The Unconscious Brilliance of Nature

       Another chapter from If a Lion Could Talk. This chapter is about humans trying to determine once and for all whether animals "think". The issue is that intelligence and the ability to think are not the same! A common example: a dog might jump up at a door handle over and over again and one time the door opens, the dog is free! The dog might do this over and over again, opening the door each time, but that does not mean the dog understands the underlying mechanism that causes this. The dog is not conciously thinking "I can open the door by scratching at the handle." This example reminds me of some of the papers I read about human-animal relationships. The keepers are bringing the animals food, so when an animal sees a keeper approaching, it is excited and goes to meet the keeper....is that because it has learned that keeper=food, or is it pleased to see the keeper for other reasons?
    This chapter talks a lot about learning associations - animals can recognize cause and effect, that does not mean they have a "theory of mind." A theory of mind involves imputing personal intentions, beliefs, and desires to and of others....this is kind of a complicated idea, but here's another example to clarify. The author of the book has a dog that would always try to eat the cat's food. The author would tell the dog off, so it stopped eating the food. Then one day the author was on the phone, and the dog went for the dog food again. The author was busy and couldn't tell off the dog. After that, whenever the author was on the phone, the dog would eat the cat food. So, was the dog thinking "Aha! He is distracted, I'm going to eat the food now!" Or was it simply a learned association - when he's on the phone, eat the food. There is a subtle difference between these two things...unthinking intelligence versus understanding.
     Something interesting caused by learned associations is superstitious behavior in animals. Example - a horse shying at the same place in the road where it was once scared by a bird. Apparently animals are pretty quick at picking up possibly cause and effects or associations. They do something a certain way because they recieve positive attention. Okay, so how does all of this tie into my project? I think it ties into the idea of positive reinforcement training - if a keeper treats an animal in a positive manner afte they do something the keeper wants, the animal is going to be more willing to do that behavior again. I've heard of training like this being used with elephants - keepers trained an elephant to raise it's foot for cleaning - positive reinforcement training causes less stress to the animals and make the keepers job easier. I don't know if the animals are really thinking about things - if they make decisions based on what other animals or humans are thinking. But regardless, using learned associations in the zoo environment seems like a grand idea.

If a goldfish had arms and legs....

      So this is the blog for Friday's class - we worked on project proposals. It was a good workshop, I learned several things to add to my project to improve it. I wasn't really sure what to blog about this workshop though, so I have turned to "If a Lion Could Talk" for inspiration. The first chapter is entitled "Who is the smartest of them all?" Something I found really interesting was the idea that started with Darwin's theory of evolution that evolution is like a stepladder and that organisms are trying to progress up that ladder, say from insects to the top, humans. Humans were considered the "most evolved" and "most intelligent". In reality, all organisms are equally evolved. All have evolved to their niche - their habitat, lifestyle, etc. Another problem is how one defines intelligence - how do you measure it? How do you fit a bird's abiltiy to fly or a spider's ability to weave a web into a human idea of intelligence? Tests for intelligence are often biased - even among humans. So try testing hundreds of different species! A different test would need to be created for each species, perhaps even each individual. "Animals differ in temperament, perceptual abilities, social behavior..."
       Another point I really like is this - "we say a dog or horse is smart when it does what we want it to do" - humans have projected themselves so much onto animals....it is hard to separate our perceptions of the world in order to think about how animals might perceive the world. Something else to be aware about when judging an animal is their input and output ability. The author talks about how we judge animals that can see and do things readily as being more intelligent i.e. a monkey that can sign with its hands or an owl that can see great distances. But just because a golfish has limited eyesight and no limbs does not mean that it is dumb. So monkeys and owls might have greater ability to demonstrate that they are taking things in (greater input and output ability) but that doesn't mean they are the smartest animals around.
        So how does all of this apply to my project? I think it is really important to be aware of all these things before I go out and work with animals. I am really curious to see what kind of biases and stereotypes exist against animals in the zoo. Do the same biases that apply to intelligence apply to relationships? I mean do keepers not even try to develop relationships with certain species because they think it is impossible to have a relationships with them? Is it impossible to have relationships with certain species...probably yes, it would be hard to have a relationship with a snail or a butterfly, but I wonder.....I want to be careful to not assign intelligence to certain animals just because they behave in a human manner or have greater output and input abilities.