About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 7:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
According to researchers in Japan, humans -- including college students -- perform significantly worse than chimpanzees on a particular cognitive task.

Whether this belongs in Dissent presumably depends upon whatever eventually turns out to have caused humans to score so much lower than chimps on this test.

If it eventually turns out that humans perform worse than chimps on this task because humans (but not chimps) get at least some of their education from comprachicos -- then of course this won't have belonged in Dissent at all.

;-)

Post 1

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 8:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In other words, when it comes to monkeywork, best give it to them, not humans... ;-)

Post 2

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 9:37amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It still seems strange to me that the chimps (apes, not monkeys) do better than humans at a task that humans designed. That looks like finding that a human's mode of perception and cognition does less well than a chimp's mode at handling some of the cognitive and perceptual demands that humans face in an array of common tasks encountered at school, at work, and elsewhere.

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 3

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 11:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chimps are also better at tree climbing...

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 12:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I don't find this particularly shocking. The linked article states that the attribute tested was short term memory. It seems to me that short term memory plays a much greater role in chimp survival than in human survival. Animals acting in the moment on predominately instinct seem like they would be operating almost completely off of short term memory. Humans didn't become the dominant species by being better than animals at memorizing in the short term. They did it by high level cognition, advanced tool building, long term planning, and transmitting an ever improving body of knowledge from generation to generation.

Post 5

Sunday, October 11, 2009 - 6:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent observations Ryan, and Hong. Humans also invented pencil and paper, so functionally we are still better than chimps on short-term memory because we can write it down.

Post 6

Monday, October 12, 2009 - 7:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The task also involves identifying the numbers in the correct order. Suppose only 5 or 6 of the numbers appear on the screen, the ones appearing each time changing randomly. Do you think the chimp could point to them in the correct order?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, October 12, 2009 - 11:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A Clark's NutCracker bird might be able to beat these chimps at this test -- though the special cognitive ability of the Clark's bird is long-term memory (able to remember literally thousands of spots where it stored food for the winter), not necessarily short-term.

This doesn't mean that the bird is smarter than the chimp, however. This task only measures perceptual powers of awareness.

Relying on the inherited, static, perceptual ability of the chimp, it's no more suprising that chimps beat humans on a test made by humans than it would be if humans created a jungle-jym or obstacle course and raced against the chimps through it (my money would be on the chimps).

Like their perceptual superiority, chimps also have an inherent physical superiority to humans. This is no great finding.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/12, 4:34pm)


Post 8

Tuesday, October 13, 2009 - 7:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am doubtful that the ability of birds and squirrels to remember where they have hidden nuts is any huge accomplishment. It's like looking for change. You look under every cushion, in each pocket, in each drawer and can on the shelf - all the obvious places. The algorithm is simple. A bird is going to hide nuts near its nest in all the obvious nut-hiding places. This does not include at the bottom of the bird bath, within a flower blossom or under a brick. The bird doesn't have to bother to look in such places because they aren't the sort of places where a bird would hide a nut in the first place. If there is a study showing that these birds can hide a hundred nuts in one hundred identical niches among 10,000 options (like an array of 100 by 100 tiny mailboxes designed for that purpose) and then find them again without looking for them at random then I'll be quite impressed.


Post 9

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 6:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I am doubtful that the ability of birds and squirrels to remember where they have hidden nuts is any huge accomplishment.
Well that's where we differ, because I know that remembering -- an innate, species-specific, perceptual phenomenon -- is not a huge accomplishment.

An eagle's sight is not a huge accomplishment. A bloodhound's sense of smell is not a huge accomplishment. A bat's hearing is not a huge accomplishment. And a chimpanzee's short-term memory is not a huge accomplishment.

Ed


Post 10

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Merlin,

Good question. If just the numbers 1, 3, 5, 7, and 9 were presented -- would the chimps still get them in the right order?

I think that they would be able to do this just fine. The capacity being tested in this test is the one used in the popular game, Concentration. It is the capacity to retain a number of particulars simultaneously. If the chimp can get it right with all 9 numbers, then I suspect that it can get it right with just a few. That's because there isn't "thinking" going on, only memory. If numbers were memorized in a certain order, then that order should still stand.

The chimp can see all 9 numbers in its "mind's eye" -- it ought to be no great feat to keep them in the memorized order (even when some are missing).

Background
Rand talked about "crow epistemology." Crows can only retain a few things simultaneously. If 5 men walked into a cabin and 4 of them came out, then the crow would think that all of them came out (and it would consider it safe to approach the cabin). In a crow's "mind" there is only "one", "two" and "many" (or "one", "two", "three" and "many"). In either case, the crow would treat 4 men the same as 5 of them ("many" came in and "many" came back out).

Tribal humans think like this, too. It's not really accurate to say that they are "thinking" though because they are only remembering -- and memory is a perceptual capacity.

Ed


Post 11

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 - 8:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Ed, someone could say that being naturally athletically or academically gifted is not an accomplishment either. I meant I doubted it was any huge accomplishment of the memory. I am not sure where you are going with that.

I am curious if you think or have evidence that my guess is wrong, that these birds are simply looking in all the same sorts of places that they would likely judge as suitable hiding places. That would seem a much more parsimonious and more intelligent solution to the problem.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 5:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

You offer (what amounts to) instinctual pattern recognition as an explanation of the success of the nutcrackers in finding a stash. If your hypothesis is true, then birds will just store and look where they always store and look. There will be a certain inflexibility in how they look for their stored seeds.

However, here's evidence (abstract from the 5 Jul 2009 issue of Animal Cognition) that memory, rather than instinctual pattern recognition, explains the success of nutcrackers in finding thousands of stashes of pine seeds -- up to 9 months after burying them:
************************

Landmark use by Clark's nutcrackers (Nucifraga columbiana): influence of disorientation and cue rotation on distance and direction estimates.

Department of Psychology, University of Saskatchewan, 9 Campus Drive, Saskatoon, SK, S7N 5A5, Canada, debbie.kelly@usask.ca.

 

Many species have been shown to encode multiple sources of information to orient. To examine what kinds of information animals use to locate a goal we manipulated cue rotation, cue availability, and inertial orientation when the food-storing Clark's nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) was searching for a hidden goal in a circular arena. Three groups of birds were used, each with a different goal-landmark distance.

 

As the distance between the goal and the landmark increased, nutcrackers were less accurate in finding the correct direction to the goal than they were at estimating the distance (Experiment 1). To further examine what cues the birds were using to calculate direction, the featural cues within the environment were rotated by 90 degrees and the birds were either oriented when searching (Experiments 2 and 3) or disoriented (Experiment 3). In Experiment 4, all distinctive visual cues were removed (both internal and external to the environment), a novel point of entry was used and the birds were either oriented or disoriented.

 

We found that disorienting the nutcrackers so that they could not use inertial cues did not influence the birds' total search error. The birds relied heavily but not completely on cues within the environment, as rotating available cues caused them to systematically shift their search behavior. In addition, the birds also relied to some extent on Earth-based cues. These results show the flexible nature of cue use by the Clark's nutcracker. Our study shows how multiple sources of spatial information may be important for extracting multiple bearings for navigation.

 

PMID: 19579038 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

************************

Recap:

If instinctual pattern recognition explained the success of the nutcracker in finding things, then "memory" would be inflexible (the birds would look where nature has "trained" them to look, and not elsewhere). However, this study shows that the birds' use of cues is flexible and non-absolute.

 

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 10/15, 6:32am)


Post 13

Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 7:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re:

Suppose only 5 or 6 of the numbers appear on the screen, the ones appearing each time changing randomly. Do you think the chimp could point to them in the correct order?

It doesn't matter what I think -- it matters what reality does.
That experiment (if done) would answer the question -- my thoughts about what might or mightn't happen would not answer the question at all.
As far as I could find out, the scientists haven't done that experiment. If I had the money to buy and keep chimps, I would do it myself.

Post 14

Thursday, October 15, 2009 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, Ed, your analysis of the relevance of cues is correct.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 4:02pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rats also outperform college students in finding their way out of a maze. Maybe this says more about today's college students than it does about the animals who beat them.

It's probably that damned affirmative action for humans, which was deemed necessary lest our colleges would be filled by nothing but chimps and rats whose short-term memories would enable them to outscore the other students after a sleepless night of cramming for mid-terms.

If this doesn't say something about the sad state of higher education, nothing does!

Post 16

Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 7:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You don't think they would ever publish a study showing that the rats and chimps also outperformed the professors, do you?

Post 17

Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 7:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I heard that a study was just released that determined that human beings outperform every other creature in the animal kingdom in spurious award achievement.

Post 18

Sunday, October 18, 2009 - 8:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have just nominated Ryan for the Nobel Peace Prize for that last observation of his.

Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.