
Brains of the Animal Kingdom: Research shows we've underestimated - rdl
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323869604578370574285382756.html
======
Lost_BiomedE
After working a while with animal behavior and neuro-research, I tend to ask
myself if there is proof an animal can't do something rather than if they can.
They usually learn slower than humans, depending on animal and task, but they
can learn complex tasks. What they fail at usually tends to be due to physical
limitations such as visual acuity. I don't think we have found the limits of
what many animals can do but we are raising the bar slowly. It takes a lot of
thought and work to design an experiment with a complex task correctly.

Of Note: Pigeons can classify a Picasso from a Monet at an expert level and
peck their answer within 300ms:
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1334394/>. They were tested on
assembly lines to pick out defective parts. They did better than humans but
were not used due to decreased moral of other humans on the line. This was
done in the early 60's I believe. Here is an article on it in the New
Scientist (1962)
[http://books.google.com/books?id=HxU-9UeDCI0C&pg=PA498&#...</a>

~~~
Draco6slayer
It's probably rude, but I think that the fact about the decreased morale is
somewhat hilarious. Just picture the situation where you have a whole bunch of
assembly line workers being ousted by pigeons. What would it feel like to know
that a bird is better at your job than you? It's just absurd.

~~~
DavidSJ
Somehow it offends one's dignity less to be ousted by a robot.

------
uptown
I have no question that animals far exceed the cognitive capabilities most
humans give them credit for. It saddens me that there's such a massive void in
knowledge about this world we live in. I wonder how much more advanced humans
would be if more time were spent expanding that knowledge instead of
gratifying our other pleasure-systems by focusing instead on increasing bank
account balances, political power, or participating in destructive conflicts
with other humans. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge seems to be turning
into one of those huge unappreciated things that seems to have been degraded
in its worth unless it's able to be leveraged to some competitive advantage.

~~~
xk_id
Thank you! You are a great human.

~~~
lukifer
Whether intended ironically or not, this comment amused me. (Knowledge
seeking, moral high ground, and social approval are also pleasure-reward
systems; not that there's anything wrong with that!)

Carry on; both of you are fantastic humans. :)

~~~
xk_id
No, it wasn't intended ironically! I resonated because the other day I spoke
with an academician in business studies, who was researching how corporations
can make more money...

I argue that consumerist systems of ideas are essentially against human
nature, fundamentally flawed. Because they focus locally, history-wise; "me,
now, need that. yes, good. more. thank you."

 _In the mean time_ , humans are a uniquely interdependent species, in that
they are interdependent not just in space, but also in _time_ – through the
techno-ideological legacies that are being passed on to next generations (and
research is at the heart of all that). So, any endeavour that does not _start_
as a concern for the future, _and_ for the next generations, is against our
very human nature... You know, somebody put it well: "for the most part, what
we are surrounded by is not the dead work of the living, it is the living work
of the dead." :)

Also, I believe that with the advent of computers, it has _never_ been a
better time in human history to do science (then, again, I also believe the
statement could have been made at any point in human history. See above.) The
computational power, the software, and Google – the great minds of our past
would have surely looked at those and believe they are the holy grail of
humanity. And the most amazing part is, that they empower _anybody_ to conduct
research.

In sciences, I find meaning and sanity. And people behave like gentlemen. Yes,
that is pleasurable and deeply satisfying; but it is also preferable to the
materialistic hysterias, which created so many socio-economic problems – proof
of their lack of human ecology.

I hope I made a strong argument :)

I saw somebody say this in a Youtube video: "Stay human. Stay curious. And let
the entire world know that you are."

~~~
brianchu
What is "human nature?" Anyone making the claim that "X" is part of human
nature, but "Y" is not part of human nature, needs to be very careful. Because
the fact that humans do both X and Y is already evidence that both are a part
of human nature. The fact that humans are consumerists that focus locally
proves that consumerism is a part of human nature, _by definition_.

Sure, you could point to the influence of the media and how it shapes our
behavior. But then again, the media is a social construct, something we humans
have created and directed at ourselves. Thus, once again, the construction of
mass media is also a part of human nature. All this would prove is that human
nature is highly malleable.

How can you even begin to argue that something is "against our very human
nature?" The fact that humans do that behavior is evidence it is in our human
nature. You see, making such a claim relies on some inherently non-human
standard of determining human nature and morality (since it seems your
argument has to do with morality).

I think you made an exceedingly weak argument, by relying on such hand-wavy
and self-defined notions as "human nature."

~~~
coldtea
> _What is "human nature?" Anyone making the claim that "X" is part of human
> nature, but "Y" is not part of human nature, needs to be very careful.
> Because the fact that humans do both X and Y is already evidence that both
> are a part of human nature._

Or that other people had fucked up society so much (for their own benefit,
unrelated to X and Y), so that people are forced to do Y.

Like, for example, being a child prostitute.

Nothing in human nature (outliers excluded) makes a child want to prostitute
itself. But they do it, all over the world, either because they are threatened
with violence, or because they have to eat and it's something they can do to
achieve that.

I gave an extreme example -- normal prostitution is equally off. As are tons
of other things (working 16 hour shifts at some shitty factory in China for
example, or eating fast food crap day in and day out), but those are not as
controversial and people accept them more.

~~~
argonaut
All you have shown is that it is within human nature for humans to force other
humans to do terrible things (i.e. to fuck up society)

~~~
coldtea
No, you missed the other part I have shown, which cames naturally from the
above: that there are things that are forced upon some humans, and thus not a
part of their nature or natural tendencies.

~~~
argonaut
Uh... no. All you have shown is that it is within human nature to do something
you don't want to do because you are being forced to (because you fear being
killed or being beaten, or because you are desperately trying to survive).

------
dgreensp
_Other primates had been tested, but they had been tested on human faces --
based on the assumption that ours are the easiest to tell apart._

::face-palm::

~~~
nessus42
Yes, if that's really true one has to wonder about the common sense of the
scientists who did that research!

~~~
Houshalter
Well if it turned out that they _could_ tell apart human faces that would be
an interesting result. But it certainly doesn't prove that they can't
distinguish members of their own species, if that is what the researchers were
claiming.

------
georgemcbay
"For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more
intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York,
wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the
water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed
that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons."

\- Douglas Adams

------
Whm0102
The things listed are kind of old... this discussion has been going on for a
while. Goldfish and tit for tat, fish and tool use, none of it is really
new... so the implication that we're just getting to it isn't quite accurate,
and the article didn't even mention what little actually is unique to humans.
If you want an interesting talk about "uniqueness" Robert Sapolsky has one
from a few years back that has been highlighted on ted, but I feel like the
way it is approached in the article implies it is new, and it is not.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_h...](http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html)

One thing that is not correct is that humans are unique in sex not being used
solely for reproduction, bonobos are very reliant on sex for social purposes.

------
rdl
A lot of those seemed like really striking examples of bad experiment design.
I wish there were more venues for publishing negative results (as well as
experimental setup for failed experimental design) -- I know sometimes it is
done for really "interesting" negative results, but there's a strong bias
against publishing when you don't see what you want, in the conventional
journal system.

------
darkxanthos
This is my belief too and a reason I'm vegetarian. In my mind the chance of us
eventually beginning to see animals as more and more people like are VERY
good. I don't want to look back over the last 20 years and realize that I
killed and ate so many people especially since it is unnecessary.

Part of my chain of reasoning is seeing how black people were referred to as
animals and their intelligence and general ability was VERY much
underestimated since we are in fact all human beings. Then seeing all of the
research we've done with dolphins. They have their own language and social
structure. Even bees have a language that we're just now beginning to
understand.

In fact, the more research we do, the more evidence we seem to find that we've
sold "animals" short.

~~~
ams6110
Animals eating each other is part of the nature of our existence. I myself
don't feel any guilt about it.

~~~
guygurari
I am a vegan for moral reasons, and I have no objection to people eating
animals. What I do object to is the horrifying daily torture that animals must
suffer in the meat, dairy and eggs industry. I am guessing this is where some
of your food comes from.

In my experience, people who have no qualms about using animal-based products
are ignorant of the realities of how these products are made. I encourage you
to watch Earthlings [1] -- free to watch on their site -- and see if you feel
the same way once you've seen some evidence.

[1] <http://earthlings.com/>

~~~
mlent
As a fellow vegan, I have to ask -- why be vegan if you have no objection to
people eating animals, if they are raised/slaughtered "humanely"? Why not just
buy local meat/dairy/eggs? At least where I live, it's pretty easy to meet
farmers at a farmer's market and talk to them about how their animals are
treated.

~~~
guygurari
First, I doubt we would be able to agree on a viable definition of "humane"
commercial farming. But even if we did, I would not take the farmer's word for
how the animals are treated. What I have heard from a former farmhand, who
worked on several small farms, is that abuse of animals is simply the norm.

It sounds reasonable to me that this is the situation, except perhaps in very
small farms. History has taught me this: whenever humans have physical control
over other humans, they tend to abuse their subjects in terrible ways.
Slavery. The Holocaust. Gulags. North Korean concentration camps. It seems to
me that the way we are treating animals is simply a manifestation of this
tendency toward sadism. It is not difficult to find recorded evidence of pure
sadism playing out both in small and large farms. Since I have no way to
verify a given farmer's claims, I will not take the risk.

Second, a well-balanced, strictly vegetarian diet is far more healthy than a
diet that is based on animal products [1,2]. I know that many people do not
believe this, and they base their views on the vast amount of disinformation
that is out there. To get to the truth you have to listen to the experts. The
book [1] I am citing was written by Dr. Walter Willett, one of the leading
researchers on the relation between nutrition and disease. His recommendation
is basically to eat as I suggested above. More precisely, he recommends (based
on decades of research) to reduce animal-based foods as much as possible, and
to reduce processed foods in favor of whole foods. There are of course
additional recommendations that I will not go into.

[1] [http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Healthy-
Harvard/dp/074326...](http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Healthy-
Harvard/dp/0743266420)

[2] <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30gEiweaAVQ>

~~~
solarbunny
Vegetarian diet more healthy? In what criterion? Lean body mass? Sprint speed?
Hint: vegetarians are known to be slow [1]. I think whether vegetarian diet is
more healthy depends on personal traits: gut flora, genetics, even climate one
lives. Basically there is no such one-fits-all scenario for a diet.

[1] Louise Burke - Clinical Sports Nutrition

~~~
mlent
You're less likely to have numerous health problems by following a vegetarian
diet. As a vegetarian you are, for example, less likely to have heart disease,
the number one killer in the United States. [1] Interestingly, some of the
oldest people in the world eat a primarily plant-based diet (though not
exclusively). [2]

The issue is that you need a _well planned_ veg diet. You can't just eat
french fries and white bread and expect to maintain your health, obviously.
For me, after a couple months of tracking my food and learning the
calories/fat/protein of a lot of plant foods, I don't really have to think
hard about creating well-balanced meals. It's a learning process.

I'm sure it's possible to have a healthy diet that includes a very small
amount of non-red meat. That small amount is probably not going to hurt you
_that much_. [3] However, you can get every vital nutrient you would get from
meat from a plant source without the tacked-on fat and cholesterol.

[1] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/vegetarians-
heart-h...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/30/vegetarians-heart-health-
die-hospitalization_n_2583115.html)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-
where-...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/28/magazine/the-island-where-people-
forget-to-die.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

[3] [http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/study-urges-moderation-
in...](http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/study-urges-moderation-in-red-meat-
intake-201203134490)

~~~
rdouble
You can't get B12 from any plant source, though.

~~~
mlent
Not from plants, but from micro-organisms and bacteria! Yum! Many of my foods
are fortified with B12.

50% DV in my soy/almond milk, 40% in a single tbsp of nutritional yeast. I
have a cup with cereal in the morning and a cup with dinner at night and I'm
set. It's quite easy.

~~~
rdouble
Personally, I'd rather get a shot than have to eat nutritional yeast.

~~~
mlent
Are you kidding? Nutritional yeast is delicious! You can put it on popcorn,
include it in any recipe that calls for Parmesan (like risotto or cheesy
pastas), use it for breading tofu, use it to make vegan mac n cheese. I love
nutritional yeast...in case you can't tell. :) It just has an awful name.

------
xk_id
Excellent article!

A couple of observations...

"Aristotle's idea of the scala naturae, the ladder of nature, put all life-
forms in rank order, from low to high, with humans closest to the angels.
During the Enlightenment, the French philosopher René Descartes, a founder of
modern science, declared that animals were soulless automatons. In the 20th
century, the American psychologist B.F. Skinner and his followers took up the
same theme, painting animals as little more than stimulus-response machines."
<\- rudimentary systems of ideas.

And I kindof gasped towards the end of the article, when I read this: "The one
historical constant in my field is that each time a claim of human uniqueness
bites the dust, other claims quickly take its place. Meanwhile, science keeps
chipping away at the wall that separates us from the other animals."

I mean, as I said, excellent article, but let's not falsify _by omission_. We
are the only species who can build on previous generations' achievements; and
the only species who can abstract indefinitely (i.e, always make a statement
about a previous statement). These are both due to the special linguistic
behaviours we are capable of.

~~~
tokipin
there's probably a lot of examples of knowledge in animals that is passed from
generation to generation, like say the knowledge of how to crack open nuts
with rocks

we definitely have something most animals don't, but that something may be
more of a degree thing than a kind thing

~~~
derleth
> we definitely have something most animals don't

"Religion and control of fire" seem to be the big things that humans have and
no non-human animal has. "Language with recursive grammar" is a possible
differentiator, but that's currently up for debate.

~~~
yareally
I would amend that list and add conscience and the ability to question what is
moral or not. Animals in some cases may have limited capabilities, but other
animals, such as cats and their sadistic behaviors, I would question.

~~~
xk_id
Somebody else posted this in the same thread:
[http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_h...](http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html).
It overviews sharp distinctions between the behaviours of animals and humans.

------
gwern
Also worth reading: "If a Lion Could Talk: Animal Intelligence and the
Evolution of Consciousness"
[http://web.archive.org/web/20090416230704/http://www.nytimes...](http://web.archive.org/web/20090416230704/http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/b/budiansky-
lion.html)

------
Alex3917
If by 'we' the authors of this article mean people who only believe things
that have been 'proven' by science, then the intelligence of animals will
always be underestimated by definition.

------
jkaljundi
You could also say we've vastly overestimated the intelligence of human
animals.

~~~
fkdjs
In that respect, I would say we are separating into different species.

------
nicrogo
I've realised a long time ago that human knowledge on animal intelligence was
underrated. They may not be able to predict future observations nor to be able
to remember trivial events from the past nor to create or use tools, but when
you take a closer look at them, whether they are insects, fish or mammals,
they can all sense danger and opportunity in nature. It's no automatic
reflexes but true analytics of their environment. After all a worm is said to
have an IQ of 1 when the IQ of a computer is 0. Animal kingdom is smarter than
previously thought and most of them probably have emotions like fear, pain &
empathy. This is no anthropomorphism but a true fact.

------
jessedhillon
Here's the author's Wikipedia page
<http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frans_de_Waal>

------
sudo_robin
Should we be saying "Research shows research underestimated"

------
benched
I have always believed that we were nowhere near over our chauvinism as a
species in this regard.

