Traditional measures of intelligence, such as IQ, may not fully capture an individual's cognitive capabilities, according to author David Robson. He suggests that practical intelligence, which involves planning and executing projects, is an equally important, yet often overlooked, aspect of intelligence. Robson also notes that individuals with high IQs can be more prone to cognitive biases like confirmation bias.
Philosopher Jeff Sebo proposes an even broader reevaluation, arguing that focusing solely on human intelligence is too narrow. Sebo defines intelligence as the ability to process information, solve problems, and adapt to the environment. He asserts that animal brains, while different from human ones, effectively enable animals to navigate their surroundings and solve problems, indicating a sophisticated form of intelligence.
This broader understanding of intelligence challenges conventional human-centric perspectives. For instance, studies reveal that bees exhibit playful behavior, rolling wooden balls for apparent enjoyment, which mirrors play activity in other species. Furthermore, insects demonstrate remarkable capacities for perception, learning, memory, flexible decision-making, and communication, suggesting a complexity that belies their perceived simplicity.
The conventional approach to assessing animal intelligence often relies on human-associated markers, such as the mirror self-recognition test for self-awareness. However, Sebo points out that this method may be ill-suited for many animals, particularly those that are not primarily visual or do not respond to superficial marks. Alternative sensory modalities and methods may be necessary to accurately gauge non-human self-awareness.
Sebo cautions against making intelligence, especially human-like intelligence, a prerequisite for moral consideration. He argues that this approach could lead to extending empathy to animals with human-like traits, such as elephants and chimpanzees, while neglecting other sentient beings that possess consciousness, emotions, and forms of agency, even if they differ from human expressions.
Determining animal sentience, the capacity for subjective experiences like pleasure and suffering, remains challenging. Scientists rely on behavioral, internal, and evolutionary evidence. Observing animals nursing wounds, responding to medication, or facing environmental pressures that would necessitate such capacities can provide clues, though certainty is elusive. Sebo emphasizes that even a realistic possibility of an animal suffering warrants taking proportionate steps to mitigate welfare risks.
Beyond animals, Sebo suggests that plants also exhibit a form of intelligence. They possess sophisticated capacities for perceiving their environment, gathering information, learning, retaining information, communicating with other plants, and making adaptive decisions, such as growing toward beneficial resources. While this may not equate to sentience, it highlights their agency and ability to process information and adapt.
Recognizing non-human sentience and intelligence could have profound implications, transforming human relationships with food and wildlife. Industrial animal agriculture, a major source of animal suffering, also contributes to public health risks and environmental degradation. Similarly, infrastructure development often conflicts with wildlife. By considering non-human interests alongside human ones, it may be possible to create more harmonious environments that benefit all inhabitants.