Leaf clipping or eating?
-
by
ksigler
moderator
@jwidness 's tagging of eating behaviors happily brought my attention back to this sequence of Honey & Sugar. While Honey is cracking nuts for sure, Sugar is grabbing and biting at leaves on the branches. At first I thought he was eating them (especially the first clip), but there is one part where you see him brush a piece of a dead leaf from his lip. Is this (mock) leaf clipping? Or is Sugar really ingesting most of the leaves or something else on the branches?
ACP0002wbk | ACP0002wbl | ACP0002wbm | ACP0002wbn
In the last clip, you see a piece of the leaf still on his mouth:
Posted
-
by
northernlimitptv
scientist, moderator
Well, personally I would lean more towards considering Sugar's behavior play... simply goofing around while his mom is busy. We could conjecture that he had once seen someone do some leaf clipping and is attempting to mimic it, however that seems like a stretch to me, and he'd be doing a pretty poor job of it! Leaf clipping is a very distinct and exaggerated behavior (the leaves are used largely to make a noise and rarely even enter the mouth), while this looks more to me like what most human toddlers do at this age.... exploring everything with their mouth!
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
in response to northernlimitptv's comment.
Haha, okay, your explanation makes perfect sense! Thanks. 😃 If you don't mind, I had an unanswered question about a similar thing a while back of an infant possibly mimicking tool use. I'm guessing if Sugar is just playing, that infant is probably also just acting its age?
Posted
-
by
northernlimitptv
scientist, moderator
I'll answer over here if that's alright for you since I tie the two together...
I think the nut cracking video absolutely is imitation (and an adorable one at that!). It's not so hard to see how the two meet here as compared to the leaf clipping... the mother is right there with the infant performing the task, while simultaneously the infant is imitating the action in front of it. Although a clumsy start, the infant is certainly doing something along the lines of what one could deem imitation.
On the other hand, to say the leaf clipping video is also imitation would be much more difficult. We don't see that there's active copying of a task happening, and rather the behavior we see the infant doing doesn't mimic so well what 'real' leaf clipping looks like.
Does that make sense? Nonetheless I have to be careful with the wording here, as there is quite a bit of extensive literature on the topic of imitation, mimicking, and learning in apes, and I don't claim to be an effort in that domain! Someone might already take offense to something I've written here 😉
Posted
-
by
AnLand
moderator
I apologize for having an opinion here, but this baby is so small. It is moving the arms the whole time as human babies do before they learn to control the muscles. Is that so much earlier in chimps? I mean, OK they cling on their mothers, so there must be a different level of coordination, but I cannot see a coordinated action here, neither with observing, nor with imitation.
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
in response to northernlimitptv's comment.
Thank you for verifying the nut cracking clip. I didn't realize it was such a touchy subject. 😃 Your explanation makes sense. I understand the difference between seeing a behavior in the moment and copying vs. having seen it in the past and remembering and copying it later. It's a bit more of a stretch, like you said. I've always been interested in finding out what are truly learned behaviors vs. natural instincts vs. naturally evolved behaviors (not sure if that's the right term, but when separate individuals figure the same thing out on their own without a common influence). So, I appreciate the chance we have here to see how the behaviors of the youngest chimps start to develop.
@AnLand, I see what you're saying, but if you watch more of the sequence, I think there is an obvious difference between the random baby fidgeting and flailing about (which usually involves both arms and legs in that infant), and the one-armed up and down motion I mentioned. Plus, the fact that it's looking down right where the mother had been cracking the nut was really what convinced me. It's a very brief moment of focus, timed with the arm motion.
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
By the way, for anyone who missed it, this video partially inspired my line of thinking about Sugar.
http://www.exploratorium.edu/tv/index.php?program=00000763&project=22
Really fascinating, especially how different populations do it for different reasons. It occurred to me that maybe Sugar was looking for a play mate. 😃 Still a stretch, I know!
Posted
-
by
AnLand
moderator
This video of DBFem04 and DBInf04 is part of a sequence of – up to now – 23 videos: http://talk.chimpandsee.org/#/collections/CCPL0000nw The infant is fidgeting the whole time moving arms and legs. I find it problematic to single out one video where this movement – I think by chance – aligns with a directional view towards mom’s tool use and claim early imitation. Nothing in the rest of this video support this and shows the infant’s interest in what mom is doing.
I also believe that tool use imitation usually starts with an interest in the tool (or a random tool if you take pounding), not with praticing the movement.Posted
-
by
vestigial
That whole area of imitating versus active teaching seems to be a touchy subject. Many people maintain great apes don't teach. They just do things and other apes imitate. They maintain that teaching requires a modification of behavior to sort of support and mold the behavior of the student and they say there isn't evidence of apes, for instance, slowing down their movements so other apes can observe them or adjusting the hold of the student on a tool to make it more useful. They state that only humans teach. It seems to go back to that same inclination humans have to make themselves different from all other animals. Every time something is declared as only a human trait some animal seems to come along and prove that wrong.
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
in response to AnLand's comment.
@AnLand - I think we're experiencing some of the controversy that @vestigial explained. 😃 I think it's important to remember that an infant's brain probably won't be as advanced as a juvenile's, with shorter attention spans, and definitely more focused on what mom is doing than something farther away. But they have to start somewhere. Just because they don't do a behavior multiple times during the sequence doesn't mean they didn't do it once. And maybe its interest in tools started the day before? Actually, I disagree with the statement that imitation usually starts with an interest in the tool, because a tool has to be used in order to be a tool, so there is still some seed of imitation planted if one picks up a tool to check it out as a tool. However, I'm making the point that we're seeing just a few moments in time of the infant's ongoing, but not necessarily continuous, learning process.
Posted
-
by
MimiA
scientist, moderator
in response to AnLand's comment.
No one should ever apologize for having an opinion here! we are all here to learn from one another 😄
and im glad you are all getting a taste of why this topic is so tough to disentangle 😃
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
in response to vestigial's comment.
Wow, I now find this controversy interesting! Thanks for explaining it! My professional background is in training, and teaching and learning are 2 very different things. I've heard the theory that apes don't teach... and I agree, there doesn't seem to be a "forward-thinking" effort that equates to formal human teaching. But even humans learn outside of formal teaching, so it really doesn't matter. I believe that, by doing something, one is teaching "this is what we do" and those around to see it, if mentally capable, will learn it (or from it), sometimes subconsciously. I could probably name a hundred examples, and it's actually sometimes more effective than the slowed down, restricted method, and allows earlier exploration and development of better ways of doing things, and..... Bah, sorry, passionate topic for me! 😃 But frankly, chimps aren't trying to teach each other brain surgery. They're just "teaching" how to do things like crack open a nut with a rock, or fish for termites. Individual variation and gradual improvement from experience is probably much more effective.
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
in response to MimiA's comment.
Agreed on all points! I think being able to have these conversations in a community of such diverse viewpoints and backgrounds is incredibly enlightening, and one of the hidden perks of citizen science! 😃
Posted
-
by
MimiA
scientist, moderator
@ksigler - you should check out the book The Ape and the Sushi Master by Frans de Waal http://www.amazon.com/The-Ape-Sushi-Master-Primatologist/dp/0465041760
Its one of those books that stick with you forever because it overturns a lot of what one might things about how one learns since different human cultures learn is such totally different ways 😃
He also has a new book coming out that i am excited for! I LOVE LOVE LOVE THE TITLE: Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?
http://www.amazon.com/Are-Smart-Enough-Know-Animals/dp/0393246183/Posted
-
by
vestigial
Ah, Frans de Waal! I love that man and his books are fabulous and he's funny when he gives talks. If you ever get a chance to attend one of his lectures I highly recommend it! Thanks for the heads up on the new book, MimiA.
Posted
-
by
MimiA
scientist, moderator
Some food for thought:
Even Dr de Waal is not without controversy as he has not been supportive of projects like GAP (great ape personhood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_ape_personhood) although he does think great apes should have special moral standing.
http://speakingofresearch.com/2012/05/12/frans-de-waals-ethical-arguments-need-clarification/
and
http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org/2016/01/12/when-apes-have-their-day-in-court/
"As de Waal explains, apes are entitled to humane treatment in the sort of research he does, but not to the legal rights of a full and responsible member of society, because “rights are part of a social contract that makes no sense without responsibilities.”
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
in response to MimiA's comment.
Both books look fascinating -- thanks, @MimiA !!
I have mixed feelings on the GAP project. It feels like one of those things, like many laws, that are only needed because people try to do crazy stuff out of disrespect for things different than themselves. To me, "rights" only exist so they can be taken away. That is, if we just lived and let other things live, there would be no need for "rights," it would just be called living. But, that's the hopeless idealist in me. Back in the real world, I guess I'm for whatever helps, but the more people try to define it (some rights, but not others, for some animals, but not others), the more futile it sounds. 😕
Posted
-
by
AnLand
moderator
I've just seen this interesting essay by Frans de Waal (an adaptation of his newest book): What I Learned From Tickling Apes in the NYTimes about anthropomorphism, especially in the cognitive area, and think that it is a nice read for this discussion. (The book probably as well, but I think it is not published yet.)
"We still hear this argument [the accusation of anthropomorphism], not so much for tendencies that we consider animalistic (everyone is free to speak of aggression, violence and territoriality in animals) but rather for traits that we like in ourselves."
"Increased respect for animal intelligence also has consequences for cognitive science. For too long, we have left the human intellect dangling in empty evolutionary space. How could our species arrive at planning, empathy, consciousness and so on, if we are part of a natural world devoid of any and all steppingstones to such capacities?"
"Anthropomorphism and anthropodenial are inversely related: The closer another species is to us, the more anthropomorphism assists our understanding of this species and the greater will be the danger of anthropodenial."
Posted
-
by
ksigler
moderator
in response to AnLand's comment.
Wow, that's brilliant! It's so true that when people talk about human evolution, the gradient of that evolution often seems to be forgotten, seeing humans and "animals" as separate things. If we can accept the genetic similarities, we can't ignore all the other ones.
Thank you so much for sharing this @AnLand .
Posted
-
by
Snorticus
in response to AnLand's comment.
That was so applicable to what we're doing in this project also. Whenever writing a post about what I see the chimps doing in the clips I feel the need to apply as de Waal so aptly expressed it - "linguistic castration" - when talking about actions that look to me to involve emotions. It seems obvious after watching chimp clips for these many months that their lives are very complex and clearly do involve "planning, empathy, and consciousness", it's not just anthropomorphism on my part. Excellent article, @AnLand.
Posted
-
by
AnLand
moderator
There is a new paper out from the Goualougo Triangle Project about Tool transfers are a form of teaching among chimpanzees that seems to be interesting for this discussion:
Teaching is a form of high-fidelity social learning that promotes human cumulative culture. Although recently documented in several nonhuman animals, teaching is rare among primates. In this study, we show that wild chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes troglodytes) in the Goualougo Triangle teach tool skills by providing learners with termite fishing probes. Tool donors experienced significant reductions in tool use and feeding, while tool recipients significantly increased their tool use and feeding after tool transfers. These transfers meet functional criteria for teaching: they occur in a learner’s presence, are costly to the teacher, and improve the learner’s performance.
Posted
-
by
AnLand
moderator
There is also a nice explanation video about that research at youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V41YbSg8NNQ
Posted