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."
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.
Simon's Rock College
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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?
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."
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!