What do you think?
Rate this book
Are We Smart Enough Know How Smart Anima
Goodreads Choice Award
Winner for Readers' Favorite Science & Technology (2016)Hailed as a classic, Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? explores the oddities and complexities of animal cognition―in crows, dolphins, parrots, sheep, wasps, bats, chimpanzees, and bonobos―to reveal how smart animals really are, and how we’ve underestimated their abilities for too long. Did you know that octopuses use coconut shells as tools, that elephants classify humans by gender and language, and that there is a young male chimpanzee at Kyoto University whose flash memory puts that of humans to shame? Fascinating, entertaining, and deeply informed, de Waal’s landmark work will convince you to rethink everything you thought you knew about animal―and human―intelligence.
275 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2016
About the author
Frans de Waal
35 books1,690 followersFrans de Waal has been named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People. The author of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, among many other works, he is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University’s Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,716 reviews
April 26, 2022
Review. We are not only not smart enough to know how smart animals are, we lack the sensory equipment to ever be able to measure it. When scientists measure animal intelligence, or when we do with our pets, what we are really doing is measuring their ability to figure out our world.
Since there are many more senses than the ones humans have, animals with differing ones do not see the world as we do. They do not even see the world the same way as each other. Why are we measuring their intelligence by how they problem-solve human-set experiments in a world that, apart from primates, probably looks (feels, sounds, smells) quite different to them.
There is also personality to take into account. I read yesterday that cats not only know their names but the names that people call their fellow cats by and "may" know the names of their owners. We all know that cats can understand a fair number of words, but unlike dogs eager to please their owners, cats thinking we should be eager to please them, see no reason to respond to tests if they don't feel like it. How many other creatures that scientists try and test also feel they have no reason to respond? And yes there is food, but not hungry right now, thank you very much.
I remember reading a very interesting experiment where pigeons had to press one of two levers depending on what was flashed on the screen. They got a food reward for the right answer and were very good at it. Harvard students were also put through the same experiment and did much worse than the pigeons until they too were given a food reward (M&Ms). What does that say about animal intelligence? It says that animals - Harvard students are animals too (!) like treats and might do things to get them. It also says why bother to problem-solve or participate if there's nothing worthwhile in it for them.
We cannot see polarised light as bees and ants do, looking at the sky for directions. We do not have an internal gps that can guide a butterfly on a journey of 10,000 miles. We do not have the internal mathematical ability to work out the angle of the sun - we can use sextants at sea to do this (I've tried, I never succeeded) along with complicated charts of logorithms. We cannot even see hardly any colours compared to Mantis shrimps which have 12 colour receptors to our 3 - what does their world look like? We don't have an inborn magnetic sense. Our sense of smell is very poor compared to many creatures. We cannot fly. We cannot walk up walls or on ceilings. We cannot kill with a bite or a sting. We cannot communicate with changing colours on skin that can see, like squid. And many more senses we do not have. These senses are necessary for lives, their environments look one way to us and another to them.
So since we don't have these senses, we have no idea at all what the world looks like to any except other primates, to whom, presumably it looks more or less as we see it. Dogs and cats adapt to our worlds, but we can't see what they can with their different senses. All of the animals are perfectly adapted to live in their natural surroundings, so it follows they have the perfect amount of intelligence to work out whatever problems they need to overcome. But if we can't see what they do, we can never test for their own intelligence, only for how they measure up to us.
And that's not really a very intelligent stance. We are not the pinnacle of creation. We just one of many creatures living today, all at the pinnacle of their evolution. And in many ways we have screwed it up for many of the others in our 'intelligent' way.
__________
I also have issues with De Waal in another book The Ape and the Sushi Master: Reflections of a Primatologist defending the Nazi Konrad Lorenz, a naturalist scientist justifying and approving of Hitler's genocidal policies towards Jews and Gypsies. He contorts himself to excuse him always managing never to say "Jews", which is what Lorenz, an extreme-anti-Semite was all about.
Lorenz believed that mixed children 'mischlings' of Jewish/Christian parentage if they looked and acted sufficiently German might be allowed to be rehabilitated (!) but if they were not, then they should be sent to the concentration camps. Essentially, a lesser creature (Jew) than can breed with a stronger one (Aryan), should be exterminated. No matter that Lorenz wrote some interesting books, how can you excuse that kind of thinking and hero such a man?
A GR member, made some long and interesting comments on The Ape and the Sushi Master: Reflections of a Primatologist, ultimately trying to find a way to defend Lorenz' stance, same as the author, 'perhaps we misinterpreted it'? Really? He was the only person ever to have been stripped off his Nobel Prize for his Nazi involvement. That member lated unfriended me.
It should be noted that I enjoyed reading Lorenz before I knew he very much approved of the murder of my great and great grandparents and families, and to a lesser extent de Waal. But then I became aware of his Nazi involvement.
I did get the book and read some of it before dnf'ing it. The author saying he is a feminist and then putting women's achievements down to 'they can always have babies' and are the nurturing sex concerned about their family and social circle, (And there are surveys to prove it! Of course there are.) Whereas men need to be successful in the world, and successful over women, are not at all the sentiments of a feminist but are extremely patriarchal.
Since there are many more senses than the ones humans have, animals with differing ones do not see the world as we do. They do not even see the world the same way as each other. Why are we measuring their intelligence by how they problem-solve human-set experiments in a world that, apart from primates, probably looks (feels, sounds, smells) quite different to them.
There is also personality to take into account. I read yesterday that cats not only know their names but the names that people call their fellow cats by and "may" know the names of their owners. We all know that cats can understand a fair number of words, but unlike dogs eager to please their owners, cats thinking we should be eager to please them, see no reason to respond to tests if they don't feel like it. How many other creatures that scientists try and test also feel they have no reason to respond? And yes there is food, but not hungry right now, thank you very much.
I remember reading a very interesting experiment where pigeons had to press one of two levers depending on what was flashed on the screen. They got a food reward for the right answer and were very good at it. Harvard students were also put through the same experiment and did much worse than the pigeons until they too were given a food reward (M&Ms). What does that say about animal intelligence? It says that animals - Harvard students are animals too (!) like treats and might do things to get them. It also says why bother to problem-solve or participate if there's nothing worthwhile in it for them.
We cannot see polarised light as bees and ants do, looking at the sky for directions. We do not have an internal gps that can guide a butterfly on a journey of 10,000 miles. We do not have the internal mathematical ability to work out the angle of the sun - we can use sextants at sea to do this (I've tried, I never succeeded) along with complicated charts of logorithms. We cannot even see hardly any colours compared to Mantis shrimps which have 12 colour receptors to our 3 - what does their world look like? We don't have an inborn magnetic sense. Our sense of smell is very poor compared to many creatures. We cannot fly. We cannot walk up walls or on ceilings. We cannot kill with a bite or a sting. We cannot communicate with changing colours on skin that can see, like squid. And many more senses we do not have. These senses are necessary for lives, their environments look one way to us and another to them.
So since we don't have these senses, we have no idea at all what the world looks like to any except other primates, to whom, presumably it looks more or less as we see it. Dogs and cats adapt to our worlds, but we can't see what they can with their different senses. All of the animals are perfectly adapted to live in their natural surroundings, so it follows they have the perfect amount of intelligence to work out whatever problems they need to overcome. But if we can't see what they do, we can never test for their own intelligence, only for how they measure up to us.
And that's not really a very intelligent stance. We are not the pinnacle of creation. We just one of many creatures living today, all at the pinnacle of their evolution. And in many ways we have screwed it up for many of the others in our 'intelligent' way.
__________
I also have issues with De Waal in another book The Ape and the Sushi Master: Reflections of a Primatologist defending the Nazi Konrad Lorenz, a naturalist scientist justifying and approving of Hitler's genocidal policies towards Jews and Gypsies. He contorts himself to excuse him always managing never to say "Jews", which is what Lorenz, an extreme-anti-Semite was all about.
Lorenz believed that mixed children 'mischlings' of Jewish/Christian parentage if they looked and acted sufficiently German might be allowed to be rehabilitated (!) but if they were not, then they should be sent to the concentration camps. Essentially, a lesser creature (Jew) than can breed with a stronger one (Aryan), should be exterminated. No matter that Lorenz wrote some interesting books, how can you excuse that kind of thinking and hero such a man?
A GR member, made some long and interesting comments on The Ape and the Sushi Master: Reflections of a Primatologist, ultimately trying to find a way to defend Lorenz' stance, same as the author, 'perhaps we misinterpreted it'? Really? He was the only person ever to have been stripped off his Nobel Prize for his Nazi involvement. That member lated unfriended me.
It should be noted that I enjoyed reading Lorenz before I knew he very much approved of the murder of my great and great grandparents and families, and to a lesser extent de Waal. But then I became aware of his Nazi involvement.
I did get the book and read some of it before dnf'ing it. The author saying he is a feminist and then putting women's achievements down to 'they can always have babies' and are the nurturing sex concerned about their family and social circle, (And there are surveys to prove it! Of course there are.) Whereas men need to be successful in the world, and successful over women, are not at all the sentiments of a feminist but are extremely patriarchal.
December 10, 2020
The answer is no - we are no where near smart enough to figure out how smart animals are.
While it is true that animals are influenced by their instincts. For example:
Frans de Waal uses both scientific articles and anecdotes to show what researchers (and the general public) used to think about animals' thoughts and how that's changed over the years.
From what I gathered while reading this novel - we only think animals are dumb because we are absolutely horrible at testing them.
So many times, animals have "failed" a test (thus placing them in a lower intelligence bracket) because humans aren't testing either the right way, the right thing or used an inherently unfair method.
Testing the Right Way
For the longest time, scientists thought that elephants were among the few species that couldn't recognize their own faces.
Their experiments consisted putting a mark (with a washable dye) on the animal's body then showing that animal a mirror. If the animal became interested in the dot, that indicated that they recognized their own faces.
Monkeys and apes and so many other species could do this - but not elephants.
In reality, the scientists just didn't account for the size factor - they were using mirrors only large enough to show the elephants their feet or part of their face.
Once that was rectified, the elephants were fascinated by the mirrors - going so far as to stand on their rear legs and lean against the mirrors (much to their keeper's dismay!)
Testing for the right thing
Researchers tested primates on facial recognition skills and found that they were inherently poor at distinguishing subjects.
However, the scientists were testing the primates on their ability to distinguish humans. When they later tested the primates on recognition of other primates, they excelled. Much like humans, the primates were far better at telling apart their own species than another.
Using inherently unfair comparisons
Waals points out that so many studies focus on what makes humans so different from other animals and yet many of the comparisons are inherently unfair.
Overall, this book did not disappoint. It was a bit dry at times and did feel a smidge repetitive but I did enjoy my time reading it - and I came away feeling like I learned a ton!
Audiobook Comments
Read by Sean Runnette. I'm a bit torn about the narration - while it was rather well-done considering that the material may be considered dry by some. However, I noticed that the reader had a faint...not quite a lisp but the way he pronounced certain words kept taking me out of the story.
YouTube | Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Snapchat @miranda_reads
Having escaped the Dark Ages in which animals were mere stimulus-response machines, we are free to contemplate their mental lives.The prevailing theory used to be that animals are all instinct-driven, mute and empty-headed - but that couldn't be further from the truth.
While it is true that animals are influenced by their instincts. For example:
One can train dolphins to jump synchronously because they do so in the wild, and one can teach horses to run together at the same pace because wild horses do the same.But mere instincts cannot explain the overwhelming evidence for cognition.
Frans de Waal uses both scientific articles and anecdotes to show what researchers (and the general public) used to think about animals' thoughts and how that's changed over the years.
From what I gathered while reading this novel - we only think animals are dumb because we are absolutely horrible at testing them.
So many times, animals have "failed" a test (thus placing them in a lower intelligence bracket) because humans aren't testing either the right way, the right thing or used an inherently unfair method.
Testing the Right Way
For the longest time, scientists thought that elephants were among the few species that couldn't recognize their own faces.
Their experiments consisted putting a mark (with a washable dye) on the animal's body then showing that animal a mirror. If the animal became interested in the dot, that indicated that they recognized their own faces.
Monkeys and apes and so many other species could do this - but not elephants.
In reality, the scientists just didn't account for the size factor - they were using mirrors only large enough to show the elephants their feet or part of their face.
Once that was rectified, the elephants were fascinated by the mirrors - going so far as to stand on their rear legs and lean against the mirrors (much to their keeper's dismay!)
Testing for the right thing
Researchers tested primates on facial recognition skills and found that they were inherently poor at distinguishing subjects.
However, the scientists were testing the primates on their ability to distinguish humans. When they later tested the primates on recognition of other primates, they excelled. Much like humans, the primates were far better at telling apart their own species than another.
Using inherently unfair comparisons
Waals points out that so many studies focus on what makes humans so different from other animals and yet many of the comparisons are inherently unfair.
Would anyone test the memory of human children by throwing them into a swimming pool to see if they remember where to get out?And yet that is a routine test for rat memory.
Overall, this book did not disappoint. It was a bit dry at times and did feel a smidge repetitive but I did enjoy my time reading it - and I came away feeling like I learned a ton!
Audiobook Comments
Read by Sean Runnette. I'm a bit torn about the narration - while it was rather well-done considering that the material may be considered dry by some. However, I noticed that the reader had a faint...not quite a lisp but the way he pronounced certain words kept taking me out of the story.
YouTube | Blog | Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | Snapchat @miranda_reads
August 12, 2023
I am an ailurophile who adores cats. Cats have been an integral part of my family (all my family members also love cats.) Recently I understood that I am unable to understand many things that my cats are trying to communicate with me. So I contacted our Veterinary doctor and also started reading books about animals to learn more about their language.
This is one of the books I purchased to learn more about animals, and I got a large amount of information that I had no clue about before reading it. This book also mentions the behavioral patterns of dolphins, chimpanzees, elephants, bonobos, and many other animals.
What I learned from this book
1) Are human beings smarter than Chimpanzees?
Few studies have revealed that chimpanzees share 98% of human DNA. Then what makes human beings smarter? According to some scientists, white matter growth and advanced neuroplasticity led to the better cognitive abilities of humans.
But some later studies divulged that the chimpanzees have many abilities that we believe are unique to humans. The author discusses this topic in this book.
"Chimpanzees use between fifteen and twenty-five different tools per community, and the precise tools vary with cultural and ecological circumstances. One savanna community, for example, uses pointed sticks to hunt. This came as a shock, since hunting weapons were thought to be another uniquely human advance. The chimpanzees jab their "spears" into a tree cavity to kill a sleeping bush baby, a small primate that serves as a protein source for female apes unable to run down monkeys the way males do.23 It is also well known that chimpanzee communities in West Africa crack nuts with stones, a behavior unheard of in East African communities. Human novices have trouble cracking the same tough nuts, partly because they do not have the same muscle strength as an adult chimpanzee, but also because they lack the required coordination. It takes years of practice to place one of the hardest nuts in the world on a level surface, find a good-sized hammer stone, and hit the nut with the right speed while keeping one's fingers out of the way."
2) What happens to your brain when you stare into the eyes of your dog?
If you are a cynophile, the following information below might excite you. Just looking into your dog's eyes will make many changes in your brain and enhance the bond between you and your dog.
"Dog owners who stare into their pet's eyes experience a rapid increase in oxytocin—a neuropeptide involved in attachment and bonding. Exchanging gazes full of empathy and trust, we enjoy a special relationship with the dog."
3) Uncanny valley hypothesis, anthropomorphic realism and human beings uniqueness.
Did God specially create human beings? Why are humans getting exasperated when they see their characters in robots and animals? This is a topic that has always fascinated me. The author is trying to explain this problem using the animal kingdom perspective.
"The key point is that anthropomorphism is not always as problematic as people think. To rail against it for the sake of scientific objectivity often hides a pre-Darwinian mindset, one uncomfortable with the notion of humans as animals. When we are considering species like the apes, which are aptly known as "anthropoids" (humanlike), however, anthropomorphism is in fact a logical choice. Dubbing an ape's kiss "mouth-to-mouth contact" so as to avoid anthropomorphism deliberately obfuscates the meaning of the behavior. It would be like assigning Earth's gravity a different name than the moon's, just because we think Earth is special."
My favourite three lines from this book
“Animals should be given a chance to express their natural behavior.”
“Humans are a strange lot. We have the power to analyze and explore the world around us, yet panic as soon as the evidence threatens to violate our expectations."
“We are so logic-driven that we can't stand the absence of it.”
What could have been better?
This book might give you a lot of new information. Sadly, Frans de Waal also mentions many contentious topics that vex you to the core to push you into the realm of daftness. The way he shares his skewed ideology in the disguise of animal behavior at parts might trigger the reader in the worst possible way. When I read his concept of feminism, I rechecked the first published date of this book again as the author sounded like someone from the 18th century. There was no need for the author to insert these controversial views in an otherwise decent book.
In his earlier books, his decision to support the controversial anti-Semitic Late Austrian scientist Konrad Lorenz can be considered nothing less than atrocious (Special thanks to my Goodreads friend, Petra, for sharing this information).
Rating
2/5 This was a difficult book to rate. The author gives us a lot of new information. It would have been an easy four-star book for me. The problem with this book is that the author also shares some controversial views in it. When he goes wrong, he goes terribly wrong and will be difficult to tolerate for the reader. So I can't give anything more than two stars for this book.
—————————————————————————
You can also follow me on
Instagram ID - Dasfill | YouTube Channel ID - Dasfill | YouTube Health Channel ID - Dasfill - Health | YouTube Malayalam Channel ID - Dasfill - Malayalam | Threads ID - Dasfill | X ID - Dasfill1 | Snapchat ID - Dasfill | Facebook ID - Dasfill | TikTok ID - Dasfill1
March 28, 2021
I cannot give this book less than three stars because it contains lots of totally fascinating information about animals - the greater and lesser apes, whales, octopus, fish, birds and elephants for example. The author is a Dutch primatologist and ethologist. He is the Charles Howard Candler professor of Primate Behavior at the Emory University psychology department in Atlanta, Georgia, and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. Primate social behavior is his central focus but this book goes beyond primates. The latest research about the abilities of animals and animal cognition is exciting. Our knowledge concerning the science of animal cognition, self-awareness, understanding, cooperation, inequity aversion, conformism and empathy has progressed far from the early days of behaviorism. The book starts with a review of the history of the science.
Nevertheless, I did have problems with this book. I found it poorly organized. I would have appreciated clearer chapter titles so you knew what the coming chapter would contain. The chapters had diffuse titles such as Cognitive Ripples, Know What You Know, Talk To Me. The same experiments are mentioned several times with additional information added the second time around. Neither was there organization in terms of the species covered; one gets a smattering of species in each chapter. Quite simply the book was put together in a messy fashion. The author has a central message, namely that experiments must be designed to fit the animals being tested and that we must stop overestimating human cognition and underestimating other species' cognition. These became the author's mantras. I don't disagree with what he is saying but the preachiness with which the messages were delivered became annoying. The book is said to be written for the layman. One minute he addresses his readers as if we were children. Soon after the lines read as academic bickering. The author comes across as “thinking he knows all” and negatively viewing others. The tone is negative, which gets tiring. The result? You have to wade through a lot to get to the fascinating ground information.
One more complaint – in comparison to the books listed below, the presentation of the experiments in de Waal’s book does not let readers get close to the animals. You do in the books listed below. Too often in de Waal’s book we are told what particular experiments prove, rather than letting readers judge for themselves.
So yes, I do have a bunch of complaints with the way the book is organized, its tone and manner of presenting the data. The information presented is nevertheless thorough and fascinating.
I spoke of the author’s negative tone. This is further enhanced by the audiook narration performed by Sean Runnette. The words are clear but the tone is one of sad despondency.
********************
Related books which could be of interest:
Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel (4 stars)
Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Adventures with Wolf-Birds (4 stars)
Wesley the Owl: The Remarkable Love Story of an Owl and His Girl (5 stars)
Alex & Me: How a Scientist and a Parrot Discovered a Hidden World of Animal Intelligence—and Formed a Deep Bond in the Process (3 stars) (I mention the book on Alex only because it is covered in de Waal's book. I didn’t love it.)
The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter than You Think (4 stars)
Love, Life, and Elephants: An African Love Story ( 3 stars)
Nevertheless, I did have problems with this book. I found it poorly organized. I would have appreciated clearer chapter titles so you knew what the coming chapter would contain. The chapters had diffuse titles such as Cognitive Ripples, Know What You Know, Talk To Me. The same experiments are mentioned several times with additional information added the second time around. Neither was there organization in terms of the species covered; one gets a smattering of species in each chapter. Quite simply the book was put together in a messy fashion. The author has a central message, namely that experiments must be designed to fit the animals being tested and that we must stop overestimating human cognition and underestimating other species' cognition. These became the author's mantras. I don't disagree with what he is saying but the preachiness with which the messages were delivered became annoying. The book is said to be written for the layman. One minute he addresses his readers as if we were children. Soon after the lines read as academic bickering. The author comes across as “thinking he knows all” and negatively viewing others. The tone is negative, which gets tiring. The result? You have to wade through a lot to get to the fascinating ground information.
One more complaint – in comparison to the books listed below, the presentation of the experiments in de Waal’s book does not let readers get close to the animals. You do in the books listed below. Too often in de Waal’s book we are told what particular experiments prove, rather than letting readers judge for themselves.
So yes, I do have a bunch of complaints with the way the book is organized, its tone and manner of presenting the data. The information presented is nevertheless thorough and fascinating.
I spoke of the author’s negative tone. This is further enhanced by the audiook narration performed by Sean Runnette. The words are clear but the tone is one of sad despondency.
********************
Related books which could be of interest:
Beyond Words: What Animals Think and Feel (4 stars)
Mind of the Raven: Investigations and Adventures with Wolf-Birds (4 stars)
Wesley the Owl: The Remarkable Love Story of an Owl and His Girl (5 stars)
Alex & Me: How a Scientist and a Parrot Discovered a Hidden World of Animal Intelligence—and Formed a Deep Bond in the Process (3 stars) (I mention the book on Alex only because it is covered in de Waal's book. I didn’t love it.)
The Genius of Dogs: How Dogs Are Smarter than You Think (4 stars)
Love, Life, and Elephants: An African Love Story ( 3 stars)
June 6, 2016
Instead of making humanity the measure of all things, we need to evaluate other species by what they are.
The field of animal cognition needs to take a lesson from the field of human education—the multiple intelligence model. Not every student will be good at every part of the curriculum, but it’s a rare person who isn’t talented at anything! Physical talent in sports or a love and understanding of nature count as kinds of intelligence, acknowledging that the academic subjects are not necessarily the be all and end all.
De Waal writes clearly and engagingly about the history of the study of animal intelligence, pointing out the many prejudices that humans bring to this endeavour. Human subjects are tested by a member of their own species and in surroundings that they are comfortable in. Animal subjects are being tested by a member of another species (whom they are not necessarily interested in) and in a captive setting that adds to the stress of the situation. Ask any university student about the stress of exams and they will tell you that it is not an ideal way to take tests.
He points out that these studies are hampered by the human tendency to try to set ourselves outside the animal world, to set a barrier between us and the rest of nature. He also discusses our relationship with the apes, especially our close link to the two chimpanzee species. Being very hierarchically focused, like chimps are, we spend a lot of time trying to set ourselves at the top of our perceived hierarchy of nature. We truly need to let go of this need to be superior and to evaluate other species according to their own talents.
When I was a volunteer nature educator, I was often asked about animals, “How smart are they?” I guess people were hoping to feel superior to other species. My answer was always, “Just as smart as they need to be to survive.” Each species is adapted to its own environmental niche and is expert at living there.
I would recommend Mr. de Waal’s books to anyone interested in animal cognition or in ape studies in general.
The field of animal cognition needs to take a lesson from the field of human education—the multiple intelligence model. Not every student will be good at every part of the curriculum, but it’s a rare person who isn’t talented at anything! Physical talent in sports or a love and understanding of nature count as kinds of intelligence, acknowledging that the academic subjects are not necessarily the be all and end all.
De Waal writes clearly and engagingly about the history of the study of animal intelligence, pointing out the many prejudices that humans bring to this endeavour. Human subjects are tested by a member of their own species and in surroundings that they are comfortable in. Animal subjects are being tested by a member of another species (whom they are not necessarily interested in) and in a captive setting that adds to the stress of the situation. Ask any university student about the stress of exams and they will tell you that it is not an ideal way to take tests.
He points out that these studies are hampered by the human tendency to try to set ourselves outside the animal world, to set a barrier between us and the rest of nature. He also discusses our relationship with the apes, especially our close link to the two chimpanzee species. Being very hierarchically focused, like chimps are, we spend a lot of time trying to set ourselves at the top of our perceived hierarchy of nature. We truly need to let go of this need to be superior and to evaluate other species according to their own talents.
When I was a volunteer nature educator, I was often asked about animals, “How smart are they?” I guess people were hoping to feel superior to other species. My answer was always, “Just as smart as they need to be to survive.” Each species is adapted to its own environmental niche and is expert at living there.
I would recommend Mr. de Waal’s books to anyone interested in animal cognition or in ape studies in general.
October 6, 2023
Pentru mine, întrebarea din titlu are un răspuns evident: nu. Motivul constă în lipsa unui limbaj comun între noi și celelalte specii. N-am descoperit încă o modalitate de a discuta cu cimpanzeii sau caracatițele. În lipsa unui limbaj articulat, orice discuție despre inteligență e dubioasă.
Specialiștii se bazează doar pe observații și „experimente”. Vedem, de exemplu, cimpanzei capabili să-și amîne o plăcere. Își pun deoparte banana pentru mai tîrziu, n-o mănîncă pe loc. Pentru cei care definesc omul ca „singura ființă capabilă să amîne”, un astfel de obicei pare uman. Iar dacă un cimpanzeu recurge la „gesturi” umane, conchidem că numitul cimpanzeu trebuie să fie și inteligent. Ne-am mîndrit degeaba: nu sîntem singuri. Definiția e falsă. În treacăt fie spus, se presupune (de către unii idealiști și exaltați) că omul e animalul rațional prin definiție. Vedem chiar în clipa de față cît de rațional și inteligent e...
Observația e un instrument de lucru precar. Să presupunem că l-am spiona pe Einstein o zi întreagă. Am nota că la ora 8 își bea cafeaua, că la 9 scoate limba în oglindă, iar la 10 cheamă un taxi să țină un curs. Nu știm în ce limbă vorbește și nu înțelegem prelegerea. Conchidem însă că e capabil să scoată sunete. Profesorul se întoarce acasă pe jos. La ora 22 trecute fix, se culcă. Am consemnat totul amănunțit, ne ducem și noi acasă și-l lăsăm să doarmă. Deschidem carnetul cu însemnări, le citim de mai multe ori și ne întrebăm dacă ființa pe care am urmărit-o e inteligentă. Am putea formula un răspuns? Sigur, nu.
Experimentele sînt și ele instrumente de lucru dubioase. Frans de Waal a pus o caracatiță într-un borcan cu capac înșurubat și a fost uimit să constate că mlădioasa vietate a deșurubat capacul și a ieșit afară. În urma acestei minuni, specialistul trage o singură concluzie: caracatița e o ființă inteligentă (elogiul adus caracatiței poate fi citit la paginile 289-294).
Faptul că orice specie dă răspunsuri adecvate la provocările mediului ține de selecția naturală. Răspunsurile se păstrează, e depus în ADN. Indivizii care n-au găsit răspunsul adecvat pier. Adaptarea la mediu este o formă de inteligență? Greu de spus.
Frans de Waal definește inteligența ca însușirea de a soluționa probleme. Cînd e urmărită de un prădător, caracatița își schimbă culoarea și împrăștie o substanță întunecată, care-l orbește pe dușman. A scăpat. Putem afirma că a dat dovadă de inteligență, fiindcă a soluționat o problemă de viață și de moarte? Mă îndoiesc. S-ar putea ca inteligența să fie, de fapt, capacitatea de a inventa probleme noi.
Altminteri, împărtășesc premisele autorului și entuziasmul lui. Cogniția umană se înscrie, desigur, în continuitatea cogniției animale. Nu poate fi nici o îndoială, prea semănăm cu strămoșii. Într-un sens vag, animalele sînt inteligente. Nu se poate altfel. Dar cercetarea e abia la început...
Specialiștii se bazează doar pe observații și „experimente”. Vedem, de exemplu, cimpanzei capabili să-și amîne o plăcere. Își pun deoparte banana pentru mai tîrziu, n-o mănîncă pe loc. Pentru cei care definesc omul ca „singura ființă capabilă să amîne”, un astfel de obicei pare uman. Iar dacă un cimpanzeu recurge la „gesturi” umane, conchidem că numitul cimpanzeu trebuie să fie și inteligent. Ne-am mîndrit degeaba: nu sîntem singuri. Definiția e falsă. În treacăt fie spus, se presupune (de către unii idealiști și exaltați) că omul e animalul rațional prin definiție. Vedem chiar în clipa de față cît de rațional și inteligent e...
Observația e un instrument de lucru precar. Să presupunem că l-am spiona pe Einstein o zi întreagă. Am nota că la ora 8 își bea cafeaua, că la 9 scoate limba în oglindă, iar la 10 cheamă un taxi să țină un curs. Nu știm în ce limbă vorbește și nu înțelegem prelegerea. Conchidem însă că e capabil să scoată sunete. Profesorul se întoarce acasă pe jos. La ora 22 trecute fix, se culcă. Am consemnat totul amănunțit, ne ducem și noi acasă și-l lăsăm să doarmă. Deschidem carnetul cu însemnări, le citim de mai multe ori și ne întrebăm dacă ființa pe care am urmărit-o e inteligentă. Am putea formula un răspuns? Sigur, nu.
Experimentele sînt și ele instrumente de lucru dubioase. Frans de Waal a pus o caracatiță într-un borcan cu capac înșurubat și a fost uimit să constate că mlădioasa vietate a deșurubat capacul și a ieșit afară. În urma acestei minuni, specialistul trage o singură concluzie: caracatița e o ființă inteligentă (elogiul adus caracatiței poate fi citit la paginile 289-294).
Faptul că orice specie dă răspunsuri adecvate la provocările mediului ține de selecția naturală. Răspunsurile se păstrează, e depus în ADN. Indivizii care n-au găsit răspunsul adecvat pier. Adaptarea la mediu este o formă de inteligență? Greu de spus.
Frans de Waal definește inteligența ca însușirea de a soluționa probleme. Cînd e urmărită de un prădător, caracatița își schimbă culoarea și împrăștie o substanță întunecată, care-l orbește pe dușman. A scăpat. Putem afirma că a dat dovadă de inteligență, fiindcă a soluționat o problemă de viață și de moarte? Mă îndoiesc. S-ar putea ca inteligența să fie, de fapt, capacitatea de a inventa probleme noi.
Altminteri, împărtășesc premisele autorului și entuziasmul lui. Cogniția umană se înscrie, desigur, în continuitatea cogniției animale. Nu poate fi nici o îndoială, prea semănăm cu strămoșii. Într-un sens vag, animalele sînt inteligente. Nu se poate altfel. Dar cercetarea e abia la început...
November 29, 2021
The three experts looked at each other and smirked. One glance at the prisoner, and they could tell that he was dumb, totally dumb actually.
‘Well, let us go ahead with this, though it is a waste of time’ said one, and the others nodded.
The artist among them asked the prisoner to draw the scene of a sunset, and within seconds started laughing derisively.
The scientist asked the prisoner if he could explain quantum theory, and the prisoner started at him angrily.
The philosopher asked the prisoner if he had heard of Carl Jung. By this time, the prisoner had turned away, refusing to engage with the trio anymore.
The three experts sat and quickly wrote their report, unanimous in their opinion that the prisoner was totally dumb, and showed no semblance of any cognitive ability whatsoever.
The above is not from the book. Apparently, we have been testing animals for cognitive ability like this – starting assumption being that they are dumb, and administering tests with our standards to confirm this assumption. This book is rich with examples of animal testing over the years – for instance one of the key premises for a higher order of cognitive ability is to recognize oneself. Elephants were offered mirrors which did not cover their entire mass for such a test. As it turns out, a large section of animals & birds can recognize themselves & others. There are even instances of dolphins recognizing signature sounds many years hence (in one instance up to 20 years!).
The other assumption has been that animals can only act instinctively – such as to flee when they sense danger. Tests have thrown this premise out the window as well. Many animals, especially primates, even exhibit aspects of goal oriented longer-term actions co-operating with others. There is also the aspect of testing in natural surroundings vs captivity. Till recently, we have reluctantly conceded some minimal abilities for primates, but examples of cognitive abilities abound in various others species including dolphins, octopuses, elephants, dogs, parrots and even wasps & crows.
When we compare ourselves with animals, we lose sight of the fact that we are actually only comparing animal species, but we like to distance ourselves, assuming the universe exists only for our species (who have been in existence for a fraction of the timescale of the universe). This book provides a much-needed mental reset most of us need. The point is that even if the assumption of dumbness was true (which it is not), that does not justify the pain & misery we heap on animals, does it?
My rating: 4.25 / 5.
‘Well, let us go ahead with this, though it is a waste of time’ said one, and the others nodded.
The artist among them asked the prisoner to draw the scene of a sunset, and within seconds started laughing derisively.
The scientist asked the prisoner if he could explain quantum theory, and the prisoner started at him angrily.
The philosopher asked the prisoner if he had heard of Carl Jung. By this time, the prisoner had turned away, refusing to engage with the trio anymore.
The three experts sat and quickly wrote their report, unanimous in their opinion that the prisoner was totally dumb, and showed no semblance of any cognitive ability whatsoever.
The above is not from the book. Apparently, we have been testing animals for cognitive ability like this – starting assumption being that they are dumb, and administering tests with our standards to confirm this assumption. This book is rich with examples of animal testing over the years – for instance one of the key premises for a higher order of cognitive ability is to recognize oneself. Elephants were offered mirrors which did not cover their entire mass for such a test. As it turns out, a large section of animals & birds can recognize themselves & others. There are even instances of dolphins recognizing signature sounds many years hence (in one instance up to 20 years!).
The other assumption has been that animals can only act instinctively – such as to flee when they sense danger. Tests have thrown this premise out the window as well. Many animals, especially primates, even exhibit aspects of goal oriented longer-term actions co-operating with others. There is also the aspect of testing in natural surroundings vs captivity. Till recently, we have reluctantly conceded some minimal abilities for primates, but examples of cognitive abilities abound in various others species including dolphins, octopuses, elephants, dogs, parrots and even wasps & crows.
When we compare ourselves with animals, we lose sight of the fact that we are actually only comparing animal species, but we like to distance ourselves, assuming the universe exists only for our species (who have been in existence for a fraction of the timescale of the universe). This book provides a much-needed mental reset most of us need. The point is that even if the assumption of dumbness was true (which it is not), that does not justify the pain & misery we heap on animals, does it?
My rating: 4.25 / 5.
May 9, 2019
The book is about clever experiments conducted to show that primates, crows, elephants, etc. possess a sense of the future and the past, that they can a plan for the future, and that they unequivocally make tools. Moreover the experiments discussed here demonstrate that animals have a sense of compassion, altruism and reciprocity just like us (at our best). All of the experiments with primates are interesting, but the ones with caching birds, like Jays—who inhibit immediate gratification for the sake of future need—and the ones that proved Ravens know each others’ voices and have a hierarchical status system, I found especially intriguing. Then there’s Irene M. Pepperberg’s Alex, the Gray Parrot, who can verbally respond to addition and subtraction tasks done in his head. The studies about animal metacognition—thinking about thinking—are gobsmacking. Mainly the author’s targets here are the many psychologists, philosophers and other experts who argue that only humans are endowed with such imaginative and creative capacities. I liked that the author, who’s worked with primates for 30 years, has an acerbic view of humans that seems entirely missing in his discussion of primates. See note, page 219. All my highlights and notes give a peek at the content of this brilliant book.
September 7, 2017
Well, some people are smart enough to know how smart animals are--but some people are not. It depends on whether experimenters can put themselves into the frame of the animal they are studying. Testing an animal in the same way as one might test a human just doesn't cut it. And this is the main theme of the book; that researchers must test animals in accordance with their biology and move away from human-centric approaches.
Frans de Waal has written a fabulous book about researching the intelligence of animals. De Waal is a zoologist whose specialty is primates, and he has been studying them for many years. He is very well qualified to write this book, not just about primates, but about many types of animals.
So many researchers are quick to point out the differences between humans and animals. De Waal came up with a metaphor for this approach--that of an iceberg. The vast underwater part of an iceberg represents the enormous similarities between humans and primates, while the above-water tip represents the differences. Many researchers look exclusively at the differences, while not even trying to notice the similarities. They are continually trying to answer the question, "Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all?", but this in de Waal's opinion, this is just a waste of time.
People can even be intimidated by animals. There is a story about the ape house in a British zoo, where the chimpanzees were trained to have a genteel tea party. The chimps had excellent manners and correctly imitated a polite-society tea party. But, human spectators were intimidated and complained, and even ignored the spectacle. So, the zookeepers retrained the apes to have a naughty tea party, spitting and throwing tea around and causing havoc--and the human spectators loved it!
There is an Aesops fable about a crow and a pitcher. The water level in the pitcher is too low for the crow's beak to reach it, so the crow drops small pebbles into the pitcher, in order to elevate the water level to the point where it is drinkable. And ... yes, you guessed it. This behavior has been replicated in a laboratory! Even though crows do not have a language--at least, not at any level of sophistication even approaching that of humans--crows can think. An animal does not require language in order to think. And actually, neither do humans need a language in order to think.
This book is chock full of examples of animals that have thinking capabilities that are truly astonishing. For example, there is a bird named Alex that could respond to questions about objects, defining how they are different, their material composition--and not by rote, as they were new, unfamiliar objects, and in the absence of the experimenter. And, Alex could count and do addition. An experimenter would hide objects under three shells. He would lift up the first shell revealing the objects, then cover them up and lift up the second shell, and so on. Then, Alex would speak the number of objects he saw in total! A crow named Betty could bend straight wires into a hook in order to retrieve food from a tube; the first evidence of a non-primate making a tool.
Apes can have sudden insights for solving problems, they are capable of inferential reasoning, like understanding the meaning of the absence of something. They are capable of deception. And when it comes to tools; some apes have been observed to carry around a toolkit consisting of five pieces of sticks of various shapes, each of which is necessary to be used in sequence to retrieve honey. Apes can spontaneously learn to brush their teeth, ride bicycles, light fires, drive golf carts, eat with a knife and fork, peel potatoes, and mop the floor. Apes that are reared with humans learn best how to imitate humans. They can imitate better than young children, because they can selectively imitate actions that have favorable consequences, ignoring actions that are unfavorable.
Apes are capable of deception, as has been shown in a multitude of experiments. For example, orangutans are excellent escape artists. They slowly dismantle their cages over a period of many days. They keep the loosened screws in place or hidden, in order to fool the humans until they are ready to make their break for freedom.
Many experiments with chimpanzees fail to result in meaningful conclusions. Often experimenters try to understand the "Theory of Mind" of chimpanzees, that is, to understand how they see humans. But this often fails because chimpanzees think of humans as omniscient.
There are so many other examples of animal cognition. There are elephants who can tell human languages apart, as well as the gender and age of human speakers. A female orangutan used a lettuce leaf like a hat, using a mirror to aid in decorating herself. Octopuses seem to play with new, unfamiliar objects. Dolphins are capable of metacognition, that is, to think about thinking. And, dolphins have unique vocal signatures, which they use like names to call one another.
Then there is the experiment that involved teaching a chimpanzee to recognize numbers written on a computer screen. He would be shown nine single-digit numbers for just a fifth of a second, after which he would press the keys in the proper order that he saw for just that split-second. The crazy thing is that humans are only capable of remembering five such numbers in similar experiments, even after training!
The point of the book is to show that you simply cannot call one animal species smarter or dumber than another, or smarter or dumber than humans on the basis of individual capabilities. Each animal species has different abilities, many of which exceed that of humans. De Waal also blasts away at the behaviorists, who maintain that what an animal thinks, that is to say, the internal state of animal, is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters, so they say, is external stimuli and conditioned behavior. De Waal shows over and over again, the backwardness of this attitude, and the incorrect conclusions that they reach concerning animal behavior.
This book provides a wonderful perspective on animal behavior. The distinctions between animals and humans are not so strong as we would like to believe.
Frans de Waal has written a fabulous book about researching the intelligence of animals. De Waal is a zoologist whose specialty is primates, and he has been studying them for many years. He is very well qualified to write this book, not just about primates, but about many types of animals.
So many researchers are quick to point out the differences between humans and animals. De Waal came up with a metaphor for this approach--that of an iceberg. The vast underwater part of an iceberg represents the enormous similarities between humans and primates, while the above-water tip represents the differences. Many researchers look exclusively at the differences, while not even trying to notice the similarities. They are continually trying to answer the question, "Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all?", but this in de Waal's opinion, this is just a waste of time.
People can even be intimidated by animals. There is a story about the ape house in a British zoo, where the chimpanzees were trained to have a genteel tea party. The chimps had excellent manners and correctly imitated a polite-society tea party. But, human spectators were intimidated and complained, and even ignored the spectacle. So, the zookeepers retrained the apes to have a naughty tea party, spitting and throwing tea around and causing havoc--and the human spectators loved it!
There is an Aesops fable about a crow and a pitcher. The water level in the pitcher is too low for the crow's beak to reach it, so the crow drops small pebbles into the pitcher, in order to elevate the water level to the point where it is drinkable. And ... yes, you guessed it. This behavior has been replicated in a laboratory! Even though crows do not have a language--at least, not at any level of sophistication even approaching that of humans--crows can think. An animal does not require language in order to think. And actually, neither do humans need a language in order to think.
This book is chock full of examples of animals that have thinking capabilities that are truly astonishing. For example, there is a bird named Alex that could respond to questions about objects, defining how they are different, their material composition--and not by rote, as they were new, unfamiliar objects, and in the absence of the experimenter. And, Alex could count and do addition. An experimenter would hide objects under three shells. He would lift up the first shell revealing the objects, then cover them up and lift up the second shell, and so on. Then, Alex would speak the number of objects he saw in total! A crow named Betty could bend straight wires into a hook in order to retrieve food from a tube; the first evidence of a non-primate making a tool.
Apes can have sudden insights for solving problems, they are capable of inferential reasoning, like understanding the meaning of the absence of something. They are capable of deception. And when it comes to tools; some apes have been observed to carry around a toolkit consisting of five pieces of sticks of various shapes, each of which is necessary to be used in sequence to retrieve honey. Apes can spontaneously learn to brush their teeth, ride bicycles, light fires, drive golf carts, eat with a knife and fork, peel potatoes, and mop the floor. Apes that are reared with humans learn best how to imitate humans. They can imitate better than young children, because they can selectively imitate actions that have favorable consequences, ignoring actions that are unfavorable.
Apes are capable of deception, as has been shown in a multitude of experiments. For example, orangutans are excellent escape artists. They slowly dismantle their cages over a period of many days. They keep the loosened screws in place or hidden, in order to fool the humans until they are ready to make their break for freedom.
Many experiments with chimpanzees fail to result in meaningful conclusions. Often experimenters try to understand the "Theory of Mind" of chimpanzees, that is, to understand how they see humans. But this often fails because chimpanzees think of humans as omniscient.
There are so many other examples of animal cognition. There are elephants who can tell human languages apart, as well as the gender and age of human speakers. A female orangutan used a lettuce leaf like a hat, using a mirror to aid in decorating herself. Octopuses seem to play with new, unfamiliar objects. Dolphins are capable of metacognition, that is, to think about thinking. And, dolphins have unique vocal signatures, which they use like names to call one another.
Then there is the experiment that involved teaching a chimpanzee to recognize numbers written on a computer screen. He would be shown nine single-digit numbers for just a fifth of a second, after which he would press the keys in the proper order that he saw for just that split-second. The crazy thing is that humans are only capable of remembering five such numbers in similar experiments, even after training!
The point of the book is to show that you simply cannot call one animal species smarter or dumber than another, or smarter or dumber than humans on the basis of individual capabilities. Each animal species has different abilities, many of which exceed that of humans. De Waal also blasts away at the behaviorists, who maintain that what an animal thinks, that is to say, the internal state of animal, is totally irrelevant. The only thing that matters, so they say, is external stimuli and conditioned behavior. De Waal shows over and over again, the backwardness of this attitude, and the incorrect conclusions that they reach concerning animal behavior.
This book provides a wonderful perspective on animal behavior. The distinctions between animals and humans are not so strong as we would like to believe.
March 17, 2021
“When any hypothesis... is advanced to explain a mental operation, which is common to men and beasts, we must apply the same hypothesis to both.” ~David Hume, 1739
Humans have underestimated the complexity and sophistication of animal minds for far too long. Like a select minority of his predecessors, Frans de Waal is a voice of reason - pitting fair and balanced rationale against the antiquated ideology of anthropocentrism.
“Although we cannot directly measure consciousness, other species show evidence of having precisely those capacities traditionally viewed as its indicators. To maintain that they possess these capacities in the absence of consciousness introduces an unnecessary dichotomy. It suggests that they do what we do but in fundamentally different ways. From an evolutionary standpoint, this sounds illogical. And logic is one of those other capacities we pride ourselves on.” (pg 234)
For a long time now I have been a volunteer at a wildlife rehabilitation facility here in Oklahoma (wildcareoklahoma.org). Over the years I have seen firsthand a few of the behaviors de Waal writes about (we work with a LOT of crows!). Whereas nothing lifts my spirits more than seeing a recuperated animal released back into its natural environment, nothing saddens me more than the human indifference for the welfare of that animal. There is a pervasive attitude around these parts that we humans are the center of the universe and that things like self awareness, compassion, empathy and grief are somehow divinely endowed to us and us alone. If you have ever advocated on behalf of animals then you know what I am talking about and you really need to read de Waal, like right now.
“I can’t count the number of times I have been called naïve, romantic, soft, unscientific, anthropomorphic, anecdotal, or just a sloppy thinker for proposing that primates follow political strategies, reconcile after fights, empathize with others, or understand the social world around them. Based on a lifetime of firsthand experience, none of these claims seemed particularly audacious to me.” (pg 265)
Humans have underestimated the complexity and sophistication of animal minds for far too long. Like a select minority of his predecessors, Frans de Waal is a voice of reason - pitting fair and balanced rationale against the antiquated ideology of anthropocentrism.
“Although we cannot directly measure consciousness, other species show evidence of having precisely those capacities traditionally viewed as its indicators. To maintain that they possess these capacities in the absence of consciousness introduces an unnecessary dichotomy. It suggests that they do what we do but in fundamentally different ways. From an evolutionary standpoint, this sounds illogical. And logic is one of those other capacities we pride ourselves on.” (pg 234)
For a long time now I have been a volunteer at a wildlife rehabilitation facility here in Oklahoma (wildcareoklahoma.org). Over the years I have seen firsthand a few of the behaviors de Waal writes about (we work with a LOT of crows!). Whereas nothing lifts my spirits more than seeing a recuperated animal released back into its natural environment, nothing saddens me more than the human indifference for the welfare of that animal. There is a pervasive attitude around these parts that we humans are the center of the universe and that things like self awareness, compassion, empathy and grief are somehow divinely endowed to us and us alone. If you have ever advocated on behalf of animals then you know what I am talking about and you really need to read de Waal, like right now.
“I can’t count the number of times I have been called naïve, romantic, soft, unscientific, anthropomorphic, anecdotal, or just a sloppy thinker for proposing that primates follow political strategies, reconcile after fights, empathize with others, or understand the social world around them. Based on a lifetime of firsthand experience, none of these claims seemed particularly audacious to me.” (pg 265)
November 28, 2017
I'm going to skip this one. Tried for a few weeks to get through it. Interesting. Two stars means it was OK. But did not rock my boat. If it's meant for plebs like me, then write it in a language I would understand.
I guess it's meant for a different audience. A great scientific exercise.
I guess it's meant for a different audience. A great scientific exercise.
April 27, 2024
For awhile Woodland Park Zoo (in my hometown) was in the midst of creating outdoor environments for most of its animals where they could run and hide through tall grasses and shrubbery, climb trees, jump on rocks, or swim in ponds, or swing on tires. With every visit I saw fewer and fewer animals lived in small cement cages. I had bought an annual pass which entitled me to go to the zoo whenever as often as I liked. I worked near the zoo.
I used to go to the gorilla display at the Zoo during my lunch hour on occasion. There was one gorilla who seemed to enjoy sitting near the window which separated us humans from its outdoor compound. I saw it come closer to the window whenever children were among the crowd of observers, looking to interact with some excited child. Since there was a solid glass pane between us and the gorilla, it had to be something beyond food that interested the gorilla to want to play with the children. Whenever I stopped there, that gorilla looked at me. Really, truly looked at me. I knew it was conscious, curious, interested - intelligent.
I often saw my cat watching me, especially when I did something unusual (like trip over my feet), eyes bright with curiosity, or sometimes boredom, or disgust, and sometimes he seemingly was wondering ‘what the heck.’ Yes, he really did seem to have a variety of expressions from the age of two which mirrored human emotions appropriately when I did stuff. No, it wasn’t about a food reward or a coat brushing or an upcoming dreaded bath (he had a set of very unmistakable reactions that were different on those occasions). Outside the house, I noticed his face set into a mask of inscrutability; however, inside my house, he was physically and facially expressive, friendly and talkative (and abusive). While it was obvious his skillset of expressions was based on a small set of black and white emotions, one of them was clearly amusement, especially when it was at my expense. Sometimes I know he was feeling schadenfreude! Bastard. Really. He was a bastard (unknown parentage). 😃
Cats.
It is beyond me why so many scientists for hundreds of years have denied animals have cognition, memory, or planning skills. At least some scientists today are finally agreeing with us ordinary folk that many animals have brains which are active with emotions and thought, motivated by learning and feeling, much the same as us even if not for the same causes or interests. The Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine (MRI) has allowed scientists to see that when dogs see their owners, for instance, they have brain structures that activate similar to the locations in human brains which light up with pleasure. (Cats won't sit still in MRI machines. Frankly, I can't wait until someone comes up with a machine to see cat brains in action...)
Fortunately, many scientists have lately taken on the task to observe, document and correlate actions of many animals to thinking, memory, planning and pleasure with experiments acceptable to most of the current scientific establishment. Frans de Waal’s book ‘Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?' describes many of these experiments, observations and, to me, proofs many animals are intelligent, albeit an intelligence dependent on the physiognomy of their bodies and on the things needed for their survival in their accustomed environment.
De Waal believes experiments are often designed from the human environmental paradigm, or Umwelt, which gives results when interpreted that show a lack of ability or a lack of certain high-level aptitudes, skills and brain function. However, designing the test appropriate to an animal's life and body shows remarkably different and actual high-level cognition, even if it is a cognition only appropriate to the animal's needs when in an environment it understands.
From page 13:
""The credo of experimental science remains that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If we fail to find a capacity in a given species, our first thought ought to be "Did we overlook something?" And the second should be "Did our test fit the species?""
The book is written in plain English describing how animals responded when tested appropriately using tests designed for their interests and abilities. Many animals hear sounds and see light and smell scents outside of our organic spectrum. Some of them have a completely different brain construction. Octopuses have a distributed brain, for example. Corvids, apes, elephants, dolphins, parrots, octopuses and many other animals can pass three-stage puzzles (using a variety of tools, such as a bunch of rocks and sticks in different lengths and shapes, combining the tools provided in a self-designed order to get a food tidbit, despite no training). Apes will make up a bag of their own tools, hidden and saved for when needed. Even sheep, who have a reputation of incredible stupidity, can recognize pictures of other individual sheep who look to us all alike! Holy cow... um, holy sheep!
Cognition should be interpreted from an animal's viewpoint of the issue. What we see as a problem might be nothing essential to their world, so maybe they don't care enough to solve it. Animal brains might work out a different resolution to a problem than we would set up, too. Plus, human bias can affect how scientists design tests. For example, in testing toddlers to compare with an ape's response: children might be held in their mother's lap in a comfortable playroom, while the ape is behind bars in a metal cage in a laboratory all alone, separated from other apes and separated from its natural environment.
The author does not only describe laboratory tests and recorded animal responses in this book. He tells about B. F. Skinner's (1904-1990) theory which until recently was the predominate one - that animals are simple mechanical robots with one computer program running on a loop - a stripped-down version of the human one. Mixed into lab examples refuting Skinner's theories are stories about actual observed behavior in zoos, aquariums, owner's homes (parrots and corvids) and in the wild.
The stories are very amusing, amazing, and interesting. I have always known animals are smart, especially when in their own backyards so to speak, but their brainy capacities are demonstratively far more than what I knew. The chapters are organized to describe associated proofs of certain animal capabilities and which highlight the part of brain cognition which is being explored.
The author is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University's Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. The book has extensive Notes and Bibliography sections and an Index.
YouTube link to smart crow:
https://youtu.be/AVaITA7eBZE
YouTube Link to Alex, the grey parrot
https://youtu.be/HJ-TTY11h3g?si=GGBKl...
Octopus escapes lidded jar:
https://youtu.be/uyjWQTPxQUM?si=ocvxG...
YouTube link to smart apes:
https://youtu.be/ENKinbfgrkU?si=leXvQ...
I used to go to the gorilla display at the Zoo during my lunch hour on occasion. There was one gorilla who seemed to enjoy sitting near the window which separated us humans from its outdoor compound. I saw it come closer to the window whenever children were among the crowd of observers, looking to interact with some excited child. Since there was a solid glass pane between us and the gorilla, it had to be something beyond food that interested the gorilla to want to play with the children. Whenever I stopped there, that gorilla looked at me. Really, truly looked at me. I knew it was conscious, curious, interested - intelligent.
I often saw my cat watching me, especially when I did something unusual (like trip over my feet), eyes bright with curiosity, or sometimes boredom, or disgust, and sometimes he seemingly was wondering ‘what the heck.’ Yes, he really did seem to have a variety of expressions from the age of two which mirrored human emotions appropriately when I did stuff. No, it wasn’t about a food reward or a coat brushing or an upcoming dreaded bath (he had a set of very unmistakable reactions that were different on those occasions). Outside the house, I noticed his face set into a mask of inscrutability; however, inside my house, he was physically and facially expressive, friendly and talkative (and abusive). While it was obvious his skillset of expressions was based on a small set of black and white emotions, one of them was clearly amusement, especially when it was at my expense. Sometimes I know he was feeling schadenfreude! Bastard. Really. He was a bastard (unknown parentage). 😃
Cats.
It is beyond me why so many scientists for hundreds of years have denied animals have cognition, memory, or planning skills. At least some scientists today are finally agreeing with us ordinary folk that many animals have brains which are active with emotions and thought, motivated by learning and feeling, much the same as us even if not for the same causes or interests. The Magnetic Resonance Imaging machine (MRI) has allowed scientists to see that when dogs see their owners, for instance, they have brain structures that activate similar to the locations in human brains which light up with pleasure. (Cats won't sit still in MRI machines. Frankly, I can't wait until someone comes up with a machine to see cat brains in action...)
Fortunately, many scientists have lately taken on the task to observe, document and correlate actions of many animals to thinking, memory, planning and pleasure with experiments acceptable to most of the current scientific establishment. Frans de Waal’s book ‘Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?' describes many of these experiments, observations and, to me, proofs many animals are intelligent, albeit an intelligence dependent on the physiognomy of their bodies and on the things needed for their survival in their accustomed environment.
De Waal believes experiments are often designed from the human environmental paradigm, or Umwelt, which gives results when interpreted that show a lack of ability or a lack of certain high-level aptitudes, skills and brain function. However, designing the test appropriate to an animal's life and body shows remarkably different and actual high-level cognition, even if it is a cognition only appropriate to the animal's needs when in an environment it understands.
From page 13:
""The credo of experimental science remains that an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. If we fail to find a capacity in a given species, our first thought ought to be "Did we overlook something?" And the second should be "Did our test fit the species?""
The book is written in plain English describing how animals responded when tested appropriately using tests designed for their interests and abilities. Many animals hear sounds and see light and smell scents outside of our organic spectrum. Some of them have a completely different brain construction. Octopuses have a distributed brain, for example. Corvids, apes, elephants, dolphins, parrots, octopuses and many other animals can pass three-stage puzzles (using a variety of tools, such as a bunch of rocks and sticks in different lengths and shapes, combining the tools provided in a self-designed order to get a food tidbit, despite no training). Apes will make up a bag of their own tools, hidden and saved for when needed. Even sheep, who have a reputation of incredible stupidity, can recognize pictures of other individual sheep who look to us all alike! Holy cow... um, holy sheep!
Cognition should be interpreted from an animal's viewpoint of the issue. What we see as a problem might be nothing essential to their world, so maybe they don't care enough to solve it. Animal brains might work out a different resolution to a problem than we would set up, too. Plus, human bias can affect how scientists design tests. For example, in testing toddlers to compare with an ape's response: children might be held in their mother's lap in a comfortable playroom, while the ape is behind bars in a metal cage in a laboratory all alone, separated from other apes and separated from its natural environment.
The author does not only describe laboratory tests and recorded animal responses in this book. He tells about B. F. Skinner's (1904-1990) theory which until recently was the predominate one - that animals are simple mechanical robots with one computer program running on a loop - a stripped-down version of the human one. Mixed into lab examples refuting Skinner's theories are stories about actual observed behavior in zoos, aquariums, owner's homes (parrots and corvids) and in the wild.
The stories are very amusing, amazing, and interesting. I have always known animals are smart, especially when in their own backyards so to speak, but their brainy capacities are demonstratively far more than what I knew. The chapters are organized to describe associated proofs of certain animal capabilities and which highlight the part of brain cognition which is being explored.
The author is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University's Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. The book has extensive Notes and Bibliography sections and an Index.
YouTube link to smart crow:
https://youtu.be/AVaITA7eBZE
YouTube Link to Alex, the grey parrot
https://youtu.be/HJ-TTY11h3g?si=GGBKl...
Octopus escapes lidded jar:
https://youtu.be/uyjWQTPxQUM?si=ocvxG...
YouTube link to smart apes:
https://youtu.be/ENKinbfgrkU?si=leXvQ...
April 27, 2024
This is another one of my non-reviews -- more of a literary/emotional ramble than an actual critique.
Humans are arrogant. This much I know about us as a species, so to answer the question that the title of this book suggests, I would have to say, generally, we haven't a clue how smart animals are. We are just "dumb animals" too, after all, and there is some arrogance in even asking the question. Who is to say we are the better species for running this ole' planet of ours? Empirical evidence demonstrates quite the opposite in fact. Left to the "lions and tigers and bears" I wonder if we would be in quite the mess we are in, ecologically.
But this isn't meant to be a rant on ecology either.
Ethology ... the study of animal behaviour with emphasis on their behavioural patterns in the wild
This is a more common sense method of studying animal behaviour, albeit it is not a new science or approach, but one that is being adopted more frequently by thoughtful, observant, compassionate scientists. Approaching and studying animals on their own terms, in a manner of speaking; that is, looking at them them from what would most make sense to the animals in question, rather than imposing a set of constructs which we feel they should fit into. This sounds all rather silly, on the surface, to non-believers of the science -- much like it sounds silly to some of us that there are those who still believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and evolution is a dirty, stinking lie, or that we sprang from the head of Zeus, fully formed. In this case, we are not working with myths or fairy tales, but with science.
How do we approach it, then, from the animal's point of view. We begin with the following premise:
Each organism has its own ecology and lifestyle ... which dictates what it needs to know in order to make a living. There is not a single species that can stand model for all the others ... In the utilitarian view of biology, animals have the brains they need -- nothing more nothing less. Even within a species, the brain may change depending on how it is being used, such as the way song-related areas seasonally expand and contract in the songbird brain. Brains adapt to ecological requirements, as does cognition.
In an honest approach to understanding animal cognition, we must demonstrate respect for every living organism and acknowledgement of its capacity to deal with the world on its own terms. It is our own anthropocentric attitude which makes this science even necessary, however, since it baffles me that the question need be asked at all. Is it not simply easier to accept that a toad has its toad-like shape, form, and attitude for surviving in a toad's world; or that a squirrel is equipped with all the knowledge and wisdom it needs to survive as a squirrel?
I think many of us would be hard-pressed to survive as well as any deer in the forest, left to our own devices. Would we know how to forage and survive and thrive and raise a family if we didn't: have a job; have money to buy food we don't grow; have tools to dig the earth for the little we do grow; have tools, tools, tools for everything. Think about it. Think: someone drops you naked, in the middle of the forest, and says, may you flourish. How long would any of us survive? I'd give any of us a week. My money is on the deer.
Part of the irony of all this is that we measure animal cognition and evolutionary advancement by the fact that they can/cannot use tools. It seems to be anthropocentrism on steroids, in my view. They survive admirably without tools; and yet, our measure of their evolved intelligence and cognition is that they must use tools. Seems like backward thinking to me: one must use an implement to do what another does instinctually. We are the dumb ones, not they.
Having had my little tangent, I do admire Frans de Waal's approach to interpreting animal cognition. He, and scientists like him, are bringing us closer to inter-species understanding. When we finally acknowledge that all living things have a right to exist, it won't really matter how smart or how dumb we are.
This book has great value in opening the conversation for those who have no concept or belief in higher animal cognition. For those of us who are beyond that point in the conversation, it is a comfort to know that animal studies are being conducted with more compassion, generosity of spirit, and empathy, than ever before.
My one little quibble with it is that the writing runs a bit dry and only the most devoted to the science will read through to the end. A bit of colour never harmed the peacock if you want to attract some action.
Humans are arrogant. This much I know about us as a species, so to answer the question that the title of this book suggests, I would have to say, generally, we haven't a clue how smart animals are. We are just "dumb animals" too, after all, and there is some arrogance in even asking the question. Who is to say we are the better species for running this ole' planet of ours? Empirical evidence demonstrates quite the opposite in fact. Left to the "lions and tigers and bears" I wonder if we would be in quite the mess we are in, ecologically.
But this isn't meant to be a rant on ecology either.
Ethology ... the study of animal behaviour with emphasis on their behavioural patterns in the wild
This is a more common sense method of studying animal behaviour, albeit it is not a new science or approach, but one that is being adopted more frequently by thoughtful, observant, compassionate scientists. Approaching and studying animals on their own terms, in a manner of speaking; that is, looking at them them from what would most make sense to the animals in question, rather than imposing a set of constructs which we feel they should fit into. This sounds all rather silly, on the surface, to non-believers of the science -- much like it sounds silly to some of us that there are those who still believe the earth is only 6,000 years old and evolution is a dirty, stinking lie, or that we sprang from the head of Zeus, fully formed. In this case, we are not working with myths or fairy tales, but with science.
How do we approach it, then, from the animal's point of view. We begin with the following premise:
Each organism has its own ecology and lifestyle ... which dictates what it needs to know in order to make a living. There is not a single species that can stand model for all the others ... In the utilitarian view of biology, animals have the brains they need -- nothing more nothing less. Even within a species, the brain may change depending on how it is being used, such as the way song-related areas seasonally expand and contract in the songbird brain. Brains adapt to ecological requirements, as does cognition.
In an honest approach to understanding animal cognition, we must demonstrate respect for every living organism and acknowledgement of its capacity to deal with the world on its own terms. It is our own anthropocentric attitude which makes this science even necessary, however, since it baffles me that the question need be asked at all. Is it not simply easier to accept that a toad has its toad-like shape, form, and attitude for surviving in a toad's world; or that a squirrel is equipped with all the knowledge and wisdom it needs to survive as a squirrel?
I think many of us would be hard-pressed to survive as well as any deer in the forest, left to our own devices. Would we know how to forage and survive and thrive and raise a family if we didn't: have a job; have money to buy food we don't grow; have tools to dig the earth for the little we do grow; have tools, tools, tools for everything. Think about it. Think: someone drops you naked, in the middle of the forest, and says, may you flourish. How long would any of us survive? I'd give any of us a week. My money is on the deer.
Part of the irony of all this is that we measure animal cognition and evolutionary advancement by the fact that they can/cannot use tools. It seems to be anthropocentrism on steroids, in my view. They survive admirably without tools; and yet, our measure of their evolved intelligence and cognition is that they must use tools. Seems like backward thinking to me: one must use an implement to do what another does instinctually. We are the dumb ones, not they.
Having had my little tangent, I do admire Frans de Waal's approach to interpreting animal cognition. He, and scientists like him, are bringing us closer to inter-species understanding. When we finally acknowledge that all living things have a right to exist, it won't really matter how smart or how dumb we are.
This book has great value in opening the conversation for those who have no concept or belief in higher animal cognition. For those of us who are beyond that point in the conversation, it is a comfort to know that animal studies are being conducted with more compassion, generosity of spirit, and empathy, than ever before.
My one little quibble with it is that the writing runs a bit dry and only the most devoted to the science will read through to the end. A bit of colour never harmed the peacock if you want to attract some action.
March 6, 2017
If you read only one book on animal cognition or cognitive ethology, make it this one. If you've read a bunch, as I have, read this anyway. There are some that are more interesting, or more focused, but this is the best current summary of the field, at least for a popular audience that I can find. It concisely provides history, anecdotes, references to other works and studies, a look at the future, and plenty of hard science.
I sincerely doubt I'll ever read another book published before this. As you probably know, I have enjoyed quite a few already, but the field is evolving, methodologies are being refined, younger (and more diverse) scientists have bravely thrown off the shackles of the behavorists and of the dogma of human vs. animal, and it's become time we think more about Darwin's understanding of comparative intelligence as one of degree, not kind.
Exemplar tidbits abound.
Think of Clever Hans – though it's true that the horse couldn't count, he certainly was smart enough to understand human body language. (It wasn't just his showman owner who could evoke the right number of hooftaps via cues too subtle for most audiences to see.)
“[M]ale but not female experimenters induce so much stress in mice that it affects their responses.... This means, of course, that mouse studies conducted by men may have different outcomes.... [M]ethodological details matter.”
Re' comparing children's abilities to those of apes: “Since experimenters are supposed to be bland and neutral, they do not engage in … niceties. This doesn't help make the ape feel at ease and identify with the experimenter. Children, however, are encouraged to do so. Moreover, only the children are interacting with a member of their own species....”
Examples like that make me admire apes even more, because I'm beginning to think of them as being able to get along in both ape and human social groups. Consider them to be bi-lingual, or bi-cultural....
Re' experiments in cooperation, recalling human psychological investigation into game theory and concepts of fairness—remember from school or other readings how most humans will react to a peer getting a bigger reward so resentfully that they'll sacrifice their own, smaller reward to take that bigger reward away from the other? Well, de Waal and Sarah Brosnan have done further similar studies on primates, and have seen that what is likely really going on is not resentment. Rather, it's a strategy towards cooperative equalization of outcomes. Apes have even been known to reject an unfair *larger* reward!
And re' how to measure physical evidence of a smarter brain (eg, larger doesn't make humans special, because whales and elephants, etc.); “Each octopus has nearly two thousand suckers, every single one equipped with its own ganglion of half a million neurons.... on top of a 65-million neuron brain. In addition, it has a chain of ganglia along its arms.... Instead of a single central command... more like the Internet.”
That makes me admire Montgomery's recent “The Soul of an Octopus” book even more.
Juvenile rhesus and stumptail monkeys were placed together for five months. “These macaques have strikingly different temperaments: rhesus are a quarrelsome, noncilatory bunch, whereas stumptails are laid-back and pacific.... After a long period of exposure, the rhesus monkeys developed peacemaking skills on a par with those of their more tolerant counterparts. Evn after separation from the stumptails, the rhesus showed nearly four times more friendly reunions following fights than is typical of their species. These new and improved rhesus monkeys confirmed the power of conformism.”
On that happy note, I'll stop giving you free samples of the book, and again encourage you to read it for yourself.
....
I just encountered a children's poem that reminded me of this book, by Aileen Fisher:
_*Little Talk*_
Don't you think it's probable
that beetles, bugs, and bees
talk about a lot of things-
you know, such things as these:
The kind of weather where they live
in jungles tall with grass
and earthquakes in their villages
whenever people pass!
Of course, we'll never know if bugs
talk very much at all,
because our ears are far too big
for talk that is so small.
I sincerely doubt I'll ever read another book published before this. As you probably know, I have enjoyed quite a few already, but the field is evolving, methodologies are being refined, younger (and more diverse) scientists have bravely thrown off the shackles of the behavorists and of the dogma of human vs. animal, and it's become time we think more about Darwin's understanding of comparative intelligence as one of degree, not kind.
Exemplar tidbits abound.
Think of Clever Hans – though it's true that the horse couldn't count, he certainly was smart enough to understand human body language. (It wasn't just his showman owner who could evoke the right number of hooftaps via cues too subtle for most audiences to see.)
“[M]ale but not female experimenters induce so much stress in mice that it affects their responses.... This means, of course, that mouse studies conducted by men may have different outcomes.... [M]ethodological details matter.”
Re' comparing children's abilities to those of apes: “Since experimenters are supposed to be bland and neutral, they do not engage in … niceties. This doesn't help make the ape feel at ease and identify with the experimenter. Children, however, are encouraged to do so. Moreover, only the children are interacting with a member of their own species....”
Examples like that make me admire apes even more, because I'm beginning to think of them as being able to get along in both ape and human social groups. Consider them to be bi-lingual, or bi-cultural....
Re' experiments in cooperation, recalling human psychological investigation into game theory and concepts of fairness—remember from school or other readings how most humans will react to a peer getting a bigger reward so resentfully that they'll sacrifice their own, smaller reward to take that bigger reward away from the other? Well, de Waal and Sarah Brosnan have done further similar studies on primates, and have seen that what is likely really going on is not resentment. Rather, it's a strategy towards cooperative equalization of outcomes. Apes have even been known to reject an unfair *larger* reward!
And re' how to measure physical evidence of a smarter brain (eg, larger doesn't make humans special, because whales and elephants, etc.); “Each octopus has nearly two thousand suckers, every single one equipped with its own ganglion of half a million neurons.... on top of a 65-million neuron brain. In addition, it has a chain of ganglia along its arms.... Instead of a single central command... more like the Internet.”
That makes me admire Montgomery's recent “The Soul of an Octopus” book even more.
Juvenile rhesus and stumptail monkeys were placed together for five months. “These macaques have strikingly different temperaments: rhesus are a quarrelsome, noncilatory bunch, whereas stumptails are laid-back and pacific.... After a long period of exposure, the rhesus monkeys developed peacemaking skills on a par with those of their more tolerant counterparts. Evn after separation from the stumptails, the rhesus showed nearly four times more friendly reunions following fights than is typical of their species. These new and improved rhesus monkeys confirmed the power of conformism.”
On that happy note, I'll stop giving you free samples of the book, and again encourage you to read it for yourself.
....
I just encountered a children's poem that reminded me of this book, by Aileen Fisher:
_*Little Talk*_
Don't you think it's probable
that beetles, bugs, and bees
talk about a lot of things-
you know, such things as these:
The kind of weather where they live
in jungles tall with grass
and earthquakes in their villages
whenever people pass!
Of course, we'll never know if bugs
talk very much at all,
because our ears are far too big
for talk that is so small.
June 14, 2017
Sometimes it can be hard to review a book for what it is instead of for what you wanted it to be. This is probably most true of fiction, but science books also vary in the level of depth to which they explore their topic. It can be tough as a reader to judge what audience the author is after, and that can lead to some discrepancy in the technicality of the reading material than expected.
Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? was a book that delved far more in-depth into the field of animal cognition than I had expected. I wasn't really in the mood for the scientific rigour presented here--school being demanding enough--but was able to appreciate the book nonetheless. de Waal presents this book as a series of experiments that serve as counterpoints to those who suggest that animals are incapable of emotion, cognition, planning, etc. He also spends a great deal of time with the historical precedents for the field's current way of thinking.
It works as a sort-of bird's eye view of the field of animal cognition. Your mileage will vary depending on how much this sort of thing interests you. Have you ever wondered about what your cat is thinking as you type away at your reviews or cozy up for an extended read? Well, you're less likely to be satisfied by the type of experiments herein. It's more like, I wonder how the mating patterns of meadow voles speaks to how animals view monogamy? Having a bit of a background in behavioural neuroscience, some of this was stimulating and familiar, while other bits didn't do much for me.
I also decided to give this one a shot in audio, and the narrator does a perfectly passable job. There's no flair or enthusiasm, but it does make for a straightforward relation of facts. I also decided to read this as a counterpoint to an audiobook I read and reviewed earlier this year, The Hidden Life of Trees . On a personal level, I was more engaged with the animal than the plant. de Waal does a good job of convincing the reader to lay down their species-perceived superiority in favour of a more empathetic view of animal cognition.
So, I'm definitely not sorry I listened to this book. However, I wish I'd gone for something a bit lighter that relied less on a series of experimental descriptions. As it stands, this is a book that psychology majors and the lay public should enjoy. It provides as concrete science as possible in the field of psychology and doesn't make sensational extrapolation from the available data. If you're looking to broaden your understanding of the field of animal cognition, I can think of no better primer!
Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? was a book that delved far more in-depth into the field of animal cognition than I had expected. I wasn't really in the mood for the scientific rigour presented here--school being demanding enough--but was able to appreciate the book nonetheless. de Waal presents this book as a series of experiments that serve as counterpoints to those who suggest that animals are incapable of emotion, cognition, planning, etc. He also spends a great deal of time with the historical precedents for the field's current way of thinking.
It works as a sort-of bird's eye view of the field of animal cognition. Your mileage will vary depending on how much this sort of thing interests you. Have you ever wondered about what your cat is thinking as you type away at your reviews or cozy up for an extended read? Well, you're less likely to be satisfied by the type of experiments herein. It's more like, I wonder how the mating patterns of meadow voles speaks to how animals view monogamy? Having a bit of a background in behavioural neuroscience, some of this was stimulating and familiar, while other bits didn't do much for me.
I also decided to give this one a shot in audio, and the narrator does a perfectly passable job. There's no flair or enthusiasm, but it does make for a straightforward relation of facts. I also decided to read this as a counterpoint to an audiobook I read and reviewed earlier this year, The Hidden Life of Trees . On a personal level, I was more engaged with the animal than the plant. de Waal does a good job of convincing the reader to lay down their species-perceived superiority in favour of a more empathetic view of animal cognition.
So, I'm definitely not sorry I listened to this book. However, I wish I'd gone for something a bit lighter that relied less on a series of experimental descriptions. As it stands, this is a book that psychology majors and the lay public should enjoy. It provides as concrete science as possible in the field of psychology and doesn't make sensational extrapolation from the available data. If you're looking to broaden your understanding of the field of animal cognition, I can think of no better primer!
January 21, 2020
~ My Thoughts ~
I loved this book. In my undergraduate degree, I only had space for a few electives, and one of the classes I took was “Primate Behaviour”. In this course, we were required to read two Franz de Waal books: Chimpanzee Politics and Our Inner Ape. Usually when I’m “forced” to read something, I don’t enjoy it--whether it’s because I don’t have the time to enjoy it or because I’m contrary that way is besides the point. My point is that I genuinely loved these books, so much that I’m continuing to read de Waal’s publications even after university.
One thing I love about de Waal’s books is that they’re so accessible to the general public, but not at the sacrifice of accuracy or including information about scientific process. He talks about things in layman’s terms, making them fun and engaging, all the while teaching the reader a ton of information on the topic. As you may already know, I’m a librarian, and I do a lot of instruction in my job. In the ACRL’s Information Literacy Framework, one of the frames is “Scholarship as Conversation”. I doubt it’s even intentional in de Waal’s books, but the way he effortlessly talks about other researchers’ work and discoveries, how they contributed to general knowledge, how he himself has built off previous studies does a great job of showing how this conversation goes on in his field, and in science in general.
As for the contents of this book, I’ve learned so many things that I can use in casual conversation (though it depends on who you’re talking to). Anytime I see a crow I tell anyone who'll listen about how they recognize human faces and hold grudges for generations.
I highly recommend this book to those who are interested in animal behaviour (not just apes in this book, but a variety of species), and to those who want to crack into reading nonfiction science books but aren’t sure of where to start.
This review appeared first on https://powerlibrarian.wordpress.com/
Instagram | Blog | Website | Twitter
My 2019 Reading Challenge
I loved this book. In my undergraduate degree, I only had space for a few electives, and one of the classes I took was “Primate Behaviour”. In this course, we were required to read two Franz de Waal books: Chimpanzee Politics and Our Inner Ape. Usually when I’m “forced” to read something, I don’t enjoy it--whether it’s because I don’t have the time to enjoy it or because I’m contrary that way is besides the point. My point is that I genuinely loved these books, so much that I’m continuing to read de Waal’s publications even after university.
One thing I love about de Waal’s books is that they’re so accessible to the general public, but not at the sacrifice of accuracy or including information about scientific process. He talks about things in layman’s terms, making them fun and engaging, all the while teaching the reader a ton of information on the topic. As you may already know, I’m a librarian, and I do a lot of instruction in my job. In the ACRL’s Information Literacy Framework, one of the frames is “Scholarship as Conversation”. I doubt it’s even intentional in de Waal’s books, but the way he effortlessly talks about other researchers’ work and discoveries, how they contributed to general knowledge, how he himself has built off previous studies does a great job of showing how this conversation goes on in his field, and in science in general.
As for the contents of this book, I’ve learned so many things that I can use in casual conversation (though it depends on who you’re talking to). Anytime I see a crow I tell anyone who'll listen about how they recognize human faces and hold grudges for generations.
I highly recommend this book to those who are interested in animal behaviour (not just apes in this book, but a variety of species), and to those who want to crack into reading nonfiction science books but aren’t sure of where to start.
This review appeared first on https://powerlibrarian.wordpress.com/
Instagram | Blog | Website | Twitter
My 2019 Reading Challenge
October 11, 2021
This book is very rich in research. It's jam-packed with studies and accounts of animal behavior that were often overlooked in the past because of the bias of researchers.
However one of the odd things that came up over and over was the resistance of some scientists, based on an almost neo-creationist point of view, to the findings of the author and his colleagues. It was the kind of pushback you'd expect from devout Christians rather than scientists who were not necessarily believers. These scientists seemed threatened by the author's research because it shows we are closer kin to animals than they would like to believe.
From studying theology and religion, I know such beliefs can leave a deep imprint on people long after they move on. For example, former Catholics will still speak of Catholic guilt. And Herman Hesse was raised in a very strict fundamentalist home, which he moved on from, but some critics still detect signs of Protestantism in Hesse's works. Perhaps something like this was going on, unconsciously, with the critics of this author.
This article below describes the author's approach to animal research.
"Perhaps the combination of scientific research and moral sentiment can point us to a different metaphor for our place in nature. Instead of a ladder, we could invoke the 19th-century naturalist Alexander von Humboldt’s web of life. We humans aren’t precariously balanced on the top rung looking down at the rest. It’s more scientifically accurate, and more morally appealing, to say that we are just one strand in an intricate network of living things."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
===========
When John Muir was on Cedar Key, an island off the Gulf Coast of Florida, he contracted malaria and cut short his walk to convalesce. Reflecting on the mosquitoes that carried the disease, and on his run-ins with alligators and spiky vegetation, he proposed the then-radical idea that the world was not created solely for humans’ benefit. “Nature’s object in making animals and plants might possibly be first of all the happiness of each one of them, not the creation of all for the happiness of one,” he mused.
========
One of the most impressive demonstrations of animal intelligence is seen in crows. This amazing documentary captures it beautifully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIgtl...
However one of the odd things that came up over and over was the resistance of some scientists, based on an almost neo-creationist point of view, to the findings of the author and his colleagues. It was the kind of pushback you'd expect from devout Christians rather than scientists who were not necessarily believers. These scientists seemed threatened by the author's research because it shows we are closer kin to animals than they would like to believe.
From studying theology and religion, I know such beliefs can leave a deep imprint on people long after they move on. For example, former Catholics will still speak of Catholic guilt. And Herman Hesse was raised in a very strict fundamentalist home, which he moved on from, but some critics still detect signs of Protestantism in Hesse's works. Perhaps something like this was going on, unconsciously, with the critics of this author.
This article below describes the author's approach to animal research.
"Perhaps the combination of scientific research and moral sentiment can point us to a different metaphor for our place in nature. Instead of a ladder, we could invoke the 19th-century naturalist Alexander von Humboldt’s web of life. We humans aren’t precariously balanced on the top rung looking down at the rest. It’s more scientifically accurate, and more morally appealing, to say that we are just one strand in an intricate network of living things."
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...
===========
When John Muir was on Cedar Key, an island off the Gulf Coast of Florida, he contracted malaria and cut short his walk to convalesce. Reflecting on the mosquitoes that carried the disease, and on his run-ins with alligators and spiky vegetation, he proposed the then-radical idea that the world was not created solely for humans’ benefit. “Nature’s object in making animals and plants might possibly be first of all the happiness of each one of them, not the creation of all for the happiness of one,” he mused.
========
One of the most impressive demonstrations of animal intelligence is seen in crows. This amazing documentary captures it beautifully.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIgtl...
September 4, 2019
Of course we aren't! :)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 13, 2021
This book is too rich and diverse to sum up in a single paragraph, but if there's one lesson I will take from it, it is: For animals and humans, cognitive abilities run along a scale. It is never a case of "we have this, and animals don't"; it is "species X has this to the extent Y--as far as we can tell from our current observations." That in itself is a giant step toward humanity's next, more caring, more empathetic version.
A few favorite passages:
https://choveshkata.net/forum/viewtop...
A few favorite passages:
https://choveshkata.net/forum/viewtop...
August 13, 2017
This book is famed primatologist Frans de Waal at his best. We get the insight into the animal kingdom, with an emphasis on apes and monkeys, that we've seen in books like The Bonobo and The Atheist, The Age of Empathy, and Our Inner Ape. In this book, De Waal takes a close look at various ways of trying to understand animal cognition and goes in-depth into such topics as problem solving, communication, self-awareness, and relationship to events past and present, i.e. memory and planning for the future. The author manages to communicate in a way that the lay scientist can easily grasp while also making clear philosophical or scientific objections to various points of view and making all of it flow like a conversation.
One of the key points in Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, of course, is our own relationship to animal cognition. We are closely related to many of the species that are most commonly studied, chimpanzees and bonobos, for example. De Waal raises many questions but my favorite is probably the potential - and frequently the actuality - for human bias. Are we secure enough in ourselves as a species to acknowledge similarities with our animal relatives? And how unbiased are the tests that we use to compare animal and human cognition? Communication testing that is administered by a human to both a human infant and a primate is probably tilted in favor of humans, since the primate will not see one of his own kind while the human infant does.
Perhaps most importantly, De Waal points out that these creatures that we're testing for cognitive ability have arrived where they are via evolutionary pathways that vary greatly from our own so that how they reflect their own cognitive abilities often differs greatly from what we expect from ourselves. In order to more fully understand the cognitive abilities of our animal friends, we must be able to shed the human bias that expects them to have the same abilities as we do. Communicating that is one of the great strengths of this book.
One of the key points in Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, of course, is our own relationship to animal cognition. We are closely related to many of the species that are most commonly studied, chimpanzees and bonobos, for example. De Waal raises many questions but my favorite is probably the potential - and frequently the actuality - for human bias. Are we secure enough in ourselves as a species to acknowledge similarities with our animal relatives? And how unbiased are the tests that we use to compare animal and human cognition? Communication testing that is administered by a human to both a human infant and a primate is probably tilted in favor of humans, since the primate will not see one of his own kind while the human infant does.
Perhaps most importantly, De Waal points out that these creatures that we're testing for cognitive ability have arrived where they are via evolutionary pathways that vary greatly from our own so that how they reflect their own cognitive abilities often differs greatly from what we expect from ourselves. In order to more fully understand the cognitive abilities of our animal friends, we must be able to shed the human bias that expects them to have the same abilities as we do. Communicating that is one of the great strengths of this book.
December 5, 2021
This is my type of nonfiction. Animal behavior has been a topic of interest to me for as long as I can remember. I love that this book brought up the concept that we can no longer test an animal's cognitive abilities by expecting results or behavior similar to a human's. Just because we are expecting a certain result in a seemingly simple test that we designed does not mean that the "right" result is fits that animal's instincts. This book brought to mind that saying that we can't judge a fish by it's ability to climb a tree. Just because we don't get the human the result does not mean the animal's result is wrong, we just need to adjust to how they process situations.
This book seems to bring up somewhat touchy subjects within the animal behaviorist community and thoroughly explains all the viewpoints and varying tests throughout the years that have gotten us to this point. We as humans still have yet to fully understand how animals react, communicate and perceive things but we are finally to the point where we can toss ourselves in the mix as a subject in these tests, not just the testers.
If you were to read any book about animal behavior and cognition, this is the book.
This book seems to bring up somewhat touchy subjects within the animal behaviorist community and thoroughly explains all the viewpoints and varying tests throughout the years that have gotten us to this point. We as humans still have yet to fully understand how animals react, communicate and perceive things but we are finally to the point where we can toss ourselves in the mix as a subject in these tests, not just the testers.
If you were to read any book about animal behavior and cognition, this is the book.
June 8, 2018
While I enjoyed this, I also found it very dry. I thought de Waal had plenty of fascinating insights and recorded studies of how intelligent animals truly are.
February 7, 2017
Wow. Frans de Waal’s Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are? is a breath of fresh air. It is a refreshing, insightful science book that both enlightens and entertains. In fact, I’d call it the most interesting science book I’ve read since Godel, Escher, Bach.
If you’ve ever had a dog or a cat, you know they have “insides.” They think. They relate. And they have distinct personalities. And to see any dog looking at their master, waiting for a command… that seems love and respect personified. Problem is, university professors, even today, teach that animals had no insides. They are stimulus/ response machines. So that dog’s puppy-eyes reveal neither kindness nor affection for the owner. Instead, it was a learned response, since the master rewards a dog with a pat or food for that look.
That behaviorist perspective never sat well with me.
Nor, it seems, did cognitive biologist Frans de Waal agree. In fact, he debunks the behaviorist position over the book's 300 plus pages.
This warm, humane and often funny book introduces the general reader to the science of ethology, or the study of animal behavior. Unlike the approaches students learn in psychology, where creepy, emotionless dudes in labcoats starve and shock rats, ethology honors their subjects. De Waal often repeats the advice of an early mentor: a prerequisite to understanding animals -- especially arthropods like monkeys and chimps -- is a fondness for them.
De Waal implies you need heart to do good behavioral science. Which is refreshing.
Philosophy aside, Are We Smart Enough is a wide-ranging book. It covers a broad spectrum of animal behavior. From mimicry in octopuses to the political jockeying for position typical of chimps. From the emotional intelligence of dogs, who fail intelligence measures like the mirror test, to the brilliance of dolphin hearing. From crows near a campus cawing warnings about a professor who, pursuing a line of research, captured chicks to raise -- picking one person from thousands -- to elephants solving problems and using tools.
Most interesting to me was seeing the lengths other scientists, mostly psychologist, go through to ensure that humans come out as “the best” at tasks. De Waal does a wonderful job showing how human infant vs. ape tests are unfair. Psychologist test infants on their mother’s laps, while testing apes isolated in unfamiliar cages. And the tests often rely on human-specific aptitudes, like distinguishing human faces -- natural to an infant, unnatural to apes who are naturally better at distinguishing ape than human faces. The irony is that once ethologists adjust experiments, honoring an ape’s natural tendencies, the cognitive differences often disappear. But instead of conceding that apes (or jackdaws or dogs) are smart, psychologists move the bar.
Shady, with hints of anti-Darwinism. Since instead of placing human cognition on a continuum, it seeks to set us apart.
A refreshing book. That lays out an oft-neglected realm of science. That smashed Skinner’s box, revealing it as a sham, even after acknowledging the genuine desire of Skinner to improve human lives.
Five-stars. And faved.
If you’ve ever had a dog or a cat, you know they have “insides.” They think. They relate. And they have distinct personalities. And to see any dog looking at their master, waiting for a command… that seems love and respect personified. Problem is, university professors, even today, teach that animals had no insides. They are stimulus/ response machines. So that dog’s puppy-eyes reveal neither kindness nor affection for the owner. Instead, it was a learned response, since the master rewards a dog with a pat or food for that look.
That behaviorist perspective never sat well with me.
Nor, it seems, did cognitive biologist Frans de Waal agree. In fact, he debunks the behaviorist position over the book's 300 plus pages.
This warm, humane and often funny book introduces the general reader to the science of ethology, or the study of animal behavior. Unlike the approaches students learn in psychology, where creepy, emotionless dudes in labcoats starve and shock rats, ethology honors their subjects. De Waal often repeats the advice of an early mentor: a prerequisite to understanding animals -- especially arthropods like monkeys and chimps -- is a fondness for them.
De Waal implies you need heart to do good behavioral science. Which is refreshing.
Philosophy aside, Are We Smart Enough is a wide-ranging book. It covers a broad spectrum of animal behavior. From mimicry in octopuses to the political jockeying for position typical of chimps. From the emotional intelligence of dogs, who fail intelligence measures like the mirror test, to the brilliance of dolphin hearing. From crows near a campus cawing warnings about a professor who, pursuing a line of research, captured chicks to raise -- picking one person from thousands -- to elephants solving problems and using tools.
Most interesting to me was seeing the lengths other scientists, mostly psychologist, go through to ensure that humans come out as “the best” at tasks. De Waal does a wonderful job showing how human infant vs. ape tests are unfair. Psychologist test infants on their mother’s laps, while testing apes isolated in unfamiliar cages. And the tests often rely on human-specific aptitudes, like distinguishing human faces -- natural to an infant, unnatural to apes who are naturally better at distinguishing ape than human faces. The irony is that once ethologists adjust experiments, honoring an ape’s natural tendencies, the cognitive differences often disappear. But instead of conceding that apes (or jackdaws or dogs) are smart, psychologists move the bar.
Shady, with hints of anti-Darwinism. Since instead of placing human cognition on a continuum, it seeks to set us apart.
A refreshing book. That lays out an oft-neglected realm of science. That smashed Skinner’s box, revealing it as a sham, even after acknowledging the genuine desire of Skinner to improve human lives.
Five-stars. And faved.
February 2, 2018
I think this is exactly the book I would recommend to anyone that use the phrase “dumb animal,” because I’ve never read a book that explores their intelligence better. De Waal does a few things in this book. He gives the reader an overview of the way research into this field has developed from the time of Darwin to the present day, and he shows how far this research has got today, but also shows where more research is needed.
I’m not a scientist, just a reader interested in this subject, and what I think he does best with this book is to make the theoretical aspects of this readable. I’ve read a quite a bit of non fiction over the years, and I can honestly say that even if a writer knows his subject better than anyone else, that doesn’t always mean they can write a readable book. De Waal can write, and this was an enjoyable read.
I’m not a scientist, just a reader interested in this subject, and what I think he does best with this book is to make the theoretical aspects of this readable. I’ve read a quite a bit of non fiction over the years, and I can honestly say that even if a writer knows his subject better than anyone else, that doesn’t always mean they can write a readable book. De Waal can write, and this was an enjoyable read.
June 12, 2020
Incredibly Insightful.
This is my second book from the same author and it is bang on point. First of all the title itself is very intriguing and picking it up became natural. The author very humbly does admit that it's not like a subject book but moreover like commentary on cognition studies. But it indeed challenges most of the paradigms on it's way.
The book starts with most profound statement given by Charles Darwin that is "The difference in mind between man and the higher animals,great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." Frans De Waal takes it further and adds that this dictum can be easily applied to all organisms and not only higher animals per say. In the starting chapters he tries to explain how sometimes it's the methodology which hinders cognition tests rather than the cognition of the animal. There are numerous examples and anecdotes given to explain this stand. The expertise of the author is used very well here.
The tool use argument which has been held at supreme to showcase the human uniqueness has been debunked completely in this book. The author not only gives samples evidences but also for all great apes and not only chimpanzees per say. He reminds us of the reply louis leakey gave to Jane Goodall when she reported tool use in gombe. Leakey replied that " Either scientists must accept chimpanzee as man or redefine man or redefine tool use."
There is also interesting aspects comparing primate cognition with corvids. There is a little scientific rivalry going on but it's fun to read about the experiments. The author also points out that for long time animals in general and birds in particular have been denigrated and treated merely as creatures of instinct rather than as sentient beings. Having observed birds closely I can vouch for the enigmatic characteristics of feathered bipeds and to think that they are only mechanical creatures driven by instinct only would be a great disservice.
We have all come across instances when animals and specially dogs understand what we want to convey. The author says that animals have this incredible quality of looking right through animals perhaps because they are not dictated by language. By directing our attention to what others have to say, we neglect body language. But for animals body language is all they have to go by. It is a skill that they employ every day and have refined to the point that they read us like a book. The anecdotes added to this claim are so incredibly insightful that I was just smiling throughout the chapter.
The most profound insight I gathered from the book and I completely agree with it is this. In biology and medical sciences, continuity is the default assumption. It couldn't be otherwise, because why would anyone study fear in rats in order to treat human phobias if not for the premise that all mammalian brains are similar?. Continuity across life forms is taken for granted and however important humans may be, they are a mere speck of dust in the larger picture of nature. So while studying intelligence or cognition or neuroscience it doesn't make any sense to consider humans are special. Yes we do have things which makes us unique but that shouldn't be an assumption for all studies.
Clearly it's time for us to start testing animals in accordance with their biology and move away from human centric approaches. The author makes interesting observations regarding dog and elephant cognition too. It is also true that not many studies have explored the cognition of elephants. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of one of the most enigmatic minds of the planet.
I will sum up with the same lines author used to end the book which is " instead of making humanity the measure of all things, we need to evaluate other species by what they are doing."
This is my second book from the same author and it is bang on point. First of all the title itself is very intriguing and picking it up became natural. The author very humbly does admit that it's not like a subject book but moreover like commentary on cognition studies. But it indeed challenges most of the paradigms on it's way.
The book starts with most profound statement given by Charles Darwin that is "The difference in mind between man and the higher animals,great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind." Frans De Waal takes it further and adds that this dictum can be easily applied to all organisms and not only higher animals per say. In the starting chapters he tries to explain how sometimes it's the methodology which hinders cognition tests rather than the cognition of the animal. There are numerous examples and anecdotes given to explain this stand. The expertise of the author is used very well here.
The tool use argument which has been held at supreme to showcase the human uniqueness has been debunked completely in this book. The author not only gives samples evidences but also for all great apes and not only chimpanzees per say. He reminds us of the reply louis leakey gave to Jane Goodall when she reported tool use in gombe. Leakey replied that " Either scientists must accept chimpanzee as man or redefine man or redefine tool use."
There is also interesting aspects comparing primate cognition with corvids. There is a little scientific rivalry going on but it's fun to read about the experiments. The author also points out that for long time animals in general and birds in particular have been denigrated and treated merely as creatures of instinct rather than as sentient beings. Having observed birds closely I can vouch for the enigmatic characteristics of feathered bipeds and to think that they are only mechanical creatures driven by instinct only would be a great disservice.
We have all come across instances when animals and specially dogs understand what we want to convey. The author says that animals have this incredible quality of looking right through animals perhaps because they are not dictated by language. By directing our attention to what others have to say, we neglect body language. But for animals body language is all they have to go by. It is a skill that they employ every day and have refined to the point that they read us like a book. The anecdotes added to this claim are so incredibly insightful that I was just smiling throughout the chapter.
The most profound insight I gathered from the book and I completely agree with it is this. In biology and medical sciences, continuity is the default assumption. It couldn't be otherwise, because why would anyone study fear in rats in order to treat human phobias if not for the premise that all mammalian brains are similar?. Continuity across life forms is taken for granted and however important humans may be, they are a mere speck of dust in the larger picture of nature. So while studying intelligence or cognition or neuroscience it doesn't make any sense to consider humans are special. Yes we do have things which makes us unique but that shouldn't be an assumption for all studies.
Clearly it's time for us to start testing animals in accordance with their biology and move away from human centric approaches. The author makes interesting observations regarding dog and elephant cognition too. It is also true that not many studies have explored the cognition of elephants. We are only beginning to scratch the surface of one of the most enigmatic minds of the planet.
I will sum up with the same lines author used to end the book which is " instead of making humanity the measure of all things, we need to evaluate other species by what they are doing."
July 30, 2020
Relative to other such non-fiction books regarding the natural world that I've read, this to me is a four star read.
As an over the hill naturalist student I still try to keep up with natural sciences research papers and books, and having read some of the author's previous books I was curious to read this one. To my perspective, in this book Frans De Waal presents a well-balanced, informative, lay-level description of the state of his science (Primatology and Ethology), his thinking, and a bit of history that has led to the current state of understanding. All this in the vein of:
"What we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."—Werner Heisenberg (1958)
There are some repeated mentions, albeit out of necessity in being applicable to or contrasting with differing contexts. In other words, rather than superfluous bits I see such as a scientific mind trying hard to convey understanding of complex subject matter. He can also be a little cutting at times, for the most part appropriately so from my perspective:
"What a bizarre animal we are that the only question we can ask in relation to our place in nature is 'Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all?'”
If anything captures the gist of this book it is:
"That all mammalian brains operate in essentially the same way has also been found in other domains. Behind these similarities is a much deeper message, of course. Instead of treating mental processes as a black box, as Skinner and his followers had done, we are now prying open the box to reveal a wealth of neural homologies. These show a shared evolutionary background to mental processes and offer a powerful argument against human-animal dualism.
. . .
"We are moving ever closer to Darwin’s continuity stance, according to which the human-animal difference is one of degree, not kind."
Think of the Clark's nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) which squirrels away more than twenty thousand pine nuts, in hundreds of different locations over many square miles, and in the winter manages to recover most of them. Cognition, in good part, is relative to survival in any evolved life form, and in turn if a species becomes weedy can lead to excesses that prompt demise in Nature's balancing act.
This month I came across a research paper which further reinforces Frans De Waal's thinking.
Titled MRI scans of the brains of 130 mammals, including humans, indicate equal connectivity, it can be seen at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
This book can also be enlightening if the reader looks at it from another angle. That is, thinking about the evolutionary aspect of human proclivities. Most striking might be chimpanzee politics, which Frans De Waal mentions in this book and wrote an earlier (1982) book on. Chimpanzees are of course one of our close cousins, a sister taxon to the human lineage. Such can be enlightening in understanding our societal and governing issues.
"The greatest of human discoveries in the future will be the discovery of human intimacy with all other modes of being that live with us on this planet." ~ Thomas Berry
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and ...to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein
As an over the hill naturalist student I still try to keep up with natural sciences research papers and books, and having read some of the author's previous books I was curious to read this one. To my perspective, in this book Frans De Waal presents a well-balanced, informative, lay-level description of the state of his science (Primatology and Ethology), his thinking, and a bit of history that has led to the current state of understanding. All this in the vein of:
"What we observe is not nature in itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."—Werner Heisenberg (1958)
There are some repeated mentions, albeit out of necessity in being applicable to or contrasting with differing contexts. In other words, rather than superfluous bits I see such as a scientific mind trying hard to convey understanding of complex subject matter. He can also be a little cutting at times, for the most part appropriately so from my perspective:
"What a bizarre animal we are that the only question we can ask in relation to our place in nature is 'Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the smartest of them all?'”
If anything captures the gist of this book it is:
"That all mammalian brains operate in essentially the same way has also been found in other domains. Behind these similarities is a much deeper message, of course. Instead of treating mental processes as a black box, as Skinner and his followers had done, we are now prying open the box to reveal a wealth of neural homologies. These show a shared evolutionary background to mental processes and offer a powerful argument against human-animal dualism.
. . .
"We are moving ever closer to Darwin’s continuity stance, according to which the human-animal difference is one of degree, not kind."
Think of the Clark's nutcracker (Nucifraga columbiana) which squirrels away more than twenty thousand pine nuts, in hundreds of different locations over many square miles, and in the winter manages to recover most of them. Cognition, in good part, is relative to survival in any evolved life form, and in turn if a species becomes weedy can lead to excesses that prompt demise in Nature's balancing act.
This month I came across a research paper which further reinforces Frans De Waal's thinking.
Titled MRI scans of the brains of 130 mammals, including humans, indicate equal connectivity, it can be seen at https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
This book can also be enlightening if the reader looks at it from another angle. That is, thinking about the evolutionary aspect of human proclivities. Most striking might be chimpanzee politics, which Frans De Waal mentions in this book and wrote an earlier (1982) book on. Chimpanzees are of course one of our close cousins, a sister taxon to the human lineage. Such can be enlightening in understanding our societal and governing issues.
"The greatest of human discoveries in the future will be the discovery of human intimacy with all other modes of being that live with us on this planet." ~ Thomas Berry
"A human being is part of a whole, called by us the Universe, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separated from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and ...to affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circles of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty." - Albert Einstein
October 12, 2018
“Are we open-minded enough to assume that other species have a mental life? Are we creative enough to investigate it? Can we tease apart the roles of attention, motivation, and cognition? Those three are involved in everything animals do; hence poor performance can be explained by any one of them.”
if you love animals, you'll probably love this book I love animals and I really liked this book. It was so interesting to read about all the different tests and case studies of animals and animal cognition. This book is so easy to follow, it goes along chronically to explain the history of the study behind animal cognition and as it goes, gives lots of real life examples and stories of animals that were studied. I found these stories SO interesting and some of them were genuinely mind-blowing. It is amazing what animals can do and I never realised a lot of it until I read this book!
As mentioned, this was really easy to read and I didn't think it was dry at all even though it's a non-fiction. I enjoyed it alot and I also listened to some of it on audiobook which is also good!
November 7, 2021
Ahah! Ahah! & Of course! Intelligent & thought provoking! When humans put away our arrogance as a species, we find each of us is smart, each smarter than the other to navigate the sort of body we've been born into... Sean Runnett is perfect as the audiobook version's reader.
November 4, 2017
Siamo così intelligenti da capire l'intelligenza degli animali? Ni :-P
Questo saggio, sulla cognizione animale e quindi sull'assunto che anche gli animali abbiano una mente capace di sviluppare più della semplice sopravvivenza, cioè empatia, cooperazione, utilizzo di utensili, programmazione futura ecc..., me l'ero fatto regalare l'anno scorso, perchè incuriosito dai protagonisti (gli animali), così bistrattati da noi esseri umani che ci riteniamo la specie dominante. Ma sarà davvero così? O siamo semplicemente i più pericolosi, vanitosi, egoisti ecc...?
Mark Twain diceva in merito: "È tipico della vanità e dell'impertinenza dell'uomo definire stupidi gli animali perché così gli appaiono ai suoi sensi ottusi."
Fortunatamente non siamo tutti così ed infatti in questo libro ci sono un'infinità di esempi, test, esperimenti, curati da scienziati, come l'autore di questo saggio, che ci presentano testimonianze che anche gli animali hanno una loro cognizione mentale e...
"Invece di fare dell'umanità la misura di tutte le cose, dobbiamo valutare le altre specie per ciò che 'esse' sono. Così facendo, sono sicuro che scopriremo molte fonti magiche, comprese alcune che sono ancora al di là della nostra immaginazione."
Nel libro viene citato Isaac Asimov, che in merito alla scienza dice: "La frase più emozionante che si può udire nella scienza, quella che annuncia nuove scoperte, non è 'Eureka!', bensì 'Strano!'"
Questo saggio, sulla cognizione animale e quindi sull'assunto che anche gli animali abbiano una mente capace di sviluppare più della semplice sopravvivenza, cioè empatia, cooperazione, utilizzo di utensili, programmazione futura ecc..., me l'ero fatto regalare l'anno scorso, perchè incuriosito dai protagonisti (gli animali), così bistrattati da noi esseri umani che ci riteniamo la specie dominante. Ma sarà davvero così? O siamo semplicemente i più pericolosi, vanitosi, egoisti ecc...?
Mark Twain diceva in merito: "È tipico della vanità e dell'impertinenza dell'uomo definire stupidi gli animali perché così gli appaiono ai suoi sensi ottusi."
Fortunatamente non siamo tutti così ed infatti in questo libro ci sono un'infinità di esempi, test, esperimenti, curati da scienziati, come l'autore di questo saggio, che ci presentano testimonianze che anche gli animali hanno una loro cognizione mentale e...
"Invece di fare dell'umanità la misura di tutte le cose, dobbiamo valutare le altre specie per ciò che 'esse' sono. Così facendo, sono sicuro che scopriremo molte fonti magiche, comprese alcune che sono ancora al di là della nostra immaginazione."
Nel libro viene citato Isaac Asimov, che in merito alla scienza dice: "La frase più emozionante che si può udire nella scienza, quella che annuncia nuove scoperte, non è 'Eureka!', bensì 'Strano!'"
Read
December 14, 2016Humans have always used animals as a natural resource, justifying the killing of our fellow creatures in various ways, but mainly by assuming they are not like us. What if our denialism masks that animals are more like us than we can imagine? Can they think? Are they self-aware? Can they plan, remember and anticipate? Frans de Waal describes scientific research that reveals astonishing answers. When chimpanzees beat human children at video games or birds understand our language or elephants remember people after years, we need to rethink the nature of consciousness. After reading about chimpanzee politics, I felt many people voted not by analytical reason, but by ancient instincts. This book is revealing in two ways – animals are a lot more like us than we believe, and we’re still a whole lot like them.
— James Wallace Harris
from The Best Books We Read In November 2016: http://bookriot.com/2016/12/01/the-be...
— James Wallace Harris
from The Best Books We Read In November 2016: http://bookriot.com/2016/12/01/the-be...
Displaying 1 - 30 of 1,716 reviews