriate for a wild human that's never had any exposure to those concepts.

My point was that Beastial is just as appropriate for domestic as wild animals. I haven't heard of a significant difference in a domestic vs wild animal's ability to distinguish between morality, manners, or property ownership.

I can agree with that. Actually, I think the inability to communicate those abstract concepts is very close to the problem. I've read a lot of stuff recently about how important language is to our ability to formulate nuanced understandings of things, especially abstract things we can't point to, or nuanced differences between similar things. An animals ability to communicate is mostly limited to the types of simple concepts that can be communicated with the gesture skill, which is of course always easier if you can point to something and are dealing with something concrete then if you're dealing with a lot of abstractions. Try to explain the difference between existentialism, absurdism, and nihilism to a child using only gestures and you're never going to get anywhere meaningful. Nor are you going to succeed to explain enough about how diseases work or bodies work to get close to the physician skill. Except, of course, that human children do have the capacity to understand concepts that abstract and to recognize simile's or analogies and extrapolate from them. While animals actual thoughts are limited to the types of simple concepts that gesture can communicate so even if they could understand your language it would still be all too big and complicated for them and they'd give you the, "I have a headache" look that some teenagers give their teachers in math classes.

Innumerate and Non-Iconographic go a long way towards modeling this, especially if you could find a "language" variant of Innumerate that ruled out conceptually complex skills like physician (note that this doesn't necessarily mean IQ hard or very hard skills, as some such skills, like artist and tactics, are more difficult in practice then theory (although strategy certainly would be ruled out). It just rules out theory heavy skills.) I probably would also assume that most animals do have lower average IQs and caps on how high their IQ can go, but combine the Non-Iconographic/Innumerate/No-complex-theory-or-complex-language traits with a level of IQ appropriate for a human child (average of 7 IQ for a 5 year old sounds appropriate for dogs and cats, 9 IQ for a 10 year old seems more appropriate for an elephant and the very smartest animals) and you'll have an appropriate limited animal. Note that that's very different then not actually having a lower IQ because there are IQ based skills that aren't so Theory heavy that they couldn't be learned. Of course, that "no theory because no complex language" disad would also taboo trait improving TL almost ever.

[TGLS]

Originally Posted by oneofmanynameless

Why on earth do you assume a chimpanzee couldn't figure out how to get a car going and underway? Like. Certainly they couldn't if it was a stick-shift. Neither could a child or a neanderthal. And if they'd never seen a car before or seen anyone driving one or anything and had no reference I don't know that any of the three of a neanderthal, child, or chimpanzee would give the car much thought besides maybe a source of shelter.

I dunno, I think you're giving cavemen and children too little credit here. Is drive the wrong verb? Sure; it's more like: "Figure out function of this completely unheard of technology." Is the car going to be driveable after they get it moving? Probably not. Might they not figure it out? Well I figured they'd only get it moving on 5 or less which isn't great, as they lack skills reflecting systemic investigation, but they still have a shot at pulling it off from just thinking it through logically. I don't think a chimp could follow each of the steps through.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by Pursuivant

Cats eliminate at the edge of their territory, both to fool predators and to serve as a warning to feline interlopers.

Actually, that's false. "Domesticate" (and feral) felis domesticus prefer to to eliminate within their territory where they feel safe (their actual territory will be quite a bit larger than the area they feel safe enough to eliminate within). Indoor cats strongly prefer litter boxes in the primary usage areas of the house, but will use cat boxes in "out of the way" areas if it's still considered safe by them.

One way of easily combating cats "peeing on the living room rug", is to provide them with a liter box in the living room, so they can use it and feel safe while doing so.

You should also provide one box more than the number of cats you have (when you have multiple cats), so if they start to get "territorial" about which box they prefer, there is "always one not used". And they should be scooped twice per day, and thoroughly cleaned well before they begin to stink.

My current group of cats (we have four indoor cats) tend to prefer one box for urination (every one tries to pee right on top of where the previous cat peed), and then the other boxes for poop. Previous cat groups have split the boxes among themselves, but this group has a pair of cats who refuse to accept the other is in charge and have continued to "play" dominance games with each other for years.

[mburr0003]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I dunno, I think you're giving cavemen and children too little credit here.

Agreed. I understood stick shifts (and knew how to shift gears in the '59 chevy pickup) and was riding motorcycles when I was 8. I was also taking apart mechanical* devices and putting them back together again on my own as early as five (admittedly not always successfully). Yeah... giving me my own set of tools as gift when I was four was a bad idea...


* I also enjoyed completely ruining electronics because I didn't understand that putting them back together was vastly more difficult than taking them apart, but I did still try†... up until the stepfather managed to disincline me from being overly curious about electronics. To his credit, he didn't care about purely mechanical things I'd disable, as long as all the parts were accounted for. So I learned to be very careful about taking things apart in "order".

† Because occasionally putting the wires back on with tape or glue actually worked, so I wasn't sure what the problem was for quite a while.

[Inky]

Originally Posted by TGLS

I dunno, I think you're giving cavemen and children too little credit here. Is drive the wrong verb? Sure; it's more like: "Figure out function of this completely unheard of technology." Is the car going to be driveable after they get it moving? Probably not. Might they not figure it out? Well I figured they'd only get it moving on 5 or less which isn't great, as they lack skills reflecting systemic investigation, but they still have a shot at pulling it off from just thinking it through logically. I don't think a chimp could follow each of the steps through.

That may also be giving chimps too little credit, though.
https://www.bouncinghedgehog.com/200...ng-in-florida/ (This doesn't sound true, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Z...impanzee_cited and a newspaper article it cites back it up).
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/or...ing-golf-cart/

Of course, both of those are unusual cases, and with apes that have been intensively trained to do this kind of thing. Normally, apes (even captive apes) wouldn't have had that much practice in doing human things, they'd be spending most of their time doing ape things. And I doubt if even these two could be trusted out on their own on the road.

Can't remember hearing any instances of an ape starting a car without being taught, but there's a story in "A Zoo in My Luggage" (Gerald Durrell) about a chimp he had that he apparently sometimes took for rides in the sidecar of his motorbike. (Possibly a daft thing to do, but it was very young at the time and he seemed to get away with it!) Apparently, one time they stopped at a garage and the chimp watched him filling the tank with petrol. The next time they went to the garage, two weeks later, he stopped to chat to the garage man for a few minutes, and turned round to find that the chimp had climbed out of the sidecar and was trying to unscrew the petrol cap. I can't vouch for whether this is true or not!

Scientists have also trained rats to drive, although, to be fair, those were custom-made "cars" with only three controls for left, forward and right and it took the rats months of practice to get good at it. https://www.sciencealert.com/scienti...e-as-it-sounds

Serious penalty to skills (even for apes) seems reasonable, but evidently forbidding them to try at all wouldn't be.

Incidentally, animals should have TL familiarity of TL8 (or whatever the campaign TL is) rather than TL0 or "TL -1" when using technology - they don't know much about how any of it works, but TL8 objects are the ones they're familiar with. They're bad at using them because they're bad at tools in general, not because they're from the past. B168 makes a distinction between IQ-based tech skills and skills based on other attributes (for using it rather than understanding how it works), which may apply here. Animals are possibly TL0 (or less)+8, in GURPS terms.