the evolving mind

Last week I stepped in a steaming pile of fresh science news. So to speak. To the critical reader, the article — Dogs’ Intelligence On Par With Two-year-old Human, Canine Researcher Says — demonstrated the hazards of undisciplined literature reviews.

At the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, “psychologist and leading canine researcher Stanley Coren, PhD . . . author of more than a half-dozen popular books on dogs and dog behavior” made this general argument:

[D]ogs have the ability to solve complex problems and are more like humans and other higher primates than previously thought.

Okay, that’s provocative. No problems — yet. The first whiff of something being amiss was mention of the data Coren based his conclusions upon — “a review of numerous studies.” Huh? Was this review in any way methodological? Or was his review more akin to picking daisies on a sunny afternoon? Judging by the breadth of his statements, I suspect the latter.

Consider some of the claims made, and determine for yourself if “a review of numerous studies,” seems adequate justification for making them.

- Dogs mental abilities “are close” to that of a 2 to 2 1/2 year old human infant.

- Dogs can understand more than 150 words.

- Dogs can intentionally deceive other dogs and people to get treats.

- Dogs can count up to four, sometimes five.

- Dogs have three types of intelligence: instinctive, adaptive, and “working and obedience.”

While the members of an Oprah audience may swallow the above uncritically because the source was an “expert,” that is not my tendency. While any or all of the above might be true, fully or partially, they also might not be. I need much more information before I am willing to accept any of it.

In sum, I would describe this pile of research as “intriguing speculation.” Or maybe even “slap-happy theorizing.” Of course, I haven’t analyzed the research myself. So don’t trust my judgment. But from what I know about science and psychology, the red flags are up. That pile of news reeked.

Technorati Links: animals, critical thinking, research

I have a friend who can identify most birds by their calls. While I can for a scant few species, I rely almost exclusively on sight.

Flowers don’t make sound, so it is impossible to identify a flower with your ears.

Well, at least not without technology and training. I can think of two potential ways to accomplish the feat. The first would be to design and build a sort of super-precise echolocation device. Something that would bounce audio waves off of flowers and then “translate” the sound into the human hearing range. And perhaps magnify the subtle differences in distances as they pertain to form. Would a sunflower have a clearly different audio profile than an iris? I wonder.

The second would be a device that would transform the lightwave color and intensity of a blossom into an audio tone and volume. Some flowers, like the above gerber daisy, would be sort of red-shifted, and fairly loud.

And that concludes this afternoon’s exercise in lateral thinking.

Technorati Links: flora, perception

Is the brain the organ of behavioral options? If the best response to stimulus x was always behavior Y, what need would there be for a brain? Any creature with a brain is capable of learning. Learning better responses, learning to process more ambiguous stimuli, etc. Those with more elaborate cortexes are even capable of problem-solving.

Take birds. Their brains are relatively pea-sized. And yet they can learn. The more intelligent species can even problem-solve. A couple species have recently been found to use make-shift tools to problem solve.

That’s smart. In one piece of research, rooks (black birds in the crow family) placed stones in a vial of water to raise the fluid level and float a worm within reach. Impressive.

In another piece of research, crows engaged in more clever and complicated tool-use.

New experiments by Oxford University scientists reveal that New Caledonian crows can spontaneously use up to three tools in the correct sequence to achieve a goal, something never before observed in non-human animals without explicit training.

Wow. Some human beings would have difficulties with a three-step tool task.

It seems it is not the size of the brain that counts, but how you use it.

As a tangential matter, many cultures have been biased against black birds. Like crows and ravens. They are the harbingers of evil, etc. Is it in part because they are so clever and can quickly learn to be unafraid of our kind?

Lastly, would it be ornithologically-incorrect for me to point out that in the avian world blacks score higher than whites on tests of intelligence?

Technorati Links: intelligence, neurology

Moses bowed to the ground at once and worshiped. (Exodus 34:8)

How can a person groom a god? While chimpanzees and other primates can reach out and touch conspecifics, what do you do in the case of a noncorporeal entity, an almighty, invisible alpha?

The answer: gestures, vocalizations and language. So no, human beings don’t physically groom their gods; they do it with body language and with words: prayer, chanting, song. They comfort and reassure their great leader. He can relax; he is indeed number one. But I’m getting ahead of myself.

Grooming a god? The verb form of groom carries this definition -

1. To care for the appearance of; to make neat and trim: groomed himself carefully in front of the mirror.
2. To clean and brush (an animal).
3. To remove dirt and parasites from the skin, fur, or feathers of (another animal). (9)

In terms of our primate cousins and our own behavioral ancestry (as it pertains to religion), #3 is most pertinent. Allogrooming has a social context and consequences.

A look at the etymology of the noun form of the word may provide another clue.

c.1225, grome “male child, boy, youth.” No known cognates in other Gmc. languages. Perhaps from O.E. *groma, related to growan “grow;” or from O.Fr. grommet “servant” (cf. M.E. gromet “ship’s boy,” 1229). The fact is, it appeared 13c. and nobody knows from whence. Meaning “male servant who attends to horses” is from 1667. The verb is first attested 1809; the transferred sense of “to tidy (oneself) up” is from 1843; fig. sense of “to prepare a candidate” is from 1887, originally in U.S. politics. (10)

Servant. One who attends to.

Now please forgive the sins of the servants of the God of your father. (Genesis 50:17)

Religious adherents are grooms to their god to the degree they “serve” him and uplift him, primarily via praise.

He bowed down before the king with his face to the ground and said, “Praise be to the LORD your God!” (2 Samuel 18:28)

Whether or not a lord is of this world or the next, visible or invisible, the groom’s job is to exalt “him.” To glorify and elevate.

The following few posts in my “Almighty Alpha” series will take a look at how primate grooming may have developed into religious praise.

—

(9) http://www.answers.com/groom
(10) http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=groom

Technorati Links: belief, bible, evolution

Riddle: Would a true misanthrope be chronically suicidal?

And now on the other end of the spectrum (at least in terms of a less-conditional positive regard for our kind) . . .

Blog carnival: the 41st edition of the Humanist Symposium has been posted here.

Technorati Links: blog carnival, humanism

The item above shows a weave pattern. But was it woven? What is it?

Hint: 200x magnification. Answer and a pic at x60 below the fold.

Continue Reading »

Technorati Links: birds, microscope, puzzle

Damn, I’ve got my semantics-undies in a bunch again. I was attempting to read an online article about research into acupuncture, and couldn’t get past the first sentence. See if you detect anything bogus about it. It’s subtle; but it’s there:

Acupuncture has been used in East-Asian medicine for thousands of years to treat pain, possibly by activating the body’s natural painkillers. But how it works at the cellular level is largely unknown.

The above strikes me as propaganda. Perhaps unwittingly, the writer advances the party-line and publicizes a viewpoint. Acupuncture has been used thousands of years to treat pain . . .

Um . . . study after study has shown that “real acupuncture” is no more effective than sham acupuncture. Meridians . . . irrelevant. The needle penetrating the skin . . . irrelevant. So what has-been/is effective is for acupuncture-like treatments to activate some sort of placebo response. And the thousands of years part — what, is that supposed to make my mind resonate with that line from an old television commercial, aha, it’s an ancient Chinese secret!?

Technorati Links: alternative medicine, critical thinking, semantics

Go ahead, grab that branch (at least in your imagination). Why? Because you can. A dog can’t. Paws have no opposable toes. A dolphin can’t. Nor can a horse and scores of other animals.

Brains are nice. But the human hand . . . . what a powerful adaptation!

How many ways have and will you use your hands today? Hundreds, I bet.

Technorati Links: flora, physiology, primates

Human apes are intelligent. But they aren’t equally intelligent. While some can, say, learn a second and third language with relative ease, others never fully master their first. And while some have no difficulties mentally computing the volume of stale air in a doctor’s office, other’s need a handy, wallet-sized chart to help them determine how much to tip their waitress.

Is it any surprise, then, that new research into the cognitive abilities of another primate species, the cotton-top tamarin, has revealed that they, too, have individuals that sit in the front of the class and those that don’t know where the front of the class is. So to speak.

Testing for broad cognitive ability, the researchers identified high, middle, and low performing monkeys, determined by a general intelligence score. General intelligence, or “g,” is a hallmark of human cognition, often described as similar to IQ. The effect of “g” in primates may offer insight into the evolution of human general intelligence.

How did the researchers determine they had actually measured “general intelligence”? Good question. Here’s how:

Monkeys with higher “g” scores tended to outperform monkeys with lower scores across the various subtasks in the cognitive task battery.

In other words, individual monkeys that were fast at solving the banana-shaped Rubik’s Cube problem (I’m making this up) also tended to thwart their cohorts in the backgammon competition. Or something.

I wonder, is there such a thing as a brilliant butterfly? A dull goldfish?

Technorati Links: intelligence, primates

[Cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]

Technorati Links: belief, cartoon, health