| Author |
Message |
    
Sweetsunray
hunter
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 277
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 8:12 am: |     |
A study has shown that young chimps between 2-6 are smarter than human children between 2-5. Humpan children 'ape' the adults, whereas the apes dismiss the misleading example of the scientists and goes for the booty!
2087-1291219%2C00.html,http://www.timesonline.co.u k/article/0,,2087-1291219,00.html
Young chimps make chumps of children
"IN ADVERTS they are amusing creatures that ape human behaviour. But scientists have found that young chimpanzees can be more intelligent in their approach to some tasks than children of a similar age.
An experiment conducted at St Andrews University revealed that while children tried to tackle a puzzle without trying to analyse it, chimps of the same age used logic and managed to solve it.
The research, which will be published this week in the quarterly academic journal Animal Cognition, describes how 12 chimps from a Ugandan nature reserve aged from two to six were pitted against 16 children aged from three to five.
Both groups were given boxes with two compartments. The top compartment was empty, the other contained food for the chimps or stickers for the children. Half the boxes were transparent, the rest opaque.
A researcher lifted the lid on the top of each box and made a stabbing motion with a stick in the empty compartment, as though she was trying to skewer the prize. The demonstration was misleading because the food and stickers could be reached only by opening a flap at the front of the box.
The chimps with the transparent box immediately realised that the stabbing motion was pointless and ignored it. Instead, they opened the flap and took out the food. Those with the opaque box soon reached the same conclusion.
However, all the children continued to stab at the empty compartment. To discount the possibility that the children were trying to please the researchers, they were left alone and filmed secretly. Only a few managed to retrieve a sticker after much futile prodding.
Professor Andrew Whiten, head of the Scottish Primate Research Group at St Andrews, which carried out the study, said this was clear evidence that chimps adopted a more intelligent approach to solving puzzles, even though they might not have the capacity of humans for other skills such as speech.
According to Whiten, a three-year-old chimp from the Congo called Baluku even appeared to understand that he was being tested and enjoyed the challenge.
“The chimps worked out that the stabbing motion was irrelevant, unlike the children. They were more discriminating and didn’t mindlessly copy everything they saw,” he said.
“Children were prone to copy everything, which appears a rather less intelligent approach.
“These findings force us to rethink what’s going on in chimps’ heads. It shows they learn from adults in a sophisticated way and that is evidence of culture in a non-human primate.”
Vicky Horner, who worked on the study, added: “All the children blindly copied everything I did, perhaps because as humans we’re predisposed to copy adults.
“The results were surprising and fascinating. The tests clearly show intelligence among the chimps.”
The team is now planning further tests involving older chimps and children. "
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Roon
gatherer
Username: Roon
Post Number: 84
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 8:50 pm: | |
What is a chimp's lifespan in comparison to humans? Do they reach adulthood at the same rate, or more quickly? If they mature faster than humans, then DUH they would figure this stuff out quicker than human kids.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world- those who understand binary and those who don't~ seen on a t-shirt
I consider that glasses are neither half-filled nor half-empty. They are merely improperly sized to the requirement~ Cavebear |
Sweetsunray
hunter
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 278
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 9:31 pm: | |
Chimps:
Lifespan in the wild: 35-40
Lifespan in captivity: 60
Menarche: 9-10
Adult size: 14-16
First offspring: 13-15
Humans:
in the wild (?): about 35-40
in protected society: 78
Menarche: 12-14
Adult size: 16-18
First offspring: 14-35
Difference:
Menarche: 4 years
Adult size: 2 years
First offspring: 1 year
Lifespan in the 'wild': none
Lifespan in protected environment: 18 years
Quicker, but not so much quicker... The experiment allows for the comparing of a 2-year-old chimp to a 5-year-old human child (age where in many Western countries start to learn first basics of math, reading and writing). The chimp uses logic in THIS experiment, whereas the older human child apes the scientist. Even though chimps do age quicker by a degree, the difference is not big enough to warrant a 2-year-old chimp to seem more intelligent than a 5-year-old human child.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Sweetsunray
hunter
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 279
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 9:46 pm: | |
Also Roon your 'Duh' argument takes as a premisse that chimps and human children have the same intelligence as end result, whereas humans do surpass chimpansees.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Sidescraper_gal
hunter
Username: Sidescraper_gal
Post Number: 243
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 05, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
All:
I don't know if young chimps are smarter than young children. But what I do know is, that when they visit zoos, children are often fascinated with great apes. And the apes obligingly "perform" for the visitors. This was one experience I had with my daughter when she was of approximately that age. Quite interesting.
Anne G |
Cavebear
flint knapper
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 1355
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 1:13 am: | |
Its a gestational difference at first. Human babies are born at a lesser degree of developement than any other mammal. Essentially, baby developement occurs outside the womb moreso than for other animals. This delayed developement makes many comparisons inaccurate.
I recall seeing a chart of mammal baby gestation and humans were off the typical line. If someone knows of this chart, it could add to the discussion.
Other primates are going to seem more advanced at young ages because they are delivered at more advanced development. It takes a while for the human babies to catch up.
I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken about that. |
Rhi
storyteller
Username: Rhi
Post Number: 205
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 2:34 am: | |
Well, kangaroos are born pretty undeveloped, too. I don't know if they could be considered less developed than humans, but there are other underdeveloped mammals born other than humans.
But, I agree about the difference between humans and chimps. Chimps reach adulthood far before humans, which is only one of the problems of the experiement.
Mostly Harmless |
Pine
storyteller
Username: Pine
Post Number: 697
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 5:14 am: | |
Did the children see the situation as a problem to be solved or as something to play about with? It can be very frustrating when adults plan some enriching activity for children, and they get captivated with something else, whose attractive value remains totally elusive to the adult. Many children are more interested in process rather than in product: when you see a child drawing several unrelated pictures on top of each other and eventually forgetting about the whole thing - that's a child that wants to draw, rather than produce a drawing. So mimicking the adults did not produce anything useful - so what? Why is that a reason not to engage in the activity?
"Mommy, you are not always wrong!" - my daughter, almost 6. |
Sweetsunray
hunter
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 284
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 9:42 am: | |
Rhi I don't consider 2-3 years of difference in menarche all that 'far before humans'. It's a difference, and it would explain a slower developing partly... as was proven in the past with the difference in the first two years of development of each species. However up till now they presumed that human children would catch up somewhere between the second and fifth birth year. But the tests seem to indicate they didn't.
Of course, I'd agree with the questioning of the conclusion. Does this truly mean children are then less intelligent? After all, the numbers of right IQ quiz answers result into a different IQ depending your age, even when you're already an adult (hypoth example: 25/30 correct is 125 at age 35, but IQ 135 at age 25)... simply because we tend to have different focuses depending on our ages.
I'm quite sure that human children between 2-5 have a totally different focus than chimps between 2-6 have.
BTW Pine... my prepschool teacher once predicted to my parents I'd end up going to academics (which are the creative and art directions of higher education after HS). I asked her why for after I met her two years ago by accident. She said it was because when we had to do a drawing I simply never lifted my pencil from the paper, but kept on drawing and drawing as I replaced it. She'd never seen that before, nor did she afterwards.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
Rhi
storyteller
Username: Rhi
Post Number: 206
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:09 pm: | |
SSR, I think I glanced at the "Menarche: 4 years" when I looked back to see the difference. My mistake. I seem to have fallen right between Chimps and Humans with my year 11 beginning of menarche.
It seems that Chimps have a longer growing period and life span that Auel's Clan, though perhaps equivelant to real life Neanderthals.
Mostly Harmless |
Rhi
storyteller
Username: Rhi
Post Number: 207
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 10:20 pm: | |
Cavebear, I haven't been able to find that chart you were refering to, but I have been looking into the subject.
Humans *may* be born at a lesser degree of development, based on time, but marsupials (Class Mammal, Sub-class Metatheria, Order Marsupialia) are born relatively as underdeveloped as as humans.
I'm not sure yet, but perhaps humans are born the least developed of all placental mammals (Subclass Eutheria).
Mostly Harmless |
Ted
bear cub
Username: Ted
Post Number: 52
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:38 pm: | |
All the text books I've read about the marsupials places them as being born at a much earlier stage of development than humans
As an example, from Wikipedia:
**********************************
The embryo is born at a very early stage of development (at about 4-5 weeks), upon which it crawls up its mother's belly and attaches itself to a nipple. It remains attached to the nipple for a number of weeks. The offspring later passes through a stage where it temporarily leaves the pouch, returning for warmth and nourishment.
The early birth of marsupials removes the developing young much sooner than in placental mammals, and marsupials have not needed to develop a complex placenta to protect the young from its mother's immune system. Early birth places the tiny new-born marsupial at greater risk, but significantly reduces the risk of pregnancy, as there is no need to carry a large foetus to full-term in bad seasons.
*******************************
Do not go gentle into that good night...Rage, rage against the dying of the light |
Cavebear
flint knapper
Username: Cavebear
Post Number: 1358
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Friday, October 08, 2004 - 11:52 pm: | |
I erred in phrasing the chart "mammal baby gestation" (although days of gestation per average weight of mother might be equally atypical for humans). What I meant to describe was a chart that showed the length of time for mammal babies to be equally adept at moving around physically (for minimal self-protection).
In other words, the degree of physical development of babies of various (placental) mammals in terms of days from conception to self-movement (scampering, hiding, reacting for self-protection, etc). For example, a horse may have a longer gestational period than a human, but the baby is more able to at least move around sooner for protection than can a human baby. My recollection is that the chart I saw once compared this rather than just simple gestation.
And there are extenuating demands on some babies and not others that make the comparison difficult. Baby dolphins must be able to swim immediately or they will drown. Babies of prey animals must be able to stand and run within hours or they will be eaten (whereas those of predators have more protection and less need for immediate movement ability).
But the chart I wish I could find again clearly showed that human babies require a much longer time to reach the same basic self-activation time than all other mammals.
What interested me most about that chart was that it seemed to correlate well with perceived general intelligence.
I thought I was wrong once, but it turned out I was mistaken about that. |
Scott
storyteller
Username: Scott
Post Number: 500
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, October 12, 2004 - 5:23 am: | |
The main activity of chimps is subsistence, that means finding food. I suspect the instinct is honed into them at a very early age. I tend to agree with Pine. Getting at the food is vital to the Chimps from an evolutionary perspective, whereas for the children, the stickers did not represent life and death, eating and hunger - as it would be programmed into the Chimps.
As cavebear is alluding to above, kids have a long time to grow up and learn to be self-sufficient. Chimps have a somewhat shorter time period and so are forced to be more precocious at an earlier age than human children I suspect.
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
Rhi
storyteller
Username: Rhi
Post Number: 211
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 1:37 am: | |
"I suspect the instinct is honed into them at a very early age."
This leads me to a question I've been wondering: What is instinct?
I think I'll take that over to the Q&A game.
Mostly Harmless |
Sweetsunray
hunter
Username: Sweetsunray
Post Number: 288
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, October 13, 2004 - 3:39 pm: | |
I guess instinct is like that sudden knowledge that comes upon you that says it's time to eat.
Everyone has a motive for giving arguments. But only the arguments given matter. |
spudsmagoo (Unregistered Guest)
visitor
| | Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 3:56 am: | |
I would suggest that rather indicating a difference in intelligence as per development age, the behaviour of the human children rather indicates and extended imprinting period, thus the persistance of the children imitating the adult human. Expose children over their "childhood" to a variety of ways of approaching problem solving whose direction is always from an adult rather than peers and you will end up with "successful" children.
In the same way a infant chimp at birth will imprint on a human, if a human is the first being they see immediately after birth, and will continue to identify themselves as human all there lives, and will not see other chimps as being like themselves.
The former theory is based on personal experience of raising 5 children, and cross referencing the differences in parenting and differences in their childrens outcomes as successful adults by observation. ie no early addictive behaviour, no sexual promiscuity, the ability to be consistantly employed, and the ability to explore their own and other enviroments. |
Scott
storyteller
Username: Scott
Post Number: 2182
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 - 11:35 pm: | |
I have always had a problem with this idea of "first being they see immediately after birth" idea. I think it is a fallacy. I think any primary 'caregiver' will be bonded to sometime after birth.
Anyone have any more info on this "bonding" after birth stuff?
Scott
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Ces gens, Jondalar, ils sourient. Ils me sourient. - Ayla |
|
People, Places, Cultures and Resources