# Tarantula Intelligence level? IQ vs True spiders



## Ultum4Spiderz (Aug 5, 2012)

Tarantulas are the Largest & most unknown least studied of the large spiders. Even Expereinced hobbyists sometimes low little about Ts.
Some hobbyists know a lot of knowlage but seem to rather Troll & make fun of newer members then Educate them.
I used to catch & keep true spiders as pets when I was younger . Jumping spiders & huntsman being the smartest I caught.
Orb weavers Big Argiopes were very good at killing bee's without being stung /bitten by webbing extreemly fast.

Personally I think that Tarantulas are better hunters & are more Motion sensative then Huntsman spiders.
Huntsman spiders probably have much better vision then terrestrial Ts , aboreals about equal.
I have only observed my pet tarantulas never actualy did a Sceintific study watching there behavior.
They are good at sensing motion, some can sense sight and Seem to be very defensive
Are they less intelligent then true spiders? due to large bulky size , or smarter due to Speed & brighter colors they use to scare away preditors (pokies have Bright colors):biggrin:

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## SamuraiSid (Aug 5, 2012)

I guess we'd have to define intelligence before we begin.

*capacity for learning, reasoning, understanding, and similar forms of mental activity; aptitude in grasping truths, relationships, facts, meanings, etc. 
*

Every species on the planet learns what it must, reasons what it must and understands what it must to survive. There are many true spiders with amazing hunting abilities they have learned over time, but does this truly make them smarter than a creature thats method is simpler? Im reminded of one true spider.... the one that throws a silken net over its victims... Theres a jumping spider that will pluck the strands of its preys webbing, and when the spider comes onto the web to see what it has caught, the original spider jumps on its back to enjoy the meal. Which of these two is smartest? Perhaps they are equally smart for falling into a rather unique niche for which to find prey.

I think the term intelligence is best reserved for Homo sapien, and we should just say that every other species is as intelligent as that species needs to be.



Ultum4Spiderz said:


> Some hobbyists know a lot of knowlage but seem to rather Troll & make fun of newer members then Educate them.


And some newer members have no interest in being educated... But this type of thing has been discussed to death. my .02 is that these two groupings of people are polarized, and very unlikely to ever see eye to eye. But lets not forget that these two groups make up a rather small percentage of users on AB.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Aviara (Aug 5, 2012)

Size, speed, colors and eyesight are all genetic adaptations. They're not truly a measure of intelligence. Even in humans, intelligence is a very subjective idea. It is extremely difficult to determine comparative intelligence between species. To even begin to talk about arachnid intelligence from a scientific standpoint, there are a LOT of gaps in research to be filled. I don't like to touch the subject of tarantula intelligence, let alone how tarantulas' cognitive abilities compare to those of different truespider species.


----------



## jayefbe (Aug 5, 2012)

Aviara said:


> Size, speed, colors and eyesight are all genetic adaptations. They're not truly a measure of intelligence. Even in humans, intelligence is a very subjective idea. It is extremely difficult to determine comparative intelligence between species. To even begin to talk about arachnid intelligence from a scientific standpoint, there are a LOT of gaps in research to be filled. I don't like to touch the subject of tarantula intelligence, let alone how tarantulas' cognitive abilities compare to those of different truespider species.


Exactly....


----------



## JohnDapiaoen (Aug 5, 2012)

Just throwing it out here, there is a genus of jumping spider (_Portia sp._) that uses clever tactics to catch their prey, which is other spiders; It is also said that they are capable of learning and problem solving but don't hold that to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ultum4Spiderz (Aug 6, 2012)

Ive seen Large jumpers kill Wolf spiders bigger then them , due to there learning /Intelligence .or Whatever it actualy is. Instincts of survival lol


----------



## spiderengineer (Aug 10, 2012)

I believe the jumping spider are the most intelligent, If I recall their brains are capable of making 3 dimensional images of their surroundings. to me that seems like an ability that requires high brain function, because this allows them to take alternate paths of attack that allows them to be the ninjas they are. Unlike other spiders who just charge head on or wait for prey to come to them or be caught in their webs. They have been show to have problem solving skills that other spiders lack since their hunting technique requires a large amount of computation and factoring lots of variable. to some its just jumping on prey, but if you think about it they have to gauge distance, angle of attack, and size of prey, while having to constantly adjust these variable and other ones as well in real time as the prey moves around. Their are other variable they need to consider but I think you get the idea of how intelligent they are.


----------



## Merfolk (Aug 10, 2012)

Portia is technically, a jumping spider. So we could call capacity to resolve problems a form of intelligence, nothing like our abstract reasoning, but still not only an automaton. Also, notice that most jumpers are very small. This proves that the size of the brain is a minor factor. Like, with humans, Anatole France had the smallest brain ever weighted post mortem but the guy was a genius!


----------



## Geocycle (Dec 19, 2017)

spiderengineer said:


> I believe the jumping spider are the most intelligent, If I recall their brains are capable of making 3 dimensional images of their surroundings. to me that seems like an ability that requires high brain function, because this allows them to take alternate paths of attack that allows them to be the ninjas they are. Unlike other spiders who just charge head on or wait for prey to come to them or be caught in their webs. They have been show to have problem solving skills that other spiders lack since their hunting technique requires a large amount of computation and factoring lots of variable. to some its just jumping on prey, but if you think about it they have to gauge distance, angle of attack, and size of prey, while having to constantly adjust these variable and other ones as well in real time as the prey moves around. Their are other variable they need to consider but I think you get the idea of how intelligent they are.


I think their sight, ability to comprise 3 dimensional view and problem solve is in part an evolutionary trait to their body's, which has allowed them to ascend along the chain. Unlike other arachnids they have a level of agility unrivaled considering the weight of trantulas other true spiders. That being said the psychology of spiders is fascinating beyond any other animal. I can directly reference the bond between myself and my avicularia avicularia. Sweetest little bean I know, She s my therapy animal and companion for sure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The wolf (Dec 19, 2017)

What makes this a difficult area is anthropomorphism for instance spiders don't really have brains but more of a centralised neural system rather than a true central nervous system just like they don't exactly have hearts or blood they are just too different for us to understand partly due to their lack of sociability which means it is hard to grasp what is really going on in their heads due to a lack of communication although a few things are obvious for instance we can see with myglamorphs that they are far more procedural especially with trapdoor spiders or "pet holes" in which a simple algorithmic procedure can be mapped out wheras species such as arborial tarantulas are slightly more complex with less of a linear "preform x then preform y" and more of a conditional "if x=true preform y" and this is taken further by hunting true spiders which can consider factors react to a wide array of stimuli and react differently to certain prey items which is also done by some webbing true spiders which will wrap up grasshoppers but not flies these spiders again have different degrees of intelligence with some being very much procedural "if felling vibration proceed to epicentre if else seek dark"


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 19, 2017)

I will preface this with the "in my opinion" qualifier to prevent any undue attacks.

It have always come to the conclusion that the more docile of the tarantula species are likely a little more intelligent.  Given that one of the elements of intelligence is the ability to coexist and evaluate dangers, this could easily be a marker.  Species like Aphonopelma Chalcodes lives among humans and can tolerate an enormous amount of handling.  Where as an OBT wants to attack even small bits of stimuli.  

The ability to evaluate threats, even in a primitive way, is an evolutionary marker for intelligence.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## The wolf (Dec 19, 2017)

Thomas Loomis said:


> I will preface this with the "in my opinion" qualifier to prevent any undue attacks.
> 
> It have always come to the conclusion that the more docile of the tarantula species are likely a little more intelligent.  Given that one of the elements of intelligence is the ability to coexist and evaluate dangers, this could easily be a marker.  Species like Aphonopelma Chalcodes lives among humans and can tolerate an enormous amount of handling.  Where as an OBT wants to attack even small bits of stimuli.
> 
> The ability to evaluate threats, even in a primitive way, is an evolutionary marker for intelligence.


I'm really sorry if this comes across as rude but I don't think aggressiveness is a good indicator of intelligence but rather an evolutionary response to an environment and rather than being a matter of evaluation it would be a Matter of sensitivity


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 19, 2017)

The wolf said:


> I'm really sorry if this comes across as rude but I don't think aggressiveness is a good indicator of intelligence but rather an evolutionary response to an environment and rather than being a matter of evaluation it would be a Matter of sensitivity


It most certainly does not come across as rude.  Survivability is not a sign of intelligence.  Social structures, societies, and cooperative progress are what defines social species and typically follows the animals that evolved to the highest places in the food chain.  Evolutionarily, the ability to defend is a survival advantage.  Darwin's observations seem pretty clear that tabling aggressiveness for a more measured approach is the only way to move forward in evolution.

I enjoy watching my aggressive specimens immensely.  That being said, attacking any and everything is a survival instinct, not intelligence.

Reactions: Agree 1 | Disagree 1


----------



## Nightstalker47 (Dec 20, 2017)

The wolf said:


> What makes this a difficult area is anthropomorphism for instance spiders don't really have brains but more of a centralised neural system rather than a true central nervous system just like they don't exactly have hearts or blood they are just too different for us to understand partly due to their lack of sociability which means it is hard to grasp what is really going on in their heads due to a lack of communication although a few things are obvious for instance we can see with myglamorphs that they are far more procedural especially with trapdoor spiders or "pet holes" in which a simple algorithmic procedure can be mapped out wheras species such as arborial tarantulas are slightly more complex with less of a linear "preform x then preform y" and more of a conditional "if x=true preform y" and this is taken further by hunting true spiders which can consider factors react to a wide array of stimuli and react differently to certain prey items which is also done by some webbing true spiders which will wrap up grasshoppers but not flies these spiders again have different degrees of intelligence with some being very much procedural "if felling vibration proceed to epicentre if else seek dark"


Phrases man...phrases. The nerve cluster is referred to as ganglia, which is basically a primitive brain.


Thomas Loomis said:


> I will preface this with the "in my opinion" qualifier to prevent any undue attacks.
> 
> It have always come to the conclusion that the more docile of the tarantula species are likely a little more intelligent.  Given that one of the elements of intelligence is the ability to coexist and evaluate dangers, this could easily be a marker.  Species like Aphonopelma Chalcodes lives among humans and can tolerate an enormous amount of handling.  Where as an OBT wants to attack even small bits of stimuli.
> 
> The ability to evaluate threats, even in a primitive way, is an evolutionary marker for intelligence.


You may be onto something here. Although individual temperament will vary regardless of species. So that isn't the most reliable indicator. The ability to learn however, is something else entirely.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## atraxrobustus (Dec 20, 2017)

Personally, I would find that the old-worlds are less evolved than the new worlds, if we're to accept Darwinism in theory. (Something I personally reject for reasons I'm not going to get into here.) The thing is that environmental needs don't dictate the aggressiveness of a species necessarily: For example,_ G. Pulchra_ doesn't quite behave as badly as most old worlds, while _T. blondi_ usually has a bad disposition, and somehow, the connotation of the psycho Rosie comes to mind. Also, some of the funnel web species (particularly_ Atrax_ )  are known to be quite aggressive despite having the same evolutionary history as _Aphonopelma _to the terms of having to deal with acclimating to humans in a co-existent habitat. Rather, _Aphonopelma _has done this alot more quickly it seems, without as much negative repercussion for given species in terms of numbers. The ability to adapt to the environment quickly is a marker of intelligence Vs. Insanity, which is adopting the same techniques without solving existent problems, or put differently, an inability to continue to evolve in any measure of the word.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 20, 2017)

The problem that I see occurring here is one of confirmation bias.  The halo effect is very real.  I noted that some theories disagree. My takeaway is that these individuals have injected their opinion into the mix.  For example, there really is no debate, if you truly accept Darwinism, that mammals are more advanced and superior to, arthropods.  Therefore the characteristics of mammals are those characteristics one should consider, under Darwinism, to have superior qualities in terms of total adaptation.  Any ararchnid  displaying those characteristics is evolving toward mammals that have evolved beyond them.  If you are an individual that appreciates spiders, then you appreciate them for what they are.  To try to create some sort of alternate theory of what is or isn't advanced based upon your fondness for spiders is disingenuous at best.

As far as personalities within a species, that is true of all animals, including humans.

My opinion was not meant to evaluate spiders to spiders.  It was to evaluate spiders against nature as a whole.


----------



## Swoop (Dec 20, 2017)

Hard to accept docility as an indicator of intelligence when docility/defensiveness are almost perfectly correlated to possessing urticating hairs.  T. stirmi, avic species and M. balfouri being possible exceptions.  

Aggression may be a 'survival instinct' but if you have a more potent defense mechanism than biting, then not-biting can be dismissed as a 'survival instinct' just as easily.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## atraxrobustus (Dec 21, 2017)

Swoop said:


> Hard to accept docility as an indicator of intelligence when docility/defensiveness are almost perfectly correlated to possessing urticating hairs.  T. stirmi, avic species and M. balfouri being possible exceptions.
> 
> Aggression may be a 'survival instinct' but if you have a more potent defense mechanism than biting, then not-biting can be dismissed as a 'survival instinct' just as easily.


The thing is that, as I've demonstrated- Aggression goes against survival in certain cases. It is usually better to run than to stay and defend- If you stand your ground and defend, you're more likely to end up on the loosing end. Because, for example, while_ A. robustus_ is both aggressive and has lethal venom, that still doesn't account for  the almost certain death of the spider when it bites- namely via the steel toed boot that's fixing to come down on top of it when it decides to bite.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## The wolf (Dec 21, 2017)

atraxrobustus said:


> The thing is that, as I've demonstrated- Aggression goes against survival in certain cases. It is usually better to run than to stay and defend- If you stand your ground and defend, you're more likely to end up on the loosing end. Because, for example, while_ A. robustus_ is both aggressive and has lethal venom, that still doesn't account for  the almost certain death of the spider when it bites- namely via the steel toed boot that's fixing to come down on top of it when it decides to bite.


But with the use of warnings this is counteracted,I agree on your points about a.robustus but in old worlds like p.murinus or king baboons an effective display is given that will deter most predators and could likely be more effective than having no display or effective defences and being chased into a burrow and eaten by something like a mustelid or rodent

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## The wolf (Dec 21, 2017)

Thomas Loomis said:


> The problem that I see occurring here is one of confirmation bias.  The halo effect is very real.  I noted that some theories disagree. My takeaway is that these individuals have injected their opinion into the mix.  For example, there really is no debate, if you truly accept Darwinism, that mammals are more advanced and superior to, arthropods.  Therefore the characteristics of mammals are those characteristics one should consider, under Darwinism, to have superior qualities in terms of total adaptation.  Any ararchnid  displaying those characteristics is evolving toward mammals that have evolved beyond them.  If you are an individual that appreciates spiders, then you appreciate them for what they are.  To try to create some sort of alternate theory of what is or isn't advanced based upon your fondness for spiders is disingenuous at best.
> 
> As far as personalities within a species, that is true of all animals, including humans.
> 
> My opinion was not meant to evaluate spiders to spiders.  It was to evaluate spiders against nature as a whole.


Does Darwinism state that? I'm not disagreeing I'm just interested i thought we were past such egocentricisim although the term advanced is difficult to truly define and could mean different thing s to different people,my veiw is that all organisms at the same point in time are equally advanced but feel free to correct me


----------



## Swoop (Dec 21, 2017)

Claiming that not-biting is "usually" safer is based purely on conjecture.  Sure, it's safer in the completely artificial environments we've made for them but many much more intelligent animals (rats, dogs, etc) bite often even though they are much more capable of analyzing their situations.

Aggression is likely the result of physical characteristics.  If we were talking about people instead of spiders I don't think you would be claiming that physical characteristics (height, strength, skin color, poor eyesight, etc) indicate intelligence.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

The wolf said:


> Does Darwinism state that? I'm not disagreeing I'm just interested i thought we were past such egocentricisim although the term advanced is difficult to truly define and could mean different thing s to different people,my veiw is that all organisms at the same point in time are equally advanced but feel free to correct me


I believe the idea of egocentrism is far more politically correct a notion than would have existed in Darwin's time.  I would postulate that it would be difficult to say that humans don't have the greatest ability to interact with, control, and benefit from their environment.  If working together to build a hospital is no longer considered more useful than effectively stalking a prey item, I think we need to redefine many core concepts.  The idea of mutual benefit, discovery, and learned behavior is far more useful for an organism than a small set of polished instincts, no matter how well honed and polished.

It may seem egocentric to say the humans are the most evolved form of life.  I tend to think not.  Arachnids have not evolved to own humans in small containers in their homes and discuss them on homosapienboards.com.  The magnitude of the difference in ability and potential is hard to ignore.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

atraxrobustus said:


> The thing is that, as I've demonstrated- Aggression goes against survival in certain cases. It is usually better to run than to stay and defend- If you stand your ground and defend, you're more likely to end up on the loosing end. Because, for example, while_ A. robustus_ is both aggressive and has lethal venom, that still doesn't account for  the almost certain death of the spider when it bites- namely via the steel toed boot that's fixing to come down on top of it when it decides to bite.


Exactly.  The inability to properly evaluate the threat, such as it is, is definitely a deficiency.  The fact that a spider is unable to recognize that a keeper is benign and not bite the hand that feeds it is an interesting observation as well.  Dogs and cats, many other animals, can develop cooperative strategies to benefit themselves.  The whole idea of mutualism is really the forefront of advanced development.

I very much doubt the A. Robustus is aware the we have an effective antivenom.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## boina (Dec 21, 2017)

Thomas Loomis said:


> It may seem egocentric to say the humans are the most evolved form of life. I tend to think not. Arachnids have not evolved to own humans in small containers in their homes and discuss them on homosapienboards.com. The magnitude of the difference in ability and potential is hard to ignore.


I didn't want to get into this, but this is such an incredible misunderstanding of evolution that I'd like to clarify it. More "evolved" is actually a term that doesn't make sense, so I've translated it to mean more advanced. I took the explanation from the pidgeonchess website, that states is much clearer than I could:

"The terms “primitive” and “advanced” in evolutionary biology are relative rather than absolute terms. “Primitive” simply means more like the original or less modified from previous iterations, likewise “advanced” means less like the original or more modified. A character being primitive does not mean that it is necessarily inferior or backwards and a character being advanced does not make it superior in any absolute sense.

For example, humans are primitive with regards to our hands and feet bearing the typical tetrapod compliment of five digits each (very early tetrapods had more toes but that is another story), whereas horses are are advanced in having modified both fore and hind feet down to a single digit; digit #3 which is homologous to our middle finger/toe.

Our hands serve us quite well despite their primitiveness and while the advanced hooves of equids are excellent for use in galloping around with, they don’t exactly allow horses a precision grip."

In short: humans certainly have a more advanced brain than a spider but overall you can't state they are the at the endpoint of evolution. You may argue humans are superior (I'd contest that) but they are definitely not more advanced - just differently advanced.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

boina said:


> In short: humans certainly have a more advanced brain than a spider but overall you can't state they are the at the endpoint of evolution. You may argue humans are superior (I'd contest that) but they are definitely not more advanced - just differently advanced.


How would you contest that?  I would be curious to hear what type of semantic gymnastics you would use to create a scenario where the human, or even mamalian, brain would not serve a creature better than a spider's.  You would have to redefine what we've come to believe as important and I don't accept that is a valid method of evaluating the question as it was narrowly posed.

Let me tell you what I see happening here.  There seems to be a subset of individuals who find humans distasteful for any number of reasons that may or may not be valid.  They find that they like pets and animals more than humans.  They post bumper stickers like dog foot print that says "Who saved who?" and the like.  They start arguments that humans are terrible and need to go away and just let the dogs (cats, hamsters, snakes, spiders) take over because "they do far less destruction to the earth" or some other related diatribe.  One of the things I see creeping, insidiously, into society and the minds of the general public is the idea that no fact, no matter how scientifically provable, is no more than a point of view.  We are running quickly down a slippery slope that allows people to form their own realities that do not have to be scientifially founded.  Even then, when all else fails, people begin to say science doesn't work.  We are living in a time where people are surrounded by timelines that are catered to their viewpoint and they never have to tolerate a dissenting opinion.  This is not good for science or survival.

As for humans being the at their evolutionary endpoint, I would agree that this is not the case.

And another thing...arguing about minutiae is irrelevant.  Semantic defenses like advanced vs evolved deflect the need to provide proper counterargument.  You seem to be saying that if someone uses the wrong words then the argument is invalid.  As far as humans and five fingers, this doesn't have anything to do with intelligence.  It supports your idea that "I don't know what I'm talking about" as does the word argument.  What I did is propose an opinion you don't care for.  What you did is counter with a thinly veiled rant that shows bias and unwillingness to accept obvious conclusions.


----------



## Nightstalker47 (Dec 21, 2017)

boina said:


> I didn't want to get into this, but this is such an incredible misunderstanding of evolution that I'd like to clarify it. More "evolved" is actually a term that doesn't make sense, so I've translated it to mean more advanced. I took the explanation from the pidgeonchess website, that states is much clearer than I could:
> 
> "The terms “primitive” and “advanced” in evolutionary biology are relative rather than absolute terms. “Primitive” simply means more like the original or less modified from previous iterations, likewise “advanced” means less like the original or more modified. A character being primitive does not mean that it is necessarily inferior or backwards and a character being advanced does not make it superior in any absolute sense.
> 
> ...


Right. If we look at tarantulas and true spiders from an evolutionary standpoint...they most certainly are older or more primitive beings. As they have been around for much longer then the first humans.

We are obviously far more advanced(intellectually) then any spider or invertebrate. Humans have evolved at much faster rates then tarantulas...but that doesn't necessarily make them "more evolved" per say. More effectively perhaps...


----------



## boina (Dec 21, 2017)

Thomas Loomis said:


> How would you contest that? I would be curious to hear what type of semantic gymnastics you would use to create a scenario where the human, or even mamalian, brain would not serve a creature better than a spider's.


No, a human brain would not serve a spider better. Human brains are costly on an energy level and they need space. There is simply not enough space in a spiders body for a more advanced brain and they would need huge amounts of food to feed it. What they have serves ther purpose perfectly: A ganglion that needs little energy and space and allows for extremely long fasts but still manages to provide all behaviour and movement necessary for survival. A spider with a human/mammalian brain would also get exceedingly bored. Evolution means something is adapted to it's environment and serves its purpose well. The spider ganglion is obviously extremely well adapted since spiders have been around for quite a long time, incidentally much longer than humans or even mammals. 

If we don't alk about spiders, but other creatures: Roaches are extremely well adapted and versatile, much more so than humans and quite without a mammalian brain. On the other hand the human brain seems to come with not enough caveats. It seems quite able to kill quite a lot of it's own kind for the most absurd justifications. From an evolutionary standpoint that does not sound like it promotes long term survival.


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

Nightstalker47 said:


> Right. If we look at tarantulas and true spiders from an evolutionary standpoint...they most certainly are older or more primitive beings. As they have been around for much longer then the first humans.
> 
> We are obviously far more advanced(intellectually) then any spider or invertebrate. Humans have evolved at much faster rates then tarantulas...but that doesn't necessarily make them "more evolved" per say. More effectively perhaps...


More effectively.  I like that.  It really is at the heart of the matter.  I'm going to use semantics for this one.  Humans are more effective in terms of overall ability than spiders.  Which incidentally wasn't the original question.  What we still haven't really addressed is that the question was one of tarantula intelligence.  If we are evaluating tarantula intelligence in terms of terms of intelligence among all creatures, than humans clearly are in a better position.  Perhaps we should more clearly detonate the boundaries of the question.



boina said:


> No, a human brain would not serve a spider better. Human brains are costly on an energy level and they need space. There is simply not enough space in a spiders body for a more advanced brain and they would need huge amounts of food to feed it. What they have serves ther purpose perfectly: A ganglion that needs little energy and space and allows for extremely long fasts but still manages to provide all behaviour and movement necessary for survival. A spider with a human/mammalian brain would also get exceedingly bored. Evolution means something is adapted to it's environment and serves its purpose well. The spider ganglion is obviously extremely well adapted since spiders have been around for quite a long time, incidentally much longer than humans or even mammals.
> 
> If we don't alk about spiders, but other creatures: Roaches are extremely well adapted and versatile, much more so than humans and quite without a mammalian brain. On the other hand the human brain seems to come with not enough caveats. It seems quite able to kill quite a lot of it's own kind for the most absurd justifications. From an evolutionary standpoint that does not sound like it promotes long term survival.


This is true.  Human brains would not serve spiders better.  I promise if you could magically give spiders human thought for a moment and then ask if they would rather be human, you would likely find that they would have their one granted wish be to become human. 

As to the "bad things people do" point, this really is not proof that humans don't do a whole lot of good for their species.  This directly speaks to what I talked about in my earlier response regarding an "animal lovers defense."  Human shortcomings do not prove that humans should go away or that they need to take a backseat.


----------



## Swoop (Dec 21, 2017)

Thomas Loomis said:


> I would be curious to hear what type of semantic gymnastics you would use to create a scenario where the human, or even mamalian, brain would not serve a creature better than a spider's.


The human brain enables us to die of shock from what should be non-lethal injuries.

Rip off a person's arm, they'll probably die of shock.  Rip off 80% of a spider's appendages, they carry on with their business and grow them back.

Also, being as intelligent as a human without a means to communicate or manipulate our environment isn't useful.  Imagine trying to build a rudimentary house with hooves.


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

Swoop said:


> The human brain enables us to die of shock from what should be non-lethal injuries.
> 
> Rip off a person's arm, they'll probably die of shock.  Rip off 80% of a spider's appendages, they carry on with their business and grow them back.
> 
> Also, being as intelligent as a human without a means to communicate or manipulate our environment isn't useful.  Imagine trying to build a rudimentary house with hooves.


All valid points.  I would still rather be human.  Being sentient carries a great deal of benefit.  I will gladly accept human limits to enjoy music and arts.  The ability to survive without 80% of my limbs doesn't seem a very pleasant trade off.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 2


----------



## Swoop (Dec 21, 2017)

I'd certainly rather be human but the philosophical question about intelligence vs. satisfaction is even further off topic.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

Swoop said:


> I'd certainly rather be human but the philosophical question about intelligence vs. satisfaction is even further off topic.


Yeah.  Off topic is definitely where we have gotten.


----------



## The wolf (Dec 21, 2017)

Thomas Loomis said:


> I believe the idea of egocentrism is far more politically correct a notion than would have existed in Darwin's time.  I would postulate that it would be difficult to say that humans don't have the greatest ability to interact with, control, and benefit from their environment.  If working together to build a hospital is no longer considered more useful than effectively stalking a prey item, I think we need to redefine many core concepts.  The idea of mutual benefit, discovery, and learned behavior is far more useful for an organism than a small set of polished instincts, no matter how well honed and polished.
> 
> It may seem egocentric to say the humans are the most evolved form of life.  I tend to think not.  Arachnids have not evolved to own humans in small containers in their homes and discuss them on homosapienboards.com.  The magnitude of the difference in ability and potential is hard to ignore.


It depends on what you define as advanced whether you mean successful on an individual level or as a species both  of which we exell at or are we talking about morphologicaly and physiologicaly advanced which is more of what I meant originally in which case complexity can be both good and bad for overall success


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

The wolf said:


> It depends on what you define as advanced whether you mean successful on an individual level or as a species both  of which we exell at or are we talking about morphologicaly and physiologicaly advanced which is more of what I meant originally in which case complexity can be both good and bad for overall success


I was speaking of overall accomplishment in terms of totality.  I remember a professor at University expounding on how arthropod exoskeletons have a capacity limit that makes exoskeletons more advantageous to continuing advancement of a species.  

Without boring anyone with obvious differences I would highlight one.  The ability to use thought to create processes and machinery that overcomes a physical limitation cannot be understated.


----------



## Shrike (Dec 21, 2017)

How I feel about this thread:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrea82 (Dec 21, 2017)

Maybe reset this thread.. It was about Theraphosidae intelligence vs True Spiders right? So what can Theraphosidae do that true spider species can't, and vice versa? Maybe it is even better to pick species because to group one against the other... That will make for a very very large field of discussion.

Reactions: Like 1 | Agree 1


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

Andrea82 said:


> Maybe reset this thread.. It was about Theraphosidae intelligence vs True Spiders right? So what can Theraphosidae do that true spider species can't, and vice versa? Maybe it is even better to pick species because to group one against the other... That will make for a very very large field of discussion.


I agree.  Let's reset this thread.


----------



## Swoop (Dec 21, 2017)

Re-do!

It might be useful to 'rank' some mygalomorphs and true spiders according to perceived intelligence and then compare the extremes.  Jumpers will (obviously?) be up there in the true spider column so comparing them to something like A. geniculata, which thinks everything is food, isn't a useful comparison.


----------



## atraxrobustus (Dec 21, 2017)

Swoop said:


> Claiming that not-biting is "usually" safer is based purely on conjecture.  Sure, it's safer in the completely artificial environments we've made for them but many much more intelligent animals (rats, dogs, etc) bite often even though they are much more capable of analyzing their situations.
> 
> Aggression is likely the result of physical characteristics.  If we were talking about people instead of spiders I don't think you would be claiming that physical characteristics (height, strength, skin color, poor eyesight, etc) indicate intelligence.


Probably not, but one takes their physical characteristics into account when making decisions, which IS intelligence.- its the maxim of "know thyself and your capable of."  I have observed A. Hentzi specimens that seem rather selective about when they will show a threat pose, that seems to be able to identify me in some way as opposed to giving someone else an immediate threat pose upon sensing that something is there. How then would you account for the selectiveness, since by your theory, a threat should be a threat???

Another thing that is interesting about spiders is that the use of tools has been held to be a differing marker between lower and higher orders. BUT, as we see, spiders are capable of using tools (i.e. they use their own silk as a tool to accomplish various things.) Therefore, perhaps arachnids exhibit some characteristics of higher orders?


----------



## atraxrobustus (Dec 21, 2017)

I don't think it's useful to compare the two infra-orders in terms of intelligence- their differences largely involve two different ways of doing the same things in vastly different habitats- The same way as humans have different approaches to doing the same tasks- which doesn't necessarily mean that one approach is more intelligent  than the others. For this reason it is better to compare several genus in the same family as not to compare apples to oranges.

Indeed, the less tools you have in the toolbox to work with, the more intelligent you have to be in order to use those tools effectively to get the same job done. We must never forget to put ourselves in their world- which is a much larger and much more challenging place than it is for us.


----------



## Swoop (Dec 21, 2017)

That's the whole purpose of this thread though, tarantula intelligence compared to true spider intelligence.

Your last assertion is pretty vague and would seem to contradict your claim that bitey-er T's are less intelligent.  OW's have fewer defense mechanisms/tools at their disposal.


----------



## The wolf (Dec 21, 2017)

atraxrobustus said:


> Another thing that is interesting about spiders is that the use of tools has been held to be a differing marker between lower and higher orders. BUT, as we see, spiders are capable of using tools (i.e. they use their own silk as a tool to accomplish various things.) Therefore, perhaps arachnids exhibit some characteristics of higher orders?


I think that The use of tools as marker for intelligence by default must be a learned behaviour whearas the use of silk is an instinct


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 21, 2017)

I would say that Myglamorphs are likely a bit more intelligent.  My opinion is more supposition than fact.  I would love someone to back this up for me.

As to biting something way larger than you, unless you are discussing a very small number of Myglamorphs or Aranemorphs is probably not so bright.  This is quite ironic given how unmatched size pairs fail when breeding spiders.  They seem to understand the concept of bigger and smaller.  When given the choice to fight, flow, or flee, fight is not usually a best option.

I would also like to start off the ranking by saying jumpers are likely number 1.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## atraxrobustus (Dec 21, 2017)

Swoop said:


> That's the whole purpose of this thread though, tarantula intelligence compared to true spider intelligence.
> 
> Your last assertion is pretty vague and would seem to contradict your claim that bitey-er T's are less intelligent.  OW's have fewer defense mechanisms/tools at their disposal.


Not quite- its not a question of having less tools in that respect- its more  the question of which tool is better to use- running Vs. using the bite or the threat of the bite to accomplish what one seeks to accomplish. And like I said, when you compare infra-orders they don't stand on the same ground so the comparison is double-standard at best.


----------



## Swoop (Dec 22, 2017)

When a NW runs its back is defended by urticating hairs and its bite is less effective.

When an OW runs its back is not defended and its bite is highly effective.  

This means that running is relatively much more dangerous for an OW, but you're claiming they're less intelligent because they don't run away as frequently as NW's.  

It's not that you're wrong, it's that your premises don't logically lead to your conclusion.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Thomas Loomis (Dec 22, 2017)

Swoop said:


> When a NW runs its back is defended by urticating hairs and its bite is less effective.
> 
> When an OW runs its back is not defended and its bite is highly effective.
> 
> ...


My point was that sometimes an animal is not a predator.  In these cases, attack is unnecessary.  It exposes the attacker to risk.  There is very little chance of reward.  

When dealing with predators, OW have no urticating hairs as you said.  They must bite in hopes of surviving.

Reactions: Disagree 1


----------



## Whitelightning777 (Mar 14, 2018)

Aggression doesn't always equal stupidity. The puma is by far more intelligent then the deer and rabbits that it feeds on.

Some tarantulas do seem to be more intelligent then others.  My P striata certainly has more efficient hunting algorithms then my other spiders.  The greater physical speed probably indicates faster neural processing at some level.

I've observed wolf spiders and even briefly captured 3 of them for another reason. They showed no capacity to learn or change in tactics when confronted with the same stimulation.

A good example is a spider trying over and over again to run up a surface to slick for it to use.

They are robots, just living ones. Like any other computer or robot, humans can learn to interact with them successfully.

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Rob1985 (Mar 14, 2018)

We've had this discussion a lot over the years. I am firm believer that they are are nothing more than instinctual creatures that react based upon various environmental factors and triggers.

Reactions: Agree 2 | Winner 1


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Mar 14, 2018)

Best example of a spider learning is in the genus Portia, watch them hunt and you can clearly see them visualising the area around them looking for a vantage point to make hunting prey in tricky spots easier.

Tarantulas have never really been observed learning on that kind of level at all, but they can learn to a very small extent through association. That's the most basic type of learning we see and most of not all animals can learn by association. Aside from that there's developing behaviours over generations through instinct but that's not really learning in the sense we're talking about

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## boina (Mar 14, 2018)

Right. And science is useless and needs to be disregarded at any cost, especially where it clashes with deeply held beliefs. 

Seriously, how about people  who claim tarantulas are pure instinctual creatures would bother to actually look up the widely available science behind learning in invertebrates? There's books about it. Molecular mechanisms of memory have been found, among many other things. Every invertebrate ever tested can learn, even worms. They are not robots and that is a well proven fact.

But it seems to be so much easier to just believe something and state that believe over and over as a fact than to actually consider the available science.

Reactions: Agree 3 | Informative 1 | Funny 1 | Popcorn 1


----------



## Rob1985 (Mar 15, 2018)

Dennis Nedry said:


> Best example of a spider learning is in the genus Portia, watch them hunt and you can clearly see them visualising the area around them looking for a vantage point to make hunting prey in tricky spots easier.
> 
> Tarantulas have never really been observed learning on that kind of level at all, but they can learn to a very small extent through association. That's the most basic type of learning we see and most of not all animals can learn by association. Aside from that there's developing behaviours over generations through instinct but that's not really learning in the sense we're talking about


 I'm pretty sure this "learning" by "visualising" you speak of is actually the T using their intricate web system, which is instinctual.


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Mar 15, 2018)

Rob1985 said:


> I'm pretty sure this "learning" by "visualising" you speak of is actually the T using their intricate web system, which is instinctual.


Portia is a genus of jumping spider that only hunts other spiders, not a T. When I say visualising I mean that they actually look around with their eyes to map out the prey's web and try find a good vantage point to attack the web's inhabitant from. It's well established that thy do learn and are probably similar to an octopus in intelligence

Reactions: Agree 1


----------



## Wolfspidurguy (Mar 15, 2018)

Ultum4Spiderz said:


> Tarantulas are the Largest & most unknown least studied of the large spiders. Even Expereinced hobbyists sometimes low little about Ts.
> Some hobbyists know a lot of knowlage but seem to rather Troll & make fun of newer members then Educate them.
> I used to catch & keep true spiders as pets when I was younger . Jumping spiders & huntsman being the smartest I caught.
> Orb weavers Big Argiopes were very good at killing bee's without being stung /bitten by webbing extreemly fast.
> ...


okay true spiders have jumping spiders which have about the IQ of a dog so idk if a T can beat that


----------



## Whitelightning777 (Mar 15, 2018)

Jumping spiders might be the squids of the spider world but which I mean far smarter then others in that family.

If there is a correlation between visual Scott and intelligence, poecilotheria tarantulas are probably most like them. 

Mine seems to be quite calm as he seems somewhat better at determining what is and isn't a threat to himself. I recently had the sex confirmed as male. The species is P striata in case anyone is wondering.


----------



## Sergic (Mar 15, 2018)

Rob1985 said:


> I'm pretty sure this "learning" by "visualising" you speak of is actually the T using their intricate web system, which is instinctual.


@Dennis Nedry was talking about Portia visualizing, which they most certainly do.  Portia can visualize and remember routes they then use to get to prey, even when they can no longer see the prey.  Portia can also use trial-and-error to solve problems, including problems that are evolutionarily novel.  Robert Jackson's lab in New Zealand studies Portia, and their many papers are great for learning about the extent of the cognitive abilities of Portia.

That being said, tarantulas can also learn.  Mature males can learn to navigate mazes, which is a much more complex cognitive task than simply following their web.  The biggest issue with tarantula intelligence seems to be a lack of studies on it.  The long generation times of tarantulas make them far worse lab animals than jumping spiders and other true spiders.  I don't have an opinion on how tarantulas stack up cognitively against other spiders, and the only way to find out would be to test for intelligence in tarantulas, rather than assume they have none.

@boina is correct that tarantulas are not just instinctual robots.  In fact, many invertebrates have been shown to possess rather striking cognitive abilities.  Bees can learn through cultural transmission, some orb weaving spiders have a sense of how many individual prey items are stored in their larders, etc.

Reactions: Award 1


----------



## Lithobius (Mar 15, 2018)

Portia and some other spiders also have object permanence which puts them a step above a LOT of animals, intelligence-wise.


----------



## Andrea82 (Mar 16, 2018)

Wolfspidurguy said:


> okay true spiders have jumping spiders which have about the IQ of a dog so idk if a T can beat that


What? Jumping spiders have an IQ of a dog? Where did you get that idea?


----------



## Wolfspidurguy (Mar 16, 2018)

Andrea82 said:


> What? Jumping spiders have an IQ of a dog? Where did you get that idea?


okay i dont remember where i read that but they are pretty ding dang smart


----------



## Belegnole (Mar 16, 2018)

rofl...

True Spider = 0
Tarantula = 0

IQ is a measurement of intelligence in humans. Using it with regards to other animals is anthropomorphizing.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Mar 16, 2018)

Belegnole said:


> rofl...
> 
> True Spider = 0
> Tarantula = 0
> ...


Why can't you just accept our new arachnid overlords?


----------



## Dennis Nedry (Mar 16, 2018)

Andrea82 said:


> What? Jumping spiders have an IQ of a dog? Where did you get that idea?


Well Portia can stalk prey from places where it can't even see the prey as long as it has mapped out the web beforehand, my neighbour's pug doesn't know to go around a 3 metre long wire fence to get his food. He just stands there glaring at the food until somebody walks him around the other side. So I guess in terms of problem solving the Portia is smarter than at least that one pug

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Ungoliant (Mar 16, 2018)

Dennis Nedry said:


> Why can't you just accept our new arachnid overlords?


What wicked webs we un-weave.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## JoshDM020 (Mar 17, 2018)

I think we're all just speculating until we find a means of communication. How do we know they havent figured out the cure to cancer or inter-dimemsional travel? 
Im not saying its likely, and don't really believe they have by any means.
But how do we know? Until we can find out for sure, i think I'll sit here on my fence and watch.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## CladeArthropoda (May 6, 2018)

Thomas Loomis said:


> The problem that I see occurring here is one of confirmation bias.  The halo effect is very real.  I noted that some theories disagree. My takeaway is that these individuals have injected their opinion into the mix.  For example, there really is no debate, if you truly accept Darwinism, that mammals are more advanced and superior to, arthropods.  Therefore the characteristics of mammals are those characteristics one should consider, under Darwinism, to have superior qualities in terms of total adaptation.  Any ararchnid  displaying those characteristics is evolving toward mammals that have evolved beyond them.  If you are an individual that appreciates spiders, then you appreciate them for what they are.  To try to create some sort of alternate theory of what is or isn't advanced based upon your fondness for spiders is disingenuous at best.
> 
> As far as personalities within a species, that is true of all animals, including humans.
> 
> My opinion was not meant to evaluate spiders to spiders.  It was to evaluate spiders against nature as a whole.


Uhhh Darwinism does NOT state that. It is simply evolution by natural selection. In fact, Darwin himself stressed the point that being smarter or stronger does not make one better


----------



## Thomas Loomis (May 6, 2018)

CladeArthropoda said:


> Uhhh Darwinism does NOT state that. It is simply evolution by natural selection. In fact, Darwin himself stressed the point that being smarter or stronger does not make one better


True.  He did, however, state that adaptability was valuable to survival.  Mammals are far more adaptable.  Their ability to learn is a major factor in this.

Spiders serve a function and they serve it well.  There is not going to be a way to get past that fact.


----------



## CladeArthropoda (May 6, 2018)

Thomas Loomis said:


> True. He did, however, state that adaptability was valuable to survival. Mammals are far more adaptable. Their ability to learn is a major factor in this.


The ability to adapt is not intrinsically linked to intelligence. Intelligence is just one way to adapt.

Reactions: Agree 3


----------



## Minty (May 6, 2018)

CladeArthropoda said:


> The ability to adapt is not intrinsically linked to intelligence. Intelligence is just one way to adapt.


This. Adaptation is born out of necessity, not cognitive ability.


----------

