Slashdot Mirror


Goldfish Smarter Than Dolphins

flergum writes "While dolphins may have big brains, laboratory rats and goldfish can outwit them. It appears that the large brains are a function of their environment rather than intelligence. From the article: 'Dolphins have a superabundance of glia and very few neurons... The dolphin's brain is not made for information processing it is designed to counter the thermal challenges of being a mammal in water.' I guess this means that the Navy will start recruiting and training goldfish for those mine search and destroy missions."

530 comments

  1. Smart is one thing... by BiggerIsBetter · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...but don't goldfish only have a 3 second memory?

    --
    Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
    1. Re:Smart is one thing... by FromageTheDog · · Score: 5, Funny

      What are we talking about, again?

    2. Re:Smart is one thing... by MustardMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know what really disturbs me? The number of people I've met who actually believe that idiotic myth. We really live in a pathetic state of education when this type of nonsense is accepted without question.

    3. Re:Smart is one thing... by Splab · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well they did say it in a movie... And we all know that what we see in movies are real, don't we?

    4. Re:Smart is one thing... by Omicron32 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And where is your evidence to the contrary?

    5. Re:Smart is one thing... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Just think for a moment: how long would any animal with only a 3-second memory survive? How long would you survive?

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    6. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      And where is your evidence to the contrary?

      I hope that was a joke. If not then it supports everything he said about the sorry state of the education system. You don't need evidence to dismiss an unsupported (and let's face it, completely implausbile sounding) claim. The burden of proof runs the other way entirely.
    7. Re:Smart is one thing... by kfg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In a goldfish's behavior when you approach it for feeding. Believe me, they remember what your behavior indicates is about to happen.

      KFG

    8. Re:Smart is one thing... by DrSkwid · · Score: 3, Informative

      My goldfish certainly display this behaviour, and it is not just the Pavlovian response to someone walking near the tank.

      My three fish will swim to the end of the tank I am sat nearest to and badger me into feeding them, but only when the light in the tank is on.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    9. Re:Smart is one thing... by arduous · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from?

      --
      "It's the smell! If there is such a thing." Agent Smith - The Matrix
    10. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I always found it a bit strange that goldfish should have only 3 seconds of memory. When I take my hand to the right corner of my little aquarium, the goldfish swims up and wait for food to arive. I don't need to drop food, it always swim up there when I do it.

      How can a fish with 3 second memory remember how the environment look like when he's getting foodsupplies?

    11. Re:Smart is one thing... by Heir+Of+The+Mess · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why do highly instinctive creatures need memory to survive? Maybe a goldfish just has good firmware that only needs a small amount of memory to work with. Ants probably don't have much memory, but their programming enables them to function effectively, as well as enabling the group to act as a whole.

      --
      Australian running a company that does C# / C++ / Java / SQL / Python / Mathematica
    12. Re:Smart is one thing... by 56ker · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but what's smarter than a slashdot reader and how long is the memory of one?

    13. Re:Smart is one thing... by Firehed · · Score: 1

      I was wondering why my fish never seem to eat anything, must be because the tank light (actually, the circuitry I think) burnt out. Of course, that was something like six months ago, so they're obviously hording the food for when I'm not looking.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    14. Re:Smart is one thing... by Hawkxor · · Score: 5, Funny

      doo...doo...doo...
      Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from?

    15. Re:Smart is one thing... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Then there is this obsevation from another researcher in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

      But measuring intelligence by glia and cortex ratios could be just as unreliable as the big-brain theory, said the head of Vancouver Aquarium's cetacean research program, Lance Barrett-Lennard.

      Wading into the debate, Barrett-Lennard said the highly social networks of dolphins indicates they have strong social intelligence.

      ''A dolphin could have a brain the size of a walnut and it wouldn't affect the observations they live very complex and social lives,'' Barrett-Lennard said. ''They keep account of who their friends are, with very complicated hierarchies and allegiances.

      "The other thing is they have spatial maps. They know exactly where to go when they need to look for certain food.''

      And another thing... goldfish jump out of their bowls and *die*. Yep, self destructing is sure a smart thing to do. NOT! It's not like a Dolphin can jump out of the tank, catch a bus to the ocean and take off. Or maybe it might want to stop at a Starbucks on the way. Have to think on that a while. Anyway, it is probably a smarter thing to stay put for them. Glad I figured that out.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    16. Re:Smart is one thing... by iapetus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about here?

      --
      ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
      Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    17. Re:Smart is one thing... by fbjon · · Score: 1

      Yes, but a goldfish is a much larger creature than an ant. I'm thinking specifically of finding back to where the food was, finding your offspring, and other tasks that require memorization, and won't work with a scent trail like ants do.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    18. Re:Smart is one thing... by revolu7ion · · Score: 2

      If you lived in a foot wide glass bowl - you'd train yourself to have a 3 second memory too...

      --
      Jesus Saves
    19. Re:Smart is one thing... by Tomfrh · · Score: 2, Interesting

      People believe this myth because it makes them feel better about keeping fish in small bowls.

    20. Re:Smart is one thing... by arivanov · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah and dolphins do not beach themselves...

      Anyway, I agree with you, the social complexity of a pod and the level of communication a pod uses when hunting shows that the entire glia/cortex story is loads of bull. The guys who wrote that bull should go to a delphinarium and watch some dolphins for a while.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    21. Re:Smart is one thing... by Pooua · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Heir Of The Mess: Why do highly instinctive creatures need memory to survive?

      Because environmental conditions that are unique to each generation of animal cannot be solved by instinct.

      Heir Of The Mess: Ants probably don't have much memory, but their programming enables them to function effectively, as well as enabling the group to act as a whole.

      Ants need good memory to find their way back home from food. No, not all ants simply follow a chemical trail.

      "Biologist Thomas Collett of the University of Sussex in England and his colleagues trained wood ants to walk along a wall to test if the insects also use visual clues.

      "Like honeybees, ants stick to familiar routes but are flexible in choosing between routes.

      "When ants were placed in a Y-shaped maze with a walls on each side, unfed ants also learned to choose the food path."

      http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/11/1 6/ants-051117.htmlCBC: Empty stomach, visual memory guides ants to food

      --
      Taking stuff apart since 1969 (TM)
    22. Re:Smart is one thing... by m874t232 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You don't need evidence to dismiss an unsupported (and let's face it, completely implausbile sounding) claim.

      Of course, you need evidence to dismiss a claim. You may choose not to bother dismissing it, but in that case, the claim simply remains unresolved.

      I hope that was a joke. If not then it supports everything he said about the sorry state of the education system.

      It's unscientific thinking like yours--dismissing claims for "sounding implausible" and placing "burdens of evidenc on people on a whim--that illustrates how poor our science education is.

    23. Re:Smart is one thing... by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      Just think for a moment: how long would any animal with only a 3-second memory survive? How long would you survive?

      Many animals don't have memory of any kind (they still have learning and adaptation, but that's something different).

    24. Re:Smart is one thing... by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 2, Funny

      What are we talking about, again?

      Pesident Regan?!?!? You speak to us from the beyond!!

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    25. Re:Smart is one thing... by WCD_Thor · · Score: 1

      People also believe that a Dog doesn't know what its done wrong if you are to punish (and I don't mean physicly you fucking assholes) it within a certain amount of time, usualy a few minutes they say. Even dog trainers believe that bullshit. My dog knows exactly what it has done wrong hours and hours after the act. But still, goldfish, got to be pretty damned stupid. The memory they most likely have is based on instinct for the most part. Evolution can do amazing things with such little bodies.

    26. Re:Smart is one thing... by flumps · · Score: 3, Funny

      Dr. Evil: You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have dolphins with frickin' laser beams attached to their heads! Now evidently my cycloptic colleague informs me that that cannot be done. Ah, would you remind me what I pay you people for, honestly? Throw me a bone here! What do we have?

      Number Two: Gold fish.

      Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.
      Number Two: They're mutated Gold fish.
      Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?
      Number Two: Absolutely.
      Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.

      --
      "So there he is, risen from the dead. Like that fella, E. T." - Father Ted Crilly
    27. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It seems you simply don't understand what "memory" means in the technical sense. "Memory" is not required for learning, training, or routines.

    28. Re:Smart is one thing... by hackwrench · · Score: 0, Redundant

      You've got to be smarter than the cool plastic castle.

    29. Re:Smart is one thing... by Carewolf · · Score: 4, Informative

      Mythbusters... They trained some goldfish to navigate a labyrinth.

      Though I think part of the confusion here is, that I always thought goldfish had 3 seconds of short term memory. A short short-term memory does not exclude the ability to learn specific behavior, what learned can just not be constructed from facts with many seconds in between.

    30. Re:Smart is one thing... by alfs+boner · · Score: 1
      Fucking, goldfish, dude.

      Go read a book or smoke a joint.

      Jesus.

      --
      Listen p*ssy. I'm sure your the same homo that posted earlier about alf's boner and you just want to remain anonymous fo
    31. Re:Smart is one thing... by dotgain · · Score: 2, Informative

      While some tropical fish care for their young (and sometimes it's the male's job!), goldfish have nothing to do with them after laying the eggs. Except to eat the occasional one, of course.

    32. Re:Smart is one thing... by the_womble · · Score: 2, Informative

      My goldfish show learned behaviours. For example, they swim towards a person standing on the side of the pond on which we throw in food, but not on the other side.

    33. Re:Smart is one thing... by SCPRedMage · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No he does... er, what where we talking about?

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
    34. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flys have no memory, and pretty much no brain at all.... just a bunch of reflex reactions tied into their senses and they have done pretty well.

    35. Re:Smart is one thing... by Fanther · · Score: 1

      Well they did say it in a movie... And we all know that what we see in movies are real, don't we?

      Of course, and the movies say short memory is not a big problem anyway.
      --
      friskr.com - a Multi Search Engine

    36. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Of course, you need evidence to dismiss a claim. You may choose not to bother dismissing it, but in that case, the claim simply remains unresolved.

      No, you need evidence to disprove a claim. If you choose not to bother disproving it, then you have dismissed it. That's what dismissing a claim means.

      It's uncritical thinking like yours -- using words wrongly and not even bothering to check your spelling and punctuation before you post -- that illustrates how poor your entire education system is.

    37. Re:Smart is one thing... by Cocoronixx · · Score: 0
      --
      "Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker." - cloak42
    38. Re:Smart is one thing... by astralbat · · Score: 1
      Because environmental conditions that are unique to each generation of animal cannot be solved by instinct.
      This may well be true for some types of ants, but this isn't necessarily true for other creatures. Natural selection can be enough to reprogram many creatures instincts, for each generation if necessary IMO.
    39. Re:Smart is one thing... by u38cg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Goldfish jump out of water to escape predators - probably when you've got a pike snapping at your tail, trying to learn to breath real quick seems like a good option. When they jump out of tanks, it's because they are highly stressed, and that usually is down to the environment you keep them in. I've left the lid off my tank all day (accidentally) and they haven't succumbed to the Marco Polo instinct.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    40. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't say how they kept the ants from leaving a chemical trail.

      Ants are tricky like that, they have an incredible sense for finding previous trails.

      I highly doubt these findings.

    41. Re:Smart is one thing... by Silverstrike · · Score: 1

      Of course, assuming it is false, then all those beta fish in the petstores, in bowls just as long and as wide as they are, seem awfully inhumane, don't they?

      Would you put a dog in 3'x3' cage and never let it out?

      Thought not.

    42. Re:Smart is one thing... by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Informative

      My boyfriend suffered a stroke which crippled his short-term memory. For example, one time when I was talking to Andy on the phone, he was distracted by something and put the phone down, and I had to yell to get his attention and remind him that I was still on the line. "Hi there! What's up?" Nonetheless, his therapists succeeded in teaching him some adaptive behaviors, and could still learn some new information with a lot of repetition (what year it is, where I was going to school, the fact that I'd moved). Furthermore, there are some kinds of learning which don't depend upon short-term memory; someone with no short-term memory may not remember why he avoids the place where he burned his hand on a hot pan, or why he prefers to be around one person but not another... but he does. For a good demonstration of short-term-memory deficiency, see "Finding Nemo"; Dory is a remarkably good example. I even used the "P. Sherman, 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney" method (asking him to repeat it over and over) to get Andy to remember the name of the restaurant where we'd had dinner.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    43. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Desert ants can't leave trails because the extreme heat and dry environment will dry up the chemical trail too fast to be useful. These ants have been found to navigate via memory.

    44. Re:Smart is one thing... by skoaldipper · · Score: 1

      Eat smart. Eat dolphins.

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    45. Re:Smart is one thing... by epl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In that sense, we are not much smarter than goldfish with our ~15-45s of short-term memory.

    46. Re:Smart is one thing... by Jackmn · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Of course, you need evidence to dismiss a claim.
      If the claims is unsubstantiated then you can safely dismiss it.

      The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. 'Prove me wrong' is not a valid substitute for evidence.

      It's unscientific thinking like yours
      Placing the burden of proof on the individual making the claim is scientific.
    47. Re:Smart is one thing... by tzanger · · Score: 1

      It seems you simply don't understand what "memory" means in the technical sense. "Memory" is not required for learning, training, or routines.

      Care to elaborate? How is memory not needed for learning?

    48. Re:Smart is one thing... by Jackmn · · Score: 1

      Ouch, 'claims' should read 'claim'.

      I had originally written that 'if claims are... dismiss them', then decided on the current form and forgot to making 'claims' singular.

    49. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called truithiness.

    50. Re:Smart is one thing... by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      "Because environmental conditions that are unique to each generation of animal cannot be solved by instinct."

      Instinct is nothing more than genetic memory, i.e. an EEPROM-held base dataset. Adaptation to environmental changes that carries to the next generation. Natural selection. Get it?

      Animals are biological machines, not thinking entities.

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    51. Re:Smart is one thing... by Isotopian · · Score: 1

      They did it on Mythbusters. Jamey taught a bunch of goldfish to navigate a maze and remember the correct path.

      --

      It's poetry with a beat behind it! And guns! They're like beatniks with automatic weapons.

    52. Re:Smart is one thing... by MacJedi · · Score: 2, Interesting
      At least some ants have internal pedometers-- they find their way back home by "counting" their steps. The very cool testable hypothesis of this theory is that if you change the length of their legs they overshoot or undershoot. See: here.

      There is certainly some type of procedural "memory" involved in this computation but it is probably quite different from the procedural or declarative memories that higher animals are capable of.

      --
      2^5
    53. Re:Smart is one thing... by zacronos · · Score: 1

      You seem to be awfully sure about what your fish are thinking. Why couldn't it be a Pavlovian response to your visual presence paired with the light being on? Not just anyone's presence, but yours in particular?

      Read about Little Albert, an early Pavlovian conditioning experiment. Granted, that was with a human child, but still, there's no reason I see to assume this is anything more than association and conditioning. Assuming it is true memory as we think of it requires quite a leap.

    54. Re:Smart is one thing... by Lorkki · · Score: 1
      Of course, you need evidence to dismiss a claim.

      The pressure of presenting extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim is on the presenter of said claim. If there's no evidence, there's nothing to refute. Myths survive because people like to give baseless claims the benefit of doubt.

    55. Re:Smart is one thing... by MacJedi · · Score: 1
      Animals are biological machines, not thinking entities.

      While I do not even remotely disagree with you that animals are biological machines, arguing that they are not thinking entities would seem to imply the need to appeal to something non-biological to explain why humans can think. (Unless you want to also argue that we do not think either, which is fine. ;) )

      --
      2^5
    56. Re:Smart is one thing... by c_forq · · Score: 1

      As grand parent has said somewhere here, movies are always right. Remember Memento, how they talk about even without memory it is possible to learn not to grab the shape the will electrocute you?

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    57. Re:Smart is one thing... by thesandtiger · · Score: 2, Funny

      What about baseless clams? Won't someone think of the poor clams living out in the wild with no base to call home?

      --
      Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
    58. Re:Smart is one thing... by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 2

      Looks like you've never done scientific research. If scientists are supposed to run after every implausible claim (time cube, anyone), there wouldn't be any scientists left to do real science. There are just too many idiotic claims out there to investigate every last of them. So yes - even scientists use (and should use) the smell-o-factor when deciding what claims to investigate.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    59. Re:Smart is one thing... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Funny

      doo...doo...doo... Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from?

    60. Re:Smart is one thing... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Finding the food is scent-based... no memorization required.

    61. Re:Smart is one thing... by c_forq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually I think the grandparent is dead on, and you help his point. You don't need evidence to dismiss something, but you damn well should have a reason that has some support. That support in most cases is evidence. If you don't have a reason, or if that reason doesn't have any support, then why the hell are you dismissing the idea?

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    62. Re:Smart is one thing... by br0ck · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, apparently you can train them to do synchronized swimming.

    63. Re:Smart is one thing... by bcattwoo · · Score: 4, Funny
      You seem to be awfully sure about what your fish are thinking.

      And easily persuaded, too. Badgered by some fish? My dog would make this guy his bitch and have him outside throwing the frisbee all day long.

    64. Re:Smart is one thing... by Omicron32 · · Score: 1

      No, it wasn't a joke. By the "sorry state of the education system", which education system? I'm from the UK, stop assuming I'm not.

      I have seen behaviour exhibited by fish - such as them coming to the surface when a human is nearby, hence associating humans with food, however, you can't make a claim that they don't have a 3 second memory and not back that up.

      I wasn't asking for evidence because I believed they do have a 3 second memory, I was asking because he made a claim that they didn't without evidence.

    65. Re:Smart is one thing... by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 0

      "My boyfriend suffered a stroke which crippled his short-term memory. ...he was distracted by something and put the phone down, and I had to yell to get his attention and remind him that I was still on the line."

      Geez, you're a /. geek and you fell for the old I-had-a-stroke-which-crippled-my-short-term-memory line? How disappointing...

      --
      My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    66. Re:Smart is one thing... by TFGeditor · · Score: 1

      "(Unless you want to also argue that we do not think either, which is fine. ;) )"

      I wouldn't touch that with a borrowed 11-foot pole. ;-)

      No, I propose that humans are thinking entities because that is how we evolved. Our ability to think, reason, plan, understand the "why" of things, and create is what sets us apart.

      Of course, I *could* make the argument that Man is the only created being into which God personally breathed "the breath of life" (i.e. a portion of his spirit) and that is what sets us apart, but that would start an inestinguishable flame war. (insert big evil grin)

      --
      Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
    67. Re:Smart is one thing... by Sigl · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey what's this...a glass wall?...I'm trapped!...AAHHHH!!...Hey what's this...a glass wall?...I'm trapped!...AAHHHH!!...Hey what's this...a glass wall?...I'm trapped!...AAHHHH!!...

    68. Re:Smart is one thing... by Random+Destruction · · Score: 1

      Indeed.

      3 second memory or not, I'm sure they can tell that they're floating in a high concentration of their own waste.

      Honestly, how many owners change the water often enough? It would probably need to be done twice a day.

      --
      :x
    69. Re:Smart is one thing... by Luteus · · Score: 1

      Goldfish can be trained through repetition of light or sound to know when it's feeding time. They'll swim to the surface at the familiar sound of a bell. Mine do it the traditional way when I open the tank lid.

    70. Re:Smart is one thing... by everett · · Score: 1, Funny

      doo....doo....doo.... Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from?

      --
      Sig withheld to protect the innocent.
    71. Re:Smart is one thing... by jack1323 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, back in the day, movies used to be reel.

    72. Re:Smart is one thing... by hunterx11 · · Score: 1

      I can dismiss your claim because it has been tampered with by His Noodly Appendage.

      --
      English is easier said than done.
    73. Re:Smart is one thing... by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      Of course, assuming it is false, then all those beta fish in the petstores, in bowls just as long and as wide as they are, seem awfully inhumane, don't they?

      If you want to see inhuman, put all the Beta fish in one luxuriously huge tank and see what they do to each other . . .

    74. Re:Smart is one thing... by sponga · · Score: 1

      It is like feeding your goldfish. I have a 40 gallon tank and the fish know that when I tap the can on top they all come up for feeding. They do the same with apes/monkeys or any animal with food; give them a treat for doing that process until it becomes 'Muscle Memory'.

    75. Re:Smart is one thing... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      "My boyfriend suffered a stroke which crippled his short-term memory. ...he was distracted by something and put the phone down, and I had to yell to get his attention and remind him that I was still on the line." Would have sworn I saw this anecdote before.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    76. Re:Smart is one thing... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      I didn't know Aljazeera.Net was a solid source of science news. Are we sure this isn't intended to divert funding from the navy's guerilla dolphin program?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    77. Re:Smart is one thing... by tverbeek · · Score: 3, Funny

      Congratulations: your hippocampus is intact; I probably told the same story the last time a discussion of memory and learning came up here.

      You're surprised by a dupe on Slashdot? :)

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    78. Re:Smart is one thing... by Lactoso · · Score: 5, Funny
      HA!! You've got to love the mod on the parent! Clearly shows that 4 times = funny. 5 times = too much.

      What were we talking about again?

    79. Re:Smart is one thing... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      Also true; I've classically conditioned my fish to respond to a tap on the tank glass. I was just correcting a bit of misinformation by GP; I'm sometimes anal about these things, for no apparent reason.

    80. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's uncritical thinking like yours -- using words wrongly and not even bothering to check your spelling and punctuation before you post -- that illustrates how poor your entire education system is.

      You started using the word "dismissed", the GP was merely responding to it in your usage. And you should check your own spelling.

    81. Re:Smart is one thing... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Funny

      It seems that 3 times was funny, four times was 50% funny, and five times is redundant.

    82. Re:Smart is one thing... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Funny

      Come to think of it, it's the very redundancy that makes it funny -- in fact, it gets funnier with every repetition! Get a clue, mods!

    83. Re:Smart is one thing... by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      If the claims is unsubstantiated then you can safely dismiss it.

      If I claim that I put a poison pill into the drink you just consumed, it's not at all safe for you to dismiss that claim. What you can "safely dismiss" depends on what's being dismissed and who has an interest in it.

      Placing the burden of proof on the individual making the claim is scientific.

      That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis and someone makes a claim that conflicts with your hypothesis, then the burden is on you to disprove their claim. Good scientific hypotheses are those for which people have made the effort to disprove all conflicting claims and hypotheses.

      In fact, a large part of the scientific literature, and many scientific breakthroughs, consist of entirely unsupported claims challenging existing theories in interesting ways.

    84. Re:Smart is one thing... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 2, Informative

      From a behaviorist's standpoint that is true; however from a cognitive psychologist's standpoint that is false. There are two types of memory - implicit (roughly training and routines) and explicit (what we typically think of as memory).

    85. Re:Smart is one thing... by tholomyes · · Score: 1

      I guess that beats the "tattoo your whole body" method of remembering. (Remember Sammy Jankis.)

      --
      When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
    86. Re:Smart is one thing... by CFTM · · Score: 1

      Yes, you *could* argue that; I could argue that I shit gold out of my ass too! That doesn't mean I could prove it emperically, but there is nothing preventing me from having this belief.

    87. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FLAME ON!!!

    88. Re:Smart is one thing... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      well human short-term memory is on the order of minutes. I'm sure a goldfish doesn't need much short term memory. conditioning is not considered memory. If you condition a person they may or may not be able to recall the events that lead to their conditioning or even that they were conditioned. They simply act.

      As a human being I have a ton of stuff commited to long term memory, but I can probably only carry around a dozen things at a time in short term memory before stuff is either forgotten or moved to long term memory. What's funny is the selective nature of our memory too. Numbers rarely are remembered long term, but a face almost instantly is remembered. (we can almost always recognize someone we've seen before, we might not be able to associate any other information with their face, but at least we realize we've seen them).

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    89. Re:Smart is one thing... by fire_missionary · · Score: 1

      The thing about these ants... is it was proven that they only 'remembered' how many steps they tookhttp://www.livescience.com/animalworld/060629_ ant_pedometers.html. they didnt remember the path they took. and as far as i know... remembering an amount of steps takes a hell of a lot less information space than remembering the whole path.

      --
      "The reverse side also has a reverse side." - Japanese Proverb
    90. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, typical nerd response.

      Really, is it that disturbing that some people believe in things that aren't true? Please, there is no one on this planet, including you, that does a fact check on every tidbit of information they receive.

    91. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I don't agree with divine punishment aspect of your comment, I do find it hard to believe females lurk on /.

    92. Re:Smart is one thing... by adolfojp · · Score: 4, Funny

      doo...doo...doo... Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from?

    93. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dolphins? I thought it was sharks...

    94. Re:Smart is one thing... by adolfojp · · Score: 1

      Didn't the Mythbusters debunk this? Maybe they are just easily distracted.

      mmmmmmm..... kari.....

      Wait. What? Oh, yeah. Didn't the Mythbusters debunk this?

      mmmmmmm..... kari.....

    95. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you choose not to bother disproving it, then you have dismissed it. That's what dismissing a claim means.

      I'm sorry, I overestimated your ability to follow a point, so let me spell it out so that even you can follow it: it is unscientific to dismiss a claim because you find it implausible; what you should do instead is find evidence to disprove the claim.

      It's uncritical thinking like yours -- using words wrongly and not even bothering to check your spelling and punctuation before you post -- that illustrates how poor your entire education system is.

      I think I see what your problem is: you are confusing "proofreading" with "critical thinking".

    96. Re:Smart is one thing... by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      If I had a dog that could catch a frisbee, I'd throw it for him all day. But I've never had a dog that was able to do such a thing. My last dog was very old and had arthritis (he died recently).

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    97. Re:Smart is one thing... by GregNorc · · Score: 1

      How else could you smuggle the map into the prison?! (Protip: They check your butt.)

    98. Re:Smart is one thing... by douji · · Score: 2

      doo...doo...doo... Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from ?

    99. Re:Smart is one thing... by itchy92 · · Score: 1

      The very cool testable hypothesis of this theory is that if you change the length of their legs they overshoot or undershoot

      This must blow an ant's mind. Imagine, if you will, going out on a routine food run, suddenly being picked up by a researcher and having your legs partially amputated or augmented, freaking out and running back home, only to find you have no idea where you are?! To say nothing of the fact that your entire concept of existence is built upon the subjectivity of numbers and mathematics, and suddenly things don't equate anymore? What truth is there in the universe then?

      I think PETA needs to get involved...

      --
      Slashdot: News for nerds. Stuff tha-- MICRO$OFT IS THE DEVIL!!1
    100. Re:Smart is one thing... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Language is nothing more than a vehicle to convey meaning. Proper usage helps to accomplish this task, but if meaning HAS been successfully conveyed it is irrelevant. Clearly you, and everyone else understood meaning of the GP. Just as clearly your point amounts to nothing more than semantics.

      A troll is a troll, and a troll is especially trollish when that troll brings technical points of grammar and word usage into play. Damn grammar trolls.

    101. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wolodarsky: "Either they can't hear us, or they don't understand."
      Steve: "God damn it I'm sick of these dolphins."

    102. Re:Smart is one thing... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      "The pressure of presenting extraordinary evidence to support an extraordinary claim is on the presenter of said claim."

      Well actually extraordinary claims scientifically should require no more evidence than any other claim to support them. Requiring more evidence in support of claims that people have trouble believing is one of the faults of humanity, not a scientific principle. Fortunately for the topic, what is required to prove claims is irrelevant. We are not discussing the proving of claims, we are talking about the dismissal of claims.

      "If there's no evidence, there's nothing to refute."

      If there is sound logic then there is in fact something to refute. Any solution to a problem that is consistent with the evidence is called a hypothesis and can not be rightfully dismissed out of hand. If you have an opposing hypothesis or theory you must systematically eliminate all other possibilities. There is nothing wrong with prioritizing the more likely possibilities, but that doesn't mean you actually dismiss the possibilities that don't seem likely to you.

      If one troubleshoots complex problems where an objective answer is ultimately found (like computer issues) then one will find that the unlikely solution is correct a fair amount of time. When you troubleshoot, you start with the most likely cause of the problem. For instance, if the system is powering itself off in the middle of usage the most likely cause are heat and an unreliable power supply. A smart technician will replace the CPU fan and the entire power supply in one shot. If the system continues to fail you suddenly are moving into less sure territory. The problem could be caused by a faulty motherboard or even a faulty processor. I have even seen faulty sound cards and video cards cause this issue.

      Now, if this were a theoretical issue that was more difficult to test it would be a different story. If someone came to me and said that the system reboots itself because the video card is faulty I would laugh. After all, I can load up 3D games on the computer without any problems. This ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that defies common sense(something that is NOT part of science) can be dismissed. Until you already have all the answers, like we do with computers, you can't test thoroughly enough to discover what is likely and unlikely. Until that point, you have only the tests you can manage and common sense, neither of which is an adequate basis for dismissing claims if you are actually trying to pursue truth.

    103. Re:Smart is one thing... by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Scientists should prioritize and pursue likely claims first or they would never get anything done. This does not mean they should dismiss claims they can't or haven't disproven.

    104. Re:Smart is one thing... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      For a good demonstration of short-term-memory deficiency, see "Finding Nemo"; Dory is a remarkably good example. I even used the "P. Sherman, 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney" method (asking him to repeat it over and over) to get Andy to remember the name of the restaurant where we'd had dinner.

      You're credibility was strained when you claimed to have a "boyfriend" implying females actually read /. I've checked your story out further and there is no restaurant at 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney! According to Google Maps, there isn't even a Wallabay Way in Sydney! You ma'am are a liar!

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    105. Re:Smart is one thing... by Jackmn · · Score: 1
      That's not how science works. If you have a hypothesis and someone makes a claim that conflicts with your hypothesis, then the burden is on you to disprove their claim.
      All science is wrong - God told me so. Prove me wrong.

      Attempting to reverse the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.
      Good scientific hypotheses are those for which people have made the effort to disprove all conflicting claims and hypotheses.
      You'll find that scientists rarely waste breath on people trying to reverse the burden of proof. If evidence is provided suggesting that the hypothesis is incorrect then they will address the issues raised.
    106. Re:Smart is one thing... by elgatozorbas · · Score: 1
      You know what really disturbs me? The number of people I've met who actually believe that idiotic myth. We really live in a pathetic state of education when this type of nonsense is accepted without question.

      No-one says it is accepted without question. I heard of it playing trivial pursuit and always wondered how anyone knew. Could be true, could also be not true but ain't it worth to toss it up here?

      BTW how are you so sure it is _not_ true?

    107. Re:Smart is one thing... by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes. That's called "classical conditioning". There's another type of conditioning, slightly more complicated but which many animals are recognised to learn, called "operant conditioning", in which the subject learns to do a behavior (perhaps in response to outside conditions) to improve their situation (for example, a dog that learns going to the back door and scratching will get it let outside).

      The big question in animal intelligence is, "Are any animals other than humans capable of more than operant conditioning?" Interestingly enough, among the best scorers, possibly better than the non-human primates, is Alex, an African Grey parrot. Alex can understand and accurately (80-90%) answer questions like "How many blue trucks" (in a set of mixed toys) without prior practice of a particular question, combining his understanding of the question "How many", the color "blue", and the object "truck". He can use numbers reasonably well on fixed quantities, but has trouble counting events. He also knows the concept of "zero". Still, some consider this just to be complex operant conditioning. BTW, I've read their methodology, and it seems quite sound. The person who determines what Alex says, for example, is unaware of what he's being asked)

      One big criticism of primate studies, as well, is that most primates either don't form languages in the wild, or form very simple languages. Deaf human children whose parents never teach them sign language will actually make up sign languages and do meta-discussion (conversing about their language using their language). Parrots will make up languages (wild parrot populations even tend to have regional dialects, while different areas have different "language families", with loanwords, just like in human linguistics), but their invented languages tend to be simpler than what they can be taught. Without rigid training, parrots will often display what one may consider "clever" conditioning (such as, if a person doesn't respond to their requests for attention, making the sound of a phone ringing to draw a person into the room), but still conditioning. Also, both in primates and parrots, there's relatively little meta-conversation; it's mostly requests, things with immediate purposes. Even young human children tend to converse about things that are not for a specific purpose frequently.

      Complicating studies of intelligence that rely on language is that it's not the only measure of intelligence. For example, corvines (crows, ravens, jays) are more adept toolmakers than psitticines (parrots) and even most primates. They both teach their children how to make/use tools and invent them on their own. Yet, they don't do nearly as well in language tests as psitticines. Are they more or less intelligent?

      Anyways, my main point is: this is a complex topic that scholars get into heated debates over, so lets not expect a resolution here. :)

      --
      Did you really name your son "Robert');DROP TABLE Students;--"?
    108. Re:Smart is one thing... by Lord+Prox · · Score: 1

      doo...doo...doo... Hey! Where did that cool plastic ca........ *Uh oh* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*

      Trying to kill this damn thread before it gets suck in my head all day.... Awww hell lets finish off the magazine

      *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM* *BLAM*

    109. Re:Smart is one thing... by pjp6259 · · Score: 1

      Based on his website, I'd say he's gay.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
    110. Re:Smart is one thing... by MasaMuneCyrus · · Score: 1

      You don't watch Mythbusters, do you?

    111. Re:Smart is one thing... by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      And another thing... goldfish jump out of their bowls and *die*. Yep, self destructing is sure a smart thing to do. NOT!

      And what do you suppose the suicide rate for slashdotters is? Posts like this make me want to slit my wrists!

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    112. Re:Smart is one thing... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      BTW how are you so sure it is _not_ true?

      Uh, read the gazillion other replies in the thread.

    113. Re:Smart is one thing... by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      That's why I will never buy an american car. They explode at the slightest impact.

      --
      So say we all
    114. Re:Smart is one thing... by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      All science is wrong - God told me so. Prove me wrong.

      What's there to disprove? You're probably right that God told you that all science is wrong. However, there are no testable predictions that follow from your claim.

      Attempting to reverse the burden of proof is a logical fallacy.

      You're confusing science with a court of law. In a court of law, the person making the claim has the burden of proof. In science, there is no such concept.

      You'll find that scientists rarely waste breath on people trying to reverse the burden of proof.
      If evidence is provided suggesting that the hypothesis is incorrect then they will address the issues raised.


      You're quite right that that's what scientists do, both because many claims scientists encounter are not scientific claims (e.g., your claim above) and hence don't require considerations, or because they find it more convenient to ignore claims they don't understand or that threaten their own position.

      Another problem is that many scientists were never taught the scientific method and just muddle through.

      None of that alters what the scientific method actually is and how scientific facts actually get established.

    115. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was amazed at how many people failed to notice his website with his name "Todd" right in the link. How many females do you know named "Todd"?
      But what can you expect? It *is* the Slashdot "I'm so enthralled with my witticisms that I don't need any stinkin' facts" crowd.

    116. Re:Smart is one thing... by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

      hillarious! Hey, what site is this?

      --
      Sig: I stole this sig.
    117. Re:Smart is one thing... by Lorkki · · Score: 1
      Well actually extraordinary claims scientifically should require no more evidence than any other claim to support them.

      Perhaps I should have phrased "claims extraordinary in light of preceding evidence" and "evidence extraordinary in that it puts said body of previous evidence into a new light" but it doesn't sound as snazzy.

      If there is sound logic then there is in fact something to refute. Any solution to a problem that is consistent with the evidence is called a hypothesis and can not be rightfully dismissed out of hand.

      Throwing around outrageous ideas might make one a lucky guesser. Testing them makes one a scientist.

      "The memory of a goldfish is only three seconds long" is something that's very short and easy to pronounce, but it's not nearly as trivial to test. It continues to live on because it makes a nice story (despite in fact having been tested to be false). However, there's little scientific value to uttering such a sentence, unless one's willing to do the hard work.

      When you troubleshoot, you start with the most likely cause of the problem.

      Likewise to how a scientist might approach the goldfish claim by examining and testing the underlying presumptions first. Is a measure of time in any sense a useful way of measuring a creature's memory capacity? If so, exactly what kind of responses is it relevant to? Knowing that, what would be an effective way of testing this capacity?

      A smart technician will replace the CPU fan and the entire power supply in one shot. If the system continues to fail you suddenly are moving into less sure territory.
      If someone came to me and said that the system reboots itself because the video card is faulty I would laugh. After all, I can load up 3D games on the computer without any problems.

      A smart technician, with limited resources, can look up diagnostics to isolate the problem instead of beginning with replacing key parts of the system. Processors and motherboards report thermal readings, system logs can reveal hardware and driver anomalies, and so on.

      Your video card just might be handling I/O in a way which your motherboard's chipset doesn't particularly like, and which only causes problems during periods of active use. Or some unit within it might have a defect which only surfaces now and then and causes the driver to panic. But claiming any of this in the beginning of the troubleshooting process would indeed be dubious.

    118. Re:Smart is one thing... by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      I always last longer than the dog, throwing frisbee is less tiring than fetching it.

      Esp. if you make then run uphill.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    119. Re:Smart is one thing... by Jackmn · · Score: 1
      What's there to disprove?
      If God told me that all science is invalid, then clearly all science is invalid. He would know. By your own logic, since you can't disprove my claim all of science is invalid. The position you are trying to take is not only absurd, it's also contrary to all established science and logic.

      both because many claims scientists encounter are not scientific claims (e.g., your claim above)
      'I saw the first law of thermodynamics violated once. I can't reproduce the experiment, so you're just going to have to trust me. Unless you can prove me wrong, the first law of thermodynamics is clearly invalid.'

      There, the subject matter of the statement is now firmly scientific, and every bit as fallacious as the previous one.

      You're confusing science with a court of law.
      No, you are horribly misinformed. Shifting the burden of proof is a subcase of the logical fallacy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' ('you can't prove me wrong therefore I am right').

      I'm not going to argue with somebody lacking even a rudimentary understanding of the logical fallacies.
    120. Re:Smart is one thing... by laura_glow · · Score: 1

      sharks on a plane!

    121. Re:Smart is one thing... by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Don't goldfish only have a 3 second memory?

      --
      Be relentless!
    122. Re:Smart is one thing... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      No, however I get de ja vu often, but this didn't feel like it. I was a bit worried that Google didn't find the post though.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    123. Re:Smart is one thing... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but some insects (frex, ants) also have complex social hierarchies and exhibit group hunting behaviour. So that in itself isn't such a great indicator of intelligence.

      Especially if you consider that geeks consider themselves the pinnacle of intelligence, yet often exhibit neither cooperative social behaviours nor great communication skills ;)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    124. Re:Smart is one thing... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      I've seen the same behaviour from fish, especially those bulgy-eyed goldfish. But it goes even lower down the ladder:

      Last summer I caught a tarantula and kept it in a big jar (the ones we get here are small, no more than an inch across), and fed it on live grasshoppers, which it really liked (munch-munch-munch-gone!)

      After a few feedings, it got so when it saw me coming with a grasshopper (and it evidently could see this well to a distance of about 3-4 feet), it would run round and round its jar, obviously all excited about dinner.

      When I didn't have a grasshopper, it would just sit there staring at me.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    125. Re:Smart is one thing... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Listen! There is just no way in Hell that Jessica Alba would be caught dead making a TV series with gold fish - only Flipper and no one else - she's very particular.....

    126. Re:Smart is one thing... by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that you think that suicide is a smart thing to do? Or are you saying that slash dotters are stupid? Or are you saying slash dotters are as smart as goldfish?

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    127. Re:Smart is one thing... by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      Shifting the burden of proof is a subcase of the logical fallacy known as 'argumentum ad ignorantiam' ('you can't prove me wrong therefore I am right').

      Scientific claims and hypotheses are never "right", they are only "not known to be wrong". Therefore, the correct statement is "you can't prove me wrong, therefore both of our hypotheses remain valid until someone finds experimental data that decides the matter". That may seem like a logical fallacy to you, but it's the way the scientific method works.

      (The problem with your claims about "God" and "I once saw" is that they fail to be scientific hypotheses--they don't make testable predictions--not that you fail to provide "evidence to support them".)

    128. Re:Smart is one thing... by dartarrow · · Score: 1
      You know what really disturbs me? The number of people I've met who actually believe that idiotic myth. We really live in a pathetic state of education when this type of nonsense is accepted without question.
      wait... are we talking about Inteligent Design or goldfish...?
      --
      I love humanity, it is people I hate
    129. Re:Smart is one thing... by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      Others have already pointed out the mind-expanding notion that men can have boyfriends, but I'd like to add that "42 Wallaby Way" is a fictional address from the aforementioned movie, not the restaurant we ate at. Rent "Finding Nemo" if you wish to understand the reference.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    130. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think so. Doesn't a goldfish have a three-second memory? I think so. Doesn't a goldfish have a three-second memory?...

    131. Re:Smart is one thing... by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      |---Joke

      |---Your head.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    132. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll find that "watch me pretend to be dense" humor doesn't work very well on message boards. It doesn't stand out from the background noise. Try to add something clever on the end next time, so we'll know that we're supposed to laugh. :)

    133. Re:Smart is one thing... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1

      I'm not the guy you're arguing with, but:

      Therefore, the correct statement is "you can't prove me wrong, therefore both of our hypotheses remain valid until someone finds experimental data that decides the matter".

      No, the correct statement is "if you want your claim to get serious consideration, get some evidence". The only way to deal with the literally infinite number of claims that have no supporting evidence is to essentially ignore them until evidence is found.

      That may seem like a logical fallacy to you, but it's the way the scientific method works.

      No, it isn't. The scientific method starts out with a hypothesis, which is just an idea that's testable. There's no claim here, just brainstorming - nobody is really suggesting that they know it's right, just that it might possibly be right, as far as they know. After a test has been made, then we have a theory, which would be a valid scientific claim. Now people are actually saying that they have good reason to think that the idea is correct. (Or at least likey to be much less wrong than the others that exist at the time.)

      To be more specific, there's no good reason to promote the "goldfish have a three second memory" claim over the "ten second" claim, the "perfect memory for life" claim, or the "goldfish think atemporally, so they don't need a memory" claim. They're all just random guesses, and reason clearly suggests that random guesses should never be treated as facts. And science, as a rational process, has to separate facts and well-supported theory from guesses. In fact, you could define science as a method for turning mere guesses into actual knowledge by testing them.

    134. Re:Smart is one thing... by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >idiotic myth
      >pathetic
      >nonsense

      Dolphins play. That only happens among animals with canine or better intelligence. Goldfish don't play.

      Goldfish don't use tools, either. Research in 2005 found dolphins padding their mouths with sponges before bumping the sea floor lookng for good, *and* teaching their children to do the same.

      Dolphins vocalize elaborately and have been reported to engage in coordinated unrehearsed behavior after making noises at each other.

      Dolphins have a stratified cerebral cortex. You can keep warm without that.

      The hard cold fact is that large animals that don't live on land are hard and expensive to study, complex behavior is tricky to interpret, and we really don't know how intelligent they are even when we pick a definition of "intelligent".

    135. Re:Smart is one thing... by MustardMan · · Score: 1

      Did you even read my post, or the one I replied to? Or are you just piggybacking onto mine because it's modded up and near the top of the conversation? What you said has absolutely fucking zero to do with what I was discussing, which is the myth that goldfish have a three second memory.

    136. Re:Smart is one thing... by StikyPad · · Score: 1
    137. Re:Smart is one thing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but look at that cool castle!

    138. Re:Smart is one thing... by m874t232 · · Score: 1

      And science, as a rational process, has to separate facts and well-supported theory from guesses. In fact, you could define science as a method for turning mere guesses into actual knowledge by testing them.

      You have this notion that there is a progression from "guess" to "hypothesis" to "fact" or "correct hypothesis". While real-world scientists have their prejudices and preferences and clearly apply them in practice, such distinctions are not part of the scientific method. The only facts in science are verified experimental results and repeatable observations.

      Scientists may sometimes refer to a scientific hypothesis as a "fact", but that's a shorthand for "it hasn't been disproven yet and there is no known consistent alternative hypothesis".

      No, the correct statement is "if you want your claim to get serious consideration, get some evidence".

      That is a perfectly valid response to some claims. But in many other cases, the response is "your claim sounds quite interesting, I better test my existing hypothesis" or "I don't think your claim sounds reasonable, but the question is important enough so that I better test my existing hypothesis". There are many examples of that, e.g., general relativity and the cause of AIDS.

      So, sometimes, people making a claim, as a practical matter, have to carry out experiments attempting to disprove existing dogma, sometimes, people with a vested interest in existing hypotheses carry out those experiments, and sometimes, it's neutral third parties. There simply is no principle in science that specific people always have a "burden of proof". Who does the proof depends on many circumstances: funding, significance of the claim, difficulty of testing it, collaborations, ego, arrogance, etc.

      And science, as a rational process, has to separate facts and well-supported theory from guesses. In fact, you could define science as a method for turning mere guesses into actual knowledge by testing them.

      You're making the same mistake as the other poster: you treat science as a debating club, a college of bishops, or a court of law. Those organizations are concerned with "truth"; science is something much more rational: it's concerned with repeatable experiments and testable predictions, nothing more.

    139. Re:Smart is one thing... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      doo...doo...doo... Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from?

    140. Re:Smart is one thing... by d_54321 · · Score: 1

      Ani DiFranco sang it, so it must be true.

    141. Re:Smart is one thing... by OfficialReverendStev · · Score: 1

      Hey, did I mention that I can speak Whale?

      --
      A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. - Neitzsche
    142. Re:Smart is one thing... by eno2001 · · Score: 1

      Dammit that's what a lot of people just don't get. If you use the same joke in slightly different context over and over again it IS funny! I think it's just stupid people who don't get this. The only people who seem to get it are comedians and their fans. Like Saturday Night Live or Mad TV. Those shows are awesome! Especially when they have seasons where the same character does the same thing repeatedly in different contexts. Or in the U.K. there is a show called The Catherine Tate Show which is about the funniest show I've seen in my life! WOT ARE YOU LIKE!!!!? I'M NOT BOVVERED!!! Etc... The more intelligent people from the U.K. will know of what I speak.

      --
      -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    143. Re:Smart is one thing... by Chacham · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm reeling from that fishy one liner.

    144. Re:Smart is one thing... by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      You have this notion that there is a progression from "guess" to "hypothesis" to "fact" or "correct hypothesis".
      No, I don't. I was just pointing out that science recognizes theories, hypotheses, facts, observations, and so on as relevant groups of ideas, but it has no category called "guesses". A couple of paragraphs down I show the relationship between some of those ideas.

      While real-world scientists have their prejudices and preferences and clearly apply them in practice, such distinctions are not part of the scientific method.
      What? I have no idea what thought you were trying to convey here, or at least how it relates to the rest of the discussion.

      Scientists may sometimes refer to a scientific hypothesis as a "fact"
      No, they don't. Facts and hepotheses are separate categories of ideas. The theory of gravity suggests the hypothesis that letting go of a rock will cause it to fall to the ground. When I drop the rock and see it fall, my observation lets me see the fact that the rock fell, confirms the hypothesis, and lends support to the theory.

      There are many examples of that, e.g., general relativity and the cause of AIDS.
      Both of those theories had supporting evidence at they time they were proposed. Relativity explained a great number of things that had already been observed, and the fact that a specific group of people were getting AIDS symptoms would be explained by an infectious agent. The "goldfish have a three second memory" theory either doesn't explain any existing observation, or the observation can be used as evidence, contradicting your idea that "claims without evidence deserve a hearing".

      There simply is no principle in science that specific people always have a "burden of proof".
      Not people, theories. Theories with more evidence, or that require fewer assumptions, are favored over those with less evidence, or more assumptions. Your claim, by your own admission, has no evidence, so it is given equal status to all other possible ideas about how goldfish memory works. It has an equal "burden of proof" as an infinite number of other ideas, and this is what we mean by 'dismissing' it.

      You're making the same mistake as the other poster
      We make the same 'mistakes' because we both have experience with the scientific method.

      it's concerned with repeatable experiments and testable predictions, nothing more.
      Yes. Make some predictions and do some experiments, and get back to us.
  2. But who will rise up... by LuminaireX · · Score: 5, Funny

    And thank us for all the fish? Surely goldfish don't eat themselves.

    1. Re:But who will rise up... by kfg · · Score: 1

      Surely goldfish don't eat themselves.

      Surely, they do. Well, not themselves actually. Other goldfish. They're very good at not eating anything bigger than their heads though.

      KFG

  3. Goldfish smarter? by BigZaphod · · Score: 4, Funny

    I doubt it. I think this is just exactly what the dolphins want us to think. Perhaps they are hoping that we'll leave them alone if we think they're all idiots and they can get back to the heavy schedule of light swimming and intricate whistling they had planned.

    Well I'm on to you, dolphins! I'm putting the word out! I know you're smarter than goldfish and .. er.... wait.. a dolphin just called me and asked how long I could hold my breath. I think this worries me...

    1. Re:Goldfish smarter? by Almenius · · Score: 2, Funny

      Precisely. The only thing goldfish can say is Bob.

      --
      Oh no, not again.
    2. Re:Goldfish smarter? by Vulcann · · Score: 1

      I have two words for you: Game Theory

    3. Re:Goldfish smarter? by umghhh · · Score: 1

      If find the article very interesting. Even more so an argument that jumping out of the confinment in no time and dying in a process is a sign of intelligence and not doing so is a sign of dumbness. But I guess this makes goldfish martyrs and dolphines proponents of corrupted western civilisation (maybe dolphins are jewish???).

      Well done aljazeera - I wonder why there are any scholars left that do not publish on your site.

    4. Re:Goldfish smarter? by Fretje · · Score: 1
  4. The only thing smarter than a goldfish by puddpunk · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is a person that can figure out how to train an animal with a 3 second attention span:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bt6K521o3Y

    1. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You gotta be kiding me... Were those real fish?

    2. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Cyber_Fusion · · Score: 1

      Please don't tell me you believe for one second that these goldfish aren't being controled with magnets from under the table

    3. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 4, Funny

      What do you mean, magnets? Everyone knows gold's a non-ferrous metal.

      --
      GPL: Free as in will
    4. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Sylvanus · · Score: 1

      And if true means the owner of these piranhas may be in BIG BIG trouble with our Goldfish overlords:

      http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=12735231 47807051976

    5. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could do it. I just need.... ...wow look at that shiny object. :-)

    6. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      But everyone knows goldfish are made of pyrite.

    7. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Mr.+Hankey · · Score: 1

      No, that's only the foolish goldfish.

      --
      GPL: Free as in will
    8. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that was disgusting, and incredibly cruel

    9. Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      Why would you believe that the fish are being controlled by magnets? Look at the fishes fins and their bodies when they make turns. Their motions are almost identical. If they were being controlled by a magnet, I think the turns wouldn't look so natural. Maybe there is something we can't that's controlling them but it's I highly doubt it's magnets. If they were being controlled by magnets some of the fish would be violently thrashing yet moving at the same speed as a fish that wasn't moving at all.

  5. Is it only me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    or did anyone else feel Manger's credibility slipping towards the end of the article? Jumping over tuna boat nets? Come on, I'm not sure many humans would pass this guy's tests.

    1. Re:Is it only me... by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Jumping over tuna boat nets? Come on, I'm not sure many humans would pass this guy's tests.

      The point is that although dolphins are physically capable of jumping high enough, they just don't have the idea that doing so will save them.

      A human would just swim to the edge of the net, and climb over it. Or use his diving knife ;-)

    2. Re:Is it only me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      It started out sounding good, somewhere in the middle I started thinking he was full of shit. By the end, he was flaimbaiting dolphins. "Well if you dolphins were so fucking smart, you wouldn't be dying in tuna nets, now would you?! You fucking idiot dolphins!"

      I think a dolphin stole his girlfriend.

    3. Re:Is it only me... by vhogemann · · Score: 1

      Also,

      Probably dolphins can't see the nets, not until is too late... AFAIK, dolphins have poor vision and depend much more on their natural sonar, and the sonar won't detect a net.

      --
      ---- You know how some doctors have the Messiah complex - they need to save the world? You've got the "Rubik's" complex
  6. Smarter or more suicidal? by DoctaWatson · · Score: 5, Funny

    FTA: "If you don't put a lid on top of the bowl a goldfish it will eventually jump out to enlarge the environment it is living in,"

    Truly an astounding display of cognition.

    1. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by bangenge · · Score: 1

      i'v taken care of a lot of kinds of fishes since i was a kid, and from my experience, the last fish i have to worry about jumping put of the tank/bowl is a goldfish.

      --
      . o O ( TwO hEaDs ArE mOrE tHaN oNe... )
    2. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      One of my goldfish jumped out of the tank when I left the feeding flap open, a leap of at least 2" vertically.

      Poor thing, I found in the morning covered in fluff, motionless on the floor. I popped it back in and it was right as rain in a few mins.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by ne0n · · Score: 1

      FTA: "If you don't put a lid on top of the bowl a goldfish it will eventually jump out to enlarge the environment it is living in,"

      Truly an astounding display of cognition.


      Lies! After some encouragement my goldfish leap out and UTTERLY FAILED to make the apartment any bigger.

      --
      $ :(){ :|:& };:
    4. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am dying laughing at work, nicely done.

    5. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I left the feeding flap open...
      I found in the morning covered in fluff, motionless on the floor.


      Wow! That's one amazing goldfish!
      I guess you should have closed the kitchen cabinets too!

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    6. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "Poor thing, I found in the morning covered in fluff, motionless on the floor."

      When I was a child my brothers goldfish jumped out of it's bowl and yet failed to hit the floor. The dog happened to be stood nearby and snapped it out of mid air, quickly ate it, then slunk off hoping we had not noticed what just happened.

      When it comes to food, the dog is smarter than a child or a goldfish!

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    7. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      hehe, what the hell does that stuff taste like?

      We don't have such things here. Thank goodness, I presume by looking at your obesity levels !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    8. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by bad-badtz-maru · · Score: 1


      I was under the impression that fish jumped out of the tank to escape poor water conditions.

    9. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      I haven't had it in a while, but I'll take a shot at describing it. It has a stiffness/spreadability of peanut butter and the the light foamy and gummy texture you'd expect of spreadable marshmellow. I think the "wetness" probably makes the taste and sweetness come through immediately and stronger - at least as strong as if you long-chewed a normal marshmellow down to paste in your mouth. In general, it's just what you'd expect a semi-molten marshmellow to taste like.

      Ummm... oops... that all assumes that you have tried normal marshmellows. If you haven't... ummm... marshmellows have a bread-like foam consistancy, but bouncy. And the Fluff... think peanut butter but sugar-sticky and a bit gummy... less sweet than milk chocolate... a touch of vanilla... and a hard to define sort of "neutral" aspect added to the flavor. And while they are both soft and fluffy, in a way they are more "solid" than chocolate... they doesn't fully melt away like chocolate, they have/keep a very slight sort of floury/bready paste aspect... but just a little.

      Did your mother ever tell you not to play with your food? Well marshmellow and Fluff are sort of the opposite. Almost toy-like "fun foods". Much more fun than chocolate. Chocklate is just a bar that you bite and it melts. You can really play with marshmellows and Fluff, and just plain eating them is a playful cross between peanut butter and bubblegum. And while sweet, they are probably not as candy like as you might think. The fluff is a bit candylike, but a normal marshmellow seems almost a more like (sweet flavored) bread than a piece of candy.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    10. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by Provocateur · · Score: 1

      Enlarge the environment? Actually, the goldfish' last words were

      Must...get...food...pellets

      3 second attention deficit kicks in

      MmmmMMmmmm...Food Pellets

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    11. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      lol, thanks for the effort

      We have marshmallows & peanut butter, just not in the same jar.

      I do like peanut butter & jam (or jelly as you call it). Though I wonder what you guys call jelly (flavoured gelatine to which one adds hot water and let it "set").

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    12. Re:Smarter or more suicidal? by Alsee · · Score: 1

      what you guys call jelly

      Jello.

      Actually my instant automatic answer raises an amusing point. According to the advertizements of Kraft Food inc., it is always "Jell-o brand gelatin". Yeah, right... chuckle. Nobody except Kraft inc seriously calls it gelatin. Show any American a generic brand box of gelatin and they'll call it jello. In my oppinion the Jell-o trademark is almost as socially dead as the old Asprin trademark.

      marshmallows & peanut butter, just not in the same jar.

      Oh, I didn't mean in the same jar. Fluff is pure marshmellow. It just has a peanutbutter-like consistancy. Imagine stuffing a bag of marshmellows into a jar, heating it to an almost-melt spreadable temp, and then somehow keeping it from firming back up when it cools.

      I believe a peanutbutter and Fluff sandwich is called a fluffernutter. Never had one of those myself. When I had Fluff, I usually just ate it straight. Oh, and there is also (pretty rare) icecream with Fluff mixed in (the Fluff gets firm like taffy). Some places offer "hot fudge sundays" with hot Fluff along with or instead of hot fudge. Hot Fluff pours just like hot fudge.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  7. Douglas Adams will need to change the title to by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    So long, and thanks for all the flakes

    1. Re:Douglas Adams will need to change the title to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He's dead.

  8. Evolution says otherwise by aktzin · · Score: 4, Funny
    This is nonsense. The Onion, America's Finest News Source, clearly proved this claim is totally without merit in this informative scientific article:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315

    So as you can see, Douglas Adams was right all along!
    --
    Quantum mechanics: the dreams that stuff is made of.
    1. Re:Evolution says otherwise by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      Interestingly I have made similar research into the alledged intelligence of the mammals known as Hu-Mans on Evil Lair island.

      I put the test subjects in an enclosed humid (some would say extremely moist environment). After about a minute of furious activity the subjects took to floating languidly at the top of the container. No coaxing would illicit a response even an offer of a million dollars in "Evil Lair" store credit was passed up on.

      My conclusion is that the large human brain is more of an adaptation for mammals to live in a waterless environment than a sign of real intelligence.

      Chief Researcher, Evil Corp
      somewhere in the pacific

    2. Re:Evolution says otherwise by qc_dk · · Score: 1

      Sorry about that. I thought you were refering to this article: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/45360&rss=1 That will teach me not to post before the morning coffee and torture.

  9. Bizzaro science by Kawolski · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "You put an animal in a box, even a lab rat or gerbil, and the first thing it wants to do is climb out of it. If you don't put a lid on top of the bowl a goldfish it will eventually jump out to enlarge the environment it is living in," he said. "But a dolphin will never do that. In the marine parks, the dividers to keep the dolphins apart are only a foot or two above the water between the different pools," he said. Manger says the thought to jump over would simply not cross their unsophisticated minds.

    So because the dolphin isn't brainless enough to jump out of its tank and beach itself and die in the process, that makes them stupid? I suppose by comparison the child that plays away from road isn't as smart as the kid that plays in traffic, you know, the one that's seeking to "enlarge his environment" by becoming road pizza.

    1. Re:Bizzaro science by akaariai · · Score: 1

      Next on Slashdot: Goldfish Smarter Than Scientists!

    2. Re:Bizzaro science by Gadzinka · · Score: 1
      In the marine parks, the dividers to keep the dolphins apart are only a foot or two above the water between the different pools," he said. Manger says the thought to jump over would simply not cross their unsophisticated minds.
      So because the dolphin isn't brainless enough to jump out of its tank and beach itself and die in the process, that makes them stupid?

      You like dolphins? Me too. But it didn't stop me from noticing, that the guy also talked about fences partitioning larger tanks. Doplhins can clearly see and interact with other dolphins on the other side of the fence, and they still don't jump through this one-foot-over-water fence. Not to bright in my book.

      Robert

      --
      Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
    3. Re:Bizzaro science by MMaestro · · Score: 1
      I suppose by comparison the child that plays away from road isn't as smart as the kid that plays in traffic, you know, the one that's seeking to "enlarge his environment" by becoming road pizza.Who's smarter; the ignorant, perfectly safe child that never questions his parents or the inquisitive, always wandering away from his parents child? Sooner or later the child has to leave the nest...

      As for dolphins, they've been known to jump an average of 5 meters up into the air, a 1~2 feet high divider should be nothing for them. Either they're very stupid, have very poor vision or they're so smart that they realized the futility of jumping over the divider just to be with a fellow dolphin for a few hours before being returned to its own tank.

    4. Re:Bizzaro science by evilviper · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So because the dolphin isn't brainless enough to jump out of its tank and beach itself and die in the process, that makes them stupid?

      In this case, I'd say the dolphins and goldfish have one-up on you...

      He was CLEARLY talking about jumping out of a tank, into a larger body of water. He specifically mentioned jumping-out of fishing nets, and the like. You know, things that would make sense.

      I don't agree with his conclusions, though. It could be that Dolphins recognize they won't get fed if they leave, or have some other understanding, which goldfish do not. You'd really have to look at cases of abused and starved dolphins, to be sure.

      Also, the fact that dolphins may not reason like us in a few specific cases, does not imply they can't be intelligent in other ways. Who knows, maybe their sensory system does not allow them to recognize that there is water nearby, and they do think they will be beached.
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    5. Re:Bizzaro science by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      I don't agree with his conclusions, though. It could be that Dolphins recognize they won't get fed if they leave,

      If they can jump out, they can jump back in. So just leave at night, and come back before the feeding session the next day ;-)

    6. Re:Bizzaro science by mcc · · Score: 1

      He was CLEARLY talking about jumping out of a tank, into a larger body of water. He specifically mentioned jumping-out of fishing nets, and the like. You know, things that would make sense.

      Are these, in fact, behaviors which "make sense" or are in any way desirable in the natural marine environment?

      You know, the environment that the behavioral instincts of dolphins have developed to survive in?

    7. Re:Bizzaro science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You know, the environment that the behavioral instincts of dolphins have developed to survive in?

      An intelligent animal is supposed to think on its own, taking into account his particular environment at the moment, and not merely rely on its instincts.

    8. Re:Bizzaro science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, whatever. Now say that again while I randomly flash pictures of naked women in front of you. Wait, what's that? You're suddenly having trouble concentrating? Hmmmm...

    9. Re:Bizzaro science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sure, okay, maybe they don't comprehend the concept of going over something out of water. But consider that they probably have no space-escape instinct. In other words, dolphins have no reason to have developed claustraphbia, because it would be a very rare case indeed where getting stuck in a small space would even come up for a dolphin. They just plain don't run into closed spaces much. Considering this we realise they that probably concieve of space in a completly different way from how we do. I mean, they move in 3D, and rarely have any restrictions, but with constant forces pushing them one way or another. So I think this tell us alot about how dolphins conceive of the concept of free space, paths, and obstacles. It could be that the concept of being "blocked" from something isn't very inate. So they are bad at solving one type of problem but it doesn't tell us that they are "dumb" in any general sense.

      There is another issue at hand. Their brain is certainly different from ours, and they have followed a different evolutionary path, with a different set of problems. There is no telling what problems they might be GOOD at solving, evidence of one that they are bad at is not evidence that they are dumb. Consider many of the people in history who have been considered the most "intelligent". Many were schitzofrenic, which is fundamentally an inability to tell fact from fiction, and basically properly asses a situation in a rational way. The results of this can look extremly "stupid". Many have had social disorders as well, such that they did stupid things which caused them much pain in their lives... that's pretty "dumb". Still we consider them smart because they could solve problems no-one else could solve. There are many types of intelligence, and lack of one does not imply a low sum of them all.
      Basically, we think of intelligence as someone who can solve a problem we can't. Often this implies they can't solve some problems that we can. The differences between humans and dolphins are much larger than within our species, it seems likely that they are good at a fairly disparate class of problems from what we're good at. It has oft been speculated by AI theorists that problems we consider hard are actually fairly easy compared to the problems we consider easy. The one's we consider easy are just the one's evolution needed to get 99.9% right, I.E. walking, learning language, etc. Consider abstract algebra. There are only a few axioms, and that's all there is to learn. From then on it's just a few theorems. learning Abstract math is really quite simple compared to learning natural language, with it's thousands rules and idioms, we're just not wired for it.

    10. Re:Bizzaro science by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what these smaller animals are doing.

      They are often preyed on by creatures which attack by restraining them in prelude to consumption, weather it be in claws, pincers, or jaws.

      They struggle to escape confinement not because of some intelligence, but because of instincts developed over millions of years. If rats didnt struggle when confined they'd be extinct.

      This is not so with dolphins. Theyre large water mammals. I know of no predator which attacks dolphins by grasping or confinement. The most logical predator, sharks, tend to bite their prey, release, and let them bleed out, or consume them quite quickly in the case of smaller prey. The point is the hunting style of the dolphin's predator is very different from those which prey on the species mentioned.

      Dolphins do recognize captivity, and often respond poorly to long term confinement, as do orcas, but they don't struggle to escape because they don't perceive it to be as dangerous as a mouse or goldfish would.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    11. Re:Bizzaro science by mclaincausey · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Doplhins can clearly see and interact with other dolphins on the other side of the fence, and they still don't jump through this one-foot-over-water fence. Not to bright in my book.
      How do you know that? That was quite a leap for the scientist to take. There is a lot of assumption there. Y'all are assuming that the dolphin doesn't think of jumping the barrier. What if the dolphin isn't jumping it because it assumed it's not supposed to? (Unlikely, but the point is not to assume anything).

      Goldfish are freshwater fish, are they not? They evolved in ponds and other enclosed waterspaces. For several centuries, they have continued to evolve in human-made enclosed waterspaces. Closed waterspaces can encounter conditions that make them dangerous for a fish to inhabit. For example, a pond could dry up. A goldfish might be well-advised to try to jump into an adjacent body of water such as a stream or another pond in such a situation.

      A Dolphin would never find itself in such a circumstance in nature. Manmade barriers present an obstacle that is recent in the evolution of the dolphin, so the species has not developed instincts to seek other bodies of water. I mean, think about it--they live in the freaking OCEAN. The fact that they haven't solved the problem suggests that they lack innovative thought. It doesn't mean they lack intelligence entirely.

      In sum, I think that the "intelligence" of goldfish, if it is presumed simply based on what a good scientist would consider an "escape instinct," is in doubt. Alternatively, the intelligence of dolphins, which has a much stronger base of evidence, remains unchallenged, though certainly noto ully understood. It's just bad science.

      "Humans think they are smarter than dolphins because we build cars and buildings and start wars, etc...and all that dolphins do is swim in the water, eat fish and play around. Dolphins believe that they are smarter for exactly the same reasons."

      --Douglas Adams

      --
      (%i1) factor(777353);
      (%o1) 777353
    12. Re:Bizzaro science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "not supposed to" is a little odd re: the tuna net thing at the bottom of the article.
      Excellent point there. You'd think they'd be smart enough to jump over that (which they obviously have never figured out).

    13. Re:Bizzaro science by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Doplhins can clearly see and interact with other dolphins on the other side of the fence, and they still don't jump through this one-foot-over-water fence.

      But those fences are there for a reason. Perhaps the dolphins are so smart that they realize they're disrupting the order of their tank if they jump over. People climb/jump over barriers they aren't supposed to past, all the time, but that doesn't make them smart.

    14. Re:Bizzaro science by ChibiCD · · Score: 1

      Goldfish are so smart they are Emo they realize they are living a meaningless life, and with out internet access they can't cry about it on live jurnal

    15. Re:Bizzaro science by ChibiCD · · Score: 1

      Dolphins move around in water much the same way bats fly, and how do you catch a bat? With a tennis racket, because the netting does not show up as a solid object. So it would not be hard to imagine that this might be why dolphins don't just jump over the net. Besides, tuna can jump out of water aswell, so why don't they jump over the net?

    16. Re:Bizzaro science by Suidae · · Score: 1

      In other words, dolphins have no reason to have developed claustraphbia, because it would be a very rare case indeed where getting stuck in a small space would even come up for a dolphin.

      Not according to the folks at Sea World. They claim that getting dolphins to swim through small spaces is very difficult because dolphins, lacking the ability to swim backwards, are very resistant to entering any space that appears too narrow to turn around in.

      I dunno if it's true, and if so they can certainly be trained to do these things because those Sea World trainers are proud to show off those tricks.

  10. It works on humans too by faramir_fr · · Score: 1

    Remove the cover of the cookie jar or the potatoe chip can... the human will turn obese.

  11. Johnny Mnemonic... by staed · · Score: 1

    ...would have been so much better with a goldfish instead of that tacky dolphin. Or instead of Keanu for that matter. Or instead of the film makers. I'll stop now.

  12. Cetacean intelligence by jolterhead · · Score: 1

    This will demand a rewrite of that article on Wikipedia.

    Also, I will have to reevaluate the Flipper, 63' edition.

  13. Having dived with dolphins in exotic places by ynotds · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am reminded of the counter argument which noted that the enlarged part observed in Einstein's brain was due to the extra glia cells needed to support the higher activity of the same number of neurons.

    I've also dived with many varieties of fish, but our interaction with dolphins off Tiputa Pass and Trousers Point (you can find both easily on Google) was qualitatively different from any with fish.

    It basically sounds like Japanese propaganda to me. Might be time to make that donation to Sea Shepherd.

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
    1. Re:Having dived with dolphins in exotic places by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      . . .our interaction with dolphins off Tiputa Pass and Trousers Point (you can find both easily on Google) was qualitatively different from any with fish.

      Bearing in mind that you have far more in common with a dolphin than with any fish, whatever the intelligence of either is.

      KFG

    2. Re:Having dived with dolphins in exotic places by utnapistim · · Score: 1

      Where's a mod point when I need it? :)

      --
      Tie two birds together: although they have four wings, they cannot fly. (The blind man)
    3. Re:Having dived with dolphins in exotic places by johansalk · · Score: 1

      Please tell us more about your diving experience with dolphins and how they interacted with you. I'd love to dive with dolphins. Never did it, but a personal wish.

    4. Re:Having dived with dolphins in exotic places by ynotds · · Score: 1

      In both cases it was their initiative. The first time I was teaching a youngster to snorkel and this dark shape sped past, so I rushed him out of the water, then saw that it was dolphins and got him back in just as quickly. There were eight in total, four pairs of what I can only presume were mother and half grown juvenile and they stayed with us for as long as the youngster could survive the cold water, seeming just as interested in us as we were in them.

      The second time I was on a boat with a diving party aiming to repeat what had been my most memorable dive ever the day before and the dolphins arrived before we were quite ready to hit the water but that certainly got us moving and we enjoyed a few minutes interacting before they went on their way and we resumed our dive plan. I wrote a personal note about the first day which just concluded: "And the next day we dived there with dolphins." That clearly seemed to say all that needed to be said at the time but, nearly 20 years on, it might have been good to have written more at the time. Any more now I would be making up.

      --
      -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
  14. Uhmm. serious article? by bm_luethke · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not anything close to the people who think dolphins are really really intelligent (though Douglas Adams makes a pretty good case), but IRTFA and I can not see how this is a serious article.

    It ends: "Manger also points to the tuna industry, which under consumer pressure has gone to great lengths to prevent dolphins from being caught and killed by accident in nets.

    "If they were really intelligent, they would just jump over the net because it doesn't come out of the water," he said."

    Umm, yea, they would if they ware smart? *sigh* - how did this make *any* news at all. Even assuming that the gist of the article is true (about the different types of brain material) the rest is crap - was it "peer reviewed" (as the article points out) by other idiots? Maybe it is all a Rovian plot to discredit Aljazeera.net? I can not take the article and it's contents with any real sense of belief - it is so idiotic that I can not trust the rest of it. That's not to say they are incorrect - just that this individual article is is pure crap and one should not use it to base any belief on.

    --
    ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    1. Re:Uhmm. serious article? by shellbeach · · Score: 4, Informative
      I can not see how this is a serious article.

      Well, Paul Manger is a real scientist who's published 50 articles, most if not all in neuroscience areas, some with pretty high numbers of citations, and quite a few of those articles are on cetaceans. The article that the story is based upon was published in Biological Reviews, which has an impact factor of 6 - it's clearly not a tin-pot cruddy journal which publishes any old crap. (and while IFs aren't as good a guide to a journal's credibility as our esteemed granting bodies would like us to believe, they do give some measure of an article's worth)

      The news story, although bizarely linked to Aljazeera (!), is attributed to Reuters down the bottom. So it's not quite as "pure crap" as you might think - the odd comments about dolphins not jumping over nets are probably more a result of the journalist trying to make a snappy story out of it all, rather than being the sole basis of Paul Manger's research!
    2. Re:Uhmm. serious article? by njh · · Score: 1

      More likely a plot by Japan to justify their fishing policy.

    3. Re:Uhmm. serious article? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The argument about fish nets is real poor, because dolphins can still get stuck in those nets while being smarter than goldfish. Unless goldfish elegantly finds their way out of the equivalent of a large fish nets (which goldfish get through from physical size reasons), it doesn't prove one thing or another. Unless there are fish or marine mammals that don't get stuck from pure intelligence, it doesn't say dolphins are more stupid than any others in particular.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    4. Re:Uhmm. serious article? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it is all a Rovian plot to discredit Aljazeera.net


      Umm... did Aljazeera have any credit to begin with? I have to confess I am a little shocked that slashdot would link to such a nadir of journalism.

    5. Re:Uhmm. serious article? by Zak3056 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The news story, although bizarely linked to Aljazeera (!), is attributed to Reuters down the bottom. So it's not quite as "pure crap" as you might think

      Yes, because it's not like Reuters has had issues with credibility in the recent past, or anything.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    6. Re:Uhmm. serious article? by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      Yes, because it's not like Reuters has had issues with credibility in the recent past, or anything.

      Somewhat more credibility than Aljazeera, though, methinks ... :)

      (You'll note, if you read the rest of my comments, that I'm not claiming the article was a shining example of good journalism or anything ...)
  15. Aljazeera by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is Aljazeera really the best source for this information?

    1. Re:Aljazeera by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      It's actually a reuters article. Hmm... in that case, perhaps it's not the best source for information.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    2. Re:Aljazeera by sosume · · Score: 1


      Yeah, why should Aljazeera be biased towards evolution and science in general? I believe all their stories all the time </sarcasm>

  16. this is great.. mod it up! by plasmacutter · · Score: 0

    I can't figure out wheather to laugh my *** off or pat you on the back for your observations.. good call ; )

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  17. Think I prefer dolphins by vinsci · · Score: 5, Informative
    ...and that's just a few of the top results from a quick Google search.
    --

    Trusted Computing FAQ | Free Dawit Isaak!
    1. Re:Think I prefer dolphins by mano_k · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm quite sure goldfish would be equaly heroic, if they only got the opportunity!

    2. Re:Think I prefer dolphins by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

      Agreed. The GP is obviously just a member of the anti-goldfish, dolphin domination conspiracy that's been plaguing our socie%#*@&$( NO CARRIER

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  18. Better Article for Your Leisure Reading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
    Note that the link provided by the lead article in this discussion comes from Alijazeera, which has credibility on par with Joseph Goebbels.

    The "Chicago Sun Times" offers a better version of the story.

    1. Re:Better Article for Your Leisure Reading by darkat · · Score: 1

      Ok, It's true, Al Jazeera may be a little biased, so let's trust FOXNEWS that is "Fair and Balanced" Muhahahahah

  19. Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I just spent about 10 minutes with a fly swat trying to kill **one** fucking fly that is buzzing around indoors. Does that make the fly smarter than me?

    A fly has pretty much a hard-wired brain, but it is highly effective at finding food and keeping it alive.

    Some while ago, some researchers managed to get a dish of 1500 (or 15000??) rat brain cells to fly a 747 simulator -- including handling complex actions like landing with wind shear. I bet it took less time to train the rat brain than it takes for a human to attend flight school. I guess a rat brain in a pilot's uniform doesn't pick up as much skirt though.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by kfg · · Score: 5, Funny

      Does that make the fly smarter than me?

      Who won?

      I guess a rat brain in a pilot's uniform doesn't pick up as much skirt though.

      No, but I'd hazard that a rat brain in a rat picks up a fair bit of tail.

      KFG

    2. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by miro+f · · Score: 1
      I just spent about 10 minutes with a fly swat trying to kill **one** fucking fly that is buzzing around indoors. Does that make the fly smarter than me?


      I think the fact that the fly was still around 10 minutes later effectively answers this question
      --
      being vague is almost as cool as doing that other thing...
    3. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by RKBA · · Score: 2, Informative

      "A fly has pretty much a hard-wired brain,"

      True, but they are nonetheless capable of very complex behaviour even if incapable of learning. Here is a brief description of the brain of your adversary: "The brain of a blowfly (Phormia regina Meigen) weighs on the average 0.85 milligrams. Its maximum linear dimension is 1583 microns. It probably contains not more than 100,000 cells."

      Source: "The Hungry Fly" by V.G. Dethier, (c) 1976. It's a 488 page hardcover book with maps and wiring diagrams of the fly brain. I also have an entire book about the brain of the Aplysia sea slug (which also has about 100,000 neurons) called ""Cellular Basis of Behavior" by Eric Kandel. If you think it's strange that I would purchase such books, just imagine what must have possessed the authors to write them! ;-)

    4. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by Lex-Man82 · · Score: 1

      This seem quite unlikely to me. Do you have any links to back up your claim?

    5. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by CurlyG · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      You know they call 'em fingers but I've never seen 'em fing. Oh, there they go.
    6. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by 50000BTU_barbecue · · Score: 2, Informative
      "just spent about 10 minutes with a fly swat trying to kill **one** fucking fly that is buzzing around indoors"

      They are very sensitive to variations in light levels and immediately fly away from the variation. However, they don't seem to have any sense of hearing in the lower frequencies so I use a vacuum cleaner to suck up annoying flies. The fly just sits there wiping its legs and by the time the crevice attachment sneaks up behind them, it's too late to take off in a hurricane and gloop! it's gone.

      --
      Mostly random stuff.
    7. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by julesh · · Score: 1

      I guess a rat brain in a pilot's uniform doesn't pick up as much skirt though.

      I wouldn't be so sure, looking at a representative sample of the members of this site.

    8. Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      I just spent about 10 minutes with a fly swat trying to kill **one** fucking fly that is buzzing around indoors. Does that make the fly smarter than me?

      Put down the fly swat.

      Pick up the SHOP VAC!

      I have a 100% victory rate against all types of insects using a shop vac fitted with a dust bag.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  20. Somebody has to say it by scarlac · · Score: 4, Funny

    I for one welcome our new Goldfish Overlords

    1. Re:Somebody has to say it by First+Person · · Score: 1

      Actually, no. No one needed to say that.

      --
      Given one hour to live, the student replied: "I'd spend it with professor FP who can make an hour seem like a lifetime."
    2. Re:Somebody has to say it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your master commands you to bring more flakes.

  21. So what I gather from the article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..is that a single scientist pointed to the fact that dolphins have more glia than neurons and retroactively applied it as "evidence" for a preconceived theory. There is no talk of experimentation or anything, just a long and verbose way of saying "This guy thinks dolphins are stupid."

  22. DopeFish Goldfish by Garp1976 · · Score: 1

    Swim. Swim. Hungry?

  23. Short term memory? by simpleguy · · Score: 1

    I've read somewhere that goldfish have a short-term memory. They seem not to be able to remember anything that happened a few dozen seconds earlier.

    If thats true, I will keep the dolphin. Thanks

    1. Re:Short term memory? by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      goldfish are smarter than you !

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    2. Re:Short term memory? by shawb · · Score: 2, Informative

      That short term memory theory? Definately not true. It's a false theory used as justification for keeping goldfish in a bowl, which is in reality cruel. Goldfish raised in a stimulating environment can be quite intelligent, being able to be trained such things as playing basketball (can not find source right now) soccer, and sometimes even synchronized swimming (Goldfish are not naturally schooling fish per say, so this behavior is definately trained.) And... umm... Texas Holdem. I'm not quite sure about the validity of that last one, though. Actually, I've got a pretty good idea about exactly how valid that one is, but I'm leaving it in anyways.

      I'd have to see a lot more evidence to actually believe that goldfish are as smart as dolphins. Although in designing intelligence tests, we do have to be extremely careful to not confuse "behaviors and thought patterns that are closer to ours" with more intelligent. Researchers already have a difficult time establishing IQ tests that don't show significant bias for particular races or cultures of people, much moreso across different species.

      Also, just saying that because the dolphin nervous system has a higher percentage of glial cells they are by necessity less intelligent really shows a misunderstanding of the nervous system. Nerurons are quicker and better at actually processing information, but glial cells can also pass nervous impulses, and in fact are better at passing impulses over a long distance than neurons, and as such are better for coordinating information from multiple regions of the brain than neurons are. The larger proportion of glial cells could simply be a result of needing to work with more pieces of information related to movement as a result of living in a 3d world rather than a primarilly 2d world as humans do (Both due to dolphin's ability to move in 3d, and their reliance on echolocation for ranging which gives much finer distance measurements and allows for the creation of a much more accurate mental map of the environment, as opposed to human vision which in in reality formed by a roughly 2d image projected on our retinas which we strive to pull some 3d information out of.)

      --
      I'll never make that mistake again, reading the experts' opinions. - Feynman
    3. Re:Short term memory? by NewToNix · · Score: 1
      That short term memory theory? Definately not true. It's a false theory used as justification for keeping goldfish in a bowl, which is in reality cruel. Goldfish raised in a stimulating environment can be quite intelligent, being able to be trained such things as playing basketball

      I don't have a dolphin to compare this to, but I do have 5 goldfish. I bought them at Wally World originally as a 'perpetual motion cat toy' for my cat (that didn't work - the cat treats looking at the fish like it was a TV, and ignores them).

      The point?

      I have taught my fish to jump through rings (shower curtain rings), and other tricks.

      They seem to remember everything quite well for about 15 days, after which they slowly lose the 'fine details' of the tricks.

      However much as they say about riding a bicycle (which they can't do yet, but we're working on it), they will 're-learn' any trick they once learned in just a few trials, even after some months.

      And it turns out they like to watch the cat...

      I've never had a pet fish before in my life (I'm 64) so I had no preconceived notions about what to expect.

      I did figure out in the first three days that the 10 gallon tank wasn't going to work out for 5 fish... we are at a 100 gallon tank now and I expect at the rate they grow it will have to be larger soon.

      Goldfish are interesting, and quite playful - they can tell me from other people - probably because I hand feed them.

      I do not know how they would do with a net, because I have never used one, I just pick them up by hand, if I need to move them to a temporary tank while I clean the large tank, every so often.

      I'm fairly sure I couldn't do that with a dolphin...

      And yes they probably would jump out of the tank... we are trying to 'jump' out of our atmosphere too, and regrettably every so often astronauts die trying that very thing....

      Don't be so quick to dismiss that thought, not all that many years ago no one on earth believed in a 'vacuum'... I guess the Pope at the time would have thought given a ladder long enough he could have climbed to the moon - he wouldn't have considered dieing in a 'non existent' vacuum...

      The urge to explore is a trait of intelligence, I think... and that's why a Goldfish will jump out of his tank... he just has no way to 'know' it's not water out here as well as in there.

      Remember it wasn't curiosity that killed the cat, it was ignorance.

  24. Re:GNAA Adopts Trusted Platform Module by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting
  25. Goldfish Anomolies by umbrellasd · · Score: 4, Funny
    In a related story, goldfish have also been found to be smarter than the scientists that came up with this very inconclusive study.

    . o o O ( Where are all the giant-brained goldfish? )

    1. Re:Goldfish Anomolies by grimJester · · Score: 1

      Apparently they live on La Planeta De Agua (Arriba!).

  26. Fish are so passe... by null+etc. · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'd take an octopus any day of the week! Not only are they excellent problem solvers, they give good massages.

    1. Re:Fish are so passe... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only do they give good massages, they also have...tentacles...

    2. Re:Fish are so passe... by backwardMechanic · · Score: 1

      The octopus, well known for being smart. Until they see a pot. "Hmmm, must sit inside the pot...". They won't last long as overlords.

    3. Re:Fish are so passe... by bcrowell · · Score: 1

      The cool thing about the brains of squids and octopi is that they're shaped like doughnuts. Their throat goes through the center of their brain. So the only thing is, if you're a squid, you don't want to try to eat anything that's too big...

  27. Gee, it's an organic Intel vs AMD comparison. by Pantero+Blanco · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You can count the number of neurons vs glia all day long, but at the end of the day dolphins seem to have MUCH better results than goldfish. Just because a certain feature normally has a certain result doesn't mean you can rewrite reality when it doesn't!

    If the word "intelligence" was defined as a certain ratio of neurons to glia, he'd have a point. Of course, "intelligence" wouldn't matter so much, because it would only matter in certain situations. Much like "clock speed".

    I also don't see how the "jumping out of the bowl/over the net" even deserves a mention...unless we now have a way of interviewing dolphins and goldfish.

    1. Re:Gee, it's an organic Intel vs AMD comparison. by umghhh · · Score: 1

      I think you got this all wrong. You should understand what this article really says. Goldfish are martyrs who are not at all selfish (is it fihs after all) and are ready to die for the cause. Dolphins OTOH are filthy, perverted and corrupted creatures that value their lives more than some stupid cause.

    2. Re:Gee, it's an organic Intel vs AMD comparison. by Geminii · · Score: 1
      Just because a certain feature normally has a certain result doesn't mean you can rewrite reality when it doesn't!

      Well there go your chances of re-election.

  28. Why not use fat by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Interesting
    It is surely much more energy efficient to surround the brain with a layer of fat/blubber and so retain the heat that the brain generates rather than have special cells to generate extra heat -- which is then lost.

    Nature (evolution) tends to take the most efficient solution -- natural selection will favour the animals that don't need to expend so much energy to achieve the same result.

    1. Re:Why not use fat by Fullhazard · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because the fat would have to have two big holes in it, through which massive amounts of blood is pumped every minute.
      It'd be like getting really good insulation on your house, then opening all the windows. It wouldn't stay warm very long.

    2. Re:Why not use fat by borawjm · · Score: 1

      natural selection will favour the animals that don't need to expend so much energy to achieve the same result

      Well, damn. I am freak'n set!

  29. Dolphin != smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Dolphins are also not so intelligent on land.

  30. Does that change anything?? by b1ufox · · Score: 1
    Gold fish on a roll, giving dolphins a tough time at a water park, leaping, rustling ,playing and amusing

    visitors with a ball,which visitors can barely see.

    better if we can free those innocent mammals used to entertain us.

    --
    -- "Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration" - TAE --
  31. U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by reporter · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Before we dismiss dolphins as a "dumb" animal, we should first read about how the U.S. Navy is training dolphins to perform complex tasks. The lives of American sailors depends on the dolphins' reliably performing these tasks.

    What are these tasks? One task is locating anti-ship mines like those found in the Persian Gulf during the Iraq War. Another task is identifying unauthorized swimmers (likes Islamic terrorists) seeking to enter a harbor where naval warships are anchored.

    I highly doubt that a goldfish can perform these tasks.

  32. Old news by Per+Wigren · · Score: 1

    We already knew that dolphins are stupid, especially on land...

    --
    My other account has a 3-digit UID.
  33. in that case by tenorslowworm · · Score: 2, Funny

    I, for one, defy our would-be dolphin overlords!

  34. neurons in the navy ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ' I guess this means that the Navy will start recruiting and training goldfish for those mine search and destroy missions."

    Nope, in the navy, neurons are not mandatory.

    1. Re:neurons in the navy ? by nowhere.elysium · · Score: 1

      That's actually pretty scary: that phrse scans perfectly if you replace 'you can sail the seven seas' with it, in the village people song.

      i fear.

      --
      http://xkcd.com/313/
  35. Goldfishes smarter than slashdotters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That none of you have realized that you're part of plot by the american government to DoS (/.) al Jazeera is astounding... Truly an achievement of our new goldfish overlords

  36. Navy Finding Nemo by Kuvter · · Score: 2, Funny

    In future news two sequels to Finding Nemo will come out "Recruiting Nemo" and "Training Nemo".

    --
    "To be is to do." --Socrates
    "To do is to be." -- Aristotle
    "Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
    1. Re:Navy Finding Nemo by Fullhazard · · Score: 1

      Nah.
      They just need to adult it up.
      "Saving Private Nemo".
      I'm sure they'd win an oscar.

    2. Re:Navy Finding Nemo by cciRRus · · Score: 1

      Gold fishes are not "Nemos", although they appear orangy in color. You do realize that, do you? "Nemos" live in the sea and are commonly known as Clown Fishes; gold fishes are freshwater fishes.

      --
      w00t
  37. Goldfish are also smarter than bears by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to several strong sources and studies:
    Goldfish, if they were larger, could survive well on land and very possibly contend with humans for a dominant position on earth. Several experiments have shown goldfish working together in gang-like groups. These groups have all the typical functions of a human gang including initiations, rumbles, developing a life or death loyalty and even drug operations among marine animals. It is not doubt that goldfish could take over the world...?

  38. Sounds like nonsense by jopet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    While it is obvious and quite dated knowledge that the sheer size of a brain is no indicator for "intelligence" (let us avoid the discussion what intelligence is in the first place for the moment), it is provably wrong that dolphins just do what they are "conditioned" to do. There have been many experiments that show that dolphins are capable to do a lot more than just demonstrate conditioned reflexes, including understand a several-word sign language and coming up with what could be called creative solutions.

    Nothing of that sort has been demonstrated for goldfish yet, but that does not mean it cannot be done, just that we simply do not know yet.

    It has been shown for other species that they show surprisingly intelligent behaviour when trained and it is probably impossible to defined what "more intelligent" should mean for non-humans (it is already quite arbitrarily defined for humans). So the bottom line is - more animals are more intelligent than most people think. And dolphins have shown a quite surprising range of abilities that was not observed in any other marine animal yet.

    1. Re:Sounds like nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For example - dolphins have been shown to understand what a mirror does, and to recognize themselves in a mirror, a trait only found in the great apes (including humans). See: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0002433 B-A643-1C5E-B882809EC588ED9F I'm pretty sure goldfish don't get it.

    2. Re:Sounds like nonsense by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Read the article. "recognize themselves in a mirror" is an incredible leap from what actually took place.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    3. Re:Sounds like nonsense by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Many Muslims can be quite rational if you are discussing things other than the right of Israel to exist.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  39. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Another task is identifying unauthorized swimmers (likes Islamic terrorists) seeking to enter a harbor where naval warships are anchored.

    Oh come on, you can't possibly believe this bullshit.

  40. and this is supposed to be science? by idlake · · Score: 1

    Manger's views are sure to cause a stir among a public which has long associated dolphins with intelligence, emotion and other human-like qualities.

    Dolphins have emotions because they are mammals and because their brains have a certain structure, not because their brains are a minimum size.

    Absolute brain size is largely determined by body size--more muscles means you need more brain mass.

    Finally, except for a general trend, there is no conclusive data about a firm relationship between brain-to-body-mass ratio or neuron count to intelligence. The way to determine whether animals are intelligent is to observe and test their behavior.

    Personally, I find it pretty smart that dolphins don't "jump out of their bowl to explore the environment"; for an aquatic animal of any kind, that seems like a survival trait to me...

  41. Now we need are tiny lasers (joke) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now all we need to do is to develope tiny lasers to attatch to the fish. Of course, this means we need to advantage in nanotechnology. And although sharks aren't dolphins are mentioned in this article, I believe goldfish would be better recruited to go on attack missions in our oceans in order to protect America and establish a New World Order, as Bush demands.

  42. yeah... but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    they probably trained the dolphins by placing fish on dud mines.

    meanwhile in the ocean:

    Flipper: Oh, look a delicious looking fish, Yum!
    A few seconds later.... *BOOM*

    1. Re:yeah... but by SCPRedMage · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you now have a race of super-intelligent dolphins.

      That have been trained to not eat fish.

      Better make use of them quickly, before they all starve to death...

      --
      My sig can beat up your sig.
  43. Another successful disinformation campaign .. by cheros · · Score: 3, Funny

    #23: Delude humans. Check.

    You guys have obviously already forgotten about the mice then? :-)

    = Ch =

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  44. And here's the article abstract itself ... by shellbeach · · Score: 2, Informative
    From PubMed ... Note that nowhere in the abstract is the claim made that dolphins are stupid; it merely suggests that intelligence is not the driving force behind their large brain size. (Unfortunately I don't have access to the article itself, so who knows what claims he makes in the body of the text ... but the abstract sounds logical enough)

    An examination of cetacean brain structure with a novel hypothesis correlating thermogenesis to the evolution of a big brain.

    * Manger PR.

    School of Anatomical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, 7 York Road, Parktown, 2193, Johannesburg, Republic of South Africa. mangerpr@anatomy.wits.ac.za

            This review examines aspects of cetacean brain structure related to behaviour and evolution. Major considerations include cetacean brain-body allometry, structure of the cerebral cortex, the hippocampal formation, specialisations of the cetacean brain related to vocalisations and sleep phenomenology, paleoneurology, and brain-body allometry during cetacean evolution. These data are assimilated to demonstrate that there is no neural basis for the often-asserted high intellectual abilities of cetaceans. Despite this, the cetaceans do have volumetrically large brains. A novel hypothesis regarding the evolution of large brain size in cetaceans is put forward. It is shown that a combination of an unusually high number of glial cells and unihemispheric sleep phenomenology make the cetacean brain an efficient thermogenetic organ, which is needed to counteract heat loss to the water. It is demonstrated that water temperature is the major selection pressure driving an altered scaling of brain and body size and an increased actual brain size in cetaceans. A point in the evolutionary history of cetaceans is identified as the moment in which water temperature became a significant selection pressure in cetacean brain evolution. This occurred at the Archaeoceti - modern cetacean faunal transition. The size, structure and scaling of the cetacean brain continues to be shaped by water temperature in extant cetaceans. The alterations in cetacean brain structure, function and scaling, combined with the imperative of producing offspring that can withstand the rate of heat loss experienced in water, within the genetic confines of eutherian mammal reproductive constraints, provides an explanation for the evolution of the large size of the cetacean brain. These observations provide an alternative to the widely held belief of a correlation between brain size and intelligence in cetaceans.

            PMID: 16573845 [PubMed - in process]

    1. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      These data are assimilated to demonstrate that there is no neural basis for the often-asserted high intellectual abilities of cetaceans.

      These observations provide an alternative to the widely held belief of a correlation between brain size and intelligence in cetaceans.

      This is a claim that dolphins and whales are stupid, and that their intelligence is "assertion" and "belief" of researchers -- what is separate from the claim that large brains developed for the reason other than need for complex behavior, what driven development of, say, primates.

      Of course, this can be be easily refuted unless he can present some evidence that explains actual behavior of dolphins -- what is observed to be more complex than behavior of fish and other animals with significantly smaller brain. I have no idea why those two claims are mixed -- you don't have to prove that dolphins are stupid to support a hypothesis that their brains developed because smaller brain of a warm-blooded animal can't survive in cold water. Even if brains of dolphins and whales are not as efficient per volume as brains of land animals, it does not mean that among similar animals larger brains aren't responsible for more complex behavior, so it's quite possible that there was no evolutionary pressure to improve intelligence of dolphins, yet brains size and complexity increased for other reasons, and caused increased intelligence anyway.

      Maybe the researcher is stupid, and doesn't understand logic, or maybe the article includes some detailed and plausible explanation for dolphins' behavior that no one noticed.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    2. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      This is a claim that dolphins and whales are stupid, and that their intelligence is "assertion" and "belief" of researchers -- what is separate from the claim that large brains developed for the reason other than need for complex behavior, what driven development of, say, primates.

      Actually, that's not true - "These data are assimilated to demonstrate that there is no neural basis for the often-asserted high intellectual abilities of cetaceans" merely states that the brain structure does not necessarily imply a high level of intelligence. In the same vein, "These observations provide an alternative to the widely held belief of a correlation between brain size and intelligence in cetaceans" is simply pointing to an alternative reason for the evolution of a large brain. If brain size is not related to intelligence, then it also follows that intelligence is not related to brain size.

      I have no idea why those two claims are mixed -- you don't have to prove that dolphins are stupid to support a hypothesis that their brains developed because smaller brain of a warm-blooded animal can't survive in cold water

      I don't think that the researcher was actually trying to prove that dolphins are stupid - that's my point (I imagine that the Reuters article was deliberately sensationalised to make it sell - it would fit with my own experience with science journalists! A dry article noting that dolphin brain evolution has selectionary pressures other than intelligence alone is hardly going to make in into the papers; an article claiming that dolphins are dumber than fish is far more likely to pass muster ...)

      I seem to be defending this guy, which I'm not really trying to do; I'm simply trying to stop people from criticising peer-reviewed research on the simple basis that it goes against the grain. He may well be a nutcase - but I can't tell without reading the article itself. From the abstract it sounds an interesting article and it got accepted into a fairly highly ranked journal ... it deserves better than being lumped under the "Whacky scientist reckons goldfish are smarter than dolphins" banner (a claim the poor guy never made, but which was only made by the story poster).
    3. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's not true - "These data are assimilated to demonstrate that there is no neural basis for the often-asserted high intellectual abilities of cetaceans" merely states that the brain structure does not necessarily imply a high level of intelligence.

      If he didn't make a claim that dolphins are stupid, that would be "no neural basis for the observed high intellectual abilities of cetaceans".

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    4. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      If he didn't make a claim that dolphins are stupid, that would be "no neural basis for the observed high intellectual abilities of cetaceans".

      Well, no - that would be making a claim that dolphins are smart. He's merely stating that it is often asserted that this is the case, and while he may not believe it himself he hasn't actually stated his position in the abstract (you're just inferring it from his impartial clarification). There are many shades of grey between "high intellectual abilities" and "dumber than a goldfish" ...

      Incidentally, I did a quick literature search to see what had been written about dolphins and high intelligence, and can't find all that much. If anyone knows of any actual scientific studies on dolphin intelligence (and I'm sure there's been heaps, but all I can find are a few articles relating to social structure and social intelligence ... ironically, a search for "cetacean intelligence" in PubMed only brings up Paul Manger's own abstract!) then I'd be interested to see them ...

      I have to say, I'm rather fascinated by the "why don't dolphins jump over fishing nets" thing! You've got to admit, it would be a simple solution to their dilemma if they're trapped without a means of escape: they certainly know how to jump out of the water well enough ... (although I wonder if the problem with fishing nets is more one of being entangled in them?)
    5. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      Well, no - that would be making a claim that dolphins are smart.

      That would be admitting that dolphins are as smart as they are observed to be smart -- what is smarter than most of animals, and this is already observed. He makes a claim that others "assert" that dolphins are smarter than they are observed merely because their brain is large, with no observation to support that assertion. If someone claims so, this can be refuted by an experiment, not by "explanations" why better brain could or could not develop in dolphins.

      Incidentally, I did a quick literature search to see what had been written about dolphins and high intelligence, and can't find all that much. If anyone knows of any actual scientific studies on dolphin intelligence (and I'm sure there's been heaps, but all I can find are a few articles relating to social structure and social intelligence ... ironically, a search for "cetacean intelligence" in PubMed only brings up Paul Manger's own abstract!) then I'd be interested to see them ...

      Because it's rare in general to have term "intelligence" applied to animals in scientific literature. If he is trying to refute claims that dolphins are "more intelligent" than apes and humans, I think, he would have hard time finding someone making such a claim, however dolphins' behavior is definitely more complex compared to othe sea animals, and this is a well-researched area.

      I have to say, I'm rather fascinated by the "why don't dolphins jump over fishing nets" thing! You've got to admit, it would be a simple solution to their dilemma if they're trapped without a means of escape: they certainly know how to jump out of the water well enough ... (although I wonder if the problem with fishing nets is more one of being entangled in them?)

      That, and the fact that fishing nets are the only objects in the ocean that dolphins can't see or get an echo response from. The only other object that comes any close is seaweed, and it's benign. Also dolphins don't know that the net ends above the surface -- to derive that they would have to understand its purpose, gathering food for land-dwelling humans.

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    6. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      That would be admitting that dolphins are as smart as they are observed to be smart -- what is smarter than most of animals, and this is already observed.

      Can you cite some references as regards this? There's certainly an assumption in the community that dolphins are intelligent animals, but I couldn't find anything documenting this other than anecdotal stories ... Please understand, I'm not saying that they're not intelligent, just healthily sceptical.

      If he is trying to refute claims that dolphins are "more intelligent" than apes and humans, I think, he would have hard time finding someone making such a claim

      Ah, but you see, dolphins actually have a relatively larger cranial volume than any primate other than man (Marino , 1998, and cf. Marino et al, 2000 which states that the relative size is in fact greater than that of humans). So if intelligence was directly related to brain size then such claims ought to stand. And I guess that's the whole point of Manger's article - dolphins might be highly socially organised animals, but their level of intellect is not as great as their brain size alone would suggest. (And from the abstract, one of the reasons for that surrounds the different cellular composition of the dolphin brain, which is especially interesting considering the Marino, et al, 2000 paper cited above)

      however dolphins' behaviour is definitely more complex compared to othe sea animals, and this is a well-researched area.

      Fair enough - but I'd be interested to see studies regarding more than social behaviour: learning and problem-solving, for example. There must have been studies on this, I'm just having a hard time finding them ... There seems to be a naive assumption by the general public, at least, that dolphins do have a level of intellectual ability approaching humans and primates, but it's hard to discover whether this is based on hard scientific evidence or the romantic notions of society.

      Also dolphins don't know that the net ends above the surface -- to derive that they would have to understand its purpose, gathering food for land-dwelling humans.

      No they wouldn't! It's just a barrier - its purpose is irrelevant. The issue is how an animal deals with that barrier (*). But your point about not being able to detect the net (either by echo location or sight) seems valid enough (although after swimming into it enough times you'd reckon they'd work it out - again, it's a question of the ability of the animal to reason rather than just interact with their environment ...)

      (*) A dolphin - if aware at all - should be well aware of the fact that the sea surface is not the end of its spatial confines. Trap a human in a room with a pool of water, completely enclosed to the water boundary, and it's highly likely that the human will dive under the water in order to see if the walls continue, or if there is a hidden way out.
    7. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1
      Can you cite some references as regards this? There's certainly an assumption in the community that dolphins are intelligent animals, but I couldn't find anything documenting this other than anecdotal stories ... Please understand, I'm not saying that they're not intelligent, just healthily sceptical.

      For example, this: Dolphins recognized themselves in a mirror.
      So if intelligence was directly related to brain size then such claims ought to stand. And I guess that's the whole point of Manger's article - dolphins might be highly socially organised animals, but their level of intellect is not as great as their brain size alone would suggest. (And from the abstract, one of the reasons for that surrounds the different cellular composition of the dolphin brain, which is especially interesting considering the Marino, et al, 2000 paper cited above)

      But no one actually made such a claim -- that dolphins are smarter than all animals with smaller brains, or that brain size alone determines intelligence. No one even claimed that dolphins' and primates' brains are similar enough to justify such a comparison, so if he is opposing something, it's a strawman. Study of the differences between brains of dolphins and land-dwelling mammals is valuable in itself, but it doesn't really refute anything, least of all it can invalidate the experiments and observations that show complex behavior in dolphins.
      No they wouldn't! It's just a barrier - its purpose is irrelevant.

      It's possible that dolphin may be completely unaware that the net can be a barrier, even if he can see it. Absolutely nothing else in the ocean looks like a fishing net, and dolphins never come in contact with fishing nets over the course of their lives, so it contradicts their experience. Escaping from the net would be an equivlent of a dog figuring out that "invisible fence" collar is controlled by a transmitter, and turning it off, or for a human to figure out that a wall of smoke in the middle of a room is a portal to some other place.

      If it was known to be impossible to _train_ a dolphin to jump out of a net, then it would be an evicence of some deficiency.
      The issue is how an animal deals with that barrier (*). But your point about not being able to detect the net (either by echo location or sight) seems valid enough (although after swimming into it enough times you'd reckon they'd work it out - again, it's a question of the ability of the animal to reason rather than just interact with their environment ...)

      If dolphins were able to "reason" about fishing nets at that extent, they would be able to recognize lost or abandoned nets, pick them up, and use them to catch fish. This is definitely far beyond their abilities.
      (*) A dolphin - if aware at all - should be well aware of the fact that the sea surface is not the end of its spatial confines. Trap a human in a room with a pool of water, completely enclosed to the water boundary, and it's highly likely that the human will dive under the water in order to see if the walls continue, or if there is a hidden way out.

      When diving, a human usually can expect that he can return to the water surface if he finds out that there is no exit underwater. When jumping out of water close to other objects, a dolphin is very likely to find himself stranded on the rocks, deck of a boat, beach or other places from where he can't return.
      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    8. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      Thanks for the mirror-recognition article - there's a whole bunch of citations in the discussion that provide more evidence for high levels of dolphin cognitive ability.

      But no one actually made such a claim -- that dolphins are smarter than all animals with smaller brains, or that brain size alone determines intelligence. No one even claimed that dolphins' and primates' brains are similar enough to justify such a comparison, so if he is opposing something, it's a strawman.

      Well, you can't on the one hand link to an article describing mirror-recognition by dolphins, and on the other claim that no-one's ever claimed dolphins were intelligent! In fact, there's a most relevant sentence in the Marino 1998 abstract that states, "These findings may have implications for comparative models of the relative importance of brain size versus brain organization for the evolution of intelligence." Unfortunately my institute clearly doesn't subscribe to that journal and I can't get the full text of the article and discover what those implications are ...

      Escaping from the net would be an equivlent of a dog figuring out that "invisible fence" collar is controlled by a transmitter, and turning it off, or for a human to figure out that a wall of smoke in the middle of a room is a portal to some other place.

      This isn't my area of research at all, but I'd have to disagree with your statement - escaping from a net is merely exploring all possible avenues for escape, not making a connection between unrelated objects. Dolphins regularly jump out of water, they are not aware of whether the net extends out of the water or not, there are no other means of escape - trying to jump over the net is the logical extension of this. It's a fairly big step in reasoning, though - I'm not saying that if a dolphin can't work it out then it's stupid.

      If dolphins were able to "reason" about fishing nets at that extent, they would be able to recognize lost or abandoned nets, pick them up, and use them to catch fish.

      Not at all - that's tool use, and is something very different again.

      Anyway - I'm pretty convinced that dolphins are intelligent creatures, and Manger may well be a bit loopy when it comes to dissing dolphins for not jumping over things to escape (if his remarks weren't made off the cuff, and seized upon by a desperate journalist for sensationalist value - it's been known to happen!). But I still think his research sounds interesting - there's clearly been quite a lot written about the different composition of dolphin brains, but the idea of a selective link between water temperature and brain volume appears new, and is at least something that merrits reading the article before slamming it as stupid!
    9. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by Alex+Belits · · Score: 1

      This isn't my area of research at all, but I'd have to disagree with your statement - escaping from a net is merely exploring all possible avenues for escape, not making a connection between unrelated objects. Dolphins regularly jump out of water, they are not aware of whether the net extends out of the water or not, there are no other means of escape - trying to jump over the net is the logical extension of this. It's a fairly big step in reasoning, though - I'm not saying that if a dolphin can't work it out then it's stupid.

      First of all, dolphin has to realize that the net is an obstacle. Second, he has to understand that he is in danger if he remains inside the net. Third, he has to understand that it's safe outside the net. Fourth he has to understant that the net ends above the surface (where he can't see well enough to determine if the net is there). And on top of all he should realize that jumping out of water can be useful for escape. None of those things even remotely can be derived from a dolphin's experience, so from his point of view he is dealing with unknown and seemingly unrelated things.

      From our point of view this makes no sense because we deal with nets, barriers, cages, wire fences, etc. all the time, so we instantly recognize "something flexible that is hanging in front of you and looks like a grid" as a barrier intended to keep us from reaching the other side, and the obvious solution is to "climb over the top of it". But if we didn't deal with those things all the time, and had to navigate in 3d space full of various, mostly benign, objects, why would we recognize a net as a barrier? Why jumping over the top and not, say, dive under its bottom? How much of the net one has to see to even realize that it has a vertical wall that reaches the surface?

      But I still think his research sounds interesting - there's clearly been quite a lot written about the different composition of dolphin brains, but the idea of a selective link between water temperature and brain volume appears new, and is at least something that merrits reading the article before slamming it as stupid!

      It may be the first mentioning of specifically brain evolution, but it's well known that low temperature, thermal conductivity and high specific heat of water place some unusual "design restrictions" on warm-blooded animals.

      Cold-blooded animals that live in the ocean can have pretty much any size as long as they are capable of collecting enough food to sustain their bodies. Warm-blooded ones have to keep energy balance with the surrounding water while maintaining their optimal temperature. Energy that is dissipated to the water per unit of time is proportional to the body surface (size^2) temperature difference (constant) and inversely proportional to the thickness of the insulating layer of fat. Energy released from the food per unit of time, assuming that food is abundant, is proportional to the volume of the digestive system (size^3). This means, the smaller is the animal, the larger percentage of its body mass will be spent on fat, and there is an absolute low limit for the body size. However the larger is the animal, the more "spare" energy it can have, and the less efficiently it has to feed. At the top we see blue whales that don't have to be efficient at their feeding at all, and can sustain themselves by filtering large quantities of water for plankton. The smaller is the animal, the higher are his requirements for food quantity and quality -- what is completely different from their cold-blooded neighbors.

      So the question is, does the requirement for better food-finding ability drive the development of the dolphin's brain, or environment directly affects the need for a larger brain? I don't know what is a typical dolphin brain surface temperature, but internal body temperature is not too far from one of a human, so blood that is passed to the brain is just as warm as our own one. So if dolphins' brain developed in the same way a

      --
      Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
    10. Re:And here's the article abstract itself ... by shellbeach · · Score: 1
      First of all, dolphin has to realize that the net is an obstacle. Second, he has to understand that he is in danger if he remains inside the net. Third, he has to understand that it's safe outside the net. Fourth he has to understant that the net ends above the surface (where he can't see well enough to determine if the net is there). And on top of all he should realize that jumping out of water can be useful for escape. None of those things even remotely can be derived from a dolphin's experience, so from his point of view he is dealing with unknown and seemingly unrelated things.

      I think that's over-complicating the issue. To go back to the contentious point that started this whole /. story, a goldfish will attempt to leave the confines of an enclosed space by jumping out of it. Presumably that's an innate (albeit somewhat curious) response, and not any indication of intelligence or otherwise - but it's not an uncommon behaviour. Most animals that are trapped - even (and indeed, especially) if they've never known entrapment before, will try to escape. It doesn't need a large amount of reasoning - it's just instinct. I still think it's rather fascinating that dolphins don't try it - but then again, maybe it's because they're over-analysing the situation? :)

      Claims (off the cuff or not) that dolphins' brains are by design worse than brains of small cold-blooded animals such as fish, make no sense at all

      Once again, the poor guy never said that! He never directly compared the brains of dolphins and any form of fish - merely observed the lack of an escape response by dolphins and compared that to fish. It's a dumb thing to say, certainly - but not as terminally stupid as what the story headline accused him of!

      It just makes me wonder if the author is smart enough to do the supposedly valid part of his research properly.

      Well, as I pointed out earlier, he's published a lot of papers on neurobiology and some of those have been cited a fair few times. Not that that means anything very much (hell, all of the citations could be ones condemning his research for all I know!) ... but I have some sympathy for people who suggest an unusual interpretation of data and get canned by their conservative peers as a result (in fact, I went to a seminar today by a Nobel laureate (Barry Marshall) who'd had exactly that experience when he first submitted his research on Heliobacteria and stomach ulcers ...) Remember that if people didn't sometimes challenge the accepted wisdom and convention, there'd be very little progress in science at all - I'm sure I don't need to point out to you the many other prominent examples in the history of science that illustrate this! Now, Manger may well be a crackpot and off his nut ... but there's no way you or I or anyone else can tell this without reading in full what he has to say.
  45. DNA and H2G2 by diablo-d3 · · Score: 0

    So, was Douglas Adams wrong in his famous trilogy of five?

    --
    Patrick "Diablo-D3" McFarland || http://AdTerrasPerAspera.com
  46. Obligatory by atomicstrawberry · · Score: 2, Funny

    So goldfish are able to jump out of their bowls... but what we really need to know in order to sort this out is can they run Linux?

  47. Proven! by om3ga · · Score: 1

    Has anyone seen the MythBusters episode where they train some goldfish to follow a path from one end of the tank to another? Just thought I'd mention, kindof disproves their "3 second memory". Supprised no-one has mentioned yet.

    1. Re:Proven! by zlogic · · Score: 1

      I've seen it, but I honestly don't remember the result ;-)

  48. of course they are bumb by wzzzzrd · · Score: 1

    if dolphins were so smart, why are they caught up in drift gillnets all the time?

    eric cartman (renowed scientist).

    --
    On second thought, let's not go to Camelot. It is a silly place.
  49. please read his paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    before making silly comments:
    www.janusonis.net/docs/manger2006.pdf

    It's quite long. I' no expert in this field, but I think it is difficult to refute some of the things he mentions in this review. I'm not so impressed by the allometric stuff of brain says and neuron numbers, but I was unaware of the fact that there is little good evidence (according to the paper at least) for a sophisticated language system.

  50. Furthermore by kripkenstein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1. Dolphins have a cognitive sense of self, as shown in their ability to recognize that they are seeing themselves in mirrors. This is an ability only found in dolphins and higher primates (including humans). This is related to their extremely complex social structures, which implies high intelligence. And this is just one area in which dolphins seem to show high intelligence.

    2. Glia are no longer considered 'noncomputational' by neuroscientists. Recent research seems to show that glia, and not just neurons, may perform computational tasks. This is highly controversial at present, but we are far from being able to say that just because an animal has lots of glia that that does not indicate a potential for high brain functions.

    1. Re:Furthermore by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dolphins have a cognitive sense of self, as shown in their ability to recognize that they are seeing themselves in mirrors. This is an ability only found in dolphins and higher primates (including humans).

      Yeah, and in pigs and in dogs. There is even evidence that a few very smart cats can as well.

      So it's not that rare, but it so far it's only found the most adaptable of mammals.

    2. Re:Furthermore by john83 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, it's not found in gorillas, though chimps and Orang Utans both have it.

      --
      Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
    3. Re:Furthermore by Mprx · · Score: 1

      What's the source for pigs and dogs passing? AFAIK it's only humans, great apes (except only one gorilla has passed), bottlenose dolphins, orcas, and asian elephants.

    4. Re:Furthermore by Carewolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are referring to one classic experiment where only a few primates and dolphins passed. I have no links to a different experiment, but I feel the whole test was a bit arbitrary (a primate passed if they touched their own forehead, a dolphin if it rolled around).

      If you know the whole dog and mirror gag, you can experiment at home. Some stupid dogs will at first react to a mirror as if it's another dog, while most will ignore it, but if you train your dog in using a mirror you can clearly see that over time they will recognize themselves. Note that dogs are naturally uninterested in mirrors, so you have to make a game of it to get their interest.

      I am only guessing pigs can learn the same, because pigs have better abstract thinking (can do computer games, while dogs have no concept of or no interest in things that are not real).

    5. Re:Furthermore by Mprx · · Score: 1

      With extensive training, a pigeon has passed the test. This doesn't mean it's self-aware, it is simply classical conditioning. The same is probably true of the dog, it does not really understand the mirror, it is just acting as if it does because you trained it to. If a dog could learn what a mirror is without training, that would be convincing proof.

    6. Re:Furthermore by smchris · · Score: 1, Insightful

      1. Dolphins have a cognitive sense of self, as shown in their ability to recognize that they are seeing themselves in mirrors. This is an ability only found in dolphins and higher primates (including humans).

      Academic B.S. Every cat I've had has recognized itself in the mirror. I can make eye contact with my cat _in_the_mirror_ and have it turn and look me in the face. Flow chart out the cognitive ramifications of that. How _deep_ that "self" recognition lies is a question for future cognitive science.

      HOWEVER, the last two cats we got as kittens. They did NOT understand mirrors until they were going into cat adolescence. Might the researchers who tested cats have failed to appreciate that cat brains go through developmental stages the same as people brains?

      Furthermore, consider the anoles commonly sold as "chameleons". Put a male one in front of a mirror and it will make an aggressive display. It thinks it is seeing _another_ anole. Do cats do this? No, they do not. Why? I suggest because they know what they are seeing isn't a threat (i.e. themselves).

      Oddly, I think cognitive science is _still_ being hampered hundreds of years after Descartes' need as a Christian to distinguish humans from animals in his discussions of cognition. Rather, I would suggest that once cognitive science has duplicated a cat, tacked on a logic unit and a speech unit, and gotten it down to mobile size, it will have created one scary smart and dangerous robot.

    7. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard that Dolphins mate for purposes other than procreation which makes them pretty smart in my book.

    8. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My current cat pays little attention to mirrors. Lately she has taken to recognizing me in a mirror and turning to look at me, but she utterly ignores her own image in the reflecting glass. My last cat however, universe rest his affectionate soul, seemed not only to recognize himself in the mirror, but to use it for grooming. I tested this on many occasions by placing a bit of lint or somesuch on one of his ears. He wouldn't notice the lint unless I placed him in front of a mirror. At which point he would immediately lower his head and paw the lint off of the correct ear.

    9. Re:Furthermore by xigxag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Academic B.S. Every cat I've had has recognized itself in the mirror. I can make eye contact with my cat _in_the_mirror_ and have it turn and look me in the face.

      Your example doesn't constitute the proof you think it does. If you are staring at each other through a mirror, that means YOU recognize its mirror image, and in return it recognizes YOUR mirror image. It doesn't have to recognize its own mirror image to pass that test. In fact if you stand off to the side while staring at someone in the mirror, you'll notice that you don't even have to see your own image at all to stare at someone else.

      The issue is not whether cats can recognize the existence of other objects in a mirror. Clearly they can. The question is whether it can recognize that the cat-shaped object is itself, and use that information in some intelligent fashion.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    10. Re:Furthermore by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Glia are no longer considered 'noncomputational' by neuroscientists. Recent research seems to show that glia, and not just neurons, may perform computational tasks. This is highly controversial at present, but we are far from being able to say that just because an animal has lots of glia that that does not indicate a potential for high brain functions.

      Studies I've seen associate glia specifically with an ability to support neurons in computational processing. If that's the case, then it certainly turns the dolphin study on its head, and supports the notion that's obvious to nearly anyone, namely that dolphins are damned smart animals.

    11. Re:Furthermore by thePig · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even though, I am not sure about considering recognising oneself in the mirror as a true test of intelligence (since many mammals do it - maybe it is a function of mammalian brain ?, the parent is quite right on the second point.

      When the scientists took apart Einsteins brain, they found that it was brimming with glial cells. Does that make him stupid ? Heck, I want my brain to contain more glials now ...

      I am not sure whether this study is fully correct, if it is surmised only on the fact that it has more glial cells.
      Could be that there could be other reasons. Anyways, I couldn't find the same in the article.
      Cos, till now we have not been able to find the actual center of intelligence, and surmising that an animal is stupid just by looking at the composition of brains could be a little wrong. Brain size looks to be the best bet here.

      --
      rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
    12. Re:Furthermore by mclaincausey · · Score: 1
      . Every cat I've had has recognized itself in the mirror.
      Yeah, but the idiots will chase around a laser pointer's projected dot like it's a piece of beef jerky!
      --
      (%i1) factor(777353);
      (%o1) 777353
    13. Re:Furthermore by muellerr1 · · Score: 1
      Furthermore, consider the anoles commonly sold as "chameleons". Put a male one in front of a mirror and it will make an aggressive display. It thinks it is seeing _another_ anole. Do cats do this? No, they do not. Why? I suggest because they know what they are seeing isn't a threat (i.e. themselves).
      I'd like to add to your hypothesis that vision isn't the only sense that animals use either: the cat looking in the mirror doesn't smell any unknown cats, so that's got to factor in its decision not to feel threatened.
    14. Re:Furthermore by paralaxcreations · · Score: 1

      I have a mirror in front of my bed. If I'm laying down and I move, my cat will try to attack (play with) my reflection, but not me. If I do not move, the cat shows simply no interest in the mirror, or anything reflected by it, himself included. This tells me that he cannot discern the difference between mirror and reality (why else would he attack the reflection across the room, and not me right next to him making the same movements?), yet recognizes himself when looking at a mirror. Of course, if he doesn't know what a mirror is, that's gotta be pretty confusing for him...

      Granted, I'm not much better. Every time I walk into a gym (which admittedly isn't often) and they have one of those full-wall mirrors, I'm fooled every time into the illogical conclusion that the room is gigantic.

    15. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference? Can you prove to me that you actually understand that the reflection in the mirror is you, and you haven't just been "conditioned" to believe that it's you?

    16. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think training your dog would make for a valid test? Sorry, I'm a Ph.D. in Neuroscience, and that just makes me giggle. I hope your only 12. Otherwise I'll be depressed about the sad state of scientific teaching in the country right now.

      You don't have any links to different experiments, because there aren't any valid ones showing dogs pass the test.

    17. Re:Furthermore by julesh · · Score: 1

      Rather, I would suggest that once cognitive science has duplicated a cat, tacked on a logic unit and a speech unit, and gotten it down to mobile size, it will have created one scary smart and dangerous robot.

      Particularly if it starts hunting down and extracting the neural maps of additional cats to merge into its own consciousness in order to grow more intelligent.

    18. Re:Furthermore by nasor · · Score: 2, Informative
    19. Re:Furthermore by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but the idiots will chase around a laser pointer's projected dot like it's a piece of beef jerky!

      That varies depending on the cat, I find. I had two cats until very recently, the younger one had to be put down last week. :( But anyhow, the younger one (about 7 years old, so fully adult), he would chase the laser pointer until I got tired of waving it. The older one, not much older either (about 9), will only chase the laser dot when it first comes out. Once she looks in my direction and notices the red glow coming from my hand, she stops chasing it as though she has figured out where it's coming from and that it's just a trick.

    20. Re:Furthermore by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      the cat looking in the mirror doesn't smell any unknown cats

      I'm pretty sure that's it, because mine don't react at all to pictures of other cats on my monitors, or the sound of cats making noises on TV. A cat making a noise outside my apartment on the other hand, that's cause for commotion.

    21. Re:Furthermore by smchris · · Score: 1

      Your example doesn't constitute the proof you think it does. If you are staring at each other through a mirror, that means YOU recognize its mirror image, and in return it recognizes YOUR mirror image.

      Perhaps I wasn't clear. After we make eye contact in the mirror, my cat will turn its head away to look at my _actual_ face. That is where the combination of its representation, my representation, its actual self, my actual self, their relationship, and my cat's action upon them is so suggestive. Again, what "meaning" might or might not accompany the representations is an area for research some time in the not terribly near future.

    22. Re:Furthermore by Antitorgo · · Score: 1

      You forgot parrots. An African Gray parrot will recognize itself in a mirror no problem.

    23. Re:Furthermore by xigxag · · Score: 1

      After we make eye contact in the mirror, my cat will turn its head away to look at my _actual_ face.

      Yes, I've seen cats do this many times. However, the fact that cats can recognize their owners and other objects in mirrors does nothing to answer the question of whether the cat has primate-level self-awareness. As I said earlier, it doesn't need to see its own image at all in order to react to you. I suggest reading here for more elaboration. Scroll down to the part where "mirror" is highlighted a bunch of times.

      --
      There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
    24. Re:Furthermore by Mprx · · Score: 1

      If you show a mirror to a human (over a minimum age, babys don't understand mirrors) who's never seen one before they'll be able to figure out what it does very quickly even if nobody teaches them to react to it.

    25. Re:Furthermore by perrin · · Score: 1

      The essential test of self-awareness is put to a marker on the animal on some spot which it normally cannot see, and which, if seen, will make the animal react in some distinct way. Put the animal in front of a mirror, and see if it reacts to the spot in the normal way, indicating that it thinks the spot is on it, not on a mirror. As far as I am aware, no cats will respond to it. Hence, no self awareness in this sense. Dolphins pass this test, however.

    26. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I always thought that dogs' lack of interest in TV screens etc. was because they had superior senses - i.e. screens don't smell, sound or look at all real to them even though to us they are fairly effective illusions.

    27. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TFA just doen't get it right.

      I seem to recall that someone studied Einstein's brain to try to figure out what made him smarter than most of us. One thing they found was a higher ratio of glia to other brain cell types.

      Also, Dolphins do occaisionally jump the low barrier between tanks, at least if they like the one that's on the other side. They wouldn't be dumb enough to commit suicide by jumping out of the tank, falling several feet to the ground, and being unable to breathe, like the goldfish do.

    28. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I hope your only 12. Otherwise I'll be depressed about the sad state of scientific teaching in the country right now.

      I hope that YOU'RE lying about having a PhD, because otherwise I'll be depressed about the sad state of YOUR basic English skills.

    29. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I'm a Ph.D. in Neuroscience, and that just makes me giggle. I hope your only 12.


      I'm a PhD in computing and I know how to use an apostrophe in your sentence to prevent people from thinking you're uneducated. :-P
    30. Re:Furthermore by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean a static test. You can use different tests that combine two things:
      1. the use of a mirror
      2. that the reflection in the mirror is yourself.

    31. Re:Furthermore by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      babys don't understand mirrors

      So something trains them to react to mirrors or are they intelligently redesigned into understanding what a mirror is?

    32. Re:Furthermore by Reziac · · Score: 1

      [puts on professional dog trainer hat]

      In my observation, most dogs that have been around mirrors in daily life (ie. house dogs) get the concept, and will even correctly respond to stuff seen in the mirror (thus behind the dog). A dog presented with a mirror for the first time will often investigate, decide it's not a real dog, and after that ignore it -- pretty much the same thing a human toddler does. A few very dumb dogs think the image is another dog. (Behaviour wrt television is similar, and a few dogs will actually watch TV. I once had a pup who liked only football, and Max Headroom!)

      I've only seen one cat that got the concept, tho he was a freak -- he would even look over the correct shoulder when the mirror showed him a person or another cat approaching him from behind. No training involved.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    33. Re:Furthermore by Prune · · Score: 1

      This is not quite true: "This is related to their extremely complex social structures". Conscious self-awareness is not related to intelligence, as Damasio's neuroscience research on the subject shows. It is a more basic feature of the brain that is at a lower level than the neocortex intelligence, and is present in at least all mammals and probably birds.

      --
      "Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
    34. Re:Furthermore by Mprx · · Score: 1

      Interacting with other humans allows their brain to develop enough to gain a sense of self. This generally happens from about 1.5 to 2 years old.

    35. Re:Furthermore by Mprx · · Score: 1

      The test is not to recognise *other* objects in the mirror, it is to recognise *yourself*. Recognising others in the mirror is just an extension of recognising evidence showing something is nearby, eg. seeing shadows, or tracking. Deciding the reflection is not a threat and ignoring it is failing the test, and yes, baby humans fail too.

    36. Re:Furthermore by Mprx · · Score: 1

      No, an African Gray can use the mirror to find other objects, and realize that its reflection does not pose a threat and examine it out of curiosity, but it does not make the connection that the reflection is itself. Smart dogs can do the same thing.

  51. What's your point? by Jesus+IS+the+Devil · · Score: 4, Funny

    People dumber than fish have been known to become presidents....

    --

    eTrade SUCKS
    1. Re:What's your point? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Carter comes to mind

    2. Re:What's your point? by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      So does Eisenhower.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  52. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by EvilMonkeySlayer · · Score: 1

    Another task is identifying unauthorized swimmers (likes Islamic terrorists) seeking to enter a harbor where naval warships are anchored.

    Indeed, however I hear so far they can only identify the islamic terrorist swimmers if they happen to be carrying some falafel.

  53. Don't rub Manger's ego by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    He comes across as one of those people looking to attract publicity. It's rather simple - overstate your findings in order to be provocative.

    It doesn't matter if dolphins are not _quite_ as smart as we thought. They still have some sort of language, and they still are able to communicate with humans in a more sophisticated manner than most mammals.

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  54. What a crock by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Dolphins get trapped in nets because they can't detect them, not because they're too stupid to know what to do. Aside from the obvious fact, as someone else has already pointed out, that a goldfish that jumps out of it's bowl and dies isn't nessearily very smart, there are could also be complex psychological factors at play as to why dolphins might not attempt to escape.

    Dolphins are one of the few creatures that play games, such as playing tag with a peice of seaweed, or blowing bubble rings. This type of behaviour is often an indicator of high intelligence. To say that a Dolphin isn't much smarter than a Goldfish is an insult to both Dolphins and any human with half a brain to realise this article is a crock.

    1. Re:What a crock by TEMMiNK · · Score: 1

      If goldfish were so smart surely they wouldn't get caught by those pathetic little brightly colored nets they use at fish shops they would dodge and hide in dark of the sunken castle. Also, congratulations to these so called scientists for securing conclusivley inconclusive results and drawing rediculous conclusions on the strenth of supposition and assumption.

      --
      "The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them..."
    2. Re:What a crock by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 2, Informative

      You hit it right on the head. How many times have you seen someone walk into a glass door? I've seen it a few times and it's hilarious. For that matter, I've seen people walk into non-transparent objects (even done it myself). That doesn't mean humans are unintelligent, just unaware of all their surroundings.

    3. Re:What a crock by Darth · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah?

      well, if dolphins are so smart, why do they live in igloos?

      --
      Darth --
      Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
    4. Re:What a crock by noidentity · · Score: 1
      To say that a Dolphin isn't much smarter than a Goldfish is an insult to both Dolphins and any human with half a brain to realise this article is a crock.

      So, the Goldfish has one advantage: no fragile ego

  55. Goldfish Synchronised Swimming. by GrpA · · Score: 1, Redundant

    After seeing this video, I certainly changed my opinion of goldfish, although I don't know if it's real.

    http://whatthepets.blogspot.com/2006/01/synchroniz ed-swimming-goldfish.html

    However it did remind me of "Skinner" by Neal Asher and his comments on dolphins.

    GrpA

    --
    Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
  56. Goldfish aren't dumb... by Wordplay · · Score: 1

    ...they're just assholes.

  57. I don't like this article by azbot · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I disagree that jumping out of ones environment is a smart move, especially if you don't know what's on the other side. I disagree that dolphins are dumb because they get caught in nets because: a) how do you jump over a net if you find your self in the absolute center? b) maybe most do 'just jump over' and the ones caught are the dumb few. c) if a dolphin doesn't jump over a net it will become sushi, a dolphin probably doesn't know that it should jump over a net unless it knows it's dangerous, if a dolphin knows the net is dangerous - it's probably already been caught (see sushi statement). d) nets (i think) are designed to be fairly invisible, dolphins aren't known for having excellent eyesight and I don't know if their echo location is good enough to spot a net... Let's have a fish off and stick a dolphin and a goldfish in a tank and see who wins... actually to make it fair lets stick quite a few goldfish in there...

  58. Based on what research? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  59. Spies, damn spies and American Dad... by jasquigl · · Score: 1

    "I am German, it is vot ve do"

  60. Mod parent up! by Fretje · · Score: 1

    I couldn't agree more

  61. No! No! by kahrytan · · Score: 1


    How else can you explain why the dolphins are trying to tell us the Earth is about to be destroyed by a group of grumpy wannabe poets?

    --
    \
  62. No, no, no! by zanglang · · Score: 1

    But you can't fit frickin' lasers on goldfish, they sink right away. :(

  63. The study author is not an animal behaviorologist by kitzilla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Clearly it was a slow news weekend. This report got a ton of coverage, which seems unwarranted given some of the abitrary standards of "intelligence" put forward by the researchers. The Wikipedia article on dolphin intelligence provides a far better balanced view of the subject.

    I had a quick look at the University of the Witwatersrand website. Dr. Manger is a lecturer at the School of Anatomical Sciences. He is not an animal behaviorologist.

    While Dr. Manger is no doubt qualified to discuss the structure of a dolphin's brain, he is in no better qualified to draw conclusions about dolphin intelligence than any of us here on Slashdot. Perhaps this explains some of his eccentric statements, or why his opinions contrast so sharply with other research indicating a high level of social complexity in dolphin behavior.

    That Dr. Manger's study is "peer-reviewed" is really neither here or nor there, since peer review usually occurs within an author's specialty and Manger's most controversial findings transcend his field.

    Dr. Manger's comment that dolphins should be smart enough to jump out of tuna nets would seem simply bizzare if they weren't so outright callous.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  64. Dolphins still TASTE better than Goldfish by tezza · · Score: 2, Funny
    As a Delphinidaephile I can recommend Tempura Dolphin loin with Soy Sauce.

    The only comparable goldfish dish is too much like Whitebait.

    --
    [% slash_sig_val.text %]
    1. Re:Dolphins still TASTE better than Goldfish by Frightening · · Score: 1

      I envy you. You must be on the PETA blacklist, something I've been trying to get on for the past few years. I don't know why they like me.

    2. Re:Dolphins still TASTE better than Goldfish by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Pass me the speech center of the brain!

    3. Re:Dolphins still TASTE better than Goldfish by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      Just insist that veal is the one exception for meat and should be allowed.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
  65. Another problem with this claim... by gilroy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Glial cells apparently aren't really just placeholders and heaters. Scientific American ran a really good article a while back called "Did Scientists Miss Half the Brain?". (There is what appears to be a summary at this location.) It details a modern understanding of brain structure, which has overturned the former conception of glial cells as "just" structural elements supporting neurons. It would seem that glial cells can both sense and emit neurotransmitters, and those neurotransmitters can affect the operation of neurons. So linked to the electrochemical network we usually think of as the brain is another purely chemical one as well.

    Also, even in humans, there is a "superabundance" of glial cells, in that there are approximately 10 glial cells for every neuron.

  66. Mod parent down! by RKBA · · Score: 1

    I couldn't disagree more. I too lament the ignorance level of the average American citizen and the sorry state of our government indoctrination camps, errrr... public schools.

    1. Re:Mod parent down! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you meant you couldn't agree more with the parent, since he's whining about the education system, same as yourself. Perhaps you should have said you disagreed with his view on the cause of the poor state of our countries educational systems, which none of you really gave a good argument about anyways.

  67. The really disturbing part... by perrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is really disturbing about this story is not how wrong it is, but how it spread like wildfire through the echo chamber that is the web pages of the "respectable" news media. There seems to be zero interest in vetting stories anymore. Anything that sounds like a sensation and be linked to some other news page somewhere, is worth publishing, without a critical word added.

    Back on topic, did you know that as far as we know, only three animals understand the concept of 'pointing at something'? These three are humans, chimpanzees and dolphins. Try it with your cat or dog. It will continue to look at your hand, not where you want it look, until the cows come home. Understanding symbols that stand for vectors in space require a greal deal of abstract thinking.

    1. Re:The really disturbing part... by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      You know, it's funny. I -have- tried that with both my cats. My late half-bobcat did indeed sometimes seem to understand that I meant he should look where I was pointing. It was hard as hell for him to FIND that spot, but he at least tried, some of the time.

      Now, I managed to get him to do that by pointing, making a very quick throwing motion, and ending that motion with another pointing... Until he got the idea. I could then just point and he'd often look. He was probably expecting the throw motion, even though it wasn't made. But he did look!

      My other cat, still alive, just doesn't get it. Nothing can get it through her head that what she wants is where I'm pointing. But she isn't -nearly- as smart as my other cat was. He was quite amazing with how devious he was sometimes.

      He even actually understood what a mirror was. He would totally ignore himself in the mirror and if he saw me do something in the mirror, he would turn around and look at me directly to finish watching. I think that's a pretty tough concept for an animal to grasp.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    2. Re:The really disturbing part... by Teancum · · Score: 1

      There are some species of Parrots that seem to be able to symbolize items in a manner similar to chimps and dolphins. They also have a brain mass/body mass ratio that is very similar to dolphins and humans, and in one case a measured IQ that was in the mid 80s.

      Still, your point is largely correct especially with domesticated animals. Or if this were an article trying to compare the brain of a cow to a goldfish, there may be something there. Neither is really all that bright. Cows will eat barbed wire as easily as they will eat grass, and not really tell the difference.

      My kids have been raising frogs this summer in a fish tank. By the #1 criteria I can use for intelligence, survival and avoiding death from dangerous situations, these things are among the most stupid things I have ever dealt with. Goldfish certainly are smart enough to stay out of the tank filter system, but these frogs keep crawling into darn thing and getting squished by the motor. One even hoppped directly into the mouth of one of my cats, who wasn't even trying to get into the tank. I've kept them from other mortal danger, but it has been a genuine effort to do so. Hermit Crabs show more common sense than these frogs.

    3. Re:The really disturbing part... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he would turn around and look at me directly to finish watching. I think that's a pretty tough concept for an animal to grasp

      Unless you're really pretty. Or half-naked.

    4. Re:The really disturbing part... by bm_luethke · · Score: 1

      You ought to see our dogs - point to a spot Say "treat" and they run right to the spot you point. They then circle out trying to find said food.

      You also ought to watch some types of hunting dogs in action, most of the pointers and retrievers do quite well with pointing. Heck, the pointers even, well, point. And they do that with no training whatsever, you training is to get them to only point animals you are itnerested in otherwise they will point butterflies, rabbits, squirrils, bees, or any thing they see moving.

      Also watch some dog shows - pointing at spots has the dog sit where the person points at - that would mean they understood the directional meaning of a point quite well.

      Our cats have never followed a finger being pointed, but nearly all the dogs we have had would for food. Our hunting dogs definatly did. Of course, the cats ignore anything and everything you try and get them to do so it's hard to know if they understand it or not.

      --
      ------- Sorry about the spelling, I suffer from two problems. Dyslexia makes it difficult to spell well, lazy makes it
    5. Re:The really disturbing part... by scalpod · · Score: 0

      Training cats is easy! The secret is to find something it does already and then to associate a gesture or command with the behavior... Voila! Now you've got a trick you can make your cat do at will (the cat's will, that is).

      --
      If "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and "it was beauty that killed the beast" then "please stop staring at me".
    6. Re:The really disturbing part... by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      Back on topic, did you know that as far as we know, only three animals understand the concept of 'pointing at something'? These three are humans, chimpanzees and dolphins. Try it with your cat or dog. It will continue to look at your hand, not where you want it look, until the cows come home. Understanding symbols that stand for vectors in space require a greal deal of abstract thinking.

      I don't think this is true. I had a springer spaniel that would look where you point. In fact, it would point.

    7. Re:The really disturbing part... by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      My kids have been raising frogs this summer in a fish tank. By the #1 criteria I can use for intelligence, survival and avoiding death from dangerous situations, these things are among the most stupid things I have ever dealt with.

      It's funny you mention that. I remember going camping when I was younger, and we were sitting around a campfire. Occasionally a moth would be attracted by the light and fly right into the flames. As we're sitting there, a big frog jumps up on the rocks surrounding the fire. I (erroneously) thought it was quite clever that the fog would hang around the fire that's attracting the moths. Just then, a moth flies into the fire and burns up. The frog jumped right in after it.

      It got burned a bit but was able to jump out.

    8. Re:The really disturbing part... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever been hunting with a good bird dog? They more than understand pointing.

      Not to mention that MY dog understands pointing just fine. I can point in any direction and say "go" and my dog will take off running in that direction until I call her back.

      The dog of course can't understand that you might be pointing at a particular object. Unless that object is personally identifiable to the dog to begin with. Like it's frisbe or it's water dish. I can for instance, point at my dogs frisbe and not say anything, and she will fetch it, bring it to me and expect me to throw it.

      While I can't point at my kids bike helmet and expect my dog to react in any way.

  68. Dolphins Using Tools? by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    http://www.world-science.net/othernews/050606_dolp hinfrm.htm

    A group of dolphins has learned to use tools, with mothers teaching their daughters how to do so. That's pretty damn smart.

    Just goes to show that you shouldn't take every slashdotted article for its face value.

    1. Re:Dolphins Using Tools? by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Agreed, and just because Ubuntu comes from South Africa, does not mean Paul Manger of Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand knows what he is talking about. Also, what exactly is his basis for saying that a rat outwittes a dolphin. Has he gotten them to sit down to a game of chess? I'll wait until I see a goldfish using a sponge as a tool.
      Ps: My dog outwits me all the time as do the rabbits who get through my fence and eat all my broccoli. I hope some alien researcher does not make generalizations about our species based on observing me!

  69. MythBusters answered this myth... by antdude · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sinking Titanic, Goldfish Memory, Trombone Explosion. Episode Number: 11 Season Num: 1M. Adam and Jamie had to train their goldfish to do race.

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
    1. Re:MythBusters answered this myth... by ravenshrike · · Score: 1

      Which means they can learn, not that they don't have the short-term memory of a burnt out lightbulb. Two completely different things.

    2. Re:MythBusters answered this myth... by antdude · · Score: 1

      Ah. I thought its myth was about its memory lasting for about 3 seconds. It was a long ago that I saw that episode. It was a good one.

      I found a YouTube video clip of what happened the goldfish. [grin]

      --
      Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  70. Smarter goldfish.... by Somewhat+Delirious · · Score: 1

    I think his arguments offer more convincing evidence of the researchers lack of intelligence, despite an abundance of neurons in his brain tissue. I suppose he would also describe people jumping out of windows as "enlarging their environment"? At the very least he seems blissfully unaware of research suggesting advanced language skills and self awareness in dolphins.

    --
    The surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.
  71. That's great... by Kyoushu · · Score: 0

    Thanks for ruining Seaquest DSV for me, now it's totally unbelievable

  72. Did they use the IQ test? by mochan_s · · Score: 1

    First of all, intellegence is not one dimensional. How do you say someone or something is smarter than someone else unless you use a scale that turns it into 1 dimension (e.g. IQ test).

    Second, whose brain is made for information processing (whatever meaning that is)? Human brains can process language and certain visual stimulus like faces very well but it's not very good information processing since it can't remember anything correctly and can't do simple mathematical operations correctly. Plus, dogs have better sound and smell processing to go with the hardware/"wetware".

  73. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh come on, you can't possibly believe this bullshit.

    He's a dolphin, he'll believe whatever the govt tells him.

    Now, if he were a goldfish ...

  74. Related news by Kev_Stewart · · Score: 1

    The US Military announced their new weapon in the war on terror.

    GOLDFISH WITH FREAK'N LASERS!

  75. Obligatory Simpsons quotation by Ed+Avis · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bart and Lisa are doing some recycling of those plastic ring things that hold six-packs of beer together.

    Lisa: And, you have to cut these up first. Otherwise, animals get caught in them.

    Bart: Only the stupid ones.

    --
    -- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
  76. Fundamentalist Muslims talking about Dolphins by billhuey · · Score: 0, Flamebait


    Here's another tidbit of information. Look at the site hosting the information. It's "Aljazeera", the folks that want fundamentalism Muslims to suicide bomb every American interest, along with the Americans, in the middle east by pumping Anti-American propaganda throughout that region.

    Those folks are talking about "Dolphins". What the fuck is this ? Fundamentalist religious freaks are talking about Dolphins. Give me a break.

    So "reputable news source" my ass, not that I'm conservative, Fox News fan or anything like that. I'm certainly not.

    geez

  77. H2G2 Confirms this fact. by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1
    According to the Good Book (and by "Good Book" I mean The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams):
    It's an important and popular fact that things are not always what they seem. For instance, on the planet Earth, Man had always assumed that he was the most intelligent species occupying the planet, instead of the *third* most intelligent. The second most intelligent were of course dolphins. Dolphins had long known of the impending destruction of earth and had on many occasions tried to alert mankind but their warnings were mistakenly interpreted as amusing attempts to punch footballs or whistle for titbits.
    http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/305260
    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  78. Thank god terrorists don't use them on planes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could you imagine Goldfish on a plane!? *shudder*

    -- Henry

  79. mnb Re:Why not use fat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, more like having really dood insulation in your home, period.
    Open windows lose heat through radiation and convection.
    The two holes would lose heat through radiation and conduction, much like the windows in a house do when closed.

  80. Thats an interesting concept.... by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

    Considering the variablity in water temperatures is far less than in air. Having read the article I would endeavor to say the man is an idiot (although I admit the possibility I am). Firstly he assumes that animals that have a fairly different set of inputs should have a brain structure like humans. Then, he puts forth the notion that an animal that jumps out of its enviroment and dies is more intelligent than ones that get caught in nets. This would appear to be analogous to the difference between humans being abducted by aliens, and humans catapulting themselves into space without life support.
    On third thought, can someone please prove that I am an idiot? It would lbe preferable to trying to decipher how this got news coverage.

    --
    I reserve the write to mangle english.
    1. Re:Thats an interesting concept.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the rate of heat loss in water is far greater. Air is a better insulator, water a better conductor. You can die quite quickly in water at a temperature where in air if you just kept up light exercise (like walking) you'd be ok.

  81. So their message was misunderstood by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    It should have been translated properly to:
    "So long, and thanks for all the flakes!"

                -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  82. Notice the source? by Ethan+Allison · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    TFA is from ... Al-Jazeera. Need I say more? That's a pretty big *bam* to your credibility right there.

    1. Re:Notice the source? by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      And don't even get me started about those fools over at the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Sounds made up to me.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  83. Ah yes by dreamchaser · · Score: 1

    Slashdot. News for Nerds, Junk Science that Matters.

  84. So, can I start calling them "fish" now? by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

    Mother, may I?

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  85. humans, too by Lord+Bitman · · Score: 1

    Everyone knows the brain's only purpose is to cool the blood.

    --
    -- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
  86. oh, slashdotters... by tompee · · Score: 1

    I think a troll has gotten under your gaurd. Surely we've been had. The whole article is a troll.

  87. And in other news ... by angusmci · · Score: 1

    SeaWorld's new Goldfish Spectacular failed to impress visitors yesterday. After several hours of waiting for the fish to do backflips, leap through hoops, whistle recognizable tunes, or walk across the water on their tails, most of the crowd left in disgust. Despite assurances that the highly-trained goldfish were "just a little out of sorts today" and that tomorrow's performance would be more dramatic, few SeaWorld visitors seemed eager to attend the goldfish show. "They're just a bunch of dumb-ass goldfish," said Billy J, 6, "I want to see the dolphins!". Another visitor was similarly outspoken. "The best bit of the show was always when the chick in the bikini rides on the dolphin's back, but that really doesn't work with goldfish. They tried to cover it up, but I think she squeezed one of them to death between her thighs." observed the middle-aged man, who declined to give his name.

    In Hollywood, executives at Warner Brothers were said to be reconsidering plot changes made to "Free Willy 4". Recent doubts about cetacean intelligence had led to the substitution of an extremely-large orange-red goldfish named Sunny for the film's iconic killer whale during principal photography but the poor reception of the SeaWorld performances might lead to another reversal. Director Simon Wincer criticized the new change of heart, claiming that a story about a twelve-year-old boy trying to liberate the goldfish from his bowl on the living room table has much more dramatic impact than the earlier movies. "Now that we know that whales are just big dumb mammals, you can't empathize with them any more," said Wincer. "But when Sunny jumps out of his bowl and lies gasping on the carpet, that's real tragedy. We're watching an intelligent creature just seconds away from death. There's no way we're going back to using killer whales now."

    No highly-intelligent goldfish were harmed in the making of this report.

  88. Sounds like nonsense by jopet · · Score: 1

    This time I am talking about your post. Aljazeera is not nearly as fundamentalist as e.g. Fox News, but even if it were, it would not automatically mean that a "science article" published there is nonsense.
    Like every other news source, they get most of these articles from agencies that sell them.

    So if you prefer to read that nonsense from a different source, go here:
        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.2 0060819.LETTERS19-12/TPStory/Comment
        http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=14&click_id= 143&art_id=vn20060817031855765C442092
        http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html ?id=3d68da16-b7b1-4334-bf4d-aa9ebdd0f303&k=89468
    and probably hundreds more all over the internet.

  89. tuna safe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sweet, now does this mean we can finally get past them being cute? Does this mean i can start eating for the underdogs and get tuna safe dolphin meat?

  90. Well.... by mblase · · Score: 1

    While dolphins may have big brains, laboratory rats and goldfish can outwit them

    Well, we already knew that dolphins were only the second-most-intelligent lifeform on this planet, the white mice being the first.

    The goldfish thing is news, though. Maybe goldfish are just really really specialized dolphins, and nobody's noticed yet?

  91. It's not the size, it's the ratio by shmert · · Score: 1

    In Carl Sagan's book 'Dragons of Eden', he links intelligence not with brain size, but with the ratio of brain size to body mass. He backs this up with some reasonable-seeming examples. I found a few here: http://www.highnorth.no/Library/Myths/br-si-bo.htm . Hm, except this makes mice out to be smarter than men. Explains the Douglas Adams worldview, I suppose.

    It's a good read. He then goes on to analyze the Genesis story, and how the curse God inflicts on human females to endure painful childbirth after eating of the tree of knowledge is linked to the fact that our oversized noggins make the birthing process more difficult.

    --
    You drank my drink, you drunk!
  92. This says glial cells are more than just a support by mrmeval · · Score: 1
    --
    I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
  93. Goldfish are tasty!!! by mtmra70 · · Score: 0

    Isn't it obvious that goldfish are smarter? They have been on the market and for sale MUCH longer than the dolphin crackers.

    http://www.pepperidgefarm.com/fun_snacks_goldfish. asp

  94. South African scientists = crap by wadiwood · · Score: 1

    Are these the same South African Scientists that think HIV/Aids can be cured with garlic and olive oil. I heard one on the radio the other day saying that just because western scientists had made scientific discoveries didn't made them valid in South Africa.

    Obviously that applies to brains and dolphins too.

    I met a South African school teacher who lost her job teaching Maths to a year 10 graduate, because they'd decided to give over all the teaching jobs to black people. Never mind if they're qualified, skilled or appropriately trained. Fortunately NZ was happy to give the qualified teacher a job.

    So I expect more stupid stuff out of South Africa on a regular basis. Lots of them are getting Darwin awards - they might not believe his white-fella science but he's proven right by them every day.

    --

    -- it must be true, it's on the internet.
  95. Re:The study author is not an animal behaviorologi by bazorg · · Score: 1

    Clearly it was a slow news weekend. This report got a ton of coverage
    and have you noticed the number of moderation points used / posts on this story? now *that's* that I call a slow start for this week.

  96. My first reaction was to call BS by fdiskne1 · · Score: 1

    But then I remembered I had just read this story.

    Goldfish don't wear Speedos. At least that's one indication they are smarter than dolphins.

    --
    But why is the rum gone?
  97. Dogs can understanding pointing. by Hittite+Creosote · · Score: 1
    Dogs can not only understand the concept of 'pointing at something', they can follow the human gaze (wolves, on the other hand, can't unless they're raised by humans).

    Hare, B., Call, J., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris). Evolution of Communication, 2, 137-159.

    Hare, B., & Tomasello, M. (1999). Domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) use human and conspecific social cues to locate hidden food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 113, 173-177.

    1. Re:Dogs can understanding pointing. by perrin · · Score: 1

      I have not read the articles you refer to, but there is a big difference between being able to project actions such as looking, jumping and throwing as vectors through space, which all higher level animals can do, and being able to understand a symbol such as pointing a finger to draw attention to a point elsewhere.

  98. what would he know ? by virchull · · Score: 1

    Goldfish are also smarter than Paul Manger of Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand.

  99. Poor humans by viking2000 · · Score: 1

    ...and thanks for all the fish

  100. But can a goldfish do this? by Phoenix · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They have shown that dolphins have pattern recognition, the ability to learn and to anticipate the next part of a sequence. Dolphins have a language in which they commnicate with others of thier species. They have complex social structures. They can solve puzzles, they can be trained to do complex tasks.

    I'm not saying that they're as smart as me, but they are at least as smart as other higher order animals, and certainly smarter than my goldfish who keeps trying to commit suicide.

    --
    -- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
    1. Re:But can a goldfish do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add to it that dolphins have personal names (call-whistles), that they use to identify themselves.

      That dolphins do understand language structures (different positions of words in a command sentence will give you different reactions; like "ball put basket" - a dolphin puts a ball into a basket, "basket put ball" will give a short confusion and then the dolphin will try to tear the basket off to put it onto the ball).

      That dolphins use tools to protect themselves, or to reach for something unreachable (shells to protect the beak while digging in the sand, a sea urchin to get a fish out of a small hideout).

      Yeah, just as smart as a goldfish, right?

      And as about the nets, why dolphins don't just jump over - it's a psychological barrier. Dolphins trust their sonar more than their vision, and are used to try to find a way to escape under the nets, not above (especially during the panic times). How many of you, humans, would try to escape the thrown at you net by diving under it, instead of trying to get to the surface through it?

  101. seaQuest DSV by pwroberts · · Score: 1

    Okay, I smell a rat here. Or a fish. I saw seaQuest DSV - dolphins can hold increasingly complex conversations with humans about a variety of abstract and unlikely topics! Try and use Lucas's oversized yellow remote control thing to talk to a goldfish, and see just how far you get!

  102. Nope, Mythbustes busted that myth by doublem · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The Mythbusters taught Goldfish how to navigate a maze, and found the Goldfish remembered how to navigate the maze two weeks later.

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
    1. Re:Nope, Mythbustes busted that myth by c_forq · · Score: 1

      Isn't that long term memory?

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    2. Re:Nope, Mythbustes busted that myth by doublem · · Score: 1

      Now there you go, applying logic to an Urban Myth. Shame on you. :)

      The versions of the myth I'd heard indicated that Goldfish only have a three second memory PERIOD, with no long term memory. In other words, a Goldfish only remembers the last three seconds of existence, and nothing before.

      By training the fish, they demonstrated the existence of long term memory and the ability to store somewhat complex information in that long term memory, thus busting the "Goldfish have a three second memory" myth.

      --
      "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  103. The Hitchhikers's Guide says ... by adzoox · · Score: 1

    And thanks for all the fish

    --
    Yell & scream & rant & rave... it's no use... you need a shaaaave ~ Bugs Bunny
  104. Submitter to be replaced by goldfish. by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
    I guess this means that the Navy will start recruiting and training goldfish for those mine search and destroy missions.
    Yeah, the NAVY would just love to recruit fish too small to do anything useful - even if they didn't die in sea-water.
    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  105. Reason behind dolphins swimming alongside boats by cciRRus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Just to add on. I remember watching this in the Discovery Channel. Most people assumed that the dolphins are intelligent and friendly such that when boats sail in the ocean, they swim alongside the boat or even in front of the boat just to mingle with their human friends. However, this was not the *real* reason. Apparently, they noticed that there are a bunch of smaller, baby dolphins swimming in the opposite direction away from the boat, while those that mingle with the humans are the adult dolphins. This can be seen that the adults are distracting the humans while their youngs can swim off to a safer place. Such altruistic behaviour is hard to find in the aquatic world.

    --
    w00t
    1. Re:Reason behind dolphins swimming alongside boats by mamba-mamba · · Score: 2, Interesting

      BS.

      Dolphins and porpoises don't swim alongside boats, per se. They swim in the bow wave. Presumably they do this because they can get a free ride due to the physics of bow-wave formation. That is, with minimal effort, they can travel at the same speed as the boat. This is similar to birds (or gliders) staying aloft for long stretches of time by keeping themselves in the lift near a sea cliff.

      With the dolphins, sometimes there are a bunch hovering around beside the boat because they can't all fit in the bow wave, but they seem to be just biding their time. Taking turns or whatever.

      MM

      PS, the level of intelligence of, for example, killer-whales in the wild is legendary. I realize that intelligence is hard to define, but for my money, dolphins and porpoises have it, and fish don't.

      --
      By including this sig, the copyright holders of this work or collection unreservedly place it in the public domain.
  106. Worst Logic Ever... by alittlespice · · Score: 2, Insightful
    From TFA:
    Manger said observed behaviour supports his iconoclastic take on dolphins as dim-wits.
    "You put an animal in a box, even a lab rat or gerbil, and the first thing it wants to do is climb out of it. If you don't put a lid on top of the bowl a goldfish it will eventually jump out to enlarge the environment it is living in," he said.
    "But a dolphin will never do that. In the marine parks, the dividers to keep the dolphins apart are only a foot or two above the water between the different pools," he said.
    Manger says the thought to jump over would simply not cross their unsophisticated minds.


    This has got to be some of the worst logic ever. For one, the goldfish would die, that doesn't make it smart, it makes it stupid.

    And for dolpins not to escape, could be argued that they're smart enough to know they have an easy life where they are in the fully staffed spa of luxury. Who'd want to leave?

    I think from the article, that Dolphins are even more intelligent than the so called scientist that came up with this theory.

    On a side note, anyone find it odd that this is report in Aljazeera?

    1. Re:Worst Logic Ever... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This report was everywhere:

      http://news.google.ca/news?q=goldfish%20dolphin

      I dispute your claim that dolphins live in a "fully staffed spa of luxury.":

      Meanwhile, it was a sad day at the aquarium on Wednesday. After 10 hours in labour, Hana the dolphin gave birth to a stillborn calf, according to The Canadian Press.

      Staff at the aquarium did not know the 11-year-old dolphin was pregnant when the pair was brought from Japan, and only learned a few months ago.

      Veteranarian David Huff told CP very few dolphins give birth in captivity so there is a lack of research in the area.

      http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNew s/20060607/vancouver_dolphins_060607/

  107. You have been Saved! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by Jesus IS the Devil (317662)

    So to be clear. If you believe Jesus is the devil, and the devil believes in God, then you must believe in God?

  108. Don't worry... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know that Human being and fish can coexist peacefully.

    1. Re:Don't worry... by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 1

      Yup. I know I feel very content after eating a tin of sardines...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
  109. I don't buy any of this by Wiseman1024 · · Score: 1

    Especially after evidence on dolphins' intelligence provided by various studies and documentaries. I doubt a goldfish can match that.

    --
    I was about to say 13256278887989457651018865901401704640, but it appears this number is private property.
  110. The main questions is by ch0knuti · · Score: 1

    who is going to be developing the mini-lasers that will be mounted on the mice and goldfish?

    1. Re:The main questions is by scarlac · · Score: 1

      The lasers are created in US, shipped to Iraq and mounted on the goldfishes who are then used to kill US troops...
      You know. The usual.

  111. you mean non-magnetic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll test one in the lab with our 7 Tesla magnet.
    results will be posted tomorrow

  112. Ants have massive memories by giafly · · Score: 1

    ...just not within their heads. They remember stuff by reading and writing scent trails on the ground - using the world as their personal hard drive. Lots of little creatures do this, even e.g. slugs.

    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  113. AND ELEPHANTS by kahei · · Score: 1

    Dolphins have a cognitive sense of self, as shown in their ability to recognize that they are seeing themselves in mirrors. This is an ability only found in dolphins and higher primates (including humans).

    Elephants also have this, and so (probably) do (some) dogs. Again, these are the animals with the complex social structures.

    But honestly, please don't underestimate elephants. They can think, and alone among the non-primates they have hands.

    Well, trunks.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  114. Different environments by kahei · · Score: 3, Interesting


    Carp (eg goldfish) live in an environment in which jumping from one body of water to another offers a real chance of accessing a new environment, e.g. a new pond or stream. It also offers the ONLY chance of survival for carp trapped in small, evaporating puddles of water, which may well be how goldfish register their surroundings.

    By contrast, a dolphin has only a fairly low chance of being able to jump into a whole new ocean. A zero chance, in fact.

    Therefore, the tendency to jump may be more a reflection of the chance that jumping will do a given creature any good, rather than a sign of intelligence.

    --
    Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
  115. That's Just Because... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    The standardized tests are human-centric. If the standardized tests had dolphin-oriented questions on them, the dolphins would do a lot better. (Yah blatantly stolen from the Upright Citizens Brigade heh heh heh)

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  116. Calling BS by schnibitz · · Score: 1

    This Paul Manger dude doesn't know what he's talking about. Dolphins have the approximate intelligence of your average 3-5 year-old. Most of their neurons are dedicated to process their sonar. Moreoever, I know from first-hand experience, these animals have personalities, and relationships with their handlers, and other dolphins. All of these functions come from higher-order places in the brain, and BTW, Dolphins aren't just for jumping through hoops.

  117. ...I prefer dolphins (cuz they taste like chikin') by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

     
    I like Google as much as the next guy but, just as with a certain other excellent reference, you can "prove" just about ANYTHING by taking a few lines out of their context...
  118. Of course dogs can understand pointing by giafly · · Score: 1

    There are even several breeds of dogs called pointers which specialise in this.

    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
    1. Re:Of course dogs can understand pointing by perrin · · Score: 1

      Did you even read the links you posted?

  119. another one of those weird papers... by arxytas · · Score: 1

    Ok. It's very well documented that a lot of papers are just as good as toilet paper. I'd add this one too....

  120. Then why didn't they make... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a tv show called "Goldie", rather than flipper?

  121. Silly Earthman by krewemaynard · · Score: 1

    So long, and thanks for all the fish!

    --
    I saw it on Slashdot, it must be true!
  122. High school biology by porkmusket · · Score: 1

    In high school one of our labs involved dropping various substances (alchohol, taurine, caffeine, etc) on the gills of goldfish and watching them swim around afterwords. I felt terrible doing it even though they are just fish, but the teacher assured us they wouldn't have a clue and wouldn't even remember it. LIES!

  123. what about depression-era suicides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You know, the (perhaps apocryphal) stockbrokers jumping out of buildings because they realized that they were bankrupt. Using your monkey logic, does that prove that human beings aren't any more intelligent than goldfish?
    Social intelligence actually would dictate that the self-aware individual might sacrifice itself for the good of the whole so jumping out of the tank could be an entirely conscious (or subconscious) decision in the same way that the Wall St. leap was. Go figure.

  124. How smart ca they be? by ellem · · Score: 1

    They get herded into bags and covered in cheddar.

    Mmmm Golfish... mmmm...

    --
    This .sig is fake but accurate.
  125. Hmmm by asylumx · · Score: 1

    All over the article are the words "Manger says" but nowhere does it say "Evidence shows" or anything along those lines... Sounds like someone in South Africa is trying to get some publicity to me... They should have just said they found a goldfish that looks like the virgin Mary.

  126. dolphins are friendly and intelligent... by phlegmofdiscontent · · Score: 1

    Yeah, friendly and intelligent on rye bread.

    1. Re:dolphins are friendly and intelligent... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      with mayonaisse.

      If dolphins are so smart why do they live in igloos?

  127. Cyprinidae by hey! · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First of all: goldfish are not two inch long fish you keep in a half gallon glass bowl. Those are baby fish that are fated to die drinking their own piss. Goldfish are properly pond fish like koi. They aren't nearly as big as koi, but when full grown they can be over a foot long and quite active and beefy. I have a 55 gallon tank, and if I were to stock it with goldfish, there would only be room for one, maybe two with considerable effort and skill applied.

    Keeping mature goldfish is reputed to be like keeping dogs -- the fish recognize individuals and respond to them.

    Goldfish, like koi, are carp, which are members of the Cyprinid family of fishes. Cyprinids include many species that are well known in the aquarium hobby: danios, rasboras, barbs etc. Many of these species are popular because they are active and considered highly intelligent.

    I cycled my tank (established a colony of beneficial waste recycling bacteria) using a school of White Clouds, a cyprinid minnow about an inch long and closely related to rasboras. White clouds are attractive,active, peaceful little fish that are extremely hardy and good for this purpose (incidentally a much better candidate for "goldfish bowls" than goldfish, provided you're committed to daily water changes). They are also astonishingly intelligent.

    My White Cloud school mostly patrolled the top third of my tank, snatching food from the surface or as it sank slowly. After several months, I introduced a pair of Corydoras -- a tiny armored cat fish -- to the the tank. Catfish of course are bottom feeders, and are constantly foraging in the gravel. When my White Clouds saw this, they started foraging in the gravel too. Their mouths point upward for snatching food from the surface, so they have to turn over on their backs to do it.

    Clearly, this is not "instinctive" behavior. They saw and learned. With a brain that I doubt amounts to more than a cubic millimeter in volume.

    The behavior of these fish are interesting; you need to keep a largish school to see the full range. Somewhere around eight or nine fish, suddenly you see a completely different set of behaviors emerge. Clearly they are intelligent fish despite their tiny size, but much of that intelligence comes out when there are enough fish for them to feel comfortable and confident.

    Later I introduced some Danios to the tank, which changed the schooling behavior of the White Clouds. Danios, who are supposedly relatively peaceful and playful, have strong hierarchies in which the strongest fish (usually the most irridescent) claim territories. The "playful" behavior, if you watch closely, consists of the strongest fish chasing the next strongest fish out of his territory, and so on down the line. White Clouds aren't hierarchical, but they apparently look enough like danios to get chased. In my tank, the strongest danio cruised a territory consisting the top half foot of water and about 1/3 the surface area of the tank. So the White Clouds started lurking as individuals or groups of two or three in out of the way places. After adding another pair of white clouds, the behavior of the school changed. A pair of the more robust White Clouds who had previously been lurking far from the aggressive danio began patrolling the edge of the his territory. When a weaker white cloud strayed into the danio's territory and the danio attacked, they'd dart in to nip at his flanks. After a few days of this the danio's territory shrunk so that the White Clouds could school like they used to.

    Instinctive behavior? In this case, certainly. The point is that these fish have evolved to school in hostile environments; evolution provided them with highly capable brains for the task of survival, depsite their small size. Furthermore, schooling is more than just huddling together to reduce the risk of predation to an individual in the school, these fish have social behaviors that strengthen the school. This means that there are signals, and coordination, and a

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    1. Re:Cyprinidae by nexarias · · Score: 1
      The behavior of these fish are interesting; you need to keep a largish school to see the full range. Somewhere around eight or nine fish, suddenly you see a completely different set of behaviors emerge. Clearly they are intelligent fish despite their tiny size, but much of that intelligence comes out when there are enough fish for them to feel comfortable and confident.


      If anything, I'd say that the intelligence arises from the complexity that comes with more members and a rich environment. With neighbouring goldfish, the cognitive landscape is changed because you now have a potential competitor (threat) or a potential playmate (benefit). Interaction levels are increased with a wider range of possible actions.. I seriously think you've anthromorphized the fishies for this point.

  128. Americans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Training critters with a 3 second attention span isn't that hard. After all, do you think the American education system would be as effective as it is if we couldn't train our kids?

  129. This article is bullshit. by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    This is not a scientific paper. I don't know what a "bioethologist" is, but it's not a biologist, and it's not a neurologist, and I don't think that jsut because someone was published in some scholary journal makes them an expert on everything.

    The artical claims that dolphins have "very few" neurons. Well, how many do they have? How does that compare to the number in other, supposedly smarter animals? They claim that dolphins won't jump out of the water to escape from nets, but where's the proof? No research has been done. No science has been done. The artical is just a bunch on meaningless, unsubstantiated claims.

  130. 3D by Kombinat · · Score: 1

    so we have to see badly made 3D goldfishs in videos and on covers for Techno/Ambient music for the next 10 years?

  131. Re:The study author is not an animal behaviorologi by geoffspear · · Score: 1
    And, having read the actual article (and not the Al-Jazeera blurb in which, I have to assume, quotations from the author were taken from an interview or some other source which isn't cited), nowhere in the peer-reviewed material is any comparison to goldfish made. So his most controversial "findings" are apparently off the cuff remarks made to some journalist, then interpreted to mean that some published biologist says that goldfish are smarter than dolphins.

    I don't think real dolphin researchers are going to take this any more seriously than virologists take claims by other South African "scientists" who claim that AIDS isn't caused by HIV.

    --
    Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
  132. Fish Out of Water by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Those brains weren't "designed", they got lucky enough to suit their changing environment enough to be naturally selected. As oceans start to change dramatically due to the Greenhouse (including coral reef extinction), we'll see just how smart humans are to survive with our own environment leaving us behind, while dolphins use their big brains to save their own skins.

    Meanwhile remember that human brains evolved in response to the "Rift Valley" shift in Africa about 11 million years ago. West of the East African Rift the forest stayed mostly the same, evolving our primate cousins largely under competition pressure. East of the Rift, across the South Asian subcontinent, the forests rose up, cooled off, thinned out. Our ancestors evolved first to walk upright across resulting grasslands between small copses of trees. We managed to learn to use our freed up hands in the more varied, less protected environment. Using tools was the side effect that changed everything.

    Who's to say that dolphins can't use their brains to cope with a changing environment better than humans will? We might face a future in which our descendants are fortunate to survive in dry undersea bubbles, dolphins feeding us pizza to watch us do tricks like light a cigarette and talk with each other.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  133. Seaworld Syndrome by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "...a goldfish that jumps out of it's bowl and dies isn't nessearily very smart, there are could also be complex psychological factors at play as to why dolphins might not attempt to escape."

    Yes, I think dophins identify with their captors. We should run an experiment comparing their brains to Patty Hearst's.

  134. Bitter Nerds. Return box for refund. by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    The bitterness expressed by the scientists in this article seems to stem from the same pattern whereby a person is filled with emotional disgust by the prospect of others taking comfort in ideas which strike the observer as being based on ignorance. The same behavior can be broadly applied to religion, which is nearly universally disliked by science nerds. Same thing, just more obscure. (I mean, we're talking dolphins.)

    --Now aside from the feeling disgusted thing, the real problem starts when those feelings lead to a feeling of superiority as that often prevents further rational discourse. (That is, even if later the original claim turns out to hold merit, the observer's ego fights to prevent any learning or adaptation to such an idea.) Indeed, it often leads instead to bitterness and irrationality.

    So are dolphins smart? I've never really taken much interest in the idea, so I don't know. Mostly, I've only seen them on television, which means I know next to nothing personally on the subject.

    However, it does appear to be universally understood that Goldfish and other amphibians have no neocortex, whereas dolphins do. There are arguments, from the same people who claim Dolphins are stupid, for why their particular neocortex is no big deal, but having briefly perused those ideas, it seems to me that they are reaching a little much. Yes, it is true that marine mammals are different than land mammals in terms of brain structure, but dolphins are still mammals; they feed their young on mother's milk, they are able to defend against predators using pack tactics and they understand the concept of play. --Such behaviors simply don't happen in the cortex-only reptilian/amphibian world. So I'm thinking that maybe the evolutionary addition of the neocortex in the dolphin might indeed be relevant.

    As for intelligence in terms of problem solving. . . I've gotten myself lost in a simple bush-maze which I'm sure a rat could have found its way through easily enough proving, I guess, that I don't like cheese enough to sufficiently motivate me to solve a dumb puzzle.


    -FL

  135. Einstein by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    had twice the normal amount of glia cells compared to human average. He had the same amount of neurons. Glia cells make neurons more efficient which translates to a smarter brain.

  136. Whale meat again, don't know where don't know when by arth1 · · Score: 1
    You can count the number of neurons vs glia all day long, but at the end of the day dolphins seem to have MUCH better results than goldfish.

    "Seem to" is the right word, indeed. It's MUCH easier to antropomorphise a dolphin than a goldfish. They're mammals, they make sounds, have big heads, and they have the most important characteristic: eyes fairly similar to human eyes. They look intelligent, which, since they aren't human, doesn't mean shit.

    Can we please get over the myth that whales are so intelligent soon? "Flipper" and "Star Trek IV" did more to uneducate people than any amount of rational science. People want whales to be intelligent, but it's time to realise that it's just another (and tasty) animal.

  137. They hunt and play like they're intelligent by Dixie_Flatline · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I read an article in Scientific American about how dolphins play with each other or by themselves when they're bored. Older dolphins will teach younger ones how to generate complex vorticies in the water, and then inject them with air, making these weird stable rings that they can fool around with. I just googled for the info, and this story popped up. My goldfish are pretty clever for such little animals, I guess, but they certainly don't play like this.

    Moreover, the hunting patterns of dolphins are considerably more complex and 'intelligent-looking' than those of goldfish. Dolphins are more social, sure, but it takes more than a bunch of friendly animals to realize that they can use fishing nets to hunt.

    Brain size and composition have ALWAYS been a bad indicator of intelligence. If it were the case merely that a big brain was enough to be smart, we'd be badly outclassed. From human to human, we'd see fair differences in intelligence, just based on the size of the brain (assuming that most human brains are composed similarly, and by increasing size, we merely increase the number of cells making up that brain -- tell me if that assumption is terribly off). Obviously this isn't true.

    Fact of the situation: we're REALLY bad at figuring out what makes intelligence and what makes the brain work at all. I don't buy that goldfish are smarter yet. One study or group of studies is insufficient to make me believe this in the face of the observable evidence of intelligence or lack thereof.

  138. And so are CNN and FOX. What's your point? by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 3, Insightful
    They are notorious propaganda-mongers with no validity as a real news source.

    You may as well post an article about how scientists have discovered life on the moon and use the Weekly World News as a source.


    CNN and FOX News are any better?

    Come on. ALL major news sources are propaganda outlets. That's how it works. The problem only arises when people think that their own country's news agency are above corruption.

    As for the article, I'm sure the guy interviewed really believes his studies. How does that reflect on Aljazeera? All they're doing is reporting on recent claims from academia. All newspapers report stupid science news. So what?


    -FL

  139. not likely, but as an improvement by iggymanz · · Score: 1

    Slashdot editors will be replaced by the more intelligent neuron-sparse dolphins, and slashdot readers will continue to continue to have the sex life of a goldfish, spraying semen about the floor in the hopes of an unlikely fertilization.

  140. Why sad? by phorm · · Score: 1

    Personally, when I hear something that sounds fairly reasonable from enough people, I tend to go with tentatively believing the story as told until I hear a better explanation otherwise. Amongst my courses in Math, Science, IT, English, etc, *shock and horror* nobody, it just happens that nobody mentioned the memory span of a goldfish, this not being a really critical piece of information. Now, of course, various more importance pieces of information I'd tend to take for more a grain of salt, but as goldfish memory span is hardly a life-or-death piece of information (unless I'm playing a trivia game or something along those lines) I might tend to accept it as credible.

    Of course, in my case I've also had goldfish and they have a tendency to associate people with food, etc etc, indicating that their overall memory span is larger than 3s, enough that in long-term memory they can relate "large bipedal person = incoming food", but as no scientists or credible sources have contradicted that particular smidgeon on information, I'd be happy to accept that they have have a rather limited short-term memory (heck, I've met people with about a 5-10s memory/attention-span).

    Oh, and there's no snopes article on this subject either, at least not that I could find.

    Seriously though, at some people, depending on the import of a given piece of information, it makes sense to accept what is largely held to be true (again, until properly-presented contradictory fact is presented). If a dozen people tell me that they've heard "Dave's Electronic's" is having a big sale on Saturday, I'll probably look forward to getting some cheap toys unless a "Dave's" employee tells me otherwise.

  141. The findings are hopelessly flawed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another article on the same topic:
    article

    Dolphins have been known to jump over nets in the open ocean.

    See here for another discussion of the article in question.

    other forum

  142. Intelligence? by fracskul · · Score: 0

    What exactly IS intelligence?

    Goldfish sometimes jump out of their bowls.

    Humans sometimes vote for George Bush.

    Dolphins get caught in nets.

    There are documented cases of people with normal I.Q's whose brains are 90% fluid.

    Until we know a lot more about the brain, such pronouncements as "dolphins are stupid" are exactly that.

  143. Dolphins are obviously smarter... by nincehelser · · Score: 1

    Dolphins don't jump out of their "water bowl" because they know it's a stupid thing to do. Aljazeera?

  144. A scientist said that? by Spritzer · · Score: 1
    The dolphin's brain is not made for information processing it is designed...
    Ignoring the obvious lack of a period after the word processing let's take a closer look at this statement.

    Am I the only one amazed at the fact that a peer reviewed article from the scientific community suggests, whether intentional or not, that the brain of a dolphin was designed and not a product of evoltion?

    Chalk up a minor victory for the ID crowd.
  145. Not few at all by Moraelin · · Score: 1
    Dolphins are one of the few creatures that play games, such as playing tag with a peice of seaweed, or blowing bubble rings. This type of behaviour is often an indicator of high intelligence.


    Actually, I'm not sure by what criterion would you rule that as rare, since most mammals play games of some sort or another. (With the exception of some domesticated ones, e.g., cattle, which have some millenia behind them of artifficially selecting the dumbest and most passive ones.) It's a form of training for life, and a built-in way of calibrating how "in shape" the animal must be.

    E.g., cats. I've yet to see a cat for any reasonable length of time which didn't play games. And I don't just mean following a feather-onna-string moved by a human. All our cats were perfectly able to initiate playing with, say, a stuffed kitten doll or teddy bear, and practice wrestling with it. (In fact, they seemed to "anthropomorphise" it, or rather the feline equivalent of the word. I.e., treat it as a cat. The way they wrestled it resembled cat wrestling, not the quick kill attacks you can observe in cats hunting prey. And the number of wrestling sessions the teddy bear lasted indicated that they avoided using their claws and teeth too much, again, just like when play-wrestling another cat. They could have dismembered it within minutes if they had wanted to.) Or they've been known to either try fetching a toy to us as a "come play with me" signal, or try to draw the humans' attention to the toy where it was.

    E.g., dogs. My parents' dog and pretty much any dog I've seen occasionally plays some game or another. E.g., they're trivial to get to play fetch. My parents' dog also occasionally do stuff like try to enact his own fetch game, by himself. He'd occasionally bump the rubber ball with his nose, for example, and then chase it. Of course that didn't go that great, since he never bumped it fast or far enough. Or he'd just bring the ball to one of us humans and try to get us to play with him and that ball.

    E.g., rabbits. Yeah, lowly herbivores and not that big a brain either. Yet if you observe them in open spaces, they basically play tag with each other. Often they take turns at who's playing the aggressor coming at various angles, and who's the one running away.

    So basically if playing games is signs of high intelligence, then you've classified most mammals (and a good number of birds too) as highly intelligent. It doesn't leave that many which aren't.
    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:Not few at all by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      I see your point, but much playing of mammals is play fighting, or something related to something they naturally do. Dogs aren't a good comparison because they have been domesticated, breed, and trained. I'm not sure about rabbits playing tag -- perhaps you could provide some evidence? Either way, even if playing tag isn't really a good sign, blowing vortex rings is a better example.

    2. Re:Not few at all by Moraelin · · Score: 1

      Most (all?) of the animals "play" as a form of training for what they naturally do, yes. So for carnivores it's play fighting, for rabbits it's running from each other, and so on.

      --
      A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    3. Re:Not few at all by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 1

      And how do vortex rings fit into this? AFAIK, dolphins don't use the vortex rings to herd schools of fish together or for any other practical reason. If course, it's possible there is a reason for it, but I don't think there is anything documented.

  146. That settles that decision... by VinB · · Score: 0

    I'm trying to fill a Helpdesk Technician job and I was convinced that the best resume I had was from a guy about whom I had just commented had the intelligence of a below-average dolphin. It is now clear that the better candidate is the goldfish in the aquarium outside my office.

  147. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by v1z · · Score: 1
    unauthorized swimmers (likes Islamic terrorists)

    Yes, I'm sure the dolphins can smell your religious belief. After all, some people might consider a Navy SEAL to be a Christian terrorist. Wouldn't want the dolphins to attack them.

    Perhaps you meant simply "terrorist", as in:

    One who governs by terrorism or intimidation; specifically, an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France. --Burke. [1913 Webster]
  148. Your making my point... by VinB · · Score: 0

    ...I'm not saying that they're as smart as me, but they are at least as smart as other higher order animals, and certainly smarter than my goldfish who keeps trying to commit suicide.

    You have actually proven that your goldfish has reached such a level of cerebral development that it has emotional problems of such sophistication that it has determined that the after-life is the better alternative to its current condition.

  149. Dolphin response: by mattcoz · · Score: 0

    Nu-uh, scientists are stupid.

  150. Study link by Jeremi · · Score: 1

    Hard to believe nobody has posted this yet, but the direct link to the study is here.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  151. Problems with selection by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

    Of course, people who were killed by dolphins don't get to tell their story to the newspaper.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  152. Re:Christian Science Monitor... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    As far as I have heard, CSM is a reliable source in spite of its name. I find it interesting that we'll automatically assume aljazeera.net isn't, because of its name.

  153. I find his statements questionable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmmm, goldfish jumping out of the bowl. I've never had one do that, and I had lots of them when I was a kid. In fact, I've never seen a goldfish bowl with a lid, just aquariums. And most of the aquariums I've seen (all I can remember) have something other than just goldfish in them (if they have any goldfish at all).

    Dolphins not jumping out of nets. Seems wierd to us, but then again, we don't live in an utterly alien environment that is comprised of 3 dimensional travel (we use a planar travel, even if that plane wraps over 3d topography), non-circumventable spacial interruptions (like the shore), and a transition plane of a life sustaining resource that must be intermittently visited to resupply on a regular and continuous basis(air, they need air, and it's on the edge of their environment). Let's face it, an alien six legged methane breather from Regulus Prime may be easier for us to talk with and comprehend than a cetacian.

    Glial cells. Well, the current research shows that they aren't just environmental regulators. They are part of the processing hardware. Funny thing that, we still don't really understand how the brain (human or otherwise) actually works, especially on the creation/existence of intelligence. This guy is throwing darts blindfolded and he forgot to put the flights on. (Darts term, look it up.)

    Even though we don't understand how the brain and intelligence actually work, we can identify certain types of intelligent activity that shows forethought and reasoning. My favorite dolphins have an intelligence report is from a scientist that was testing them for responses. She'd give them a treat when they whistled in a pitch she could hear, but not for any others, even though her instruments showed her the ultrasonic whistles. It wasn't long before one of the dolphins popped up and proceeded to go through his vocal scale from one end to the other. After that, the dolphins in that tank would only use tones she could hear when they knew she was around.

    Brains. Even though we understand so little (still - frustrating isn't it), once you've removed the quantity needed to operate the body, whatever is left is going to be used for memory and whatever kind of processing it needs. So if you look at a dolphin brain, and subtract the parts we believe are needed for standard biology, and even if you then extract the glial cells, you still end up with more brains left than an entire goldfish (scales and all). Heck, even if you remove the section we believe is used for their echolocation processing, that's still true. (And that's a big chunk.) Just going by a cell ratio clearly isn't enough to make the suppositions he's made (as specified in the news article).

    So what's this guys deal? Is he trying to re-open whaling by claiming all cetacians are stupid? Or did he accidentally submit his 4 year olds homework for publishing. If so, didn't the crayon marks give them a clue?

  154. Goldfish smarter than dolphins? The facts first! by psych787 · · Score: 1

    I don't usually post here, and I probably wont be checking back on this topic, but in defense of the dolphins, let me point out a few facts.
    Keep in mind that that I am mainly talking about tursiops here; other species are vastly different in intelligence, social structure, physiology, etc.

    Firstly, let's remember that Einstein's brain had a higher glia cell ratio than most. Yes, that means that one of our smartest people had fewer neurons. And oh by the way, the notion that glia cells are inactive cells is utterly obsolete. Glia cells preform support functions, such as immunity (the body's regular immune system is excluded by the brain-blood barrier), and I think I remember something about them being somewhat active in the neural network itself. Scientifically, we know the basics of the brain and its consciousness, but no where near enough to make statements on processing capability like those made by this slashdot post, as we do not really understand the dynamic properties of biological neural networks.

    Someone pointed out that dolphins won't jump over very short dividers at marine parks. Well, they're usually trained not to, and the pools aren't always deep enough, particularly when the dolphin is awaiting instruction in a small enclosure during a show. Why don't you try leaping 10 feet out of a pool? That whole trick is only possible because their skin deforms at high speeds allowing a top speed of 28km/h - it's not that easy to do, even for them. Btw, I had a dog who could easily have just walked over the little boards we put where we didn't want him to go, but he never went over them after we taught him not to. And dolphins have long ago been absolutely proven smarter than canines.
    In any case, they have been shown to overcome a variety of barriers far more complicated to get through.

    "The dolphin's brain is not made for information processing it is designed to counter the thermal challenges of being a mammal in water."
    Excuse me? Thermal challenges? This goes back to Aristotle's ignorant theory that the brain was merely a radiator of some kind. No sir, that doesn't hold up. Dolphins keep warm with that thick layer of blubber which also convinently protects them from impacts. They can cool themselves through their fins, although cooling is obviously less of a problem, cooling is the way temperature is kept within specific bounds. I think it's also worth pointing out that dolphins have a high metabolic rate and a linear digestive track.
    Having a brain solely to make heat is just wasting energy. Mammals don't need a "furnace" like that, if they did dolphins would have a bad case of muscle spasms or something. Why do you think you shiver when it's cold outside?

    As for goldfish being smarter than dolphins... well what data supports that?
    Let's list just a few things goldfish aren't so famous for:
    1) A fluid, highly sophisticated social matrix.
    2) Signature whistles and at least 30 or so known communication whistles (actually about 70 have been recorded though).
    3) Sentence-structured lexigram comprehension, as scientifically proven by Akeakamai.
    4) The most sophisticated sensorimotor system in the entire animal kingdom. Vision and echolocation are used in tandem, giving the advantages of both - vision for fast wide angle use, and echolocation for just about everything we can't see, including what's inside and too far away underwater - and oh, by the way, wild dolphins will recognize a pregnant human female and often move to protect her. They can swim almost immediately after birth which is important because dolphin calves sink until they get enough body fat to float - that's like a human newborn getting up and walking off. Without going into too much detail and angering moderator staff, both male and female dolphins can do fantastic things which demonstrate a level of voluntary control of their bodies beyond our own. Show me a goldfish that can do the equivalent of any of those things and I'll swim the English channel both ways with no breaks.
    5) Quick learning

  155. dolphins are smart... brain analyists; not so much by emagery · · Score: 1

    This article doesn't successfully demonstrate that goldfish are smarter than dolphins... (i.e., goldfish which demonstratably have very poor long term memory (though not all as bad as cliche lets us believe... while dolphins can communicate with humans, have intensely complex langauges of their own, etc) ... its proof that human beings don't fully (or even remotely) understand the brain yet!

  156. Jerry Levy by wonkavader · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jerry Levy (one of my favorite psychologists) has an interesting theory about dolphins and how dumber they are then people expect. Intelligence tests do find that the big-brained dolphins are not anywhere near as clever as they ought to be judging by brain size.

    Humans have a great big corpus collousum -- it keeps both hemispheres of the brain at the same activation level. When we sleep, both sides function in unison -- I think we're talking deep sleep, here, not REM, where the two hemispheres are both active.

    Dolphins cannot sleep for long. They need to breath, which means coming up for air, and so the corpus callousum of the dolphin is small -- the two hemispheres do NOT have the same activation. One goes flat while the other stays active. Hence, the dolphin is only really effectively using about half his brain at any time.

    And hence, the dolphin is only half as smart as you'd expect per the brain size.

  157. How about "we don't know"? by Moraelin · · Score: 1

    That reminds me of another "conclusive" study that concluded that cats are colour-blind (in spite of having plenty of cones in their retina), because they seemed not to react to the colour cues they were given. Then later it turns out that cats _do_ see colours, and _can_ be taught to react to colour cues, they just don't normally assign that much importance to them. So it wasn't that the cat couldn't distinguish between "green dish" and "red dish", it's just normally it just saw it as "dish".

    Now I'm not trying to discredit such studies as a whole, but we need to remember that until someone can talk to the cat, we just don't know what the cat sees or thinks there. We can see their reactions, but the rationale behind that is at best just a wild uninformed guess.

    Does it recognize itself in the mirror or not? Or maybe it just isn't that interested it itself? We just don't know what the cat sees or thinks there. And when you expect it to "use that information in some intelligent fashion", it gets even less clear.

    Even we humans are only interested in mirrors because we're worried about our looks and about how other humans perceive us. Noone uses a mirror just to recognize themselves. They use it to see how they'll appear to others.

    Elliminate that incentive or concern completely, and chances are even humans wouldn't give a damn about mirrors any more. If you dropped someone alone on a tropical island, Robinson Crusoe-like, with the knowledge that they won't see or be seen by another human ever again, then you'd probably find their interest in their own image or in mirrors dropping very fast. After his first weeks there, it's a pretty safe bet that Robinson Crusoe wouldn't use a mirror daily, or even bother combing his hair or shaving/trimming his beard any more. What for? Maybe he'd use it occasionally for a "man, how low have I fallen, I look like a savage" round of self-pity, but even then there's that concern again with image and what others would see him like.

    A cat doesn't have such sense of fashion and looks. They don't have "is my haircut right for my big date with that cute orange tomcat" concerns. They have their rituals for interacting with other cats (e.g., to be accepted on another cat's territory), but none of those have anything to do with looks. When they wash themselves it's to stay clean (and even then only because the smell could alert the prey), but not out of a concern with looking right to other cats.

    So basically a cat doesn't really have much use for its own image in a mirror. Or not in the same ways that a human would treat theirs. It might use it as a sort of a toy, it might pretend that that reflection is an imaginary other cat to play with (same as they can pretend that plush toys are either prey or another cat), etc. But taken in the human "oh, look, that's me" sense, it's just useless for any animal that doesn't care about its looks.

    Hence I find it a bit silly to draw a broad conclusion like "cats don't recognize their image" or "cats have no notion of 'self'" just because it doesn't fit someone's anthropomorphic illusions. Because that's what it's about. Someone anthropomorphises the cat by expecting some human-type reactions from it. And the cat (predictably) doesn't react that way, because it's really a cat, not a small furry human.

    But that's in the end all we know there: the cat doesn't react like we'd expect a human to. We don't know why, though. We don't really know what it saw or thought there. And like the coloured dishes experiment proved, our guesses can be awfully wrong there.

    And I'll also go ahead and say that we also don't yet know what intelligence is, other than as some vague fuzzy concept. We're taking wild guesses and extrapolations based on what humans do, but there is no real proof that every animal would benefit from the same things. I.e., we're really anthropomorphising again, and judging animals not as much on whether they're intelligent at being, you know, a cat, but on how well they fit our "

    --
    A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
    1. Re:How about "we don't know"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Elliminate that incentive or concern completely, and chances are even humans wouldn't give a damn about mirrors any more. If you dropped someone alone on a tropical island, Robinson Crusoe-like, with the knowledge that they won't see or be seen by another human ever again, then you'd probably find their interest in their own image or in mirrors dropping very fast.

      Actually, I rather doubt that. I would not be at all surprised if a large percentage of test subjects looked in the mirror regularly just to see a human face. People are very social creatures. Some might even talk to their reflections after a while. I don't think mirrors are just for grooming, or that grooming is just about trying to impress people.

  158. Guess I miss the trained Fish exhibit at SeaWorld. by MrCopilot · · Score: 1
    I dunno man, I've seen trained dolphins, whales, seals, bears, dogs, some humans, but never a trained goldfish. Must be in the back corner of Sea World.

    Or

    They are just way too smart to be servile like some dumbass dolphin.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
  159. Re:Christian Science Monitor... by TIMxPx · · Score: 1

    As far as I have heard, CSM is a reliable source in spite of its name. I find it interesting that we'll automatically assume aljazeera.net isn't, because of its reputation.

    There you go, I fixed that for you. No charge.

    --
    There are 10 kinds of people in the world: That averages about 660,000,000 of each kind.
  160. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by adolfojp · · Score: 1

    I actually saw a demo of this on the discovery channel. The dolphins don't tag unauthorized swimmers. They tag whoever is in the water. And by identifying they mean pushing the nose to the swimmer's leg and a metal clamp will... clamp them.

    The dolphins were also very capable of detecting and identifying underwater mines.

    It was beyond impressive. Made me want to play Red Alert for a couple of hours. :-)

  161. Goldfish and Dolphins never to meet by Servo · · Score: 1

    Hate to tell the original poster, but goldfish are freshwater fish and would die in the ocean.

    --
    A slip of the foot you may soon recover, but a slip of the tongue you may never get over. -Benjamin Franklin
    1. Re:Goldfish and Dolphins never to meet by flergum · · Score: 1

      thanks for letting me know. I had no idea. I was going to develop a freshwater scuba system for the goldfish, but now I think I will scrap those plans. Darn you salt!

    2. Re:Goldfish and Dolphins never to meet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhm... goldfish don't need SCUBA. They can already breathe under water. ;)

      .
      .
      .
      Just not saltwater.

  162. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    How much money has the navy spent training goldfish? None. Without resources, what do you expect the goldfish to do?

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  163. Aljazzera as a scientific news source? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, I think Aljazzera is a good source of reliable scientific news...

  164. Goldfish vs. Dolphin vs. Einstein vs. Newton by cogno64 · · Score: 1

    a) 100 milliseconds b) 200 milliseconds c) 300 milliseconds d) 400 milliseconds? Find Out for Free

    If you recall Einstein's brain wasn't all that big, it's structural composition the differentiator (possibly)

  165. Re:Christian Science Monitor... by selfdiscipline · · Score: 1

    I assume you're speaking of aljazeera's reputation in America. Do you think that this reputation is deserved?

    --


    -------
    Incite and flee.
  166. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Without resources, what do you expect the goldfish to do?

    Even with tons of resources, I'd expect them to die almost immediately upon being placed in the ocean. Even without the salt-water issue, goldfish could be the smartest animal in the world and they'd still have no way to impart information to their trainers.

    It's like Stephen Hawking...without the vocalization equipment that allows him to interact with the rest of the world, he wouldn't be considered among the great minds of our generation.

  167. This could be more proof by chriso11 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps dolphins are so clever that no-one's caught them doing exactly that!

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
  168. Never forget to swim forwards by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

    ?morf emoc eltsac cisalp looc taht did erehW !yeH ...ood ...ood ...ood

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  169. Re:Whale meat again, don't know where don't know w by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    "Flipper" and "Star Trek IV" did more to uneducate people than any amount of rational science.

    "Rational science" uneducates people?

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  170. Strand Feeding by jd · · Score: 1
    So because the dolphin isn't brainless enough to jump out of its tank and beach itself and die in the process, that makes them stupid? I suppose by comparison the child that plays away from road isn't as smart as the kid that plays in traffic, you know, the one that's seeking to "enlarge his environment" by becoming road pizza.


    A far more interesting behaviour is when dolphins deliberately chase fish up onto river banks to die. The dolphins then use the river banks as a gigantic seafood buffet, picking what fish they want before rolling/sliding back into the water. So they certainly do make very good use of the beach...

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  171. Re:U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart by soft_guy · · Score: 1

    I guess it is impossible to dock a navy ship in freshwater (such as Lake Michigan).

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  172. Super Goldfish by Meiyi · · Score: 1

    "I guess this means that the Navy will start recruiting and training goldfish for those mine search and destroy missions."

    This already have been done. Although, not from the Navy.

    Super Goldfish:
    http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?ei=UTF-8&vid=8e4 db9b9f33b22abab54ec1f5fcb3791.636945&b=&status=0
  173. My cat by ClioCJS · · Score: 1

    My cat's breath smells like cat food.

    --
    -Clio
    Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
    Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
  174. I wouldn't jump out of the tank. by Arceliar · · Score: 1

    Yes, goldfish have been known to jump out of their tank form time to time. I've had goldfish in a tank for years, no lid, and this has never happened.

    Goldfish are dumb, trainable yes, but dumb.

    Dolphins don't jump out of their tank, except durring tricks and such where they know they'll get food for it. Now, the fact that they don't jump out, IMHO, says nothing. If I were an aquatic creature, I'd like to think that jumping into the air would make me ralize "hey, there's no water here. I'm helpless. Note to self: dont jump out of tank" and be done with it.

    Knowing that leaving the water could be dangerous, unless I had reason to leave (ie: something trying to eat me) I'd just assume stay put.

    And of course, don't forget that dolphins are known to hold the head of a sick dolphin above water while it recovers. I don't know about the rest of you, but a creature showing complex community behaviors seems more intelligent to me than the schooling habbit of goldfish. Sure, it makes the goldfish harder to catch, but beyond that have you ever seen them work towards a common goal?

    And lets not forget the fact that dolphins, if marked in some way, react strangely to the markings when they view themselves in a mirror (implying that they recognize their own reflection). Teach that to a goldfish.

    1. Re:I wouldn't jump out of the tank. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dolphins are also compassionate towards humans. There are many records throughout history of dolphins saving a drowning human. Dolphins have never killed a human being, at most giving warning bites and even then only about once a decade the past few decades. They will attack sharks however, rather brutally, so in no way can a dolphin be considered peaceful.

      Dolphin Saves Boy's Life
      http://www.eurocbc.org/page158.html

      Greek Mythology regarding dolphins
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin_(mythology)

      Dolphins save swimmers from shark attack
      http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/11/24/ dolphin_newzealand041124.html

      Google search for dolphin saved
      http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q= dolphin+saved&btnG=Search

      These incidents happen world wide in numerous locations every year and have happened at the same rate throughout history.

      I think that we should return the favor and treat dolphins with the same compassion that they treat us.

  175. Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    To contrast with the 6 troll responses you've gotten, I'd like to say that it's pretty damn incredible of you to stick with your boyfriend after his stroke. Many lesser women would leave and find someone without disability. People will always go for the cheap "Slashdot users don't have significant others" joke, despite it's clear falsehood, but it's true that most of the world doesn't have a significant other who's as committed as you.

    Good luck to both of you.

    1. Re:Trolls by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just to clear things up, for the record:

      "Lesser women" is a contradiction in terms in this context: I'm a man. :)

      I can only take credit for being willing to stick with Andy after his stroke. It's a long and ugly story, but following an argument with his custodial parent several years ago, they won't let me see him. To avoid making the story even longer and uglier and dragging the rest of the family into it, I've chosen not to fight it. The "up" side of his memory loss is that he doesn't realize that I haven't been 'round to see him in a long time.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    2. Re:Trolls by brainburger · · Score: 1

      I was wondering why none (or not many) had picked up on this possibility, and that it can't be inferred that you are lying.
      I just wanted to say I think it is cool of you to post about it here.

    3. Re:Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seconding the post above me, thanks for sharing. Your story was interesting.

    4. Re:Trolls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Disagree. Cruddy Story.

  176. ahhh....of mice and man by sage2k6 · · Score: 1

    ...or shall we say of goldfish and dolphins?

    (and just because they have more neurons/body mass doesn't mean they know how to use it. just look at the US government.)

    --

    -----
    "If everything seems to be going well, you obviously don't know what the hell is going on." - Murphy's Law
  177. Re:Christian Science Monitor... by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

    Your sense of humour astounds me.

    --
    -1 Uncomfortable Truth
  178. Spiders by tchernobog · · Score: 1

    Most arachnides have only two or three neurons, and watch what complex things they can do with them... the webs they build, how they capture the trapped insects, how they feel the weather change.

    Anyway, I think that it's more a matter of interconnections (synapses) than of the neurons' number.

    --
    42.
  179. Goldfish with a friggin' laser on its head... by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

    Anyone?
    Anyone?

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
  180. Einstein's brain also had more glia by soren100 · · Score: 1

    Glial cells are pretty important -- the only difference found in Einstein's brain over "normal" humans so far is that he had many more glia (compared to neurons) in the area that processes information from many other information sources. source: Wikipedia

    Also, rats in more highly enriched envionronments have higher glial counts than rats in more impoverished environments, and the ratios of glia to neurons progresses as you go up the evolutions (9 to 1) than any other animal -- it would be nice if the article discussed what the ratio of glia to neurons was in the dolphin so we could know if that still held true.

    So far, glia are a sign of a highly active brain -- they provide metabolic support and many other functions:

          1. They play an active role in establishing and maintaining the fundamental patterns of neuron circuits.
          2. They produce growth and trophic factors, playing a key role in regeneration and plasticity.
          3. Some play an active role in the formation of myelin which speeds impulse conduction. Myelinated fibers conduct more rapidly than unmyelinated fibers.
          4. Some glial cells respond to rapid repair of myelin in demyelinating diseases such as MS and ALS.
          5. Glial cells play a crucial role in immunological responses to various infections and toxic agents.
          6. Glial cells increase in number when nerve cells grow with enrichment.

    (from http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_einstein. htm)

    Finally, if the glia in the dolphins are just a function of cold water, it would make much more sense to have the brain surrounded by a large layer of fat than the relatively more expensive (metabolically speaking) brain cells. Dolphins may not be so intelligent, but that would be beter proved through behavioral studies -- if the argument that they are dumber is that their brains are more like Einstein's in that they have a high glial cell count, that idea just doesn't seem to "hold water".

  181. Dumb Question... by ElboRuum · · Score: 1

    If dolphin's brains are not built for information processing, why the hell do they seem to do it so well? There is a lot of data out there to suggest that glial cells and the abundance of synaptic connections that they help create are the basis for intelligence, not necessarily neuron quantity. Maybe Douglas Adams was right... It goes Mice, Dolphins, Us.

  182. Re:GNAA Adopts Trusted Platform Module by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative


    .________________________________________________.
    | ______________________________________._a,____ | Press contact:
    | _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ | Gary Niger
    | __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ | gary_niger@gnaa.us
    | _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ | GNAA Corporate Headquarters
    | _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ | 143 Rolloffle Avenue
    | ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ | Tarzana, California 91356
    | _________#1__________?________________________ |
    | _________j1___________________________________ | All other inquiries:
    | ____a,___jk_GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_ | Enid Al-Punjabi
    | ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ | enid_al_punjabi@gnaa.us
    | ______-"!^____________________________________ | GNAA World Headquarters
    ` _______________________________________________' 160-0023 Japan Tokyo-to Shinjuku-ku Nishi-Shinjuku 3-20-2

  183. Oblig. credit where credit is due by kertong · · Score: 1

    "Hey, you gotta hand it to those dolphins. They just wanted it more."

  184. Goldfish with friggin lasers ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 1

    Guess they first have to downsize them first or make the goldfish bigger ;)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  185. Dolphins' perception of the environment by sufijazz · · Score: 1

    Although this is not strictly an intelligence-related observation, it is interesting to note that dolphins not only have acute eyesight but also echolocation abilities. Dolphins emit sound waves and from the reflection of these sound waves, they perceive the objects in their environment inside out.

    Imagine looking for a potential mate and perceiving candidates inside out so that you know how strong the bones are, for example. How cool is that.

    --
    2+2=5 for very large values of 2.
  186. Larry Niven had an interesting point by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    Dolphins are predators. Humans are made of meat. Sharks eat humans. Dolphins seldom attack humans, at least as far as we know.

    So:
    Hypothesis one: they realize that eating humans is a losing game.
    Hypothesis two: they attack humans all the time but seldom get caught.

    Niven points out that either way it's evidence of intelligence.

  187. Re:Guess I miss the trained Fish exhibit at SeaWor by x3nos · · Score: 1

    But not smart enough to avoid the big tank at PetSmart apparently . . . .

    --
    /* somewhat functional - fix later */
  188. Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "We equate our big brain with intelligence. Over the years we have looked at these kinds of things and said the dolphins must be intelligent,"

        Well I'm beginning to question my own intelligence 'cause I can't seem to find "our" big collecitve brain.

  189. Re:Smart is .. I forget. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Huh. And you probably ate in a fish restaurant too.
    Was it that one that looked like a cool plastic castle?

  190. So long... by Morganic · · Score: 1

    ...and thanks for all the goldfish!

  191. Re:Christian Science Monitor... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

    I'll be making appearances all week. Tickets are free, but they'll rape you on the drinks.

  192. We're taking the word of a terrorist tabloid? by FishinDave · · Score: 1

    TFA is from Al Jazeera. Is it not possible that this propaganda is intended to undermine and misdirect our valiant military R&D effort?

    OTOH, it seems obvious that goldfish are smarter than dolphins. I've never found a goldfish in a can of tuna.