http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers … p?id=13222

I don’t believe I was unclear. I expressed my observation that less intelligent animals have less spontaneous movements and tend to adopt limited postures compared to more intelligent ones, and asked if I was right or wrong. Of course we cannot mesure intelligence objectively, but generally we agree that humans are more intelligent than cats, and cats are more intelligent than worms. I will give some examples. Lizards and frogs for example, will keep their mouths completely shut, and open them only for a reason, never hang their mouth for no apparent reason, just because, like us. Most animals will adopt certain postures, and will not deviate much from the species typical. For example most animals will sit with their legs in a certain configuration or something close to eat, but we can sit or lie down with the one arm extended, the other pooled closer to the body, generally we rest our limbs more variably. Also nearly no animal will lie belly-up, even in the safety of its hole. On the other hand dogs and cats will do it just for play. And also dogs will do various funny things, like chasing their tails or rubbing themselves somewhere. No lizard, chicken, rodent, even cat could do that. Furthermore we humans can touch ourselves out for no apparent reason. I have never seen a dog touching its head or playing with its claws. Nearly no animal will do that. It seems less intelligent animals have less somesthetic awareness.

I refer you to my previous answer - it is unlikely that posture and intelligence (however it is defined) are related. I can't think of an advantage that would have been selected for that would underlie why they would have co-evolved as an inverse relationship. I would think of them as two independent variables that in some circumstances may seem to be inversely related but are not.