Koko the talking gorilla

[PhxHorn]

I remember reading about Koko the gorilla (or ape) who had supposedly learned sign language. I first heard about it in National Geographic around 1980 or so. She supposedly could communiate at a fairly high level.

Then I read some things a few years ago about how the results were highly questionalbe, since the scientists were going out of their way to prompt the gorilla for a certain sign, and then if they got something even vaguely resembling the desired response, they'd count it as a "hit." They were cheating, basically.

I can't find anything on the internet that discusses the cheating. I've spent a few minutes googling, and other than a book review from 1980, I couldn't find anything. It seems like the media fell all over themselves a few weeks ago when the Koko had a toothache and communicated that fact.

Can anyone point me towards something skeptical on this topic? Thanks.

[JPK]

Originally posted by PhxHorn
I remember reading about Koko the gorilla (or ape) who had supposedly learned sign language. I first heard about it in National Geographic around 1980 or so. She supposedly could communiate at a fairly high level.

Then I read some things a few years ago about how the results were highly questionalbe, since the scientists were going out of their way to prompt the gorilla for a certain sign, and then if they got something even vaguely resembling the desired response, they'd count it as a "hit." They were cheating, basically.

I can't find anything on the internet that discusses the cheating. I've spent a few minutes googling, and other than a book review from 1980, I couldn't find anything. It seems like the media fell all over themselves a few weeks ago when the Koko had a toothache and communicated that fact.

Can anyone point me towards something skeptical on this topic? Thanks.

You can look here...

http://www.csicop.org/articles/koko/index.html


JPK

[Goshawk]

the media fell all over themselves a few weeks ago when the Koko had a toothache and communicated that fact.Har. Yeah. She signed "pain" in ASL, pointed to her mouth, her keepers made a chart numbered from 1 to 10, she pointed to "9"--and they called a dentist.

One can't help wondering what they would have done if she had only pointed to "1". And apparently it took her several weeks of signing "pain" and pointing to her mouth before the humans twigged to what she was attempting to communicate.


And what I wanna know--the question that is really driving me nuts, and no amount of Googling is sufficing to answer it--is how she understood the concept of a "how bad is the pain on a scale of 1 to 10". That's a fairly sophisticated concept--small children don't understand it, until they're about grade-school age. So how, and when, did her handlers, sometime over the last 20 years, manage to explain the concept of "how bad is it, on a scale from 1 to 10" to a gorilla?

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040809/koko.html
Lorraine Slater, development director of the Northern California-based Gorilla Foundation that houses Koko, told Discovery News that the lowland gorilla had been signing about tooth discomfort for a while before she communicated that the pain had become more intense in the past three to four weeks.

Slater said Koko's caregivers created a chart containing the numbers one through 10 with corresponding amounts of dots, as the gorilla responds to visual information.

Over the past several days, the researchers asked the gorilla on a daily basis to communicate her level of tooth pain.

"Sometimes the pain was rated a two or a three just after Koko was given medication," said Slater. "She then rated the pain as a seven and then an eight. We gave her the choice of having more medication or an operation, and Koko communicated that she desired the operation."

Slater explained that the gorilla knew what an operation was because caregivers previously gave Koko an "operation doll, similar to what young children play with," along with lessons about basic medical procedures.
The mind boggles at all the assumptions that the humans are carrying around here.

An "operation doll" doesn't explain even to young children what an "operation" is--all it looks like to them is a weird-looking doll. It takes Mommy's words, her explanation, to communicate what's going on. The doll by itself doesn't tell the child anything about what's going to happen.

I'd really give a lot of money to know exactly what they signed to her about "basic medical procedures", and what exactly she signed back, to indicate that she understood.


Also, how do they know she wasn't asking for "another doll", instead of "an operation"?

[phildonnia]

http://tafkac.org/language/primates_and_language.html

I love this quote:

What an irony it is that the supposed attempt to being Homo sapiens down a few notches in the natural order has taken the form of us humans hectoring another species into emulating our instinctive form of communication, or some artificial form we have invented, as if that were the measure of biological worth.

[LTC8K6]

I believe it would have taken my dog much less time to let me know she had a toothache. :D

[pgwenthold]

If the exchange on the CSICOP page is any indication, Koko is just babbling nonsense. Examples


Question: Koko are you going to have a baby in the future?

Koko signs: Pink
Patterson explains: We had earlier discussion about colors today.


Interpretation: Hey, this got me a treat earlier, does it still work?

Does not appear to have any concept of the question.




Question: Do you like to chat with people?

Koko signs: Fine nipple.
Patterson explains: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn't sign people per se, she was trying to do a "sounds like..."


There is no "rhymes" in sign language! It's supposed to be sign language, not english! So much for being able to understand sign language.

"Sounds like..." Sheesh. Does the sign for nipple _look_ like people? I don't know, but it doesn't matter.



Question: Does she have hair? Or is it like fur?

Koko signs: Fine.
Patterson explains: She has fine hair.


Maybe she has fine fur?

Again, Koko doesn't appear to be answering the question.



Question: Koko, do you feel love from the humans who have raised you?

Koko signs: Lips, apple give me.
Patterson explains: People give her her favorite foods.


The same can be said for my dog. That's why he comes in the room and rolls over whenever I have food in my hand. Nice trick I taught him, but that doesn't mean that he is communicating by rolling over.

Again, the interpretation is, "I have done this before and it worked to get food, let me try it again."

Boy, I hope there is a lot more to it than this.

[Mark A. Siefert]

I hate to sound like a cruel a**hole, but the world would probably have ignored Koko if it weren't for that damn kitten getting run over.

[Ashles]

Maybe gorillas really can communicate via sign language but Koko's just an idiot.

[Ashles]

Or maybe she just likes avoiding the questions.


For example:

Question: Do you like to chat with people?
Koko signs: Fine nipple.

How is that so different from:

Me: How do you account for the fact that dinosaur and human fossils are not found in the same rock strata?
1inChrist: I think dragons really existed.

Maybe we're being harsh on poor Koko.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by PhxHorn

Then I read some things a few years ago about how the results were highly questionalbe, since the scientists were going out of their way to prompt the gorilla for a certain sign, and then if they got something even vaguely resembling the desired response, they'd count it as a "hit."
To be fair, this is really not much different from what takes place during communication between humans. How perfectly should a response adhere to form in order to be counted as a hit? When listening to another person talk, minor corrections and filling in of blank spots takes place a lot more often than we are normally aware of. I'm not impressed that Koko has mastered language, but I think that, due to the nature of the problem, the results of any such experiments are likely to be questionable.

[Gastric ReFlux]

Was Koko ever taught the signs for curse words?

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Ashles
Or maybe she just likes avoiding the questions.


For example:

Question: Do you like to chat with people?
Koko signs: Fine nipple.

How is that so different from:

Me: How do you account for the fact that dinosaur and human fossils are not found in the same rock strata?
1inChrist: I think dragons really existed.

Maybe we're being harsh on poor Koko.

You owe me a beer and a new keyboard.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Ashles
For example:

Question: Do you like to chat with people?
Koko signs: Fine nipple.

Actually, her teacher did tell the person why she said that. Koko uses sign "homophones" for words that she doesn't have a sign for. She uses "knock" for "obnoxious", for instance.

She and Micheal (the recently deceased male) would speak to each other with sign language.

On a blind application of the Assessment of Children's Language Comprehension test, Koko scored over twice the "chance" score.

There is obviously some capacity there, even if it isn't up to human level.

"no ape has ever shown linguistic abilities approaching those of a normal child entering kindergarten. Nevertheless they seem to have a clear-cut, although elementary, ability to use language." - Carl Sagan.

[MRC_Hans]

I fail to see what the fuss is about. Apes are very intelligent beings which communicate in a fairly complex way in nature. Of course they may be able to learn a different mode of communication, like sign language.

The trouble starts when we try to compare them with humans. Apes are not humans, they are not as intelligent as humans, and their way of thinking is different from humans. Apes are excellent at being apes, and very poor at being humans. Just like humans are excellent at being humans, but would perform very poorly if we tried to be apes.

Edited to add: Btw, wasn't Koko a chimpanzee?

Hans

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Graculus
Actually, her teacher did tell the person why she said that. Koko uses sign "homophones" for words that she doesn't have a sign for. She uses "knock" for "obnoxious", for instance.

She and Micheal (the recently deceased male) would speak to each other with sign language.

On a blind application of the Assessment of Children's Language Comprehension test, Koko scored over twice the "chance" score.

There is obviously some capacity there, even if it isn't up to human level.

"no ape has ever shown linguistic abilities approaching those of a normal child entering kindergarten. Nevertheless they seem to have a clear-cut, although elementary, ability to use language." - Carl Sagan.

I remain sceptical on this. It concerns me that an awful lot of prompting may be going on. My dog "understands" 25 or so commands. One of them is "sit". I can use the word "sit" or I can raise my hand, either way he will park his bum on the floor. It is also his "default" behaviour. In otherwords if he wants something, he'll try a "sit" first, if that doesn't get the response from me that he wants he'll move on to a lie down, a roll over and then usually a bark. These used to be quite well separated but now the time delay between the sit and lie down etc is quite short so it looks to a stranger as if he is linking all these actions together and it all seems quite impressive. My concern is that these researchers are seeing similar behaviour and attributing understanding to it.

Watch 2 dogs together and they will sit, roll over, lie down etc - does this mean they are communicating??

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Edited to add: Btw, wasn't Koko a chimpanzee?

Hans
Ummm...no.

The Gorilla Foundation: Home of Koko the Gorilla. (http://www.koko.org/)


[hands Hans another cup of coffee, signing to him, "wake up wake up"]


:D


(The famous signing chimp was named Washoe, who apparently failed to grasp how the entertainment industry works, and who does not have a website and a foundation...)

[MRC_Hans]

Ah yes, Washoe :o. I read the book. If the accounts were objective, she did have some basic grasp of language.

Hans

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
Was Koko ever taught the signs for curse words?
I don't know about Koko, but Washoe was taught the sign "dirty" for when she soiled herself. She later used the sign at her trainer when he didn't reinforce her for a correct response. ("You dirty Roger")

[sackett]

Koko is supposed to make jokes from time to time, e.g., pointing to her mouth and signing "fake nose."

And then there's the famous incident when a small plastic figurine of a human fell into her glass of water. Koko signed, "Baby in my drink." This is cited as an unmistakable instance of true language, i.e., of an open-ended use of symbolic communication.

Since gorillas aren't hard-wired for language the way humans are, it's not surprising that Koko's signing has aspects of a learned trick.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Stitch
I remain sceptical on this. It concerns me that an awful lot of prompting may be going on. My dog "understands" 25 or so commands. One of them is "sit". I can use the word "sit" or I can raise my hand, either way he will park his bum on the floor. It is also his "default" behaviour. In otherwords if he wants something, he'll try a "sit" first, if that doesn't get the response from me that he wants he'll move on to a lie down, a roll over and then usually a bark. These used to be quite well separated but now the time delay between the sit and lie down etc is quite short so it looks to a stranger as if he is linking all these actions together and it all seems quite impressive. My concern is that these researchers are seeing similar behaviour and attributing understanding to it.


Let me spin this around, then --- it's no good "remaining skeptical" in the absence of evidence. What kind of evidence/experiment would you want to see in order to establish that Koko really did "understand" sign language --- alternatively, where is the philosophical border between what your dogs do and what a hypothetical great ape that really did understand language would do? Or, alternatively, the border between your dogs and a young child?

For example, I think it's unfair to demand "human-level" syntax of Koko (something that many linguists seem implicitly to do; if Koko can't produce and understand embedded clauses, then she obviously doesn't "understand" language. But if you use that definition, my three year old niece doesn't, either.)

It's also demonstrably unfair to demand that Koko's responses always be direct, to the point, and conversationally adequate. Again, my three year old niece wouldn't pass that test.

What test WOULD you use to distinguish between my neice and your dogs?

[drkitten]

Originally posted by sackett

And then there's the famous incident when a small plastic figurine of a human fell into her glass of water. Koko signed, "Baby in my drink." This is cited as an unmistakable instance of true language, i.e., of an open-ended use of symbolic communication.


Wrong simian. "Baby in my drink" was a quote from Washoe, the chimpanzee.

[sackett]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Wrong simian. "Baby in my drink" was a quote from Washoe, the chimpanzee.

I will continue to believe that it was Koko, because gorillas are so much cuter than chimps. Well, at least gorillas don't give me the willies the way man's nearest relative does.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Stitch
I remain sceptical on this. It concerns me that an awful lot of prompting may be going on. How about the blind assessment (the tester didn't know the answer, either)? How about the communication between the two gorillas when no humans were present?

Here (http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~nstone/gorillas.htm)
"She scored comparable to human children on IQ tests at the ages of 3 ½, 4 and 4 ½. Koko scored an 84, a 95 and an 85 respectively; ... Koko also was facing some strong cultural biases being that the tests are directed toward humans. .... Koko is also quick witted. She has been known to tease her trainers with insults, argue over things she feels passionate about and lie to get herself out of trouble.

Critics of the now Dr. Patterson's findings generally focus on points such as (1) cues from trainers prompting speech and (2) sub-par and inconsistent performance on assessments of comprehension. Dr. Patterson rebuttals against the first claim by providing evidence of the spontaneous use 15 days out of a month that is required for a sign to be logged as learned, also many of her tests are performed double-blind, a process in which ensures there is a lack of cues that a tester can give..

... while Koko has not ever seen a real alligator she knows the sign and is afraid of toy alligators. ... When one of Dr. Patterson's assistants had prepared a snack for Koko but was slow in delivering it Koko signed “Alligator chase lip� (lip is a term Koko uses lip idiosyncratically for girl or woman). While there was no obviously no alligator present Koko used a sign associated with fear to her as a threat to what might happen if she is not served her snack promptly.

...(a young) Michael who wanted to play with Koko but who was having trouble communicating his desire was coached on by Koko through wire mesh. Koko signed, “Do visit Mike hurry, Mike think hurry,� .... When Koko attempted to persuade Michael with a “Koko good hug� he found the word he was looking for and with a signed “Koko�

...As far as productivity Koko has needed to, in the past make up new labels for unknown signs (ex. Koko never learned the sign for mask, so instead she refers to masks as “eye-hats�).


Being that Koko rarely ever speaks in complete sentences it is easy for skeptics to conclude that she does not have grammaticality. However, the information that Koko is provided in sign language is hardly ever anything but broken language and the structure of her utterances generally follow correct verb-noun and noun-verb-noun forms.

[Goshawk]

"Baby in my drink" was Washoe's. Quite definitely. Google it.

[Goshawk]

When one of Dr. Patterson's assistants had prepared a snack for Koko but was slow in delivering it Koko signed “Alligator chase lip� (lip is a term Koko uses lip idiosyncratically for girl or woman). While there was no obviously no alligator present Koko used a sign associated with fear to her as a threat to what might happen if she is not served her snack promptly.

But, see, they're reading all kinds of motivation into the signing here. They're assuming that that's what Koko meant, that she was feeling impatient for her snack--but they don't have any way of knowing. For all they know, it could simply have been a simian non-sequitur.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Goshawk
But, see, they're reading all kinds of motivation into the signing here. They're assuming that that's what Koko meant, that she was feeling impatient for her snack--but they don't have any way of knowing. For all they know, it could simply have been a simian non-sequitur. Or maybe it's because Koko is a brat.

[Ashles]

Koko sure thinks she has fine nipples.

[Ashles]

Actually, come to think of it, why have they been teaching Koko about nipples at all? I mean, if you had to write a vocabulary for a different species, how high up your list would 'nipple' really be?

Would it be higher than 'girl' or 'woman'?

After all, apparently, 'Koko uses lip idiosyncratically for girl or woman'.

Why would a gorilla start using language ideosyncratically in place of the actual words?

If I wanted to talk to a gorilla, I honestly think it would be a real long time before I taught the gorilla about nipples.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Ashles
If I wanted to talk to a gorilla, I honestly think it would be a real long time before I taught the gorilla about nipples. Why the heck WOULDN'T you teach "nipples" to a girl gorilla? Besides, maybe she asked.

[Jas]

I recall many anthropology profs who simply wrote off Dr. Penny Patterson. Apparently she refuses to publish in refereed journals, because they'll (as one prof put it), 'referee her'. She's not very well respected in the anthropology community.

They did try to teach a chimp (Nimh Chimsky, I think was his name), syntax, by teaching him a different form of sign language that mirrored english (I think it was called pidgin english sign language?) but concluded that it couldn't be done. However, there were numerous problems with the way the experiment was conducted, supposedly. They anticipate greater success by using bonobos, a few who have performed quite well in language experiments.

I think my favourite bit of chimp language was how Washoe referred to other chimpanzees as 'dirty bugs'.

[Stitch]

Originally posted by new drkitten
Let me spin this around, then --- it's no good "remaining skeptical" in the absence of evidence.

So in the absence of evidence should I become a beliver or a cynic? As far as I am concerned, if there isn't sufficient evidence to support the case I'll keep an open mind, I may be swayed more in one direction than the other, but I don't go for the absolute of either extreme.


What kind of evidence/experiment would you want to see in order to establish that Koko really did "understand" sign language


That's half my problem, I don't know what a reasonable level would be to set. I am not an expert it animal psychology or anthropology etc. What may look impressive to me may be dissmissed by the experts or indeed vice versa due to my lack of knowledge in the area. From what I have read (and I don't profess to have read a huge amount on the subject) I certainly can't discount prompt and interpret. If somebody can point me at a double blinded test performed for the Gorilla that would be more compelling evidence certainly.

We do then get in to a different debate of when does learning the consequences of a certain action actually become understanding of the initial actions?

[Stitch]

Originally posted by Graculus
How about the blind assessment (the tester didn't know the answer, either)?

I'll cover this in a moment...

Originally posted by Graculus
How about the communication between the two gorillas when no humans were present?

What about it? It seems that much of the signing requires quite extensive interpretation, see later, so in the absence of some kind of blinded test I am not convinced that the Gorillas understood what they were doing in anything like the same manner as the researchers who observed and interpreted.

Originally posted by Graculus
Here (http://gladstone.uoregon.edu/~nstone/gorillas.htm)
"She scored comparable to human children on IQ tests at the ages of 3 ½, 4 and 4 ½. Koko scored an 84, a 95 and an 85 respectively; ... Koko also was facing some strong cultural biases being that the tests are directed toward humans. .... Koko is also quick witted. She has been known to tease her trainers with insults, argue over things she feels passionate about and lie to get herself out of trouble.


This is based on viewing, interacting and interpretation by people who "want" this to be successful. Do you see any parallels between this and Geller being tested??

Originally posted by Graculus
Critics of the now Dr. Patterson's findings generally focus on points such as (1) cues from trainers prompting speech and (2) sub-par and inconsistent performance on assessments of comprehension. Dr. Patterson rebuttals against the first claim by providing evidence of the spontaneous use 15 days out of a month that is required for a sign to be logged as learned, also many of her tests are performed double-blind, a process in which ensures there is a lack of cues that a tester can give..

Now we are getting somewhere - anybody know where the test protocols for this is online?

Originally posted by Graculus
... while Koko has not ever seen a real alligator she knows the sign and is afraid of toy alligators. ... When one of Dr. Patterson's assistants had prepared a snack for Koko but was slow in delivering it Koko signed “Alligator chase lip� (lip is a term Koko uses lip idiosyncratically for girl or woman). While there was no obviously no alligator present Koko used a sign associated with fear to her as a threat to what might happen if she is not served her snack promptly.

Seems rather anecdotal, uncontrolled and interpreted to me.

Originally posted by Graculus
Being that Koko rarely ever speaks in complete sentences

But she does sometimes?? Why do we think that is? Was the actual sentences she formed just a case of luck? 7 or 8 sequential signs just happened to come in such a way that the researcher could interpret it as a sentence or was it genuinely a sentence?

Originally posted by Graculus
it is easy for skeptics to conclude that she does not have grammaticality. However, the information that Koko is provided in sign language is hardly ever anything but broken language and the structure of her utterances generally follow correct verb-noun and noun-verb-noun forms. [/B]

It seems there has been (from this extract) some double blinded tests, lets look at those first and put interpreted and anecdotal "evidence" to one side!

It interests me that a statement such as "also many of her tests are performed double-blind, a process in which ensures there is a lack of cues that a tester can give" in this case seems to be accepted and yet if we were discussing "psychics" people would be demanding to see the test protocols and the results of the testing etc. Science is science and the same rigor should be applied to everything not just the things we "think" are bogus.

I am happy to keep reading and digging on this, but from what I have read so far I am still very much on the fence.

[Graculus]

[pgwenthold
There is no "rhymes" in sign language! It's supposed to be sign language, not english! So much for being able to understand sign language. There is nothing wrong with Koko's hearing.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by Graculus
Why the heck WOULDN'T you teach "nipples" to a girl gorilla? Besides, maybe she asked.

http://www.freecitymedia.com/KokoText.html

The following is an interview with Koko and Dina Pettit, Lead Gorilla Caregiver, and also features Koko's responses as documented by Dr. Penny Patterson, founder of the Koko Project.

< snip >

FCM: Do you see her playing with dolls - as social play, an as outlet for her nurturing and maternal spirit?

Yes, Koko does use her dolls in both of these ways. Koko often cradles and kisses her favorite dolls. She is especially maternal with her gorilla and other primate dolls. She likes to hold them to her nipples as if they are nursing, and sometimes even molds their hands into signs. Koko has also been observed having her alligator dolls bite other dolls, or even herself or Penny. She also sometimes uses her toy alligators to "scare" her human companions by jabbing them at her mesh during chase games.

< snip >
< change of subject >

FCM Question to Koko: If other gorillas could paint do you think they'd like to do it?

FCM Question to Koko: You use a lot of red in your paintings. Is red your favorite color to paint with? Why do you like it?

Dr. Penny Patterson: Why is your favorite color red?
Koko: There. (pointing to her doll's pink dress) Lip. (Koko rubs her lip and her doll's lip)
PP: Oh, because lips are red!
K: That red red. (pointing to red flower on fabric)
K: Nipple there Nipple. (pointing to the piece of paper Penny has with the interview questions on it)
PP: Yes, questions from people. (Koko often uses the word nipple to mean people.)

Wow. Massive assumptions on the part of PP. And gratuitous interpretations on behalf of the interviewer: "Oh, because lips are red!" No, that's not what the gorilla said. What the gorilla said was, "Doll dress. Lip."

How does PP know the gorilla didn't simply hear her question as, "Color red?" and so she obligingly pointed to "something red" (except that "pink" is not "red". However, she's been compared to 3-year-olds, and a 3-year-old doesn't yet know the difference between "pink" and "red". Indeed, Threes are still learning what all the colors are. That's the point of all that Sesame Street singing about "colors".)

Anyway, that's the way a 3-year-old child would hear the question: "Color red?" A 3-year-old doesn't understand the concept of "what's your favorite color?" If pressed to name one, to please a teacher or parent, they will name a color, but it's not really their "favorite color", not the way an older child really will have a favorite color like purple or pink and will be totally obsessed with it, the lunchbox, the sneakers, the umbrella, etc. all have to be That Color. To preschoolers, one color has the same value as another (speaking here as a mom of three and as a former room parent).

FCM Question to Koko: Why do you like kittens? (Does Koko have a sign for cute?)

PP: Why like kittens better than puppies? Koko puts flowered scarf on her head, then kisses a small blonde haired doll and puts it to her nipple.
PP: Because we bring kitties in blankets?
Koko does not respond.
PP: Any other reason you like kittens?
K: Cat (signed 4 times on left cheek) cat (signed on right cheek), then moves her hand down her muzzle area (possibly short muzzle??)
PP: I'm having trouble with that sign.
K: Cat cat.
PP: You like kittens because...
K: Cat good (Koko puts her hand to her nipple, but Penny can't tell if it is the sign nipple, or a variation.)
Besides yet more examples of the observer bringing massive assumptions to the proceedings...Can I repeat that last sentence? "Penny can't tell if it is the sign nipple, or a variation." Obviously there are many times when interpretation is called for--"what sign was that, that she just made?" And obviously someone with a vested interest in proving that the gorilla is just a different kind of human being will tend to interpret the signs so as to reinforce that belief.

And, again, a 3-year-old child would not be able to answer the question, "Why do you like kitties?" either. It's too abstract. What the questioner will get will be a long pause, and then a shy, "I dunno..."

I read both these "conversations" as the human asking abstract questions that the gorilla doesn't understand, but the gorilla is gamely trying to participate by signing things that she considers may have some bearing on what the human is getting at, the way when you ask your dog, "Do you like going to the movies?" she brings you the leash, and then she brings her favorite dog toy, and then she runs to her dog dish, and then she runs around in circles in "play invitation behavior". From the dog's POV, she's not sure what you're getting at, but she heard "do you like" and "go to", and in the past, those always meant "play" or "ride in car" or sometimes "special food".

[Goshawk]

Patterson explains: Nipple rhymes with people, she doesn't sign people per se, she was trying to do a "sounds like..."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



There is no "rhymes" in sign language! It's supposed to be sign language, not english! So much for being able to understand sign language.

Graculus: The point is nothing to do with Koko's hearing. The point is, she has been taught to communicate by using hand signals that correspond to certain words or concepts. But there are no sounds that go along with those words or concepts. That's the way ASL works. ASL is silent. Sometimes the signing person may mouth the words, but there are no sounds that correspond to the hand signals.

"Rhymes" in ASL are signs that are similar. ASL poetry consists of hand signals that are similar.

Now think about "words that rhyme"--words rhyme because they sound alike.

However, in ASL, sounds don't count. Sounds are irrelevant.

Like all deaf human students being taught ASL, Koko has not been taught to listen to the sounds that come out of humans' mouths and decide whether they sound alike (i.e. "rhyme") or not. Also, normally-hearing children need to be taught this skill ("recognizing words that rhyme"), which is something that happens during the kindergarten year. Children do not normally recognize that "some words sound alike". They have to be taught it.

Now, like any other well-trained animal, a sheepdog, for example, Koko has learned that the hand signals and the spoken words frequently go together, and mean the same thing. A sheepdog is able to respond either to whistles or hand signals, or both together. And thus Koko is able to respond to what the humans say as well as what they sign.

But in this instance, PP is once again making assumptions and interpreting what the gorilla is saying to conform with her own biases.

Adding: Sheepdogs do sometimes mis-hear a similar-sounding word and think it means a command, so it's conceivable that Koko could hear "people" if someone said it to her, and think it was "nipple", or vice versa. But as for her deliberately choosing to signal "nipple" for "people"--no, I don't see that "knowing words that rhyme" is one of her skills. That's something only a kindergartener would be able to do. And actually, "nipple" and "people" don't rhyme (it's a poetic license trick called "assonance"), so if you asked a kindergartner whether "nipple" and "people" rhyme, he would confidently say, "No." It takes an older child to understand the concept of assonance and poetic license.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Goshawk

Wow. Massive assumptions on the part of PP.
Again, I don't think it is reasonable to expect interpretations of these exchanges to be free of this element. Communication between humans is VERY dependent on 'massive assumptions' on the part of the listener (and the speaker as well, who must make assumptions in order to anticipate what assumptions the listener is likely to make).
I read both these "conversations" as the human asking abstract questions that the gorilla doesn't understand, but the gorilla is gamely trying to participate by signing things that she considers may have some bearing on what the human is getting atExcept for the use of the word 'gorilla', that is not a bad description of the nature of exchanges that take place on this forum every day. Does this mean that the participants are not truly using language?

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by Ashles
Actually, come to think of it, why have they been teaching Koko about nipples at all? I mean, if you had to write a vocabulary for a different species, how high up your list would 'nipple' really be?

Would it be higher than 'girl' or 'woman'?

After all, apparently, 'Koko uses lip idiosyncratically for girl or woman'.

Why would a gorilla start using language ideosyncratically in place of the actual words?

If I wanted to talk to a gorilla, I honestly think it would be a real long time before I taught the gorilla about nipples.

Whoa! Does this mean there's been some sorta hanky panky going with Koko?

:eek:

[BPSCG]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Wow. Massive assumptions on the part of PP. And gratuitous interpretations on behalf of the interviewer: "Oh, because lips are red!" No, that's not what the gorilla said. What the gorilla said was, "Doll dress. Lip."
Besides yet more examples of the observer bringing massive assumptions to the proceedings...Can I repeat that last sentence? "Penny can't tell if it is the sign nipple, or a variation." Obviously there are many times when interpretation is called for--"what sign was that, that she just made?" And obviously someone with a vested interest in proving that the gorilla is just a different kind of human being will tend to interpret the signs so as to reinforce that belief.Why do I look at PP's "interpretations" of what Koko's signing and keep getting images of John ("Crossing Over") Edward? Is it because he can turn almost anything his mark says into confirmation of what he's selling?

[Gastric ReFlux]

Originally posted by BPSCG
[B]Why do I look at PP's "interpretations" of what Koko's signing and keep getting images of John ("Crossing Over") Edward? Is it because he can turn almost anything his mark says into confirmation of what he's selling?

Hah! Maybe that's our difficulty here. Koko is in fact a spirit medium and she's communicating with the dead. We see how much trouble John Edward has picking up on a simple name, for a gorilla it must be much more difficult.

I now believe that Koko was trying to tell about a dead person who had suffered a toothache.

:cs:

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Goshawk


Graculus: The point is nothing to do with Koko's hearing. The point is, she has been taught to communicate by using hand signals that correspond to certain words or concepts. But there are no sounds that go along with those words or concepts. That's the way ASL works. ASL is silent. Sometimes the signing person may mouth the words, but there are no sounds that correspond to the hand signals... [/QUOTE]
That's not how Patterson trained Koko, according to videos I've seen.
She voices the words and signs at the same time. Koko understands some spoken words without signing.

[Ashles]

From Koko.org:
[quote]Tell us a bit about how you and Koko are able to communicate.

Koko and I communicate with each other through a modified form of American Sign Language (ASL). Koko has demonstrated well over 1,000 such gestures. She also understands over 2,000 words of spoken English, so people can speak to her and she will respond in sign. She also communicates with her normal gorilla vocalizations, of purrs and cries. In our more than 28 years together, Koko has expressed the whole range of emotions associated with humans, like, happiness, sadness, love, grief, embarrassment
[quote]

It seems a bit hit and miss this communication.

As a side note if someone has invested that much time in an intelligent animal, they wil almost certainly have a real emotional attachment to te gorilla and will not be as objective in answers as they could be.

I'm sure they have attributed coherent messages to many random meaningless signs by Koko. Still, it doesn't mean the rest of the communications didn't happen - it's not as though the ability to communicate with gorillas is in question.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
That's not how Patterson trained Koko, according to videos I've seen. She voices the words and signs at the same time. Koko understands some spoken words without signing. Right, I'm not questioning that--that's what I meant by bringing up the subject of sheepdogs who are trained to both voice commands and hand signals. But what I am questioning is that Koko understands the liguistic concept of "words that rhyme", i.e, "Words that sound alike", to the extent of being able to sign a word that rhymes with another word that she could have used that meant what she meant. I'd have to see a lot more instances of Koko using "words that rhyme" instead of the real word she meant, before I'd believe that she truly "got" the concept of "words that rhyme".

There's a style of speaking called "Cockney rhyming slang" (http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/articles/cockney-rhyming-slang.htm), where the speaker uses words or phrases that rhyme with the real word, like, "apples and pears" instead of "stairs".

So, in effect, PP is asking us to believe that Koko understands, and sometimes uses, a kind of Cockney rhyming slang. I find this rather farfetched.

[RamblingOnwards]

And actually, "nipple" and "people" don't rhyme (it's a poetic license trick called "assonance"),

I think you meant "consonance" - it is the vowel sounds in 'nip' and 'peop' that prevent it from being a true rhyme, after all.

Unless it's pronounced really strangely in the states. (Hey, what do I know? 'your' and 'you're' are apparently homophones over there!)

[Ashles]

Hey! Some of my best friends are homophones.

[BKITU]

Originally posted by Ashles
Hey! Some of my best friends are homophones.

Bah! They all sound alike, the lot of them!

[RamblingOnwards]

Bah! They all sound alike, the lot of them!

*groan*

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Goshawk


Graculus: The point is nothing to do with Koko's hearing. The point is, she has been taught to communicate by using hand signals that correspond to certain words or concepts. But there are no sounds that go along with those words or concepts. That's the way ASL works. ASL is silent. Sometimes the signing person may mouth the words, but there are no sounds that correspond to the hand signals. And you are asserting this from a position of ignorance. Kok was taught to sign simultaneously with hearing the word from humans. She doesn't live in a silent world.

Rhymes" in ASL are signs that are similar. ASL poetry consists of hand signals that are similar.

Now think about "words that rhyme"--words rhyme because they sound alike.

However, in ASL, sounds don't count. Sounds are irrelevant.
However, what DEAF HUMANS do have no bearing on what a HEARING GORILLA does.

Like all deaf human students being taught ASL, Koko has not been taught to listen to the sounds that come out of humans' mouths Yes, she has.

Children do not normally recognize that "some words sound alike". They have to be taught it. Rhyming is natural, rhymes are used to help kids to learn, rather than the other way around.

Now, like any other well-trained animal, a sheepdog, for example, Koko has learned that the hand signals and the spoken words frequently go together, and mean the same thing. A sheepdog is able to respond either to whistles or hand signals, or both together. And thus Koko is able to respond to what the humans say as well as what they sign. Except that Koko can respond to novel constructions, and does not respond to the same thing the same way all of the time.

Example: Christmas shopping.

They brought in a bunch of catalogues for Koko and asked her to pick gifts form them. Being a gorilla, she homed in on the gourmet food catalogues. But when she was asked "Anything for Ron?" (the human that she has known the longest), she put down the food catalogue, picked up a gadget catalogue, and pointed out an indoor golf set... Ron is an avid golfer. I really doubt that your dog could do that.

But in this instance, PP is once again making assumptions and interpreting what the gorilla is saying to conform with her own biases. Or are you making assumptions and interpretations to conform with your own bias?

Sheepdogs do sometimes mis-hear a similar-sounding word and think it means a command, so it's conceivable that Koko could hear "people" if someone said it to her, and think it was "nipple", or vice versa. But as for her deliberately choosing to signal "nipple" for "people"--no, I don't see that "knowing words that rhyme" is one of her skills. That's something only a kindergartener would be able to do. And actually, "nipple" and "people" don't rhyme (it's a poetic license trick called "assonance"), so if you asked a kindergartner whether "nipple" and "people" rhyme, he would confidently say, "No." It takes an older child to understand the concept of assonance and poetic license. Bull-puckey. In order for her to make that mistake you have to abandon your previous position that Koko doesn't know any spoken words, so i take it that you are admitting that she does? She understands the SPOKEN words as being different, but she has no sign of "people". Instead of just being confused, she has made the leap to charades.

After 9-11 Koko was upset. She used one of Mike's (the silverback) signs: "neck-cut", a sign used by Mike. Mike used this sign when asked what happened to his mother. His mother was killed by poachers when he was a baby. Later Koko signed "trouble" when a jet flew overhead. Tell me, how did your dog react?

So, in effect, PP is asking us to believe that Koko understands, and sometimes uses, a kind of Cockney rhyming slang. I find this rather farfetched. I don't because the propensity to play with language is evident in very young children, before any formal training. Playing is something that all of our close relatives do.

I think that there are a lot of misconceptions being brought to the table here. Dr Patterson (she has a PhD, please do her the courtesy of using the title) has never claimed that Koko has human level language abilities. I also think that there's some problems with people not having enough information about humans, especially in the human evolution department. Our capacity for language is very old. Homo habilis has Broca's area. Broca's area would not have developed unless there was already some form of incipient/proto language in the australopithecines. The australopithecines weren't particularly advanced compared to chimps, gorillas, etc. There also seems to be some assumptions being made about gorilla behaviour that are founded on ignorance. When Dr patterson says that Koko has exibited certain emotions you have to remember that untrained gorillas in the wild have also displayed those emotions, it is not something that needs to be treated with skepticism.

If Dr patterson is correct, then Koko and her ilk support the hypothesis that our common ancestor had incipient language skills, but was unable to utilize them until the morphology changed (with diet, perhaps?) to allow vocalization. If you study human origins, this isn't an extreme position. Dr Patterson isn't claiming anything that is particularly suprising or "out-there".

[Operaider]

Originally posted by Graculus
And you are asserting this from a position of ignorance. Kok was taught to sign simultaneously with hearing the word from humans. She doesn't live in a silent world.If KoKo "knows" that nipple rymes with people, that would imply that she knows what the word people means. So why didn't she just use the sign for people?
Example: Christmas shopping.

They brought in a bunch of catalogues for Koko and asked her to pick gifts form them. Being a gorilla, she homed in on the gourmet food catalogues. But when she was asked "Anything for Ron?" (the human that she has known the longest), she put down the food catalogue, picked up a gadget catalogue, and pointed out an indoor golf set... Ron is an avid golfer. I really doubt that your dog could do that.True, because my dog has never seen me golf. But, then again I doubt that KoKo has ever seen Ron golf either. What are the odds that Ron brought his golf equipment in one day. Kinda slim. I'd bet KoKo just pointed at something at random and happened to get lucky. KoKo, the ultimate cold reader.
Bull-puckey. In order for her to make that mistake you have to abandon your previous position that Koko doesn't know any spoken words, so i take it that you are admitting that she does? She understands the SPOKEN words as being different, but she has no sign of "people". Instead of just being confused, she has made the leap to charades.Why would the monkey have a sign for nipple but no sign for people? I'm pretty sure she would find a people sign more usefull than a nipple one. I'd even allot for the possibility that KoKo thinks the nipple sign means people, but I don't think KoKo understands double meanings. I doubt she understands that in certain centext her nipple sign means people and in other contexts it just means nipple.
After 9-11 Koko was upset. She used one of Mike's (the silverback) signs: "neck-cut", a sign used by Mike. Mike used this sign when asked what happened to his mother. His mother was killed by poachers when he was a baby. Later Koko signed "trouble" when a jet flew overhead. Tell me, how did your dog react? I'm curious exactly how they taught a monkey the word death. For Mike to know that the "neck-cut" sign ment death, it would first have to associate that sign with death. Did they use flash cards of dead apes while symotaniously doing the sign?I think that there are a lot of misconceptions being brought to the table here. Dr Patterson (she has a PhD, please do her the courtesy of using the title) has never claimed that Koko has human level language abilities. I also think that there's some problems with people not having enough information about humans, especially in the human evolution department. Our capacity for language is very old. Homo habilis has Broca's area. Broca's area would not have developed unless there was already some form of incipient/proto language in the australopithecines. The australopithecines weren't particularly advanced compared to chimps, gorillas, etc. There also seems to be some assumptions being made about gorilla behaviour that are founded on ignorance. When Dr patterson says that Koko has exibited certain emotions you have to remember that untrained gorillas in the wild have also displayed those emotions, it is not something that needs to be treated with skepticism.But, the level of comunication she is suggesting is far outside the range of even the Homo habilis. KoKo is said to be able to imply meaningful information through the use of otherwise meaningless signs. Signs like Nipple are taken to mean people, signs like Fine mean either good or delicate depending on the context of the question. This looks allot like cold reading.[/QUOTE]

[roger]

Originally posted by Gastric ReFlux
Whoa! Does this mean there's been some sorta hanky panky going with Koko?

:eek: Well, I recall seeing a dumb show recently where I guy got in the cage with one of these 'talking' apes. I don't recall if it was koko or not. What I do remember is the gorilla immediately reached out, grabbed the poor guy by the nipple, and starting playing with it. She even reached inside his shirt for better access. So I can imagine nipple being one of the first words learned at least for this gorilla, to be used in the following way: "NO! Let go Nipple". :)

[apoger]

But when she was asked "Anything for Ron?" (the human that she has known the longest), she put down the food catalogue, picked up a gadget catalogue, and pointed out an indoor golf set... Ron is an avid golfer.


What if she pointed to a chair? Would that be good as well, since Ron probably also sits often?

What if the item pointed at had absolutely no relationship to Ron? Would they have discounted this? Or would they have stretched for a meaning?

I have no doubt that apes can communicate on some level, however the examples being offered here seem more like demonstrations of human pattern recognition and experimenter bias.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Operaider
If KoKo "knows" that nipple rymes with people, that would imply that she knows what the word people means. So why didn't she just use the sign for people? Because she likes to play with "words"?
True, because my dog has never seen me golf. But, then again I doubt that KoKo has ever seen Ron golf either. What are the odds that Ron brought his golf equipment in one day. Kinda slim. I'd bet KoKo just pointed at something at random and happened to get lucky. KoKo, the ultimate cold reader. Argument from ignorance. You don't know that Koko has never seen Ron play golf. And Ron has discussed golfing with other people in Koko's prescense certainly. BTW, she also made two other approriate gift choices for Ron. She must be one hell of a cold reader.
Why would the monkey have a sign for nipple but no sign for people? I'm pretty sure she would find a people sign more usefull than a nipple one. I'd even allot for the possibility that KoKo thinks the nipple sign means people, but I don't think KoKo understands double meanings. I doubt she understands that in certain centext her nipple sign means people and in other contexts it just means nipple. Actually, I was wrong, she does have a sign for "people", she just likes to use "nipple" instead on occassion. I don't know if Mike or Ndume do this, though. Anyways, that would require almost human understanding of language (seperate meanings from context). Are you reversing your position?

I'm curious exactly how they taught a monkey the word death. For Mike to know that the "neck-cut" sign ment death, it would first have to associate that sign with death. Did they use flash cards of dead apes while symotaniously doing the sign? I have no idea. Mike's sign is a very emphatic and exaggerated sign, associated with the sign from "end". (In "human 'Cut!). It would be very spooky if they were never taught a sign for "death", just "end", and developed the sign to mean "death" from "end" on their own. I'd love to find out.

But, the level of comunication she is suggesting is far outside the range of even the Homo habilis. How do you know? Channeling Twiggy (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/oh24.html), are we? Broca's area is present, and you have to have language of come form before you have Broca's area. Koko's range is probably much less than that of H habilis.

KoKo is said to be able to imply meaningful information through the use of otherwise meaningless signs. Signs like Nipple are taken to mean people, signs like Fine mean either good or delicate depending on the context of the question. This looks allot like cold reading But the signs aren't meaningless. The thing is that you are expecting her to communicate like an adult human, and then saying that she has no ability if she can't, and that is sheer bollocks. We use "fine" to mean "good" as well as "delicate" and she has spent 30+ years with humans talking around her. Why shouldn't she understand the word in both contexts?

She isn't a dog, she's a gorilla, one of the closest relatives to a human. While her abilities aren't human level, she's a close relative of ours that has spent 30+ years around humans.

Bah, you are all specieists ;)

[Operaider]

Originally posted by Graculus
Argument from ignorance. You don't know that Koko has never seen Ron play golf. And Ron has discussed golfing with other people in Koko's prescense certainly. BTW, she also made two other approriate gift choices for Ron. She must be one hell of a cold reader.How would KoKo ever see Ron play golf? Did he get her a membership at his country club? Even if he discussed golfing in the presence of KoKo, which is a big assumption, That wouldn't mean KoKo could understand what they were talking about. Even if we assumed that KoKo listened in on a conversation, and could understand what people say, that doesn't mean she could pick out what a golf club looked like. There is no way a human, let alone an Ape, that had never seen a golf club could determine what it looked like simply from overhearing someone talk about their golf game
Actually, I was wrong, she does have a sign for "people", she just likes to use "nipple" instead on occasion. I don't know if Mike or Ndume do this, though. Anyways, that would require almost human understanding of language (seperate meanings from context). Are you reversing your position? What I said that I'd believe that KoKo thought the word nipple meant people, but not that it has 2 meanings. If KoKo wants to use the nipple sign to mean people than fine. If KoKo wants to use the nipple sign to mean nipple that's also fine. But, using it to mean both shows either knowledge of double meanings or a lack of understanding. I doubt it’s the former.
But the signs aren't meaningless. The thing is that you are expecting her to communicate like an adult human, and then saying that she has no ability if she can't, and that is sheer bollocks. We use "fine" to mean "good" as well as "delicate" and she has spent 30+ years with humans talking around her. Why shouldn't she understand the word in both contexts?
bold face is my doing. Do you see how those 2 statements are conflicting?
No actually, the thing is that I don't expect her to communicate like a human adult but that is what I'm being asked to believe. Just because she spent 30+ years with humans talking around her that doesn't mean she understands that words like fine have 2 different meanings. Humans don't know that until they are taught it. If you can point to a lesson in which they taught that fine meant delicate please do it. As is, they seem to just be assuming that the monkey understands that it has 2 meanings just like adult humans understand it has 2 meanings.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Operaider
How would KoKo ever see Ron play golf? Did he get her a membership at his country club? Whoa! When did you go to sleep, Rip Van Winkle, there have been indoor golf accessories for decades, and you can practice your swing without going to the country club. My father used to putt in the living room and practice his drive (sans ball) on the front lawn.
What I said that I'd believe that KoKo thought the word nipple meant people, but not that it has 2 meanings. If KoKo wants to use the nipple sign to mean people than fine. If KoKo wants to use the nipple sign to mean nipple that's also fine. But, using it to mean both shows either knowledge of double meanings or a lack of understanding. I doubt it’s the former. No, it means that she recognizes rhymes and has a sense of humour. Did I mention that she is a brat?
Just because she spent 30+ years with humans talking around her that doesn't mean she understands that words like fine have 2 different meanings. Humans don't know that until they are taught it. If you can point to a lesson in which they taught that fine meant delicate please do it. Humans are *taught* language by experiencing it. Before there were schools there was language and children learned it by being exposed to it, not by formal training. Notice that even though she apparently has a fairly broad vocabulary, and a tendency to play with words, her grammar and syntax hasn't improved at all. That makes emminent sense in terms of an incipient language capacity. The earliest language probably wasn't much past where Koko is. "Og see antelope". This is a gorilla that has been subjected to the equivalent of having been raised by Nobel Laureates. You would expect a child in that situation to be rather advanced, wouldn't you?

As is, they seem to just be assuming that the monkey understands that it has 2 meanings just like adult humans understand it has 2 meanings. Now here is where I think the root of your problem lies. You don't know biology. Koko is not a monkey.


OK, a quick overview. Human and gorilla lines diverged about 5 mya. The ancestral line of the human definitely had language capacity (as indicated by the presence of Broca's area and Wernicke's area) by 2.4 mya at the very latest. That's only 3 million years of evolution between our first *definitely* language endowed ancestors and the ancestors of the gorilla. Meanwhile, the gorilla has also had 5 million years of evolution.

All that Koko's (and other apes) language capacity would prove is that incipient language capacity exsted in our common ancestor.


this work references various studies, not just Koko
Miles, L. W. & S. E. Harper (1994) "Ape language" studies and the study of human language origins. in Hominid Culture in Primate Perspective, by Quiatt, D. D. & J. Itani (eds). University Press of Colorado. pp253-278

Summary (sorry, can't find the text online, my emphasis in bold)


-Signing apes achieve vocabularies of three year olds. (258)
-General ape language like 2 year old humans, other cognition like 3-4 year olds. (269)
-All signing apes have the ability to create signs. (262)
-Some apes sign to themselves when nobody else is around. (266)
-All of the apes produce sign combinations that they have not heard before.
-flexible, basic semantic communications system with moderate levels of reference
l-ow levels of perspective-taking, imitation and sequential organization and protosyntax
-Grammar may have come later in the evolutionary process.
-If the linguistic and cognitive abilities of enculturated apes can be only matched by late hominids, it shows the importance of culture to human evolution.
-by and large there is agreement that apes can use symbol systems
- Researchers who tried to use an artificial language and limit the cultural aspect turned to more humanlike rearing and found more success.
-Many of the signs that apes have difficulty with are the same as those that children have difficulty with (e.g. pronouns, abstract concepts, nontouch signs
-Most apes are at about 150 signs, a deaf child at age three is at about 130. Signing apes achieve vocabularies of three year olds.
-All apes raised in human culture can refer to things not present.
-All of the apes produce sign combinations that they have not heard before
-Researchers such as Chomksy think that language developed only in humans only very recently. But "Given the morphological, neural and behavioral factors involved in that very complex phenomenon of human language, it is highly unlikely that such a combination of events happend suddenly and synchronically.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Graculus

...Researchers such as Chomksy think that language developed only in humans only very recently. . [/B]
"Researcher such as Chomsky"? You may think he's a cunning linguist, but he never did any research outside of a library.
He wrote his review of Skinner's "Verbal behavior" without even reading the book.
Herb Terrace named his signing chimp Nim Chimpsky after Noam.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
"Researcher such as Chomsky"? You may think he's a cunning linguist, but he never did any research outside of a library.
He wrote his review of Skinner's "Verbal behavior" without even reading the book.
Herb Terrace named his signing chimp Nim Chimpsky after Noam. Could you expand on the point you are trying to make, because right now that's a complete non-sequitur.

[Goshawk]

[sigh]

I was wondering when you were going to get around to this. Bah, you are all specieistsAlthough I expected it to be phrased more along the lines of, "Why are you so threatened by the possibility that Koko can really talk?" Because that's how it's usually phrased.

Anyway, FWIW, no, I'm not a species-ist. I just have Skeptical trouble with people who produce a "talking" animal and claim, "Look how well it talks!" without first proving that it can talk at all. I believe that Koko understands how to make signs to connect with certain words and concepts, that she can communicate to that extent, but I still think that the humans around her are putting way too much spin on everything she says. Especially when it comes to "rhyming".

Or are you making assumptions and interpretations to conform with your own bias?
I guess I am--my basic assumption is that animals don't understand the concept of "rhymes'.

[shrug]

[JPK]

1. Paterson realeases info to the press. Not the sientific community.

2. every transcript of conversation with the gorila is interprited by Paterson in a questionable way.

3. Monkey see, monkey do.

4 Clever Hans????

JPK

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Goshawk
[sigh]

I was wondering when you were going to get around to this.
Over the years that the internet has been in operation many people noticed that much human communication involved visual and verbal cues that were missing from the online written format. In an effort to restore these cues to online conversations they developed a series of symbols used to express tone and demeanor. They are refered to as "emoticons" after the words "emotion" + "icon".

Often an emoticon involving a jovial gesture is appended to a statement to indicate that it is not to be taken as a serious comment on the debate, but as a form of communication refered to as A JOKE.

[cajela]

Internet infidels had a discussion on this recently, and it turned out one of the regular posters is one of Koko's carers.

He answered many questions very politely - including a lot of the clever Hans style suggestions. I'm sure he'd answer your questions, too, if you popped over to ask him; the thread is not long off the front page.

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=94556

[Graculus]

Originally posted by JPK
1. Paterson realeases info to the press. Not the sientific community.

2. every transcript of conversation with the gorila is interprited by Paterson in a questionable way.

3. Monkey see, monkey do.

4 Clever Hans????

1) Actually, she has presented her work in scientific settings. Just not often.

2) Patterson is not the only person involved.

3) Human see, human do. Your point?

4) Not a horse. Doesn't explain signing amongst themselves.

You are also completely ignoring the multiple other non-human primate language research. Koko isn't the only ape out there. In addition to the gorilla project (Koko, Mike & Ndume) there have been several other projects with chimps, bonobos and orangutangs. I presented a summary of the findings from several of these projects, and the other projects support Dr Patterson's claims. The only thing "groundbreaking" is the fact that she's a gorilla, not a chimp.

Herbert S. Terrace was the main proponent of the "operational conditioning" rebuttal, and he may be changing his mind on that:

"This is the first instances where we're seeing expertise developing in monkeys," says Dr. Terrace. "The results of these experiments provide compelling evidence that number is a meaningful dimension for rhesus monkeys."
-Elizabeth M. Brannon, Ph.D. and Herbert S. Terrace, Ph.D., January 2000 issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes.

Summary here (http://www.apa.org/releases/monkeys.html)

please note that these are rhesus monkeys, not even apes, and far further from human than a gorilla.

[BPScooter]

1) Has anyone raised a non-human primate in, say, China? Where to my understanding the idea of "rhyme" is quite different. It would be interesting to know if similar spoken-to-signed evidence exists, or if the signs are universal, or if there is a proto-vocabulary that is evident in the primate independent of human language in the environment.

2) How about that ridiculous thing in the original Edgar Rice Burroughs Tarzan novel? Where the human is raised by apes and finds a book in the house of his now-dead human parents, and teaches himself how to read? He looks at the letters, imagines they're bugs, and "mangani this and mangani that" figures out how to understand printed English. I was about 10 when I read that and remembered thinking, "now, wait a minute, that seems really unlikely."

3) Is there any anthropologist or folklorist that has followed up on more or less natural interchange between these species? Like a wild crazed ape being called off by a human, or vice versa? "Stop don't kill me, I'm not bad" or something. Somewhere in the aboriginal human files it could have been documented. The evolutionary perspective would make a lot more sense if there was a survival function somewhere implied in human/ape communication. Otherwise it looks to me a little like Burroughs' assumption that a little European orphan would naturally become King of the Apes.

As always, I admit ignorance of the prior arguments pro and con in this particular case. I'm familiar with Fouts' work with Washoe the chimpanzee, but not much else. The fun part for me are these ideas that get started.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by BPScooter
1) Has anyone raised a non-human primate in, say, China? Where to my understanding the idea of "rhyme" is quite different.
All I have been able to find is "famous apes in English".

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/List%20of%20famous%20chimpanzees

And Kanzi, Panzee, and Panbanisha are working with lexigrams, not ASL.

Just offhand, all the primate language research facilities I can find are in the U.S. I found one second-hand reference to a "Soviet" project, and a reference to some Belgian students who wrote a paper on primate language research (not that they actually did any primate language research, but that they wrote a paper on it), but the link is dead.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Graculus
...Herbert S. Terrace was the main proponent of the "operational conditioning" rebuttal, and he may be changing his mind on that...
Not quite. Operant conditioning (reinforcement) techniques were used to train most of these primates, except for Kanzi, the bonobo who learned to use the symbol board by observation and imitation.
What Terrace said at an ABA meeting about 25 years ago was that Nim showed little evidence of language, per se. After viewing hours of videos of Nim, it seemed that he would run through his repetoire of signs until he got what he wanted.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
What Terrace said at an ABA meeting about 25 years ago was that Nim showed little evidence of language, per se. After viewing hours of videos of Nim, it seemed that he would run through his repetoire of signs until he got what he wanted. Nim showed the least learning ability precisely because he was trained via operant conditioning.. the researchers that moved to aculturation did much better. This is a good indicator that primate learning is NOT operant conditioning. Skinner was a weinee.

[troy jones]

Why would the monkey have a sign for nipple but no sign for people?Koko's "sign" for nipple is apparently to touch her nipple.

I wonder how close this is to what really goes on at the Gorilla Foundation:

"Researcher" signs a question.

Koko touches or scratches a random body part.

This is recorded as a logical but "idiosyncratic" response rather than the random gesture it probably was.

Ever notice how much Koko "talks" about lips, nipples, hair, etc? Maybe she is simply randomly scratching herself just like a wild primate and wondering why these strange human creatures wiggle their fingers at her in odd ways and seem so excited whenever she touches herself.

[troy jones]

2) Patterson is not the only person involved.
John Edward is not the only person involved with guessing the initials of dead people. So what?

3) Human see, human do. Your point?
I believe the point is mimicry and Clever Hans type tricks are not scientifically significant.

4) Not a horse.
So you think only horses are capable of performing Clever Hans tricks?

[Graculus]

Originally posted by troy jones
Koko's "sign" for nipple is apparently to touch her nipple.

I wonder how close this is to what really goes on at the Gorilla Foundation:

"Researcher" signs a question.

Koko touches or scratches a random body part.

This is recorded as a logical but "idiosyncratic" response rather than the random gesture it probably was.

Ever notice how much Koko "talks" about lips, nipples, hair, etc? Maybe she is simply randomly scratching herself just like a wild primate and wondering why these strange human creatures wiggle their fingers at her in odd ways and seem so excited whenever she touches herself.
Maybe you should watch some of the videos of Koko... that is definitely not what is going on.

Some short QuickTime videos (http://ali.apple.com/ali_sites/ali/exhibits/1000790/Koko_Signs.html)

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Graculus
Nim showed the least learning ability precisely because he was trained via operant conditioning.. the researchers that moved to aculturation did much better. This is a good indicator that primate learning is NOT operant conditioning. Skinner was a weinee.
You clearly indicate you know very little about operant conditioning. First you call it "operational". Then you imply that operant conditioning was only used with Nim, when it was used with all of the other projects.
And to further imply that "aculturation" (I assume you mean acculturation) does not involve positive reinforcement is risible.
As to your reference to Skinner as a "weenie", Bruno Bettleheim topped that, he called him a schmuck.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
You clearly indicate you know very little about operant conditioning. First you call it "operational". Then you imply that operant conditioning was only used with Nim, when it was used with all of the other projects. Sorry if that was implied. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that those projects that used acculturation were more successful than the projects that used operational conditoning.
First you call it "operational"
Uh, yes. It *is* often called that. it is also sometimes refered to as "instrumental".

I assume you mean acculturation
Ah, the old "argumentum ad typographicum". A devastating piece of logic, that.

Did you actually watch any of the videos of Koko's signing interactions?

I've seen a lot of denial and wild assertions being made by some posters that have not even bothered to review the evidence. It is as impossible to discuss this with those posters as it is to beat sense into a YEC, and for much the same reasons.

"Weenie" and "schmuck" are not mutually exclusive terms. I am comfortable refering to Skinner as both. ;)


Originally posted by Goshawk
my basic assumption is that animals don't understand the concept of "rhymes'. I think that your underlying assumption is that "rhymes" are an advanced characteristic of linguistic ability.

Here's some information on human children and language development that might be useful (substitute "signs" for "sounds" where appropriate):
0-6 months:
-Uses a different cry to express different needs

7-12 months:
-Responds to simple requests
-Listens to and imitates some sounds
-Recognizes words for common items
-Uses a song-like intonation
-Uses sound approximations
-Uses speech intentionally

13-18 months:
-Uses jargon to fill in gaps in fluency
-Has an expressive vocabulary of 50 to 100 or more words
-Has a receptive vocabulary of 300 or more words

2-3 years:
-Requests items by name
-Points to pictures in a book when named
-Follows simple commands and answers simple questions
-Asks 1-2 word questions
-Use 3-4 word phrases
-Exhibits multiple grammatical errors
-Understands most things said to him or her

3-4 years (This is roughly where Koko tested in a blind assessment)
-Asks and answers simple questions
-Produces simple verbal analogies
-Uses language to express emotion
-Uses nouns and verbs most frequently
-Is conscious of past and future
-Has a 1,200-2000 or more receptive vocabulary
-Has a 800-1,500 or more word expressive vocabulary

Step back for a moment and think about human evolution. How suprising is it that a 33 year-old gorilla raised by humans that are actively teaching it to "speak" apparently has SOME of the language skills of a human child?

Mike did a painting that he called "Apple Chase". It's a blur of black and white, no colour. Mike's dog is a black & white collie named Apple. That isn't random.

Watch the "Mr Rogers" video. Koko grasps his cufflinks and signs "flower". The cufflinks are sunbursts, and they do look like flowers. Not only did Koko initiate that exchange, but it sure as hell isn't random. Penny hadn't even looked at the cufflinks.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Graculus
Sorry if that was implied. That is not what I meant. What I meant was that those projects that used acculturation were more successful than the projects that used operational conditoning.

Uh, yes. It *is* often called that. it is also sometimes refered to as "instrumental".
Sorry, but you are dead wrong about that. It has never been called "operational" by anybody in the field of conditioning. Perhaps you are confusing it with an operational definition.
And acculturation is achieved by a combination of operant and respondent (classical) conditioning.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Sorry, but you are dead wrong about that. It has never been called "operational" by anybody in the field of conditioning. "Never" is a pretty definitive statement.

"Psychology" + "operational conditioning" search gives 24 results, none of them geocities pages.. the majority are .edu.

So you are blowing smoke.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Graculus
"Never" is a pretty definitive statement.

"Psychology" + "operational conditioning" search gives 24 results, none of them geocities pages.. the majority are .edu.

So you are blowing smoke.
And you are still dead wrong.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
And you are still dead wrong.
Proof that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

-Syllabus PSY 201G, Introduction to Psychology, New Mexico State University.
"Describe how you will use the principles of classical conditioning, operational conditioning and observational learning to help obese people to lose weight."

-1970, University of California: In Memoriam Howard Clarke Gilhousen, Psychology: Los Angeles
"Here he met B. F. Skinner, a graduate student at the time, whose pioneering work in operational conditioning was to influence him profoundly years later."

-Korea University. Course description:PSY 284. PRACTICUM IN LEARNING AND MEMORY [1]
"Classical and operational conditioning are explained by means of experimentation on animals in the lab.

-University of North Carolina. Single Subject Designs Overview
"Skinner - conducted numerous single-case experimental designs in operational conditioning ."

-Quinebaug Valley Community College, Copyright issues and fair use.
"Professor Smith would like to use video to enhance his Intro to Psychology teaching. He noticed that on the Discovery channel, there was a series of video programs about Skinner Operational Conditioning. "

-Florida State University, Exam questions 2001.
"Briefly describe how you would use instrumental (operational conditioning)" to instill this quality in your child."

-Lecture 5, Elsequest. Psychological Theories of Gender
"When all children were offered reinforcement for imitating model’s behavior, gender differences nearly disappeared (operational conditioning)"

That's 7 hits from people definitely in the field out of the first 8 hits. I ignored the freeweb hit.

I would suggest that if you told someone that the sky was blue, they should go outside and check it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Graculus
Proof that denial is not just a river in Egypt.

-Syllabus PSY 201G, Introduction to Psychology, New Mexico State University.
"Describe how you will use the principles of classical conditioning, operational conditioning and observational learning to help obese people to lose weight."

-1970, University of California: In Memoriam Howard Clarke Gilhousen, Psychology: Los Angeles
"Here he met B. F. Skinner, a graduate student at the time, whose pioneering work in operational conditioning was to influence him profoundly years later."

-Korea University. Course description:PSY 284. PRACTICUM IN LEARNING AND MEMORY [1]
"Classical and operational conditioning are explained by means of experimentation on animals in the lab.
I'd suggest you find more informed sources. Nobody who is in the field generally known as "Conditioning and Learning" uses the term operational conditioning.
The history goes back to Thorndike, who called the process "trial and error learning". Cats would hit a lever to escape a cage. This term was also applied to cases where rats had to navigate a maze to get food. The Hullians tended to call this "instrumental conditioning".
In '38, Skinner published "The Behavior of Organisms", in which he expained the differences between operant (instrumental, trial and error) and respondent (classical, Pavlovian) conditioning.
Any source that uses the term "operational conditioning" is immmmmmmmmmmediately suspect.
Don't spend your tuition grant there.

-University of North Carolina. Single Subject Designs Overview
"Skinner - conducted numerous single-case experimental designs in operational conditioning ."

-Quinebaug Valley Community College, Copyright issues and fair use.
"Professor Smith would like to use video to enhance his Intro to Psychology teaching. He noticed that on the Discovery channel, there was a series of video programs about Skinner Operational Conditioning. "

-Florida State University, Exam questions 2001.
"Briefly describe how you would use instrumental (operational conditioning)" to instill this quality in your child."

-Lecture 5, Elsequest. Psychological Theories of Gender
"When all children were offered reinforcement for imitating model’s behavior, gender differences nearly disappeared (operational conditioning)"

That's 7 hits from people definitely in the field out of the first 8 hits. I ignored the freeweb hit.

I would suggest that if you told someone that the sky was blue, they should go outside and check it.
I would avoid all those courses, since they are so uninformed as to think that there is any such thing as "operational conditioning".
There isn't.

[Mercutio]

Now search for "operant conditioning", and see what happens when you use the correct term.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Mercutio
Now search for "operant conditioning", and see what happens when you use the correct term.
Hey, Merc!
About time.
If you were to give this question on your final exam in advanced Learning, what would be the wrongest answer?
1. The change in the probability of a response, due to the consequences of that response, is termed:
a. Operant conditioning
b. Instrumental conditioning
c. Trial and error learning
d. Operational conditioning
e. A man with three buttocks

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Hey, Merc!
About time.
If you were to give this question on your final exam in advanced Learning, what would be the wrongest answer?
1. The change in the probability of a response, due to the consequences of that response, is termed:
a. Operant conditioning
b. Instrumental conditioning
c. Trial and error learning
d. Operational conditioning
e. A man with three buttocks Each of the above answers has a long and storied history in the pub conversations of behaviorists, with the exception of D, which is obviously a distractor item added to see whether or not the students read carefully.

A colleague of mine invented the best distractor term ever "defective autocause" or the process of "defective autocausation".

Answer E is also considered correct, simply because John Cleese has a firm grasp of the principles of behavioral humour.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
If you were to give this question on your final exam in advanced Learning, what would be the wrongest answer?

(cough) The "wrongest"?

That's what I've been saying all along: Americans doan know-ah how to speak-a Inglish!

(Yes, I know you are joking, so don't-a come-a cryin' to me-ah)

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
1. The change in the probability of a response, due to the consequences of that response, is termed:
a. Operant conditioning
b. Instrumental conditioning
c. Trial and error learning
d. Operational conditioning
e. A man with three buttocks

e. Arthur Frampton. His rump. His vis-a-vis. His derriere. Posterior. Sit-upon. His 50% bonus in the region of what he says.

Oh, his bum!

A quick visual?

[Graculus]

Ah, that irrefutable logic, the dog-pile (http://www.**************/~mikelr/flame69.html)

"Each of the above answers has a long and storied history in the pub conversations of behaviorists"

Yes, obviously those professors of psychology are "pub behaviourists", Mercutio. I never claimed it was *the* most pervasive term, just that it was *a* term in use in the field. I also never claimed that "operant" or "instrumental" was incorrect. Perhaps you would care to actually read my posts and address the points.

Jeff Corey: You continue to make assertions without providing any evidence for them. You claim that the term "operational condioning" is incorrect (not just rare). Prove it. You stated that the term is NEVER used in the field. There are several texts presented to you with the term in use, I can come up with many more from sources "in the field". Yet you continue your assertions and attack the sources, still without presenting any evidence for your assertions. This is a position of ideology/faith, not that of skepticism.


Unfortunately it appears that your de-railing has driven off the posters that might actually have been interested in the subject at hand, the possibility of incipient language capacity in the pongids.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Graculus
Ah, that irrefutable logic, the dog-pile (http://www.**************/~mikelr/flame69.html)

"Each of the above answers has a long and storied history in the pub conversations of behaviorists"
What, I am not allowed to be light-hearted? I have had pub conversations with fellow behaviorists...so this is what came to "mind".

Yes, obviously those professors of psychology are "pub behaviourists", Mercutio. I never claimed it was *the* most pervasive term, just that it was *a* term in use in the field. I also never claimed that "operant" or "instrumental" was incorrect. Perhaps you would care to actually read my posts and address the points.
A fair point. I had not read the whole exchange, only the last few posts. I saw what I assumed to be a very simple correction. It may or may not be. Oh...and the phrase you used was "It *is* often called that". Not merely used, but used "often". Admittedly a fuzzy term, but still...

Jeff Corey: You continue to make assertions without providing any evidence for them. You claim that the term "operational condioning" is incorrect (not just rare). Prove it. You stated that the term is NEVER used in the field. There are several texts presented to you with the term in use, I can come up with many more from sources "in the field". Yet you continue your assertions and attack the sources, still without presenting any evidence for your assertions. This is a position of ideology/faith, not that of skepticism.
Well, no, those are not texts, those are course descriptions. You found those 7 hits, obviously. You say it gave 24 results (see, I did look at at least some of your posts). You also say it is "often called operational conditioning". Did you do as I suggested and plug in "operant conditioning"? How many hits did you see? I get 50,500 hits for operant conditioning. Do you stand by your statement that it is "often called operational conditioning" when 24 results call it that and 50,500 results find operant conditioning? (To be fair, if I put quotes around "operant conditioning", it returns a mere 43,100 entries.) So...is fewer than one percent "often"? Or might fewer than one percent be that small percentage who are simply mistaken? Sure..."Never used in the field" is, very likely , wrong. You win. But "Never used, appropriately, in the field" is quite likely.

Unfortunately it appears that your de-railing has driven off the posters that might actually have been interested in the subject at hand, the possibility of incipient language capacity in the pongids. This may be. I do admit, as I did above, I did not read the whole thread before responding. All I responded to was an inaccuracy in vocabulary.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
What, I am not allowed to be light-hearted? I have had pub conversations with fellow behaviorists...so this is what came to "mind". I apologize, I mistook your tone.
I saw what I assumed to be a very simple correction. It may or may not be. Oh...and the phrase you used was "It *is* often called that". Not merely used, but used "often". Admittedly a fuzzy term, but still... My problem was with the assertion that is was "never" used in the field. Rare as it may be, even a single occurance proves that statement incorrect. But there is more than a single occurance, and they are all "in the field".. university syllabus, exam questions, dissertations, etc.

I'll admit that the term has probably stuck with me because it was the first term I ran into when the 'conditioning' was described. That was some years pre-internet, in dead tree format.

I apologize for the use of the term "often"... how about "often enough"? ;)

But "Never used, appropriately, in the field" is quite likely. That has yet to be established. However, from this Jeff has proceeded to call me ignorant, dismiss working professors as incompetent (they may be, but I'm not taking Jeff's word on it).

Perhaps the term is irregular, but I think it has been established that it is used.

All I responded to was an inaccuracy in vocabulary. You took the time to comb my posts, but completely ignored Jeff's?

You know, this is stupid. Kiss and make up?
:alc:

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Graculus
I apologize for the use of the term "often"... how about "often enough"? ;)

That has yet to be established. However, from this Jeff has proceeded to call me ignorant, dismiss working professors as incompetent (they may be, but I'm not taking Jeff's word on it).

Perhaps the term is irregular, but I think it has been established that it is used.

You took the time to comb my posts, but completely ignored Jeff's?

You know, this is stupid. Kiss and make up?
:alc: I am happy to kiss and make up. I did not comb the thread at all...I have a history with Jeff, so I admit fully that I did not look through his earlier stuff--only the parts where he addressed this specific issue.

The term is, IMHO, not just irregular, but wrong. But...let me explain my extremism. I have witnessed (again, me personally, don't take this as a condemnation of the field...though it may be accurate, I cannot possibly know that from just my experience) enough cognitive types talking about, even teaching about, behaviorism, and doing it wrongly, that a fraction of a percentage of sites that use a particular term does not surprise me in the least. (Heck, I have interviewed textbooks that had worse mistakes about Learning, and was far meaner to them than to you. For that matter, if I was at all mean, I apologize.) This is not a case of "no true scotsman", but a genuine case of ignorance of terms.

Yes, you established that it is used. Honestly, with those numbers, Jeff's claim that it is not used legitimately is not harmed.

More importantly, though, even though I think the term is wrong, I fully admit this says nothing about any other argument you made. (I just realized now, I did something stupid by not reading the whole thread even as yet...but I will admit this bad move on my part.) I do not endorse, nor do I challenge, the more substantive points you made. The disagreement here is trivial--even you admit the proper term is operant conditioning--we do not know the credentials of the "operational conditioning" folks (If they are solid behaviorists, I have no doubt Corey and I would still tease them over their vocabulary), and I hereby bow out of this thread (unless it intrigues me again) and wish you all peace, health, and happiness.

[Graculus]

Originally posted by Mercutio
I hereby bow out of this thread (unless it intrigues me again) and wish you all peace, health, and happiness. Thank You.

BTW, while this was going on, I checked with a psychology professor. I just received a reply. Apparently it is a term that is no longer current, but was in use "historically". At this point it might be useful to mention that I'm over 40. :D

So Jeff and I were both right, in a way.

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Graculus
Thank You.

BTW, while this was going on, I checked with a psychology professor. I just received a reply. Apparently it is a term that is no longer current, but was in use "historically". At this point it might be useful to mention that I'm over 40. :D

So Jeff and I were both right, in a way. I will go check my sources...I am also over 40 (and I suspect Corey is as well), and have been a behaviorist for over 20 years, and I do not recall the term at all...please believe me, I do not say this to dispute your claim, but merely to express my experience. I have enough experience with my own memory not to trust it as an authoritative source :D. Fortunately, our department has a "history of psychology" specialty too.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B [/B]
Pork you, Larsen.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Graculus
...That has yet to be established. However, from this Jeff has proceeded to call me ignorant, dismiss working professors as incompetent (they may be, but I'm not taking Jeff's word on it).

Perhaps the term is irregular, but I think it has been established that it is used.
Note that I did not proceed to call you ignorant. And I'll bet that whoever wrote those course descriptions are not active in the field of conditioning, as Merc and I are.
I also question your statement that a psychology professor told you the term was used in the past. If so, s/he is ignorant of the history of psychology.
It just bugs me when people misuse terms, like when an Education prof tells me , "I use that Skinner S->R behavioral modification to negatively reinforce my students' inappropriate behaviors."

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

It just bugs me when people misuse terms, like when an Education prof tells me , "I use that Skinner S->R behavioral modification to negatively reinforce my students' inappropriate behaviors." Skinner, S->R? I wish I could say I had never heard that one...I had a cognitive psychologist try to refute operant learning of language by saying something, then challenging me to "find the stimulus for that sentence!" It was as if he stopped paying attention after Watson.

Your education prof is not alone, sadly. I also had to correct a textbook (yes, a textbook!) that Mrs. Merc was using in an economics course, which spoke of spankings or shocks as "negative reinforcement" instead of as punishment. In context, it was clear they were looking at a decrease in the rate of a behavior...sorry, no reinforcement in the world fits that description...by definition. Even one introductory psych book I reviewed, written by a physiological psychologist, had terms wrong and examples of classical and operant conditioning reversed! And of course, Interesting people on this forum have claimed that "private behavior" is an oxymoron, when it is an accepted term within our literature.

Bottom line is, not everyone who uses the terms uses them properly. I guess that is likely to be true of any technically defined vocabulary.

[Meaty Curtains]

http://users3.ev1.net/~rootstudio/flash/shatner.htm

[troy jones]

Originally posted by Graculus
Maybe you should watch some of the videos of Koko... that is definitely not what is going on.

Some short QuickTime videos (http://ali.apple.com/ali_sites/ali/exhibits/1000790/Koko_Signs.html)
I wasn't impressed. I did not see anything in the videos that could not be the result of the same Clever Hans type tricks you can teach a dog or horse or whatever.

[Goshawk]

Originally posted by Meaty Curtains
http://users3.ev1.net/~rootstudio/flash/shatner.htm
Some people have too much time on their hands...

[Meaty Curtains]

Originally posted by Goshawk
Some people have too much time on their hands...

Why did Uhura sue the starship enterprise?

Because William Shatner.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by Graculus
Actually, her teacher did tell the person why she said that. Koko uses sign "homophones" for words that she doesn't have a sign for. She uses "knock" for "obnoxious", for instance.


As someone else hinted at with regard to rhyming, how do " homophones " ( words that sound alike ) work when it comes to sign language? Do they look alike also?


Never mind...

I see this was discussed, and I overlooked it..

[BPScooter]

Wow, I'm sorry it took me so long to figure out how to truly get at the heart of it-- let's get an animal/pet psychic to work with this issue! Perhaps we'll get something nobody has worked on yet. (<-- a lightheared jest, no offense intended)

[CurtC]

In the book Why Things Are, Vol II: The Big Picture, Joel Achenbach addresses this question:For years we've been trying to teach these allegedly brilliant creatures to speak, or at least learn sign language, and so far just about the only thing they've been able to tell us is that they like fruit.

Here's the longest (if not the most complex) statement ever recorded from an ape, delivered in sign language by Nim Chimpsky, one of the many chimpanzees who supposedly have learned English: "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." (Translation: "The oranges here are fabulous.")

Derek Bickerton's book Language and Species argues that it is the representational nature of human language - the fact that we know that "orange" is a word representing a piece of fruit, bit is not the same thing as the fruit or the wanting of the fruit - that allows us to process information and survive as a species. Chimps apparently only use words as a technique for getting something; they don't gab simply for the delight of intellectual stimulation. They can be taught many words, in sign language, but these don't seem to spawn what you would call thoughts. Human cerebration appears to be different from that of every other creature on the planet. We are thinkers; it defines us as a species.

...

Gradually it has dawned on much of the scientific community that apes will never be able to create a sentence. No amount of teaching, training, cajoling, and banana bribery will change this. Nonetheless, some gung-ho, true-believing researchers press on, periodically announcing in a breathless voice that there's a new critter that any moment now may start talking like John Chancellor.