Talk:Animal intelligence

The animal is good and are life is good. Sometime is the formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3760:7840:BC57:26FC:8041:88CA (talk) 03:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Most intelligent individual animals
I am looking for a list of the most intelligent individual animals we know. Since human IQ can vary quite a bit from human to human the same should hold true for animals (chimps for example). The standard deviation would probably be smaller, etc, but it should still be some kind of distribution. Therefore I would like to find a list of the most intelligent animal individuals known. If anyone know of such a list, please post a link here, or start a new article on wikipedia on the matter. One thing I wonder is how much could we teach a really smart "einsten of the chips"? There are probably some research into this? Anyways, If anyone can give me some pointers for more information it would be appreciated.

Spatial Intelligence
I notice an absence of spatial intelligence information in this article. I have a feeling that animals may have more spatial intelligence relative to humans than on other measures of intelligence, considering how much more useful spatial ability is to animals than mathematical/linguistic ability. Does anyone have any information or research pointing to the spatial intelligence of animals?

And do scientists also apply the theory of multiple intelligences to animal intelligence too? Animal brains are so different from ours that I think it's more applicable if anything. Come to think about it, dolphins are probably more intelligent than humans in their own forms of intelligence.

Thanks! Simfish 20:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Self-awareness

 * "The level of intelligence in animals is commonly represented as a ladder with each species occupying a different rung. Humans are at the top while lower species occupy the successively lower rungs. Researchers are now discovering that humans aren't the only animals that are self-aware. When anesthetized a red dot was painted somewhere on the face of the animal being tested. Of all the animals painted, humans, chimpanzees, maltese dogs and orangutans were the only animals that were aware that the image being presented through a mirror was them. They also realized that when the red dot was touched on their own face, so was the dot in the image and they responded. Therefore self-awareness can not be used to sufficiently state that humans are different from other animals. A Dr. Kuczaj is performing studies trying to see if any other animals such as dolphins or parrots exhibit self-awareness when placed in front of a mirror too. Daniel J. Povinelli is skeptical and believes that the chimpanzees and orangutans tested for self-awareness weren't necessarily seeing themselves; they were just applying the concept that the image in the mirror was significantly similar to them. This raises the question why did they believe that the image in the mirror was similar to them though? By chance if self-awareness doesn't make us different, then what does? Dr. Kuczaj believes that what differentiates us is our language and he thinks that our ability to communicate is what in effect makes us more intelligent."

Am I the only one who doesn't see how any of this is relevant? Anyone who's owned a dog knows that puppies learn very quickly that the "other dog" in the hallway mirror is just a reflection, no different than the one in the water dish, and will ignore it once the "novalty" of the reflecting device has worn off. Adult wolves don't drown trying to attack their own reflection in a river. Yet some parots (such as cockatiels and parakeets) never seem to comprehend that the "other bird" in the mirror isn't actually an other bird at all. Why, then, are parots usually considered more intelligent than dogs? I honestly don't see what the ability to recognize oneself in the mirror has to do with intelligence. Maybe "self-awareness", but then again, the sort of "self-awareness" we connect with higher levels of thinking is a much more abstract concept having little if anything to do with the awareness of one's body parts or the ability to recognize one's reflection in a mirror or pool of water.

If this material is to remain on the page, I think it should be explained why it is presumed to be relevant to the subject of intelligence. Because I honestly can't see a link, and I doubt I'm the only one. --Corvun 00:35, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * The mirror test is considered very significant as an indicator of self-awareness. Very few animals can in fact pass this test; the only animals known to pass are humans, chimpanzees, orangutans, maltese dogs and dolphins.  I've heard that gorillas do not, though I don't have a source for that.


 * The test is passed when the animal can be shown to make a definite connection between its self-image and its reflection. This does not occur in puppies or adult dogs: ignoring the once-novel other dog in the mirror is not the same as comprehending that the other dog is actually the dog's own reflection.  &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 05:41, 2 May 2005 (UTC)


 * http://www.abslogic.com/CaseForPersonhood.htm. "Why did the other gorillas fail to pass the mirror test? There are a number of possible explanations, including their age, rearing histories and social situation, their individual sensitivity to anesthesia, or lack of motivation. There may also have been methodological problems, as at least two of the subjects touched the mark before exposure to the mirror. However, a more likely explanation is that the gorillas were inhibited by the presence of unfamiliar observers. Primatologists who have worked closely with gorillas have long been aware that the presence of strangers can profoundly affect gorilla behavior, and this has been our experience as well. In certain situations Koko and Michael show a sensitivity to being watched even by familiar companions. Ironically, it may have been the gorillas' very capacity for self-consciousness that prevented them from exhibiting behaviors indicative of self-recognition in the test situation." Koko, a particular gorilla passes, whereas others don't. Just saying that some animal fails the mirror test based on a few specimens is a sweeping generalization. As humans are so diverse in ability, I'm sure that there are some humans who will always fail the mirror test. Also, ignoring the mirror doesn't necessarily mean that the animal doesn't recognize its own reflection although it doesn't mean that the animal recognizes its own reflection either. Simfish 03:49, 2 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "Also, ignoring the mirror doesn't necessarily mean that the animal doesn't recognize its own reflection although it doesn't mean that the animal recognizes its own reflection either."


 * That just about sums up the point that I was trying to make. The whole concept of the mirror test makes certain assumptions that are pretty baseless.  We can no more know what's going on in the head of a dog or a cat than we can in a mute, illiterate human.  Though, I think most people would agree it's pretty silly to believe that all adult dogs don't understand the concept of a reflection in a mirror.  After all, when dogs see something behind their own reflection in the mirror, they do turn around and look behind them.  All the mirror test seems to prove is that apes care more about their outward appearance than dogs do.


 * My point that the sort of "self-awareness" we connect with higher levels of thinking is a much more abstract concept having little if anything to do with the awareness of one's body parts or the ability to recognize one's reflection in a mirror or pool of water still stands. You say that the mirror test is considered very significant as an indicator of self-awareness; I'm not arguing with that.  I'm merely pointing out that it's asinine to consider it 'significant' or relevant in any way at all.  Interesting, certainly, but not significant or relevant.  What is significant, is that the people performing the mirror test seem to think an animal's performance has something to do with the kind of "self-awareness" we connect with higher levels of thinking -- my own theory on the matter is that the people who designed the test don't have this sort of self-awareness, and so test for the closest approximation of it that they do possess.  The mirror test seems, to me at least, to say a lot more about the humans who designed it and use it than the non-humans who take it. --Corvun 08:45, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Major cleanup
I have had yet another go at turning this page into something worthy of Wikipedia. I have removed the following large chunk of material from it. This material is all either and much of it suffers from several of these problems.
 * covered in animal cognition
 * irrelevant to an article on animal intelligence
 * low quality (naive accounts of experiments that are contentious and hard to interpret)
 * journalistic rather than encyclopaedic
 * just plain wrong

Beginning of cut material:

Why do we study animals to learn about their intelligence?
The main purpose of animal intelligence study is to learn about the origins of humans' intelligence by studying the mental processes of species perceived as lower. In order to understand how humans became "smart" we need to understand the processes of association and learning in other animals and how they may have led to our development of art, religion or mathematics. From the study of animal behavior, knowledge can be gained about the events that constitute a learning experience. The knowledge can be applied to other areas of learning and experience in relation to intelligence. Also, we can distinguish animal learning processes from human. For example, the way in which a task is presented to a subject may elicit a different response indicating a different kind of intelligence. Finally, we can study learning processes without the use of man's ability to communicate with an elaborate symbol system or language.

Case studies of intelligent animals
The level of intelligence in animals is commonly represented as a ladder with each species occupying a different rung. Humans are at the top while lower species occupy the successively lower rungs. Researchers are now discovering that humans aren't the only animals that are self-aware. When anesthetized a red dot was painted somewhere on the face of the animal being tested. Of all the animals painted, humans, chimpanzees, and orangutans were the only animals that were aware that the image being presented through a mirror was them. They also realized that when the red dot was touched on their own face, so was the dot in the image and they responded. Therefore self-awareness can not be used to sufficiently state that humans are different from other animals. A Dr. Kuczaj is performing studies trying to see if any other animals such as dolphins or parrots exhibit self-awareness when placed in front of a mirror too. Daniel J. Povinelli is skeptical and believes that the chimpanzees and orangutans tested for self-awareness weren't necessarily seeing themselves; they were just applying the concept that the image in the mirror was significantly similar to them. This raises the question why did they believe that the image in the mirror was similar to them though? By chance if self-awareness doesn't make us different, then what does? Dr. Kuczaj believes that what differentiates us is our language and he thinks that our ability to communicate is what in effect makes us more intelligent.

Dr. Pepperburg is the owner of an African Grey Parrot named Alex. Alex is a unique parrot because of his ability to perform certain tasks at the level of a human child, such as answering questions regarding the shapes and colors of objects. Alex's abilities demonstrate a need for further study regarding the degrees to which animals possess intelligence.

According to Dr. Sally Boysen, the reason human intelligence differs from animal intelligence is the fact that our method of learning is different from other animals. She says that we are set apart because we purposefully transmit information from generation to generation, allowing each individual's contributions to become accessible to all.

The scientific community remains divided regarding whether animals possess intelligence; many researchers believe animals have no intelligence worth describing.

Do animals think or have a consciousness?
The first question brought up here is how consciousness is defined or measured.

One view is that animal consciousness is primarily a matter of philosophy (e.g. philosophy of mind or the concept of a person) rather than one to be determinated purely by experimentation.

Another view is that there is empirical evidence that animal minds are capable of conscious thought. First, the existence of language is under this view a good indication that the animal being communicated with has a consciousness. For example, Washoe is a chimp who has been taught American Sign Language. On one occasion, on her first sighting of a swan she signed water bird to the researchers. Kanzi is a pygmy chimp who can understand simple commands and questions. Koko the gorilla even went live on the internet and answered questions about her desire for a baby and her dreams of freedom. However, a computer program (which is not conscious) can answer simple questions and make apparently conscious statements.

Self-awareness is another indication. This means the animal realizes that they are separate from the world around them; they have the concept of me and the other beings. Third, there is evidence that some animals have a theory of mind, that is, understand that others have minds too.

As humans, we experience conscious thought and are able to make decisions based on circumstances. Are animals capable of doing this too, or do they rely strictly on instincts and mechanical responses to stimuli?

How do animals learn and how is their learning process similar to our own?
There are two main perspectives concerning animal learning and conditioning. The first focuses on the observed animals behaviors which will hopefully apply to the general population of animals outside the confines of the laboratory. It also has to do with training, which is simply a cause and effect relationship between events. The second perspective focuses on how animals learn through experience and relate events in their environment.

Learning is thinking about and understanding the origins or purposes of an experience. Conditioning is usually described as behavioral phenomena. When an animal responds to its environment in a new way it's due to the fact that its behavioral repertoire has undergone a permanent alteration. An animal can forget a learned behavior; however it will never be able to revert to its previous state of being.

For example, in Pavlov's experiments, the bell was the conditional stimulus (CS) and the food was the unconditional stimulus (UCS). Salivation due to the food was referred to as the unconditional response (UCR) and salivation due to the ringing of the ball was the conditional response (CR). Pavlov discovered that withholding the UCS led to gradual disappearance of the UCR. Pavlov was able to teach the dogs to respond like this because the animals were able to learn using instrumental learning through trial, error, and accidental success.

Another form of learning in animals is associative learning through causal relationships. A causal relationship means knowing an event can cause another event to occur or not occur. Animals learn best through associative learning when two events are accompanied by an unexpected or surprising occurrence. Also, exposure to a strong stimulus will cause more responsiveness, which is called sensitization.

One question raised by this is whether conscious thinking is involved in learning or if learning is strictly a stimulus response behavior in humans and animals. Also, it is not yet known if animals experience emotions as humans do and, if so, whether that has an effect on the learning process. In addition, an animal can grasp certain concepts in order to help facilitate their survival. They don't necessarily understand how the concept works, but they understand that it keeps them alive. This process works by the animal storing the situation, action and how the action was beneficial to their survival. This is so the action can be performed again in the future.

End of cut material. seglea 00:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Title
Wouldn't the title of this page be more accurate as "Non-human intelligence" or maybe "Non-human animal intelligence"? Technically, humans are animals too. Zh 28 June 2005 14:03 (UTC)
 * Technically, yes, that would be a more accurate title. But in reality the change is unnecessary and would be unhelpful.  By longstanding convention, "Animal" is frequently used to mean "Non-human animal" - especially in phrases of the form "Animal x" where "x" on its own would normally be taken to mean "Human x".  Everyone who studies animal intelligence calls it "Animal intelligence" in this way.  So renaming this page "Non-human intelligence" would merely make it harder to find, for the sake of pedantry. seglea 28 June 2005 18:32 (UTC)
 * "Everyone"? Also, see Naming conventions. As for being harder to find, see Redirect. Hyacinth 09:15, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, seriously, everyone - or everyone who is serious about it. Try looking at the titles of the learned journals in which research in this field is reported.  Wikipedia's naming conventions do not take precedence over the terminology of the relevant scientific discipline (nor, I might add, over common sense).  Nor should we be spawning redirects without a cause. seglea 20:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

a thought...
This is an awesome subject, and it would be great if this article was expanded and organized and dolled up a bit. ZacharyS 03:10, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

References list
References for Animal self-awareness and Mirror Self-recognition.

Anderson, J.R. and J.J. Roeder (1989) Responses of capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella) to different conditions of mirror-image stimulation. Primates, 30: 581–587.

De Veer, M.W. & van den Bos, R. (1999). A critical review of methodology and interpretation of mirror self-recognition research in nonhman primates. Animal Behaviour, 58, 459-468.

Gallup Jr, G.G. (1970). Chimpanzees: self-recognition. Science, 167, pp. 86–87.

Heyes, C. (1995). Self-recognition in mirrors: further reflections create a hall of mirrors. Anim. Behav. 50, pp. 1533–1542.

Heyes, C. (1994). Reflections on self-recognition in primates. Anim. Behav. 47, pp. 909–919.

Lethmate, J., and G. Ducker (1973) Self-recognition by orangutans and some other primates. Z.Tierpsychol., 33: 248–269.

Mitchell, R.W. (1997) Kinesthetic-Visual Matching and the Self-Concept as explanations of Mirror-Self-Recognition. (1997). Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 27, 17-39.

Parker, S. T., Mitchell, R. W., and Boccia, M. L. (eds.) (1994). Self-Awareness in Animals and Humans. Developmental Perspectives, Cambridge University Press, New York.

Patterson, 1984. F.G. Patterson, Self-recognition by Gorilla gorilla gorilla. Gorilla 7 (1984), pp. 2–3.

Patterson, F.G., and R.H. Cohn (1994) Self-recognition and self-awareness in lowland gorillas. In Self-awareness in Animals and Humans: Developmental Perspectives (ed. by S.T. Parker, R.W. Mitchell and M.L. Boccia), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 273–290.

Povinelli, 1989. D.J. Povinelli, Failure to find self-recognition in Asian elephants (Elephas maximus) in contrast to their use of mirror cues to discover hidden food. J. comp. Psychol. 103 (1989), pp. 122–131.

Povinelli, D.J., Gallup Jr., G.G., Eddy, T.J., Bierschwale, D.T., Engstrom, M.C., Perilloux, H.K., & Toxopeus, I.B. (1997). Chimpanzees recognize themselves in mirrors. Animal Behaviour, 53, 1083-1088.

Povinelli, Daniel J.; Rulf, Alyssa B.; Landau, Keli R.; Bierschwale, Donna T. (1993). Self-recognition in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes): Distribution, ontogeny, and patterns of emergence. Journal of Comparative Psychology,107, 347-372.

Povinelli, D.J., Rulf, A. R., Landau, K. R., & Bierschwale, D.T. (1993).Self-recognition in chimpanzees (Pan trogolodytes). J. comp. Psychol., pp. 347–372.

Reiss, D., and L. Marino (2001) Mirror self recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: a case of cognitive convergence. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 98: 5937–5942.

Riviello, M. C., Visalberghi, E., and Blasetti, A. (1993). Mirror responses in tufted capuchin monkeys (Cebus apella). Hystrix 4: 35–44.

Robert, 1986. S. Robert, Ontogeny of mirror behavior in two species of great apes. Am. J. Primatol. 10 (1986), pp. 109–117.

Suarez and Gallup (1981). Self-recognition in chimpanzees and orangutans, but not gorillas. J. hum. Evol. 10 (1981), pp. 175–188.

Swartz, K.B. & Evans, S. (1991). Not all chimpanzees show self-recognition. Primates, 32, pp. 483–496.

Thompson and Boatright-Horowitz, 1994. R.L. Thompson and S.L. Boatright-Horowitz, The question of mirror-mediated self-recognition in apes and monkeys: some new results and reservations. In: S.T. Parker, R.W. Mitchell and M.L. Boccia, Editors, Self-awareness in Animals and Humans, Cambridge University Press, New York (1994), pp. 330–349.

Tomasello, M., and Call, J. (1997). Primate Cognition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Walraven, V., L. van Elsacker, and R. Verheyen. (1995) Reactions of a group of pygmy chimpanzees to their mirror images: Evidence of self-recognition. Primates, 36: 145–150.

White Miles, H.L. (1994) Me Chantek: the development of self-awareness in a signing orangutan. In Self-awareness in Animals and Humans: Developmental Perspectives (ed. by S.T. Parker, R.W. Mitchell and M.L. Boccia), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 254–272.

Tool use
This article needs to mention tool use by animals, and there should be a page on that (tool use by animals) as well - couldn't find one. - Samsara contrib talk 05:42, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

"Relative Intelligence" and "Species considered intelligent": needs reworking
Added template SectOR.

I see what it's trying to say, but as it stands, this is a meaningless section.


 * Animals "considered intelligent" by whom?
 * By what objective standard?
 * Cited credibly where?
 * Counting which species? (A binary yes/no decision that presumably implies a cutoff that's also not stated?)

Because of these problems, as it stands, presence or absence on the current list is original research, the list itself cannot be verified objectively to be accurate, it lacks sources, and seems to be an unencyclopedic reflection of "what I think most people would say".

Likewise, who says crows have "near human intelligence"? How credible is such a statement, really? They may well have abilities in many areas humans have abilities, but still, this seems an opinion rather than verified fact. The section itself comments that this is subjective but no citations are given. As written, it seems to also imply that much of this is based upon some kind of vote of "what many people in many cultures think".

None the less, a list of some kind, by some standard, could be useful, but it will need credible research. may I suggest as a format:
 * Species which pass the mirror test for self awareness, use tools in the wild, or solve complex problems
 * This captures the dolphins, great apes and so on. But also captures ants and porcupines, which seem to use tools too.


 * Species which possess problem solving or learning skills to the point of human social utility
 * This captures dogs, and horses for example


 * Other animals known to possess notable problem solving or cognitive skills:
 * Birds? Squirrels? Unsure.

and so on. Then next to each species, sample their abilities, and give sources.

I'm not sure the best format, as it stands though its not good content.

FT2 (Talk) 21:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reptile Cognition
Alright someone needs to write upon this. Reptiles are the only animal group lacking any articles dedicated on them on intelligence for Wikipedia. This is quite unusual especially considering the fact that non-avian reptiles are generally considered the third most intelligent group of animals after birds and mammals. Recent articles and more research which has surfaced implies a much higher level of cognition than previously believed, especially in the case of Varanids and Salvators. On account of personal business it wouldn't be particularly convenient for me to write an entire article until some time later although if within the next few months no further development is made I suppose I will get working on it.

Information for anyone attempting to make an article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LWTITUgDcmU&t=320s https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17899226 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21604857 http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Six-Studies-On-Reptile-Intelligence/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlHjYi6YnnY https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/amazing-social-life-of-green-iguana/ Side note: Many anecdotal evidence that can be found throughout Google and Youtube demonstrating high intelligence on Salvator Merianae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2848:F5C8:C162:8457:EA3E:698B (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)