|
The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Can monkeys mislead?
Posted by Jef Akst [Entry posted at 3rd June 2009 12:01 AM GMT]
Rate this article
Response to anonymous poster by Ellie Maldonado [Comment posted 2009-06-16 17:42:10] I agree that species snobbery is just as bad as anthropomorphism. For that reason, shouldn't scientists stop using terms that imply judgment of hierarchy, like "lower animals"? This is news? by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-16 16:05:52] Sometimes I wonder that more biologists don't simply step back and look around them--like the guy with the dogs. Hopefully this article doesn't shock any animal scientists. Like us, lower animals aren't all-virtuous, and lie to get what they want. I've watched a rooster give the very specific call that means "here's some food" to lure an unsuspecting hen towards him to mate with her (no, it's not a mating call-they'd normally run from his advances--hence the need for trickery). Yes, you want to avoid anthropomorphisms but species snobbery seems just as bad. Why assume that only humans can decieve, or experience sadness or pain, or consider future consequences, or any number of functions that I've heard people say are "uniquely human?" Sometimes the obvious explanation is right. Big Deal... my dogs do this all the time by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-16 13:46:16] It doesn't seem very surprising that monkeys would do this.
My dogs discovered this trick a long time ago, although in their old age they are more likely to do it to get more attention from visitors than to get food. They all charge out of the house, then after a few seconds the alarm-sounder quietly sneaks back in to reap the rewards of being the only dog in the house. BTW: The smallest one totally over-uses the ploy to the extent that nobody believes her alarms any more. When the other dogs are receiving praise, she repeatedly sounds the coyote alarm and charges toward the pet door, looking to see if anyone is following. Nobody is. respons to post:: Re: Misleadung terminology by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-16 12:43:18] I personally think that monkeys could spell better (even in Dallas) than the anonymous poster of the title "Re: Misleadung terminology"... some monkeys must be smarter than many people! Even if they can't yet type or send letters to The Scientist! Can monkeys mislead? by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-16 12:30:53] I used to think that mindless nastiness was to be found only in the social sciences/humanities and in the soft sciences. Some of the comments here have totally cleared me of such silly notion. Response to comment by John toeppen by Ruth Rosin [Comment posted 2009-06-05 22:38:19] Where John says that certain birds imitate specific sounds APPARENTLY to scare predators, his use of the term "apparently", means that he is merely conjecturing but has no shred of evidence to support his conjecture.
This is what scientists should avoid doing! Typing Primates by john toeppen [Comment posted 2009-06-04 17:36:06] Corvidae (crows, magpies, and jays) vocally imitate other animals. I have a recording of a jay imitating a rattle snake (Bird Songs of the SouthWest). They apparently do this to scare coyotes that might otherwise eat them. Tricking others is often a good survival skill. They will also imitate hawks, apparently to provide warnings to other jays. And what are those mocking birds trying to do when they imitate car alarms and cell phone tones?
These observations might not be the neat repeatable science of controlled populations that we all like to see published. But such real world events are common and reveal social behavior. If we fail to wonder why then we are not doing our jobs as scientists, we might be ignoring the data and not the noise. Re: Misleadung terminology by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-04 16:06:57] "You can wait from here to eternity, and I bet you will never encounter a monkey typing and sending a comment to The Scientist. Just think of that!"
By a great, rare anomaly, there may just be one that can, down in Dalls, Texas, USA. Misleadung terminology by Ruth Rosin [Comment posted 2009-06-04 11:48:51] The study only shows that the "alarm call" is sounded also under circumstances where no threatening predator is around. The very label "alarm call" is, therefore misguided, and bound to mislead investigators by sending them in the wrong direction.
When the call is made by a monkey that spotted a predator, he himself undoubtedly quickly scampers away, and the others respond in kind, either because they see him running away,or because they quickly scan their environment, and respond by running away , when they spot the predator themselves. In the study described here, no threatening predator was involved at all, and the caller himself did not run away. Moreover, the authors state that invariably AT LEAST ONE of the already feeding monkeys ran away; which means that the others did not, either because the caller did not run away, or because they looked around and could spot no predator. The only interesting problem the study raises is why do some of the monkeys respond by running away, while others do not, and does the response of individuals change with their experience. This requires studying the ontogeny, (development in the individual organism), of the response to such calls; which requires knowing the previous experience of each individual. And such a study should not even be seriously contemplated by using a wild population, where nothing is known, or can be known, about the previous experience of different individuals. One might even need to study the ontogeny of the preference for bananas, before considering the possibility that the caller made the call with an intention to scare others away, and, thus, gain access to the bananas. The idea that if humans deceive, (undoubtedly for very different reasons, in different situations), sub-human animals, (even if they are our closest relatives), must be able to do the same, is a very naive, and misguided approach to the study of animal behavior. You can wait from here to eternity, and I bet you will never encounter a monkey typing and sending a comment to The Scientist. Just think of that! Monkey see, monkey do. by paul harbin [Comment posted 2009-06-03 19:27:55] I just think this correlates rather well with, Bush and Cheney. The senior member of the group responding to the false cries of the craftier male. Bush always looked like a buffoon, did he not? Tricky men lie, so do monkeys. Misleading Monkeys by john toeppen [Comment posted 2009-06-03 16:55:17] The title of this article does not deserve a question mark. This is a prime example of where we are in arrogant denial regarding the intelligent, clever, mischievous, selfish, and social nature of other species. What would make us think that we are the only creatures that do this sort of thing? We would do well to assume that other creature do these things and see how that model fits the reality. That is, unless that we want to start with the assumption that all creatures were created for human purposes alone, and that we should treat them with disrespect and a calloused disregard until the ?end of days?. Intelligence necessary for survival by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-03 15:48:48] I think that for a very long time society has under rated the intellegence of members of other species. I don't believe we clearly thought through survival. Interesting study by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-03 13:32:41] Are dominant monkeys not learning from the repeated deceptions by subordinate ones? Yes, monkey can mislead. Absolutely! by anonymous poster [Comment posted 2009-06-03 12:31:48] Just look how misleading that one named George was! Comment on this blog |