Quick Question

[Carinthium]

At what point in history did something like the modern concept of 'intelligence' come into existence? I was going to assume for an RPG that something resembling the concept existed as long as humanity, but I decided to check since I don't actually know that.

[Simon_Jester]

By "intelligence" do you mean "thinking minds," or do you mean "information gathered about your rivals using spies/analysts/whatever?"

[Formless]

I was going to assume for an RPG that something resembling the concept existed [for] as long as humanity,

or do you mean "information gathered about your rivals using spies/analysts/whatever?"

Lets see. Warfare hasn't existed for as long as humanity has. So I don't think he's talking about spycraft.

Also, Role Playing Games (or "RPG's" for short) commonly have "intelligence" as one of their basic character stats, like "strength" or "agility".

For proof of the existence of stupid questions, see exhibit A.

[Simon_Jester]

Formless, I don't think you thought out your comment.

I can easily think of "intelligence gathering" in the context of Stone Age tribes, a form of social organization that predates homo sapiens. A caveman might not think of it as intelligence gathering himself, but how would I know? I can also think of the concept of "smart versus stupid" in the context of a Stone Age lifestyle; I suspect that words functionally equivalent to 'smart' and 'stupid' have been around nearly as long as language itself.

The real problem with Carinthium's question is that it is vague; you can't tell what he's asking.

[Formless]

The abbreviation "RPG" refers to one of two things, and while I've seen many people try and design their own amateur games I've yet to see someone come online seeking help in designing their Rocket Propelled Grenade. Also, most people aren't such massive dorks they even know/care that the word "intelligence" can also refer to spycraft. If there is no indication that the person is using the word in a military context, the safe assumption is that they are talking about being intelligent.

Also, in a non-military context, we have other words for that. Like research. Or exploration. Or any number of less-mil-geek phrases (that are also far more appropriate).

Why is this even a question for you?

Edit: P.S. language has evolved over time, and other cultures do in fact talk about the mind in different terms than the English language/western culture does. Its quite plausible that the idea "some people are smarter, wittier, wiser, or more experienced than others" came about relatively recently. How recently? I don't know. No one may know, save for Dr. Who.

Double edit: also, there are multiple hypothesis about intelligence in modern psychology besides the familiar G factor or I.Q., like the Theory of Multiple Intelligences.

[fgalkin]

Are you seriously telling us that only weird military dorks have ever heard of the CIA?

Have a very nice day.
-fgalkin

[Formless]

Are you seriously telling us that only weird military dorks have ever heard of the CIA?

No, I'm saying only mil-geeks would jump to the conclusion that a poster on the internet asking for help with his homebrew roleplaying game would use the word "intelligence" to refer to spycraft and not intelligence in the cognitive sense. You stupid mil-geek fatties.

[Sarevok]

If the question was about cognitive intelligence it would have been in SLAM instead of history.

[Formless]

If the question was about cognitive intelligence it would have been in SLAM instead of history.

What makes you think? He wants to know the history of the concept. Technically, that could go in either SLAM or History.

[Sarevok]

Hmmm you are right. Its best we all wait for the OP to come back and explain himself.

[Simon_Jester]

Are you seriously telling us that only weird military dorks have ever heard of the CIA?

No, I'm saying only mil-geeks would jump to the conclusion that a poster on the internet asking for help with his homebrew roleplaying game would use the word "intelligence" to refer to spycraft and not intelligence in the cognitive sense. You stupid mil-geek fatties.

So yes, you are seriously telling us that only weird military dorks know what the "I" in "CIA" stands for, and might actually use that word. Only stupid mil-geek fatheads would even consider that, instead of deciding the original poster means RPG stats in the total absence of evidence one way or the other.

Oh, AND asking the question counts as me jumping to conclusions. But you deciding you know the answer doesn't.

Formless, I normally try to avoid putting things in these terms, but seriously, you need to get your head out of your ass. This is just ridiculous.

[Formless]

Stop strawmanning, you incompetent dorks. First fgalkin, now you? What a shock.

The point that sailed over your head was the fact that the OP wanted help on a role playing game. Role playing games almost always have a statistic measuring the intelligence of their characters, unless they are either no numbers narrative style games or full tactical games where everything else is irrelevant. Context is everything. Context is what would tell us he meant intelligence in a spycraft sense-- if he indicated he was talking about goddamn spycraft. He never indicated he was talking about spycraft, or the military. He did indicate he was talking about writing up a Role Playing Game, and that he wasn't sure if the idea of "intelligence" was universal through all of human history. Obviously, intelligence in a military sense isn't what is being asked about here. Intelligence in that sense is only rarely ever used by ordinary people. Most people aren't that interested in knowing why the CIA is called the CIA. Most people aren't so goddamn dumb that they need to ask for clarification whether someone means intelligence in the normal sense of the word, or the the highly specialized military sense.

Stop acting like your own interpretations of people's questions are automatically reasonable, you self centered gassbag.

[Esquire]

Considering many games have been based around spies and/or conspiracies from the dawn of time, it's entirely reasonable to clarify.Particularly on this board, where both military intelligence and the other sort come up all the damn time.

[Formless]

If his game was about spycraft, why does he imply he thought it might be as old as human history? Obviously, with no warfare there is no reason to spy on people. I tend to assume people are of a certain baseline intelligence until they prove otherwise like Simon. Also, most roleplaying games about spycraft use words like spycraft, because most of his prospective audience would be familiar with the concept through James Bond movies, and have only ever heard the word "military intelligence" as the punchline of a joke.

P.S. Carinthium, if spycraft really is what your game is about, take this as a hint that most role players will have no fucking clue what you are talking about if you refer to intelligence as spycraft. Mil-geeks are a minority of gamers.

[Akhlut]

If his game was about spycraft, why does he imply he thought it might be as old as human history?

History, as in written accounts of human actions, are only ~5000 years old, during which military intelligence has been in use for pretty much all of that time frame, because humans like winning wars.

Obviously, with no warfare there is no reason to spy on people.

Chimpanzees have a state of conflict very much resembling warfare, and humans and chimps last common ancestor was alive ~7 million years ago. So, warfare between primate groups might be around 7 million years old. Which means military intelligence has probably been around for a very long time.

[Formless]

If his game was about spycraft, why does he imply he thought it might be as old as human history?

History, as in written accounts of human actions, are only ~5000 years old, during which military intelligence has been in use for pretty much all of that time frame, because humans like winning wars.

I was going to assume for an RPG that something resembling the concept existed as long as humanity

Don't mistake my words for the words of the OP.

Also, the phrase "human history" usually refers to something more than just written history.

Obviously, with no warfare there is no reason to spy on people.

Chimpanzees have a state of conflict very much resembling warfare, and humans and chimps last common ancestor was alive ~7 million years ago. So, warfare between primate groups might be around 7 million years old. Which means military intelligence has probably been around for a very long time.

Except there is no archeological evidence of this in early humans. And Chimpanzees aren't humans. Bonobos are just as closely related, and they don't go to war with each other.

Besides, tribal warfare resembles warfare between states (where spys being to matter) only insofar as violence is involved.

[Simon_Jester]

Stop strawmanning, you incompetent dorks. First fgalkin, now you? What a shock.

The point that sailed over your head was the fact that the OP wanted help on a role playing game.

Yes, therefore he could mean only the intelligence stat, even though he didn't say "game statistic" any more than he said "espionage." And we're stupid incompetent fat nerd dorks who jump to conclusions because we aren't sure what he meant, and you are the normal one for flipping your shit and berating us about how obviously it must be one of the two possibilities and not the other.

Obviously. Right.

Again, Formless, I really hope that at some point in the future, after you get your head out of your ass, this whole exchange will look embarrassing and dumb to you. Because I'd sure be embarrassed to find out I'd acted like this over a question like this. I'd worry more about myself if I didn't.

P.S. Carinthium, if spycraft really is what your game is about, take this as a hint that most role players will have no fucking clue what you are talking about if you refer to intelligence as spycraft. Mil-geeks are a minority of gamers.

I advise Carinthium to ignore you, because you live in a deeply messed up mind-space when you get into chemical imbalance mode like this. Things you think make sense often make no sense to other people. Things that make perfect sense often make no sense to you.

[Carinthium]

My apologies- shouldn't have made the question vague. I meant intelligence in the sense most people use it, not military intelligence.

[Simon_Jester]

Ah. Sorry.

[Formless]

I advise Carinthium to ignore you, because you live in a deeply messed up mind-space when you get into chemical imbalance mode like this. Things you think make sense often make no sense to other people. Things that make perfect sense often make no sense to you.

Carinthum, I suggest you never pay Simon any heed. When he thinks he is right, it takes direct and simple statements to force him to understand that he is wrong.

(am I doing that right?)

Also, Simon, post shit like this again, and I will simply inform the moderators that you have a vendetta against me. Its not the first time you have done it, but it will be the last. I post evidence, you post opinions in disagreement. I post logical arguments, you post an "ignore him" out of spite. I will remember this. Do you understand? Do you understand, you stupid asshole? Because I will not take this shit sitting down. Never have.

In any case, I am vindicated, and this will be the last I will post on this subject. The OP need not apologize for others hijacking his thread with stupidity.

[Akhlut]

Except there is no archeological evidence of this in early humans. And Chimpanzees aren't humans. Bonobos are just as closely related, and they don't go to war with each other.

Yes, because the past 5000 years of human experience totally point to humans as being a naturally peaceful species that preferentially uses sex to ease conflict instead of exploding into violence at the drop of a hat.

Besides, tribal warfare resembles warfare between states (where spys being to matter) only insofar as violence is involved.

Because, obviously, knowing where the other group is, how many people are involved, and what weapons they have is totally unimportant.

[Akhlut]

My apologies- shouldn't have made the question vague. I meant intelligence in the sense most people use it, not military intelligence.

So, with regards to this as far as intellect goes: the ancient Greeks since Plato, at least, were arguing for philosopher-kings to rule over society and expounding about the virtues of education and cleverness in men while criticizing dullards. Other philosophers of other cultures similarly expounded on the virtues of learning versus ignorance, so, to that end, there is at least an acknowledgment of differences in learning/education. So, an idea of education has been around for several thousand years at this point, and is potentially older. Of outright inherent intelligence? That is much more conjectural, but that has probably been around since humans have had the ability to form abstract concepts, as mental disabilities (such as Down syndrome) have probably always been with us and would have been relatively easy to note.

[Formless]

Akhlut, as of right now this is a tangent, and I really am more interested in seeing the question in the OP answered, because even I don't know how far back we can trace the idea of intellect. So if you respond, I probably won't go further. This should hopefully explain my position so that in future threads, you might know where I am coming from. In fact, if you want, you can go ahead and make that thread.
Spoiler

Yes, because the past 5000 years of human experience totally point to humans as being a naturally peaceful species that preferentially uses sex to ease conflict instead of exploding into violence at the drop of a hat.

The last five thousand years have had humans living in agricultural societies, as opposed to the nomadic societies that we evolved in. Agricultural societies face massively different problems than nomadic ones. Written history is biased towards the latter part of human history, when the vast majority of it look quite different from the part that came after the invention of writing. For the record, those few tribes that still live more or less like humans evolved tend not to have a problem with warfare, because they tend not to have neighbors to fight wars with.

Also, pointing to bonobos was not an attempt to claim we are more like them than we are chimps. I simply hate chimpanzee analogies because they proves exactly nothing about human nature, and the scientists who try and glean useful insights into humans from chimps also careful these days to talk about bonobos for this very reason. We are not quite like either of them; we are somewhat like both of them. Incidentaly, chimps do less raping than bonobos and humans.

Because, obviously, knowing where the other group is, how many people are involved, and what weapons they have is totally unimportant.

If you look at warfare from 150 years ago, it looks notably different from warfare today. Look 150 years previous to that, it looks again different. Look back far enough, and it looks completely different save for the fact there are monkeys beating each other to death with sticks and stones. And different cultures, like the Native American tribes that had a practice of counting coup for instance, had very different ideas about how to wage war than modern national entities, from rules of ethics/honor/ritual to methods to philosophies to causes belli. For this reason, I reserve skepticism for the idea that all ideas about warfare we take for granted today were always around, except that humans of some tribes decided to fight with others to resolve who knows what kind of disputes. Otherwise, why would writers like Sun Tzu and others even exist, if not to propose a different way of waging war? Intelligence may seem like a basic one, and you can bet that the first guy who started making a habit of learning his enemy's resources started winning a lot more battles. But then again, once upon a time the idea of a standing army was an innovation too (and that is something that written history did record), so who knows? Plus, there is the fact that war was invented independently in several different places. In some it might have looked like a ritualistic mob on mob duel, whereas others it might have started out with theft and escalated to raiding settlements.

Its just not a subject simple enough to warrant too many assumptions.

[PeZook]

Also, Simon, post shit like this again, and I will simply inform the moderators that you have a vendetta against me. Its not the first time you have done it, but it will be the last. I post evidence, you post opinions in disagreement. I post logical arguments, you post an "ignore him" out of spite. I will remember this. Do you understand? Do you understand, you stupid asshole? Because I will not take this shit sitting down. Never have.

In any case, I am vindicated, and this will be the last I will post on this subject. The OP need not apologize for others hijacking his thread with stupidity.

Funny how this isn't a vendetta.

Your accusation of "others" hijacking the thread are also really goddamned funny. You literally exploded for no goddamned reason because Simon dared to ask the OP for clarification, and now you're threatening him with moderator action and smugly condescending towards "others" who supposedly did it? Are you for real?

[Lusankya]

The Tiwi people (an Australian Aboriginal group tribe) have the structure pupuni (good) / yingarti (lots, plenty, much, too much) + punyipunyi (brain) + verb with root: -wana which in English translates to "intelligence". Since AUstralian Aboriginal culture has been in existence for about 120,000 years, that gives us an estimate as to how long the word has been around (and hence a lower limit for the period of existence of the concept). Granted, the Tiwi are from far north Australia*, and thus would have been relative latecomers, but in the scheme of things they still came onto the scene a bloody long time ago. The language also contains concepts such as "ignorant" and "stupid".

Anyway, this demonstrates firstly that the concept of intelligence has quite likely been around for some time, and also that it is a relevant concept for a hunter-gatherer culture.


*I chose to search for northern Australian Aboriginal language dictionaries, because the cultures in those regions have been better preserved than the cultures of the southern peoples, and thus were more likely to have a larger lexicon preserved and translated.