| | Mike,
Ed we have different interpretations here, clearly. I do not see that the article said that chimpanzees were better. I agree that the interesting slant was the implication. To be clear, I only said that chimps "supposedly" have a leg-up on humans with regard to task completions, not that they are supposedly better than humans in any kind of a general sense of being better than humans.
For them (us) to recognize "experts" supposes a great deal of judgment. Are you claiming that this is inherent in the brain? No, I'm claiming it's learned.
A toddler might watch Mommy cook rice by putting dry rice in a pan and then adding water and letting it sit for a while (on the stove burner). While Mommy is napping, the toddler may try to make rice by putting dry rice in the dog's water bowl, and then waiting for the rice to "cook." The toddler does not understand the mechanism of cooking -- i.e., does not understand that, to make rice, you need heat -- but it mimics Mommy's behavior because everything that Mommy intends to do .... always happens to turn out right.
And it often tastes good, too.
So the toddler is willing to mimic Mommy at whatever task, having learned that when Mommy does things, good things will come as a result. In this example, Mommy is a bona fide expert (in relation to the toddler). Even if the toddler felt that the actions were magical -- rather than resulting from expertise -- it would still mimic the actions because that is what you do when that is all that you have to go on. You said as much when you said:
"On the other hand, by the time infants are old enough to do these things, they have learned very much, perhaps the value in copying behaviors they do not understand."
Also, as the experiments showed, the chimpanzees did, indeed know the better way. When they could not see the goal, they mimicked the actions. When they could see the goal, they did what was needed, not what they learned. Humans continued to engage the rote motions despite seeing the goal. The chimps didn't actually know the better way, but the researchers knew that the way they "chose" was the better way to go about task completion in this limited, artificial context. There is a subtle difference there. The 3- and 4-year old kids had had -- in their short time on Earth -- had had time to see that when adults do things, there are usually good reasons for the things that they do. They don't always understand why it is that such tasty, hot food comes out as a result of the specific actions that their parents had taken (in preparing a meal, for example) -- but they can trust in the process because they've seen how adults are such relative experts (when compared to the toddlers themselves).
Importantly, this is behavior in an early stage of development for humans. In later stages, it'd be more appropriate not to mimic others. There is a sweet-spot in human development -- probably around age 3 -- wherein it is good for kids to learn some tasks before understanding why it is important. This age-related difference on how learning should proceed seems entirely overlooked by the researchers.
Also, what about Kate's major point, that being second-handers seems deeply engrained in humans, whereas our cousins seem more independent of mind? It may be that there is no transient stage in the development of a chimpanzee (in their natural habitat) wherein mimicry would be better than goal/intention-grasping, followed by personal trial-and-error. If this is true, if it is only good for developing humans to mimic behavior, but never good for chimpanzees -- then Kate's major point becomes a non sequitur. As an extension then, being a second-hander is only deeply engrained in very young kids (when it is appropriate), though psycho-spiritual development disorders or a simple lack of psychological maturity make keep some folks in the arrested-development stage of second-hand mimicry throughout their lives.
Also of implication is that chimpanzees don't really have an independence of mind, but the lack of a (conceptual) mind. Not having a mind, it wouldn't be good to mimic their behavior. It is rarely fruitful to mimic the behavior of a mindless being. It would be better -- in the absence of conceptual powers of awareness -- to stick with personal trial-and-error and utilize the memory aspect of your powers of perception. Remembering what has worked for us in the past, and only for us, and only in the past.
Ed
p.s. Perceptual (nonconceptual) powers include: a) sense-perception b) memory c) imagination d) crude (a "non-understanding") association
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/25, 11:13am)
|
|