This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Shenandoah University/History and Systems of Psychology (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
To whom ever is reading this. Hi my name is Zac Rogers and in the next few weeks Im going to do my best in editing and adding some things to this article. I am taking part in a History & Systems of Psychology Class at Shenandoah University. and we are doing a Wikipedia project. I will be using some information from articles like this one, [1] or this one, [2] to do some of my research. Let me know what you guys think and if you have any comments or thoughts for me please don't be afraid to say them. Also any advice or help you can give me would also be very appreciated! GLKeepr1 ( talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Zac, I enjoyed peer reviewing your work. I found that a lot of what you wrote was from good research and it definitely shows that you took a lot of time into this project. I liked reading about your contributions in tools and weaponry. Your information was good and didn't make too many grammatical errors. I love animals and it shows that you had an interest in this subject area as well. Overall you did a great job! ~~IZRozin22~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZRozin22 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, do you think it would be beneficial to the page if in the "cognitive revolution" section we or I add something about piaget's theory of cognitive development? -- GLKeepr1 ( talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
For the time being, I've removed the following passage:
It is not clear what the point of including this is. Transfer of training is a very general phenomenon - any animal that can learn anything at all will transfer some kind of learning to some kind of new task. Offhand, I can't think of anything that Yerkes showed about transfer in his 1916 book that is still of distinctive significance now. If you want to put this back, please discuss it here first and explain why it matters - it may be a perfectly valid point that just needs some rephrasing. seglea 01:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The article seems to have a bit of venom towards behavorists. Also, it only lists two sources. PragmaticallyWyrd 14:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
To get over the 'original research' label on the 'Relative Intelligence' section a citation to Shettleworth's Cognition, Evolution and Behaviour' on the bit about different niches might be helpful. dbrodbeck
Who are these 'many' that don't like the scientific approach? What journals do they publish in? If someone can find a citation fine, but if not, I would like to remove that section. Dbrodbeck 19:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This whole "widely believed to be the smartest bird or ape or whaterver" bit is getting out of control. First of all it is full of weasel words. Secondly, the study of animal cognition is not about ranking species. Read the book I mention above, or pick up a copy of JEP:Animal and find me somewhere where this is mentioned. Dbrodbeck 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The article asserts that "comparative psychologists have sought in vain for ways of providing an objective underpinning for these essentially subjective and anthropocentric judgements" and "part of the difficulty is the lack of agreement about what we mean by intelligence even in humans (it obviously makes a big difference whether language is considered as essential for intelligence, for example). As a result, most scientists studying animal cognition regard questions about which animals are the most intelligent as vacuous." These claims are unsupported by any references, and in any case, are probably too broad to be justified without an exhaustive set of references anyway. I don't doubt that some scientists hold this view, but the claim that there is a consensus ought to be defended or done away with. 0nullbinary0 ( talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This relative intelligence seciton is getting silly. Who cares what people think is the smartes species, or what the 'widespread belief' is? Dbrodbeck 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I study animal cognition and we NEVER bring up this stuff about 'well if they are intelligent we cannot eat them'. I'll wait to see if anyone has a reason to leave the statement in, if not I will trash it. Dbrodbeck 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I did not make that very clear now did I. Those of us that do research in animal cogntiion. I do research in the area, keep current with all of the journals etc and have never seen the issue brought up, not once. Dbrodbeck 20:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
the converse is true, however; animal cognition is almost ALWAYS brought up in arguments about vegetarianism, possibly because morality is as irrelevant to a study of intelligance. 81.107.159.5 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It smells like pov, and has no citations. Anyway it is probably in the wrong place. Diletante 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well if there are no objections over the next while I will remove it Dbrodbeck 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Im removing it, it is at worst OR, and at best doesn't belong here Diletante 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, had not had the time, been marking papers for an animal cognition class..... Dbrodbeck 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The society agreement which is a typical ground for human moral says that we agree to protect good living conditions and fair treatment for all those who are like us, so for also the animals if they qualify by this standard.
A question: Has it been taken into account in the experiment arrangements that since the animals are at the mercy of humans they have to listen to subtle social cues very carefully compared to free adult humans? So their behaviour just has to be primarily social whether that is their nature or not.
Another question: From where and how to get an objective opinion about my rabbits being able to read some words? There is a film at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv49w6IrQaI. I have now taught them the words left, right, in front, back, above and down. So it should be possible to train them to perform a labyrint guided by written words. I have already tried it once with a promising result and I will put the video to YouTube too, maybe today. My rabbits are otherwise untrained and somewhat uncooperative. They are interested in new tasks and not in repeating the same old tricks. Food rewards do not seem to work. One of my rabbits is bold and the other one too timid for labyrinth tasks.
Thanks, but I didn't find that point about BF Skinner and reading pigeons from the Wikipedia, now even from under the header rumours about BF Skinner. And could you please include information about who and where are capable of testing animals' intelligence objectively.
I want to ask how are penguins intelligent? They are non-flying birds and can have large brain, but I can't find any information about their brain and intellectual abilities. Til. 29.03.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.227.194.147 ( talk) 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
penguins have extremely small brains, less than few grams. They are some of the stupidest birds.
Could you explain why penguins have so small brain? They are unflying predators and could have large brain.
Brain size does not correlate to actual intellect, foo'.
71.53.85.163 ( talk) 03:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any mention on cognition in reptiles. Could someone cover this topic? 207.119.173.108 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
other domesticated species, like horses, cows and pigs are considered intelligent. Some other, like oxen are famed for their herd animal stupidity (brains under 1 kg, several hundred grams)
Cows are intelligent, but oxen are not? marbeh raglaim 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible in theory to teach a dog or any other animal to read without it taking enermous lenghts of time? See the video of a dog puppy reading at www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyiE2DmpCZY and please read the text too: it offers one possible explanation. 84.239.162.126 ( talk) 13:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This article needs the references in the text made into links to the References section. - Dougher ( talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I added the heading "Spatial Cognition", since it is probably one of the largest and most well-represented fields of Animal Cognition currently under investigation. I realize that some information in it has been referenced in other sections of the page, but I still feel as though it is a necessary addition (but could probably use more attention). I used Brown & Cook as a reference only because it is a well-written and expert-reviewed source that is freely available online, and so it might be a good place to send people (rather than the Library, given that many of the people that use Wikipedia are using it for the express purpose that they don't have to leave their basement in order to get information).
If you think we should scrap it, please do so. Ieshan ( talk) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Below is a proposed list of references and a brief outline of what I would like to add to the spatial cognition section.
References:
Outline: I would like to add more information regarding dogs, apes and cats. The first reference I listed is a relatively recent article that describes how apes and dogs differ in social and causal cues. The second reference is an older comparison of dogs and cats and their abilities to understand object permanence. Because cats are less studied than dogs and apes, I will describe how FIV can affect their spatial cognition abilities using the third reference.
Basically, I will compare the spatial cognition of cats, dogs and apes using the above references. In these studies, spatial cognition is studied with regard to food, objects and disease.
Additionally, I am unsure on whether or not to compare human spatial cognition to ape spatial cognition on this page. If it is a topic people would like to know more about please let me know. You can see that reference here: [6] Soggycereal4 ( talk) 04:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
National Geographic Magazine April 2008 Issue provides an interesting article with a lot of information and new evidence that has not been covered in this article yet. There's also a links section where some original sources can be researched. Someone more knowledgeable and with good English might give this a look. Jjalocha ( talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the monitor lizard be added to the article? I think they are creatures of worthy intelligence. Elasmosaurus ( talk) 05:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It is completely futile to discuss the intelligence of "animals", tout court. Intelligence in the animal kingdom ranges from "clearly none" to "definitely". This article should rather be in WP:SS, discussing the intelligence of the various orders or species under examination. dab (𒁳) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
also, "Most researchers in the field of Comparative Cognition have abandoned the notion" that some species are more intelligent than others? Wth is this, postmodernism? "some species" include squids and humans. Are "most researchers" claiming "intelligence" is so relative that a squid needs to be judged as having as much "squid-intelligence" as a human or chimp are endowed with human- or chimp-intelligence? This sounds ridiculous, and pending the citation of anything resembling a WP:RS, I suppose the claim should be removed. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the section on math and numerical cognition because it was rife with errors and overstated much of the research. For example, the types of numerosity judgments made by the monkeys in Cantlon, Brannon, and Terrace's work is clearly not counting, though it was sourced as such.
It can be restored and edited with a revert, but up till now it was simply providing misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.35.188 ( talk) 08:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I just read a bit of the article and I saw that section. I think its going in all direction and we are mixing differents things. I'm talking about the ants sections. Ants are clearly not intelligent even tough they can exibit intelligent behavior, but its not the same. The complex behavior come from emergence thats all (see wikipedia article of the same name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.24.29 ( talk) 19:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following section did not cite any sources and 3 months have elapsed since it was challenged.
The results and philosophy of research into animal cognition continue to be controversial on a number of grounds:
- Particular issues within animal cognition, particularly the interpretation of language-learning and self-awareness experiments, have generated major controversies both about the extent of the animals' achievements, and about the correct interpretation of the behavior observed.
- Cognitive scientists have been interested in comparing and contrasting human cognition with artificial intelligence or machine cognition, but have been less interested in including animal cognition in the analysis - despite the fact that the common biological origins of human and animal cognition suggest that there might be greater resemblance, at least in some respects, between human and animal cognition than between human and machine cognition. There is also a minority of cognitive scientists who simply neglect accumulated psychological knowledge about cognition, whether animal or human.
- Those psychologists who are committed to radical behaviorism and the experimental analysis of behaviour discount cognitive analyses of animal behavior. This is not surprising since for the most part they also reject cognitive analyses of human behaviour. It is perhaps a category error to oppose behavioural and cognitive analyses: insofar as the study of animal cognition exposes new behavioural phenomena, it simply provides more that a radical behaviourist must explain without using mentalistic language.
To me it looks like a personal opinion, but if we can find reliable sources that would be good. pgr94 ( talk) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not a chimp! Sukiari ( talk) 06:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a new issue of BP out this month, March 2009, honouring Sara Shettleworth, she has a good lead article in it that could be useful here. As I am rather busy it would be hard for me to devote time to it, but I can say that it is a pretty damned good paper and could be useful. Oh, full disclosure, I have an article in that issue, and I am a Shettleworth Phd, so well, there you are... Dbrodbeck ( talk) 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why there's a link to Anthropomorphism in the 'see also' section, and i think it takes away some objectivity to the article. May someone tell me or otherwise remove the link please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.91.225 ( talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
That was as concise as i could make my question, and that didnt get me anything from google. So; does anyone know if studies have been done about this? If yes, what are they called (And should we put them here?) If no, feel free to ignore. 96.28.157.126 ( talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Chimp has an ear for talk; Language-trained ape recognizes distorted speech surprisingly well by Bruce Bower August 13th, 2011; Vol.180 #4 (p. 16) Science News. Excerpt
Panzee, a chimp now housed at a research facility, uses a portable keyboard to press symbols that stand for spoken words. New evidence indicates that Panzee, much like people, quickly recognizes distorted words that contain few of the acoustic cues in natural speech. ... Panzee doesn’t talk, but she knows a word when she hears one — even if it’s emitted by a computer with a synthetic speech impediment. That’s not too shabby for a chimpanzee. Raised to recognize 128 spoken words by pointing to corresponding symbols, Panzee perceives acoustically distorted words about as well as people do, say psychology graduate student Lisa Heimbauer of Georgia State University in Atlanta and her colleagues. Panzee thus challenges the argument that only people can recognize highly distorted words, thanks to brains tuned to speech sounds and steeped in chatter, the scientists contend in a paper published online June 30 in Current Biology. ... Panzee’s immediate recognition of distorted words “is quite impressive and novel,” remarks psychologist Lori Holt of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. In experiments conducted over the past 30 years, birds, rodents and other nonhuman animals have been trained to identify acoustically altered words. In contrast, Panzee apparently generalized from past experience hearing caretakers talk to distinguish acoustically transformed words, Holt says. ... It’s not known whether any other animals have Panzee’s word-recognition chops. Irene Pepperberg of Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., predicts that parrots could decipher highly distorted speech on their own. Wild parrots recognize species-specific and individual vocal calls in noisy forests, amid cacophonous flocks of comrades, comments Pepperberg, who studies thinking and communication in African gray parrots. Alex, a parrot trained by Pepperberg to use a vocabulary of roughly 100 words, immediately knew familiar words spoken in regional dialects and in thick foreign accents.
99.181.138.215 ( talk) 02:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Add The Limits of Intelligence: The laws of physics may well prevent the human brain from evolving into an ever more powerful thinking machine by Douglas Fox in Scientific American June 14, 2011. 99.56.123.120 ( talk) 09:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Why does 'Animal Sentience' redirect to this page? Animal sentience is about the capacity of animals to experience negative and positive emotional states. This is not even discussed in 'Animal cognition' and surely deserves a page separate to 'Animal cognition'. DrChrissy ( talk) 15:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I think perhaps some mention should be made of animal reason as discussed here, animals and reason as discussed from a Catholic philosophical standpoint. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 02:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the section titled 'Mathematics' should really be 'Numeracy'. All the examples appear to be about the concepts of 'larger or smaller', or 'more or less', rather than adding, subtracting, etc. so I'm not convinced this is strictly mathematics.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I remember reading that at a 1991 ethological congress it was decided that the word "personality" should not be applied to animals because it is deemed anthropomorphic and the mere suggestion that animals might have personalities was a "crime of ethology". Where exactly would this go in the section? ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
These two sub-sections appear to cover similar material but both contain important information. I believe these sub-sections should be merged under the heading "Animal insight".__ DrChrissy ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
cognition in other articles, this article of intelligence, this absurd and just speciecism -- CYl7EPTEMA777 ( talk) 09:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
124.168.63.54 ( talk) 01:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
if this article not synonym animal intelligence thereat must create other article animal intelligence -- CYl7EPTEMA777 ( talk) 20:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from a section on planning.
[...] The results described here suggest that the jays can spontaneously plan for tomorrow without reference to their current motivational state, thereby challenging the idea that this is a uniquely human ability. ( Nature. 2007 Feb 22;445(7130):919-21)
There is now growing evidence that some animal species are able to plan for the future. For example great apes save and exchange tools for future use. ( Am J Primatol. 2014 Sep 18.)
pgr94 ( talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Planning and forethought...
How about a compendium of research sets that look at this? Is there some kind of 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis' of this topic? MaynardClark ( talk)
References
An editor has added [animalcognition.org] to the external links which I have reverted twice per WP:BRD and per WP:ELNO (I don't think it belongs, but, that is just me). It seems to be a commercial website )note the patreon link on the site). I am opening this section in hope that the new editor will discuss this here rather than edit war. Thanks! Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please be advised there is a discussion here[Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)] which may affect this article.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Are we correct to use the heading "consciousness" or would it be better to use "self-awareness"?DrChrissy (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have twice in the past few days reverted the addition of a link to animalcognition.org. It seems to fail WP:ELNO. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 14:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Animal cognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn: You recently added "other" in several places in this article to clarify that humans are animals. You may not be aware, but Wikipedia operates on the principle that the terms "human" and "animal" are mutually exclusive and no further explanation is needed in articles. I hate this, but it is consensus. I suggest you remove these inclusions before someone else does - which is almost certain to happen. Happy to talk more about this. DrChrissy (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Animal cognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982207009311When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I edited a citation in your article as the sentence about cephalopods and their intelligence was missing a reference. It is reference 130. Laurendpeters ( talk) 02:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just corrected a little bad mistake: "animals" instead of "mammals" in the third line of the section "Methods": "all sorts of (mammals)animals large and small (birds, fish, ants, bees, and others) have been brought into the laboratory"-- Calypso ( talk) 15:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
“Though generally dismissed in the paleontology community, Mark McMenamin published in the 21st Century Science & Technology that fossils from several dead Ichthyosaurs is evidence of an intelligent Triassic cephalopod creating a primitive self-portrait.[146]“
I’m not sure this should be in the article, if it’s generally dismissed. UsersLikeYou ( talk) 19:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SabrinaPorretto ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by SabrinaPorretto ( talk) 15:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you guys think it would be beneficial to add a section on embodied cognition for animals? Having different bodies seems like an important part of a species' intelligence. BioLabEmergency ( talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of an educational assignment in 2013 Q1. Further details were available on the "Education Program:Shenandoah University/History and Systems of Psychology (Spring 2013)" page, which is now unavailable on the wiki. |
To whom ever is reading this. Hi my name is Zac Rogers and in the next few weeks Im going to do my best in editing and adding some things to this article. I am taking part in a History & Systems of Psychology Class at Shenandoah University. and we are doing a Wikipedia project. I will be using some information from articles like this one, [1] or this one, [2] to do some of my research. Let me know what you guys think and if you have any comments or thoughts for me please don't be afraid to say them. Also any advice or help you can give me would also be very appreciated! GLKeepr1 ( talk) 17:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
Hey Zac, I enjoyed peer reviewing your work. I found that a lot of what you wrote was from good research and it definitely shows that you took a lot of time into this project. I liked reading about your contributions in tools and weaponry. Your information was good and didn't make too many grammatical errors. I love animals and it shows that you had an interest in this subject area as well. Overall you did a great job! ~~IZRozin22~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by IZRozin22 ( talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, do you think it would be beneficial to the page if in the "cognitive revolution" section we or I add something about piaget's theory of cognitive development? -- GLKeepr1 ( talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
For the time being, I've removed the following passage:
It is not clear what the point of including this is. Transfer of training is a very general phenomenon - any animal that can learn anything at all will transfer some kind of learning to some kind of new task. Offhand, I can't think of anything that Yerkes showed about transfer in his 1916 book that is still of distinctive significance now. If you want to put this back, please discuss it here first and explain why it matters - it may be a perfectly valid point that just needs some rephrasing. seglea 01:33, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The article seems to have a bit of venom towards behavorists. Also, it only lists two sources. PragmaticallyWyrd 14:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
To get over the 'original research' label on the 'Relative Intelligence' section a citation to Shettleworth's Cognition, Evolution and Behaviour' on the bit about different niches might be helpful. dbrodbeck
Who are these 'many' that don't like the scientific approach? What journals do they publish in? If someone can find a citation fine, but if not, I would like to remove that section. Dbrodbeck 19:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
This whole "widely believed to be the smartest bird or ape or whaterver" bit is getting out of control. First of all it is full of weasel words. Secondly, the study of animal cognition is not about ranking species. Read the book I mention above, or pick up a copy of JEP:Animal and find me somewhere where this is mentioned. Dbrodbeck 11:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The article asserts that "comparative psychologists have sought in vain for ways of providing an objective underpinning for these essentially subjective and anthropocentric judgements" and "part of the difficulty is the lack of agreement about what we mean by intelligence even in humans (it obviously makes a big difference whether language is considered as essential for intelligence, for example). As a result, most scientists studying animal cognition regard questions about which animals are the most intelligent as vacuous." These claims are unsupported by any references, and in any case, are probably too broad to be justified without an exhaustive set of references anyway. I don't doubt that some scientists hold this view, but the claim that there is a consensus ought to be defended or done away with. 0nullbinary0 ( talk) 15:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
This relative intelligence seciton is getting silly. Who cares what people think is the smartes species, or what the 'widespread belief' is? Dbrodbeck 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Funny, I study animal cognition and we NEVER bring up this stuff about 'well if they are intelligent we cannot eat them'. I'll wait to see if anyone has a reason to leave the statement in, if not I will trash it. Dbrodbeck 12:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh sorry, I did not make that very clear now did I. Those of us that do research in animal cogntiion. I do research in the area, keep current with all of the journals etc and have never seen the issue brought up, not once. Dbrodbeck 20:08, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
the converse is true, however; animal cognition is almost ALWAYS brought up in arguments about vegetarianism, possibly because morality is as irrelevant to a study of intelligance. 81.107.159.5 23:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
It smells like pov, and has no citations. Anyway it is probably in the wrong place. Diletante 04:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well if there are no objections over the next while I will remove it Dbrodbeck 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Im removing it, it is at worst OR, and at best doesn't belong here Diletante 00:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, had not had the time, been marking papers for an animal cognition class..... Dbrodbeck 12:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
The society agreement which is a typical ground for human moral says that we agree to protect good living conditions and fair treatment for all those who are like us, so for also the animals if they qualify by this standard.
A question: Has it been taken into account in the experiment arrangements that since the animals are at the mercy of humans they have to listen to subtle social cues very carefully compared to free adult humans? So their behaviour just has to be primarily social whether that is their nature or not.
Another question: From where and how to get an objective opinion about my rabbits being able to read some words? There is a film at www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qv49w6IrQaI. I have now taught them the words left, right, in front, back, above and down. So it should be possible to train them to perform a labyrint guided by written words. I have already tried it once with a promising result and I will put the video to YouTube too, maybe today. My rabbits are otherwise untrained and somewhat uncooperative. They are interested in new tasks and not in repeating the same old tricks. Food rewards do not seem to work. One of my rabbits is bold and the other one too timid for labyrinth tasks.
Thanks, but I didn't find that point about BF Skinner and reading pigeons from the Wikipedia, now even from under the header rumours about BF Skinner. And could you please include information about who and where are capable of testing animals' intelligence objectively.
I want to ask how are penguins intelligent? They are non-flying birds and can have large brain, but I can't find any information about their brain and intellectual abilities. Til. 29.03.07 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.227.194.147 ( talk) 07:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC).
penguins have extremely small brains, less than few grams. They are some of the stupidest birds.
Could you explain why penguins have so small brain? They are unflying predators and could have large brain.
Brain size does not correlate to actual intellect, foo'.
71.53.85.163 ( talk) 03:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any mention on cognition in reptiles. Could someone cover this topic? 207.119.173.108 00:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
other domesticated species, like horses, cows and pigs are considered intelligent. Some other, like oxen are famed for their herd animal stupidity (brains under 1 kg, several hundred grams)
Cows are intelligent, but oxen are not? marbeh raglaim 20:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible in theory to teach a dog or any other animal to read without it taking enermous lenghts of time? See the video of a dog puppy reading at www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyiE2DmpCZY and please read the text too: it offers one possible explanation. 84.239.162.126 ( talk) 13:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
This article needs the references in the text made into links to the References section. - Dougher ( talk) 01:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I added the heading "Spatial Cognition", since it is probably one of the largest and most well-represented fields of Animal Cognition currently under investigation. I realize that some information in it has been referenced in other sections of the page, but I still feel as though it is a necessary addition (but could probably use more attention). I used Brown & Cook as a reference only because it is a well-written and expert-reviewed source that is freely available online, and so it might be a good place to send people (rather than the Library, given that many of the people that use Wikipedia are using it for the express purpose that they don't have to leave their basement in order to get information).
If you think we should scrap it, please do so. Ieshan ( talk) 15:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Below is a proposed list of references and a brief outline of what I would like to add to the spatial cognition section.
References:
Outline: I would like to add more information regarding dogs, apes and cats. The first reference I listed is a relatively recent article that describes how apes and dogs differ in social and causal cues. The second reference is an older comparison of dogs and cats and their abilities to understand object permanence. Because cats are less studied than dogs and apes, I will describe how FIV can affect their spatial cognition abilities using the third reference.
Basically, I will compare the spatial cognition of cats, dogs and apes using the above references. In these studies, spatial cognition is studied with regard to food, objects and disease.
Additionally, I am unsure on whether or not to compare human spatial cognition to ape spatial cognition on this page. If it is a topic people would like to know more about please let me know. You can see that reference here: [6] Soggycereal4 ( talk) 04:23, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
National Geographic Magazine April 2008 Issue provides an interesting article with a lot of information and new evidence that has not been covered in this article yet. There's also a links section where some original sources can be researched. Someone more knowledgeable and with good English might give this a look. Jjalocha ( talk) 00:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Should the monitor lizard be added to the article? I think they are creatures of worthy intelligence. Elasmosaurus ( talk) 05:23, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It is completely futile to discuss the intelligence of "animals", tout court. Intelligence in the animal kingdom ranges from "clearly none" to "definitely". This article should rather be in WP:SS, discussing the intelligence of the various orders or species under examination. dab (𒁳) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
also, "Most researchers in the field of Comparative Cognition have abandoned the notion" that some species are more intelligent than others? Wth is this, postmodernism? "some species" include squids and humans. Are "most researchers" claiming "intelligence" is so relative that a squid needs to be judged as having as much "squid-intelligence" as a human or chimp are endowed with human- or chimp-intelligence? This sounds ridiculous, and pending the citation of anything resembling a WP:RS, I suppose the claim should be removed. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
I deleted the section on math and numerical cognition because it was rife with errors and overstated much of the research. For example, the types of numerosity judgments made by the monkeys in Cantlon, Brannon, and Terrace's work is clearly not counting, though it was sourced as such.
It can be restored and edited with a revert, but up till now it was simply providing misinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.35.188 ( talk) 08:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I just read a bit of the article and I saw that section. I think its going in all direction and we are mixing differents things. I'm talking about the ants sections. Ants are clearly not intelligent even tough they can exibit intelligent behavior, but its not the same. The complex behavior come from emergence thats all (see wikipedia article of the same name). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.24.29 ( talk) 19:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
The following section did not cite any sources and 3 months have elapsed since it was challenged.
The results and philosophy of research into animal cognition continue to be controversial on a number of grounds:
- Particular issues within animal cognition, particularly the interpretation of language-learning and self-awareness experiments, have generated major controversies both about the extent of the animals' achievements, and about the correct interpretation of the behavior observed.
- Cognitive scientists have been interested in comparing and contrasting human cognition with artificial intelligence or machine cognition, but have been less interested in including animal cognition in the analysis - despite the fact that the common biological origins of human and animal cognition suggest that there might be greater resemblance, at least in some respects, between human and animal cognition than between human and machine cognition. There is also a minority of cognitive scientists who simply neglect accumulated psychological knowledge about cognition, whether animal or human.
- Those psychologists who are committed to radical behaviorism and the experimental analysis of behaviour discount cognitive analyses of animal behavior. This is not surprising since for the most part they also reject cognitive analyses of human behaviour. It is perhaps a category error to oppose behavioural and cognitive analyses: insofar as the study of animal cognition exposes new behavioural phenomena, it simply provides more that a radical behaviourist must explain without using mentalistic language.
To me it looks like a personal opinion, but if we can find reliable sources that would be good. pgr94 ( talk) 13:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
That's not a chimp! Sukiari ( talk) 06:57, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a new issue of BP out this month, March 2009, honouring Sara Shettleworth, she has a good lead article in it that could be useful here. As I am rather busy it would be hard for me to devote time to it, but I can say that it is a pretty damned good paper and could be useful. Oh, full disclosure, I have an article in that issue, and I am a Shettleworth Phd, so well, there you are... Dbrodbeck ( talk) 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't see a reason why there's a link to Anthropomorphism in the 'see also' section, and i think it takes away some objectivity to the article. May someone tell me or otherwise remove the link please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.91.225 ( talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
That was as concise as i could make my question, and that didnt get me anything from google. So; does anyone know if studies have been done about this? If yes, what are they called (And should we put them here?) If no, feel free to ignore. 96.28.157.126 ( talk) 22:03, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Chimp has an ear for talk; Language-trained ape recognizes distorted speech surprisingly well by Bruce Bower August 13th, 2011; Vol.180 #4 (p. 16) Science News. Excerpt
Panzee, a chimp now housed at a research facility, uses a portable keyboard to press symbols that stand for spoken words. New evidence indicates that Panzee, much like people, quickly recognizes distorted words that contain few of the acoustic cues in natural speech. ... Panzee doesn’t talk, but she knows a word when she hears one — even if it’s emitted by a computer with a synthetic speech impediment. That’s not too shabby for a chimpanzee. Raised to recognize 128 spoken words by pointing to corresponding symbols, Panzee perceives acoustically distorted words about as well as people do, say psychology graduate student Lisa Heimbauer of Georgia State University in Atlanta and her colleagues. Panzee thus challenges the argument that only people can recognize highly distorted words, thanks to brains tuned to speech sounds and steeped in chatter, the scientists contend in a paper published online June 30 in Current Biology. ... Panzee’s immediate recognition of distorted words “is quite impressive and novel,” remarks psychologist Lori Holt of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh. In experiments conducted over the past 30 years, birds, rodents and other nonhuman animals have been trained to identify acoustically altered words. In contrast, Panzee apparently generalized from past experience hearing caretakers talk to distinguish acoustically transformed words, Holt says. ... It’s not known whether any other animals have Panzee’s word-recognition chops. Irene Pepperberg of Brandeis University in Waltham, Mass., predicts that parrots could decipher highly distorted speech on their own. Wild parrots recognize species-specific and individual vocal calls in noisy forests, amid cacophonous flocks of comrades, comments Pepperberg, who studies thinking and communication in African gray parrots. Alex, a parrot trained by Pepperberg to use a vocabulary of roughly 100 words, immediately knew familiar words spoken in regional dialects and in thick foreign accents.
99.181.138.215 ( talk) 02:02, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Add The Limits of Intelligence: The laws of physics may well prevent the human brain from evolving into an ever more powerful thinking machine by Douglas Fox in Scientific American June 14, 2011. 99.56.123.120 ( talk) 09:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Why does 'Animal Sentience' redirect to this page? Animal sentience is about the capacity of animals to experience negative and positive emotional states. This is not even discussed in 'Animal cognition' and surely deserves a page separate to 'Animal cognition'. DrChrissy ( talk) 15:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
I think perhaps some mention should be made of animal reason as discussed here, animals and reason as discussed from a Catholic philosophical standpoint. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12673b.htm 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 02:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the section titled 'Mathematics' should really be 'Numeracy'. All the examples appear to be about the concepts of 'larger or smaller', or 'more or less', rather than adding, subtracting, etc. so I'm not convinced this is strictly mathematics.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 18:51, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
I remember reading that at a 1991 ethological congress it was decided that the word "personality" should not be applied to animals because it is deemed anthropomorphic and the mere suggestion that animals might have personalities was a "crime of ethology". Where exactly would this go in the section? ö Brambleberry of RiverClan 21:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
These two sub-sections appear to cover similar material but both contain important information. I believe these sub-sections should be merged under the heading "Animal insight".__ DrChrissy ( talk) 22:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
cognition in other articles, this article of intelligence, this absurd and just speciecism -- CYl7EPTEMA777 ( talk) 09:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
124.168.63.54 ( talk) 01:19, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
if this article not synonym animal intelligence thereat must create other article animal intelligence -- CYl7EPTEMA777 ( talk) 20:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the article would benefit from a section on planning.
[...] The results described here suggest that the jays can spontaneously plan for tomorrow without reference to their current motivational state, thereby challenging the idea that this is a uniquely human ability. ( Nature. 2007 Feb 22;445(7130):919-21)
There is now growing evidence that some animal species are able to plan for the future. For example great apes save and exchange tools for future use. ( Am J Primatol. 2014 Sep 18.)
pgr94 ( talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Planning and forethought...
How about a compendium of research sets that look at this? Is there some kind of 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis' of this topic? MaynardClark ( talk)
References
An editor has added [animalcognition.org] to the external links which I have reverted twice per WP:BRD and per WP:ELNO (I don't think it belongs, but, that is just me). It seems to be a commercial website )note the patreon link on the site). I am opening this section in hope that the new editor will discuss this here rather than edit war. Thanks! Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:01, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Please be advised there is a discussion here[Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)] which may affect this article.__ DrChrissy ( talk) 21:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
Are we correct to use the heading "consciousness" or would it be better to use "self-awareness"?DrChrissy (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
I have twice in the past few days reverted the addition of a link to animalcognition.org. It seems to fail WP:ELNO. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 14:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Animal cognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:04, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
@ Randy Kryn: You recently added "other" in several places in this article to clarify that humans are animals. You may not be aware, but Wikipedia operates on the principle that the terms "human" and "animal" are mutually exclusive and no further explanation is needed in articles. I hate this, but it is consensus. I suggest you remove these inclusions before someone else does - which is almost certain to happen. Happy to talk more about this. DrChrissy (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Animal cognition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.current-biology.com/content/article/abstract?uid=PIIS0960982207009311When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
I edited a citation in your article as the sentence about cephalopods and their intelligence was missing a reference. It is reference 130. Laurendpeters ( talk) 02:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I have just corrected a little bad mistake: "animals" instead of "mammals" in the third line of the section "Methods": "all sorts of (mammals)animals large and small (birds, fish, ants, bees, and others) have been brought into the laboratory"-- Calypso ( talk) 15:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
“Though generally dismissed in the paleontology community, Mark McMenamin published in the 21st Century Science & Technology that fossils from several dead Ichthyosaurs is evidence of an intelligent Triassic cephalopod creating a primitive self-portrait.[146]“
I’m not sure this should be in the article, if it’s generally dismissed. UsersLikeYou ( talk) 19:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 August 2023 and 11 December 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SabrinaPorretto ( article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by SabrinaPorretto ( talk) 15:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Do you guys think it would be beneficial to add a section on embodied cognition for animals? Having different bodies seems like an important part of a species' intelligence. BioLabEmergency ( talk) 23:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)