Opposite of Acute Senses - Dull Senses?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Owls' acuity is better than ours but they can't hear above 14 kHz and ours is still better in the 1-6 kHz zone. It's funny how that's our super hearing range but human voices are much lower pitch.

What's the range for long grass rustling, concealing a cave lion? :D Or deer, or rabbit. I suspect this is a survival thing.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Bruno

What's the range for long grass rustling, concealing a cave lion? :D Or deer, or rabbit. I suspect this is a survival thing.

I think human babies often squeal in the range, and/or many smaller primates' alarm calls fit. So it could just be an ancient hold over as it's mostly structural amplification rather than more easily adjustable sensitivity.
What's really interesting is how chimps' range goes to 40 kHz, twice ours, but their tonal discrimination is around half ours. It's almost like we doubled down on lower pitches.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Bruno

There's hearing range (ultrasonic/infrasonic), and then there's hearing acuity ("what was that?") We're talking generic penalties here, not "is it in your audible range?"; we're talking acuity.

Owls are not the standard for precision in location of a sound at all - their asymmetric ears are unusual. They're like hawks and eagles for vision - exceptional. Humans don't have mobile pinnae, but from what I understand the wrinkly ears on great apes is supposed to actually act a little like the owl's asymmetry - weak in comparison, of course. Owls are the superstars.

Similarly, dolphins and bats are exceptional for having sonar, primates aren't sub-par for not having it. Bringing it up is really a complete side issue.

I disagree. It's exactly comparable to taking human vision as the standard for visual acuity. Human beings are very near the peak of all animals for keen sight; only raptors outdo us, and only cephalopods (ahd our fellow primate) are in our range or close to it. Taking the owl as the standard for "normal hearing" is exactly as fair as taking the human as the standard for "normal vision."

Or exactly as unfair. Really it would make better sense to make it a lot harder to see things, and give the bog standard human Acute Vision 6.