Slashdot Mirror


Chimpanzees Beat out Children in Reasoning Test

caffeinemessiah writes "The New York Times has a story on how chimpanzees seem to exhibit a better understanding of cause and effect than human children. While training chimps to perform a routine task with redundant steps, the chimps were able to figure out and eliminate the redundant steps, while the human children routinely performed them despite their evident uselessness. It says something about the way we learn compared to chimps and should be interesting to cognitive scientists and those interested in computational learning theory, at the least."

663 comments

  1. but children will become adults by rebug · · Score: 5, Funny

    Chimps will always be chimps.

    Lucky bastards.

    --

    there's more than one way to do me.
    1. Re:but children will become adults by SenatorOrrinHatch · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does anyone doubt that, when genetic engineering reaches the point where we can graft human vocal chords to chimps and dolphins, some of them will be plainly more intelligent than many humans?

      I am certain it will happen, I just hope its in the next 20 yeas.

      --
      The Christian in me says it's wrong, but the corrections officer in me says, 'I love to make a grown man piss himself.'
    2. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky? Only if we're actually talking about Bonobos. Chimps can be pretty cruel bastards. As bad as human violence is, at least I'm fairly certain none of my competitors will ever cut open my sack and squeeze my nuts out. OUCH!

      Bonobos are the ones that spend their days playing and fucking. They're the lottery winners in the primate game.

    3. Re:but children will become adults by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

      "I dunno. How big of a monkey?"

    4. Re:but children will become adults by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 5, Funny
      As bad as human violence is, at least I'm fairly certain none of my competitors will ever cut open my sack and squeeze my nuts out.

      Then why post as an AC?

    5. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On other news: adult humans spending tons of money on redundant research activities (comparing baby humans to adult chimpansees).

      Artifact from childhood?

    6. Re:but children will become adults by DissidentHere · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well......they could become president.

      We do have precedent now.

      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
    7. Re:but children will become adults by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      Does anyone doubt that, when genetic engineering reaches the point where we can graft human vocal chords to chimps and dolphins, some of them will be plainly more intelligent than many humans?

      Never once do I doubt that dolphins are actually singing "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish" everyday in the aquarium :)

    8. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if we knew a particular child wasn't going to reach adulthood because of a disease of some sort? He will never advance beyond the intelligence of the chimp. Should we treat this child any different than other people? Obviously not. Should we treat chimps difference because they are more intelligent than some humans will ever be? Its a thought.

    9. Re:but children will become adults by kevmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The article talks about how children overimitate and chimps don't imitate. I know you were joking, but I don't think this really changes much as humans grow older. Just look at the dot-com bubble: it was pretty much causes by too many people trying to imitate a few good ideas and people just generally going nuts. Anytime anyone does anything remotely innovative, it is imitated a thousand times it seems like. Imitation is just a part of human nature, which has evidentally helped us take over this planet.

    10. Re:but children will become adults by cataBob · · Score: 1

      That's what you get for not hailing to the chimp.

    11. Re:but children will become adults by PAjamian · · Score: 0

      Yep and chimpanzees will become vice president.

      --
      Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
    12. Re:but children will become adults by mattwarden · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So then instead of discussing intelligent design ad nauseum, we can argue about whether humans were really given domain over all animals. Great.

    13. Re:but children will become adults by Dan+Up+Baby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Wow, a presidential intelligence joke! Original! Perhaps you're the person I should be asking, then: what, really, is the deal with airline food?

    14. Re:but children will become adults by Jeff85 · · Score: 1

      [Laughs] "Of course you're not."

      --
      Fetch Text URL - Firefox Extension
    15. Re:but children will become adults by Alan+Reynolds · · Score: 1

      Shurly: "Tests have been devised by adults whose beliefs about cause and effect correlate more closely with beliefs held on this topic by chimpanzees than with those held by human children."

    16. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought they had already done that...

    17. Re:but children will become adults by slashdotnickname · · Score: 1

      Does anyone doubt that, when genetic engineering reaches the point where we can graft human vocal chords to chimps and dolphins, some of them will be plainly more intelligent than many humans?

      It would take more than just giving them vocal chords. They would also need brain enhancements to not only generate speech and control their vocal chords but also comprehend things more symbolically than they do now. Even the simplest language phrases involve very abstracted concepts.

    18. Re:but children will become adults by mrogers · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe the dolphins will be intelligent enough to convince the creationists that they're full of shit.

    19. Re:but children will become adults by EntropyEngine · · Score: 1

      I'd like to lay wager to a chimp beating most adults in & around where I live.

      There's a lot of people small thumbs and grazed knuckles around here...

    20. Re:but children will become adults by somersault · · Score: 1

      oh yes, because a chimp being able to determine cause and effect better than a human that is only doing what it has been told to do. Things like car insurance may be redundant for most days of your life, but one day when you have an accident you may wish that you had it after all *shrug*

      --
      which is totally what she said
    21. Re:but children will become adults by antoinjapan · · Score: 1

      everyday, or just the last day before they mysteriously disappeared?

    22. Re:but children will become adults by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      That would take immense power. The best effort has been put into that but what do you do against this strong mental power we have dubbed cognitive dissonance...
      http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/disso nance.htm

    23. Re:but children will become adults by mrogers · · Score: 1

      Cognitive dissonance is powerful, but the dolphins have sonar...

    24. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's spelled presadent, not precedent, you moron.

      GWB

    25. Re:but children will become adults by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 0

      I simply cannot resist. As with many kinds of study or research, there can be exceptions. In this case, I think that GWB is that exception. ;)

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
    26. Re:but children will become adults by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      The article talks about how children overimitate and chimps don't imitate.

      After reading the summary, my first thought was that chimps have a healthy disrespect for process.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    27. Re:but children will become adults by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      I'd like to lay wager to a chimp beating most adults in & around where I live.

      Are you going to sell tickets to this sporting event, or only take wagers?

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    28. Re:but children will become adults by EntropyEngine · · Score: 1

      That would contravene the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act .. or some such other law, or something!

    29. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would love to see one complete thread here without a Bush joke. They are all old and overused. Either come up with something new or can it.

    30. Re:but children will become adults by Ucklak · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      what, really, is the deal with airline food?

      The deal with airline food is that it was always provided as part of the fare or lagniappe, not an itemized cost to the fare.
      The problem started when those people started to complain about the quality of 'free' things and how if they pay $X hundred amount for a fare, good food should come with it and the cost of transportation should be given for free.

      Well I'm sory Mr. bitchy cheap complainer passenger (not directed to the parent poster unless you are one of those complainers), that's what first class is for. To expect the same quality food for coach that first class gets is just retarded but your little pea brain just doesn't get it. Did you know that you could actually request a better meal for free if you requested it a day in advance Mr. compainer??? No, you didn't. You're the type that doesn't prepare and expect everybody to wait hand and foot on YOU just because YOU spent $X hundred dollars let alone the rest of the fare paying passengers you selfish twit.

      So then complaints about food created a windstorm where most people (like me) didn't really care. You're on a goddamn plane ride getting from point A to point B, not eating at a first class restaurant that provides transportation services. That pressure caused the air transportation industry to react and do something stupid for the long haul. They were forced to have 'better' meals as a cost.

      But Mr. Bitch didn't want to pay for it then fuel costs went up. Oh crap. So if someone complains about something (think 'squeaky wheel'), they're [the airline industry] going to oil the squeak. Well they can't get rid of the passenger so how about we get rid of the meals altogether so they don't have something to complain about.

      Good going f*tard. Now we all starve.

      So now, if you want to eat, you have to f*king pay extra to eat now for alot more crappier choices than before. $7.00 for a crappy cold biscuit, a cookie, and piece of cheese doesn't cut it Mr. complainer where before you could get an omlette, warm danish, , biscuit with jelly AND a cup of fruit - for FREE.

      It's ironic that I'm complaining about complainers but I'm a good passenger. I hate bad passengers and cell phones in theatres.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    31. Re:but children will become adults by JourneymanMereel · · Score: 1

      So what you're saying is that your best efforts have failed miserably to bring somebody with an opposing viewpoint around to your way of thinking and you're hoping dolphins are smarter than you?

      --
      Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
    32. Re:but children will become adults by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      Not if the chimp does all of the damage :)

      Educational item for non-Americans: The U.S. does not have federal laws against animal cruelty, and the state laws vary widely. I would expect that California has strong laws against animal cruelty, but some states (Oklahoma and Arkansas IIRC) still have very active and legal cockfighting circuits.

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    33. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who said anything about a joke? The man is an idiot.

    34. Re:but children will become adults by EntropyEngine · · Score: 1

      Educational item for non-Americans: The U.S. does not have federal laws against animal cruelty, and the state laws vary widely. I would expect that California has strong laws against animal cruelty, but some states (Oklahoma and Arkansas IIRC) still have very active and legal cockfighting circuits.

      Are you serious?!

      You've got to be kidding me...

    35. Re:but children will become adults by CreatureComfort · · Score: 1, Funny


      Yeah, but the sharks are gonna have frikkin laser beams.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    36. Re:but children will become adults by Aceticon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Your logic breaks at this point:


      But Mr. Bitch didn't want to pay for it then fuel costs went up. Oh crap. So if someone complains about something (think 'squeaky wheel'), they're [the airline industry] going to oil the squeak. Well they can't get rid of the passenger so how about we get rid of the meals altogether so they don't have something to complain about.


      Your assumption was that when faced with some people complaining about the quality of the meals the airlines decided to remove meals from coach in flights all together. From your implied causal relation (complainers complaining => airlines remove meals) you go into a enourmous rant.

      How about if the airlines removed meals to reduce costs because of rising fuel costs and/or increased competition from budget airlines?

      I reckon that if we use this assumption instead we can rant all the way up to SUV owners, the chinese industry (big consumers of raw materials) and/or people that choose to fly with budget airlines instead of with "normal" ones.

    37. Re:but children will become adults by indifferent+children · · Score: 1
      Actually, it looks like Oklahoma passed a law in 2002 outlawing cockfights, but a judge suspended the law from being enforced. I don't know whether it is currently legal, illegal and enforced, or illegal and not enforced.

      http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/11/26/cf. opinion.cockfighting/

      --
      Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
    38. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well......they could become president. We do have precedent now."

      Silly me for expecting better than 6th grade level idiocy on Slashdot...

    39. Re:but children will become adults by b0bby · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      what, really, is the deal with airline food?

      Even good food will be less tasty on a plane, since the low pressure makes your taste buds less sensitive.
      http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TRAVEL/05/16/bt.food.a ltitude/

    40. Re:but children will become adults by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      I believe they or some of the major carriers had to enter expensive contracts to 'up' the quality of the food which became cost prohibitive in the late 80's to mid 90's. The cheaper airlines (that ValueJet started after the demise of Eastern, AirTran, Ted, etc...) never had the traditional served food in the first place, they always had the bag snacks which now costs $5 to $7.

      If you look at it from a fixed cost standpoint, it's the food that gets the complaints first well before clerk/attendant attitude so food gets cut. That fixed cost would fluctuate with competition.

      My point was that it really wan't broken in the first place. Sometimes you got a decent meal, sometimes you didn't. So what. I'm on a mission from Point A to B, not eating prepared meals im crampled quarters. Now we get nothing except transportation.

      The same people complain when there's a problem with their flight when they themselves cause it in the first place. (Relative[in-law] story here) You book a flight from a booking agency like Orbitz and not from the airline. It's only $20 cheaper. The flight takes you 6 hours out of your way then you complain that it does that instead of booking it from the airline itself and getting a direct flight.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    41. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Insert Dubbya joke here]

      No.

    42. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You expected better than 6th grade level idiocy on Slashdot?

      Have a banana.

    43. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does this mean that when I call someone "monkey brain" it is now a complement?

    44. Re:but children will become adults by Newander · · Score: 1

      Nice one.

      --

      Jesus saves and takes half damage.

    45. Re:but children will become adults by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      That's not very nice to say about Bill Clinton. He's not even president anymore.

      --
      -Styopa
    46. Re:but children will become adults by Cylix · · Score: 1

      Actually....

      Chimps are the control group and humans are the variable.

      Corporations and goverment are breeding a less thoughtful and more obediant task oriented worker.

      While we used to be like monkeys ourselves, that day has long since past with genetic manipulation and a careful regiment of treatments through our water supply.

      Cross every T, dot every I, and be a happy consumer!

      Disclaimer: I'm not really crazy... I'm joking... honest.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    47. Re:but children will become adults by RoyBoy333 · · Score: 1

      Around here, we call them "managers"

    48. Re:but children will become adults by pezpunk · · Score: 1

      and i think this is the only real conlcusion that can be drawn. the difference was not in how kids and chimps learn, but in how they perceived the situation. the kids are obeying their elders by performing tasks that don't make sense to them. same thing they always do. the chimps aren't hampered by the disadvantage of having been told every morning by an adult to make their bed even though they'll just be un-making it that night to sleep in it.

      --
      i could live a little longer in this prison
    49. Re:but children will become adults by slashname3 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately a good portion of those adults go on to become managers. Which explains why they keep doing the same things over and over again. I wonder if we could hire the chimps as managers, at least they would size up the task and solve the problem instead of imitating all the managers that have gone before them.

    50. Re:but children will become adults by frgough · · Score: 1

      More likely, the chimps were not able to comprehend the abstract concept of obedience to an adult authority.

      --
      You can tell the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    51. Re:but children will become adults by Yanray · · Score: 1



      Hail to the Chimp we have chosen for the nation,
      Hail to the Chimp! We salute him, one and all.
      Hail to the Chimp, as we pledge cooperation
      In proud fulfillment of a great, noble call.
      Yours is the aim to make this grand country grander,
      This you will do, that's our strong, firm belief.
      Hail to the one we selected as commander,
      Hail to the President! Hail to the Chimp!

      --
      --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
      DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
    52. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      of course, the parent receives an obligatory +5 bush-bashing mod. /not a republican, don't like Bush

    53. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Well......they could become president.

      We do have precedent now.


      Did you think of that yourself, or are you just aping what you've heard elsewhere?

    54. Re:but children will become adults by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Silly me for expecting better than 6th grade level idiocy on Slashdot...

      And, not only are YOU here, but you contribute so much to raising said level.

    55. Re:but children will become adults by Morgalyn · · Score: 1

      It's less a lack of our vocal chord structure as a lack of brain structure; regardless, I'm still trying to puzzle out how genetic engineering leads to grafting, unless you think we'll grow spare vocal chords in a petri dish and then slap them on there.. Also, if I recall correctly, chimp brains have less communication between the two hemispheres of their brains than we do, and the activity in their brains when processing auditory input is different. Don't forget, more goes into our speech, physically, than just the chords - the tongue and soft palette are also important.

      In any case, I, too, wait for the day when we can communicate more effectively with other species which are obviously intelligent. I think this will have more to do with either working with their existing facilities (and perhaps creating an electronic 'translator') or by genetically engineering their stock directly. The second path will take much, much more time, and would be highly controversial in today's current political climate.

      You might be interested in the writings of David Brin, specifically his Uplift series (Sundiver, Startide Rising, Uplift War, et al.) which deals directly with these ideas.

      --
      You say you got a real solution
      Well, you know
      We'd all love to see the plan
      (The Beatles)
    56. Re:but children will become adults by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      I'll be convinced when the dolphins arrive at the Moon on the spacecraft they built themselves.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    57. Re:but children will become adults by ladyjane_calm · · Score: 1

      it just goes to show you... the ability to communicate is far more important than the ability to be efficient.

    58. Re:but children will become adults by DissidentHere · · Score: 1
      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
  2. I HATE NYT by aphor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    FP?

    The NYT hates Slashdot, so click the link, a few times, but gimme a good one with no stoopud signup teaser!

    --
    --- Nothing clever here: move along now...
  3. slashdot is proof by incubusnb · · Score: 4, Funny
    a Chimpanzee would have stopped visiting slashdot a long time ago, its a redundant step.

    oh, and First Post(though i've probably failed it, i have Karma to burn so do whatever to me)

    --
    /. is overrun by bed-wetting elitist nerds
    let it be known, for anything other than servers, a *nix OS sucks
    1. Re:slashdot is proof by Seumas · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, monkey beats . . . oh hey . . . !

    2. Re:slashdot is proof by Atario · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      oh, and First Post
      Speaking of redundant and useless actions...
      --
      "A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
    3. Re:slashdot is proof by TCM · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Speaking of redundant and useless actions...

      --
      Of course it runs NetBSD. BTC: 1NT7QvbetmANwaMzhpVL6
    4. Re: Re:slashdot is proof by The+New+Andy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Speaking of redundant and useless actions...

    5. Re: Re:slashdot is proof by Orgazmus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Speaking of redundant and useless actions.... .. is the art performed by most whining slashdotters.

      --
      The system had the verbosity of HTML combined with all the readability of compiled assembly viewed as bitmap images
    6. Re:slashdot is proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



      Another way to think about this is to suggest that human beings are more adept at retaining information that doesn't make immediate sense to them. That is, I'm better able than the chimp to reason that because I don't understand something, that doesn't mean it's not important; and so, I file it.

      Information that isn't immediately understood is often filed away by human beings for later processing. I don't think this is an argument one way or another about human/chimpanzee superiority -- just a possible difference in the way their cognition may work compared/contrasted with ours.

      It does suggest, however, that much of what's said on Slashdot makes no sense. This could explain why we return over and over again, every hopeful of some cognitive breakthrough...

    7. Re:slashdot is proof by saskboy · · Score: 1

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of chimps working at a cluster of keyboards!

      They'd post fewer redundant stories to Slashdot than an average human child!

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  4. Experiment Proposal by students · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd like to see another experiment done. Suppose, hypothetically, that a chimp showed a human child how to solve a puzzle, inserting unnecessary steps. Would the human skip steps more often if taught by a chimp than by another human? If so, it would show that what matters is if the species of the teacher and student are the same, not the what species the student belongs to.

    1. Re:Experiment Proposal by CyricZ · · Score: 5, Funny

      The chimp would probably eat the child, just so it doesn't get stuck doing pointless experiments.

      --
      Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
    2. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      I'd like to see another experiment done. Suppose, hypothetically, that a chimp showed a human child how to solve a puzzle, inserting unnecessary steps.

      Isn't this already being tested in the Kansas public schools?

      /ducks

    3. Re:Experiment Proposal by iocat · · Score: 4, Interesting
      It would probably eat the human child because chimps are vicious wild animals, not the cute, cuddly animals people think they are.

      Also, the fact that humans are more likely to do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment, which is why we have computers, and keep chimps in cages, and not the other way around.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    4. Re:Experiment Proposal by Elminst · · Score: 1

      do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment,

      Uhhhh what?
      How does imitating unnecessary steps translate to experimenting?
      Experimenting would be trying it DIFFERENT ways, which is what the CHIMPS were doing, not just rote imitation of what they were shown, which the HUMANS were doing.

      --
      No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    5. Re:Experiment Proposal by shreevatsa · · Score: 0, Redundant
      Also, the fact that humans are more likely to do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment, which is why we have computers, and keep chimps in cages, and not the other way around.
      Huh? The fact here is entirely opposite—the chimpanzees were willing to "experiment" and do something different from what they were shown; the kids perfectly imitated the original demonstration each time.

      The relevant parts of the article text:
      Dr. Horner and Dr. Whiten described the way they showed young chimps how to retrieve food from a box.

      The box was painted black and had a door on one side and a bolt running across the top. The food was hidden in a tube behind the door. When they showed the chimpanzees how to retrieve the food, the researchers added some unnecessary steps. Before they opened the door, they pulled back the bolt and tapped the top of the box with a stick. Only after they had pushed the bolt back in place did they finally open the door and fish out the food.

      Because the chimps could not see inside, they could not tell that the extra steps were unnecessary. As a result, when the chimps were given the box, two-thirds faithfully imitated the scientists to retrieve the food.

      The team then used a box with transparent walls and found a strikingly different result. Those chimps could see that the scientists were wasting their time sliding the bolt and tapping the top. None followed suit. They all went straight for the door.

      The researchers turned to humans. They showed the transparent box to 16 children from a Scottish nursery school. After putting a sticker in the box, they showed the children how to retrieve it. They included the unnecessary bolt pulling and box tapping.

      The scientists placed the sticker back in the box and left the room, telling the children that they could do whatever they thought necessary to retrieve it.

      The children could see just as easily as the chimps that it was pointless to slide open the bolt or tap on top of the box. Yet 80 percent did so anyway. "It seemed so spectacular to me," Mr. Lyons said. "It suggested something remarkable was going on."

      It was possible, however, that the results might come from a simple desire in the children just to play along.

      ...snip...

      Having watched 100 children, he agrees with Dr. Horner and Dr. Whiten that children really do overimitate. He has found that it is very hard to get children not to.

      If they rush through opening a puzzle, they don't skip the extra steps. They just do them all faster. What makes the results even more intriguing is that the children understand the laws of physics well enough to solve the puzzles on their own. Charlotte's box ripping is proof of that.

      Mr. Lyons sees his results as evidence that humans are hard-wired to learn by imitation, even when that is clearly not the best way to learn. If he is right, this represents a big evolutionary change from our ape ancestors. Other primates are bad at imitation. When they watch another primate doing something, they seem to focus on what its goals are and ignore its actions.

      As human ancestors began to make complicated tools, figuring out goals might not have been good enough anymore. Hominids needed a way to register automatically what other hominids did, even if they didn't understand the intentions behind them. They needed to imitate.

      ... snip...

      In a few years, I plan to explain this experience to Charlotte. I want her to know what I now know. That it's O.K. to lose to the chimps. In fact, it may be what makes us uniquely human.
    6. Re:Experiment Proposal by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

      How do you coax a chimp into teaching a human child? How do you coax the child into agreeing to "learn from a monkey"? Hell, how do you convince the parents?

      "We'll pay your child $10 an hour to learn how to shuck corn from this chimpanzee."

      That'd be one hell of a reality show.

    7. Re:Experiment Proposal by TheGavster · · Score: 1

      I can do a task by doing A then B then C ... let's try adding D (extra step!), and see what happens. Ah, looks like the redundant steps are now A and C, saving steps over the initial solution! Prototypes of anything involve a million extra bits; the trip from concept to production is getting the extra bits out.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    8. Re:Experiment Proposal by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      You make a task where the participant gets a reward if it is completed succesfully with a partner. Give them something they want, which, for the child and chimpanzee, is not money. Probably candy for the child and fruit for the chimp. Have them run through the test successfully several times with the researcher, so they get the idea that they get the reward if the test goes well. Then, replace the researcher with a child or a chimp.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    9. Re:Experiment Proposal by centipetalforce · · Score: 1, Troll

      That article only proves they're much more like humans than most think. What species is more violent than man? None.

    10. Re:Experiment Proposal by Wylfing · · Score: 1
      Despite the belly-jiggling humor that's been done here, this is a most fascinating question. We tend to "interpret" animal responses as if they were human beings -- anthropomorphizing the subject. What of such research when the anthro qualities are removed?

      --
      Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
    11. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What species has a greater capactity for empathy and compassion? None.

    12. Re:Experiment Proposal by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      It would probably eat the human child because chimps are vicious wild animals, not the cute, cuddly animals people think they are.

      You know something, that is actually unfair, and highly typical of a human-supremist. Here's the article reworded slightly:

      Humans come across to the public as little darlings, often in diapers and always willing to hold hands. But they're really aggressors, primate experts say, more than capable of carrying out attacks as violent as one that left a chimpanzee fighting for his life.

      Generally weighing between 80 and 100 pounds, humans in the wild are known to kill humans from neighboring groups, hunt other primates and even attack chimps.

      "Male humans are intensely territorial. They defend their territory against any perceived threat... Huamns can be violent at times just as chimps can be."


      To say that chimps are viscious animals, is to say humans are viscious animals. Chimps can act in a certain away towards others, it doesn't mean they do it all the time.

    13. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Also, the fact that humans are more likely to do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment."

      Not sure about "willingness to experiment" when it is the apes that are most willing to break the rules. However it could explain human ritual and dogma.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    14. Re:Experiment Proposal by lastchance_000 · · Score: 1

      Get your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty ape!!!

    15. Re:Experiment Proposal by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      wait, we're the ones who are destroying their habitats, keeping them in captivity, performing vivisections on them, etc., yet chimps are the vicious ones? from the page that you linked to:

      "Chimps can be violent at times just as humans can be."

      so maybe they can exhibit patterns of aggression, but probably no more so than human beings do. in fact, bonobo chimps are some of the most peaceful and socially advanced animal species known to man, and have remarkably advanced conflict resolution skills that probably surpass those possessed by a large segment of human society.

    16. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you (and the GP to a lesser extent) so sure?

    17. Re:Experiment Proposal by thelost · · Score: 1

      what, have chimps and keep computers in cages? I heard a G5 attacked his owner recently....

      --
      Promote Charity on Myspace, Show Your Colours!
    18. Re:Experiment Proposal by Nutria · · Score: 2, Insightful

      To say that chimps are viscious animals, is to say humans are viscious animals.

      But people pretty much grok that humans can be pretty violent.

      The delusion that needs shattering is that chimpanzees are cuddly little furballs.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    19. Re:Experiment Proposal by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 1

      Humans are not particularly violent. It's just that humans are so remarkably talented at everything we do that our violence is accordingly far more spectacular.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    20. Re:Experiment Proposal by iocat · · Score: 1
      Dude, yes, chimps are vicious. They ate the guy's face. And his fingers. And his lips. And his foot. And his testicles. You can tell me all you want about how peaceful Bonobo Chimps are, but I will take being in a room for five minutes with any random human on the planet before I spend five minutes with one of your peaceful, loving, chimps.

      To your point: Habitat destruction, urban sprawl, SUVs, needless vivisection... these are all moronic things that we should argue against and work to stop and reverse. But these are MORAL judgements that you (and I) are making, and there's no evidence I've seen that chimps have any moral elements to their culture. And the fact that humans do bad things to chimps doesn't make chimps cuddly or good. They're no more good or bad than rats, but they are way more likely to successfully kill you than a single rat is, and, I'd argue, they're way more likely to kill you than some random human is.

      Anyway, that's my view from the top of the food chain.

      --

      Dude, I think I can see my house from here.

    21. Re:Experiment Proposal by gcatullus · · Score: 1

      The "unecessary" steps are not evidence of experimentation, but of safety. For example, there is no need for seat belts in a car, unless you are in a car crash. How many miles have you driven, and how many car crashes have you been in. For most people, seatbelts are an "unnecessary" step. Taken to the broadest extreme, one could argue that manners, morals, and all the other stuff that allows society to function are "unnecessary" steps.

    22. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Humans and chimps are the only animals that group together to systematically kill the members of a competing group over an extended period of time, for no particular reason other that they can. This behaviour is what I would call violence as opposed to survival.

      Maybe chimps are more violent than humans but we won't know for certain until we allow them the means to launch nukes with the push of a button.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    23. Re:Experiment Proposal by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      That article only proves they're much more like humans than most think. What species is more violent than man? None.

      My cat stacks up dead chipmunks behind our house on a regular basis. They usually have been decapitated.

      It doesn't eat them, it just does it for entertainment and sometimes I'll see the cat batting one of the heads around on the lawn.

      I, on the other hand, rarely do that sort of thing.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    24. Re:Experiment Proposal by Imsdal · · Score: 1

      Some species of ants do that. Not all the time of course, not even frequently, but genocide is very rare for humans as well.

    25. Re:Experiment Proposal by arevos · · Score: 1
      Humans and chimps are the only animals that group together to systematically kill the members of a competing group over an extended period of time, for no particular reason other that they can.

      Perhaps the reason that these animals are systematically killing the competing group is because, and I'm going out on a limb here, that they're a competing group.

      Generally speaking, it makes evolutionary sense to kill animals of your own species that aren't part of your immediate bloodline. The majority of predators, and even some herbivores (such as hippos) do this. Chimps and humans are merely the only creatures with the intelligence and means to effectively apply this strategy on a grander scale.

    26. Re:Experiment Proposal by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      And yet you keep this admittedly cruel and viscious animal as pet for your own amusement, curiouser and curiouser.

    27. Re:Experiment Proposal by Znork · · Score: 1

      "However it could explain human ritual and dogma."

      Not only ritual and dogma, but the inherent desire to accumulate knowledge by imitation explains social evolution. After all, strip away all the knowledge of our predecessors and we'd be foraging in the jungle, trying to compete with the chimps.

      A whole lifetime of brilliant experimentation takes you only so far if every generation starts out trying to figure out how to open a coconut with a rock.

    28. Re:Experiment Proposal by lysergic.acid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i never claimed that chimps are completely harmless, but how many human beings do u think have been killed by chimps in the history of man? now, how many human beings have been killed by the actions of another human being in, say, the last 6 months?

      sure, chimps can kill a human being, so can a rotweiller. but more people each year probably die from eating cheese burgers than they do being attacked by these animals. even animals people percieve as being vicious and predatory like alligators or bears rarely attack human beings unprovoked. sure, there may be instances where they do attack people unprovoked, but that hardly makes their entire species vicious killing machines, especially considering the atrocities that human beings are responsible for on a daily basis.

      i was just trying to give you a little perspective as i think your pecieved threat of chimpanzees seems to be a bit overexaggerated just as some people's percieved harmlessness of certain wildlife species may be overexaggerated as well.

    29. Re:Experiment Proposal by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Oh stop that self-loathing. Humans aren't actually particularly violent - in fact, we are a lot less violent than most other animals (the fact we can live in cities of several million people, and virtually all of us will still be alive at the end of the day).

      The difference between us and other animals is that when we do violence, we are often much much better at it. Oh, and we invent things like religion to justify it.

    30. Re:Experiment Proposal by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      And yet you keep this admittedly cruel and viscious animal as pet for your own amusement, curiouser and curiouser.

      I had googled for for a penitentiary that accepts cats that like to torture and kill other creatures for entertainment. But, all of the results indicated that it's the nature of cats to do that sort of thing.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    31. Re:Experiment Proposal by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      Yes, I think that's the key.

      And the fact that they took human kids, which might be in their imitation phase.

    32. Re:Experiment Proposal by dajak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      In the nineties we changed from traditional rote learning to a revolutionary discovery-based teaching method in secondary schools in the Netherlands. My professor in Cognitive Psychology was extremely skeptical about this and had his students organize learning experiments with children and students to demonstrate how badly they performed at 'discovering' anything other than a simple correlation or inverse correlation. He was right: the method turned out to be a disaster for the generation of children exposed to it and we are now returning to rote learning.

      What differentiates mankind from animals is not the kind of skills someone like Newton possessed, but our capacity to transfer acquired knowledge to others, and in particular future generations, in an efficient way. Language plays an important role, as well as the capacity of young humans to imitate seemingly pointless customs without a direct reward.

      An important difference between the children and the chimps is that the children live in a magical universe with remote controls and mobile phones: they are used to learning how to operate devices they don't understand.

      Propensity to experiment is highly overrated. Cats are for instance typical opportunists that 'experiment' all the time when solving mazes. They simply don't expect the rewards in a maze to be in the same place each time: they will keep checking random dead ends in the maze to make sure there isn't a reward there this time. This doesn't make them 'intelligent' from our point of view, since they fail miserably on the kind of experiments rats and mice excel in, but apparently it does work very well for catching small rodents. To appreciate the superior spatial intelligence of cats you have to see a hungry cat close in on a prey, positioning themselves to to intercept it on the only escape route left open.

    33. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article only proves they're much more like humans than most think. What species is more violent than man?

      Women.

    34. Re:Experiment Proposal by Peldor · · Score: 1
      Also, the fact that humans are more likely to do unnecessary steps may indicate a greater willingness on the part of humans to experiment, which is why we have computers, and keep chimps in cages, and not the other way around.

      Why would we keep computers in cages?

    35. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      but how many human beings do u think have been killed by [fill blank with random animal with human-killing capacity] in the history of man?
      Hard to say, ... when written history started, we already knew how to use weapons to defend ourselves against most vicious animals and never left home without a weapon (or tool that can be used as weapon) in hand. However, given the size of early humans, I bet the animal atack was main cause of death for quite some time.
      sure, chimps can kill a human being, so can a rotweiller. but more people each year probably die from [whatever absurd reason] than they do being attacked by these animals.
      Well, main reason for that is that we are actively avoiding them and expelling them from our territory, if we find them among us (even dogs, if no person is responsible for one, to take blame and pay damages to victim of attack, doggy ends in city pound). Otherwise, we would be forced to do as our ancistors did, carry weapons and kill them a lot.

      now, how many human beings have been killed by the actions of another human being in, say, the last 6 months?
      ...that hardly makes their entire species vicious killing machines, especially considering the atrocities that human beings are responsible for on a daily basis.

      Ahh, famous human atrocites, the just reason to kill all humans and leave the pristine planet to noble animals... you see, massive atrocities are result of prolonged and amplified hatred and when we analyse any modern case (I'll exclude atrocities commited from pure greed, which is quite animal-like and usually not on largest scale compared to those commited from hatred), that hatred is always driven by fear, either grounded in historical expirience, own, or other former victims' of their victim (sometimes very very ancient, mythical and exagerated by passing thru generations) or anticipation (sometimes unclear conscience - fear of retribution or pure fiction - lack of information, which gives rise to fantastic stories). Sometimes, different customs and conduct (sexual habits, eating habits, funeral customs, hygene habits, moral values - especialy respect for property) raise fear of supernatural beigns' wraith, fear of disease breakout, fear of wealth loss, or fear of loss of freedom (If "they" prevail, "they" will force "us" to change our names, customs, religion, language, cuisine... like we never existed). Because, for every taboo we obey, there is a real or imaginary consequence of noncompliance. Sometimes, consequences are believed to influence not only disobedient, but their surroundings as well (if not, there is always "bad example, one bad apple..." argument). Therefore, because we all (well, most of cultures) believe in egality (at least in rights and responsibilites), "others" are in most of our eyes inevitably "like us, only bad" and "deserve" what comes upon them. Anyway, the psychologists could say that in minds of most people commiting (except sociopats, which are minority) or supporting atrocities, their fear was very real, although not really justified. So, everything aside, atrocities are end result of extended imagination humans posess. That is solvable, information(knowledge)/communication(dialog) problem, not an inherent eternal curse of human kind. We need to treat other people's fears (even stupid) with seriousness and build trust very thoroughly. We may even need to make some sacrifice and change our ways a little bit to help others accept us as normal. Not everyone is capable to extend tolerance too much.
    36. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Empathy requires projecting yourself onto another individual. Only a few other species, if any at all, are able to do this. Humans have much more intelligence, which is the key factor, so I'm reasonably confident I'm correct.

      Whereas violence does not require much intelligence at all. So... to a lesser extent, you say?

    37. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First, apes are very gentle with babies, and if they are brought up in a human filled environment, will be as gentle with human babies as with their own.

      Second, the person mauled in the article was not mauled by his own chimp, but rather by others in the facility. There are many, many social intricacies in working with primates, and one is that you don't come in as a stranger and show favor to a particular chimp, unless you are directed to by someone that knows the entire social structure. The person decided to have a birthday party for the chimp that he had raised, but ignored the other chimps. Furthermore, the other chimps were not properly contained.

      The birthday chimp vaguely equates to a non-hardened criminal in a maximum-security prison. The victim would equate to a sexy wife. The other chimps equate to the death-row criminals in the same prison. Now imagine the craziness that would occur if the doors would get unlocked, the guards were to leave, and the wife were to have sex with the non-hardened criminal in the common area.

      This is essentially the same situation. Chimps are how they are raised. The birthday chimp actually tried to protect his friend (the victim), but failed.

    38. Re:Experiment Proposal by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Demonstrating that someone does badly in a given environment at discovering things, doesn't show anything conclusively, Maybe the environment was bad for that sort of thing, or maybe the instructions were bad. Maybe the environment they had been in up til then left them poorly prepared for this scenario, and thus would take a lot of work to overcome. There was a paper handed out in school that said "Read all the instrictions first", and the last instruction said something like "Don't follow any of the instructions and turn the paper in". I noted that there wasn't an instruction to follow the instructions out of order, so an argument could be made that the correct procedure to follow was to do all the instructions anyways.

    39. Re:Experiment Proposal by bleckywelcky · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I was thinking about something even better as I was reading the article. Have a chimp demonstrate the redundant process to another chimp. I was thinking that the researchers might be overlooking some cross-species assumptions they were making. Basically, if you saw another species carry out a process, I think humans are more likely to look at the goals of those actions and attempt to achieve those goals. But if you see another human carry out a process, humans are more likely to imitate since they think the other human might know what they are doing. Whose to say the chimps aren't doing the same thing?

    40. Re:Experiment Proposal by 955301 · · Score: 1

      agreed. By definition we're less violent because we're omnivores. If we don't have to kill all of our food to survive, we're already doing better than most carnivores.

      Unless of course, there is a violent side to farming that I've manage to overlook.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    41. Re:Experiment Proposal by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suspect what they were really measuring was the desire to please. Most kids naturally want to please adults; it's a survival mechanism. So most of the time they'll slavishly repeat what they're shown, even if they know of better methods, just to avoid getting "in trouble" (even if that "trouble" is all in the kid's head).

      I did wonder how the chimps would behave if they were shown the steps by a *boss chimp* -- would they then be more likely to "do as they're told" rather than making things easier for themselves by skipping needless steps?

      [puts on pro dog trainer hat] Dogs also shortcut stuff. Dogs that are accustomed to doing their own thing will drop needless steps. But the more desire to please and/or early training they have, the more likely they are to do stuff exactly as they were shown, even when they know of an easier route.

      OTOH, cats seldom do shortcuts, except by accident, but cats are much more pattern-driven than dogs.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    42. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Humans and chimps are the only animals that group together to systematically kill the members of a competing group over an extended period of time, for no particular reason other that they can.


      I call bullshit.

      Horses, lions, and wolves certainly do that for no better reasons than chimps/humans do, and I would be surprised if there weren't thousands of other species that do as well.

    43. Re:Experiment Proposal by dajak · · Score: 1

      Demonstrating that someone does badly in a given environment at discovering things, doesn't show anything conclusively, Maybe the environment was bad for that sort of thing, or maybe the instructions were bad.

      The burden of proof is on the other side. There is no body of research showing people capable of discovery on demand, and cognitive psychology suggests humans are generally speaking not capable of doing so within the time frame set by an educational system. Time spent discovering stuff is wasted for learning. It is doubtful whether the children learned some valuable 'discovery' skill: they just know less in the end, and more children eventually drop out of school because there is less immediate pressure to perform. When they get to university they now start with a course on basic algebra. Just a few years ago this wasn't necessary.

      We also did a small experiment involving graduate physics students on the university: they weren't capable of discovering within 10 minutes that a slightly modified version of the inverse square law of optics applied to a computer simulated instrument we had them examine, even though they did know the necessary mathematics very well.

      Maybe the environment they had been in up til then left them poorly prepared for this scenario, and thus would take a lot of work to overcome.

      I don't know to what extent preference for knowledge acquisition by rote learning is innate or an 'invention' of our ancestors taught to very young children, but the simple fact is that this is the way we have passed on knowledge for millenia. Learning as theory invention is a Romantic notion we flatter ourselves with. Most of us are not that intelligent. We just know a lot, and live in an environment tailored to mankind and its shortcomings.

      There was a paper handed out in school that said "Read all the instrictions first", and the last instruction said something like "Don't follow any of the instructions and turn the paper in". I noted that there wasn't an instruction to follow the instructions out of order, so an argument could be made that the correct procedure to follow was to do all the instructions anyways.

      The most obvious check would be to *ask* the students afterwards why they did what they did. Introspective and retrospective interviewing is quite common in cognitive psychology. Besides that you don't need an instruction to follow instructions out of order. Instructions are not generally dependent on order. Look at legislation: few, if any, constraints on order and no anaphora. Procedures are dependent on order.

      I do agree that testing in schools usually follows a certain script, and deviations from that script will yield confusing results.

    44. Re:Experiment Proposal by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      -1 Unnecessary self-loathing.

      Read "The Selfish Gene" for starters. Try and realize that survival isn't a game and your genetic code would prefer that it is more popular than that from a competing group.

      I would argue that we humans are the least violent species on the planet because we can use our cognitive abilities to temper our fundamental biological urge to Kill All Rivals.

    45. Re:Experiment Proposal by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The way I see it both sides have equal burden of proof. The point of both the 'discovery' method and the 'rote' method is to train the neural net that is the brain. The discovery method presents several different signals.

      Just a few years ago this wasn't necessary.

      Care to cite your sources? When I went to college to get my 2-year Associate's degree, I was suprised to find that they were teaching classes in basic arithmetic, much less algebra.

      they weren't capable of discovering within 10 minutes that a slightly modified version of the inverse square law of optics applied to a computer simulated instrument we had them examine, even though they did know the necessary mathematics very well.

      A key here is "computer simulated". It is very hard to analyze anything "computer simulated" very thoroughly. On Kuro5hin, I had to remind a person how potentials work mathematically.

      The most obvious check would be to *ask* the students afterwards why they did what they did.

      Would be nice, but doesn't happen in classrooms.
      Introspective and retrospective interviewing is quite common in cognitive psychology.

      But totally absent in the classroom.

      Instructions are not generally dependent on order.

      Of course they are. Just try putting ingredients in the oven before mixing them, going to a supermarket and attempting to pay for your groceries before you've collected them, or taking high level courses before the preliminaries. What is the difference in your mind between "instruction" and "procedure"? Procedures have to be in order, thus the instructions for those procedures have to be in order.

      When I look at legislation, I see it has to go through committees before going to the general floor before becoming law, there is an order of priority of what gets considered first, etc.

    46. Re:Experiment Proposal by lysergic.acid · · Score: 1

      the world's human population was only 100 million in 500 BC. and this was approximately 9 millennia after the agricultural revolution(world population estimated to be between 1 and 10 million). and in 1000 BC the world population was only 50 million.

      now, between the years of 1958 and 1969 approximately 49 million people died as a direct result of the communist revolution in china. between 1934 and 1939 13 million people died in soviet russia. between 1939 and 1945 12 million people died in nazi germany. now, these statistics only include civilian deaths. if you want to include the deaths of soldiers, then world war ii alone claimed 55 million lives from 1937 to 1945.

      now, i'm no expert in anthropology or natural history, but i'd venture to say that i don't think that it is possible that chimpanzees could have killed much more than 1 in 50 human beings before advanced human civilizations developed. and even a 1 in 50 figure is ridiculously high i would think. so, i think it's pretty obvious that chimpanzees haven't killed more human beings than humans have.

      the second half of your post is a little elliptical, i think, and has little to do with what i've posted. i don't think that human beings are horrible or vicious creatures either. i just think some human beings are a bit full of themselves when they think that all wild animals are so much more vicious and savagely than human beings are, or that human beings are above animal-nature--we are animals. i mean, we share like ~96% of the same genetic information as chimps.

      however, i do agree with you that most of the social problems that plague our society do arrise from the failure to communicate and empathize with each other, and much of it could probably be solved through education and better dialog between different peoples.

    47. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Both good points, I watched a doco once that showed how difficult it can be to pursuade kids to diverge from their parents instructions until they are around 7yo. However they do learn the meaning of "no" early and start using it frequently from the age of two.

      The old saying goes something like "give me the new born boy for seven years and I will give you the man". Turns out it is hard to even recognise the common-sense we learn in the first seven years. It takes that mysterious flash of insight (or "out of culture" experience) to actually change what generations have had right under their noses but have failed to see because the common-sense they all learnt as a 5yo created a cultural blind spot.

      Since chimps are known to have culture they probably have their own annonymous geniuses like the human geniuses who invented the wheel, writing, agriculture, firemaking...all the things that the rest of us spend our entire lives re-inventing within the confines of our common-sense rituals.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    48. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Generally speaking, it makes evolutionary sense to kill animals of your own species that aren't part of your immediate bloodline."

      It makes sense for a species to kill it's members off? Sheesh only a human or a chimp would say that. (Granted a nest of ant's may protest with single minded determination).

      The other animals you mention are either defending territory or display fighting for breeding rights, both serve to strengthen the species, neither aim to kill. Contrast that with a group of male chimps sytematiclly picking off another group of males one by one with by killing them. Not just a simple beating, they rip the victims genitals off and mutilate the head beyond recognition. Granted when they had killed them all the remaining females and young joined the other group but the victors had no shortage of females or territory to begin with. The two groups of males were closely related split from the larger group sometime before all this happened. - See: Jane. Goodall.

      In other words humans and chimps practice war where as other animals don't. I would consider an ants nest a single mind since you need the whole nest to observe the more interesting parts of their behaviour. The ants may look like they are at war but it is really a battle between two "Borg" colonies without the "assimilation" part.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    49. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      We must have read different editions or something?

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    50. Re:Experiment Proposal by dajak · · Score: 1

      The way I see it both sides have equal burden of proof. The point of both the 'discovery' method and the 'rote' method is to train the neural net that is the brain. The discovery method presents several different signals.

      The difference is that in the rote method there is a teacher controlling the input, while the discovery method assumes that the important point is to learn to select the important features from the input. Of course it is important to learn what features to look for, but this is not really a skill that can be acquired by training. You know what to look for because of your background knowledge, and the point of education should be to pump as much background knowledge into you as possible.

      As far as the burden of proof is concerned: when you are messing with an existing education system that works well, the burden of proof is on you. A government shouldn't experiment with the lives and minds of its subjects.

      Care to cite your sources? When I went to college to get my 2-year Associate's degree, I was suprised to find that they were teaching classes in basic arithmetic, much less algebra.

      I teach on a Dutch university. I have seen it happen. First we introduced summer courses on mathematics and writing for weak students, and this year we made those courses part of the official program because almost everybody needs them now in our experience. You have to take into account that we have a highly stratified high school system: only good students go to preparatory school, and only those children have the option of going to university.

      In the US and some other countries there is less stratification in the high school system, universities expect less of new students, and there is a greater variance in the quality of 'universities', ranging from bad quality vocational schools that don't deserve the name university to internationally recognized research institutions. In these countries assessment of incoming students is obvious. These countries btw generally do badly in standardized international assessments like PISA 2003 (where we score 3rd, even though we spend less per student than the OECD average).

      A key here is "computer simulated". It is very hard to analyze anything "computer simulated" very thoroughly.

      The situations we created for the experiments are on the other hand very similar to the kind of 'discovery' situations schools will set up. School is not real life either.

      What is the difference in your mind between "instruction" and "procedure"?

      An instruction is a directive. A procedure is a specification for a family of discrete processes. Since processes comply with or deviate from instructions it is natural to design procedures that don't violate instructions, but these notions originally belong to different vocabularies.

      Only in the context of computers this distinction becomes confusing, since people insist on giving computers metaphorical 'instructions', even though the computer cannot deviate from the instruction. Thjat is how language developes: when you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

      When I look at legislation, I see it has to go through committees before going to the general floor before becoming law, there is an order of priority of what gets considered first, etc.

      You are talking about legal procedure. Interestingly, existing legal procedures are not directly based in law: they are possible realizations of the constraints imposed by the directives in constitutional and administrative law.

      Legislation directs people. It tells them what (not) to do, not how to do something. Usually it doesn't make a difference whether you read provisions from back to front or the other way around: it says the same thing in both cases, even though it is usually easier to understand if you read it in the intended order. This is true on the provision level: on the sentence level you do find anaphora.

    51. Re:Experiment Proposal by arevos · · Score: 1
      It makes sense for a species to kill it's members off? Sheesh only a human or a chimp would say that. (Granted a nest of ant's may protest with single minded determination).
      The other animals you mention are either defending territory or display fighting for breeding rights, both serve to strengthen the species, neither aim to kill.

      This is a very naive and incorrect assertion. Have you never watched a wildlife documentary that involves packs of predators? When the dominant male of a lion pride is usurped, the cubs of the pride are often killed by the new male. This is not unusual behaviour.

      Why this occurs is, as I said before, just evolutionary common sense. An animal not only competes with other species, it also competes with its own species. Killing off its competitors is a neat way of ensuring that it has more food and a wider choice of mates.

      But things aren't that simple. If an animal is wounded in a fight, then they are at a significantly greater risk of later being killed. Wounds can become infected, or cripple them long enough to starve. Killing a rival may be a hollow victory if the rival manages to get a lucky hit in. Hence the need for displays and threats.

      Baby animals are a much easier target. If they are parted from their mother, then they can be killed without risk of harm to the killer. This is why baby-killing is so popular amongst many animal species. It's an easy way of ensuring your own offspring are more likely to survive.

      Chimps and humans are intelligent enough to develop tactics beyond this. Two rival animals squaring off against each other have a lot to lose; all their eggs are in one basket so to speak. If they get wounded too badly, they could very well die later even if they win the fight. But if a family group manages to isolate a individual rival, then suddenly it becomes cost effective to kill said rival. Animals with less intelligence do not war because they lack the capability, not the will to do so.

      The natural world rewards those animals who can survive, no matter how cold or cruel their methods of survival are; ruthlessness is a good survival trait. We are the products of billions of generations of the most strongest and most ruthless animals that survived only by trying every dirty trick in the book to screw their competitors out of a meal. Considering most of our distant ancestors were complete and utter bastards, I think we've done rather well at the whole peace and love dealy.

    52. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Animals with less intelligence do not war because they lack the capability, not the will to do so."

      You accuse me of being naive, I would say say you have a narrow view of intelligence. If you change the above to read

      ...Animals with non-human-like intelligence do not war because it is detrimental to THEIR species"...

      then I think we understand each other.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    53. Re:Experiment Proposal by arevos · · Score: 1
      You accuse me of being naive, I would say say you have a narrow view of intelligence. If you change the above to read
      ...Animals with non-human-like intelligence do not war because it is detrimental to THEIR species"...
      then I think we understand each other.

      The Lion King is not a substitute for a basic knowledge of biology. Animals do not try and preserve the environment; they try to exploit it to ensure their survival.

      Further, an event which is detrimental to a species, is not necessally detrimental to individual animals. If half the members of a species die, then more food is available for the remaining half. The only downside to mass extermination of your own species, from a natural selection point of view, is the difficulty finding a mate. And that whole safety in numbers thing for animals that rely on such a tactic

      And what with this whole "non-human-like intelligence" rubbish?

    54. Re:Experiment Proposal by QMO · · Score: 1

      "If we don't have to kill all of our food to survive"

      So, what food do you eat that doesn't have to be killed?

      I suppose that annuals (plants that only live one year/season, like wheat) could be considered dead before we start the processes of turning them into food, but, as a rule, we kill swaths of other life to have room to grow those particular crops.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    55. Re:Experiment Proposal by QMO · · Score: 1

      "Why would we keep computers in cages?"

      It is easier to keep components grounded if the computer is in a metal box/cage.
      Also, if the computer is in a cage, or locked room, or building with controlled access (e.g. store) it is less likely that it will dissappear.

      --
      Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    56. Re:Experiment Proposal by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      The difference is that in the rote method there is a teacher controlling the input,

      Yeah, right! The teacher controls very little in rote, and has little feedback with which to refine that control. If you didn't get it the first time, sorry, there's no going back. If you get an F that's it, no retaking the class. If you get any other grade, that's it too!

      when you are messing with an existing education system that works well

      The existing system works like garbage. Instead of holding on to the student until they master the material, the student is given a scarce amount of time to grasp whatever they can and then assigned marks like graded quality computer parts.

      First we introduced summer courses on mathematics and writing for weak students, and this year we made those courses part of the official program because almost everybody needs them now in our experience.

      All you are saying is that you are now attracting lesser equipped students and the better equipped students are going elsewhere.

      Since processes comply with or deviate from instructions it is natural to design procedures that don't violate instructions, but these notions originally belong to different vocabularies.

      Wrong! It is natural for procedures to be designed to handle as many instructions as possible, so to not be overwhelmed with having to select from a wide array of procedures as well as having to decypher which among several similar procedures is the best one.

      Going back to your original statement:
      Instructions are not generally dependent on order. Procedures are dependent on order.

      The situation is completely different than what you say. Instructions are dependent on order. Procedures are independent of order.

      Laws cover procedures. A great many different instuction sets can indicate the procedures you can use and still comply with the law. Law doesn't tell you what to do, just where the boundaries are.

      In my case with the instructions I indicated, the problem was that the instructions failed to completely disengage the notion of the appropriateness of the procedure to follow the instructions in order to this particular set of instructions.

      Backing up, you say:

      ...we have a highly stratified high school system: only good students go to preparatory school, and only those children have the option of going to university.

      I don't see how you can say that and then say with a straight face that your education system works well.

    57. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "The Lion King is not a substitute for a basic knowledge of biology. Animals do not try and preserve the environment"

      You should take comprehension lessons if you read that in my posts. Like humans, lions behaviour has evolved they did not choose it.

      "And what with this whole "non-human-like intelligence" rubbish?"

      An ants nest is a nice example, so is an octopus but before we move on to advanced subjects watch the documentary that lion king was based on.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    58. Re:Experiment Proposal by arevos · · Score: 1
      You should take comprehension lessons if you read that in my posts. Like humans, lions behaviour has evolved they did not choose it.

      Pardon me, but what's that got to do with the debate at hand? You appear to be arguing that humans and chimps are significantly more violent and cruel than other animals, and hold up the concept of war as evidence of your claim. I point out that animals do not war because they lack the capability, not the will to do so. As evidence, I point out that many animals kill members of their own species, especially young. Further, I argue that cruelty and violence are valuable survival traits.

      An ants nest is a nice example, so is an octopus

      Ants do not imploy intelligent behaviour; they employ efficiently stupid behaviour, and this is a very successful tactic. The internet too, employs efficient stupidity. Internet routers, like ants, are unintelligent and follow a set of mindless rules. However, when in a swarm, these rules become very effective. But just because these rules are effective, doesn't mean intelligence is at play.

      Octopuses are intelligent, but only compared to most other animals. Compared to humans, the their intellect is a flickering candleflame compared to the nuclear brightness of humanity. Even the most moronic human far outstrips the capabilities of an octopus, and humanity has the capability to pool its intelligence and knowledge across vast distances of space and time. An octopus has to think alone, whilst a human has a good majority of their species to stand upon.

    59. Re:Experiment Proposal by dajak · · Score: 1

      Yeah, right! The teacher controls very little in rote, and has little feedback with which to refine that control. If you didn't get it the first time, sorry, there's no going back. If you get an F that's it, no retaking the class. If you get any other grade, that's it too!

      That has little to do with the method. If you fail, you should retake the class. If you keep failing, you will eventually drop out.

      Allowing children the freedom to 'discover' things at their own pace causes more dropouts, and mostly tests motivation and discipline instead of talent. This favours children from well educated and performance oriented parents.

      All you are saying is that you are now attracting lesser equipped students and the better equipped students are going elsewhere.

      When I am talking about 'we' I refer to the universities in the country. The students are going nowhere: even migration levels inside the country are very low due to religious, linguistic, and cultural division in the country. We do get a lot of foreign students these days at our university.

      Instructions are dependent on order. Procedures are independent of order.

      Consult a proper dictionary.

      I don't see how you can say that and then say with a straight face that your education system works well.

      I already referred to the international PISA student assessment, which is based on comparison on randomly selected groups from age cohorts in different countries. We still have a top ranking in education, and a highly skilled work force. To get the most out of children it is better to differentiate early, and send them to a school type that suits their talents.

      The Koreans, Japanese, etc. have been following that example, and not the Anglosaxon/Mediterranean one of undifferentiated high schools. PISA proves they are right. To evaluate education systems you also have to take into account how expensive the education system is: Hungary and the US for instance have similar scores in PISA in the bottom of the pack, but the US spends many times more per student. In Hungary you can have >100 students per teacher.

    60. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      I think you only have a vauge clue what you are talking about, let alone understand what I have been saying.

      You appear to be arguing that humans and chimps are significantly more violent and cruel than other animals, and hold up the concept of war as evidence of your claim.

      Bzzzzt, I'm sorry, I am arguing that humans and chimps evolved a survival strategy that we call war. This strategy is significantly different to other animals and is what I called "violence". Perhaps I confused you when I defined war as "violence" to distigush the behaviour from the background gnash of tooth and claw? What really pisses me off is you have managed to take your confusion, mix it with some personal baggage and project a whole heap of words and thoughts on to me that are simply not there. Did I say anything about cruelty? Did I bring up lions and cartoon characters? Where did I make any type of moral judgement or quantitative comaprison on any species (including humans)?

      War has always been a part of us and I belive it is an evelotionary trait unique to great apes. War is not just lion behaviour with more technology. I also happen to agree with the other poster who said something like we also have an "equally great capacity for peace". This does not deny the "selfish gene" theory, what it says is that for most species, when it comes to killing their own kind, it is a "selfish and lazy gene" at work.

      Personally I think the selfish gene theory is often used by arseholes to justify being an arsehole, it's a peversion of a great theory, like eugenics is a peversion of genetics. They (unlike Dawkins) say nothing about co-operation. eg: The mitochondrial symbiosis at the heart of all multi-cellular life. The mitochondria genes are being selfish, co-operative and are certainly succesfull?

      Compared to humans, the their [octopi] intellect is a flickering candleflame compared to the nuclear brightness of humanity. Even the most moronic human far outstrips the capabilities of an octopus.

      When working on human problems I would have to agree (except for independently discovering how to open a screw top jar). But when applied to survival problems humans look more like a flash in the pan. Ant colonies with millions of individuals can rebuild an "ant city" in under a week. Does this mean our species is smarter or dumber or does it simply mean humans define intelligence so that our species is at the pinicale of evolution. When you think about how other organisims, (particularly something as alien as an octopus), might percive the world you might realise that it does not make much sense to compare human and octopi IQ results.

      "Internet routers, like ants, are unintelligent and follow a set of mindless rules."

      "The argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes." - Chapt 1, The selfish gene.

      Argue with that book and then we can talk about cognition as an emergent behaviour of simple physical rules. In the meantime stop putting words in my mouth, I did not say ants are intelligent ( to start with, they physically do not have a brain). Human brains are an intricately woven blob of neurons that individually follow a set of mindless rules. Both the ant and the neuron have evolved to co-operate, co-operation on the "mindless" level emerges as intelligent behavior on the "mindfull" level. Given that you have a hard time understanding me, what hope has a human got of seeing the world through the eye of an octupus.

      But just because these rules are effective, doesn't mean intelligence is at play.

      Yes, you have demonstrated that.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    61. Re:Experiment Proposal by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      If you fail, you should retake the class.

      That isn't an option. If you can't get a teacher to give you an incomplete, the grade is final.

      You might be able to go to the Dean and ask them to reconsider, though.

      K-12 is even worse. Once you've gone through 12 grades (13 counting kindergarten), you're locked out of taking any more courses.

      Then you have to depend on finding ways to get money for college.

      Allowing children the freedom to 'discover' things at their own pace causes more dropouts, and mostly tests motivation and discipline instead of talent.>

      Rote is no different.

      They used to have speed drills for multiplication in elementary school. I could have done all the problems correctly if allowed to work them in my own time. Those speed drills were just a waste.

      http://www.pisa.oecd.org/

      I found the website for PISA. You could have put it in one of your messages as a courtesy.

      I'm not sure how valid their random picking method is. You aren't exactly citing the relevant portions of the site that explains their methodology on anything. In fact you are making a lot of assertions about PISA without appropriate citations. The main problem with PISA as I see it is that it compares schools that generally do things the same way to each other. Nor does it appear to highlight which portions of the differences in systems is responsible for good or bad performance. If a system were to produce 15% extremely high performing students and the rest sub-par, I don't know how they would rank against a system producing 40% slightly above par, 20% at par, and 40% sub-par students.

      Consult a proper dictionary.
      You consult a proper dictionary. Better yet take a course, though I'm not sure what course would address your lacking in this particular area. English isn't the native language of the Netherlands, unlike America, where I'm at, and English is my native toungue.

      But to help you out, consider these definitions from WordWeb:
      procedure: A particular course of action intended to achieve a result

      instruction: A message describing how something is to be done.

      Dictionary.com:
      instruction:4b Detailed directions on procedure
      procedure:1. A manner of proceeding; a way of performing or effecting something: standard procedure. A manner of proceeding; a way of performing or effecting something: standard procedure.

      The students are going nowhere: even migration levels inside the country are very low due to religious, linguistic, and cultural division in the country. We do get a lot of foreign students these days at our university.

      Cite sources please.

    62. Re:Experiment Proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok. You really are a troll.

    63. Re:Experiment Proposal by 955301 · · Score: 1

      I don't kill banana trees. I don't kill any fruit producers for that matter.
      I don't kill the plants in my herb garden. In fact, I nurture their lives.
      I don't kill chicken eggs, they haven't hatched yet.
      I don't kill my vegetable plants.
      I don't kill yogurt. In fact, I let it live inside of me.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    64. Re:Experiment Proposal by arevos · · Score: 1
      Bzzzzt, I'm sorry, I am arguing that humans and chimps evolved a survival strategy that we call war. This strategy is significantly different to other animals and is what I called "violence". Perhaps I confused you when I defined war as "violence" to distigush the behaviour from the background gnash of tooth and claw?

      Uh, yep, that's what confused me. Google defines violence as "an act of aggression"; given this meaning, I thought you were arguing that humans were somehow more cruel or aggressive than other animals. If you were trying to say that humans are more efficient at being violent, I'd have to agree. But perhaps you could be a little clearer in your assertions? Redefining the meaning of common words isn't the best way to clarify your point.

      War has always been a part of us and I belive it is an evelotionary trait unique to great apes. War is not just lion behaviour with more technology.

      I'm not so certain about this. War can occur when there is there is a good chance of eliminating your opponent without sacrificing yourself. Lions don't possess this ability; two adult lions fighting is risky for both. The ability to think as a group is perhaps the main thing that leads to war, but tools certainly make it easier. Perhaps war is lion behaviour with intelligence.

      But when applied to survival problems humans look more like a flash in the pan.

      It's a rather bright flash, though, isn't it? In the time humanity has been around, it's been considerably more successful, in terms of passing genes on to the next generation, than octopuses have. We've eliminated two potential methods of extinction; it's rather unlikely humans are going to become extinct because of competition for food or through the act of predators. It's becoming less probable we'll destroy ourselves, which is another method of extinction. All that remains is disease, which we're making significant progress against, and extraterrestrial threats such as asteroids. Whilst we've only been around for a brief time, we've done considerably more to secure our continuing survival in that time, than octopuses have in theirs.

      Human brains are an intricately woven blob of neurons that individually follow a set of mindless rules. Both the ant and the neuron have evolved to co-operate, co-operation on the "mindless" level emerges as intelligent behavior on the "mindfull" level.

      Whilst true to an extent, the communication channel that ants use is extremely limited. A human mind has a thousand times as many neurons as the largest ant nest, and each neuron communicates with the next with far over a million times as much information as one ant can impart to another. Ants possess a degree of collective intelligence, yes, but it's an extremely limited intelligence, due to its distributed nature.

      And whilst we're talking about collective intelligence, what about the collective intelligence of humanity itself? We, like ants, live in large societies of many thousands of individual organisms, though our communications channels and processing abilities are some million million million times greater than an ant colony. This is why I don't think that octopuses and ants have intelligence that is comparable to humans; even considering that these creature's intelligence has a different architecture to humans, we just have too much resources and bandwidth for these creatures to be thought of on an equal level.

    65. Re:Experiment Proposal by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "But perhaps you could be a little clearer in your assertions?"

      I do agree writing is a skill that can always be improved but so is comprehension. My original post had two sentences and an attempt a humour, the second one said: "This behaviour is what I would call violence as opposed to survival.".

      "Perhaps war is lion behaviour with intelligence."

      I think both are essential ingredients but war also needs alturism (fighting for others) otherwise it would not be war, it would be "every lion for himself" type anarchy.

      "It's a rather bright flash, though, isn't it?"

      Yes it is, I think an alien biologist would find humans the most interesting species on the planet, however I also realise my humanity makes that statement biased.

      "Whilst we've only been around for a brief time, we've done considerably more to secure our continuing survival in that time, than octopuses have in theirs."

      To me the jury is still out. Certainly the bulk of individuals are better off, due to technology, individuals tend to survive twice as long as their ancestors did. That does not convince me that the industrial revolution has done anything to ensure our survival as a species, it could quite easily become our downfall.

      "Ants possess a degree of collective intelligence, yes, but it's an extremely limited intelligence, due to its distributed nature."

      I could accept some of that paragraph iff you find me an example where intelligence does NOT emerge from lower level(s) of co-operating "automota". The analogy between ants and neurons was to show a human mind and the "mind" of an ants nest are both "distributed in nature". They are the "same" yet very different. All species of ant's nest have found close to the most effecient scavenging strategy possible. Sure it was achived by an evolutionary random walk thru the problem space over tens of millions of years. Assuming there are no mind/soul implants by divine beings, wasn't the human mind created the same way? For the same "purpose" of surviving in a particular "problem space"?

      "And whilst we're talking about collective intelligence, what about the collective intelligence of humanity itself?"

      Collectively I don't think we are that smart. I am not trying to downplay our achivements, they are indistingushable from magic. My best hope is to seek refuge in yet another quote from Dawkins....

      "Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do."

      I try to heed that warning for my own selfish reasons. I think it will lead my grandchildren to a more profound understanding of "free will".

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  5. makes sense by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

    the people i tend to find most intelligent when i am trying to teach them something are those who notice all the little details of how i do whatever i'm doing...of course, those intelligent people also generally figure out the reason behind the different steps i take to a solution...but the first step is noticing. i'd speculate that the chimps don't even notice all those extra steps they're being shown....

    1. Re:makes sense by Sashira · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They don't notice the extra steps? But they repeated them the first time they were shown. If you need to invent excuses like this to feel that your species is better than chimps, that's a sign of a very unhealthy and insecure view of self.

    2. Re:makes sense by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      hahahaha! that's good! :) i don't need *excuses* to know my species is more intelligent than chimps. Intelligence isn't a value judgement, it's just a quantitative measure. Like...jumping ability...or speed. i wasn't even *trying* to say my SPECIES is better or worse than chimps, but I for damn sure don't mind saying it's more intelligent. but thanks, it was worth a good chuckle! :)

    3. Re:makes sense by ynohoo · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, You found the caps key - have a banana!

  6. A little bit biased, isn't it? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Human babies have a prolonged childhood. Whereas a chimpanzee may be considered an adult by age three, humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s. So it seems a little disingenuous to compare chimpanzees to human babies when the rates of growth and maturity are so different.

    --
    Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    1. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 3, Funny

      True. A more useful interspecies study would have compared human children and politicians, since politicians seem to have no grasp on cause-and-effect regardless of age.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There are physical development issues too at that age. 3 and 4 year old humans are pretty much helpless, whereas similarly aged chimps can keep up with the pack and feed themselves and are physically prodigious in comparison. I saw some thing on young chimps, and they were given toys that similarly aged children would play with; and they tore the toys apart. Like pieces of brightly colored plastic everywhere.

      I saw something recently about how chimps learn. The scientist made a point to note similarities and differences in human/chimp learning: chimp girls mature earlier than chimp boys by about two years: they learn quicker and are more astute in picking up chimp culture as relates to toolset, etc. The boys couldn't focus on a task and instead bothered everyone in the pack and exhibited what humans would term ADHD behavior, i.e. impulsive, short attention span behavior... roughing each other up, playfighting, etc. It was interesting. In this many think that chimps are similar to humans. What was different: chimps didn't teach their young. The scientist noted humans were unique in the fact that we taught our young. As far as the chimps were concerned, either you paid attention and picked up a skillset, or you were fucked.

      Life is such an amazing dynamic thing man. I'm just humbled and in awe of the whole thing.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    3. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Tiberius_Fel · · Score: 1

      ...humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s...

      My experience thus far has been that some people *never* reach emotional maturity. ;-)

      --
      Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
    4. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In addition to that, human children are conditioned to do exactly what they're told. This will have an influence on things.

    5. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The goals of an adult chimp are different than a (human) child. Adults try to be lazy and find shortcuts to save energy and avoid risk. Children often purposely take the long-and-winding-road just to explore.

    6. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by ozmanjusri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      politicians seem to have no grasp on cause-and-effect regardless of age.

      No, that's just ordinary sociopathic behaviour. Politicians are aware of cause-and-effect, but don't have emotional reactions to the consequences.

      You may be right in that being the difference between the children and the chimps though - the child's goal may have been to please the experimenter, while the chimp's goal was to get the prize

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    7. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      Agreed. One might even argue that a vast majority of adults are conditioned to do the same.

      Much of the success of our civilization has to do with the critical mass of the population following orders for their entire lives.

      This is just me blowing smoke, but maybe the downside to state-of-nature fitness is that not enough followers survive to do the critical mass work of building a civilization. What's the cliche... too many cooks? The benefit of our civilization is that bulk population composed mostly of those who will follow instructions dutifully; this is the strength of humanity.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    8. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1
      So you're saying that the chimps only appeared to be smarter because humans are slow?

      Anyway - a priori who would you have predicted to have done better on the test?

    9. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      Knowing only that they would be testing human toddlers vs adolescent chimpanzees? I would have predicted that the toddlers would fail by a mile. If you performed the same experiment with human toddlers vs human adolescents, I'd expect similar results.

      This isn't because I think that chimps are our mental equals, but because the human toddler is underdeveloped and essentially helpless compared to a similarly aged chimpanzee.

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    10. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Eil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Agreed. El Wife and I got a puppy recently (at about 6 weeks old) and I started training her from day one. After only having her for about 3 weeks, she was already quite good at sitting, staying, and running up when called for. Humans, by contrast, take a couple years before they comprehend the simplest words and actions.

    11. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Comatose51 · · Score: 1

      As a side question, anyone know if humans have the longest maturing period among animals? If so, why?

      --
      EvilCON - Made Famous by /.
    12. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by DissidentHere · · Score: 1

      humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s.

      I think we have found the (formerly) mythical /. female!

      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
    13. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because they have the most to learn.

    14. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      But all they're saying is "chimps on a whole are smarter then humans when humans are at age X." They're not trying to say chimps are smarter then humans. Or that adult chimps can outsmart human children (excepting those who are of an age as those in the test or below).

      I think part of what they're trying to do, is find out what level of intelligence chimps equal when compared with humans. Are they as intelligent as 4 year olds? How about 10 year olds? How about 13? 18? It's also interesting if adult chimps excell in some areas over humans of age X, but lag in other areas when compared with those same children. Why's that interesting? Because it helps show how the chimp brain works, and in what areas it falls short compared with humans, and possibly if chimps can beat us in any area.

    15. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by shawb · · Score: 1

      One could refine this and say that human civilization is made mostly of people who just do what they are told, with just enough people to figure out new ways of doing things and enough people to question whether or not to do those things. But of course obedience vs. independant thinking is also not an either or situation, it comes in a wide spectrum and even one individual will lean one way or another depending on the situation.

      But I think it would make sense that young human children are more likely to mimic than analyze the situation. Most animals (and young humans) thought processes are based mainly on emotions. When we start talking about the logical thought processes that we have, they are generally defined and even internally acted out as a verbal process. We use language as a framework for how we think, and even how we solve problems. One could postulate that since a 3 or 4 year old in the study only has a rudimentary grasp of language, they will not act very logically. And the best way to learn language seems to be through mimicry, eventually language skills are built up to the point where one can improve their language skills at will (such as through reading) and thus build a framework for logical, formal thought.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    16. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Nutria · · Score: 1

      As a side question, anyone know if humans have the longest maturing period among animals?

      Elephants are up there with humans.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    17. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by node+3 · · Score: 1

      Human babies have a prolonged childhood.

      So do chimps. Additionally, the chimps in the test were specifically still in childhood (although their age was not mentioned).

      Whereas a chimpanzee may be considered an adult by age three, humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s.

      This wasn't an "emotional" comparison, it was an intellectual comparison. It's quite disingenuous of you to bring it up, and shows bias on your part.

      So it seems a little disingenuous to compare chimpanzees to human babies when the rates of growth and maturity are so different.

      What's disingenuous about it? It was a fair test, and the results are interesting, suggesting further research. Seems quite fair to me, and a perfectly valid issue to approach scientifically.

    18. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by oku · · Score: 1
      Humans, by contrast, take a couple years before they comprehend the simplest words and actions.

      Do you have children? While full control of language is not reached for a few years, a child aged one can make itself understood for all practical purposes. It also reacts correctly to simple commands like "Crawl here!" or "Give me the ball!". (If it likes to.) At the age of two, it should be able to speak two-word sentences and have a vocabulary of over 100 words. My personal experience is that as soon as it understands the concept, it understands the word. Of course, individual development varies widely.

    19. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s

      Seeing that slashdot lacks a large female presence, I'll have to fill in with the obligatory female retort:

      "I actually know a lot of guys in their mid- to late- 40s who still haven't reached that stage."

    20. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by allanj · · Score: 1

      While I entirely agree about the puppy part (have had two so far), I disagree about the human baby (have had three so far) taking years to learn to comprehend. They show amazing skills at figuring out what is going on, but are very bad at motor skills and control. The end result is that babies know a LOT about what happens around them, but are generally unable to let this affect their actions enough for us to understand before they get sufficient motor and/or voice control. At around the age of one, most babies can easily understand basic words like their own name, words for a select set of foods, words for other family members (parents and siblings, usually), words for cat, dog, rabbit or other house pets in the baby's house and a quasi-random set of other sounds/words they were exposed to on a regular basis. They can easily decode actions and can imitate the simplest of them (clapping, for instance), and can easily understand being called for. Most of them are not able to focus on the task of actually moving to the caller for long enough to complete the task, unless the distance is very short, but that is not related to comprehension.

      I suspect you simply haven't had children yet, and it's therefore easy to understand why you think that babies are unable to comprehend anything for a couple of years. I pretty much thought like you do, and I was very pleased to learn that I was dead wrong...

      --
      Black holes are where God divided by zero
    21. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by zaphle · · Score: 5, Funny

      El Wife and I got a puppy recently (at about 6 weeks old) and I started training her from day one.

      I agree, you should always train your wife from day one.

      --
      And what if there's nothing behind the door until it is being opened?
    22. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by carpe_noctem · · Score: 1

      Ever heard of "dog years"?

      Dogs aren't some type of magical learning creatures... they just mature faster than humans. Geez.

      --
      "Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
    23. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by onedotzero · · Score: 1

      True, but (as pointed out) dogs age faster.
      Also, human children aren't ready to be born. It's a tradeoff between brain size and adult proportions. Childbirth happens around the last possible moment before doing so would kill the mother.

    24. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by eldavojohn · · Score: 1
      Whereas a chimpanzee may be considered an adult by age three, humans may not even reach (emotional) adulthood until well into their 30s.
      Ok, there's a fairly large difference between emotional and logical (cause and effect) maturity so I believe this study to be ingenuous.

      What gives us the edge on the chimps? Ask yourself and look into it. I once read a book by Carl Sagan called Broca's Brain which mentions that on the surface we have a larger Broca's Region than chimps. Sagan speculated that this region (believed to affect speech) is what gives us an advantage to chimps.

      Think about it, what would you value more? Knowledge of cause and effect or the ability to assign words and values to objects and communicate thousands of predefined signs with neighboring organisms?

      Personally, I'd take the ability to share information more efficiently than have solid logical reasoning.
      --
      My work here is dung.
    25. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by cogg · · Score: 1
      A more useful interspecies study would have compared human children and politicians

      I for one welcome our non-human politician overlo...er, wait...what am I saying???
      --
      "Never 'clear the air'. Instead, investigate all the subtle nuances of the word 'fester'." - R. Candappa
    26. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by ajs · · Score: 1

      That's an over-generalization. Sociopaths find politics easier than most, so there are a disproportionately larger number of sociopaths in politics than in the general population, but not all politicians are sociopaths.

      Other work that appeals to sociopaths: executive management, military, law enforcement, lawyer. Most of the negative sterotypes of people in these fields come from the (still small fraction) who are truly sociopathic.

    27. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1
      >politicians seem to have no grasp on cause-and-effect regardless of age.

      Sure they do. Cause: Give special interest what they want. Effect: Get more money. Cause: Tell the voters what they want to hear. Effect: Get reelected.

    28. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 5, Funny

      El Wife and I got a puppy recently

      Did you....ahh..check under the hood before you married ...her?

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    29. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      I think so but in a different way.

      Human children are forced to at very early ages to give up critical and creative thinking. the "teachers" force upon them their way of doing things and do everything to discourage doing the process a different way. I.E. not allow the child to figure it out. This process is reinforced from the parents, the schools and then in your professional life.

      Some overcome this, and those people become pioneers but are labelled troublemakers and anarchists. Linus Travolds for example, he intentionally disagreed with his professor and publically told him off. Now Linus is sucessful while Minix is still considered an interesting toy.

      There are hundreds more that can be quoted to be these that overcame the inherent teaching of following proceedures no matter what, but it is the exception and not the rule.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    30. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by SunPin · · Score: 1

      El wife?! I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume your wife is a woman. Maybe you just like the strap-on kink. Next time, try "la wife", "la esposa" or simply "my wife."

      --
      Laws are for people with no friends.
    31. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ella Wife (unless she is a he)

    32. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Beerden · · Score: 1

      We have accepted sociopathic behaviour into our society, in the form of politicians, corporate leaders, or any other social positions that give one person power over many. This is our human flaw. Logically, we should do Everything by committee, but we don't. This experiment explains a lot about human inability to choose the most efficient, logical path. Maybe Planet of the Apes wasn't so far off.

    33. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      After only having her for about 3 weeks, she was already quite good at sitting, staying, and running up when called for. Humans, by contrast, take a couple years before they comprehend the simplest words and actions.

      How long have you known you wife, and does she sit, stay, and come running when called?

      Point being, is that many humans never comprehend the simplest words and actions.

      (Yes, this was supposed to be funny. YMMV)

    34. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

      Notice all the juvenile tracts humans show, if compared to monkeys.
      Only hair on the (round) skull, big eyes, no strong jaw muscles. Arm length.

      A theory says that that development is delayed in humans. It's not a difficult thing to do for evolution, just delay some genes to be activated.
      This would give us a chance to grow our skull after birth, because growing the head more in-womb would require a different way of giving birth. A side effect is that we are dependent creatures for a longer period. Which requires more parental care, a stronger bond between parents, but also gives more chance to learn and copy.

      There is bound to be a neighour of you who has the pocket The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. I think he is into this theory.

    35. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      That is not the strength of humanity, it is the foolishness and strength of tyranny. The decisions to have the critical mass of humanity kept dumb (KEPT dumb, very few are dumb by nature) were made before we had any understanding of emergent phenonmena, back when it was thought that every organization of small units required a leading minority and a following majority. We know better than that now.

      The success of civilization is in humans cooperating with each other for a mutual gain greater than could be gained by either through competition, thus breaking out of the Darwinian natural selection process to a greater and greater extent as civilization evolved. This can happen entirely without keeping people dumb or prolonging their childhoods. Yes, we prolong the average person's childhood, why do you think most 14 year-olds today are "adolescent" and act so while most 14 year-olds a couple of hundred years ago were actively leading their own lives?

    36. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Him too? I knew about Linus B. Thorvald, fascinating name similarity.

    37. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by thogard · · Score: 1

      Cats will teach their kittens how to hunt. They will even work with the slower ones that just don't seem to be quick learners.

    38. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by hackstraw · · Score: 2, Informative

      Contrary to popular belief, humans actually go through developmental changes over their lives, and these developments directly influence their ability to learn and reason.

      A simple example that anybody can relate to is sex. Try to explain sex to a 7 or 8 year old. They don't have the hormones yet, and they simply do not "get it".

      Another simple example is that humans do not "learn to walk". It happens as soon as they are strong enough and have the coordination to walk. Just like other animals. Some of which "learn to walk" within minutes of being born.

      Piaget was a biologist, turned developmental psychologist. Take a look here http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/pi aget.shtml.

      The children in the study were 3 to 4 years old. To summarize that period according to Piaget:

      Preoperational Phase (2-4 years old) Increased use of verbal representation but speech is egocentric. The beginnings of symbolic rather than simple motor play. Transductive reasoning. Can think about something without the object being present by use of language.

      Intuitive Phase (4-7 years years old) Speech becomes more social, less egocentric. The child has an intuitive grasp of logical concepts in some areas. However, there is still a tendency to focus attention on one aspect of an object while ignoring others. Concepts formed are crude and irreversible. Easy to believe in magical increase, decrease, disappearance. Reality not firm. Perceptions dominate judgment. In moral-ethical realm, the child is not able to show principles underlying best behavior. Rules of a game not develop, only uses simple do's and don'ts imposed by authority.

      This agrees with the parent's assertion that, "In addition to that, human children are conditioned to do exactly what they're told. This will have an influence on things."

      This is not to say that Piaget's theories are the end all be all, but I would imagine that no adult would disagree that there are at least some developmental effects on human reasoning. Personally, I can't believe that a spacial puzzle like this was given to 3 and 4 year olds, and reprinted in the New York Times, but oh well.

    39. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by guitaristx · · Score: 1

      On the contrary, it's human parents (as of late) that are conditioned to do exactly what they're told -- by their children, and by the advertisements. Most children raised in these types of homes are very proficient at a skill called manipulation. They get whatever they want (within the realm of possibility) because they've learned from infancy how to whine, cry, or misbehave just so, so they can coerce their parents into submission. They are the children who can act up and never get in trouble from their parents. They are the ones who take pleasure in pestering the school teachers just enough to keep them from getting sent to the pricipal's office, and they are the ones who play one person against the other in the office while they climb the ladder of success amidst all the bickering.

      How interesting it is that children develop a skill that gets them what they want.

      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    40. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Darius+Jedburgh · · Score: 1

      So you would have predicted that chimp brains develop problem solving abilities faster than human brains? Not just relative to their full adult ability but in absolute terms?

    41. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Duke+of+URL · · Score: 1

      > Logically, we should do Everything by committee

      Woah! I shuddered when I read that. You are either a sociopath who can easily manipulate and dominate committees, or you just haven't worked in the same fields I have.

      If you're still in school, may a suggest a career in politics or the corporate world? ;-)

    42. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by schon · · Score: 1

      a child aged one can make itself understood for all practical purposes

      So can a dog, at three months.

      When our border collie was about three months old, he started communicating with us - if he wanted something that wasn't his, he would nudge it with his nose, and then give us the "border collie stare" (this includes his bag of dog chow, when it's dinner time.)

      If I'm awake in bed, and he wants me to get up, he'll go over to my robe, nudge it, then stare at me (my robe is the first thing I put on when I get out of bed.) If he wants to go for a walk, he'll do the same thing to my jacket (he won't actually pick up anything that's not his - he'll just nudge it.)

      I don't know if this is true of all dogs, or just ours, but dogs can communicate quite effectively at a very young age.

    43. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      The cliche you were looking for is "Too many chiefs, not enough indians".

      I think you have a good point, tho -- social mechanisms break down if you don't have both leaders and followers. If you have all leaders, everyone goes their own way and there is unlikely to be any consensus or progress, but rather a constant stream of conflict so nothing gets done unless someone imposes their will on the rest. (Ie. where everyone acts like a predator, all the time. Ask anyone who's been involved in a club where everyone has an equal say, and behaves accordingly.) If you have all followers, everyone waits for someone else to tell them what to do, and again nothing gets done. (Ie. where everyone acts like a prey animal, all the time. Ask anyone who's ever been in a club where no one wants to run for office.)

      Humanity evolved to a system of a few leaders and a lot of followers. Contrary to one of the other replies, this doesn't predicate a dictatorship -- provided the system can do away with leaders who get out of hand. We used to call that "revolution", but since most followers have suffered disarmament, future revolutions are unlikely, and at present we seem to be evolving toward two social subspecies -- one a predator, the other prey.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    44. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [puts on pro dog trainer hat] If you map the average lifespan and development of a dog to that of humans, you'll notice your 6 week old pup is about equivalent to a 3 or 4 year old child (I always tell my clients that a puppy is just like a toddler -- armed with a chainsaw!) And indeed, you should teach it simple manners -- but as with a human child, don't overdo the discipline, or you'll get rebellion later on.

      By one year, a bright dog is mentally about where a bright 6 year old human is, with a similar vocabulary, and much in common in terms of what they understand. But the yearling dog's emotional reactions are more like a human teenager -- and like a human teen, this is the point where the dog is likely to rebel if its life has been excessively constrained (as distinguished from ordinary training and discipline).

      By age 3, the dog is physically and emotionally mature, more or less akin to a 30 year old human, and is settled into life. And after 10 or so, it's an old dog, and most behave accordingly.

      If you compress human lifespan to 10 or 12 years, the apparent precocity of the average puppy becomes not so astounding :)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    45. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's biased here? All I see is a statement of fact, "Chimpanzees Beat out Children in Reasoning Test", which you imply should be expected because of differences in human/chimp development. How can a fact be biased? No one went on to imply there was something wrong with either chimps or humans. Maybe you read too much beyond what people are saying.

    46. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      dude, I agree.

      I think, in microcosm, that a lot of this happens in the OSS world. There are too many leaders, too many forks, too many ideas about how to do similar things, and not enough consensus. It's kind of like a too much of a good thing happening, too many really smart people with wills determined to do things their own way. Or as you excellently put... too many predators.

      Re: the other post, I agree. It doesn't predicate dictatorship, nor does it assert that the followers are dumb. However, I do agree with you about the evolution of the two social subspecies.

      what I think is interesting though, is that with computing, the web, and this free-for-all information sharing, the followers are increasingly re-armed. Will, organization, and re-education are the limiting factors to revolution in that regard, I think. Just seeing the sheer amount of stuff on the web, I always amazed not by how many terrorist acts that are reported in the modern world, but how few.

      It may be, that with this evolution of two social subspecies, the fight is being slowly "bred" out of the followers.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    47. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by ReformedExCon · · Score: 1

      No, that's not what I meant.

      In relation to their adult ability, the increased rate of maturity will allow them to reach their potential quicker than humans in a determined period of time. At 12 months, a chipmanzee, in my understanding (which may be insufficient, I'm not a primatologist), will be further along towards maturity than a human of the same age. This gives the chimp a headstart on the human child.

      So let's say a mature chimp's maximum ability is 50 points and a human's is 200 points. At 1 year, the baby chimp has achieved 50% of its maximum mature-level ability. It is at 25 points. Now a human baby may have only reached 10% of its maximum level because of the delay in development. The human baby is only at 20 points, which is 5 points lower than the same age chimp.

      Now, those numbers above are ALL made up and aren't valid for anything but a very simple explanation of how I came to my conclusion, but my gut feeling would be that the results of such an experiment would bear out something similar (and which, given no other information, this article shows).

      --
      Jesus saved me from my past. He can save you as well.
    48. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Lando · · Score: 1

      Children have always been like this, ie self-centered. If the parents do not enforce some type of discipline then the child will be out of control. Children often test their boundries it is part of growing up. Shows like supernanny and nanny 911 show that for a majority of "trouble" children, once their parents start to set boundries and enforce them the children generally become more socially responsible. I don't think that this necessarily makes the children more of a conformist, but just as some parents don't set any boundries others push the boundaries to hard.

            This seems to be true for most. I myself don't fit either mold, for some reason I became a nerd very young, ie reading at 2 and algebra by 5 programing by 7, but there are bound to be exceptions to every rule. My children though seem to follow the normal pattern with a few quirks that seem to be genetic from my wife and myself.

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    49. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by alexo · · Score: 1


      > Humans, by contrast, take a couple years before they comprehend the simplest words and actions.

      Au contraire.

      My 1yo understands perfectly well that "No!" means "stop whatever you are doing and don't do it again until you make sure daddy is no longer looking".

    50. Re:A little bit biased, isn't it? by Busy · · Score: 1

      Agreed. How many of those kids were annoyed by the redundant steps, but did them anyways so they wouldn't get in trouble? I think the results had much more to do with social conventions and response to authority than reasoning.

      --
      Think of someone with average intelligence. Now think 1/2 the world is dumber than that guy.
  7. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by eosp · · Score: 1

    I'm sure doesn't compile.

  8. This is nothing new... by u-235-sentinel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While training chimps to perform a routine task with redundant steps, the chimps were able to figure out and eliminate the redundant steps, while the human children routinely performed them despite their evident uselessness

    Ever work for the Military? As much as I respect those serving you have to wonder about some of the regs they have to live by. If you've worked as a contractor (or served) then you know what I mean :-)

    --
    Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
    1. Re:This is nothing new... by Doom+bucket · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This should be insanely obvious to anybody.

      These were adult chimpanzees, yes? And comparing them to young humans?

      I'm sure if you compared young chimpanzees with young humans the results might be different.

    2. Re:This is nothing new... by egomaniac · · Score: 1

      This should be insanely obvious to anybody.

      These were adult chimpanzees, yes? And comparing them to young humans?

      I'm sure if you compared young chimpanzees with young humans the results might be different.


      The chimp in the pictures is obviously not an adult, so I would assume the comparison is fair.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
    3. Re:This is nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is because of who is serving. Most people come out of the military as well disciplined men. Most people go into the military as cocky know it all teenagers. If you are giving a cocky know it all teenager an assualt weapon, I would prefer that they have lots of regs and supervision.

    4. Re:This is nothing new... by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Chimps are ruthless as hell, they would most likely torture more and be less discriminant and emotional about their kills. If they could be well disciplined and trained to shoot well they would make a damn effective war machine.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    5. Re:This is nothing new... by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I think it would be far more interesting to see if the Chimps react the same when taught by elder chimps. Kids have a habit of mimicking other humans, and I imagine chimps would do the same with other chimps. I would imagine the results would be about the same if it was a grown chimp giving the instructions to the young chimps.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    6. Re:This is nothing new... by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Dude, back off a bit. You can settle down. No-one's saying chimps are superior to humans. It's obvious they aren't as good as us, now it's a case of finding out how much below us they are. This can be done by comparing mature chimps with immature humans. Eventually we'll find an age where chimps and humans are equal, and we'll be able to say "on a whole, adult chimps have the intelligence of a human at age X."

    7. Re:This is nothing new... by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      I'm sure ... the results might be different.
      Way to take a stand there, pal.

    8. Re:This is nothing new... by valintin · · Score: 1

      If it were insanely obvious then we could program computers to do it. It isn't and we can't.

    9. Re:This is nothing new... by Prune · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You cretin, those weren't adult chimps. Should have read TFA, as should have the morons that modded you up.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    10. Re:This is nothing new... by Colin+Cordner · · Score: 1

      This should be insanely obvious to anybody.

      These were adult chimpanzees, yes? And comparing them to young humans?

      I'm sure if you compared young chimpanzees with young humans the results might be different.

      ... And in no time, we'll have proud parents boasting, "Yeah, I had my two-year old tested, and he's smarter than a chimp! Suck on that, Johnson!!"

    11. Re:This is nothing new... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point of the study is not to find if young chimps are "smarter" than young humans, it's to show that humans learn by imitation and are not as focussed on the results. Apparently, other primates are not-so-good at imitation, and humans have progressed because of their ability to imitate without knowing the goals which is a consequence of abstract thought. Yep, all that FTA.

      This is why I am imitating the rest of you and needlessly posting, despite it being completely futile.

    12. Re:This is nothing new... by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      Are you saying that this study is flawed and offers no insight?

    13. Re:This is nothing new... by Starcub · · Score: 1

      I'm going to let you in on a little secret. As a research assistant on the project in question, I can tell you that what wasn't reported is even more interesting. After the tests were completed, both the chimp and the baby were given a banana as a reward for completing the tests. After the research team left, I noticed the chimp proceded to neatly peel the banana into 5 identical sections before eating the banana. The baby however, threw the banana on the floor and accidentally squished one end of the banana causing the peel to split in two. The baby then proceded to eat both the peel and the banana.

  9. Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    The last time I was in Wal*Mart these 4 kids were going completely apeshit knocking things over, causing other shoppers problems, making a ton of noise... and their mother kept trying to reason with them and kept telling them what was going to happen if they didn't behave.

    NOW... if those lil fuckers had been mine, I would have damn well made sure they understood cause and effect. See, this is what we get when our schools aren't allowed to whoop ass anymore. I'm certain these mongrels would have scored higher than some chimp.

    1. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by garcia · · Score: 1, Interesting

      See, this is what we get when our schools aren't allowed to whoop ass anymore.

      Schools don't need to "whoop ass". Parents need to be able to "whoop ass" w/o their kids knowing (or even having) the ability to "call social services". Parents should be able to practice a little "tough love" as long as it stays as a red ass and doesn't cross into black eyes.

      The problem these days is that "timeouts" are used instead of the *threat* of the belt (the sound of a belt coming off a pair of jeans *still* bothers me to this day and I think it was used on me less than 5x).

      Oh and all stores need to follow the lead of the guy that put up a *well written* sign on his door that asks that parents ensure that their children behave. Those that were part of the "backlash" against it need to seriously rethink their parental abilities and theories as they may not be the perfect parents that their precious parenting books tell them they are.

    2. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Sigmund+Dali · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, yea... "tough love", "save the rod, spoil the child.."

      You guys that are saying that, you don't have the side of research on you. It may be one thing to say, "I'd beat my kid until they'd learn to be quiet," but that practice just DOESNT work. It causes a whole host of problems within the child including insecure attachment, mental scarring, and the justification of the use of aggression to solve problems. Here's a little riddle for you: Two kids are on the playground, and one of them is running around, pushing people over, hitting, kicking, etc. The other is playing in the sand with a smaller group of kids, interacting, using social skills such as sharing. Which one of these kids is the one which gets hit with a belt whenever he misbehaves? From that angle it is completely different, right?

      Not to say that the mother was acting appropriately. Parenting lesson #1, use the minimal level of force needed to immediately stop misbehavior, whether this threatening time out or physically restraining the child. That does not include physical abuse. The reason this works is because of a wonderful little thing called cognitive dissonance. When you stop behavior, the child then has time to analyze what he has done and will come to the point where his opinion of himself as good contrasts with his bad actions, causing discomfort. He therefor has to relieve this. If you use violence on the child, he relieves this by a process called overjustification, and ends up devaluing the consequences of his behavior, and will continue doing it once you walk away. If you stop the behavior mildly, then the child will be forced to reevaluate his own internal mindset, and behaviorally change will result. Some of you are already saying "That will not work on a 5 year old," but it does. Children learn these things incredibly early on.

      Anyway, guys, please stop this whole beating the child thing. It's not cute, it's not macho, and it's not good parental advice. There are so many ills within our society already that we don't need people going around and blatently advocating the advancement of another one.

    3. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Sinryc · · Score: 1

      Beating is bad yes, spanking on the other hand is good. As the police told my father one time "Just don't leave a bruise."

      --
      Yay, I have a sig.
    4. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      dude, you police told my mom the same thing!

      actually, the exact words were, "just don't hit him in the face."

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    5. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      So you can beat kids with soap wrapped in a towel?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    6. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      I used to think like you.



      Before I had kids.

    7. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by The+MAZZTer · · Score: 1

      Oh they understood cause and effect, unfortunately. They understood they could raise as much hell as they wanted and their mother wouldn't lay a hand on them.

    8. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by chris_eineke · · Score: 1

      Call it Fight Club and you have a nice franchise on your hands.

      --
      "All you have to do is be fragile and grateful. So stay the underdog." Chuck Palahniuk, Choke
    9. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about you try to spank your 17 year old... Or are you just a fucking coward beating helpless children?

    10. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was "beat" as a child and have a 148 IQ, a great job, perfectly normal social skills, and love my parents.

      Saying one thing works and one doesn't is NEVER true. Every child is different and should be raised according to what works for them personally.

    11. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by localman · · Score: 1

      Here here. And this isn't just because I get all warm and fuzzy about kids. Hitting kids is just plain impractical. It's always the parents who smack their kids around that have the most out of control kids. Well, it's a close call between them and the ones who give no dicipline whatsoever. Even if I hated your kids, I'd want you to stop smacking them and learn how to manage them. Yeah, kids can be difficult, but they can be managed to a large degree. And to the degree that they can't, smacking them just seems to aggrevate the situation. Grow up and figure out how to deal with these little people you've created.

      Cheers.

    12. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by The_Mr_Flibble · · Score: 1

      If you've ever been to Middlesbrough in merry old England you'd find the best way to deal with the local kids would be a double tap to the back of the head with a silenced 9mm.
      Now I know why guns are illegal in th UK

    13. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by prichardson · · Score: 1

      If the sound of a belt being removed bothers you then you are emotionally scarred, proving the point of the other reply to this. Doesn't it bother you? I'm honestly curious. Have you ever tried to get rid of this phobia?

      If a kid ever threatens to call social services and is seriously considering it then I think their relationship with their parents is very bad, probably too bad to save without serious effort on both sides.

      I don't think your moderation is fair, if I had any points I'd send you an underrated and post this anonymously. You're clearly not trolling.

      --
      Help I'm a rock.
    14. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by BlueHands · · Score: 1

      The only problem I have here is that the implied message is that spanking a child is the same as physical abuse. To me, as someone who was certainly abused, there is a massive difference. One aspect of that is severity.

      The other, which honestly might be more important, is the reason for the punishment - any sort of punishment: physical, emotional, whatever. The real problem I see is that most people do not punish in a consistent, thoughtful way.

      Without a consistent method there is no chance for anything to be analyzed or at least nothing of value. There is no way for a child to formulate a model of how the world works and how they should act.

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
    15. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why don't you rather spank bad parents? Because children are easy to physicaly punish, but adults won't go along. Coward.

    16. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Hosiah · · Score: 1
      When you stop behavior, the child then has time to analyze what he has done

      Disclaimer: I don't get my parenting advice from Slashdot and neither should anybody else.

      Anyway, I just had to share a form of discipline I *invented*. It works to control the child's mood, when they seem stuck on a particular negative mental state: just invite the child to sit on the floor with you and meditate for five minutes! We're being goofy and silly about it - hamming it up in very sloppy position, loud deep humming, etc. The point is that you got the kid to sit still for five minutes and quit thinking about what they were obsessing about before. I never deal with a terrible-two-year-old without it.

      That being said, I *still* believe that there are rare occasions when physical punishment is needed - is essential, nothing else will do. It's a last resort - to be avoided if at all possible - but still sometimes needed. My rule of thumb is: if I, as an adult, were to do what the child just did, would it get me punched in the face, in jail, or lynched by an angry mod, etc? Then the kid should at least get a tap on the butt to get the point across.

    17. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by blahplusplus · · Score: 1

      "If you use violence on the child, he relieves this by a process called overjustification, and ends up devaluing the consequences of his behavior, and will continue doing it once you walk away. If you stop the behavior mildly, then the child will be forced to reevaluate his own internal mindset, and behaviorally change will result. Some of you are already saying "That will not work on a 5 year old," but it does. Children learn these things incredibly early on."

      I'm sorry but I have to call this person on this. This "one size fits all" is nonsense, every child is *unique* and I've seen enough kids to know that each and every one of them has a different "default" response to certain situations and in certain kids with very strong willed traits there is nothing you can do to turn it off. I've seen kids who would threaten their parents with destroying stuff in the house if they didn't get their way and with time and overtired parents many parents simply don't want their situation ti get worse then it already is, not to mention the time constraints, being tired from work, and having other children.

      No amount of knowledge or your special tactics will stop a child with who most people would call stubborn. Every child has a unique set of traits which determines their basic fundamental nature in how they respond when their will and actions are 'infringed upon' by their parents.

    18. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by kajen · · Score: 1

      My father disciplined me by spanking me. He did this until I was a teenager. I have no emotional scars.
      As an adult and parent, I have an enormous amount of respect for my father because he ONLY disciplined me when I deserved it and loved me very much.
      You have blurred the line between corporal punishment and abuse.

    19. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by sf2turbomaster · · Score: 1

      You guys that are saying that, you don't have the side of research on you. It may be one thing to say, "I'd beat my kid until they'd learn to be quiet," but that practice just DOESNT work. It causes a whole host of problems within the child including insecure attachment, mental scarring, and the justification of the use of aggression to solve problems. Here's a little riddle for you: Two kids are on the playground, and one of them is running around, pushing people over, hitting, kicking, etc. The other is playing in the sand with a smaller group of kids, interacting, using social skills such as sharing. Which one of these kids is the one which gets hit with a belt whenever he misbehaves? From that angle it is completely different, right?

      I come from a small country called Trinidad. We used to use corporal punishment in our schools and in our homes and you know what our country was fine. Not that great of a crime rate and such. Well lo and behold these people came preaching the US way about beating children is wrong so school and households changed their methods. Guess what, you should take a look at the crime rate over there now. I may be wrong about what the evidence points to but it seems pretty clear to me what happened. Call that my research. The reason i believe the US got so crazy about the corporal punishment thing is that alot of people just mistook their children for punching bags. There is a difference between a punch to the face and a little slap on the wrist.

      Yes i was raised like that and i never beat on anyone anywhere and have no violent tendancies, i think i'm quite the opposite. Stop blaming your parents for your behavior and own up to it yourselves.

    20. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Flammon · · Score: 1

      You have blurred the line between corporal punishment and abuse.

      That's the problem. When you take the route of physical punishment, especially in the heat of the moment, chances of abuse are much higher. It's not a chance that I want to take.

      I rarely see a parent pysically punish their children a day or two after the incident. Physical punishment is usually done in the heat of the moment or very shortly thereafter. Parents who physically discipline their children, do it because they can't control themselves. Try this next time your kids need to be punished. Wait a week and then let them have it. I can guarantee you that you won't feel good about doing it because you've had a week to think about it and you know that there are much better ways to handle the situation.

      You might not have emotional scars, lucky you. Some aren't so lucky. How about the quality of their lives as children, does that count for anything? Take the opportunity to show your children good values like values like patience and self control.

      Did you read the articly about how children compare to chimps in learning? Children imitate. No wonder there's so much violence in this world. Probaly from all the parents who hit their children. Imagine if parents throughout the world never hit their children. Do you think that the crime rate you go up, down or stay the same. I think that it would go down, no doubt in my mind.

    21. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's that effectively our interrogation policy for "unlawful combatants" right now? It doesn't matter as long as it doesn't leave a mark?

    22. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are an utter dunce.
      I got belted excessively as a kid and i never bullied anyone in my life
      I was actually one of the ones that was picked on in my elementary years
      If its teaching us anything is that we need to shutup and stay in line or well get smacked

    23. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      The problem with delaying the delivery of punishments like that (your "wait a week and then let them have it." experiment) is: it removes the immediacy of action leading to punishment. The reason you'd feel bad for doing it is because now you're punishing them at a time when they may not even remember what it is they're being punished for.

          Properly delivered punishments with a sense of immediacy and not over-utilized can be an effective method to aid in instilling proper discipline in children. No a spanking isn't the proper punishment for all misdeeds. However, when a child is being exceptionally poorly behaved, or failing to acknowledge other methods of dealing with bad behaviours (threats of time-outs, grounding, etc) the application of a moderate amount of force to a child's posterior can show that such behaviors will not be tolerated.

          As to your question about crime rates, all I have is annecdotal information which shows that the worst behaved children (now teens actually) that I know were, to the best of my knowledge, never spanked or hit as children, and in fact ran roughshod over their parents.

    24. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      you certainly SOUND like a posterchild for excessive belting. I'm going to belt all of my children so they will be just like you.

    25. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by virg_mattes · · Score: 1

      > My father disciplined me by spanking me. He did this until I was a teenager. I have no emotional scars.
      As an adult and parent, I have an enormous amount of respect for my father because he ONLY disciplined me when I deserved it and loved me very much.


      The question to ask yourself is, if he'd only disciplined you when you deserved it and loved you very much, but never spanked you (instead punishing you in some other fashion), would you have come out of it with less respect for him? That answered, does that not mean the spanking wasn't a necessary part of the discipline?

      > You have blurred the line between corporal punishment and abuse.

      You've blurred the line between discipline and corporal punishment.

      Virg

    26. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by guitaristx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Here's a little riddle for you: Two kids are on the playground, and one of them is running around, pushing people over, hitting, kicking, etc. The other is playing in the sand with a smaller group of kids, interacting, using social skills such as sharing. Which one of these kids is the one which gets hit with a belt whenever he misbehaves?

      From your limited "riddle", we can't know. What we do know is that the schoolyard bully is not being disciplined effectively. Often, children don't respond the same way to punishment that the parent does. Where spanking might have been the best disciplining tool for the parent, sometimes the child is disciplined best (and learns to behave best) by something like time-out. For me personally, if my father expressed disappointment in me, that was the worst punishment I could get. Corporal punishment does not make bad kids. Ineffective discipline makes bad kids.

      For the schoolyard bully, it's very possible that he is beaten senseless at home for no perceptible reason (from his perspective) on a regular basis, and so is therefore conditioned to believe that pain and violence are natural, normal parts of social interaction. It's also possible that this schoolyard bully is raised by a parent who is inconsistent with discipline. The schoolyard bully could very possibly be manipulating his single mother with elaborate "i'm sorry" speeches, tears, and sniffling, and avoiding punishment at home altogether. If a child is not raised under clear, strict rules (and I'm not talking "strict" in the sense of "arbitrarily restrictive," I mean it as "firm and unyielding"), the child will learn that they can behave however they want, and use their social interaction skills to manipulate their way out of a punishment. As an example, consider a three-year-old boy that thrives on social interaction. Spankings just don't work on him (and I know a boy like this). If his parents tell him to stop misbehaving once, twice, three times, and he keeps on misbehaving, he should receive a punishment, right? Right. Now, if the parents are not strict about the punishment (e.g. he cries and says that he'll be good when they try to put him in time-out, and his parents yield to his bargain), he will continue to misbehave. If the parents use an ineffective discipline method (for this particular boy, spankings, which just make him act up even more), he will, again, continue misbehaving. If the child receives punishment without a clear explanation of why he received that punishment, he will, yet again, continue misbehaving.

      Corporal punishment is not evil. The Biblical principle of "Spare the rod, spoil the child" is not wrong. If you don't punish your child for inappropriate behavior, they WILL grow up rotten. What is wrong is dealing with children without significant emotional restraint on the part of the parent or caregiver. Regardless of how upset you are as a parent, you are never, NEVER to use punishment on a child (corporal or not) for any purpose other than to discipline the child and bring him or her to appropriate behavior. If you punish a child in anger, you teach him to react in anger. If you punish a child calmly, with a clear intent, you will teach the child self-control. There is nothing wrong, in teaching, to swat a child's hand as punishment for pulling the cat's tail. It's okay to give a child a spanking for hitting his sibling and making her cry. However, it's NOT okay to swat the living daylights out of his bottom because he's pushing your buttons and frustrating you (which, by the way, will happen. That's why two-parent households are so important). It's NOT okay to punish a child over and over again without making it clear why the punishment is being administered. The right way goes like this:
      "Why are you in time-out?"
      "Because I told mommy 'no' w

      --
      I pity the foo that isn't metasyntactic
    27. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by smoker2 · · Score: 1
      Anyway, guys, please stop this whole beating the child thing. It's not cute, it's not macho, and it's not good parental advice. There are so many ills within our society already that we don't need people going around and blatently advocating the advancement of another one.
      Beating the child is one thing, I don't think anyone is advocating beating the crap out of a kid.

      I have posted something on this before, but it seems to me that you are missing something else here.

      What about good old fear ?
      From what I see every day in the street, kids / young people don't have any fear of repercussions. They walk in the street, deliberately blocking traffic, shouting and swearing if any car goes near them. They shout and argue with the police if they are stopped for any reason. They blatently smoke pot in public areas, and they are getting more and more vicious when it comes to violent acts.

      You could put all this down to my getting older, but I do have that much experience of watching these things progress, and if not smacking kids (as seems to be the norm, despite what people think) leads to this result, then maybe it's not working. It gets pretty nasty even trying to have an argument with some of these kids, as they go ballistic immediately - how dare I question them !

      Then there is the 'rights' issue. They seem to think that we can't do anything about their bad behaviour because they have rights. Now, one day, they will come across somebody who just pulls out a knife and kills them, which they probably would have avoided if they had kept their damn mouth shut !

      I believe this attitude is exacerbated by never having been scared, and never having really been in pain caused by another human being. Respect has to be earned, and learnt. Part of life is that there are vicious killers out there, you hope you don't meet one, but knowing what pain is helps to temper your judgement (I think).

      An even greater threat from this lack of fear, leads in the longer term, to nations attacking other nations, and governments über-controlling their populace.

      Overall, it's a case of "I don't care, they can't hurt me, I've got rights !"

    28. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1
      "Here's a little riddle for you: Two kids are on the playground, and one of them is running around, pushing people over, hitting, kicking, etc. The other is playing in the sand with a smaller group of kids, interacting, using social skills such as sharing. Which one of these kids is the one which gets hit with a belt whenever he misbehaves? From that angle it is completely different, right?"

      Yep... the pushy kid is the one that knows there is no punishment coming if he's a complete bastard or not. I've seen it all the time in stores: "No Jeff, don't touch that. No you can't have that. Put it down. Stop that." Over and freaking over. And the reason the kid doesn't stop is there is absolutely no reason to. Nothing comes of actions and he usually badgers the parent into getting him what he wants. The kid rules the house.

      I'm not saying the kid needs to be beaten with a club. But I just don't get this skidishness. I was spanked, my friends were spanked, my friends parents gave me a cuff or two and if I went home and complained I'd get one there too.

    29. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Elad+Alon · · Score: 1
      Saying one thing works and one doesn't is NEVER true.
      And I say that "saying one thing works and one doesn't is NEVER true" is never true.
      --
      News for merdes. Shit that matters.
      Ask me about my sig.
    30. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Psyqlone · · Score: 1

      If you stop the behavior mildly, then the child will be forced to reevaluate his own internal mindset, and behaviorally change will result. Some of you are already saying "That will not work on a 5 year old," but it does. Children learn these things incredibly early on.

      I must have missed the part specifically about how you "stop the behavior mildly". ...and I'll try not to complain about the solution when I see it.

      Anyway, guys, please stop this whole beating the child thing. It's not cute, it's not macho, and it's not good parental advice. There are so many ills within our society already that we don't need people going around and blatently advocating the advancement of another one.

      You do have kids, right?

      Allow me to re-phrase. Are you raising one or more 5-year old children at present?

    31. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Once again, I have to say that there is a difference between smacking a kid around and spanking them.
      I have never spanked our 13 year old, even though I have known him since he was 4. As a stepdad, I felt he would resent getting spanked by me. Now, I see that he really needs a good spanking, but unfortunately, now he is too old and physical discipline would result in reactionary violence on his part, as I can see by the several holes he has punched in our wall just because we wouldn't let him sleep over at someone's house on a schoolnight. What horrible parents we are. My girls, on the other hand, have had light spankings infrequently when the situation warranted it, and they are mostly well behaved.
      I was spanked as a child. I was also abused as a child. I know the difference. The foot is not discpline. A fist is not discipline. Spanking was discipline, and I understood the need for it. The other made me daydream of my stepdad dying in a terrible accident. I STILL have dreams (still once a year, to this day) of beating the crap out of my stepdad.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    32. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by localman · · Score: 1

      Agreed. There are situations -- rare situations -- where a light smack on the backside will clue a kid in if they aren't paying attention to stern, clear instruction. But I'm referring to the parents who use this as a first line of dicipline because they're too lazy to commnicate effectively with their kids, or those who hit hard in an effort to cause pain and release their own anger. It doesn't sound like that's what you do with your children.

      As to your out of control stepson; why do you think earlier spanking would have solved his troubles? Being a stepson has effects on the child all by itself and is a difficult parenting situation. He's also markedly genetically different than your daughters, if I understand the situation. Comparing them is probably fruitless. I wouldn't blame yourself.

      Cheers.

    33. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by et764 · · Score: 1
      I rarely see a parent pysically punish their children a day or two after the incident. Physical punishment is usually done in the heat of the moment or very shortly thereafter. Parents who physically discipline their children, do it because they can't control themselves.

      I would have to say my mother was one who applied physical discipline while still being in control. In fact, if she didn't feel like she could maintain control, she would leave the room rather than risk doing something she'd regret. My parents used physical discipline appropriately.

      Physical discipline is a useful and effective tool parents have in raising children. It should by no means be the only tool, but when properly applied it is effective and there is a big difference between that and child abuse. However, to be effective, it must be applied immediately. Every parent should feel horrible if they spanked a child for something they did a week ago. That just doesn't make sense. There needs to be an immediate connection between the action and the punishment.

      One interesting thing I've noticed recently is that after a child is spanked, they'll often go to the parent who just spanked them for comfort. The parent spanks the child, and then the two are immediately hugging each other. To me this suggests the parent is acting out of love rather than anger, and the child knows it.

      Granted, physical discipline is not always applied appropriately, but that is not a reason to completely do away with it. Knives are used to commit murder, and also to cut our food. Clearly the benefits of knives outweigh the dangers with them, and I feel that physical discipline, when properly applied, falls into this category as well.

    34. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by Lando · · Score: 1

      I've see this as well and have come to different conclusions, having lived in the types of societies you have described when I was growing up, I'd say that they are more prevalent now, but they existed in the past as well.

      Anyway on with my point, the truth is that in my day, the reason most of the kids/people around me acted like this was not due to a lack of fear, but from a feeling of desperation, ie fear of having no control. By creating a scene they were forcing others to react to them and thus had some sembelence of control.

            Environment does play a major factor. By taking away any possibility of being rewarded or noticed for positive behavior, negative behavior becomes the primary method of attracting attention. Also remember that the people you see doing this behavior are the ones that are attracting attention, all the kids that are doing what they are supposed to don't get noticed.

            Also note, that once a society forms with these types of behavior and starts to reinforce this behavior it is very difficult to change. For example, look at all the "gangster" rappers that carry guns and behave like "bad-asses". It's interesting to note that many of them are suburban kids that behave a certain way in order to get attention. In the past the ones that were disenfrancied were the poor, but they didn't have the resources to get noticed. The middle income folks generally had a belief that they could do something and be someone. However the more people feel like they are just a cog in the machine and unable to do anything the more misfits and anti-social individuals will appear.

            I personally wonder how far the current administration can push before something snaps. It seems that they are primarily attempting to rule by fear, however, at some point they will push to the point where people feel that they have nothing left to lose...

      --
      /* TODO: Spawn child process, interest child in technology, have child write a new sig */
    35. Re:Wal*Mart Kids by kajen · · Score: 1

      I think we agree. Child abuse sucks.

      Corporal punishment is NOT child abuse. When a parent does not love the child or have the self control to handle a situation then corporal punishment can change into child abuse. At no point is corporal punishment the problem. The parent's inability to handle raising a child is the problem.

      And yes, I consider myself VERY lucky to have had parents who loved me like mine did. If every child had ANYONE to love them like my parents loved me, we would have a lot fewer problems. Well, maybe we would have a different set of problems.

      To address your attempt to educate me on how to raise my children...
      I don't need any books, slashdot posters, or any other outsider who I do not know or trust to assist me in raising my children. I simply took what my parents did and tried to improve on their performance. I have advised my children to do the same.

      Good topic which I think both of us agree needs to be addressed worldwide!

      Have a good one!!

  10. So let me get this straight. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Fully developed chimps beat underdeveloped humans at reasoning?

    I'm shocked. Shocked!

    1. Re:So let me get this straight. by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm shocked. Shocked!

      Fool! The banana is with the BLUE button! Not the RED one!

  11. This required a study? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's amazing that this conclusion required ANY sort of study to arrive at. All one need do is to look at how HUMANS are eradicating the rain forests, pouring all kinds of gasses into the atmosphere, and extinctifying untold number of species of plants and animals every year...

    Then look at what the Chimps do...or don't do to their environment.

    Seems like they have a pretty fucking good idea of cause and effect to me. They want to live, so they co-exist with their environment and don't shit where they eat... Us on the other hand... well let's just say that people are still somewhat confused about hurricanes and melting ice caps, etc...

    1. Re:This required a study? by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

      Actually, they're going to become extinct long before us.
      So we're winning.

      Humans: 1
      Mother Nature: 0

    2. Re:This required a study? by barefootgenius · · Score: 1

      And just where do you propose to go after you have won this competition? Besides, we are a part of nature so it should go;

      * Mother Nature: 1
      * Mother Nature: 1

      --
      /. bug #926803 - Why I can post.
  12. Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps the children thought they could not deviate from the pattern and become more efficient; while chimps may not have had that thought.

    Somewhat of a jump; with respect to the conclusion.

    Disclaimer: I am not a psychologist. I could be very wrong.

    1. Re:Perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like the average adult to me. This is the way I was taught how to do it, so this is how it has to be done. Period. End of story.

  13. 3-4 vs older chimps? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are the chimps the same age as the children? Would adult humans copy the same extra steps that the kids would? Do adult chimps do different steps then younger chimps?

    1. Re:3-4 vs older chimps? by shawb · · Score: 1

      I'd say that adult humans copy extra steps all the time. For instance my father always double clicks hyperlinks. And he was a programmer for over thirty years, and isn't in general afraid of new technologies. Then again he has an odd typing style. If he makes a mistake, he will move the cursor to the point before the mistake and start typing again. He will then delete the rest after he's done. At the end of a half page email he may have a few lines of half formed sentences and mispelled words to delete. For some reason this really bothers me, as I tend to just backspace and start again, or highlight and delete the block if it crosses multiple lines. But then again this habit may have come from programming, where he may want to look back at the algorithms he was playing with earlier while most of my typing is language based: I really learned to type chatting on BBSes.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    2. Re:3-4 vs older chimps? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Even as an adult, I would be prone to doing the exact same steps that I was shown. At least the first time, and possibly multiple times, until I had studied and determined for certain that it was really a redundant step. For example, I once was doing automated futures trading and the supervisor suggested a model of Summation from 1 to N of (x1-x0)/2 + ... + (xn - xn-1)/2 . I was immediately able to reduce this to one step. However, there are other things where it is not so easy to see why the steps are in there, such as when you are installing an electrical box and you keep going back and checking to make sure the circuit breaker is really off even though you have looked at it 10 times already.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  14. Human survival trait by Thunderstruck · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Perhaps this is more of a survival trait in humans than a superiority in chimps. Growing up, there were a lot of things I needed to know HOW to do which were too complex for me to understand WHY at the time. Too, I emulate my parents' culture, often without a conscious reason, perhaps because their culture has allowed them to succeed.

    When my windows box crashes, I reboot it, without knowing why. I could probably eliminate some steps between boot, crash, and reboot too...

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Human survival trait by BewireNomali · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Right. Really good point.

      I had a discussion with a friend of mine about religion. She was raised religious, and while an athiest now, she was happy to have been raised religiously. I asked why; she responded that the religious foundation answered questions she would have had (albeit falsely) about God, death, universe, etc. and thus eased her mind about them until she was mature enough to decide that it was mythology to her. In other words, she did exactly as you suggested, emulated a successful culture dynamic too complex for her to understand fully.

      We all do it as humans. It's what religion is. Do this because I(tm) said so.

      Good point.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    2. Re:Human survival trait by Barny · · Score: 3, Funny
      I could probably eliminate some steps between boot, crash, and reboot too...


      What? like running windows, if it is really working as intended, it should crash on boot, saveing all that valuable work time you could have spent so you can look at buying a new PC :)
      --
      ...
      /me sighs
    3. Re:Human survival trait by at_slashdot · · Score: 1

      "When my windows box crashes, I reboot it, without knowing why. I could probably eliminate some steps between boot, crash, and reboot too..."

      That's while chimps already switched to Linux.

      --
      "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
    4. Re:Human survival trait by slavik1337 · · Score: 1

      umm, use Linux? I would suggest FreeBSD, but Netcraft says it's dead. :( I don't get it.

      --
      just my 2 bytes
    5. Re:Human survival trait by Nutria · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is more of a survival trait in humans than a superiority in chimps. Growing up, there were a lot of things I needed to know HOW to do which were too complex for me to understand WHY at the time. Too, I emulate my parents' culture, often without a conscious reason, perhaps because their culture has allowed them to succeed.

      This was pretty much my first thought, too, when I read the article: So this is how/why man formed religion...

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Human survival trait by rikai · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps this isn't a biological trait in humans at all. The human children subjects that this study used have spent years flicking light switches, using remote controls for television sets, avoiding hot irons and spinning fans, and otherwise obeying all sorts of random magical rules imposed by adults. Maybe long before this experiment, they learned not to trust their knowledge of physics and just to do what they're shown/told. Just one more physchological study that doesn't actually show what it claims (link is to Feynman's "Cargo-Cult-Science").

    7. Re:Human survival trait by gcatullus · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't even go so far as to compare this to complex things. The "unecessary" steps are often what keeps most of us alive. Wearing a helmet when you ride a bicycle is "unecessary", unless you crash. The same applies to anything safety related such as, speed limits,seat belts, etc. This imitation is what (usually) keeps children from climbing bookcases to reach a toy, or running into traffic because they saw something interesting.

    8. Re:Human survival trait by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I think it's even more basic than this. When you were growing up, your parents constantly reinforced 'good' behavior (doing what you were told) and discouraged 'bad' behavior (not doing it.) Regardless of WHY you had to do it, you did it because your parents told you to.

      Chimps don't get much of this conditioning. The ones in captivity get even less, I'm sure. There aren't many dangers inside a cage at the zoo.

      So from birth, chimps are let do basically anything they want, where humans are pretty much forced to do things.

      Is it any surprise that when asked to do things that don't make sense, the unguided monkeys don't do them and the strictly guided humans do? It doesn't surprise me at all.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    9. Re:Human survival trait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually "Do this because I(tm) said so" is a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Authority".

      Religion can be other things entirely, although unfortunately it is used by some persons as a basis for appeal to authority.

    10. Re:Human survival trait by armb · · Score: 1

      Yes. Except you misspelt "so you can look at installing a better OS now, instead of when you finally get sick of Windows in spite of the time you have invested in learning it".

      --
      rant
    11. Re:Human survival trait by endoplasmicMessenger · · Score: 1
      It's what religion is. Do this because I(tm) said so.

      Maybe you should take a gander at Pope John Paul II's FIDES ET RATIO (Faith and Reason) to see if you can get beyond your "mature" notion of religion. It's written from a philosophically sophisticated point of view, but I'm sure that with your maturity you'll be able to get through it.

      --
      Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
    12. Re:Human survival trait by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      Good to see your religion-inspired nature is not wont to sarcasm or condescension. I went to Catholic School for eight years, was a choirboy, and had an uncle who was a Baptist minister. Because we had to support his growing church, there was a span of time during my childhood where I spent whole Sundays in church, treated to healthy dosings of both Catholic and Baptist dogma. It was like quiet calisthenics for an hour (Catholic Church), followed by like three hours of rigorous foot-stomping aerobics.

      All of which is to say, my notion of religion is relatively mature. I perceive religions to be political institutions that predate the state and paved the way for the state to come into existence. Regardless of the foundations of faith that support a religion, it is still a political institution. And at the foundation of political institutions are laws that bind its citizens. These laws require no understanding, but they do demand adherence.

      In other words, do this(tm) because I said so.

      It was my mistake to bring up religion in the first place, and another to even respond to your post. What can I say though; those chimps got me beat!

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    13. Re:Human survival trait by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      We all do it as humans. It's what religion is. Do this because I(tm) said so.

      That's how it starts with us as kids, and unfortunately that's often how it stays with the less introspecitve among us, but one must move beyond that to have real faith. One must experience one's living faith to truly possess it. It is a deeply personal thing, but ultimately one must choose to believe in something rather than simply accept what they were raised in in my opinion. Otherwise, you're just going through the motions of faith.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    14. Re:Human survival trait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a tip that should help you in life: You aren't nearly as smart as you think you are. I've seen a lot of pseudo-intellectual crap in my time, but yours is truly inspiring.

    15. Re:Human survival trait by caesar79 · · Score: 1

      >When my windows box crashes, I reboot it, without knowing why. I could probably eliminate some steps between boot, crash, and
      >reboot too..

      Yeah - that step would fall under "work". and no, posting to slashdot doesn't count.

    16. Re:Human survival trait by serve · · Score: 1

      We all do it as humans. It's what religion is. Do this because I(tm) said so.

      True, that is what Religion is. Fortunately, the Bible is full of examples of God telling people to quit trying to be "religious" and mindlessly following all the "rules". It says that what's most important is not traditions you scrupulously obey, for the sake of just doing them because you're supposed to, but that you seek to know and be in right relationship with God personally. After that, you'll actually WANT to try to make changes to your life that consequently end up falling in line with the rules of the Bible, not because someone told you to do it. Unfortunately many Religious institutions and followers miss that.

    17. Re:Human survival trait by endoplasmicMessenger · · Score: 1
      Mea culpa. I guess even when they lay down the law, I still don't obey.

      But puh-lease: "do this(tm) because I said so" ?? Somehow I would not call that caricature of religion "mature".

      I didn't become Catholic until I was 29. No one else in my family is a Christian, let alone a Catholic. I made my own choice. Before I became a Catholic I spent some time in India and exposed myself to a broad array of religious and spiritual opinions and experiences. And by the time I was 29, I felt that I was finally mature enough and experienced enough to figure out where "home" was. And that was the Catholic Church.

      But you should really take a look at that encyclical. It's really quite astounding.

      --
      Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
    18. Re:Human survival trait by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      And hopefully she will someday mature enough to stop following the atheistic foundation that she is immitating now and make up her own mind.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  15. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as an American, I think you're an asshole.

  16. Re:Clarification by CyricZ · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe the children were from Kansas. The rules of science are null and void in Kansas.

    --
    Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
  17. Understandable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    since we teach kids process rather than critical thinking. If you want to teach your 2-year-old to tie his shoes, to you teach a series of steps to be followed, rather than an understanding of what qualities a knot must have to hold. I suppose this may be because kids can't handle critical thinking, but this test can't prove it.

    1. Re:Understandable by rich_r · · Score: 1

      Less about critical thinking and more about not knowing the fundamentals. Hell, if you told me, now, the properities a shoelace knot needed to hold, I'd just look blank. The example assumes that you already have a solid grounding in knot lore.

      In fact, critical thinking would only becom useful when the child is presented with a range of knots and told to choose which one would be best.

    2. Re:Understandable by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      since we teach kids process rather than critical thinking. If you want to teach your 2-year-old to tie his shoes, to you teach a series of steps to be followed, rather than an understanding of what qualities a knot must have to hold. I suppose this may be because kids can't handle critical thinking, but this test can't prove it.

      They can't handle critical thinking yet, but there isn't any reason not to teach them that they can choose to tie their shoes in different ways. Once you show a child how to tie a working knot, IMO it's not a bad idea to expand the concept by showing a different way to tie the knot.

      Once you've done that, the child will often experiment with shoe knots instead of reasoning that there is only one way to do the task.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    3. Re:Understandable by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      "Knot lore" already implies something learned by rote. You could work out knots from first principles; the idea is basically to present as large a surface area of rope A as possible in as intimate a contact as possible with as large a surface area of rope B as possible, in order that the effects of friction are maximised. Oh, and maybe you can do some self-reversible process to the ropes which, as it reverses, will cause the knot to tighten.

      But, you most probably wouldn't want to. It's much less effort to learn (the whole process of tying a knot) as something atomic, than to learn all the relevant underlying physics. You have all of later to pick up the abstract concepts like friction and expansion and contraction. And, to be honest, even someone with a thorough awareness of all the underlying science probably would have to tie at least a few knots for practice first.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
  18. C&F: Monkey Smarts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The New York Times has a story on how chimpanzees seem to exhibit a better understanding of cause and effect than human children."

    [Human]
    Cause: Illegally downloading content.

    Effect: Effect? What effect? I never would have bought it anyway.

    [Chimpanzee]
    Cause: Illegally downloading content.

    Effect: I better stop doing this. It might come back and hurt me later.

  19. What kind of kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Were these those little fat kids you see with Wrestlemania t-shirts and sporting buzzcuts (sometimes with corresponding mullets) and big goofy beaver teeth who pick their nose and giggle at the boogers, but their Southern accents are heard even in said laughter?

    They're called Americans. Go to any mall and you see tons of them.

    1. Re:What kind of kids? by flynns · · Score: 2, Insightful

      (1) I can't disagree much with the mall part, but...

      I actually -live- in a fairly isolated part of the South, and dear -god-, that is the stuff of annoying television shows. (Oh, and Alabama, but they don't count). That sort of annoyance only resides in places like Opp, Paxton, Ensley, Florala, Red Level, and Florabama.

      Ever heard of 'em? Nope. It's because they still don't have cell phone service. And don't have malls.

      -grumbles about people making Southerners out to be 100% backwards, useless, stupid, annoying people, when we're actually only about 75% backwards-

      --
      'If you're flammable and have legs, you are never blocking a fire exit.'
    2. Re:What kind of kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps the kids did what they were told and did it correctly. The article said they were shown redundant steps. The chimps only know they wanted food and didn't understand the 'steps'. This experiment only proves that a chimp would rather eat immediately than listen to anyone or follow redundant steps.

    3. Re:What kind of kids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a Northerner of Southern heritage who spent 8 years living and working in the South I have to agree with you. Unfortunately, the 25% that aren't backwards, useless, stupid and annoying are either: A. Nearly impossible to find or B. Moving back North.

      I remember the first night I moved down South a woman in a south Georgia gas station, upon noticing my u-haul trailer, asked me if I was a Yankee or a damn Yankee. I bit and asked the difference. Yankees go home, damn Yankees stay. I asked her if this was the vaunted "southern hospitality" I'd heard so much about. She was not amused... though I suspect the word "vaunted" threw her off a bit.

      After 8 years, I discovered that their is no such thing as southern hospitality. Superficial politeness for the sake of appearences would be a more accurate term for it.

  20. Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by robw810 · · Score: 1

    I've taught middle school science for seven years now, I'm not surprised in the least by these findings... Students as a whole do not know how to think logically, and schools as a whole aren't doing a good job of teaching them (not that they'd pay attention anyway)...

    RW

    1. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      I work in tech support, and Im with the parent. bring on the chimps, they might understand that a reboot might solve the problem...

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    2. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by ryg0r · · Score: 1
      Thats why we should bring back the cane. And the stocks.

      If I got smacked about, I'd smarten up quick. I think most people would.

      What the majority of kids need is discpline. I dont think ADD would be so rapant if they got caned every know and then.

      Even though people say I have ADD and say Ritalin works I refuse to ......OOH! A shiny thing!!

      --
      Karma whoring .sigs don't work
    3. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by Soko · · Score: 1

      MVHO is that children not only need to know the how, but the why and how that applies to them in a logical manner before they'll be interested enough to listen properly. Say to a kid "Want to learn how to make a car do the 1/4 mile in 10 seconds?" you'll get them interested (girls like powerful cars too, BTW). Next, they'll say "OK, how do I do that, NO2?", and you say "Yup, but how much NO2? Where do you inject it? Can you do that without cratering the motor? In order to master this you need to know those things, and why they are the way they are. Let's start from the beginning..." and each step you show them that they're progessing to the goal of mastering the art of putting together a hot car.

      I'm no school teacher, but as a parent I've often gotten through by showing my childern a goal, and geting them interested in mastering a process of achieving that goal. For example, when I get a "Tell me the answer, please." kind of question, my response is "No, but I'll show you how to handle this all on your own from now on, OK? Like a mature person does." - usually with positive results. What almost always happens next is "Hey, Dad, can I do it this way? It cuts out a few steps." - critical thinking.

      My bet is that your class might be the very same way.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    4. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by robw810 · · Score: 1

      Well, I *try* to make my classes that way, but it's tough to do in a society that's tailored to instant gratification - everyone is like "just give me the answer."

      We're covering Forces and Motion right now (focusing on velocity, acceleration, and momentum type problems), and so many of the students just sit and wait for me to finish working the examples, then write down the answers rather than actively pay attention to the process followed to obtain the answers. The analogy I gave them today went something like this:

      If I'm teaching you how to build a computer from parts, you can either watch and follow along with me using the parts on your desk (learn the process), or you can wait until I'm finished putting it together and come look at the result (just give me the answer) - which one is going to give you a better chance of putting it together?

      RW

    5. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by Soko · · Score: 1

      Understood. They are learning but not getting an education. *sigh*

      I suppose I have more of my childrens attention since I'm thier parent, and of course I'm not 100% successful at the method in my previous post, but I figure it's the root of the problem and needs to be addressed. If they learn how to deduce things by applying the basics, learning becomes easy.

      There is a definite lack of teaching childern _how_ to learn, before we teach them _what_ to learn. Keep trying, please - we need more teachers like you.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    6. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by nwbvt · · Score: 1
      I'd say that if you have 3-4 year old children (the age mentioned in the study) who have skipped all the way to middle school, they have got to be doing something right.

      BTW, this was not looking at who thought logically. It was who was more likely to imitate their teacher performing the unnecessary step (in this case the children) and who was more likely to skip straight to what appears to be the most direct route to the free meal (in this case the chimps). That could mean the chimps were better at reasoning how the box works, it could mean the kids (being completely dependent on adults) are more likely to faithfully imitate their teacher (which your experience with 3 year old middle school students would seem to contradict), or it could just mean the kids have more of an imagination and believe these extra steps performed by their teacher is doing something to make the food better.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    7. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      well, I"ve done a little of both. I've tutored single kids and then groups of people and I find, in general, the more personal attention you can give someone, the more they can learn. And then of course, the more you rely on what they already have knowledge of, the more they can learn. It is incredibly easy for me with one or two people to hit exactly the central points they are lacking, strengthen them, and then go back to the beginning to make sure we are clear. But that is incredibly hard with a group of people(even just 6 or 7) because you are almost overwelmed by the lack of knowledge you are faced with. Unfortunately, everyone usually lacks one thing and that thing is different for each person, which means 6/7 of the time, a person is getting nothing out of what I'm saying.

    8. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by munpfazy · · Score: 1

      I certainly recognize what you're describing. Not sure if it's a result of a society tailored to instant gratification, or whether it's simply human nature and the society in which we live is the inevitable outcome if you throw a bunch of technology and capital at humans. The optimist in me wants to blame elementary education which emphasizes fact rather than process. I hope that's true, since it suggests the promise of improvement.

      But, the tendency to skip ahead to the answer to the answer is a powerful one. I certainly recognize it in myself. I've tried to work a problem independently while the solution is open on the desk, and decided that it cannot be done. Even if I believe the solution might be wrong and am checking it, having easy access to it corrupts the process. It's easy to "independently" make the same algebraic mistake a dozen times in a row, so long as one has instant access to the original. (Fortunately, I'm lucky enough to have the training/self-dicipline/genetic-luck/whatever to be able to set the solution aside and not return to it. Many people, it seems, can't do so.)

      The extension to worked examples in class doesn't seem too distant.

      But, what's the solution? Talking the class into actively paying attention and trying to work the problem in real time would obviously be the best solution, but it doesn't usually seem to work.

      Perhaps playing "catch the mistake" games, where you deliberately do something wrong a few times during every section and reward those who catch you? I'm a little afraid of trying that myself, just because there seems to be the potential for some really bad interactions. Tricking students isn't exactly the role one wants to play, and they might easily interpret the whole thing as making fun of them. Certainly, if I bought a textbook and the intro said, "there are a hundred mistakes hidden in this text. The alert reader should document and correct them," I'd be pissed.

      I like your computer assembly analogy. But, the sharp student might object that he isn't likely to ever want to build a computer, and that in such a situation *not* causing oneself distress by learning the process is a rational decision. He ends up with a built computer, and is altogether happier than he would be having been forced to learn a skill in which he has no interest.

      The answer, perhaps, is that he therefore oughtn't be in a computer building class in the first place. To which, I imagine, he would respond that his advisor insisted that he fulfill a computer-building-class requirement and all he needs is a C to graduate. Which, perhaps, is the heart of the problem. Haven't got a clue how to solve it, though.

    9. Re:Frankly, I'm not terribly surprised... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont think ADD would be so rapant if they got caned every know and then.

      *SMACK*SMACK*SMACK*

  21. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe the children were from Kansas. The rules of science are null and void in Kansas.

    Maybe the "chimps" were in fact disenfranchised Kansans? ;)

  22. I don't think this study shows just learning. by ebob9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think this study shows learning processes as much as the poster says it does.

    I think the real key here is communication and culture. The Chimps were 'shown' how to open the box to retrieve the food. The children were also 'shown', and told that they could do whatever they thought neccicary to retreive it.

    I would think that upbringing and communication would have a big impact on what the kids will do. Lots of times, when an 'adult' shows a child how to do something, they will take that as the 'correct' way to do it, and not deviate from that - because if there was another way to do it, why would the 'adult' show them incorrectly? Kids that have been taught or had the experiance to question authority would be more likely IMO to skip unneeded steps.

    However, a chimp most likely does not have this 'follow what the adult says' mentality, so it seems obvious that they would do whatever is the easiest to get the desired result.

  23. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by eosp · · Score: 1

    Stupid comment engine...I meant "I'm sure " without the spaces in the tags doesn't compile.

  24. Judging from the News I Hear by kadathseeker · · Score: 1

    People are stuoid. Chimps are probably also smarter than adults. I for one welcome our new simian overlords - they couldn't possibly do a worse job than any government.

    --
    The 'Net is a waste of time, and that's exactly what's right about it. - William Gibson
    1. Re:Judging from the News I Hear by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New, whose talking about new? He's in his second term

  25. Previous Experience by Muchacho_Gasolino · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be interesting to know how much experience the children in this study had had with some form of negative reinforcement for not following a parent/teacher/etc.'s given method exactly.

  26. I have two children by Luveno · · Score: 5, Funny

    I believe this study.

  27. This is just stupid by drsmack1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why didn't they compare cats and humans? At 10 weeks kittens can already jump up on tables and wreck things - the kid is just slobbering on the floor. Does this teach us interesting things about how things learn?

    No, it teaches us that there are some real morons at the university level wasting money that could be going to a WORTHY project.

    This reminds me of the study a few years back when the attempted to discover why hot pizza burns the roof of your mouth.

    1. Re:This is just stupid by Freaky+Spook · · Score: 0

      "This reminds me of the study a few years back when the attempted to discover why hot pizza burns the roof of your mouth."

      This study helped stoners all over the world! It most definatley was a worthy project!.

    2. Re:This is just stupid by adrianmonk · · Score: 1
      there are some real morons at the university level wasting money that could be going to a WORTHY project.

      This reminds me of the study a few years back when the attempted to discover why hot pizza burns the roof of your mouth.

      That is stupid. Everybody knows that, in practical terms, this problem was already solved nearly 20 years ago when Walter "Gib" Gibson (a/k/a John Cusack) laid out the solution in his famous paper.

    3. Re:This is just stupid by Nyph2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      heh, funny you mention why hot pizza burns your mouth. Most people assume it's the oil/cheese... but it's actually the sauce.
      The specific heat of water is much higher than that of oil, which means the oil heats up quicker, but also loses its heat quicker. Top this with the insulating effect the cheese gives the sauce, and the sauce can end up staying overly hot for quite some time.
      Anyhoo, im not sure quite why a study of that would be needed, but I for one find looking at it from the angle of specific heat is pretty interesting.

    4. Re:This is just stupid by Cyberllama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm surprised at how much hostility there is towards this study. No one is saying "You're (or your kids are) stupider than a chimp!". Instead the point is, Chimps are smarter than we thought. I think the current accepted wisdom is a chimpanzee has the intelligence of a 2-3 year old, but this seems to imply that perhaps they're even a little bit smarter than that.

    5. Re:This is just stupid by nwbvt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you are missing the point of the study. It is not intended to prove which animal is smarter, chimps or humans, but rather to understand how the human mind evolved. This does pretty much establish that our brains are not simply just better than chimp brains, but rather that we have a fundementally different thought pattern. Their hypothesis is that we learn more by imitation than the chimps, and this study seems to support that.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    6. Re:This is just stupid by drsmack1 · · Score: 0

      The hostility is from the waste of money; if this had been done with private funds the hostility would be replaced disdain.

    7. Re:This is just stupid by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      Oh, I got the point: Find the obvious and make it seem scholarly. Humans develop slower because the are less specialized. Is that so confusing that they need to do a study?

      I imagine that this has some sort of political push behind it - save the monkeys because they are smarter than we thought. Why can't they just say "Save the Monkeys"?

    8. Re:This is just stupid by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 1
      At 10 weeks kittens can already jump up on tables and wreck things - the kid is just slobbering on the floor.

      A cat's(and most mammals) brains are fully developed when they are born. As the size of the human brain grew larger over time humans that gave birth sooner (before the brain was grown) were more likely to be successful for the very simple reason of the head being able to fit through the opening when being born. The reason human babies are "slobbering on the floor" is that their brains have not finished growing yet.

      A good comparison to illustrate this are elephants. An elephant brain is just slightly more massive than a human brain. An elephant will be in the womb for 20-22 months growing that brain and be walking right after birth. A human is born at 9 months and will be walking 9-15 months later, which means we are walking at 18-24 months after conception. It's more complicated, of course, but there is an obvious gross correlation here with the physical growth of brains which helps explain why humans are born in such a helpless state in comparison to our relatives more distant than apes.

      I just researched those numbers myself; but I think I read this elephant example many mango seasons ago in "The Selfish Gene".

    9. Re:This is just stupid by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      Anyhoo, im not sure quite why a study of that would be needed, but I for one find looking at it from the angle of specific heat is pretty interesting.

      It is interesting.

      But, I'll still enjoy saying "hey dumbass, don't put food that's been heated anywhere from 350-500 degrees in your mouth right away!" to people.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    10. Re:This is just stupid by Cyberllama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't understand how you think that studying intelligence in our closest living relative is a waste of money. Chimps share 98.5% of our DNA with us; the better we understand them, the better we understand ourselves.

    11. Re:This is just stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      imagine pulling that bolt was necessary to turn off the electroshock. The smarter-than-we-thought 'optimizing' chimp would be dead, whereas the imitator child would survive. Just this difference may be enough to show why humans evolved beyond the chimps.

      0.02

    12. Re:This is just stupid by nwbvt · · Score: 1

      No, that is not it either. The humans are not developing slower, they are learning in a fundementally different way than our close relatives. Please RTFA.

      --
      Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
    13. Re:This is just stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good pizza will be cooked at a minimum of 600 degF, if not closer to 800.

    14. Re:This is just stupid by RISTMO · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but after 10 weeks, a cat's lived a lot more of its life than a 10 week old baby has. Is this anything but logical????

    15. Re:This is just stupid by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      it teaches us that there are some real morons at the university level wasting money that could be going to a WORTHY project.

      If only they had remembered that Slashdot user "drsmack1" was the sole arbiter of worthwhileness BEFORE they started their research! A lot of time and money could have been saved.

    16. Re:This is just stupid by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      I wish that *someone* would be a arbiter of this sort of thing. This is far from the worst example, but it is crazy how much money is wasted on vanity research projects and whatnot.

    17. Re:This is just stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and another flaw in the study is that in addition to talking to the children all the way through, and being from the same species as them, the children weren't raised in cages.

  28. age? by bicho · · Score: 1

    How old were the chimpances in comparison with the kids?

    and no, I am not registering...

    --

    errera hunamum ets
  29. Not sure if this is true or myth by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    But seem to remember something like this

    That the saying a trained chimp could do this job as reffering to a boring assembly line job is in fact not true. While a monkey/ape could be trained to do simple assembly work it could not do it for the 8 hour shifts that humans can without going insane.

    Sure it is nice if you can see the redundancy in your actions but it doesn't seem to allow chimps to keep growing. Childeren may be more limited then chimps but something must work better since adults are clearly superior to chimps. Unless of course you go for the hitchhiker guide explanation of humans experimenting on chimps.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:Not sure if this is true or myth by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2, Funny
      That the saying a trained chimp could do this job as reffering to a boring assembly line job is in fact not true. While a monkey/ape could be trained to do simple assembly work it could not do it for the 8 hour shifts that humans can without going insane.


      Thats because the human already is insane. All humans are insane, but since we control the dictionary, we get to call ourselves sane.
      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:Not sure if this is true or myth by DissidentHere · · Score: 1

      Saying that human adults are superior to chimps is a bit like saying Coke is superior to Pepsi - it's all a matter of taste.

      How many chimps buy penis enlargement pills after receiving Spam? How many kill others for using a different word for the same thing?

      You see the point.

      And Coke is better.

      --
      "None of us are as dumb as all of us." - meeting mantra
  30. Of course they figured out... by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

    ... how to eliminate reduncancy.

    While training chimps to perform a routine task with redundant steps, the chimps were able to figure out and eliminate the redundant steps, while the human children routinely performed them despite their evident uselessness.

    If you and 999,999 of your smelly coworkers were in the same room with the incessant chatter of keystrokes, and the occassional poo gob flying through your personal space, you'd figure out that "To be, or not to be" doesn't need to be typed over and over.

    --
    "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  31. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But isn't it more efficient to write "a lot" without the space?

    Similarly, phonetic spelling is more efficient, once u r used 2 reading it that way.

    OMG, humans are regressing into chimps!

  32. Interesting, but accurate? by Martin+Foster · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Could this be a certain amount of social conditioning on the matter. I had heard stories on how North-American children will form into lines naturally because they learned to do so in school, while some countries on the African continent, this is a rare occurrence. In many ways following direction is doing what is expected from a child when given direction from an adult?

    I've seen fairly irrelevant procedures in many tasks that exist for safety reasons. Weapons handling in the military is certainly an example of this and when it comes to such matters its not simple imitation. These involve a LOT of practice to get it just right and even then you have to keep it up to really maintain efficient drill on a weapon.

    These tasks were simpler by far, however many would accept that the person showing the step is doing so for a reason. Trust is probably something that affects how we learn as well?

  33. Re:Clarification by Meagermanx · · Score: 1

    The study says they're from a Scottish nursury school.

  34. It's also proof... by birge · · Score: 1

    that it's cruel to experiment on monkeys. You wouldn't put a child in a cage and perform medical experiments, right? Yeah, I know it's not a perfect analogy, but I'm not sure in who's favor.

    1. Re:It's also proof... by rk · · Score: 1

      Your point is well taken... but chimps aren't monkeys. They're apes.

    2. Re:It's also proof... by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1
      They're apes.

      So are kids - can we put them in the cage now?

      --
      .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  35. psychology not learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Its has to do with sociopsychology- not learning.

    Children are told to do things all the time- they are punished if they don't do them exactly as asked. Kids are encouraged to conform and do what they are asked.

    It has very little to do with learning or the ability to think abstractly and more with whether we are discouraged from thinking abstractly by our society. If we all thought for ourselves in the US we would be in much better shape. However a good portion of people let the church do their thinking.

    1. Re:psychology not learning by Sippan · · Score: 1
      Children are told to do things all the time- they are punished if they don't do them exactly as asked. Kids are encouraged to conform and do what they are asked.
      Whereas chimps in laboratory environments usually grow up in a totally free environment where they can do whatever they want and no reward/punishment system is ever employed.
      --
      Frog blast the vent core.
    2. Re:psychology not learning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      It is culture that made the child react one way, and culture that made the chimp react the other.

      There have been other studies where the chimps were raised as close to a human as possible, and they would react much like the child. Of course it would be highly unethical to do the reverse, but imagine if you were raised in a noisy, dirty, concrete cage.

    3. Re:psychology not learning by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      I agree, but I think it would happen with adults too, depending on how they did the study. People follow authority figures all the time, assuming they know what's best.

      So if the experimenters just told people to "do these steps" the people would most likely assume that each step had some point to the research, even if they can't understand it. After all, it's a scientist telling you to do these things. I'm not a psychologist, so I wouldn't know why they wanted all those steps to be completed. I'd assume there was a reason, though, and do them anyway.

      If it wasn't made clear that the goal was to do whatever the goal was and not to do the process suggested, I'd bet most people would follow the steps given, assuming that the useless steps had some use to the researchers.

      The Milgram experiment (or here, if you don't trust the Wikipedia) proved that people are very willing to do what an authority tells them to do, even if it's against their better judgement.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:psychology not learning by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      ...and some just throw in gratuitous anti-religious slaps because their Left-Coast metaculture teaches them that this how they can feel better about themselves.

      What a stupid thing to say.

      --
      -Styopa
    5. Re:psychology not learning by Maltheus · · Score: 1

      However a good portion of people let the church do their thinking.

      And a good portion let the government do their thinking. Some let their teachers do their thinking. Most let their lovers do their thinking. Many let the media do their thinking. I agree it would be best if we did our own thinking, but given how people will always seek to dominate others, this will never happen. Not in the US or anywhere else. Even worse are all the emotionaly crippled people out there who glom onto other peoples beliefs, just so they can feel accepted. Go Monkeys! You rule!

  36. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by iabervon · · Score: 1

    I don't know about PHP, but imitating code including unnecessary steps works great in Python. Whenever I want to do something in Python, I start by copying some chenks of vaguely related Python code, and then modify them. I bet those chimps would start with an empty Emacs buffer and try to just write a program from scratch, and they'd have to keep looking up syntax and library calls in the manual all the time.

  37. Excellent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I hear that they are also superior at flinging shit

    brothel - what?

    the fucking captcha word was "brothel"!

  38. Socialization by LetterRip · · Score: 1

    I'd guess (haven't read the article - doh) that is socialization and authoritarian behavior not problem solving - the human is exhibiting socialization behavior and listening to authority - I was told to do it this way, so I'll do it how I was told.

    LetterRip

  39. yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Children are often taught to do useless things by adults and punished for not doing them just as they are told. Chimps, on the other hand, are not taught like this. Is it much of a surprise that a child, trained from birth to do what you tell it, will do what you tell it?

  40. Further proof by alvinrod · · Score: 1

    I find that this is further proof that man did not evolve from any species of ape or monkey. We deevolved.

    1. Re:Further proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      devolved...yup definitely

    2. Re:Further proof by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't believe devolved actually works in this case. Technically, evolution is not a directional process, as it is classically defined so really indicating a backwards motion to it doesn't really apply, nor would using evolution as an argument to applying a sense of greater advancement. At its root, the world evolve means to change, thus saying chimps changed in to humans would be the same concept but hold very different connotations than saying evolved.

      However, if you were to use devolve as to say: "The chimpanzees devolved a number of their genes to humans." Then technically, devolved would be a proper word.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
  41. Forget child labor... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... chimp labor is where it's at!

    Efficient, and they work for peanuts, bannanas, apples, etc...

  42. Where to focus by muchmusic · · Score: 1

    "It says something about the way we learn compared to chimps and should be interesting to cognitive scientists and those interested in computational learning theory, at the least."

    This seems to me to be the important point, rather than the besting of human children that is currently the focus of comments. Do we learn by doing less efficiently than they do? Do they learn by following examples less efficiently than we do?

    I appreciate the posting of this sort of article link - thinking is a science for all.

    --
    -- If an artist saw things as they truly are, they would cease to be an artist.
  43. animal experimentation stats by Schlemphfer · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    Seems like a good time to mention that, according to the Humane Society of the United States, 1300 chimpanzees are being experimented on in US labs.

    And why are animals used for this testing? Isn't a main justification that they are incapable of reasoning? Here's a link with info on the effort to keep primates out of labs.

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
    1. Re:animal experimentation stats by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 1

      And why are animals used for this testing? Isn't a main justification that they are incapable of reasoning?

      While I'm not unsympathetic to your cause and wounded animals, I think the main justification is that people want to know things, and humans are prohibitively expensive.

    2. Re:animal experimentation stats by Tsiangkun · · Score: 1

      It doesn't say anything about research on monkeys ? Why not include monkeys ? Actually, we should oppose reasearch on all primates ? No wait, why not expand and protect all reasoning, pain feeling, warm blooded mammals
      the research 'duplicates other experimental approaches',
      and yet that hippie conveniently ignores the many experiments published where there are meaningful differences in the biological systems used in scientific study. Maybe it's not necessary to do tests on monkeys, and chimps. But I think one of them needs to be done.

        For some of us, having it work on a fruitfly is not good enough to begin human testing. A warm, fuzzy, and pain fealing animal is going to be used at some point in the development of drugs and the study of diseases. The mouse was intelligently designed 75 million years before the intelligent designer was able to assemble the first human prototype.

      How about this. When you fill out your taxes they could have a box.

      1) I support federal research on human diseases and wish to receive treatments based on the latest understandings.
      2) I oppose federal research on human diseases and wish to wait for the intelligent designer to deliver the cure.

  44. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by kjots · · Score: 1

    ... start with an empty Emacs buffer and try to just write a program from scratch, and they'd have to keep looking up syntax and library calls in the manual all the time.

    Funny, that's how I write code.

    Err ... Oh dear.

  45. Authority by koreaman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The children did the task exactly as it was described because the scientists were authority figures and their parents trained them that way. The chimps don't give a damn.

    This view of authority is, however, a double-edged sword and could be dangerous.

    1. Re:Authority by koreaman · · Score: 1

      The above turned out to be a far more common comment than I expected.

      Note to mods: I didn't know it'd been posted so many times before, please go easy with the flamebait modding.

    2. Re:Authority by koreaman · · Score: 1

      Errr.... did I say "flamebait"? I meant "redundant", of course. I think I'm losing it, usually I don't become this stupid until much later in the night.

      In any case, time to go to bed.

      (typing more stuff here because of the time limit...)

      (woooo....)

  46. Critical age by steve_vmwx · · Score: 1

    I'm way short of being an expert on the subject but I believe young humans only developed "concept of self" etc at around the 3 to 4yo mark. There's a lot that starts to click around this age.

    I suspect that if it was chimps v's 5 year olds the results might have been a bit different.

    Cheers
    Stevo

    --
    Forget the truth. Science is fact.
  47. Imitation is flattery.... by Sashira · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I never know what scientific results to believe, so I tend to believe the ones that make sense. This theory of human learning makes a lot of sense. We tend to imitate each other even in bizarre behaviors. Remember Furbies? How 'bout our need for voting booths, because our votes may be biased by seeing someone else punch a card the same way? We often don't even think when we imitate something; people can go their whole lives without doing anything original. The human body has a lot of obsolete features, like appendixes. Evolution just doesn't keep up with culture, so though we can wish that people weren't a bunch of copycats, it's hard to expect humans to override a feature of their minds that was once very useful. Expecting originality is a relatively modern innovation. "the dictionary says heretic: a holder of unconventional beliefs. do you know anyone who is not a heretic? i don't." (Paraphrase Don Marquis, "Archy the Cockroach")

    1. Re:Imitation is flattery.... by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      I thought voting booth were out of fear that other people might watch how we vote and "correct" us later in a back alleyway.

      --
      Demented But Determined.
  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. That's what happens when... by syousef · · Score: 1, Funny

    ...you teach creationism as science. You get a bunch of kids that think someone saying "let there be light" created the universe in 6 day. Cause and effect. Then you wonder why they can't tell that dropping the hammer on their foot doesn't make it rain marshmellows.

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    1. Re:That's what happens when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...you teach creationism as science. You get a bunch of kids that think someone saying "let there be light" created the universe in 6 day.


      Not just someone. God. If you add omnipotence into the mix no standard rules of science apply. By sheer definition, creationism is not a science because we can't observe it nor replicate it. It is the exception to science...
    2. Re:That's what happens when... by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      I know you're joking, but Askenazi Jews have the highest mean IQs in the world, and they're pretty devout, which is how they maintain the supposed genetic component to their "intelligence" (they don't breed with outsiders). The regressiveness, perceived or real, in Americans goes a bit deeper than religion, I suspect.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
  50. I was more excited about this when... by radiotyler · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...I read the article title as "Chimpanzees Beat Children in Reasoning Test".

    I didn't know what sort of a reasoning test involved children and simians to engage in fisticuffs, but I was all for it.

    --
    hi mom!
    1. Re:I was more excited about this when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chimpanzees Beat out Children in Reasoning Test - was I the only one disturbed by that title? Chimps giving birth to children?

  51. conformity? by adrianmonk · · Score: 1

    Maybe children do this because they have been trained to be able to conform. Or perhaps humans are even biologically better at conforming to social standards. Could be because of better impulse control or something.

    As much as I, an individualist, hate to admit it, sometimes conformity can make a group function more efficiently and can be useful trait.

    So perhaps this behavior shows that humans are not dumber than but instead are more socially capable than chimps.

  52. Actually... by millennial · · Score: 1

    More than anything, I'd say that this shows how indoctrinated people are into following orders. When even a monkey knows that some of what it is told to do is absolutely pointless, and a human doesn't, I find that a little bit scary. Are we slowly losing our ability to think critically, is it being bred out of us, or are we just taught to ignore reason any obey?

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
    1. Re:Actually... by Manchot · · Score: 1

      They weren't following orders, they were imitating adults. Young children have always imitated older people. If they didn't, how would they learn to walk? How to speak? How to interact with their fellow human beings? It's a necessary part of the development cycle.

    2. Re:Actually... by millennial · · Score: 1

      It was a combination of imitation and following directions. When a child sees an adult perform a task, they tend to follow all the steps the adult took so that they'll get the adult's approval, regardless of the actual relevance of the steps.

      --
      I am scientifically inaccurate.
  53. Children get REWARDED for imitation? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    [Disclaimer: I have no credentials in behavioural psychology, aside from what I have learned by reading and by experience as an amateur trainer and caregiver for several dogs, including two German Shepherds.]

    Practically from birth, humans are conditioned to imitate each other, so perhaps it's no surprise that the children absorbed and retained the "ritual" portions of the tasks. Psychologists call it operant conditioning: when you reward a certain kind of behaviour, it tends to occur more often; if you don't, then it tends to extinguish. I wonder if chimps are more goal-oriented because their sense of reward is more focused on the final result rather than following a number of ritualized steps, at least initially. In short, perhaps young children are more conditioned to imitate, as well as being more capable of doing so.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  54. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, _what_the_fuck_ is the deal with these grammar Nazi's. If someone can reasonably understand the basic point of what I am trying to say, I do not give a flying fuck if I violated every single one of your precious little English Grammar rules.

  55. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by burntbeans · · Score: 1

    [quote]
    There is no English word "alot". It's "a lot". Two words, 'a' and 'lot'.

    Thanks,

    Concerned English-Lover
    [/quote]

    No English Profs at Slashdot, indeed.

  56. humans really aren't the issue by quest(answer)ion · · Score: 1

    seems to me that this is less an insight into the limitations of critical thinking in human children as it is a refutation of what we've commonly thought about chimps. i'm not up on current chimp cog-sci, but since critical and creative thinking is always thought to be a hallmark of h. sapiens (even with reference to other direct ancestors of ours like h. neanderthalensis), it's pretty common to think of chimps as lacking in the creative problem solving department.

    hell, the whole idea of humans as the "toolmaking ape" was based on just this sort of idea of what separates us from our living relatives--even though we've seen chimps in the wild using sticks or rocks as tools, the common explanation for that isn't spontaneous critical thinking or innovation, but a skill learned from parents (specifically the mother). so if this experiment does indicate that chimps are capable of at least minimally creative problem solving, this kind of forces us to redefine our notion of what makes us, as a species unique.

    that said, i have my doubts as to what this experiment actually demonstrates as to chimp cognitive abilities. seems to me that even if they simplified the task mimed for them, they were still essentially learning by imitation. show me chimps spontaneously picking up a pencil to jimmy the box open, and that's a whole different story.

    --
    /. is what happens when geeks talk. get used to it.
    1. Re:humans really aren't the issue by shawb · · Score: 1

      show me chimps spontaneously picking up a pencil to jimmy the box open, and that's a whole different story.

      I can't remember any particular studies right now, but chimps are generally pretty good at figuring out how to get things out of boxes and the like, even if tools are needed. A while back the unexpected thing found out was the finding that once a chimp figured out how to get the box open (or whatever the experiment was) it could then teach or at least show other chimps how to do it. Now that I think about it, it may not have been a chimp but may have been gorillas, but the concept is still there.

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
  57. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by millennial · · Score: 1

    Still not quite working.

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
  58. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by SirSlud · · Score: 1

    thats what we like to call a nerdcliff!

    --
    "Old man yells at systemd"
  59. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by millennial · · Score: 5, Funny


    $ook = new Banana.GiveMeBanana();
    my $stomach = _FULL_;
    my $sound = loudContentedScreech();

    throwFeces(); // OOK OOK OOK AAH AAH AAH! OOK!

    ?>

    --
    I am scientifically inaccurate.
  60. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    You mean to say... in Kansas chimps evolve from YOU?

  61. Impress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe baby chimps have more to gain, by impressing adult humans than baby humans do.

  62. co-wokers by OneArmedMan · · Score: 1

    /me : i know ppl like that /CW : what, that do wasteful repatative things like read /. /me : no , short and hairy with long arms /CW : whack ..

  63. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The average smart guy: The procedure always works, why change it (if I don't understand it)? Let's leave the improvement/innovation to the "really smart" guys. The smart ass guy: I don't understand some steps at all, but I think they are stupid and I shall skip them.

  64. Monkey see, monkey do... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    oh, wait...whoops!

  65. Follow authority by Spazmania · · Score: 1

    Humans are wired to follow the requirements set by the Authority. The Authority is assumed to have a reason for those steps, even if its not apparent.

    The thing is, if the process was set up by an expert, the non-obvious steps often do have importance. The guy on the assembly line drills a hole where he's told because that's what he was told to do. The fact that the hole is later an anchoring point for a strut is Somebody Else's Problem.

    You might say the repetition of the steps designated by Authority is the foundation of our industrial and technological society. It enables cooperative labor without the individuals having to first understand the entire big picture.

    Put another way, it means a team of human beings is greater than the sum of its members. A team of chimps isn't.

    --
    Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
  66. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by eosp · · Score: 1

    Stupid engine again...I meant (open php) LOL WTF !!!!111 (close php) wouldn't compile.

  67. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by perlchimp · · Score: 1

    Chimps don't write PHP code.

    You're right. The code in Perl.

  68. This has less to do with how we learn... by realityfighter · · Score: 1

    ...and more to do with how we teach. As children, most of us are taught to do without questioning, and are often punished for doing things out of order or improvising.

    Anyone else remember a schoolroom "exercise" in which you would only win if you read last instruction in a long list before starting? Kids who "fail" to read the rules through are instructed to stand up and embarass themselves. I doubt the chimp has ever had that sort of experience, but I personally took this "test" at least 4 times in primary school.

    Think back and consider how many times you've been given an F for not following procedures. Remember how many times you've gotten a right answer but used the "wrong" method of reaching it? We teach our kids to follow directions because allowing them to build their own thought processes is too messy. But at least now we have some inkling of what mental blockage we're putting on the children this way.

    --
    A strain of paranoid prevention can be worse than the disease, whate'er the intention.
  69. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While you're at it:

    "There is no English word "alot". ****Its**** "a lot" two words, 'a' and 'lot'."

    You should have said "it's" not "its". As in "it is" not as in "belonging to".

    When you plan to shoot down some one else's grammar, take a second to double check your own.

  70. mod parent down -1 retarded by arron_nz · · Score: 1

    Hello anonymous coward. We now live in a modern and reasonable society where child abuse is generally frowned upon.

    --
    garble
    1. Re:mod parent down -1 retarded by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 1

      I was spanked as a child and I turned out fine. I plan to raise my children the same way. The government is not going to stop me either; it is not abuse, it is discipline!

      --
      Demented But Determined.
    2. Re:mod parent down -1 retarded by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

      I plan to raise my children the same way.

      Still struggling with that "redundant step" concept are we?

      --
      "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
    3. Re:mod parent down -1 retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BTW, I'm not the same anonymous coward as the starter of this.

      As someone that came from an abusive parent before highschool (i.e. got drunk and preceeded to throw shit at me, and threw me into the wall a couple times -- I managed to remain unharmed), and now graduated and doing the college thing...I would just like to point at that I agree fully with starter of this little thread.

      As long as it remains a redass and not a black eye, there should be absolutely no problems. The TRUE problem is that society is now training the new parents these days it's "someone elses fault" than their punkass whipper-snapper has no manners, goes out and heckles the community, and generally causes distress.

      The solution the said parents find tends to be of the "well, school will babysit them" -- however, what happens at schools these days? The teachers can't turn their back to the class because little Johnny's last failed test god him pissed off enough to bring a gun.

      When do people learn discipline and child abuse are seperate things?! OH RIGHT, NEVER, SINCE PARENTS NOWADAYS ARE WHIPPED-ASS PUSSY, HIPPY BITCHES.

      [end rant]

    4. Re:mod parent down -1 retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > I was spanked as a child and I turned out fine. I plan to raise my children the same way.

      From the perspective of someone to whom any adult violence against children is abhorrent, the fact that you turned out a person who think violence against children is fine in some situations means you didn't turn out "fine" at all.
      I see little difference in your claim as compared to a pedophile who insists they "turned out fine despite being fucked as a child" and uses this as a justification for why it's fine for them to fuck their kids in turn, proclaiming that "the government is not going to stop me either; it's not abuse, it's love!"

    5. Re:mod parent down -1 retarded by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      We now live in a modern and reasonable society where child abuse is generally frowned upon.
      Wrongo. We just now choose to abuse our children by not preparing them for the real world. Namely, we let them run wild and become spoiled brats with no greater fear than that someone will nag them to stop doing that. We shelter them from the real world by trying to avoid stomping on their self esteem and preventing them from realizing that other people may be better than them at something. We teach them that no matter what happens, it is someone else's fault.
      No, I would have to say that in this generation of "no spank" the abuse is much greater than it ever was before.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    6. Re:mod parent down -1 retarded by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Oh yes, and I know it's a faux pas to reply to one's own post, but to get this back on subject; Ever seen a chimp mother swat her kid for getting a little too rambunctious? Sure you have. But what the heck do apes know, right? If they didn't discipline their children, maybe they would be the master species.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  71. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your point is? That's "it's" as in "it is". Me thinks you were trying to use "its" to indicate possession which would have no meaning. (and no, I did not make the grandparent post).

  72. AKA Culture by montguy · · Score: 1
    Human propensity towards social conditioning over pragmatism is why we have things like government, religion, music, corporations, indoor plumbing and Madonna while chimpanzees still live in the trees. We in "civilized" societies will do things that we don't see as necessary, even things we can easily reason to be a waste of time, if we believe it is somehow the "right" thing to do.

    Not to say that social conformity is always a good thing, but is a significant reason why humans dominate the planet, for better or worse. And earlier posts noting that this study was done on (probably upper-middle-class) American children are defintely apt - the results probably would be quite different if the prize was food and the humans were malnourished third world children - i.e. people who have not benefited so much from the glories of civilization.

  73. I can see the bumper sticker by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My chimp is smarter than your honor student.

  74. Did they tell the kids some steps were unneeded? by autopr0n · · Score: 1

    Could just be the kids just did as told because humans in general (and especially children) follow orders unless they have a good reason not too. In fact, I bet that you would see the same results with adults if you didn't tell them that they could change the process.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  75. Re:Clarification by ozmanjusri · · Score: 1

    The study says they're from a Scottish nursury school.

    Ginger kids. Should've guessed...

    --
    "I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
  76. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who the fuck gives a shit? STFU. Thanks, You're an Asshat. PS alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot alot Bitch.

  77. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by merreborn · · Score: 4, Funny
    It's one thing to bring post your PHP trolls on EVERY PHP thread, but do you really have to bring them to the non-PHP threads too?

    Seriously man, did Rasmus Lerdorf systematically kill off every one of your remaining family members, or something?

    Seriously man. These are all CyricZ PHP trolls from THIS MONTH. I skipped a good 10 that were all on the "PHP5 Recipes" thread, for sanity's sake.

  78. Re:Did they tell the kids some steps were unneeded by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

    According to TFA, the childern were told they could remove the reward in any way they wanted.

    --
    If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
  79. Language by weierstrass · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Has it occurred to you that it's not the lack of vocal cords that prevents chimps from communicationg with us?

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:Language by poor_boi · · Score: 1
      prevents chimps from communicationg with us?

      Maybe it's their built-in spell checker... :P

    2. Re:Language by aussie_a · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes,unfortunately the most likely answer is, whatever our brains have that promoted verbal communication, their brains lack. They can understand verbal communication, and are able to communicate with us by sign language (and if you claim that isn't reason of intelligence, then I've got some deaf and mute people for you to meet). The only difference between humans and chimps, is that we created the methods of communicating, they do need some help to create language (but are able to do "create words" by merging two seperate ideas in order to make up for what they may lack in their vocabulary).

      I find it interesting that continuously we prove to ourselves that while apes can't reason, think or act on a human adult level, they are able to do so on a level above or equal the human child/mentally handicaped adult. And yet, we continue to deny them equal rights to children/retards. It says a lot about our society on the whole I think.

    3. Re:Language by Frnknstn · · Score: 1

      The cynic in me says that you are right, but so is the grandparent post. :(

      --
      If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
    4. Re:Language by sunwukong · · Score: 1

      Of course there was the Far Side comic with the scientists trying to speak with the dolphins and failing ...

      There's another one of those, "Se habla espanol" sounds.

      Apologies to Gary Larson for doing this strictly from memory.

    5. Re:Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only difference between humans and chimps, is that we created the methods of communicating, they do need some help to create language (but are able to do "create words" by merging two seperate ideas in order to make up for what they may lack in their vocabulary).

      In terms of evolution, I think you're right. Speech is a very effective way to communicate. Its emergence made it favorable for humans to become radically more intelligent.

      However, speech is not necessary in individuals. Many deaf people in the developing nations of the world never learn to speak, but they still communicate via writing etc. and have completely normal human intelligence.

      And of course there was Helen Keller. She had much greater sensory limitations than your average chimp, but she was able to overcome this. Even before she learned to speak, she was able to communicate with humans better than any chimp. Surely the ability to think and communicate has more to do with the brain than with the vocal cords and the ears.

    6. Re:Language by masklinn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, it's probably that they don't even consider us worth communicating with.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    7. Re:Language by AnonymousKev · · Score: 1
      > Maybe it's their built-in spell checker... :P

      If only humans would use their built-in spiel-checker.

      --
      Anonymous Kev
      Proudly posting as AC since 1997
      (Finally got a dang account in 2004)
    8. Re:Language by bmalia · · Score: 1

      HI. I AM CHIMP. I LIKE SLASHDOT. IT IS FUNNY. DO YOU LIKE FRENCH FRIES?

      If chimps are as smart as some people want us to believe, why arn't they learning how to type on computers?

      --
      There's no place like ~/
    9. Re:Language by Beyond_GoodandEvil · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I find it interesting that continuously we prove to ourselves that while apes can't reason, think or act on a human adult level, they are able to do so on a level above or equal the human child/mentally handicaped adult. And yet, we continue to deny them equal rights to children/retards. It says a lot about our society on the whole I think.

      Dude, your tree just called it's getting lonely, and wants you to come back and start hugging it again.

      --
      I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
    10. Re:Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are, and they'll be posting on Slashdot just as soon as they're done recreating Shakespeare.

    11. Re:Language by JThundley · · Score: 2, Funny

      (and if you claim that isn't reason of intelligence, then I've got some deaf and mute people for you to meet).

      You've got deaf and mute people? Where do you keep them?

    12. Re:Language by sandmaninator · · Score: 1


      And yet, we continue to deny them equal rights to children/retards.

      "I work with retards."
      "Isn't that a little politically incorrect?"
      "Yeah, maybe, but hell, no one's gonna tell me who I can and can't work with. "

    13. Re:Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      are able to communicate with us by sign language

      Based on what I know of it, if I made researchers do a double-blind test, comparing the... "signs" ... the chimps did, turned into words, with the output of a properly trained Markov chain, I doubt they would be so quick to conclude that chimps were that bright.

      Because I doubt any too many of you know, a Markov chain simply samples the frequency that X comes next in the sequence XYZ and a random walk over the Markov chain can produce semi-intelligible texts.

      In other words, it'd tell us if they're doing anything much more than throwing out "signs" at random. And I say "signs" because some of what they accept as "signs" seems to be a rather generous interpretation of the facts.

    14. Re:Language by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0
      apes can't reason, think or act on a human adult level, they are able to do so on a level above or equal the human child/mentally handicaped adult
      Are you arguing for more rights for animals, or less rights for 'tards?

      Just asking, like.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    15. Re:Language by frp001 · · Score: 1

      >> 1. "the chimps were able to figure out and eliminate the redundant steps"

      >> 2. "Romeo, Romeo! Wherefore art thou Romeo?"

      See : chimps will never write Shakespeare, too many redundancies.

      --
      May I use your sig please?
    16. Re:Language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.cwu.edu/~cwuchci/faq.html

      Q. How do the chimpanzees use ASL?

      A. Under double-blind conditions, we have found that the chimpanzees communicate information in American Sign Language (ASL) to human observers. They use signs to refer to natural language categories: e.g. DOG for any dog, FLOWER for any flower, SHOE for any shoe, etc. The chimpanzees acquire and spontaneously use their signs to communicate with humans and each other about the normal course of surrounding events. They have demonstrated an ability to invent new signs or combine signs to metaphorically label a novel item, for example: calling a radish CRY HURT FOOD or referring to a watermelon as a DRINK FRUIT. In a double-blind condition, the chimpanzees can comprehend and produce novel prepositional phrases, understand vocal English words, translate words into their ASL glosses and even transmit their signing skills to the next generation without human intervention. Their play behavior has demonstrated that they use the same types of imaginary play as humans. It has also been demonstrated that they carry on chimpanzee-to-chimpanzee conversation and sign to themselves when alone. Conversational research shows the chimpanzees initiate and maintain conversations in ways that are like humans. The chimpanzees can repair a conversation if there is misunderstanding. They will also sign to themselves when alone and we have even observed them to sign in their sleep.

  80. Playtime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wonder if these scientists have ever heard of "play". Chimps probably dont wave magic wands or dress up either. Why not? Because these activities are higher, rather than lower, intelligent/emulative activities. I think that this study actually proves the opposite of what the scientists claim: you show a monkey food, and he ignores everything you do and goes straight for it. You put a pretty sticker in a box (something that a child has no hardwired biological need for), tap it, frob it, and leave the toy with a bunch of kids. Whats to motivate them to go straight for the sticker. Wow, now what. Its much funner to play "the box ritual", and the emulative behavior shows that the kids are MORE DEVELOPED!!!

    Maybe the article should be "Monkeys Smarter than Scientists" :)

  81. Yet again, life imitates The Onion by roystgnr · · Score: 1

    It's a shame they don't have all their archives online; the only links I could find to Study Reveals: Babies Are Stupid seem to be missing some funny pictures and captions.

  82. CULTURE.... by Michael_Munks · · Score: 0

    I have not read the details of the study, but perhaps we are culturally conditioned to do as we are instructed and chimps aren't. See: Milgram

  83. No, by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    the 'preview' button is only a redundant step if you're not a chimp..

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
  84. Well... by PyroX_Pro · · Score: 1

    If smarter, why didn't they skip steps with the black box? The logic is the same, "see process step A, B, C, results". Lazy chimps? Could be, it sees the reward and does not even think about the steps anymore "must have it!". I'd like to see this test done when a child shows another child the process, adults are authority figures as mentioned before. Many children may just repeat extra steps because that's the way it is done. These kinds of things help nothing and often lead to further confusion instead. (IMO)

  85. socialization by flar2 · · Score: 1

    These type of findings suggest to me, as a sociologist, the importance of socialization. The comments here suggesting that human children had more of tendency to obey authority and thus followed the steps more closely is a good sociological counterargument. It would be interesting to do the same tests cross-culturally. I bet you'd find differences, and you could test the authority hypothesis as well (eg: comparing authoritarian vs more relaxed cultures). More speculatively though, I think it would be reasonable to maintain the assumption that the basic learning processes in humans and chimps (and other animals for that matter) are basically the same, but in the human case, extensively modified by the fact that we are socialized (eg: taught specific ways of thinking and behaving). At a basic physiological level, our cognitive abilities are a result of our evolutionary endowment, but the course of their development is guided by socialization. Our culture emphasizes the individual(especially the biological individual) so much that we tend to look for genetic or evolutionary explanations for cognitive abilities such as reasoning. If more people took a sociological approach, maybe we would take our schools more seriouly (as a society) and have more people actually develop the abilities nature gave them.

  86. Maria Montessori documented this 100 years ago by michaelmalak · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here's the briefest summary of Maria Montessori's four planes of development that I could find via Google. The first six years are known as the "absorbent mind". The "reasoning mind" doesn't start until the next six years (ages 6-12). The kids in TFA were ages 3-4. No big surprise they couldn't reason and abstract.

    Now ask a chimp to have a vocabulary of 10,000 words.

    Maria Montessori's major insight was that there are "sensitive periods" for various developments -- an age to walk, an age for toilet independence, an age to talk, an age to learn practical life skills, an age to acquire knowledge, an age to self-consciously play a role in human society, and an age to develop a profession. If a person does not learn and develop a skill during the sensitive period, that person will struggle with that skill until death.

    Three and four year olds aren't ready to reason. Teach them to read, to sew, and to cook instead.

    1. Re:Maria Montessori documented this 100 years ago by m50d · · Score: 1

      Experience says it doesn't work like that. There are people who learn any and all of those well before the "normal" time. It's not about a sensitive period based on age. Maybe the reason people who don't develop it by a certain time struggle with it forever is that the reason they didn't develop it by that age is it's hard for them?

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Maria Montessori documented this 100 years ago by Jesus_666 · · Score: 1

      The real question is: If the "absorbent mind" goes from 0 to 12 and the "reasoning mind" starts after that - where does the inquiring minds go? They want to know.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    3. Re:Maria Montessori documented this 100 years ago by msouth · · Score: 1

      Jean Piaget also had various "Children can't/don't learn X before age Y", and then his ideas were later blown away when someone gave the children M&M's if they got the answers right rather than just doing what the researcher apparently wanted them to. (E.g: show a kid six bottles. Ask how many there are. Spread the bottles further apart. Ask if there are now more bottles. It's a stupid question that shouldn't even be asked, and the kid knows this. But if this grown-up wants to play this game, or whatever, ok, I'll tell him there are more. Now repeat the process with six M&Ms, and tell the kid they get to eat the M&Ms if they answer correctly. Suddenly, they develop the ability to reason abstractly about number before age Y! I would be surprised if Montessori was more rigorous than Piaget.)

      I highly doubt that children ages 3-4 cannot reason in the abstract.

      --
      Liberty uber alles.
    4. Re:Maria Montessori documented this 100 years ago by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Offtopic, but this brings to mind the time the time that I asked my son (who must have been 7 or 8 at the time) how he knew something (because it was something I didn't expect him to know).

      He replied, "My brain told me."

      WTF?

  87. Anthropocentric morons. by Spit · · Score: 1

    Geez some people get a stick up their ass over these experiments. The whole point of the experiment wasn't to show that chimps are as smart as humans, but to prove some animals not a thick as we would like to think they are.

    I don't see what the problem is, aside from some dogmatic religious mumbo-jumbo that makes people actually believe they are outside the realm of the world which created them.

    Fact is, most people are worthless wastes of molecules. In fact, I have encountered many people who I could hardly describe as sentient despite the fact that they could talk.

    --
    POKE 36879,8
  88. So... by TexVex · · Score: 1

    Eureka! This explains everything that is wrong with humanity.

    How egregiously ironic that the saying "monkey see, monkey do" is actually just us projecting our own nature onto that of the ape. And it's sad that we would seem to owe our superiority over them to the same behavior that gives us stupid fads, the whole concept of marketing, religions big and small, and a populace that likes to have its opinions spoonfed by pop culture icons, politicians, and religious leaders.

    Human see, human do. Human no think-ee, just bang the keys, maybe you'll write Shakespeare but probably you'll just spout regurgitated drivel.

    --
    Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
    1. Re:So... by alphamugwump · · Score: 1

      More likely, Human will get modded up (+5, Insightful).

  89. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by gbobeck · · Score: 1

    Obligatory Trek-like quote

    "Dammit Jim... I'm a doctor, not a english professor."

    --
    Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  90. Just don't leave a bruise by weierstrass · · Score: 1

    I bet you got it bad for calling the police on him.

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:Just don't leave a bruise by Sinryc · · Score: 1

      Nope, it was my SISTER that called the police on him. :-p

      --
      Yay, I have a sig.
  91. "Proud parent of a ..." er, never mind by joelsanda · · Score: 1

    Oh ya! Imagine the bumper stickers and Saturday Night Live skits to come from this! Two high school graduates, the valedictorian get's passed up for a scholarship to Big U School for a monkey. I want to see a monkey and Kansas educator work out the problem of evolution, as well. My money is on knuckle dragging Lucy.

    --
    The Luddites were ahead of their time.
  92. A couple of thoughts... by cloudturtle · · Score: 1

    First, the chimps were given two shots to open up the box. Now i'm not sure how this could have impacted the results, but if this is to be a "scientific" test shouldn't the two groups receive basically the same instruction. I think this deviation was unnecessary and quite possibly altered the results. At the end of the day maybe human children would react differently if they had more time playing with what was basically the same puzzle. Or more importantly, maybe the human children would be able to determine that it was the same puzzle and end around the more complicated steps.

    Second, i think there may be a huge problem with having humans interact with adults (maybe the poster that suggested having the chimps teach the kids was on to something). The fact is that kids are usually taught to obey adults. Not just imitate them, but listen and follow instructions -- think teachers. While not all kids do this, 3 and 4 year olds arn't always the most overtly confrontational. The kids here may not have been usuing their minds, nor imitating, but obeying. Sure the kids were told they could do whatever they wanted, but the same person just told them how to do it. (some evidence of this is that the child of the reporter reacted differently with the two different teachers). I think an interesting counter study would be to observe the reaction by kids with ODD (oppositional defiant disorder) -- problems with authority -- as those kids would seem to be less likely to obey and may, under these constraints, give a better insight in to how the human mind works.

  93. i think it is the way we train our children by Edmund+Blackadder · · Score: 1

    I dont think it has as much to do with the way we learn. It is probably due to the fact that we just train our children to be obedient and follow adult's directions without any doubt or second guessing.

  94. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (and no, I did not make the grandparent post)

    That's (as in "That is") quite obvious. Take a look -- 'twas your grandparent who used "its."

    Love,
    the Grammar Nazi (and no, not you, grandparent, or great-grandparent)

  95. Another victory for home schooling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    clearly the chimps were home schooled
        while the children are already showing signs of
        the mental destruction that goes on in our
        public schools...

  96. Eureka! by james_gnz · · Score: 1

    Finally, a scientific explanation for Christianity and bureaucracy. :-P

  97. Maybe.. by tjp368 · · Score: 1

    Maybe Bush is a genius after all! http://www.bushorchimp.com/

    --
    Visit my website! Click the ads! Yay!
  98. Gee by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't have surprised anyone. Human children work 80+ years to get to the point when they can just hang around, eat bananas and relax. Chimps just go directly to that stage.

  99. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by aussie_a · · Score: 1

    While politically incorrect, perpetuating unfair stereotypes about our homosapien cousins, it was damn funny.

  100. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course you're not an English professor.

    No, no.. I'm not being serious.

  101. It's True by Kuukai · · Score: 1

    Chimps don't go around publishing dumbass conclusions based on Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacies.

    --
    Sendou Wave Kick!!
  102. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by kiltyj · · Score: 1

    Live long and proper.

  103. Say what you want about chimpanzees by theheff · · Score: 1

    I don't think you can compare them to humans, simply because they're two completely different beings. While this study claims to provide evidence that chimps may logic better than children, they lack what children have an abundance of, which is creativity. You give a child a paintbrush, they will draw whatever their mind wants... there's a creativity factor in there. You give a paintbrush to a chimp, and he'll eat it.

  104. chimps & sign language by weierstrass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All i can say about this is that in Steven Pinker's book, 'The Language Instinct' he reckons:

    some (behavioural) linguists said they got a bunch of chimps to communicate using sign language. the chimps were using sentences, combining words to build more abstract concepts etc.
    they were doing this to try and disprove the ideas of Chomsky and Pinker and people that language is a builtin ability unique and essential to the human brain.

    like what you seem to be suggesting above, that chimps lack the ability to make the requisite sounds for speech, but nothing else in the way of thought or language skills.

    but:
    Pinker and his cohorts reckoned the chimps were not really using language, they imitated some key words, but didn't originate their own, the researchers were very lax about what they accepted as a sign, etc.
    they of course had their own agenda to push

    but if anyone did do some proper communicating with chimps, i don't know about it.

    --
    my password really is 'stinkypants'
    1. Re:chimps & sign language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There aren't many people who have ever originated their own words. I don't recall ever creating a new word. I only repeat words that have been told to me by other people in one form or another. The only thing I do is put them in a different order. How is this any different than what the chimps did but on a much larger scale?

    2. Re:chimps & sign language by aussie_a · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the researchers were very lax about what they accepted as a sign, etc.
      they of course had their own agenda to push


      While research bias (either for or against chimps communicating) is a problem that is difficult to overcome in such a strong issue (for many), I have read quite a bit on the successes. I was referring to an instance where chimpanzee's (or another primate) did create words. The example I remember is "bad+dream" for nightmare.

      they imitated some key words, but didn't originate their own

      Humans have the "inventing words gene," while I believe other primates don't. But that isn't a bad thing (IMO), as it allows us to continue to understand them. If they did invent new words, they would have to teach us, and their ability to teach humans (they are, after all, not equal to our intelligence) could be limited.

      Having said that this article says that it's quite possible bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee) do create verbal sounds for specific things, which I presume they've invented. I don't know if it is true that they are verbal "words," but it does bear more research.

      However I don't see their inability to create words as them being unable to learn language. This page (it was only a quick search, info may be a bit suspect, but it seems fairly valid and jibes with what I've read in the past) has info on both success and failures. Why I like it is because it outlines those against the results proving language's opinions, as well as those opinions who are for it. One man called Herb Terrace doesn't believe the results so far are indicative of language aquisition, but merely "aping." Some of his complaints are:
      * That the apes were were performing rote memorization tasks similar to pigeons who are taught to peck at colors in specific orders.

      This I take issue with, because the page earlier shows an ape taking a word in one context "more" and using it in others. It isn't a simple case of "sign X always follows action Y" but instead, reasoning what sign X actually means, and applying it in other situations.

      * Primates only signed in order to please their trainers, not for the personal gratification of using the signs.

      I take issue with this, as many sources I've read say apes do spontaneously speak with each other. Having said that, it appears Terrace's complaints were actually made a few decades ago, and that research since then has proven him wrong. More info here

      * A primate might learn to connect a sign with food and reproduce the sign through simple conditioning, just as Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell.

      To be honest, is it possible to prove that human children don't speak for the same reasons? I don't think so. Think about it, when a baby is learning to speak, we heap attention and treats on them. The Pavlovian method of teaching requires this to begin with, which is then removed and the taught actions continue regardless. A problem with detractors of ape speech is that they often ask questions we can't answer when it comes to humans.

      but if anyone did do some proper communicating with chimps, i don't know about it.

      Unfortunately I to, do not know if anyone has. The article I linked to before, does suggest that researchers are doing their best to communicate properly with apes, but it's a hot issue for those involved. I believe current research is very indicative, but it can't silence critics yet. But I do believe it's enough (or at least enough to warrant a much more structured research program with a definitive goal of giving apes more rights) to say "y'know. Maybe we should reconsider how we treat them. Perhaps there is a better place in our society for them."

    3. Re:chimps & sign language by Associate · · Score: 0, Troll

      Have you not been to the inner city or at least watched five minutes of Mtv lately?

      --
      Someone hates these cans.
    4. Re:chimps & sign language by brpr · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To be honest, is it possible to prove that human children don't speak for the same reasons? I don't think so. Think about it, when a baby is learning to speak, we heap attention and treats on them.

      Not really. Babies don't usually get any tangible reward simply for saying a word or two. They may get some attention, but they could get that far more effectively just by crying. Language is only really useful to a baby once it's developed to a significant extent. There are some cultures where babies are more or less ignored until they're able to keep up a decent conversation, but those babies still learn their native language just fine (despite not being rewarded for speaking to any significant extent).

      Exactly what it is possible to teach bonobos is an open question -- just as it is an open question what it is possible to teach humans. The point is that human language isn't taught. You don't need to devise elaborate reward schemata to get a human baby to learn a natural language.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
    5. Re:chimps & sign language by aussie_a · · Score: 1

      Well I certainly remember babies getting quite a bit of attention (and I'm pretty sure treats) when they were being taught how to speak (and I do remember having them taught how to speak). But I guess every family is different. Although I wouldn't underestimate attention, because I've got a dog that definitely thrives on it, and I'm pretty sure he's learnt he gets more attention doing good things then bad things.

      But regardless, apes have learnt sign language without being actively taught (just go to the links I provided). So no matter how humans or apes are taught (or not taught), they do learn language. And apes at least don't always learn it from humans.

    6. Re:chimps & sign language by brpr · · Score: 1

      Well I certainly remember babies getting quite a bit of attention (and I'm pretty sure treats) when they were being taught how to speak (and I do remember having them taught how to speak).

      There's a lot of evidence that how ever much people may try to teach babies to speak, babies ignore them. The best evidence for this is that babies will persist in making systematic errors (e.g. "sheeps") even if explicitly corrected by an adult. Of course, whenever you speak to a baby, what you say is potentially available to the baby as linguistic data, but that doesn't mean that there's any teaching going on.

      But regardless, apes have learnt sign language without being actively taught (just go to the links I provided).

      A quick look at the links you've provided shows no such thing. The closest I found was that apes were observed signing to each other without trainers present, which of course just goes to show that they had at some point been trained. "Loulis", according to this article managed to aquire 50 signs without instruction, but (leaving aside the fact that this is a miniscule achievement compared to the vocabulary a baby learns in similar circumstances) we don't know whether she showed any significant ability to produce structured sentences using these signs. The chimps at the CHCI (allegedly) show some limited ability in this regard, but they were trained.

      Some of the scholarship in the articles you link to is a little shoddy. For example, this article describes Chomsky's (supposed) views on the subject, but only cites a secondary source as justification (Booth). Chomsky would in fact probably agree that apes have many of the cognitive mechanisms necessary for language (see the recent work by Chomsky, Hauser & Fitch), though he still denies that chimps have a fully formed language faculty. These days, he would say that the crucial ability they lack is recursion.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
    7. Re:chimps & sign language by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "Well I certainly remember babies getting quite a bit of attention (and I'm pretty sure treats) when they were being taught how to speak (and I do remember having them taught how to speak)."

      And that's why we usually discount anecdotal evidence.

      Babbling (the act of practicing language) occurs only in humans, and independent of reinforcement.

      "But regardless, apes have learnt sign language without being actively taught (just go to the links I provided)."

      And here's where this discussion always bogs down. Do the apes use grammar? No, they do not. There is a small amount of evidence that suggests bonobos may be different, but the vast majority of data suggests grammar isn't used, and that most apes aren't even capable of using it.

      So while I appreciate that you (and others) beleive they are learning "language" that belief stems from a too loose definition of what language is.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    8. Re:chimps & sign language by penguinoid · · Score: 1

      There aren't many people who have ever originated their own words. I don't recall ever creating a new word.

      But you certainly can create a new word, and, in some cases, people would understand what it means. The reason we don't much do this is because we have a very complete language. Now consider that these chimps were taught (almost certainly) less than 100 words, and you would expect them to create a few.

      --
      Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
    9. Re:chimps & sign language by a_real_space_cadet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Speaking from experience, you're wrong about "Babies don't usually get any tangible reward simply for saying a word or two". Babies are HEAPED with attention for their first nonsense syllables - and it's definitely not the same kind of attention they get by crying. It's eye-contact, smiles, laughs, high-pitched repetitive dialog. When the parent suspects that a sound is being used meaningfully, the attention is heaped even higher.

    10. Re:chimps & sign language by arkanes · · Score: 1
      I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical.

      Nobody has come up with a quantified definition of what human intelligence is, much less animal. Pretty much everything that is easy to test has been observed in animals, both in the wild and in the lab. For a long time it was tool usage, remember? And then it was creating tools, not using found objects, and now it's just "really complex tools that animals can't make". And since you can't do proper experiments on humans with any sort of ethical framework, and within any reasonable timeframe, we really don't know in any rigourous sense exactly how capable a human baby is of learning absent direction and intervention from adults.

      So while I appreciate that you (and others) beleive they are learning "language" that belief stems from a too loose definition of what language is.

      There are plenty of humans that aren't capable of learning grammar without instruction. For almost every question and "debunking" of ape speach, it hinges on a question that can't be answered for humans. Thats not to say that apes use language or that they are of equivilent intelligence to humans - they clearly do not (at least not to the level we do), but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things.

    11. Re:chimps & sign language by brpr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There are plenty of humans that aren't capable of learning grammar without instruction.

      Erm, no. What we're talking about here is the notion of "grammar" in linguistics. This is the knowledge that people have which allows them to construct sentences, not the sort of prescriptive rules you're taught in school (don't split inifinitives, etc.) Only a small number of people with specific mental disabilities are unable to aquire the grammar of their native language.

      For almost every question and "debunking" of ape speach, it hinges on a question that can't be answered for humans.

      It does? Human babies learn languages very easily, eventually aquiring an enormous vocabulary and a mastery of sophisticated grammatical rules, often without much in the way of explicit instruction or training. Apes don't, even if you try to set up ideal conditions for them to do so.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
    12. Re:chimps & sign language by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Didn't that Amy gorilla that learned sign-language say "baby in my drink" when her toy doll fell in the food tray?

      Of course, that's a long evolutionary step from: "Need another drink, baby"

    13. Re:chimps & sign language by brpr · · Score: 1

      Babies are HEAPED with attention for their first nonsense syllables - and it's definitely not the same kind of attention they get by crying. It's eye-contact, smiles, laughs, high-pitched repetitive dialog. When the parent suspects that a sound is being used meaningfully, the attention is heaped even higher.

      Surely babies do often get eye contact if they cry? Anyway, the point is that the kind of attention that babies get from saying single words (before there language ability is fully developed) is not really any more useful than the attention they can get from crying (which will frequently get them milk, a diaper change, etc.) More importantly, the attention babies get for speaking is rarely any use for learning language. Parents tend to give more attention to interesting sentences with grammatical errors than uninteresting sentences with perfect grammar. If babies really just spoke to get eye contact or whatever, they'd have little incentive to improve their language beyond the two word utterance level. In fact, however, babies babble away quite happily even if they get very little attention or reward in return (which they sometimes don't, depending on the particular family/culture).

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
    14. Re:chimps & sign language by joepeg · · Score: 1
      but if anyone did do some proper communicating with chimps, i don't know about it.


      Whenever this topic comes up, I always think of the video I saw about Koko the Gorilla.


      Koko was taught sign language, and appears to be able to communicate effectively, at least with her trainer. There are some videos of Koko signing here.


      The most convincing part in the video I saw was when Koko was put through (essentially) a video dating session. Koko had voiced interest in wanting a baby. Her trainer played videotape of different Gorilla's she could mate with, and she would sign that she liked particular males, and even turned the tv off on one, signing that it was unattractive. Also, a co-werker had left for some time, and came back very pregnant. When Koko first saw her, she signed "baby" to say that she noticed she was pregnant.


      If you are interested in this topic, I would highly recommend watching the movie about Koko, as it convinced me. (not sure where exactly to find it though).

      --

      ZEN is a prime number in base-36

    15. Re:chimps & sign language by joepeg · · Score: 1

      ...well obviously you can buy the video/dvd from the site.

      --

      ZEN is a prime number in base-36

    16. Re:chimps & sign language by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

      "I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical."

      No need, there is an example that occurred by accident.

      http://kccesl.tripod.com/genie.html

      "There are plenty of humans that aren't capable of learning grammar without instruction."

      Not the point, and completely irrelevant. Grammar is beleived to be inherent in the human brain. The example of Genie, while isolated and unusual, corresponds to data that we have from brian studies of people with different types of aphasia.

      "Thats not to say that apes use language or that they are of equivilent intelligence to humans - they clearly do not (at least not to the level we do), but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things."

      Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist. As I have already demosntrated, you have much to learn on this subject, so perhaps you could ask questions instead of making incorrect declrations.

      --
      How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    17. Re:chimps & sign language by Liam+Slider · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Nobody has come up with a quantified definition of what human intelligence is, much less animal. Pretty much everything that is easy to test has been observed in animals, both in the wild and in the lab. For a long time it was tool usage, remember? And then it was creating tools, not using found objects, and now it's just "really complex tools that animals can't make".

      That's because there's a bias among many humans, including a vast number of scientists, which is that humans and animals are somehow two different things. That we are somehow special, different, unique. We are just another animal. One of the smarter animals perhaps, but just another one of the many beasts on this world. We've got some neat, hyper-specialised abilities that evolution tossed our way in order to survive in this otherwise pathetic form....like not just tool-use or making (which many animals have), but tool-improving. We're also built for projectile weaponry, it's evolved into our eyesight, our reflexes, our strength level, and our complex brains which it takes to manage hunting via projectile weapon (be it spear, atlatl, bow, or firearm). And we're pack hunters....and complex hunting in a pack, using projectile weapons...you better damn sure know how to communicate with your packmates. It's nothing special about us, nothing secret....simple survival traits as applied to one animal.

      The problem with the bias though, is that it causes people, including scientists, to make an assumption. That other animals cannot be almost as intelligent as we are, or think in ways that we do...or even think at all, or communicate on any meaningful level. They're just "apeing us" because they're "just dumb animals." Dolphins may be as intelligent or nearly so (or more so) as we are, but in an utterly alien way...yet you'll find few scientists with the guts to say so, even though there is a massive amount of evidence to back it up. Why? Because they are animals, of course!

    18. Re:chimps & sign language by inkydoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      You point out the overgeneralization of rules (AKA overregularization, the two most common being 's' for pluralization, and use of 'ed' to indicate past tense) as proof that babies aren't paying attention to the adults trying to teach them language, but you missed one of the essential factors of this phenomenon. Before babies overapply these rules, they actually get them right. That is, in the early stages of learning, they say went instead of goed or feet instead of foots. Then, as they learn more and more verbs they also learn (note I didn't say are taught) that there are rules about this sort of thing, and begin overapplying the rules. Eventaully, though, they are taught that there are exceptions to these rules in English and (hopefully) begin to use them correctly again.

      So I would say that it's not that babies are ignoring adults when they try to teach language, but rather that babies are paying so much attention all the time that adults are constantly teaching them the language, not just when they're making a concerted effort to teach them.

    19. Re:chimps & sign language by MysteriousPreacher · · Score: 1

      Oh that mod doesn't have much of a sense of humour.

      Lucky we have the Urban Dictionary. Otherwise I woulnd't have a clue what 'Pimp my ride' means.

      --
      -- Using the preview button since 2005
    20. Re:chimps & sign language by FlopEJoe · · Score: 1

      If creating new words is the sign of advancement then GWB is a genius! It's just all-y-all that are misunderestimating him.

    21. Re:chimps & sign language by inkydoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical.

      And yet there are scandalously immoral and unethical situations that have been studied (though perhaps not scientifically, since there's no control over variables, etc.) Of most recent note is the case of Genie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_(feral_child)) who essentially spent the first 13 years of her life locked in a small bedroom, usually restrained and only rarely hearing words. As is often true of cases like Genie, the course of normal language acquisition has been disrupted, giving researchers and opportunity to see if various theories properly predict what would happen in the abscence of certain events.

      And if that isn't disturbing enough, there's a whole website on similar stories (including Genie) at http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php.

    22. Re:chimps & sign language by brpr · · Score: 1

      but you missed one of the essential factors of this phenomenon. Before babies overapply these rules, they actually get them right.

      I'm not sure if that really weakens my point. The fact that babies go from rote learning of irregular forms -> overregularization -> correct speech, just goes to show that babies follow their own schedule, and don't just gradually absorb more and more information about language. There is no good reason why a baby should start overapplying rules when it already knows that certain forms are irregular -- this seems to be an idiosyncratic fact of language aquisition which can't be explained by anything in the baby's environment. It has to be explained by some characteristic of baby pyschology (not necessarily a universal grammar/aquisition procedure, but it has to be something which is innately specified).

      Although I'm not terribly familiar with the aquisition literature, my own guess would be that babies start to overregularize once they have developed a knowledge of language which includes inflection. Initially, perhaps, they have a concept of "verb", but not a concept of "verb + agreement + tense", so they are unable to do anything other than learn lexical entries for verbs by rote.

      For sure, babies pay a lot of attention to adult speech, and this is how they learn language (in combination with their innate knowledge of language). Whether or not this means that the adults are "teaching" them is essentially a terminological question, but I think in normal usage "teach" implies something stronger.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
    23. Re:chimps & sign language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the researchers were very lax about what they accepted as a sign

      Well, we're pretty lax about what we accept as words. Ever been to New Orleans? Lax indeed.

    24. Re:chimps & sign language by arkanes · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist.

      Such scales are defined as "anything that animals don't do is human". Genie didn't develop language and never learned, even with instruction and therapy, grammar beyond what signing chimpanzees can demonstrate, not that her case is scientific in any way.

      There is no standard for measuring intelligence. There isn't even a useful scientific definition of the *word*. There are lots of attempts at categorizing and approximating it, every single one of which is subjective and has enormous margins of error and inconsistencies even when applied to regular, "normal" humans, much less when we attempt to apply the same principles to animals or feral humans. We can measure the distances between neutrons more accurately than we can even define human intelligence.

    25. Re:chimps & sign language by schon · · Score: 1

      the point is that the kind of attention that babies get from saying single words is not really any more useful than the attention they can get from crying

      You are incorrect.

      Humans are social animals, and like all social animals, we have a deep-seated need to belong to a group, and thus social rewards (smiling, lots of attention, etc.) often can be more useful than just food or getting your diaper changed.

      Humans have a *need* to communicate with each other, and that need is just as real as the need for food. Social rewards are just as important as ones that are more tangible (and often moreso.)

      If you examine other highly social animals, you see that the social group is more important to the individual animals than anything else (including food.)

    26. Re:chimps & sign language by Hognoxious · · Score: 1
      Echinate, though I later found out it exists. The meaning is different from mine, but related.

      Onagrous. AFAIK exists only in Greek, no idea what they think it means.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    27. Re:chimps & sign language by brpr · · Score: 1

      If you examine other highly social animals, you see that the social group is more important to the individual animals than anything else (including food.)

      On the contrary, social groups frequently break down when there is competition for limited resources. Ultimately, people put their own need for food and shelter beyond that of others (except perhaps family members). I just don't see that babies are more interested in social contact than food. They're certainly interested in social contact, but you should hear them when they haven't been fed for a few hours!

      Humans have a *need* to communicate with each other, and that need is just as real as the need for food. Social rewards are just as important as ones that are more tangible (and often moreso.)

      As I said before, the amount of social attention babies get for talking has very little to do with the complexity or correctness of what they say. Babies get just as much attention when they're babbling as when they're producing two word utterances. And more importantly, the feedback babies get isn't very useful for actually learning language (Mum is going to smile at you whether or not you conjugate the perfect tense correctly). So yes, perhaps babies talk because they want attention (though they frequently babble when no-one else is around). But you can't explain their incredible ability to aquire language as a simple case of conditioning. Even if a baby really really wants to learn English, it doesn't follow that he will learn English unless he has the necessary (innate) cognitive abilities.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
    28. Re:chimps & sign language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      chimpanzee's
      bonobo's
      Is there gene for thinking that every s has to have a frickin apostrophe before it?
    29. Re:chimps & sign language by Nagypapi · · Score: 1
      ...it's quite possible bonobo's (a type of chimpanzee) do create verbal sounds...

      Bonobos are NOT a type of chimpanzee!
      They are as chimpanzee as we humans.
      Though the chimpanzee and the bonobo's evolution separated later than the time humans seperated from them

      http://www.bonobo.org/whatisabonobo.html

    30. Re:chimps & sign language by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Easy. "Pimp" is a noun, which is slang for one who manages prostitutes. "Ride" is a verb, meaning to travel upon something. "Pimp my Ride" is a sentence with an implied noun "You" followed by a barely acceptable slang noun being used as a verb then a verb being used as a noun and a possessive indicating that the speaker owns that verb.
      How could it be any more clear?
      Perhaps they could say, more simply, for those of us familiar with the English language "You transform my car from a beater into a beater with diminished useful value and lots of ornamental lame junk on it that would appeal to prostitutes and acne laden teenagers."

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    31. Re:chimps & sign language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really. Babies don't usually get any tangible reward simply for saying a word or two. They may get some attention, but they could get that far more effectively just by crying.

      This explains a lot of tech support calls.

    32. Re:chimps & sign language by yashinka · · Score: 1

      Everyone has created new words before. Children do this constantly when learning how to speak. A simple example is the word "falled." If a child knows the word "fall" and has picked up how to create the past tense, he will create the word "falled" instead of saying "fell." We dismiss these new words as mistakes, but where did the child hear this word? The answer is likely no where.

      --
      "Haven't you ever heard of the Emancipation Proclaimation?"
      "I don't listen to Hip-Hop!"
    33. Re:chimps & sign language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dolphins may be as intelligent or nearly so (or more so) as we are, but in an utterly alien way...yet you'll find few scientists with the guts to say so, even though there is a massive amount of evidence to back it up. Why? Because they are animals, of course!

      No, it's because humans have a different *form* of consciousness, one that allows us to conceive of things never seen, and to deal with second- and higher order abstractions. Where animals are unable to get much past the here and now, humans can understand history, can project into the future, and can grasp distances from subatomic up to galactic distances.

      Dolphins might have better "hardware", but humans have a better brain OS. The evidence of this unique capacity is all around us, and right here -- so clear that the bias clearly belongs not to those of us who grasp this difference, but to those who desperately wish it didn't exist. Even your stupid *conception* of dolphins being conscious in an "alien way" demonstrates the point.

    34. Re:chimps & sign language by Liam+Slider · · Score: 1
      Dolphins might have better "hardware", but humans have a better brain OS. The evidence of this unique capacity is all around us, and right here
      You know...an aquatic environment...and no limbs capable of manipulating objects in any meaningful way, just might inhibit the develop of technology a tad...regardless of intelligence. Just sayin.
    35. Re:chimps & sign language by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "You transform my car from a beater into a beater with diminished useful value and lots of ornamental lame junk on it that would appeal to prostitutes and acne laden teenagers."

      I like it. I nominate you to be in charge of naming TV shows from now on. I expect a good one for the next Survivor though.

    36. Re:chimps & sign language by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Well, I had this idea where we find a bunch of idiots who don't know better and convince them we've launched them into orbit. Then every week, one of them gets voted off, purportedly into the harsh vaccum of space.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    37. Re:chimps & sign language by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Nice! So what's the name? "Stupid people in a box?" "How many idiots can you put in a can without deoderant?" :)

    38. Re:chimps & sign language by GreyArtist · · Score: 1

      That's because there's a bias among many humans...

      I could not agree more. To extend your comment, you will probably find that any animal taking an intelligence test will perform to a degree directly proportional to their genetic similarity to the creators of the test...

      All things are relative, including intelligence.

  105. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    damn. this is so Racist... i mean er Speciesist

  106. Maybe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is telling us more about how we've conditioned our children to think.

    Do what the teacher tells you.

    Because some kids can't comprehend that sometimes you have to listen and other times you have to think it out for yourself we condition all of our kids to listen unconditionally. It does much for leveling the playing field for the slow learners but it also benefits pedophiles.

    LK

  107. Mod all beaters down -1 retarded by jvance · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No. The problem is lazy-ass parents, one way or the other. Too lazy to apply appropriate discipline consistently, relentlessly, inevitably. You state the bad behavior, you state the consequences, and you apply the consequences. You also explain good behavior, point it out and reward it. But that's hard work. It's so much easier a) let the little terrors run wild, or b) smack them about.

    Spanking, the rod, and the belt are tools of dickweeds who don't care enough about parenting to learn how to do it right. And the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. My six year old's grammar, spelling and punctuation is better than yours. So are his manners.

  108. Effect may not immediately follow cause by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The most interesting bit from the article (in my opinion):
    As human ancestors began to make complicated tools, figuring out goals might not have been good enough anymore. Hominids needed a way to register automatically what other hominids did, even if they didn't understand the intentions behind them. They needed to imitate.

    Think about it - usually, when an ape wants to obtain food, it only needs to complete a couple of steps to achieve that goal, and the reward is immediate. But with tool-using humans, it may involve sharpening a rock, cutting a big stick, jamming the rock in the end of the stick, and then hunting for food and killing it with the tool. Even if the manufacture of the spear immediately precedes hunting for the animal, the reward is still not instant, and it may even be beneficial to manufacture several spears the day before.

    Children see the manufacture of these tools, and the manufacture of the spear becomes the apparent goal, not the killing of the animal. Since the benefit of each step in terms of its effect on the fitness of the tool isn't immediately apparent, it's more advantageous to imitate all of the steps until one gains the higher insight needed to modify the tool's design. There may thus have been a pressure to select for children who were good at imitation when the immediate reward was simply the completion of the task and not the reward that comes from later using the tool.

    And when you think about it, nearly everything we do today (aside from fairly passive activities like watching TV, sleeping, taking a dump) doesn't have an immediate reward, yet we usually feel good about completing a task whose actual benefit isn't immediate.

    1. Re:Effect may not immediately follow cause by insignificant1 · · Score: 1

      And now we have schools (universities included) to select out anyone who looks beyond imitation as the goal.

      squawk Polly want an A! squawk

    2. Re:Effect may not immediately follow cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wrt "... (aside from fairly passive activities like watching TV, sleeping, taking a dump) ..."

      I sometimes think the most underrated thing in the world is a good healthy dump! (if you've ever been bound-up for a long time you'll know what I mean)

    3. Re:Effect may not immediately follow cause by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

      No shit!
      -l

      --
      Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
    4. Re:Effect may not immediately follow cause by PantsWearer · · Score: 1
      I agree that imitation is very helpful, but I think it was due to truly non-obvious goals, not something like spear making, which has obvious uses, even to a small child. I believe it truly helped humanity for things that would be completely non-obvious, such as storing food for an upcoming season of scarcity. Why would you save food in a bag when you could eat it now?

      Another example would be protection from predators. Say leaving when signs of a certain predator are seen in the area. If you're doing your imitating right, you'll never see why you're performing the action in the first place.

      --
      Be glad life is unfair, otherwise we'd deserve all this.
    5. Re:Effect may not immediately follow cause by NiallMcHendrik · · Score: 1
      There may thus have been a pressure to select for children who were good at imitation when the immediate reward was simply the completion of the task and not the reward that comes from later using the tool.


      This is an interesting idea, but the problem to me is that someone had to have invented the spear. Someone had to have thought through that that day, when his belly was full and there was still leftover whooly mammoth, would be a good day to make more spears for next time. That isn't an imitating tool-user, that's a reasoning, goal-oriented tool-maker. Supposedly a child grows up and stops imitating and starts planning ahead, but even that's not so common anymore.

      How much trouble do most teenagers get into based solely on imitating each other or imitating bad role models? Just because it becomes apparent why so many children are imitators (and sadly STAY imitators) doesn't mean we should celebrate it like Zimmer did. I think he's rationalizing that his kid wasn't the very rare young child that saw past the imitation and showed real genius.

      This article convinced me to try even harder to make sure my kids do NOT imitate me knee-jerk. Obviously that will take time, and 3-4 year olds will develop at their own speed, but I still want them to be tool-makers, not tool-users eventually. I'm not going to tell my kid she's special for being an imitator like Zimmer plans to.
    6. Re:Effect may not immediately follow cause by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      The propensity to imitate without necessarily understanding may have allowed outliers who were particularly good at critical thinking (thus enabling them to invent things like spears) to have their inventions propagate quickly throughout the population. In an environment where exceptional individuals pop up from time to time, being good at imitating them could provide a huge advantage over those who observe and, not seeing an immediate reward, don't imitate.

  109. As an option by whitehatlurker · · Score: 1

    The original article can be found here for those who don't want to subscribe to the NY Times or use bugmenot.

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  110. Why the surprise? by darkhero42 · · Score: 1

    The results of this test don't surprise me. It seems logical that people in that stage of life would mimic instead of understanding. Those that attempted to understand first the things that are important instead of mimicing family where probably more likely to be killed off. Our minds can change gears as we get a better understanding of the world. Chimps on the other hands may have different needs as they age. It doesn't seem like it has anything to do with intelligence.

  111. Token Overlord Joke.... by victorhooi · · Score: 1
    May as well get it over with...*sigh*


    I, for one, welcome our new chimpanzee overlords


    Now, don't we all feel better that we've got that out of our system, children?

    1. Re:Token Overlord Joke.... by Kredal · · Score: 1

      No, because children will simply repeat it, whether they need to or not... Didn't you read the article?

      --
      Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
  112. Working environment by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 1

    Hmm... humans doing unneccessary steps despite their uselessness.
    Sounds a lot like some of the jobs I am given to do...
    *ducks*

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  113. With the Alain Aspect experiment by TheTopher · · Score: 1

    Chimps can comprehend the effect of quantum entanglement on cause and effect better than human children? I'm really not surprised that human children can't quite comprehend Alain Aspect's experiment showing that effect can come before a cause (transmission of entanglement faster than the speed of light), but I'm really quite surprised that chimps can comprehend it. Maybe they've got someone better than my physics teacher to explain it to them...

  114. what does this teach me? by Aqua+OS+X · · Score: 1

    what does this teach me?

    Chimps are smart.. or kids are dumb?

    --
    "Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
  115. Cause and effect by NIK282000 · · Score: 1

    Appently the article writer doesnt completely understant cause and effect. He linked to an article thay requires me to sign up, the effect is I bitch about it and make a joke.

    --
    Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  116. These chimps should be on a UK reality TV show... by Presence2 · · Score: 1

    Now every time we hear how stupid people are - this should be the new low bar. Move over Darwin awards, here comes "stupid enough to be on British reality TV show" - Everyone, say it out loud!

    ps: imagine the kids in the study 10 years later. "Yeah, that was me, but I swear the chimps were coached better."

  117. Chimps vs Humeans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Clearly, Humeans don't have as strong an understanding of cause & effect because, as any freshman philosophy student can tell you, they don't believe in causation. Duh!

    Oh, wait....

    PS: In actual fact, the notions of "cause" and "effect" are philosophically very hazy. Ask yourself someday, whether guns kill people or people kill people (or ingrained structures of social inequity kill people, for that matter).

  118. Learning by DMorritt · · Score: 1

    Who told the chimps to do EXACTLY as they were told? Thats how/what we teach our children. Maybe they could have "taught" the chimps before hand, and whupped the chimps about the head with a chalk board rubber if they failed a step, this would even up the results.

  119. Why do you hate science? by Mr.Progressive · · Score: 3, Insightful
    At 10 weeks kittens can already jump up on tables and wreck things - the kid is just slobbering on the floor.

    And what's your point? This study highlighted some profound (and somewhat surprising) differences between humans and one of our closest relatives. Such differences may have some bearing on how humans evolved the ability to develop a complex, linguistic culture based on rigorous imitation. You wouldn't be against learning about evolution, would you?

    I know, I know; when you say WORTHY project, you probably mean something dire like cancer or AIDS research. And I wholeheartedly agree that those are worthy projects needing generous funding. But science is science. This study adds to what we know about stuff. That's justification in and of itself. And who's to say this research won't tell us something new about mirror neurons (probably necessary for imitation) and, by extension, autism, hm?

    --
    Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
    1. Re:Why do you hate science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >You wouldn't be against learning about evolution, would you?
      Yes I would, I'm against organized religions.

    2. Re:Why do you hate science? by drsmack1 · · Score: 1

      >>Why do you hate science?

      Hello there, Mr. Exageration.

      My point is that Chimps develop the way they do because that is what works for their enviornment. Of course a chimp is going to be able to do more complex things than a human infant! The chimp is MUCH more specialized - that is what makes the chimp limited.

      How long would the species last if it was not able to "hit the ground running" fast enough to protect itself.

      Same reason kittens can do certain things well - they *need* to. This is the result of evolution.

      To me, this is quite obvious - but then I am a genius. Apparently "scientists" have to do these studies to get things through their pointy little heads.

      BTW, you better stay clear of any talk of learning more about Autism; some of those in the spectrum are rabidly against anything that might lead to a cure.

      I find it interesting that I got a flamebait mod for my post, yet you did not even though you inferred I was "anti-evolution" and a luddite. Is calling names your "go to" move?

    3. Re:Why do you hate science? by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 1

      To me, this is quite obvious - but then I am a genius. Apparently "scientists" have to do these studies to get things through their pointy little heads.

      No, that's just arrogance. The rest of us want proof for our assumptions before we call it fact. But, this is slashdot afterall, so I will cut you some slack and give you a cookie. /me gives cookie to drsmack1

    4. Re:Why do you hate science? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah. And I suppose you opposed to teaching the Bible becuase you're against organized science?

  120. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, if you're on a vendetta there's no point doing it half-assed I guess.

    --

    You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
    There is a lot of hype here.
  121. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    throwFeces(); // OOK OOK OOK AAH AAH AAH! OOK!

    Finally! Well-written, useful comments!

  122. how is it... by Schlemphfer · · Score: 1
    that mentioning painful experiments done on beings who are capable of reasoning turns one into a hippie and a proponent of intelligent design?

    --
    I'm generally "Interesting," "Insightful," and even "Funny" here. What the hell happens to me at parties?
  123. You are correct. by AoT · · Score: 1

    It is the lack of a descended larynx.

    But hey, why quibble?

  124. That explains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... religion.

  125. Cultural Context by GrEp · · Score: 1

    I don't think the result is all that suprising. Children infer a cultural context to what they are shown, while the chimps don't. There are a lot of things we do for cultural reasons, even though they are inefficent.

    --

    bash-2.04$
    bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
  126. I'm just curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one who seems to notice people getting dumber as time goes on? From what I can tell, our species is intellectually devolving. I know of very few people who are willing to reconsider their views (not talking about religion or politics), which means that learning stops right there. And further, whenever I take a moment to reconsider my views, people immediately assume that I have lost an arguement. I remember a time when people thought. That time is passed.

  127. Redundant Step? by bobbagum · · Score: 1

    So we now all knows what the step 2 is 3. Profit ! Yay! So are half of slashdot chimps and we are in a kind of experiement of something?

  128. Human reasoning and cognition under the age of 5.. by thedletterman · · Score: 1

    Sucks. We already know this. There's a famous experiment in which two equal sized glasses were filled with an equal amount of fluid and the children were asked, which has more? Then, right in front of their eyes, they poured one container into a tall, thin glass, and one container into a short and fat glass. The children were then asked, "which has more liquid?" The children overwhelmingly selected the tall, thin glass. It is no secret that human brain development is a long and gradual process comparative to every other species of animal. I wouldn't have been suprised had the test reported that a lawn mower had a better grasp of cause and effect than a human child, I would only be curious as to how the test came to this conclusion.

    --
    Any fool can criticise, condemn, and complain, and most fools do. - Benjamin Franklin
  129. For Peanuts... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can outsource the code monkey positions...

  130. Chimpanzees beat up children by killeena · · Score: 1

    At first glance I thought it said "Chimpanzees beat up children." Asshole chimps.

    --
    Freedom would be not to choose between black and white but to abjure such prescribed choices. -Theodor Adorno
  131. don't get too cocky by commodoresloat · · Score: 0

    The chimps did even better when compared to parents.

  132. and when they are adults by bxbaser · · Score: 1

    they skip what they think is redundant steps.

    how many people here have had to train someone to follow a procedure and somehow that procedure gets whittled down to the least number of steps that will get the job done.

    Not when you are watching but when you are not.

  133. ...Sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one, welcome our banana devouring overlords. ... Argh come on, you knew it was going to happen. :)

  134. Chimpanzees Beat out Children in Reasoning Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well of course the chimps won, against American children....

    In related news, Bush was re-elected & ....

    Greek Geek. ;-)

  135. Well? by commodoresloat · · Score: 4, Funny
    This reminds me of the study a few years back when the attempted to discover why hot pizza burns the roof of your mouth.

    Don't leave us hangin, man; did they learn why?

    1. Re:Well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We could tell you, but then Tom Cruise would have to kill you.

    2. Re:Well? by onedotzero · · Score: 5, Informative

      Hrm. Do I go for the:
      +1 Funny: Because it's hot. Hot <anything> burns. It doesn't have to be pizza.

      Or the:
      +1 Informative/Boring: The roof of your mouth is particularly sensitive; it's part of the body's temperature monitors. It's this sensor that triggers brain freeze when you eat something cold. The sensor thinks you're far too cold, and your brain tells blood to rush to your head. The amount of blood is higher than the veins and capillaries can take, and bottlenecks. And it hurts.

      Tough call...

    3. Re:Well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cheese has a high thermal capacity so it stays hotter longer. The crust and the toppings don't and tend to cool faster making them easier to "nibble".

      I don't know if its "stickyness" plays a part, either by adhesion to the roof of the mouth or resistance to distribution by mastication.

    4. Re:Well? by Woy · · Score: 1

      Then tell Tom Cruise.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    5. Re:Well? by Aquariette · · Score: 1

      The roof of your mouth is particularly sensitive; it's part of the body's temperature monitors. It's this sensor that triggers brain freeze when you eat something cold.

      Really? That's interesting, 'cause I don't get brain freeze, and it doesn't cause any pain when I eat hot pizza and burn the roof of my mouth. I've never realized that they might be related.

      --
      We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.
    6. Re:Well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone else posted the correct answer a few hours earlier.

    7. Re:Well? by Drakai · · Score: 1

      That is interesting. Once upon a time brain freezes were a rarity for me. But I burned my mouth pretty regularly. Heck one year I scalded the roof of my mouth so badly that half the surface area was a blister. *pop*

      Anyway time passed and nothing interesting. I don't eat ice cream, snow cones or slurpees very often. And I smartened up about drinking too hot coffee, or potatoes in stew. Well, last week I bought a slurpee and took 2 swigs and nearly collapsed from the worst brain freeze in my life! It must have lasted 2 whole minutes. Brutal, I swear! I paused to reflect and then took another swig.. another wave of pain! I nearly fell down!

      I took small sips for the rest of the day.

  136. We're taught not to skip by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We don't skip steps because we are taught not to.

    When I was a kid, I saw past lots of redundant steps while doing my arithmetic. Each time I tried to skip a step (such as omitting writing down redundant digits when multiplying by 1 or 0 or 10), it was marked wrong. So I learned not to that.

  137. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by gbobeck · · Score: 1

    "I am a graduate of Starfleet Academy; I know many things."
    -- Worf (The Darkness and the Light)

    --
    Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  138. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by AoT · · Score: 1

    Well, if you got enough of them they could do it.

  139. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by gbobeck · · Score: 1

    "I don't need to be lectured by you...I was out saving the galaxy when your grandfather was in diapers...besides I think the galaxy owes me one..."

    - Kirk to Picard, "Star Trek: Generations"

    DOH! I knew I should have proof read my post first...

    --
    Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  140. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by dgatwood · · Score: 1
    What? won't compile? Since when!?!

    Oh, never mind. That's perl syntax. :-D

    --

    Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  141. How ironic that to ape means to imitate by craXORjack · · Score: 1

    I can just imagine what Dr. Zaius would have to say about this: Human see, human do.

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  142. Do as your told. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Human kids are taught to "do as your told". By their parents and by their teachers (probably not relevant for a four years old, though). Everything is done to stop children from having critical thoughts. Ever been asked to do something you felt was "redundant steps", and asked why, just to be told "because I say so"?

    I bet the chimp never was told to do something a specific way "because it's how we do things around here", when it's obviously a silly way of doing it. A chimp who found an easier way to do something would be some kind of hero. A first grade math pupil who found out how to use a calculator would be in trouble.

  143. Got to love human arrogance by jeti · · Score: 1

    Not long ago, many psychologists thought that imitation was a simple, primitive action compared with figuring out the intentions of others. But that is changing. "Maybe imitation is a lot more sophisticated than people thought," Mr. Lyons said.

    Since the children performed worse at reasoning and better at imitating, imitation is suddenly proposed to be the more sophisticated behaviour.

    This is perfectly along the lines with claiming that being able to do math or play chess is proof of high intelligence - until a simple computer can do it.

  144. But.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..this is the reason only humans are able to use SAP.

  145. Cause and effect != intelligence by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1
    As the parent says, humansd re these useless blobs for a long period of their lives (yes, even before they become /.ers). People come to the world "unprogrammed" and take a lot longer to get anywhere useful. That is a GoodThing as it makes a far more flexible organism that is capable of much broader learning and capable of unlearning obsolete information.

    Cause and effect is a survival behaviour. It is learnt later by humans because humans are nurtured for far longer. Other organisms come to the world with pre-programmed instinctive behaviour and are less flexible. They might be better placed to understand and learn cause and effect sooner as part of this.

    Watching sheep and children in the paddock out the back, I have noticed that a lamb a few days old has already learnt that an electric fence is not something worth scratch against and will probably not get zapped again in their next few years of life. The children, on the other hand, get zapped so often you'd think it was their primary power source. The lamb won't likely learn to ride a bike or read.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  146. I'd say... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    given your mistaken premise for the test, I'd say the chimps passed.

  147. Children with Autism have trouble imitating by craXORjack · · Score: 1

    Children with Autism often have trouble imitating, so I would be curious to see this experiment repeated using them as subjects. I wonder if they would show the same focus on the end result that the chimps did.

    Another thing is; did these lab chimps merely assume that they were expected to "perform" in order to receive the prize? Certainly they had been used in dozens of other experiments over the course of their lives. It was obvious to them that the bolt moving and stick tapping was not necessary to open the box but maybe they were unsure if it was necessary to perform those actions for the food to show up in the box based on their earlier experiences. What would happen if one chimp were thoroughly trained to go through all the extra actions and then put in with wild chimps. Would the wild chimps imitate all the extraneous stuff or would they think "what a stupid monkey! There was food in the box why not just open it and get the food?"

    --
    Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
  148. Needs a new title by nilbog · · Score: 1
    New headline: Children do what they're told better than chimps.

    -or-

    Children better for the mindless workforce than chimps.

    --
    or else!
  149. "The morality of our nation is at stake!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dollars to doughnuts says that Congress will soon attempt to pass legislation to ban publication of scientific studies like this. They'll slap on some stupid name like the "Falwell / O'Reilly / Phelps Morality Act of 2006" but make no mistake, they will try to do it. There is a growing conservative movement in the US that is demonizing science as being immoral, which would be fine by me if the proponents of this movement would stop using things like computers (the fact that they use them demonstrates their hypocrisy, no?)

  150. Re:Clarification by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There, you see?

  151. What age were the chimps in relation to the kids? by lightweave · · Score: 1

    I wondered about that when I read that article because it didn't mention this.
    A kid at the age up to four or five is usually much more playfull then when they get older. I know from my own kids that until five they play quite differentely. At the age of five it usually starts that they get more interested in their surroundings and also start to think about more abstract concepts like numbers, characters, alhpabet and such things.
    So I wonder wether this test could be explained that the kids were just playfull and it is no surprise, because we know that kids like to imitate grown ups at this age.
    So what mental age where the chimps? If they were in a similar stage as an adult would have been then the result might be expected. After all, when kids grow up, they do less and less imitating and start do to it their own way. So the question is: was the chimps mental age comparable to the kids age?

  152. This is huge! by famebait · · Score: 1

    This discovery shakes some of our most long-standing and dearly held assumptions about the nature of the universe:

    In contrast to conventional wisod, apparently now an infinite number of typewriter-wielding chimps will in fact produce the complete abridged works of Shakespeare.

    --
    sudo ergo sum
  153. disheartening by sentientbrendan · · Score: 1

    another side sign of the decline of the american public education system.

  154. Recent survey's show that American Chimps... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are well below the average of industrialized nations.

    1. Re: Recent survey's show that American Chimps... by smitjo · · Score: 1

      Argh!

      Recent surveys show that American chimps are falling behind those of other industrialized nations.

      Must remember to edit comments; The grammar/spelling/thought police are everywhere.

  155. Maybe just a difference of target ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's just that the child wanted to repeat the full task (to get the adults approval), and the chimp wanted to repeat the result (to get rewarded because of reaching it). It might be as simple as that.

  156. redundant steps..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so in the next war Bush will just give the $250bn straight to Halliburton but Rummy will be confused where the planning and diversion stage went ?

  157. 7 day old babies can understand simple words! by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

    For my first son when he was less than a 7 days old, I held him upright on my lap. I then said "up" lifting him up, followeed by "down" and gently lowered him After a few days, and before he was 7 days old, I noticed that he tensed his leg muscles when I said "up" and relaxed his leg muscles when I said "down".

    I also did the same with my third son, with similar results.

    This shows that very young children can both understand simple words, and also actively attempt to cooperate appropriately!

    Never underestimate children, nor judge someone's intelligence by how well they can verbally express themselves.


    -Nivag

    1. Re:7 day old babies can understand simple words! by aaribaud · · Score: 1

      Well, objectively speaking, it shows that 7-days old babies can hear and distinguish different sounds, and can express Pavlovian-like reflexes, which per se is good knowledge, mind you.

      However, this does not allow concluding that they have any understanding of "up" and "down" other than "trigger to flex specific muscles", and we cannot infer any will to cooperate either (which does not mean there's none: ther may be a will to coopoerate, there probably is, but the above experiment alone does not prove it).

      BTW as a father of almost 6 and almost 9 years old kids, I agree with the "never underestimate children" bit. :)

  158. What next? by the+cortez · · Score: 1

    Coming soon... all new, cheap and reliable outsourcing partners. The chimp champs.

  159. Your just a little bit off there by toadlife · · Score: 1

    Chimps are hardly "considered an adult by age three". Chimps don't even have the ability to hold on to their mother until about 6 months, they don't leave thier mother's back until age 3 and don't leave their mother's side until around age 7. They don't start puberty until age 7-10 and can't reproduce until age 12 or 13. Their lifespan in captivity is 60 years - in the wild around 40. Every single one of those developmental milestones are pretty damn close to the human equivalents.

    I agree, it would be nice to know how old the Chimps were - the article just said "young chimps" - but to claim bias based on your set of "facts" is wrong.

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  160. Alternative headline: by xlsior · · Score: 1

    "Human kids better at following directions than chimps"

    1. Re:Alternative headline: by Packet+Pusher · · Score: 1

      Human kids more likely to be successful with McDonalds career path.

      "She taps on top of the stove with a stick a lot but my burger tastes just like the one I got yesterday!"

  161. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by kiltyj · · Score: 1

    "Oh very clever Worf. Eat any good books lately?"
    -Q

  162. No Suprise by thelonestranger · · Score: 1

    This is no suprise to me. Looking at some of the kids in the area where I live I've suspected for a long time that they were a few rungs further down the evolutionary ladder than monkeys.

    --
    To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
  163. Children can reason before they are 2 years old by Nivag064 · · Score: 1

    My youngest son could clearly reason when less than 18 months old.

    I observed him at about 15 months, when he went to use his radio, and it didn't work. He checked it was switched on at the radio, and the volume was set up okay. He checked it was switched on at the wall. He checked that the electrical cord was plugged into the wall, and also the radio. He stood still for about a minute, and then pushed the cord plug more firmly in the radio, and the radio started working!

    This was not the sequence of events that is simple imitation. He first checked the obvious, then thought about what else could be checked.

    A few months earlier I watched him over several weeks figure out all the things required for water to come out of the hose pipe. Not sure of the exact order, but gradually he realised that the hose pipe need to be connected to the tap, the nozzle had to be turned the right way, and the tap had to be on.

    While he is a bright child (he is now 8 years old, and in the top maths group in his class), I am sure many other children must be able to reason things out, just that people may not have been so observant, or at least not published their findings widely enough.


    -Nivag

    1. Re:Children can reason before they are 2 years old by Zurk · · Score: 1

      once children reach sentience (usually age 6) they can start figuring stuff out easily.
      it probably has to do with the ability to model relationships and extend it to other tasks rather than anything else cos humans are inherently social animals.

  164. Re:chimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There aren't many people who have ever originated their own words. I don't recall ever creating a new word.

    No, I think you're misunderestimating yourself...

  165. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by gbobeck · · Score: 1

    "I do not smirk. But if I did, this would be a good opportunity."
    -Worf

    --
    Navicula hydraulica plena anguilarum est. Omnes castelli tuus nostri sunt. Ed elli avea del cul fatto trombetta.
  166. So true by toadlife · · Score: 1

    I have a 19 month old and a two month old. My oldest can't say a single word but his level of comprehension has continually suprised I and my wife. For example, his grandmother was over watching him and had let her little ankle biter dog out into the backyard to pee. The dog was standing at the door looking in. Not expecting him to actaully comprehend she said to him "can you please let the dog in?". She was pleasantly suprised when he walked right over to the sliding glass door, unlocked it, walked outside behind the dog, pushed the dog into the house from behind, walked back in, closed the door and locked it.

    Another time, I was hanging something on the wall and had a set of screws on the table. I wasn't paying attention and he took the screws down and started playing with them. Before I knew it the screws were everywhere. I found all but one of them, but I needed the missing one. Desperate to find the screw, I held it in front of him and asked "Can you help me find the screw?". He immediately started pacing around the room, scanning the floor intently - until his attention was broken. He didn't find the scew, but it was obvious that he "got it".

    Days after our youngest was born, I was changing his diaper one day and my oldest was in the room watching. Just for the hell of it I asked him, "Can you hand me a diaper?" I had never asked him to get me anything before, but he immediately ran over to the diaper bag and grabbe me a diaper. It was the wrong size diaper, but..... :)

    --
    I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    1. Re:So true by swillden · · Score: 1

      My oldest can't say a single word but his level of comprehension has continually suprised I and my wife.

      Just a note on grammar and style... the above sentence should most properly end with "continually surprised my wife and me". When the speaker is the direct object in a sentence, the correct pronoun is "me", as in "It surprised me". The fact that you've added another person to the list doesn't change anything.

      I think many people are reluctant to use "me" in that context because of a sort of backlash against the grammatically incorrect use of "me" in the subject of a sentence. For example, "My wife and me went to a movie" is wrong. In the subject, the personal pronoun is "I".

      Another very common error, especially in the business world, is to use "myself" in place of "me" in the direct object such as "Please send the report to John and myself". "Myself" should only be used in the direct object when "I" is the subject, like "I sent the report to myself." I think this error arises from an attempt to speak correctly when the speaker doesn't really understand the rules and believes that "me" and "I" are both wrong. They think "me" is wrong because of the stigma associated with it due to incorrect use in the subject, and they think "I" is wrong because it is.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    2. Re:So true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know people who torture language deliberately, just for the fun of it. I think the 'I' in the parent post was intended to be taken as such, or maybe he was copying someone he heard doing that.

      And I'm a non native speaker so my mistakes are to be forgiven! (gr)

    3. Re:So true by toadlife · · Score: 1

      My wife is an English major working on her MA. I get enough grammar tips as is it.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  167. II by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This gives a new meaning to "spank the monkey"

  168. DUPE! The Mice did this study a long time ago! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on now, those researchers are just duplicating the studies conducted by mice many centuries ago.

    Now get on with something important earth men,
      like discovering new flavors of cheese.

  169. Brilliant victory for intelligent design by hrm · · Score: 1

    1) make children stupid by removing science, inserting intelligent design nonsense
    2) test stupid children against chimps, show chimps clearly better at reasoning
    3) conclude that chimps are smarter, therefore better adapted, than children, hence children are not evolved from apes, hence Darwinism is nonsense.

  170. No chimp left behind by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll put those chimps through the U.S. educational system. Then we'll see how well they do on those tests.

  171. Kinda obvious when you think about it... by Oersoep · · Score: 1

    Chimps don't need to carry around this enormous amount of culture. The following-rituals-instinct probably increases the chance on survival and reproduction within a human society.

  172. Oh yeah? Well ... by xav_jones · · Score: 1

    I'm a chimpanzee you insensitive clod!

  173. Obligatory MS bashing by MadMoses · · Score: 1

    While training chimps to perform a routine task with redundant steps,

    They had to work with Microsoft Office?

    SCNR

    --

    Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
  174. parenting by dJOEK · · Score: 1

    Chimp mommies probably don't tell their young to 'be a good boy and do everything the kind mister asks you, ok tommy?'

    also, tv makes kids dumb

    --
    Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
  175. Cargo Cults by cowbutt · · Score: 1
    Seems like humans are wired to try Cargo Cult-like approaches first:

    Eventually the cargo cults petered out. But, from time to time, the term "cargo cult" is invoked as an English language idiom, to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance.
  176. On the Continuing Evolution of Language by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 5, Funny
    I don't recall ever creating a new word.
    Any person who has not created at least one new word in his/her lifetime lacks plachoritence, IMO.
    I know that that sounds entroniant, perhaps even bleavisome, but it had to be said.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    1. Re:On the Continuing Evolution of Language by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 4, Funny

      Oh, and on a slightly more serious note, how do you know that chimps haven't created new words?
      Perhaps they have, and humans just haven't recognized them.
      It's entirely possible that they have words for chimp concepts.
      For example, they probably have a simple verb that means "to fling my excrement at".
      So rather than saying/signing "I flung my excrement at the keeper this morning.", a chimp might say/sign, "I feced the keeper this morning.", where "feced" is a verb meaning "flung my excrement at".
      I think that more research should be done into this area, possibly by seeing what sorts of signs/sounds/facial expressions/etc. chimps make to each other shortly after they fling their excrement at people or do other chimp things.

      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    2. Re:On the Continuing Evolution of Language by infinite9 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Any person who has not created at least one new word in his/her lifetime lacks plachoritence, IMO.
      I know that that sounds entroniant, perhaps even bleavisome, but it had to be said.


      I'm imbiggened by your cromulent words.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    3. Re:On the Continuing Evolution of Language by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 2, Funny

      While I, for one, welcome our new complimenting overlords, I always thought that it was spelled "embiggen".
      (For a short time, my sig line was "Embiggen cromulency!".)

      --
      Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    4. Re:On the Continuing Evolution of Language by infinite9 · · Score: 1

      I always thought that it was spelled "embiggen".

      Dude, you've corrected my spelling of a made-up word. You've transcended spelling-naziism. That's beyond anal-retentive. Maybe you should go into business making diamonds.

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    5. Re:On the Continuing Evolution of Language by hobbesx · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure where researching the spelling of a made up word stands on the Anality-scale (Asshat?); and I'm sure that you don't care about this:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embiggen#Embiggen/

      --
      This rating is Unfair ( ) ( ) Fair (*) Funny
      Sigh... If only. Modding would be so much more fun.
    6. Re:On the Continuing Evolution of Language by dpilot · · Score: 1

      Bzzzzzt.

      On google, "plachoritence", "entroniant", and "bleavisome" each yields only one response, the grandparent post. On the other hand, "imbiggened" and "cromulent" give at least a page, each.

      On a slightly more meaningful side, our son used to pop up with some new word, and say, "That's my word for xxxx," apparently expecting us and the rest of the world to learn his invented language. While we tried to encourage creativity and independent thought, we had to discourage that one. He also likes Calvin and Hobbes, so a quote is in order, here: "With any luck, language can become a complete impediment to communication."

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  177. Another explanation... by SirBruce · · Score: 1

    Another possibility that springs to mind is that human chldren are actually "experienced" with high-tech gadgetry of the modern age, and so don't make the assumptions the chimps do.

    The study said the chimps, when they saw the clear box and the fact the bolt did not appear to do anything, went straight for the food. But that's purely mechanical thinking. Human children have probably seen all sorts of devices that mechanically don't seem important but due to electronics actually produce a "magical" effect. It would be interesting to see what would happen if said bolt actually DID prevent them from opening the box, even though it didn't see to. My bet is a bunch of the chimps would have trouble at first because they (falsely) assumed it had no purpose. Human children probably figure it's there for a reason, even if that reason is not immediately obvious to them. Indeed, the bolt may have second or third-order effects -- maybe it doesn't stop you from getting the food, but if you don't move it, your mom will cry. That sort of thing.

    Bruce

  178. experimenting on children? by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    Chimpanzees, the closest releatives to humans are kept in cages and experimented on in scientific labs. Many are intentionally infected with AIDS by scientists doing AIDS research.

    Now it appears they have better ability to reason than children.

    Will this reopen the debate on the ethics of using these animals?

  179. It is useful to do useless tasks by 4Dmonkey · · Score: 1

    the chimps were able to figure out and eliminate the redundant steps,
    Yes, thats very interesting. It suggests that immitating seemingly useless tasks or following the exact directions without applying reasoning prematurely, has some evolutionary advantage, compared to just focusing on immediate rewards.
    Assuming that they actually applied reason and it was not a result of just learning by hit and trial, it shows that adult chimps must have lost the ability to just "play through" the game, and focused on the reward instead. In fact grown up humans also show this behaviour.
    The ability to perform tasks in a noval way comes from delibrately not reasoning in the old way, and sometimes follow redundant or even wrong steps, before coming up with a totally new way.

    --
    God created man in his own image, but somehow he evolved into a hairless monkey.
  180. A child eh? How Old? by Spock+the+Baptist · · Score: 2, Funny

    Experiments prove that Gophers are more intelligent than human fetuses...

    And the point of the headline?

    --
    "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
  181. eeeev'rybody knows..... by WiFiBro · · Score: 1

    .. that all properties we have can be assigned to single genes.

    Such as the anti-drought gene from cacti which can be put into wheat, so GMO wheat can be grown in the desert.

  182. So long and thanks for all the fish by gevil · · Score: 2, Funny

    We all know mouse and dolphings are smarter than us, but now chimps? were will this all end? Humans think they are smarter than dolphins for they have things like money, and digital watches. Dolphins think they are smarter for the exact same reasons.

  183. Neither do you by ifwm · · Score: 0

    "You guys that are saying that, you don't have the side of research on you."

    There is NO consensus on this subject. Please stop trying to make it appear as if there is. You made many statements in your post which are unproven opinions. I doubt there will ever be a consensus on the subject, people just respond too differently to stimulus.

    Punishment is effective for changing behaviors (notice I said "punishment" not "beating") and frankly, any attempt to argue otherwise should be immediately dismissed. But like any tool, it has a place, and using it incorrectly will lead to problems.

    Lastly, I noticed that throughout your post you used inflammatory rhetoric to indicate corporal punsihment, such as "violence" and "beating". I doubt you'll find anyone credible who advocates beating a child, so lay off the hyperbole. It's a clear indicator of someone whose point is weak, and your isn't so weak that you need to resort to word games.

  184. This just backs up my theory... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bad programming habits begin at an early age.

  185. A slightly different perspective... by MissingDividends · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think this comes back to how we raise our children... (Well actually how you raise your children since I'm still one...)

    I think that the whole "don't question, just accept" way of thinking is totally absurd.
    Do you have any idea how annoying it is to hear "because I said so" or "What do you mean 'Why?' It just is!" from an adult?
    What's worse are the "I'll tell you when you're older", "You wouldn't understand", and "You don't want to know that"...
    My personal favorite is "It doesn't matter"...

    My parents were great; they avoided these types of thought-quashing over-used "no-answers", but many of my teachers (even the good ones) at the elementary school level (USA) got so sick of me (it wasn't just me, but I did ask a lot of questions) asking questions that they decided that 'It doesn't matter' what I want to know, it only matters what the curriculum says to teach (another whole rant), that if the explanation wasn't simple, that they should make something up.

    I'm not trying to brag, but even in 1st grade, I was really good at math. I have 3 math teaches in my family, and that helped a bit, but teachers often tell 'little lies' because it doesn't really matter... Do you have any idea how many recesses I sat trying to figure out why you couldn't divide by a fraction or decimal?! I certainly didn't know for sure what you would get, but it only makes sense that if you have 8 marbles and you put them into 2 piles you have 4 in each pile (8/2=4) and then you put them into 1 pile, you would have 8 in each pile (8/1=8) and if you were to keep cutting the number of piles in half, the number of marbles would double, which is true (8/(1/2)=16), but no first grade teacher is going to try to explain the fact that multiplication and division are the same thing when the teacher just spent days trying to teach the kids not to confuse them.
    I'm going to go off on [another] tangent... the teachers don't call them little lies; they call them white lies. Does anybody who uses that term have any idea how incredibly racist that is?! It implies that black lies (big lies) are very bad; while white lies aren't so bad...I don't think I need to elaborate any further...

    When I started writing this, I was going to give an example from each grade, but now that I'm done with that, and re-read it, I've decided not to bother as 99% of readers will have given up by now...

    The other problem with the way kids are taught to reason is you* spend so much time telling kids to do it 'the right way'... in reality, kids are told to do it your way. They are told that their way is always wrong.

    -You have to color in the lines. Why? Because I said so.
    Is there any reason to make kids color in the lines? Can you think of one? Yes? Why do most parents/teachers/etc. refuse to explain it to their children? Is coloring in the lines a life-skill? No, but it does help to teach motor skills. There are other reasons, but that's the only one that makes any sense to me...
    Isn't it more efficient to just scribble?
    Isn't it actually stifling creativity to teach kids that you have to color each object one color?

    -Walk in a straight line between classes. (Not sure if they do this most places, or if it's just a regional thing)
    I can't count the number of times I questioned it in the first year or two, but after being yelled at because I asked so many times, I just kind of accepted it.
    (Just for the record, 'It doesn't matter' isn't an acceptable answer when a kid asks a question multiple times. Obviously if they keep asking the question, it matters to them)

    Again, I was going to ramble for a bit longer, but I think I've ranted on the school system and on conformity enough for one post...

    1. Re:A slightly different perspective... by anubi · · Score: 1
      Damm.

      You just entered what I consider the most insightful essay in this entire thread.

      I'd mod you up myself if I had any points.

      You might get a kick out of some research done by Yale University psychology graduate student Stanley Milgram back in the 1950's. His work, "Obedience to Authority", has ( much to my happiness ) been recently reprinted and is available in many bookstores. Its a tiny book - but what's inside will probably shock you. He showed where people are so trained to be "obedient" that they will literally and willingly ELECTROCUTE a completely innocent person on no more authority than the voice of a man in a white lab coat.

      I have a copy of his earlier research, and fearing it would never be reprinted because of the quite shocking nature of its contents, hung onto it dearly.

      A good rant always makes good reading here on Slashdot. I hope the others mod you up so your post gets snared by the corporate bots which mine Slashdot for public opinion.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  186. This says a fair bit about our educational system. by Benanov · · Score: 1

    I've felt (just having recently gotten out of school) that each passing year schools become more like prisons, and that students are being taught the wrong thing--i.e., going through the motions instead of thinking critically.

    I think it says something about the social atmosphere of the environment that children learn in--are they being taught to not question the norm, or are they afraid to do so?

  187. Cogs in the Machine by ChaoticCoyote · · Score: 1

    This study reflects more on our society than it does on intelligence.

    The education system is designed to create good corporate cogs — people who do what they're told, how they're told to do it. Failure to follow the explicitly-given path is "bad" in human society, and creativity is largely frowned upon as a deviant behavior.

    Okay, so I'm being a bit harsh, and probably a bit melodramatic. Yet we spend enormous amounts of effort on human process (particularly in computing) and very little on creativity. Companies complain that they can't find people who "think outside the box", yet are uncomfortable with people who do show inspiration and creativity.

    Admitedly, we don't need creative burger flippers, and process can be invaluable. Somewhere, though, we've lost a balance between being cogs in a machine and random parts in a pile.

  188. I for one... by Veneratio · · Score: 0

    Should be obligatory by now:

    I for one welcome our new chimp overlords!

    --
    "Sarcasm is for *winners*, Alan." - Charlie Harper (Two and a Half Men)
  189. I just wonder... by Slur · · Score: 0, Troll

    These weren't Neocon children, perchance?

    --
    -- thinkyhead software and media
  190. RTFP by Wilson_6500 · · Score: 1

    How do you coax a chimp into teaching a human child? How do you coax the child into agreeing to "learn from a monkey"? Hell, how do you convince the parents?

    "We'll pay your child $10 an hour to learn how to shuck corn from this chimpanzee."


    That'd be one hell of a reality show.

  191. authority.. by segfault_0 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps its just the social scheme at play here. The children see the adults as superiors and therefore trust them to make the right decisions, therefore making them less likely to skip steps. The chimps, very plausibly, have their own social order. This doesn't seem to me to prove as much about learning ability as they let on.

    --

    I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
  192. What of the emotional factor? by tatonca · · Score: 2, Informative

    Do the chimps worry about disappointing thier parents if they miss a step? Are they worried about being disobedient?

    I'll admit that I didn't RTFA, but as a parent one thing I have come to understand - expecially when they are young, kids are more afraid of disappointing you than death, taxes and making things more efficient.

  193. Stupid humans by Grand+Facade · · Score: 1

    So used to being told what to do, they are unable to think for themselves.

    Eat this food, sleep on this bed, drive this car, look like this.

    The only time free thinking comes into play is when there is competition or when one is trying to achieve something.

    The rest of the time the herd mentality rules the moment......

    --
    Rick B.
  194. Andy Kaufman was right! by kisrael · · Score: 1

    "As they say in my country, the only thing that separates us from the animals are mindless superstition and pointless ritual."
    --Latka Gravas in "Taxi"

    --
    SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  195. simpsons by Use+Psychology · · Score: 1


    i used to be as smart as a monkey, now i'm as dumb as a chimp.

    or something like that

  196. Re:I don't think this study shows just learning. by hylander_sb · · Score: 1

    Ha! you obviously have not had a two year old girl in your house!!

    Example: My daughter wants to open a tube of toothpaste with a flip top on it. I let her figure it out. She starts prying at the seam between the cap and tube with her thumbnail. Not a bad choice. However, the cap is designed with an indentation to get leverage with the side of your thumb to push it open, saving your precious thumbnail from getting mangled. I let my daughter bang her head on the problem for about a minute, then I convince her to let me show her a 'better way' by pushing on the indentation. SHe observed and understood the procedure but decided that her way was better and went back to it. Eventually, she got it open and submitted that as proof that her way is just as good. Recently she started employing the method that I showed her. Probably after she felt enough time had passed that I couldn't take credit for showing her.

    Sometimes learning can be influenced by personality more than species.

  197. Time to change my bumper sticker... by CarnivorousCoder · · Score: 1

    My German Shepherd is smarter than your chimp.

    --
    What are you doing now, you lazy drunken obscene unsayable son of an unnameable gipsy obscenity?
  198. Maybe so, but.... by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    ...how's their trig?

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  199. Chimp Dialogue by 4Dmonkey · · Score: 1

    Chimp-1: "I figured it out just in a minute that there were so many redundant steps involved in getting that banana, right after looking at the setup for the first time. And knew what the experimenters wanted to see"

    Chimp-2: "Then why did you take 4 weeks and 200 trials to show the results ???. They think that we are retarded "

    Chimp-1: "What do you mean why? Do you know of any better way to get a month of banana supply for free? "

    --
    God created man in his own image, but somehow he evolved into a hairless monkey.
  200. Re:No English Profs at Slashdot ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "and no, I did not make the grandparent post"

    Nor apparently did you read it.

  201. And those kids were whose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It turns out that the children were all members of the Bush family. Only one of those currently is as smart as a chimp.

  202. I didn't see it yet, so I though I might as well.. by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    In United States of America Chimps beat you!

    (horrible i know)

  203. I for one... by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

    ...welcome our new chimpanzee overlords.

    ...it had to be said.

    ...and probably already has.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  204. It's funny by Targon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Considering how much research has gone into research on primates, it's almost funny that it's taken researchers this long to come up with this conclusion. Full grown chimps compared to human children. Ok, so a fully developed chimp is better at some things than a human child. Children need time to grow up. If a young chimp were to beat a human child, THEN there would be something interesting to report.

        A gorilla is stronger than just about any human out there. An ape can fall from a much higher distance than a human without getting seriously hurt. The list of things goes on where humans arn't necessarily the best at everything. When it comes to brain development, it may take a bit of time for a human to develop, but look at the differences between an adult of each species, not between adults and children of different species.

  205. All Of You, Bar None, Are Missing The Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    and that is that humans, who have so-called mirror neurons"
    1. are genetically designed to copy the behavior of other humans and that
    2. At an early age the genetic behavior dominates learned behavior.

    It's not behavioural conditioning, it is genetic . In the "nature vs. nurture" controversy, this is a big win for "nature".

  206. Rumination... by Lodragandraoidh · · Score: 1

    Perhaps ruminating over inefficiencies serves to provide deeper development of the brain. There are so many things going on in a developing brain that we would be hard pressed to definitively say 'it is more beneficial to have a brain that can eliminate inefficient options early on', because we don't understand enough about it.

    Equally plausible is the idea that repetition of a wider array of options serves to program the brain more deeply with an understanding about how the world works that goes beyond the task at hand. This could be the source of our curiosity and propensity to be inventive that goes beyond what we see in the animal world. Perhaps this could be expressed simply as the idea that humans play more than animals do - animals approach things from a practical standpoint and humans do many things that, on the surface at least, seem impractical - but provide dividends in terms of understanding later.

    --

    Lodragan Draoidh
    The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
  207. It seems that you don't hae kids. by hummassa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Babies don't usually get any tangible reward simply for saying a word or two. They may get some attention, but they could get that far more effectively just by crying. You should never do that. When a baby is starting to speak, you should ignore it most of the time it cries, and give him reward in attention when he speaks; that way, it'll develop speech faster.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:It seems that you don't hae kids. by brpr · · Score: 1

      When a baby is starting to speak, you should ignore it most of the time it cries, and give him reward in attention when he speaks; that way, it'll develop speech faster.

      Actually, there is no evidence that giving babies attention when they speak leads to faster linguistic development. Conceivably it might speed up the very early stages, but it certainly doesn't lead to any long-term gain in linguistic ability.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
  208. Not a coincidence ... by hummassa · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you don't do that, they will not start talking for many months. I know of a toddler that started talking at almost 2yo (as opposed to 8-18 months) because everytime the said "ah" and pointed to something, his parents gave it to him.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
    1. Re:Not a coincidence ... by brpr · · Score: 1

      If you don't do that, they will not start talking for many months. I know of a toddler that started talking at almost 2yo (as opposed to 8-18 months) because everytime the said "ah" and pointed to something, his parents gave it to him.

      You say "because", but you have no evidence of any cause/effect relationship. It's not particularly unusual for a baby not to start talking until 2yo; they don't all develop at the same rate.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
  209. R-E-A-D the article! by wfolta · · Score: 1

    If you read the article all the way to the, you know, END, you'll find that the chimps did not do "better" than the humans. What they discovered is that we've been mistaken in assuming that figuring out someone's goal is "more advanced" learning than simply imitating them. This is true for simple cases, such as in the experiment where you just have to open a box. But it's not true for more advanced tasks, such as learning to build or use a complex tool. For complicated behaviors, simply knowing the goal is not enough to generate the steps necessary to reach the goal.

  210. Seems like the critical period by highfreq2 · · Score: 1

    Human children remain in what is often call the critical period far longer than other primates. It is during this period that humans are best able to pick up language. But, during the critical period the brain is not so good at standard reasoning. So human children have a hard time out reasoning mentally mature chimps.

  211. And, thus... by The+Spoonman · · Score: 1

    ...the reason it's so hard to change that policy in your company. No one knows why they do it, or if it actually produces results, but it's the way it's always been done, so....

    --
    Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
    http://www.workorspoon.com
  212. Nicaraguan Sign Language by Phae · · Score: 1

    I actually wrote a research paper over the evolution of language for my senior seminar, so the discussion of ape vs. human intelligence came up a lot. Unfortunately I'm at work so I'll have to work from memory here :).

    Yes, apes can learn words and can be taught to communicate on a very basic level. However, the prime difference is that humans can grasp advanced grammar and syntax, while primates cannot.

    Additionally, if language is not present, humans will create their own, as evidence in the case of Nicaraguan Sign Language

    Here's a brief summary: In the 70s Nicaragua established a special needs school, where ~50 deaf children (previously isolated from any other deaf children) came together. The teachers tried to teach the children finger spelling, but since the children had no concept of spoken language, it was an exercise in futility. Meanwhile, the children were quickly developing their own form of sign language, and the teachers, desparate from the students' inability to learn the fingerspelling, and their own inability to understand the children, asked for outside help from Judy Kegl. Kegl discovered that they had their own language, and that it was evolving from one group of children to the next, into a full-fledged primary sign language.

    1. Re:Nicaraguan Sign Language by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link, I'd heard the story and was looking for that. Problem was, I was looking in Brazil. I'd take my memory back for a refund, if only I could remember where I got it from.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
  213. You Blew It Up!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn Dirty Apes

  214. Sigh by flyinwhitey · · Score: 1

    "Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist.

    Such scales are defined as "anything that animals don't do is human"."

    In your previous post, your assertion was that "but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things." and now it "anything that animals don't do is human". Which is it? Do they not exist as you first asserted, or do you simply dismiss them because you disagree with them as you are currently asserting?

    "Genie didn't develop language and never learned, even with instruction and therapy, grammar beyond what signing chimpanzees can demonstrate, not that her case is scientific in any way."

    NO. Please do not read MY link, then attempt to comment on it as though you knew anything about it. Your previous assertion was that a case such a Genie does not exist, and now that I've shown you it does, you're rewriting your arguments AGAIN in a vain attempt to be right instead of learning you were wrong. Stop doing that.

    "There is no standard for measuring intelligence."

    We are not now, nor were we ever talking about intelligence. We are talking about language, and your insistence on equating the two is mildly amusing, in a "this guy is making this shit up as he goes along" type of way.

    --
    How pathetic are you that you follow me from topic to topic and waste all your mod points at once modding me down?
    1. Re:Sigh by arkanes · · Score: 1
      In your previous post, your assertion was that "but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things." and now it "anything that animals don't do is human". Which is it? Do they not exist as you first asserted, or do you simply dismiss them because you disagree with them as you are currently asserting?

      I don't consider them to be usefull. If you read carefully, you will note that there are no inconsistencies in what I say. Maybe your language skills are lacking.

      NO. Please do not read MY link, then attempt to comment on it as though you knew anything about it. Your previous assertion was that a case such a Genie does not exist, and now that I've shown you it does, you're rewriting your arguments AGAIN in a vain attempt to be right instead of learning you were wrong. Stop doing that.

      I knew about Genie and similiar incidents. They aren't scientific studies, which is what I said didn't exist. If you're claiming that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn soley from Genie, then you're the one who should be learning instead of arguing.

      We are not now, nor were we ever talking about intelligence. We are talking about language, and your insistence on equating the two is mildly amusing, in a "this guy is making this shit up as he goes along" type of way.

      If you believe there is no correlation between language and intelligence, or between language use and intelligence, or even between communication and intelligence, then you're not someone who needs to be talking about *anything* on this topic. And I'm not responsible for whatever delusions you have about the topic.

  215. Also Known as: Ad Hominem Abusive. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.

    Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion.

    In general, it is best to focus one's attention on the content of the claim and not on who made the claim. It is the content that determines the truth of the claim and not the characteristics of the person making the claim.

  216. Outsourced "UNDERSEAS" ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cool.

    Now my job will be outsourced "UNDERSEAS"

    * rolls eyes *

  217. Re: Nuke-launching Species by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1
    Maybe chimps are more violent than humans but we won't know for certain until we allow them the means to launch nukes with the push of a button.
    Some species of ants do that.
    I have lived on this planet most of my adult life, and I can honestly say that I have never witnessed any ants of any kind launching even one nuclear weapon of any type whatsoever, not even for testing purposes.
    However, I saw a documentary once where ants detonated a nuclear device underground in order to use the resultant radiation to increase their size tremendously.
    Unfortunately, it produced in them non-beneficial behavioural changes, including a prevalence for attacking white women, and an inability to outthink a small military strike team lead by, for some reason, a handsome scientist.
    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
  218. nutrition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wonder what these kids' nutritional status was?

    An interesting followup would be to use kids given proper nutrition since birth (plenty of vitamins /w only declared-amount mixed-tocopherol E and extra magnesium, only ever natural/organic single-ingredient unprocessed food, and also only grass-fed meats/eggs and ocean-caught fish [for natural omega 3 balance]). Mother should do all of this from at least 3 months before impregnation.

    IMO any planned mother who doesn't at least have omega 3 (brain building material) balance right needs punched in the face by a robot. Flu'll kill anyone who doesn't do things right anyways though so I figure all will be good soon enough.

  219. Other possible explanations by gnunzo · · Score: 1

    This also could be a sign that children think much more about a task than do chimps. I remember in high school math learning how to do things with all these extra steps that made no sense until I started learning more advanced math concepts and then understood those extra steps to be extremely important.

    But if I wasn't able to comprehend that there may be more to what I'm doing than what I currently understand--if I didn't have the ability to know that I might not know everything, then I would have skipped them, never learned them, and had a bitch of a time later.

  220. Re:babies & sign language by Ricdude · · Score: 1

    FWIW, I taught my daughter simple signs before she could speak. We figured if she could communicate the basics (food/hungry, drink/thirsty, more, finished, etc.) to us without just screaming until we figured it which she wanted, we'd all be a lot happier. So, is this pavlovian conditioning? i.e. "Make this sign, you get the 'treat'." You could look at it that way, but really, she became a much more mellow child once she learned how to communicate with us. She was happier, we were happier, it was better for everyone all around. We kept up with it as long as she was interested in learning new words/signs, progressing through "help", "up", etc. She even made up a few of her own: "snowball", and "napkin" were ones I remember her coming up with. But nothing lit her eyes up like when I taught her the sign for "baby". Here was a way she could refer to herself, and that knowledge clicked in her like nothing I've ever seen before or since. It's hard to describe, really.

    But back to the "allegedly" lower primates: Koko, the gorilla who was taught sign language, is pretty well documented as coming up with words on her own, and expressing emotions we humans would consider "deep". Longing for a baby, for example. Is there anything inherently keeping other primates from the same "accomplishments"? I don't think so. Their natural ways probably don't require a lot of deeper communication, i.e. they don't need to express, "I say, is that a tiger sneaking up on us from behind that tree?" It's sufficient for their purposes to have an expression for "DANGER!" Koko, having lived in an environment where deeper communication was encouraged, apparently has a lot more to say...

    --
    How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
  221. And I keep repetitively reading slashdot... by ricky_charlet · · Score: 1

    May be the chimps would eliminate that as a usless setp.

  222. Another way in which chimps beat kids by Caspian · · Score: 1

    Something tells me that there are no chimp bullies. I can't imagine a crowd of chimps mercilessly prodding and laughing at a single scrawny chimp until he or she backs into the corner cowering and pouting.

    --
    With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
  223. Re:babies & sign language by brpr · · Score: 1

    You can certainly teach primates to make short sign sequences, though it doesn't seem that they have the same complex recursive structure as natural language sentences (7 signs is about the longest ape sentence that has been observed, and it's not clear that long strings of signs in ape signing have very much structure). My point was that you don't need to teach babies their native language. They learn incredibly complex syntactic, semantic and phonological facts about their native language without any instruction whatsoever (and in fact while ignoring any explicit instruction given by adults). Consider the following fact of English. You can say either "I picked up the book" or "I picked the book up", but while you can say "I picked it up", you can't say "I picked up it". That is the sort of complex syntactic fact which babies master without any instruction whatsoever -- unless you're a syntactician, you probably never even noticed that particular fact of English syntax.

    You also have to be beware of the extent to which signs can be overinterpreted. We don't know that Koko was saying that she wanted a baby. She may have been saying something far simpler.

    It's implausible to assert that primates in the wild don't "need" complex communication. If that is the case, why did humans evolve it? We were, after all, primates living in a very similar environment to the one in which chimpanzees and other apes live. It is clearly useful to have complex communication in virtually any social environment, but it is apparently beyond the cognitive abilities of apes unless they are specially trained (and even then their communication is not especially complex).

    --
    Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
  224. In other news.... by NerveGas · · Score: 1


        Shorter-lived animals develop faster. No kidding. You can house-train a dog by 1 or 2 months old. When your lifespan is only about 10 years, you can't waste two or three of them on learning where to defecate.

        Chimps develop faster than humans because they DIE SOONER. They also live in a more hostile environment, and aren't afforded the 18 or 20 years of care and coddling that humans are.

    steve

    --
    Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
  225. This was posted by ScuttleMonkey... by serve · · Score: 1

    ....I think I see the primate partiality!

  226. Chimps v human children by foxops · · Score: 1

    In order to make a valid comparison it is necessary to compare like with like - viz the human children have been taught (not hard wired!) from birth to "do as you are told" adults, peers and parents constantly make children do "uneccessary" things (eat with knife and fork) (wash hands) (dont swear) etc. The chimps are not subject to this.

  227. Spanish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    La wife, not el wife

  228. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The addition of comments places this chimp not only above children, but many of my colleagues as well.

  229. Jumping to conclusions by edraven · · Score: 1

    One might be tempted to take with a grain of salt an interpretation of the results of this study that fails to explain why the report wasn't written by the chimpanzees conducting the experiment.

  230. Apples to oranges by hebie · · Score: 1

    The experiment has to be with Baby chimps vs baby humans. Children of all animals(and men) attempt to blindly imitate their parents and logically understand it later. So the comparison is not accurate.

  231. embiggened by jonskerr · · Score: 1

    I call bullshit. Based on the context, the parent is right; to make some into thing else is to "em"-whatever it is, and the word 'cromulent' in same paragraph is taken from an episode of Black Adder in which Samuel Johnson is touting his new invention, the Dictionary, housing all the words in the English language. Black Adder says something about how that's very cromulent and several other made-up adjectives,just to fuck with Johnson.

    --
    O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
    1. Re:embiggened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, both "cromulent" and "embiggen" come from an episode of "The Simpsons".

  232. So THAT'S why... by n6kuy · · Score: 1

    ...chimps don't read Slashdot!

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  233. I have to ask... by John+Pfeiffer · · Score: 1

    ...human _American_ children? Did they test kids from anywhere _else_? And if not, why? I have a feeling they'd reach much different results in, say, Asia...or Canada.

    And before I get flamed into next month, American, born and raised. So just get over it, I know my people.

    --

    Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
  234. welcome to the jungle by icbkr · · Score: 1

    Could we concentrate more on educating my 15 year old to a decent level, and less on educating some damn monkey? @#$%ing humans.

  235. Sorry have to say it by kehren77 · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new chimpanzee overlords.

  236. Large sample not necessary by QMO · · Score: 1

    You claim: "There's a lot of evidence that how ever much people may try to teach babies to speak, babies ignore them."

    I won't try to claim that that evidence doesn't exist, or that is was unscientifically gathered, or misinterpreted. I don't need to.

    To counter a general claim that children don't learn from being "taught" language all I need is one counterexample.

    I have seen (multiple times) my 4-year-old explain to my toddler new words and how to say others words and seen the toddler immediately listen, imitate and use with understanding, and not forget later.

    I realize that you may have to conduct your own observations in order to know for yourself.

    Just because my toddler ignores ME when I try to teach, doesn't mean she can't be taught.

    --
    Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
    1. Re:Large sample not necessary by brpr · · Score: 1

      I have seen (multiple times) my 4-year-old explain to my toddler new words and how to say others words and seen the toddler immediately listen, imitate and use with understanding, and not forget later.

      That's vocabulary learning, where it is indeed true that children will sometimes ask "what does X mean?" and pay attention to the answer. However, I was talking about learning facts of grammar, where this never happens. It is the aquisition of grammar which is particularly hard to explain. In any case, it's also extremely difficult to explain how children aquire vocabulary, since they have very limited evidence concerning the meaning of words. Even when you "explain" the meaning of a word to a child, you will actually be leaving out most of its meaning, which is somehow intuitively grasped by any human. For example, your toddler doesn't need anyone to explain to her that book names can be used both referentially and non-referentially (respectively: "Tolstoy wrote War and Peace"; "Don't throw War and Peace across the room!"), or indeed that a single instance of a book name can have both meanings at once ("Tolstoy wrote War and Peace, so don't throw it across the room!"). These are not obvious or necessary properties of language -- one can easily imagine a language where names for books are strictly referential -- but babies somehow grasp it anyway.

      --
      Freedom is not increased by mere diminuation of government. Anarchy is freedom for the strong and slavery for the weak.
  237. Re:Chimps writing PHP code. by BarryNorton · · Score: 1

    Just don't get him started on KDE or 'ad hominem attacks'

  238. Humans are trained to do useless illogical things by sandarB · · Score: 1

    So, I don't believe Chimps are smarter than humans. From an early age human children are trained to do useless, rediculous stuff. Early on, children learn to do these things to please the adults. So, when they are trained to do somthing in this study, they do it just as they have been instructed to. While, chimps having the advantage of not being raised by humans, are free to focus on the percieved end goal.