
Rats free each other from cages (2011) - CarolineW
http://www.nature.com/news/rats-free-each-other-from-cages-1.9603
======
xg15
I found the counter-argument rather strange:

> At issue is the definition of empathy. “This work is not evidence of empathy
> — _defined as the ability to mentally put oneself into another being’s
> emotional shoes,”_ says Povinelli. “It’s good evidence for emotional
> contagion and that animals are motivated to coordinate their behaviour so
> that distress is reduced, but that is nothing new.”

(Emphasis mine)

How could this definition of empathy possibly be proven for non-humans? Or in
fact, how could it be proven for anyone but yourself?

Additionally, they present an alternate hypothesis to explain the findings:
That the captive rat was somehow causing distress to the free rat and the free
rat was solely motivated to reduce that distress without any concern for the
other rat. While that's a valid hypothesis, it doesn't seem to hold the
occam's razor test for me - especially as they admit themselves that they
don't know what this distress-causing mechanism could be. (They suggest alarm
calls or pheromones but couldn't find any yet)

~~~
randcraw
How to demonstrate empathy? Easy. Conduct experiments in which the caged rats
undergo a range of living conditions from idyllic to neutral to outright
torture. If the free rat favors freeing the tortured rat over the idyllic rat
then it shows greater empathy.

~~~
xg15
That was, in (slightly) less horrible form, what they did. It's apparently
still disputed that this shows empathy, however.

For your experiment, you could counter-argue in the same way: Maybe the free
rat was just particularly tired of the torture screams and that's why it freed
that rat first...

------
semi-extrinsic
Actual paper:
[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1427](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/334/6061/1427)

There is a correction issued for this paper, but the correction is paywalled
so I can't tell whether it's substantive or a nitpick.

Also, please put a (2011) in the title.

~~~
throwitawayday
The correction:

“Empathy and pro-social behavior in rats” by I. B.-A. Bartal et al. (9
December 2011, p. 1427). On p. 1428, the last full paragraph of column 1 was
incorrect. The paragraph should be replaced by this corrected text: “All
female rats (6/6) and most male rats (17/24) in the trapped condition became
door-openers. Female rats in the trapped condition opened the restrainer door
at a shorter latency than males on days 7 to 12 (P < 0.01, MMA, Fig. 3A),
consistent with suggestions that females are more empathic than males (7, 12,
13). Furthermore, female rats were also more active than males in the trapped
condition (P < 0.001, ANOVA) but not in the empty condition (Fig. 3B).”

~~~
semi-extrinsic
So they used 30 rats in total?Any numbers on how statistically well-powered
this was?

~~~
dogma1138
30 rats are plenty if they selected them properly - different gene pools,
different breeders etc...

~~~
saalweachter
You wouldn't necessarily care about genetic diversity for this sort of
experiment. This experiment isn't trying to say "all animals" or "all rat
species" exhibit this behavior; the interesting thing is that _any_ animal
does.

~~~
tremon
For me, the more important question is not whether all test subjects were
genetically diverse: it's more important that the free rat and the caged rat
are dissimilar. The situation would be vastly different if the rat pairs were
related, since there is a genetically selfish motivation for caring for those
within the same gene pool.

~~~
jonlucc
This becomes apparent when you try to co-house rats and mice. Litter mates are
much less likely to fight.

------
pipio21
My perception for watching the video is that the cage opener wants to mate
with the rat inside once it is free. At least mount it.

If there are from opposites sexes, there is certainly an egoistical reason for
the rat to free the other.

If they are not, rats are very sociable. They need close contact with other
rats.

It also looks like the opener rat is also very curious and wants to enter the
cage too to know how it feels inside.

~~~
adevine
That was my perception as well: the rat immediately tried to mount the rat
that had been trapped.

My issue is not with the results of the study, but with interpretation. I
think it's possible to explain the desire to free the other rat purely in
selfish terms without any nods to altruistic or empathic behavior.

~~~
MrBra
Reproduction is not selfish. It's for species survival.

~~~
technothrasher
Reproduction is not for species survival. "Species" is simply an arbitrary
label we've assigned as part of the system we use to categorize living things,
and doesn't even really match reality very well.

Reproduction is for gene survival. We are simply throw away machines our genes
have developed in order to propagate themselves.

~~~
MrBra
No. Everything keeps transforming at each iteration for better serving the
system purpose: efficiency (for this system specific set of rules).

The source code (genes) propagation per se would be completely useless to the
system, without the processes they _express_ : living systems, the most
efficient energy transforming machines the system has been able to
incrementally arrange up so far starting out of random stuff.

Therefore reproduction is exactly for that, for allowing the continuation of
this energy transforming processes (life processes) in the most efficient way.

------
tim333
See also: Rats Remember Who's Nice to Them—and Return the Favor
[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150224-rats-...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/02/150224-rats-
helping-social-behavior-science-animals-cooperation/)

------
gweinberg
Were the imprisoned rats male or female? If I were a male rat, I would likely
free an imprisoned female rat, but I'd probably think a male rat was being
justly punished for his crimes.

~~~
jonlucc
According to the correction posted above, 6 were female and all females became
openers, while only some males became openers.

~~~
gweinberg
It only tells the sex of the rats on the outside. It doesn't tell the sex of
the rats on the inside.

------
smoyer
If you were observing humans but couldn't interview them, could you say they
were acting with empathy? There are all sorts of "acts" that appear to be
empathy from the outside but end up being in both parties best interest. Even
acts of heroism and selflessness end up helping to hold together our society
but it's often hard to feel what the other is feeling. Even when I consciously
try, I suspect my attempts at empathy fall short - but it's still important to
try.

~~~
FeepingCreature
Why do you think you feel empathy to begin with? It feels good _because_ it
helps on net. Your brain is a product of evolution; when something feels nice,
there's usually a pragmatic reason for it.

~~~
jpttsn
Because it helps _the species_ on net. Also, you know, nipples on men.
Evolution isn't that pragmatic.

~~~
pluma
Evolution doesn't care about arbitrary categories like "species". Species
aren't even a thing, they're an abstraction.

------
jboydyhacker
Plato defined consciousness using a test of whether something could understand
the cause and effect of its actions. By that rule, a lot of animals would
qualify as sentient- Rats/cats/dogs and virtually all critters.

------
grondilu
Kind of related:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iriBuIunNYM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iriBuIunNYM)

~~~
fennecfoxen
... come now! I was expecting at _least_
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWhzy-
lynu4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWhzy-lynu4)

------
mudil
It all goes down to the origins of morality. Politicians and clerics often
repeat the mantra of religion and society creating a moral code for us, but
observations and experiments with animals (and even plants) show that
altruism, empathy, and cooperation spontaneously arise from the evolution.
Excellent book on the subject is "The Bonobo and the Atheist: In Search of
Humanism Among the Primates" by Frans de Waal.

------
auganov
Sort of off-topic but: What companies (or researchers?) [if any] are working
on animal-related technologies? I.e. animal eeg, [non-decorative] animal wear,
apps for animals etc.

It deeply fascinates me but seems like it's somewhat unexplored in general. I
only remember some company working on VR for animals.

~~~
jonlucc
In the research world, there are tons of machines aimed t measuring everything
about rodents. There are implants that measure blood glucose levels every few
minutes, treadmills that spit out every parameter about how a mouse walks, and
MRIs and CTs just for rodents. These aren't exactly _for_ the rodents, but
they do exist.

------
rurban
Everybody knows that for ages already. Rats (like other people-forming races,
distinguishing themselves by odor: ants, bees, ...) are extremely social and
extremely racist. They don't form a group, a pack, like wolves, where everyone
knows each other, and they don't live in anonymous masses, like migratory
birds, locusts or school of fish.

E.g. Konrad Lorenz in "Das sogenannte Boese"
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Aggression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Aggression))
had a whole chapter on rats and why they developed this behavior, which is
often misleadingly labelled ethically. Like here.

------
4lejandrito
I find it odd that anyone able to cage rats for days in that cruel way is
going to be able to identify any kind of empathy at all.

How can you identify empathy if you don't even feel it?

I guess this is how humans progress but I can't help feeling something wrong
with it.

~~~
ceejayoz
> How can you identify empathy if you don't even feel it?

I can detect wind (including its strength and direction) outside my house even
if I can't feel it.

~~~
4lejandrito
You have a point but what I was trying to express is the irony of the
experiment. To see if animals have empathy we basically torture them and see
how they react...

Call it empathy or whatever but I know I suffer under certain situations and
can't see why a rat does not. They have 2 eyes and four limbs just like us
maybe just a little bit less computing power.

------
jadbox
This reminds me of the movie Secret of Nimh.

~~~
Agathos
My first thought was Pinky and the Brain. And somebody else just posted the
necessary Douglas Adams quote. Come to think of it, our culture seems to dwell
on the fear that our lab rats are smarter than we are...

------
csomar
Just looked at the video. There is little evidence that the rat opened the
cage to free his mate. My guess is that it opened the cage to check what's
inside. Notice that as soon as the cage is opened it quickly entered inside
even before his mate left it.

~~~
gerbilly
The researchers found that rats rarely opened empty cages, or cages containing
a toy rat.

~~~
nxzero
(Maybe the real rats smelled like food, were a sign of food, etc.)

~~~
gweinberg
Maybe, but in that case you'd expect more male rats to be cage openers than
females.

~~~
nxzero
Not following, what's the link between male rats, opening cages, and foraging
for food?

------
known
Scary if they're so smart :)

------
grecy
I feel certain that in the near future we will discover animals are _a lot_
smarter and more emotionally developed than we currently realize, and future
generations will look back on our treatment of them with disgust.

~~~
d0100
If an animal can't communicate complex thought, he is just an animal. No
matter how "smart" or "emotionally developed" they appear.

Until then it's just instinct.

And if the day ever arrives, it can just be seen as an evolutionary step for
the species, and not as proof that they where intelligent all along.

~~~
fao_
Define 'complex', and 'communicate'. Are deaf and blind people "just animals",
no matter how -your quotes- "smart" or "emotionally developed" they appear?

~~~
d0100
No need to stretch what I said. Communicate has a well defined meaning: share
or exchange information, news, or ideas. And 'complex' was used to exclude
what I consider instinctual feelings/thoughts: anger, hunger, love, happiness,
obedience, etc.

The deaf and blind can communicate. And even in the case of a human vegetable,
a broken table is still a table.

~~~
fao_
I'm actually not stretching it, I was demonstrating that your limitations
either exclude humans or include animals.

What your limitations seem to ignore is that not only does most of our day-to-
day behaviour fall under what you consider instinctive, but also that you seem
to be ignoring the fact that many animals communicate in languages you might
not necessarily be able to understand (Dogs, for example, communicate mostly
in body language, looks, etc.).

Can you state an example of a complex thought? I can think of a fair amount of
thoughts I would use to denote intelligence that would fall under what you
consider 'instinctual'.

------
projektir
> The idea that we should have moral compunctions about biological reality
> seems absurd to me

Why? We seem to have plenty of moral compunctions about lots of other
biological realities. Otherwise, why do anything at all?

As humans, we have so far not acted in a manner that implies we're completely
OK with biological realities. We keep trying to change them. Hopefully, it
will continue this way.

Most people agree that they do not want to suffer. That's what makes it evil.
It's not a difficult concept.

~~~
Amezarak
> Why? We seem to have plenty of moral compunctions about lots of other
> biological realities.

Do we, in practice? Can you go into more detail?

> Most people agree that they do not want to suffer. That's what makes it
> evil. It's not a difficult concept.

Did we ask the animals too? Maybe the pig consensus is different.

If most people agree they do not want to pay taxes, do taxes become evil?

There is no objective reason to consider 'most people agree on x' as some kind
of objective moral imperative. There is no moral quality to caring what people
want. I don't think this is a very sound basis for an objective morality.

EDIT: What I'm trying to get at is basically this. You're saying that eating
meat (at least meat that necessitates the killing of animals) is morally
wrong. You're saying this because you want to persuade me and the rest of your
audience that eating meat is morally wrong. But you are not a moral authority;
I consult my conscience, which feels entirely guilt-free about the subject,
and my appetite, which feels a positive obligation to eat meat. You're simply
trying to exploit a "hack" in my social animal brain, which is that if you
tell me that something is wrong, you are telling me that other members of the
human herd will judge me unfavorably and perhaps ostracize me or otherwise
punish me.

Some people, but not very many, will be swayed by your attempted brain-
exploit. But I, again, observe that my conscious feels guilt-free, which is a
very strong sign that the people I am surrounded by do not, in fact,
disapprove of my eating meat, and also that the vast majority of people I know
actually eat meat. So somewhere in my hindbrain, I realize that you are (from
my perspective) lying to me, and it will make me instinctively resentful of
you, because you have marked yourself as a member of The Other.

So your 'moral' argument is, objectively, amoral; and for your purposes,
actually counterproductive, useful only when a person is surrounded
overwhelmingly by vegans and vegetarians, who will be able to enforce a shared
social norm. You could, instead, if you want to try an intellectual tack, try
to show how my personal interests are served by becoming a vegetarian, but you
will have to discover some interests and values that strongly outweigh my
predilection for eating meat.

Or what you _could_ do is abandon your moral arguments, temporarily, until a
day when you're worried about punishing the wayward vegans rather than
converting the meat-eaters. You want to make vegans cool, the social elite.
You want to get into the media and fill as many TV shows and movies and
podcasts and YouTube personalities with _cool_ vegans. You want to make people
_want_ to be like you. While you're at it, make animals more important,
anthropomorphize them as much as possible, try to generate as much empathy for
animals as possible - to some degree, this is already being done. And then in
a few decades, if you keep it up, most people will be vegetarians and you can
then start talking about how killing animals for food is evil, and you can
probably even pass a law to that effect. That'd be a way to get some moral
feeling behind it.

~~~
goldenkey
Its pretty moronic to assume that a feeling every animal with a nervous system
avoids, is somehow not proven to be a deplorable state to put sentient life
into. You can play coy semantics but its quite apparent that even primitive
mammals avoid pain.

You can go ahead and spout off arguments about us being biological primal
carnivores but that isn't very persuasive considering that the defining aspect
of intellect has always been a higher sense of understanding of good and evil,
and manipulating the environment to support the greater good.

And thus, inflicting pain on beings like us, for extra entropy on taste bud
receptors, seems rather low class and savage. Its one thing to kill. Its an
entirely different thing to buy products from a supermarket that come from a
pipeline of some of the worst acts against a conscious entity one could
imagine themselves waking up in. What separates you from those animals today?
Merely luck. When it is luck that decides the outcome of rather uneven
circumstances, people rally against it. Intelligence presupposes that
consciousness is not a choice, so is punishing someone because they sprouted
into the wrong mammal type something that should be deemed okay?

Do onto others as one would want done onto self. We are experiencers first,
animals second, and humans third, lets not deny the absolute tragedy that is
the conscious experience of millions of livestock. Death is not the enemy of
moral virtue but cruel and unusual life surely is.

~~~
dang
This comment breaks the HN guidelines by being uncivil. We've asked you
repeatedly not to do this. Please don't do it again.

~~~
goldenkey
I'm going to ask again, aside from the word "moronic" which I called an
opinion, not a person. What exactly is uncivil? I gave a cogent argument about
the issue at hand. If you have issue with a single word as a moderator, it
would fit to specifically point that out, rather than call my entire post
uncivil. This is clearly a decisive issue with strong opinions.

~~~
dang
"Moronic" is a textbook example of calling names in the way the HN guidelines
ask you not to:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
That's bad anywhere, and the worst kind of thing to lead with.

"You can go ahead and spout off" and "You can play coy semantics" come across
as personal jabs. Such phrases are a kind of elbowing. You may feel that you
didn't mean them personally, but the person who gets the elbow typically
doesn't agree. This is the path to degraded discourse, so please don't do it
here.

~~~
goldenkey
Okay, thanks for the explanations. I will do my best to avoid these things in
the future. Cheers.

------
brunorsini
“In fact there was only one species on the planet more intelligent than
dolphins, and they spent a lot of their time in behavioral research
laboratories running around inside wheels and conduction frighteningly elegant
and subtle experiments on man. The fact that once again man completely
misinterpreted this relationship was entirely according to these creatures’
plans.”

RIP Douglas Adams.

~~~
6stringmerc
Side note: The Black Plague

~~~
GFK_of_xmaspast
My understanding is Yersinia pestis is just as fatal to rats (and fleas) as it
is to people.

------
justratsinacoat
>Did we ask the animals too? Maybe the pig consensus is different

Most mammals react to painful stimuli (which we can provide a baseline for by
testing it on other humans, whom you luckily consider to be reliable enough)
with aversion and fear. We 'ask' this question of many animals quite
frequently, and have throughout history. The answers are reliable and
consistent.

>If most people agree they do not want to pay taxes, do taxes become evil?
There is no objective reason to consider 'most people agree on x' as some kind
of objective moral imperative. There is no moral quality to caring what people
want. I don't think this is a very sound basis for an objective morality

 _starts to construct argument_

 _sees sophistry in re 'suffering' downthread_

Equivocating physical and emotional and social 'suffering'? Nope!

As to your edit, your perspective on other people's perspective is familiar
and disturbing. I think you should reexamine your eagerness to throw around
the word 'objective', your penchant for jumping to conclusions regarding your
interlocutors, and your self-described thresholds for othering members of your
social circle. Or, because you're right and you know it, ignore the entirety
of this post.

~~~
Amezarak
> Equivocating physical and emotional and social 'suffering'? Nope!

I was, but people also inflict physical suffering on themselves, from fasting
to literal self-flagellation and mutilation. There have been people who
offered themselves up for literal torture and sacrifice _gladly_.

> and your self-described thresholds for othering members of your social
> circle.

I was describing how people in general work, not 'othering members of my
social circle.' People do not respond positively to being told something they
do or like is evil. I don't think that is a controversial statement.

~~~
justratsinacoat
>I was, but people also inflict physical suffering on themselves, from fasting
to literal self-flagellation and mutilation. There have been people who
offered themselves up for literal torture and sacrifice gladly

This behaviour you describe is usually mediated by some kind of non-biological
impulse -- like the 'certain' 'knowledge' that the Hairy Thunderer/Cosmic
Muffin will reward this suffering in some future-/afterlife. Those impulses
are all related to the pointless social factors that you decry. These people
suffering is still an evil, even if they ultimately inspire something that
outweighs the evil of their suffering (religious revolution, buying
time/forgiveness for their loved ones, etc). Plus, you're still splitting
hairs because it's not like these individuals are feeling pleasure or not
anticipating pain uncomfortably. Next up, BDSM!

>>>You're simply trying to exploit a "hack" in my social animal brain, which
is that if you tell me that something is wrong, you are telling me that other
members of the human herd will judge me unfavorably and perhaps ostracize me
or otherwise punish me. Some people, but not very many, will be swayed by your
attempted brain-exploit. But I, again, observe that my conscious feels guilt-
free, which is a very strong sign that the people I am surrounded by do not,
in fact, disapprove of my eating meat, and also that the vast majority of
people I know actually eat meat. So somewhere in my hindbrain, I realize that
you are (from my perspective) lying to me, and it will make me instinctively
resentful of you, because you have marked yourself as a member of The Other

You typed this, right? Then you typed:

>> and your self-described thresholds for othering members of your social
circle.

>I was describing how people in general work, not 'othering members of my
social circle.' People do not respond positively to being told something they
do or like is evil. I don't think that is a controversial statement

Is this how 'people in general work', or is this you Othering someone? Did
your interlocutor turn out to be utilizing the technique you perceived him to
be?

~~~
Dylan16807
> Is this how 'people in general work'

Yes.

> or is this you Othering someone?

Who would be othered by that statement?

> Did your interlocutor turn out to be utilizing the technique you perceived
> him to be?

That statement is about a fact, not anyone else in the conversation, so it
doesn't matter.

~~~
justratsinacoat
>> Is this how 'people in general work'

>Yes.

Well, that was a quick 'discussion'! Glad you came along! Thanks for the
downvote!

~~~
Dylan16807
> Well, that was a quick 'discussion'! Glad you came along!

You're welcome! The discussion of how there is an impulse for people to get
upset and defensive when told they're wrong, and how it impedes learning, is
very well established. It's not worth wasting time on a weird side argument
about it. The answer is just 'yes, that happens a lot'.

Edit:

> Thanks for the downvote!

Hey, feel free to continue with the rest of the conversation without me. I'm
not going to judge. I'm only going to snip at weird unproductive semi-
insulting tangents.

~~~
justratsinacoat
>The discussion of how there is an impulse for people to get upset and
defensive when told they're wrong, and how it impedes learning, is very well
established. It's not worth wasting time on a weird side argument about it.
The answer is just 'yes, that happens a lot'.

What the hell? I guess that's what I must have been talking about! Thanks for
informing me of what I was talking about! I totally agree that "people to get
upset and defensive when told they're wrong, and how it impedes learning"; I'm
experiencing it right now! Of course, now that you've shaped the discussion
toward your end, I won't even try to have a 'conversation' with you.

>Hey, feel free to continue with the rest of the conversation without me. I'm
not going to judge. I'm only going to snip at weird unproductive semi-
insulting tangents

With unproductive semi-insulting tangents; it's almost like-- ah, sorry,
everything is suddenly illuminated. Carry on.

~~~
Dylan16807
> Thanks for informing me of what I was talking about!

That's what the line you quoted said. If you were replying to something else,
you screwed up quoting. I can't tell you what you meant, but I _can_ tell you
what you quoted and said 'is this true?' about.

I'm not trying to shape the discussion as a whole, I'm trying to say "that one
line? don't do that"

I did reply to an off-topic line with an off-topic line. I wanted to be clear
what I was downvoting, and that it wasn't your opinion.

------
cLeEOGPw
An interesting kind of empathy where the "emphatic" rat instantly tries to
fuck rat it just released.

And the article says "where the rat has nothing to gain". Might want to
reevaluate that.

------
percept
Love it. Go rats.

