Nah, it’s Beggin’ Strips.
Quite so. I met Irene at a bird conference some years ago.
In sceince, it doesn’t matter whether you’re a man or a woman, it’s your work, not your sex. Why would you think that Dr Pepperburg being of the female sex is somehow important?
The study contained one bird. Also, as per the Clever Han’s problem, Pepperburg was unable to have other researchers repeat what she claimed Alex could do.
Some in the scientific community are highly skeptical of Pepperberg’s findings, pointing to Alex’s alleged use of language as operant conditioning.[3] Critics point to the case of Clever Hans, a horse who could apparently count, but who was actually taking subtle cues from his trainer.[2] In another case, Nim Chimpsky, a chimpanzee named after Noam Chomsky, was thought to be using language but later shown to have been imitating his teacher.[2] Dr. Herbert Terrace, who had worked with Nim Chimpsky, says he thinks Alex performed by rote rather than using language; he calls Alex’s responses “a complex discriminative performance.”[2]
*The risk of Clever Hans effects is one strong reason why comparative psychologists normally test animals in isolated apparatus, without interaction with them. However this creates problems of its own, because many of the most interesting phenomena in animal cognition are only likely to be demonstrated in a social context, and in order to train and demonstrate them, it is necessary to build up a social relationship between trainer and animal. This point of view has been strongly argued by Irene Pepperberg in relation to her studies of parrots (Alex), and by Allen and Beatrix Gardner in their study of the chimpanzee Washoe. If the results of such studies are to gain universal acceptance, it is necessary to find some way of testing the animals’ achievements which eliminates the risk of Clever Hans effects. However, simply removing the trainer from the scene may not be an appropriate strategy, because where the social relationship between trainer and subject is strong, the removal of the trainer may produce emotional responses preventing the subject from performing. It is therefore necessary to devise procedures where none of those present knows what the animal’s likely response may be.
For an example of an experimental protocol designed to overcome the Clever Hans effect, see Rico (Border Collie).
As Pfungst’s final experiment makes clear, Clever Hans effects are quite as likely to occur in experiments with humans as in experiments with other animals. For this reason, care is often taken in fields such as perception, cognitive psychology, and social psychology to make experiments double-blind, meaning that neither the experimenter nor the subject knows what condition the subject is in, and thus what his or her responses are predicted to be. Another way in which Clever Hans effects are avoided is by replacing the experimenter with a computer, which can deliver standardized instructions and record responses without giving clues.*
Pepperburg’s experiments with Alex were not repeatable by other scientists, only she could get Alex to respond “properly”.
It indicates a lack of familiarity with the subject if one repeatedly misstates the gender of the scientist. I suppose it’s possible to have read about Dr. Pepperberg’s work without encountering her first name or gender, but I find that unlikely. I did not intend to make any judgment about her work based on her sex.
Thank You DrDeth, that is a reasonable argument.
I really only remember Dr. Pepperberg from a bit on NPR, and naturally she sounded fairly convincing. I’m convinced now that her claims are overstated. I still think animals have a larger capacity for intelligence than many believe (and I’m not refering to anyone here), but my suspicions are indeed knocked down a notch here.
No, it does not, as it doesn’t matter. It’s about as important as a minor typo in her name.
Keep in mind that we implicitly define intelligence as “what we can do”. Animals aren’t necessarily less intelligent because they don’t have language. For example, young chimps are “smarter” than human adults at one seemingly very human task-- remembering the sequence of numbers in a random block pattern. Turns out that if you show a chimp a grid with consecutive numbers in it, they outperform humans at remembering where the numbers were once they grid is cleared. Link.
I’ve seen a film of this, and it is astonishing. The chimps are only shown the numbered grid for a fraction of a second, and they just rip through the sequence like it was nothing. Now, this experiment didn’t involve human children, but I can’t imagine kids doing much better than university students at this task.
You obviously didn’t go to college with some of the guys in my Frat.
It was a minor quibble and not meant to be something to make an argument of. I noticed a person misstated the scientists gender and I corrected it. This site is about fighting ignorance, is it not? The only reason I included a bit of a snarky tone in my first post is because Blake’s posts came across so forcefully and almost judgmental that I thought it reasonable to point out that he missed what seemed to me to be an obvious fact. I’m not interested in continuing this discussion further as it is off-topic and I think you’re reading more into my position than I intended to convey.
Are those language milestones minimums or something? They seem really rather conservative.
Yeah, I thought so, too.
-And that wasn’t based on ‘aren’t my kids great!’ or ‘wasn’t I great as a kid!’ (even though both are of course true).
I’m thinking of some of the little toddlers I sometimes work with - they are typically way beyond those milestones. One little 3YO was showing me his first scooter and was saying things like “even though I go quite fast, I never fall off, because I’m careful”. The next day, he did stumble and almost fall off and I asked him about it - he replied “Ah, when I said I never fall off, I really meant I never get hurt”.
That’s proper conversation, not just ‘my ball?’.
Yep. Chimp “conversation” typically looks like this: *Give food hurry hurry. Food Food Now. Chase fun food hurry hurry
*
Irene Pepperberg and Alex are celebrities as far as psychology goes. Anyone seriously interested in the subject would surely be aware of who she is.
Perhaps the question should be, “Why are humans the only animals that can have a concept of death?”? Death applies to every species, why is it only significant to us? Why would our consciousness develop to sometimes cripple us with fear over a completely natural event?
There is no factual answer to that question, but keep in mind that you need to look at the net effect of the entire system (ie, consciousness), not just one aspect of it. Perhaps the good outweighs the bad, if knowledge of death is “bad”.
Yes, I was watching a video of Koko and Koko’s trainer/interpreter. With me was a hearing impared freind who has worked as a ASL translator for the Gov’t. She said the trainer was translating extremely freely what the ape was signing, and other than a few signs repeated that made sense in context (like “food”) it was gibberish, not language. Her opinion, of course.
Ivan, some of us concede that some of the “higher” animals (elephants, whales, Apes) may well have *some sort *of concept of death.
Death? That’s when the monsters get you.
What you don’t know about 3 year olds is a LOT. It undermines your credibility wrt what you know about animals, imo. :rolleyes:
I have known MANY 3 yr olds in my day, spent 20 yrs working with them professionally and have a degree in child development as a matter of fact, and if a 3 yr old couldn’t “speak” English (or whatever language they were born into), comprehend and communicate such basic concepts as colors and the relationship between objects in their environment at a MUCH higher level than what you accept as typical, I would be very concerned. Have you actually ever MET a 3 yr old? :dubious: Or a pig, FTM?
Your description seems more like an 18 mth old or younger. Good Lord, I have know 3 yr olds who came into an English-only environment from a Vietnamese-only home, communicating very well in their native language, and, by the time they were 4, were translating for their parents and fluent in BOTH languages.
As for whether (other) animals know they are going to die, I would venture that while they probably lack the human comprehension of death as an abstract concept and don’t spend any time dwelling on it, they do possess the capacity to understand the imminent threat of death, to seek to avoid pain and their own demise, and to react accordingly. Do they experience existential angst? Ponder the great questions of mortality vs immortality? Of course not. But are they a hell a lot more aware and anquished than you give them credit for when faced with their own death? I think so.
Pigs are very intelligent, more so than dogs, imo. It is accepted that dogs can come to understand a few thousand words. So they can’t “speak”, lacking the physical means to regurgitate most human sounds. But then, they CAN “speak” in human sounds to a very limited degree. I had a dog once who, when really excited while playing fetch would growl /bark out “throw it!” and when anxious to leave on a walk or trip could be made out to growl/bark, “Let’s GO!” It happened too many times to dismiss, and others witnessed and commented on it as well. And of course, she communicated very clearly in her OWN language and through non-verbal means as well.
Another dog I knew obviously understood most of what was said around him. We couldn’t plan a trip or any outing without him being aware of it only from our conversations. One time, we decided to leave him home while we went out to the local swimming hole (he’d misbehaved terribly the last outing there) and we went out of our way to ensure we didn’t tip him off with body language or any other clues. But of course, we discussed it.
So we left and came home to find him gone from the yard and a message from a neighbor at a nearby apartment complex on our machine: “Um, hey, your dog is over here swimming in our pool.” :smack:
Another time, this same dog was playing fetch with me, and he always loved to play “I steal the stick and you catch me” instead. I got fed up and said, “Ok, smart-ass, bring me the stick. Bring me the stick. Now.” He trotted around a bit, acted out looking all around (though he knew damn well where he’d left the stick in question) then selected a tiny little twig from the ground and presented it to me, “laughing” all the while. Pretty sophisticated humor for a dog, I think.
Overall, while I do, based on my own experience with different animals and the scientific evidence, think that pigs and other animals DO feel fear and pain as we do, that is really a bit beside the point if we are debating the ethical implications. A human infant can’t comprehend the concept of death or communicate with language or, arguably, even remember pain or fear, but that doesn’t mean they don’t experience pain or fear or that it is unethical to intentionally expose them to such. Or to kill them and think, hey, what difference does it make? They didn’t “suffer” because “suffering” demands some pre-contemplation and/or full comprehension of the situation. BS.
And if there is some scientifically valid reason to differentiate between human infants/children and any other animal with a mental capacity which is on a par, fine. Present it. If not, it is just about justifying the intentional infliction of suffering and death for our own benefit and profit. Rationalize away.