Chimps are smarter!

[Gracchus]

I just watched a remarkable video. It was apparently first shown on the PBS program, Nova.


It is called “Ape Genius”, and it explores the differences between the minds of humans, chimps and bonobos. (You can get a copy at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/apegenius/ )

One passage was particularly striking to me.

A chimp was shown a box.. The human teacher tapped the box with a stick, pushed aside two rods, opening a hole, Then the stick was jabbed into the hole a number of times, Then a door in the side of the box was opened and a piece of candy extracted. The chimps learned to copy the teacher in very short order. In the same way, children learned the trick.

Now the opaque box was replaced by a clear box. The chimps quickly realized that tapping the box, pushing aside the two rods on top and jabbing the stick into the hole on top was unnecessary. They learned, for themselves, to dispense with the tapping, pushing, and poking, and went right for the candy behind the door.

The children continued to go through the whole procedure.




It was for me, one of those “AHA!” moments.


Humans will continue to do as they have been taught, even when part of what they have been taught is obviously useless. So some human children are in this instance are, apparently, not smarter than chimps. They are not even as smart.




Just so, some humans, having been taught that Goddidit, continue to maintain that position even when science has shown how the phenomena occur without the necessity of magical or divine intervention. The Christian for instance has learned his Bible, his prayerbook, his worship rituals, and his dogma. He doesn't, like any reasonable chimp, cut to the chase and treat his neighbor as he would like himself to be treated. He demands the whole elaborate, useless rituals, prayers and dogmas, and may dispense with the payoff, social responsibility, entirely.

Some human adults may demonstrate as great an intelligence as chimps, and dispense with the useless parts of the procedure.




I do see an possible evolutionary upside to this behavior, but I won't go into it here unless someone is really interested.

 

[Maxwell511]

That was one of the most interesting studies I ever heard.

I personally think it shows that we are smarter than chimps, and I reject your conclusions about the implications of the study. We are smarter.

 

[Gracchus]

That was one of the most interesting studies I ever heard.

I personally think it shows that we are smarter than chimps, and I reject your conclusions about the implications of the study. We are smarter.

The chimps saw that tapping the box with a stick, pushing back the rods and poking the stick into the hole did nothing, and learned by themselves that all they had to do was open the door and take the candy. Children could see the same thing as the chimps but continued to perform the useless actions they had been taught. How does that show that the children are smarter than chimps?

Unless... You have been taught that humans have to be smarter than chimps. So even when it has been demonstrated to you that chimps are in some way smarter that humans you will deny the evidence and continue to believe that humans have to be smarter than chimps because that is what you have been taught.

Chimps can learn from each other and they can learn from humans. they can also learn from observation. What chimps apparently do not do is set out to teach. That seems to be unique to humans. So it is not surprising that what is taught, even if it is useless or wrong is preferred by some humans over observation, evidence and reason.

It seems that what humans are not so clever at as chimps is "unlearning"!

 

[AV1611VET]

Now the opaque box was replaced by a clear box. The chimps quickly realized that tapping the box, pushing aside the two rods on top and jabbing the stick into the hole on top was unnecessary. They learned, for themselves, to dispense with the tapping, pushing, and poking, and went right for the candy behind the door.

The children continued to go through the whole procedure.

Um ... excuse me, I don't mean to interrupt here, but look at this paragraph.

You said the chimps 'quickly realized' and 'learned to dispense' ... but then you said the children continued to go through the whole procedure.

I take it that both the chimps and the children kept right on using the stick, did they not?

You mentioned the chimps learning, but you cut the story off short with the children.

Did the children eventually 'learn to dispense' with the stick as well?

If so, what does this prove? that the chimps gave the stick up first?

So what?

Why wouldn't that show that the children are more cautious, and not willing to quickly abandon one routine for another?

What's that saying?

Atheists rush in where angels dare to trod?

Something like that.

 

[Hespera]

That was one of the most interesting studies I ever heard.

I personally think it shows that we are smarter than chimps, and I reject your conclusions about the implications of the study. We are smarter.

Perfect example of the implications of the study!

 

[Maxwell511]

The chimps saw that tapping the box with a stick, pushing back the rods and poking the stick into the hole did nothing, and learned by themselves that all they had to do was open the door and take the candy. Children could see the same thing as the chimps but continued to perform the useless actions they had been taught. How does that show that the children are smarter than chimps?

It shows that the children are engaging in abstract reasoning i.e. that they are smarter than the chimp by any working definition of intelligence that we currently have.

Unless... You have been taught that humans have to be smarter than chimps. So even when it has been demonstrated to you that chimps are in some way smarter that humans you will deny the evidence and continue to believe that humans have to be smarter than chimps because that is what you have been taught.

Validity of an argument and the truth value of facts are different things. I am not denying the results of the study, I am denying your conclusions.

Chimps can learn from each other and they can learn from humans. they can also learn from observation. What chimps apparently do not do is set out to teach.

Because they can't. It is not that chimps do not set to teach, it is because they can't. Chimps learn through observation they are incapable of abstract reasoning in any significant sense and therefore incapable of teaching.

That seems to be unique to humans. So it is not surprising that what is taught, even if it is useless or wrong is preferred by some humans over observation, evidence and reason.

In order to reason in any sufficient manner you need to deny reality. You need to be able to almost lie to yourself. That is what the children did, that is what Newton did when he came up with the idea of an infinitesimal. The study seems to show that chimps seem to be incapable of that. We are smarter.

Reasoning is not based on reality, it is largely deductive and not inductive. The chimps seem to only induce while the children are using deductive reasoning.

It seems that what humans are not so clever at as chimps is "unlearning"!

Not really. This was not the only study done on the cognitive differences between chimps and children. There is some basic stuff that kids can do that chimps are incapable of, such as understanding that the weight of a falling object affects its energy. You seem to be anthropomorphizing the chimp and reaching incorrect conclusions based on the idea that they think like us. They don't.

 

[Maxwell511]

Perfect example of the implications of the study!

 

[Supreme]

A single study doesn't show that chimps are smarter than humanity.

We are, without reasonable doubt, the most intelligent species on the planet. Chimps, despite being very close to us on the phylogenetic tree, are actually not as smart as us.

 

[Naraoia]

Oh, overimitation! I heard about it in a talk about culture a while back, and my first reaction was: that doesn't make sense I'm still not sure it does...

It seems that what humans are not so clever at as chimps is "unlearning"!

Actually, it's slightly more complicated than that. Towards the end, this review describes experiments in which human children who were shown one method to get a reward were a lot better at later adopting a new, more productive method than chimps:

[J]uvenile chimpanzees first learned, through observation of a human model, to slide a cover that revealed a hidden hole in an artificial foraging box and insert a probe to extract honey. They then saw the same model using the probe to push in an obscured catch so that, by inserting the probe in the dipping hole, the hinged lid could be levered open to gain all the honey inside, plus several nuts.

Instead of adopting this potential step-up in cumulative culture, the chimpanzees stuck to their dipping, gaining only a few licks of honey each time. This was not because the task was too difficult, because some control youngsters that saw no model did explore and discover the more complex technique. We have now tested 3- and 4-year-old children's responses in a similar test (figure 6: see electronic supplementary material, methods). Despite the fact that the second, more productive method was made slightly more challenging for the children by the addition of a sliding cover over the crucial catch holding the lid closed, eight of 12 children already using the dipping technique evidenced cumulation by upgrading to the second technique and another three children appeared to attempt the beginning of it: only one persisted in dipping (table 1).

​

What it looks like to me is that chimps are more able to switch to less faithful copying when they can see the internal workings of the task (and hence identify irrelevant actions of the model), but more set in their ways when that information is not available.

It shows that the children are engaging in abstract reasoning i.e. that they are smarter than the chimp by any working definition of intelligence that we currently have.

Where does the experiment described say anything about abstract reasoning?

Because they can't. It is not that chimps do not set to teach, it is because they can't. Chimps learn through observation they are incapable of abstract reasoning in any significant sense and therefore incapable of teaching.

Do you think ants are capable of abstract reasoning? They provide one of the few clear examples of teaching outside humans.

In order to reason in any sufficient manner you need to deny reality. You need to be able to almost lie to yourself. That is what the children did, that is what Newton did when he came up with the idea of an infinitesimal. The study seems to show that chimps seem to be incapable of that. We are smarter.

Is it really what the children did, though? Or did they, in fact, have a different perception of reality from you, the outsider in the know?

See, the kids are clearly ignoring/misperceiving something, but I'm not sure I would call that "reasoning" as much as a giant socially induced blind spot. Why would "reasoning" make them perform the task in a less efficient way? (Which they keep doing even when they're warned against it, unless the irrelevant actions blatantly violate their understanding of causality!)

Reasoning is not based on reality, it is largely deductive and not inductive.

I would dearly love to know where that conviction comes from. When I read your comments about abstract thought and reasoning, my first thought was the Wason task. It's a very simple deductive reasoning task, and reasonably smart adult humans spectacularly fail it unless it's presented in a "reality" (read: social) context.

The chimps seem to only induce while the children are using deductive reasoning.

Could you explain that in a bit more detail? I'm not sure I understand where you see inductive and deductive reasoning in this experiment.

Not really. This was not the only study done on the cognitive differences between chimps and children. There is some basic stuff that kids can do that chimps are incapable of, such as understanding that the weight of a falling object affects its energy. You seem to be anthropomorphizing the chimp and reaching incorrect conclusions based on the idea that they think like us. They don't.

That depends on your threshold for "like us".

 

[Son of the King]

I just watched a remarkable video. It was apparently first shown on the PBS program, Nova.


It is called “Ape Genius”, and it explores the differences between the minds of humans, chimps and bonobos. (You can get a copy at NOVA | Ape Genius | PBS )

One passage was particularly striking to me.

A chimp was shown a box.. The human teacher tapped the box with a stick, pushed aside two rods, opening a hole, Then the stick was jabbed into the hole a number of times, Then a door in the side of the box was opened and a piece of candy extracted. The chimps learned to copy the teacher in very short order. In the same way, children learned the trick.

Now the opaque box was replaced by a clear box. The chimps quickly realized that tapping the box, pushing aside the two rods on top and jabbing the stick into the hole on top was unnecessary. They learned, for themselves, to dispense with the tapping, pushing, and poking, and went right for the candy behind the door.

The children continued to go through the whole procedure.




It was for me, one of those “AHA!” moments.


Humans will continue to do as they have been taught, even when part of what they have been taught is obviously useless. So some human children are in this instance are, apparently, not smarter than chimps. They are not even as smart.




Just so, some humans, having been taught that Goddidit, continue to maintain that position even when science has shown how the phenomena occur without the necessity of magical or divine intervention. The Christian for instance has learned his Bible, his prayerbook, his worship rituals, and his dogma. He doesn't, like any reasonable chimp, cut to the chase and treat his neighbor as he would like himself to be treated. He demands the whole elaborate, useless rituals, prayers and dogmas, and may dispense with the payoff, social responsibility, entirely.

Some human adults may demonstrate as great an intelligence as chimps, and dispense with the useless parts of the procedure.




I do see an possible evolutionary upside to this behavior, but I won't go into it here unless someone is really interested.

Oh no, are we foolish enough to believe the next step could be this?

Then this?

Maybe even this?

A chimp beat a human child to candy. What will come of the world as we know it?

 

[corvus_corax]

A chimp was shown a box.. The human teacher tapped the box with a stick, pushed aside two rods, opening a hole, Then the stick was jabbed into the hole a number of times, Then a door in the side of the box was opened and a piece of candy extracted. The chimps learned to copy the teacher in very short order. In the same way, children learned the trick.

Now the opaque box was replaced by a clear box. The chimps quickly realized that tapping the box, pushing aside the two rods on top and jabbing the stick into the hole on top was unnecessary. They learned, for themselves, to dispense with the tapping, pushing, and poking, and went right for the candy behind the door.

The children continued to go through the whole procedure.




It was for me, one of those “AHA!” moments.


Humans will continue to do as they have been taught, even when part of what they have been taught is obviously useless. So some human children are in this instance are, apparently, not smarter than chimps. They are not even as smart.

This sound more like the "superstition" that many humans embrace.
Chimps may not be prone to pre-programmed actions when a direct result is desired, yet humans continue to throw salt over their shoulder ('hey, it worked before'), consult astrology ('well it was correct once before'), and avoid walking under a ladder ('there was this one time I did that, and a year later, my wife divorced me')

Just throwing that out as a possibility.


Now I'm going to watch the rest of this show (fascinating stuff, LOVE how chimps are fashioning spears and actively hunting other mammals with them!)

 

[Chesterton]

Humans will continue to do as they have been taught, even when part of what they have been taught is obviously useless. So some human children are in this instance are, apparently, not smarter than chimps. They are not even as smart.

Seems simple to me. The children were shown to do something, and reasonably assumed they were supposed to do it, whereas the chimps were unable to reason out that assumption. That's all.

 

[corvus_corax]

Seems simple to me. The children were shown to do something, and reasonably assumed they were supposed to do it, whereas the chimps were unable to reason out that assumption. That's all.

Seems simple to me. The children were shown to do something, and reasonably assumed they were supposed to do it, whereas the chimps were able to see the immediate solution without tapping and pushing the bars.
The chimps were more pragmatic than 4-6 year old humans* and far less "superstitious".

It really is that simple.


*I'm guessing on their age due to appearance only.

 

[Maxwell511]

Where does the experiment described say anything about abstract reasoning?

It shows to me that the children are not basing their reasoning on reality as say perceived by the chimp. They are solving a completely different and more abstract problem than the chimps. The chimp is concerned with just getting the food and the children are concerned about what the actions represent. Not what the actions do, but what they represent. They are in essence imagining the exist of an abstract concept, that while in this case isn't there, does not mean they are less intelligent than the chimp. It shows that their brain is capable of doing something that the chimp can't.

Btw I was never given the suggestion by this study that if the chimp and the children were given the clear box. That the chimp would outperform the children when both were given no fraudulent instructions. Noone is suggesting that the chimps can do this task and children cannot. It is suggesting that the children will engage in what we can consider to be abstract thought that we consider weird by modern scientific social standards.

This is not surprising, I never heard of chimps having imaginary tea parties. Kids do this all the time and it is not actively discouraged as somehow being less intelligent. This ability to believe falsehoods despite objective evidence sets the foundation of human intelligence. Intelligence differences between us and other apes being the ability to reason efficiently and not necessarily the ability to reason effectively. Believing falsehoods allows the brain to process more potential solutions.

Of course this becomes a subjective valuation on whether it is better to a supercomputer that sometimes produces incorrect results or a pocket calculator that is always accurate. I'd prefer the supercomputer if we are able to test its findings against objective evidence, which we can.

Do you think ants are capable of abstract reasoning? They provide one of the few clear examples of teaching outside humans.

Maybe.

Is it really what the children did, though? Or did they, in fact, have a different perception of reality from you, the outsider in the know?

Have you ever talk to children. They do weird stuff like this all the time. The problem is not them being wrong it is believing that others are not. Once they get an education they tend to self correct for this.

See, the kids are clearly ignoring/misperceiving something, but I'm not sure I would call that "reasoning" as much as a giant socially induced blind spot. Why would "reasoning" make them perform the task in a less efficient way? (Which they keep doing even when they're warned against it, unless the irrelevant actions blatantly violate their understanding of causality!)

Because the child's brain is learning to process information in a very efficient manner. It is not learning to do specific tasks. Tasks that our ancestors wouldn't really do at that age and which are unnecessary from an evolutionary perspective.

I would dearly love to know where that conviction comes from. When I read your comments about abstract thought and reasoning, my first thought was the Wason task. It's a very simple deductive reasoning task, and reasonably smart adult humans spectacularly fail it unless it's presented in a "reality" (read: social) context.

Makes sense. We are largely a social species and being correct on social things is more important than on others. Again the human brain did not evolve to be correct just incredibly fast.

Could you explain that in a bit more detail? I'm not sure I understand where you see inductive and deductive reasoning in this experiment.

Take for example the role that beauty plays in truth assessment. Imagine I give you a picture of two sets of dots and ask if they have the same number in each. Unless you have time to count them, you brain will produce a false answer more if the dots are symmetrically placed. I don't think chimps would do this. I think the chimps will try to count them or at least not give any bias to the symmetric sets.

Notice the difference here. The human brain seems to be saying, if not in a conscious manner, if symmetry then yes. That is deductive reasoning. Not valid, however it is still deductive. I don't think chimps do this. Because I think from their evolutionary point of view it is more important to be right than to be fast.

It should be noted that the human brain in the above case is forming preferences before any kind of rational decision can be made and will use that preference if rational means are not available for temporal or other reasons. This seems to be a better system than what apes do.

That depends on your threshold for "like us".

We are a lot less rational in how we process information that other animals. However it is compensate by the amount of information we can process. The children acting in this manner is fundamental to us and it is this fundamental difference that makes us more intelligent than the chimps.

 

[Chesterton]

Seems simple to me. The children were shown to do something, and reasonably assumed they were supposed to do it, whereas the chimps were able to see the immediate solution without tapping and pushing the bars.
The chimps were more pragmatic than 4-6 year old humans* and far less "superstitious".

It really is that simple.


*I'm guessing on their age due to appearance only.

But the children are not told to find a solution, nor told to be pragmatic. The guy says to the child "this game we're going to play", and are shown something to imitate. Parts of the box even look like some toys which were popular when I was a kid (but I'm drawing a blank on what they were called). Each of the children are smiling as he goes through the rigmarole; they obviosly think it's fun. Children like to pretend things. Plus I know kids like candy but I have to think wild animals are more hard-wired to quickly acquire any free food they see.

 

[Hespera]

But the children are not told to find a solution, nor told to be pragmatic. The guy says to the child "this game we're going to play", and are shown something to imitate. Parts of the box even look like some toys which were popular when I was a kid (but I'm drawing a blank on what they were called). Each of the children are smiling as he goes through the rigmarole; they obviosly think it's fun. Children like to pretend things. Plus I know kids like candy but I have to think wild animals are more hard-wired to quickly acquire any free food they see.

Psychological experiments are not exact or exactly science!

 

[Naraoia]

It shows to me that the children are not basing their reasoning on reality as say perceived by the chimp. They are solving a completely different and more abstract problem than the chimps. The chimp is concerned with just getting the food and the children are concerned about what the actions represent. Not what the actions do, but what they represent.

Or maybe they are not concerned with anything at all. I think you're constructing a whole theory out of far too little evidence.

Have you ever talk to children. They do weird stuff like this all the time. The problem is not them being wrong it is believing that others are not. Once they get an education they tend to self correct for this.

IIRC, older children are even worse at the task than the younger ones. And adults may be as bad as kids. From Whiten et al. 2009:

A copy-all, correct-later strategy may be far from limited to childhood. In our ongoing research in this paradigm, we have recently tested adults and found that the trend we earlier documented, of increasing over-copying with age, is extended into adulthood, with adults showing an even higher tendency to act in this way than our 5-year-old sample (unpublished data).

So, no, education has nothing to do with it.

Because the child's brain is learning to process information in a very efficient manner. It is not learning to do specific tasks. Tasks that our ancestors wouldn't really do at that age and which are unnecessary from an evolutionary perspective.

Again, where is the evidence? How do you know they are learning something general (and that the chimps are not) from a single experiment training them on a single task?

Makes sense. We are largely a social species and being correct on social things is more important than on others. Again the human brain did not evolve to be correct just incredibly fast.

But the fact remains that humans consistently get basic deduction wrong if the problem is presented in an abstract form. AFAIK, there's no similar discrepancy in, say, adults' performance in basic arithmetic in different contexts.

If the fundamental modus operandi of the mind is deductive reasoning, that makes little sense.

To me, the following seems far more likely: humans are likely to encounter a large number of situations in which social rules may be broken and breaking the rules may be punished. We are also very sensitive to social cues. So human minds have plenty of material to work out heuristic rules for certain types of social situations. The abstract task may be more difficult to recognise as the same situation, and hence the rule doesn't kick in.

But the bottom line is that the phenomenon can be explained in terms of either deductive or inductive reasoning.

Take for example the role that beauty plays in truth assessment. Imagine I give you a picture of two sets of dots and ask if they have the same number in each. Unless you have time to count them, you brain will produce a false answer more if the dots are symmetrically placed. I don't think chimps would do this. I think the chimps will try to count them or at least not give any bias to the symmetric sets.

Notice the difference here.

Unless you're citing actual experimental results from chimps, I have no reason to think that there IS a difference. Ergo, there's precious little to "notice".

The human brain seems to be saying, if not in a conscious manner, if symmetry then yes. That is deductive reasoning.

That is a single rule, or bias, or call it what you will. Also keep in mind that IF/THEN rules can be constructed by induction (seeing many examples). (Granted, in this particular case, that doesn't look like the most likely explanation)

Not valid, however it is still deductive.

Actually, it is valid. It's just not sound. It takes the form:

IF symmetrical THEN equal.
Symmetrical
---
THEREFORE equal.

That is a valid argument based on a false premise.

I don't think chimps do this. Because I think from their evolutionary point of view it is more important to be right than to be fast.

What you think is hardly an arbiter of truth

It should be noted that the human brain in the above case is forming preferences before any kind of rational decision can be made and will use that preference if rational means are not available for temporal or other reasons. This seems to be a better system than what apes do.

But you know nothing of what apes do, do you?

We are a lot less rational in how we process information that other animals. However it is compensate by the amount of information we can process. The children acting in this manner is fundamental to us and it is this fundamental difference that makes us more intelligent than the chimps.

I'm sorry, this is pure waffle. Oh, I'll agree that we are smarter than chimps. You're just not arguing it very convincingly as far as I'm concerned.

But the children are not told to find a solution, nor told to be pragmatic. The guy says to the child "this game we're going to play", and are shown something to imitate. Parts of the box even look like some toys which were popular when I was a kid (but I'm drawing a blank on what they were called). Each of the children are smiling as he goes through the rigmarole; they obviosly think it's fun. Children like to pretend things. Plus I know kids like candy but I have to think wild animals are more hard-wired to quickly acquire any free food they see.

I take it the film doesn't cover Lyons et al. 2007, then. The paper is free, and very interesting. Basically, even when the kids are told to avoid irrelevant ("silly and unnecessary") actions, and rewarded during the training phase for pointing out irrelevant actions performed by the experimenter, they still overimitate.

 

[Maxwell511]

But the children are not told to find a solution, nor told to be pragmatic. The guy says to the child "this game we're going to play", and are shown something to imitate. Parts of the box even look like some toys which were popular when I was a kid (but I'm drawing a blank on what they were called). Each of the children are smiling as he goes through the rigmarole; they obviosly think it's fun. Children like to pretend things. Plus I know kids like candy but I have to think wild animals are more hard-wired to quickly acquire any free food they see.

I'm thinking you are missing the point of the experiment. The experiment is designed in order for the children to do something "irrational" and to see if chimps will act like humans.

In psychological speak the children are being primed so that associated attributions are highly accessible so that obviously false attribute substitution will occur. They know what these results will be, the kids are the control subjects. The experiment is on the chimps, the results are that although they are acting rationally, from a human perspective they are acting weird. This forms an interesting result because it suggests that chimps think differently to us at some fundamental level.

Some theory and its supporting evidence on human cognition (In PDF sorry)

If you understand the above you should get the idea that humans if they had a motto it would be, "If all else fails, then be rational. Also, always irrationally believe you are rational." We already know that humans use (irrational) intuitive reasoning first. We use (rational) reflective reasoning secondly and only after been given a very good reason to do so. We know enough about this that we can design experiments where reflective reasoning will not exist even if it seems obvious enough to those in the know that it should.

The experiment, mentioned in this thread, seems to suggest that chimps think less like us and start engaging in rational problem solving when we wouldn't. The experiment is designed so that the children don't find any reason to think that the "ritual" solutions to the problem are wrong and start questioning it in a reflective manner.

Btw non of this suggests that chimps are smarter than humans unless you are capable of intuitive reasoning. There is not really any reflective argument, I know, to suggest this makes us dumber. I think the converse is true. Remembering that the change in reasoning comes at a cost in brain usage but does not change the solutions outcome, why does the chimp start questioning the solution?

Personally I think that it is a design issue, humans are capable of deducing preemptively whether changing behaviour (i.e. rationally thinking about past and future behaviour) is more energy intensive than chimps. This makes sense for me because the human brain allocates so much energy resources to function. So the child's brain does not start going into the more reflexive mode because the outcome is the same and the potential energy usage for any new rational changes could be a lot more than the energy usage of muscles to move a stick.

 

[Chesterton]

I'm thinking you are missing the point of the experiment. The experiment is designed in order for the children to do something "irrational" and to see if chimps will act like humans.

In psychological speak the children are being primed so that associated attributions are highly accessible so that obviously false attribute substitution will occur. They know what these results will be, the kids are the control subjects. The experiment is on the chimps, the results are that although they are acting rationally, from a human perspective they are acting weird. This forms an interesting result because it suggests that chimps think differently to us at some fundamental level.

Some theory and its supporting evidence on human cognition (In PDF sorry)

If you understand the above you should get the idea that humans if they had a motto it would be, "If all else fails, then be rational. Also, always irrationally believe you are rational." We already know that humans use (irrational) intuitive reasoning first. We use (rational) reflective reasoning secondly and only after been given a very good reason to do so. We know enough about this that we can design experiments where reflective reasoning will not exist even if it seems obvious enough to those in the know that it should.

The experiment, mentioned in this thread, seems to suggest that chimps think less like us and start engaging in rational problem solving when we wouldn't. The experiment is designed so that the children don't find any reason to think that the "ritual" solutions to the problem are wrong and start questioning it in a reflective manner.

Btw non of this suggests that chimps are smarter than humans unless you are capable of intuitive reasoning. There is not really any reflective argument, I know, to suggest this makes us dumber. I think the converse is true. Remembering that the change in reasoning comes at a cost in brain usage but does not change the solutions outcome, why does the chimp start questioning the solution?

Personally I think that it is a design issue, humans are capable of deducing preemptively whether changing behaviour (i.e. rationally thinking about past and future behaviour) is more energy intensive than chimps. This makes sense for me because the human brain allocates so much energy resources to function. So the child's brain does not start going into the more reflexive mode because the outcome is the same and the potential energy usage for any new rational changes could be a lot more than the energy usage of muscles to move a stick.

I think your post is a long way of ignoring the fact that animals mostly like to eat, and children mostly like to play. I wonder how it would go if they did the experiment with starving children (confined in a cage as the chimps were) who were dependent on being fed by their captors (as the chimps were). I could be wrong but I have a hunch the children would skip the tapping and pushing on the clear box and just grab the food as quick as they could.

 

[Maxwell511]

Or maybe they are not concerned with anything at all. I think you're constructing a whole theory out of far too little evidence.

I decided to consider this argument from a more rational perspective. You understand that I think people don't argue based on rational principles but on other cognitive biases. I guess that you may think this is weird but it is the more scientifically accurate than your conclusion (see my post below this for the evidence and supported causal theory). I don't think my beliefs are based on "rational" reasoning, I think that is hard to do. I only care if they are not falsified by objective experiments.

Understand that if we are being scientific it does not matter if the theories are based on evidence. It only really matters if the theory can be supported by new evidence that test the theory. If this weren't the case then you are saying that completely unevidenced ideas cannot be falsified. You understand how that is logically false?

IIRC, older children are even worse at the task than the younger ones. And adults may be as bad as kids. From Whiten et al. 2009:So, no, education has nothing to do with it.

Yes education does, there is ample evidence to show this (see pdf below again). However sometimes education can be overridden. You understand that experiments are based on the testing of hypothesis and that are constructed to produce very specific results. Also causal but irrelevant factors do not necessarily become irrelevant at scales we can measure.

So saying that education has nothing to do with behaviour of people is not a logical conclusion from the ability to produce qualitatively similar behaviour in qualitatively different experiments.

Also the link you gave did not direct or indirect to the results that you seem to be talking about.

Again, where is the evidence? How do you know they are learning something general (and that the chimps are not) from a single experiment training them on a single task?

I found it. See next post. The other cognitive experiments for chimps I cannot find. I will find them, it is not one experiment.

I read a lot.

But the fact remains that humans consistently get basic deduction wrong if the problem is presented in an abstract form. AFAIK, there's no similar discrepancy in, say, adults' performance in basic arithmetic in different contexts.

If the fundamental modus operandi of the mind is deductive reasoning, that makes little sense.

I admit that "deductive" reasoning may have been a mistake on my part. I had not read the ideas in awhile and start forming my own conceptual understanding of it. They hate me also in the university for this, I am bad with notation or words.

To me, the following seems far more likely: humans are likely to encounter a large number of situations in which social rules may be broken and breaking the rules may be punished. We are also very sensitive to social cues. So human minds have plenty of material to work out heuristic rules for certain types of social situations. The abstract task may be more difficult to recognise as the same situation, and hence the rule doesn't kick in.

I agree. Why do you think that what I am saying is against this?

But the bottom line is that the phenomenon can be explained in terms of either deductive or inductive reasoning.

Unless you're citing actual experimental results from chimps, I have no reason to think that there IS a difference. Ergo, there's precious little to "notice".

The experiment cited by the OP for one. You understand the experiment was designed with human toddlers as a control to understand how chimps think?

That is a single rule, or bias, or call it what you will. Also keep in mind that IF/THEN rules can be constructed by induction (seeing many examples). (Granted, in this particular case, that doesn't look like the most likely explanation)

That is illogical.

Actually, it is valid. It's just not sound. It takes the form:

IF symmetrical THEN equal.
Symmetrical
---
THEREFORE equal.

That is a valid argument based on a false premise.

I disagree. Give me awhile to figure out why this is wrong. I am not saying I am not wrong, but this seems wrong to me.

What you think is hardly an arbiter of truth

If we are going to state obvious truths like this I think I should say strawberries are tasty.

But you know nothing of what apes do, do you?

Not as much as I know about reading experimental data and finding cognitive biases in the conclusions.

I'm sorry, this is pure waffle. Oh, I'll agree that we are smarter than chimps. You're just not arguing it very convincingly as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not trying to convince you of a position. When I talk to someone outside my field I am trying to do something way more Machiavellian.

I take it the film doesn't cover Lyons et al. 2007, then. The paper is free, and very interesting. Basically, even when the kids are told to avoid irrelevant ("silly and unnecessary") actions, and rewarded during the training phase for pointing out irrelevant actions performed by the experimenter, they still overimitate.

I'll need to read that later. Goodnight.