Nova's "Ape Genius" May Have Missed a Huge Breakthrough on Human Behavior

[alltruenews]

I recently watched a new Nova episode titled "Ape Genius." In this episode we watch mostly chimpanzees amaze with their deductive skills and mechanical understanding. However one experiment in particular caused me to adjust my sitting posture and stare in disbelief.

This experiment showed young human children sitting with an adult who proceeds to show the child how to "properly" score a candy treat from an opaque box about the size of a small room air conditioner. The chimps were also taught this same candy retrieval method. The way that both the child and chimp were taught was intentionally complex and required many unnecessary and silly moves and gyrations such as pointlessly tapping a stick against a shelf inside the box repeatedly and moving levers that do nothing. Obviously these silly actions actually have no impact on the candy delivery as the candy treat was sitting in the lower chamber already. Both child and chimp do the ridiculous maneuvers and then check for candy after.

However, when presented with the same experiment except that now the candy yielding box is transparent, the chimps no longer do the crazy gyrations and just retrieve the candy without so much as a second though. The human children continue to act out all crazy motions in hopes of continuing to get candy.

Researchers considered this to be evidence of chimp intelligence, however what the Nova producers and the scientists who created this experiment fail to grasp was that the human children were expressing the strong human desire for ritual. This desire we posses to engage in repeated ritualistic behavior is (I think) at the core of our desire to take part in religious behavior and accept weird things. Perhaps ritual is one area that needs more study.

[aggle-rithm]

Very interesting point. At the very least, it shows that there can be multiple interpretations of a study like this.

We know that animals have "rituals" too, as found by Skinner's experiments on superstition in pigeons. Perhaps their rituals are just simpler than ours because they don't have the same working memory capacity.

Were the chimps at a comparable maturity to the human children, or were they adults? One possibility is that they were comparing apples to oranges.

Others:

1. Human children are more likely to respect authority and do as they are told.
2. The difference could be verbal in nature -- were the children TOLD how to do it, or just shown in the same way as the chimps?

I think you're right in saying the test doesn't warrant a conclusion that chimps are highly intelligent.

[sugarb]

I recently watched a new Nova episode titled "Ape Genius." In this episode we watch mostly chimpanzees amaze with their deductive skills and mechanical understanding. However one experiment in particular caused me to adjust my sitting posture and stare in disbelief.

This experiment showed young human children sitting with an adult who proceeds to show the child how to "properly" score a candy treat from an opaque box about the size of a small room air conditioner. The chimps were also taught this same candy retrieval method. The way that both the child and chimp were taught was intentionally complex and required many unnecessary and silly moves and gyrations such as pointlessly tapping a stick against a shelf inside the box repeatedly and moving levers that do nothing. Obviously these silly actions actually have no impact on the candy delivery as the candy treat was sitting in the lower chamber already. Both child and chimp do the ridiculous maneuvers and then check for candy after.

However, when presented with the same experiment except that now the candy yielding box is transparent, the chimps no longer do the crazy gyrations and just retrieve the candy without so much as a second though. The human children continue to act out all crazy motions in hopes of continuing to get candy.

Researchers considered this to be evidence of chimp intelligence, however what the Nova producers and the scientists who created this experiment fail to grasp was that the human children were expressing the strong human desire for ritual. This desire we posses to engage in repeated ritualistic behavior is (I think) at the core of our desire to take part it religious behavior and accept weird things. Perhaps ritual is one area that needs more study.


That was interesting. I'm not sure I agree that we desire ritual, though. I think rituals are learned and stressed far too much. Have you ever, for instance, done something as mundane as putting up decorations for a holiday with someone who is deep into ritual, or habit, seen an easier or quicker way to do it and suggested it, only to be told "But we ALWAYS do it this way!"

I have a friend, whom I love dearly, that, as a child, got into trouble in kindergarten for seeing an easier way and doing it--the children were supposed to empty a jar of beans, one bean at a time. He simply dumped his beans onto the table, thinking it was silly to take them out one at a time. I have never known him to be a creature of habit, or prone to rituals of any kind.

We are probably conditioned toward rituals, religious and otherwise, because we don't really have a need to be quick about getting food. It's sitting in a grocery store. We don't need to be very efficient to survive, quite honestly. We have a lot of time (even though we think we're uber busy) to come up with some strange rituals at bedtime, waking time, bath time, etc. Also, some rituals, particularly religious ones I would guess, have a lot to do with being part of a community, or needing to feel like part of a community. Or demonstrate that we ARE a part of a community.

Maybe the chimp just doesn't care about things like that :)

[Soapy Sam]

Perhaps the kids continued to do what they had been told to do, because they understood following rules to be the point of the exercise, rather than obtaining the reward?

[Spock Jenkins]

Perhaps the kids continued to do what they had been told to do, because they understood following rules to be the point of the exercise, rather than obtaining the reward?

Agreed. It's not too complicated.

The chimps forgot the instructions already and saw the candy so they grabbed it. The children remembered the instructions and followed them as they were told.

[quarky]

the children obviously have Asperger's syndrome.

[quarky]

humans are getting alot more aspergery, in general.
if that test had occurred in the 50's, when the treat meant more than the test itself, those kids would have gone right for the reward, like the chimps...because they were hungry.

the value of the reward in such experiments has become degraded and abstracted, due to our burgeoning new human condition.
It won't be long until the reward is seen as a negative.
Humans will jump through hoops because hoop-jumping is its own reward these days.

(yeah, i'm bored, and just want to be in an argument.)

[Charlie Monoxide]

I saw the Nova show and was intrigued by this experiment. Notwithstanding the small sample, there are many possible reasons that the children followed the "process". Perhaps the children reasoned that they knew the "process" worked and why bother trying new ones. Appealing to authority figures as someone earlier pointed out or even "why the hell not do the process, I've got the time". More possibilities out there.

The experiment kind of reminded me about attitudes of sex between men and women (IMHO). Men are more goal oriented whereas women are process oriented.

Charlie (happy to be human) Monoxide

[Wowbagger]

Maybe the chimps were not really learning how to get the candy, they were merely obeying instructions, because they were trained that when they obeyed such instructions, they would get a reward. But, when the reward was in plain sight, they assumed they already must have doen something to earn it, and went for it.

The human children, having the "advantage" of understanding human language, were told they had to do those things to obtain the candy, so they just took the adult's word for it. Even if they saw the candy right there.

[blutoski]

Yeah, I'm interpreting this in terms that humans understand that things are more complicated than they look.

We have a door to the bedroom that has glass panels, so my cat can see me eating. She has proven capable of using the doorlatch, but usually forgets how. She mostly tries to head-butt the door. The apes lucked out in that simplifying this process paid off. My cat only has a sore head to show for it.

There are lots of ways to test animals for 'intelligence' that are hard to compare from animal to animal. Octopi are quite bright, but they're not going to learn language. On the other hand, they can solve an elaborate mechanism to access food through trial and error, and remember it for next time they see a similar container. They don't even have to be shown.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

the children obviously have Asperger's syndrome.

and the chimps are obviously Indigo Children? ;)

[Soapy Sam]

The experiment kind of reminded me about attitudes of sex between men and women (IMHO). Men are more goal oriented whereas women are process oriented.

Charlie (happy to be human) Monoxide

You saying I'm gay?:eek:

[GodMark2]

Maybe the chimps were not really learning how to get the candy, they were merely obeying instructions, because they were trained that when they obeyed such instructions, they would get a reward. But, when the reward was in plain sight, they assumed they already must have doen something to earn it, and went for it.

The human children, having the "advantage" of understanding human language, were told they had to do those things to obtain the candy, so they just took the adult's word for it. Even if they saw the candy right there.

Even in the transparent box, the candy was still hidden in a black tube. The transparent box just showed that the first several steps (tapping on some bars, then sliding them to reveal a hole, then poking a stick in that hole) weren't connected to the final step of "lift the door and fish out the prize from the black tube".

[Piggy]

Researchers considered this to be evidence of chimp intelligence, however what the Nova producers and the scientists who created this experiment fail to grasp was that the human children were expressing the strong human desire for ritual. This desire we posses to engage in repeated ritualistic behavior is (I think) at the core of our desire to take part in religious behavior and accept weird things. Perhaps ritual is one area that needs more study.

I don't know if it was covered in that section, but I know the documentary addressed this issue at other points in the film, noting that mimicry is part and parcel of human childhood learning.

Which makes sense, given how much we have to learn. If 4 year olds weren't inclined to strongly trust adults in positions of authority and rely heavily on mimicry, even when they can't figure out why they should be doing what they're shown to do, it could represent a significant hindrance in their development.

The documentary also pointed out that, in chimps, emotions tend to overwhelm decision-making to an even greater degree than is the case with human kids. They consistently went for the immediate reward, even when doing so was bound to lead to a reduction in total reward. Kids do this, too, but not to the extent that the chimps did.

[hgc]

I watched this too. They didn't "miss" the ritual thing, but rather they gave an altogether different explanation. The program posited that the human children went through all the useless steps because humans are more attuned to learning by copying a set of procedures. This segued to a detailed description of the uniquely human capability for reading and understand the intentions of others, creating a triangle of meaning between two humans and an external object.

[Wowbagger]

Even in the transparent box, the candy was still hidden in a black tube. The transparent box just showed that the first several steps (tapping on some bars, then sliding them to reveal a hole, then poking a stick in that hole) weren't connected to the final step of "lift the door and fish out the prize from the black tube".
Maybe they were trained in thinking that things in black tubes are prizes, then?

[Piggy]

FYI, I've started a related thread:

Non-Human Language: Evidence Now? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107107)

I'd appreciate input from those who watched the show.

Thanks.

[Olowkow]

If I were a little kid and taught how to get the candy out "properly" by a grown-up scientist guy in a suit (who looks like a teacher), I sure would not "break the rules" by going for it directly and risk getting a reprimand or spanking! :) What if the young ape were taught by a "silverback" (or a guy in an ape suit)...he might then "toe the line" sooner than for a guy in a human suit.

Cultural pressures I'm guessing. Interesting point though. I am always amazed at what the "Dog Whisperer", Cesar Milan, can get dogs to do just by "speaking their language" and following their culture.

[Gagglegnash]

Hi

I think that part of the problem is how they may have interpreted the word, "genius."

I think there are lots of different kinds of genius!

Getting-stuff-out-of-a-box is a type of associational genius, but making that your only criterion is unfair to other types of genius.

Memory genius, creative genius, mathematical genius, language genius, artistic genius, physical genius, procedural genius... all geniuses, but different KINDS of genius. McGuyver may be able to build an airplane out of a toothpick, a paper clip and a roll of duct tape, but can he remember page five of the history textbook he had in third grade?

If your goal is to get the reward, than you're Mcguyver. If your goal is to make the box 'work' then you're Leonard Bernstein.

Both geniuses, yes, but very different types, you see.

[Tumbleweed]

Common sense versus logic. It is not logical that the ritual used to get the candy is an unnecessary sham. So it does not register with a logical mind. If told it IS necessary, it will logically assume the steps ARE necessary. Sure, it appears the steps are not necessary, and the candy can just be picked up, but there must be a catch, the logical mind assumes. And young kids have no reason to be cynical yet/ Or perhaps they believe punishment will befall those who not conform to ritual, and so they do them for reward, to avoid punishment, and to fit in
The chimps are looking at it from a finders keepers sort of mood. Grab it now before someone else does.
Will a dog take a handout without having to do a trick? Only if he is trained to do so

[Piggy]

Common sense versus logic. It is not logical that the ritual used to get the candy is an unnecessary sham. So it does not register with a logical mind.

I think you may be overestimating the undeveloped human mind. I doubt logic plays a predominant role at that age. I see no evidence to support that stance anyway.

[Tumbleweed]

I think you may be overestimating the undeveloped human mind. I doubt logic plays a predominant role at that age. I see no evidence to support that stance anyway.
I have no idea from reading any of these posts what " young human children" means. 18 months? 2,3,4,5,6,7 years old? I didn't see the show And I do indeed think a 3 year old can use logic. I learned to read, write my name and tell time by that age. Clocks and sentences are quite logical.
Another possibility may be anticipation. It feels good to anticipate a reward. Take away the ritual, take away the anticipation, take away half the fun. The journey is just as interesting as the reward. Well, at least it should be say the people stuck in traffic jams and Cubicle Existence (excepting those who love their jobs)

[Piggy]

I have no idea from reading any of these posts what " young human children" means. 18 months? 2,3,4,5,6,7 years old? I didn't see the show And I do indeed think a 3 year old can use logic. I learned to read, write my name and tell time by that age. Clocks and sentences are quite logical.
Another possibility may be anticipation. It feels good to anticipate a reward. Take away the ritual, take away the anticipation, take away half the fun. The journey is just as interesting as the reward. Well, at least it should be say the people stuck in traffic jams and Cubicle Existence (excepting those who love their jobs)

The sections I saw focused on 4 year olds.

Yeah, they can use some logic. But I don't think that's their tool of choice.

Still, they do have some capacity... there's a story that one of my undergrad psych profs told about his little boy (who, btw, he brought into class once and actually ran some of the classic tests on, like "which glass has more?")....

He'd made the kid a PBJ, put the peanut butter on one piece of bread, and the jelly on another. The boy wanted to go outside and join his friends who were playing. He was so impatient, he grabbed each piece of bread and ran to the door.

Of course, there was a problem. He needed to open the door, but both hands were full.

Being a psych prof, the boy's dad decided to sit back and see if the kid would figure out a solution.

He stood there a moment, pondering. Then the light went on!

He took the piece of bread with the peanut butter on it, stuck it onto the wall, opened the door, peeled it back off, then ran out. :D

[Sefarst]

How old were the chimps used in the experiment? Were they "adult" chimps? Just as an adult human would be able to "cut to the chase" in an experiment like that, why should we think an adult chimp wouldn't be at least similar?

[Piggy]

How old were the chimps used in the experiment? Were they "adult" chimps? Just as an adult human would be able to "cut to the chase" in an experiment like that, why should we think an adult chimp wouldn't be at least similar?

That I don't know, and would be interested to find out.

[Skeptic Ginger]

I agree with what Sefarst is getting at. It is impossible to draw any conclusions on how the two species compare here. Even if the ages were the same, and I doubt they were, the developmental ages would be hard to match up.

It is an interesting experiment. But it's hard to draw meaningful conclusions as to how intelligence compares between the two subjects from it. Rather, one could maybe draw some inferences in the two species' different thought processes.

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK, I just watched the episode. It was adult chimps and kids about 4. Pretty poor conclusions being drawn throughout the program (especially for NOVA) and this was a poor conclusion. Not that the kids did or didn't get it, but that a child not getting it somehow compared to an adult chimp not getting it.

We know kids go through developmental stages where thought processes change over time. I love the experiment where little kids are given a big ride on toy and when they are gone it is switched to a tiny toy. At young ages the kids try to get inside the tiny toy and can't see it is obvious they will not fit.

Even older kids who could see the steps weren't needed might still think if they disobeyed the rules the candy would be taken away even if they could see the steps were not needed. So maybe they thought the steps mattered to get to the candy or maybe they thought the steps mattered to have permission to get the candy. Either way, comparing a child affected by its developmental age to a chimp is interesting, but the conclusions suggested on the program were not supported by the data.

We think differently from non-human primates just as we think differently from dogs (also used for an example of recognizing the significance of pointing). I think we have a long way to go before we understand all the nuances of just how differently or not differently we think. Seems to me researchers are still looking for the thing that "makes us human". Tools? No, that wasn't it. Culture? No that wasn't it. Morals? No that wasn't it. Now they are suggesting teaching is the difference.

I say nonsense. If teaching was the difference how do they account for teaching they described that resulted in culture?

The problem is continually looking for the magic thing that separates us from animals. The problem is, it isn't magic. Yes, language and vocal cords allowed us to develop technology. But everything we do has representations in the animal kingdom. We have a bigger brain and we have vocal cords and we have technology. There is no magic thing there. Teaching, tools, morals, it's about time to recognize we are animals, they are animals. There are differences, but not of them are the magic thing.

[quarky]

I once observed some intelligence tests on dolphins, wherein they had to differentiate between certain symbols that were held by the trainor. The triangle had them do one thing; a circle meant another, etc.
They were able to solve these tests so quickly, that the trainers became suspicious.
Turns out, the dolphins were picking up on very subtle social cues coming from the trainers, and that when the trainers wore paper bags on their heads, the dolphins faired rather poorly.
The conclusions drawn were strange.
The dolphins were much more 'aware' than anyone had suspected, but less 'intelligent'.

With the kids and the chimps, its almost the opposite.

One of the problems in such tests, imho, is that the animals are usually nuerotic by the time they make it into testing.

(I guess the kids are, too)

[Dr Adequate]

I once observed some intelligence tests on dolphins, wherein they had to differentiate between certain symbols that were held by the trainor. The triangle had them do one thing; a circle meant another, etc.
They were able to solve these tests so quickly, that the trainers became suspicious.
Turns out, the dolphins were picking up on very subtle social cues coming from the trainers, and that when the trainers wore paper bags on their heads, the dolphins faired rather poorly. And it's at times like that, when you're standing with a paper bag over your head waving a triangle at a dolphin, that you think ... really, what's it all about?

The conclusions drawn were strange.
The dolphins were much more 'aware' than anyone had suspected, but less 'intelligent'. It's called the Clever Hans Effect.

[Sefarst]

OK, I just watched the episode. It was adult chimps and kids about 4. Pretty poor conclusions being drawn throughout the program (especially for NOVA) and this was a poor conclusion. Not that the kids did or didn't get it, but that a child not getting it somehow compared to an adult chimp not getting it.

We know kids go through developmental stages where thought processes change over time. I love the experiment where little kids are given a big ride on toy and when they are gone it is switched to a tiny toy. At young ages the kids try to get inside the tiny toy and can't see it is obvious they will not fit.

Even older kids who could see the steps weren't needed might still think if they disobeyed the rules the candy would be taken away even if they could see the steps were not needed. So maybe they thought the steps mattered to get to the candy or maybe they thought the steps mattered to have permission to get the candy. Either way, comparing a child affected by its developmental age to a chimp is interesting, but the conclusions suggested on the program were not supported by the data.

We think differently from non-human primates just as we think differently from dogs (also used for an example of recognizing the significance of pointing). I think we have a long way to go before we understand all the nuances of just how differently or not differently we think. Seems to me researchers are still looking for the thing that "makes us human". Tools? No, that wasn't it. Culture? No that wasn't it. Morals? No that wasn't it. Now they are suggesting teaching is the difference.

I say nonsense. If teaching was the difference how do they account for teaching they described that resulted in culture?

The problem is continually looking for the magic thing that separates us from animals. The problem is, it isn't magic. Yes, language and vocal cords allowed us to develop technology. But everything we do has representations in the animal kingdom. We have a bigger brain and we have vocal cords and we have technology. There is no magic thing there. Teaching, tools, morals, it's about time to recognize we are animals, they are animals. There are differences, but not of them are the magic thing.
I agree. Put me up against an adult chimp in that experiment and I'll run circles around him. Some people see experiments like these and are somehow over-awwed by the supposed intelligence of the animal being studied, but if you put the adults of one species against the babies/children of another species, you really aren't saying anything. Like you said, we would need to match the animals' developmental stages.

It reminds me of a hilarious Onion article from years back: http://www.onion.demon.co.uk/theonion/other/babies/stupidbabies.htm

LOS ANGELES--A surprising new study released Monday by UCLA's Institute For Child Development revealed that human babies, long thought by psychologists to be highly inquisitive and adaptable, are actually extraordinarily stupid.
The study, an 18-month battery of intelligence tests administered to over 3,500 babies, concluded categorically that babies are "so stupid, it's not even funny.

[Olowkow]

I agree. Put me up against an adult chimp in that experiment and I'll run circles around him.


Yeah, but "crows", now that's a different matter. Those guys are flat out amazingly brilliant!

I am still stuck with the image of me "standing there with a bag over my head waving a triangle at a dolphin," :) and Dr. A off stage woefully shaking his head working out the odds on a slide rule. Gave me a chuckle...

[Simplegreentinhouse]

I agree with agle_rithm (sp?).

[Piggy]

I dunno. I'm not ready to join the jeerfest just yet.

I agree that there was a lot of puffery in the show. More infotainment than perhaps we expect from Nova.

But that doesn't mean there's nothing of interest. The question is: Are we seeing something new here about the primate mind that we didn't know before?

And I think perhaps we are.

[Skeptic Ginger]

There's no question the show was fascinating, Piggy. I've been interested in primate behavior research for many years. Love the stuff.

The hunting with spears was discovered a few years ago. There have been other cultural reports as well. Chimps learned to wash the sand off fruit (or potatoes or something) in one group. That was seen decades ago.

I just had a hard time with the blanket conclusion this had something to do with apes not caring to teach each other. They obviously learn from each other. The fact it takes a very long time for a chimp to learn how to crack a nut with a big piece of wood just doesn't scream out, no teaching is occurring. I'm leery of the, "that's what distinguishes us" claims that keep being made only to be discarded later when we find out we are not so unique once again. We have vocal cords and technology. More differences than that have yet to be thoroughly evaluated.

[Piggy]

I'm leery of the, "that's what distinguishes us" claims that keep being made only to be discarded later when we find out we are not so unique once again. We have vocal cords and technology. More differences than that have yet to be thoroughly evaluated.

Well, that's the point that really fascinated me, of course, given my background.

There's long been a search for a language analog, and so far we haven't found it.

But the work with the bonobo appeared, on its face, to be something potentially quite new and startling.

I hope some folks will venture over to the language thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107107) to discuss this aspect of the film.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whoops, I'll post this in the linked thread.