Slashdot Mirror


Baby Chicks Have Innate Mathematical Skills

Hugh Pickens writes "Chicks can add and subtract small numbers shortly after hatching, says Rosa Rugani at the University of Trento. Rugani reared chicks with five plastic containers of the kind found inside Kinder chocolate eggs. This meant the chicks bonded with the capsules, much as they do with their mother, making them want to be near the containers as they grew up. In one test, the researchers moved the containers back and forth behind two screens while the chicks watched. When the chicks were released into the enclosure, they headed for the screen obscuring the most containers, suggesting they had been able to keep track of the number of capsules behind each by adding and subtracting them as they moved. It is already known that many non-human primates and monkeys can count, and even domestic dogs have been found to be capable of simple additions but this is the first time the ability has been seen in such young animals, and with no prior training in problem solving of any kind."

9 of 184 comments (clear)

  1. Alternate hypothesis by srussia · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They can smell plastic/chocolate residue really good.

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
  2. Is this really "counting" by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Or are the chicks simply recognizing "more" rather than "fewer" or "less"?

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Is this really "counting" by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The difference is semantic. Obviously they're not doing arithmetic as we usually think of it, but if they're able to keep track of shifting quantities that's math.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    2. Re:Is this really "counting" by penguinbroker · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The difference is not just semantics. If they are making decisions based on qualitative notions (more) as opposed to quantitative (2 more) then it is a difference between doing discrete mathematics vs. reacting to an analog signal. The latter of which is not what we normally consider math, at least in terms of the subject's thought process.

      It would be interesting to use different sized eggs to create scenarios where one group has more individual eggs but the other group has a higher total surface area (maybe volume) of eggs. If the chicks still chose the group with more individual eggs than one could make a strong case that they are capable of counting.

    3. Re:Is this really "counting" by profplump · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the general sense, the ability to determine that A > B requires arithmetic. Without arithmetic you could only look at two piles and say "they both contain many items"; the ability to say "pile A contains more items than pile B" requires some form of arithmetic, even if it is very simply.

      And I'm not sure where you got this idea that arithmetic is purely discrete. For the purposes of calculation we often treat our observations that way, but in reality most arithmetic involves quantities that were not determined exactly. It's only our abstractions that allow counting in the first place -- "car" is not a measurable unit, it's an abstraction that we use to categories and describe our environment, and it's only such abstractions that can be discretely counted in the first place.

      That's not to say that the birds were counting discrete plastic containers, as opposed to identifying the set of containers with the most visible surface, but in either case if the birds can determine that one set has "more" of something than the other set, it's still basic arithmetic. (And as always it's certainly possible that "more" had nothing to do with their behavior, and that the birds were motivated by something that the experiment did not control against, but that's beyond the scope of this comment)

  3. They're still food by gregthebunny · · Score: 2, Insightful

    delicious > "innate skill"

  4. My Dog Can Do Calculus by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Whenever I throw something and my dog catches it, he's inherently working out the position of the object and its velocity in order to catch it.

  5. Re:False assumption? by rpillala · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Isn't this accumulation of stimuli the way counting works?

    --
    When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
  6. Re:Bad science. by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And how do they know how many is more when they can't see them?

    Move five behind screen A. Move two over to behind screen B. Chick can't see any of them, but decides to go to screen A.

    Move five behind screen A. Move three over to behind screen B. Chick can't see any of them, but decides to go to screen B.

    Repeat for more complicated patterns and more moves before the chick is freed to move.

    The only way they could know that there are more behind a screen is to sense them (and chickens have poor senses of smell and no ESP) or to have made mental adjustments of "more" and "most" based on movement of items. And that's addition and subtraction.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.