Talk:Theory of mind in animals

More critters?
Fun article! Two questions: 1) Is theory of mind demonstrated by an animal appearing to recognize itself in a mirror?  (And should that be added to the article?)  2)  Does any of this material on horses look suitable here? recognizing human emotions, learning to recognize human body cues? Montanabw (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have seen it suggested that the mirror test indicates theory of mind, but others have criticised this. I felt the criticisms out-weighed the proponents, but I will look at it again.
 * Regarding horses. The first ref shows that horses can recognise emotions in humans, but parsimoniously, we would need to know that the horses understand what the emotion is.  Otherwise, the horse could simply be categorising faces into "A" or "B" without understanding A is what humans call "anger", and B is what humans call "happy". The second ref shows that horses are extremely good "behaviour readers" but does not show they are "mind-readers".  The authors themselves state "Horses are only able to use cues that provide stimulus enhancement (see here Social learning in animals) and this skill is present at a relatively early age.
 * DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's interesting, that's for sure. I was thinking about the dogs-stealing-food example.  I do think that "mind-reading" is maybe not the best choice of words, as it implies ESP which is not what I think we are talking about here.  Montanabw (talk)  00:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not my favourite term either, but it is quite widely used by highly respected scientists in the field (e.g. Celia Heyes) so I have used it if people want to do further research. DrChrissy (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Tagging?
Not sure why this article got tag-bombed (Earwig tool not working real well at the moment) but can the tag-bomber  please note where you think the problem areas are? Montanabw (talk) 20:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Montanabw. The two tags actually do mean different things - I was using the non-free tag as a not-so-drastic alternative to copyvio (to avoid blanking the whole article), whereas close paraphrasing indicates too-close rephrasing rather than direct copying. Is there a single tag that would encapsulate both issues? Also, just FYI, Earwig's tool will be offline indefinitely because of this issue. As to your question, IMO the article has enough copying / close paraphrasing that an extensive rewrite is required. For example:
 * Compare the "In goats" section with the abstract here
 * Compare the "Competitive feeding paradigm" section with the third page of this PDF
 * Compare the last paragraph of "Chimpanzees" with the abstract here
 * Compare the second paragraph of "Ravens" with this (paywalled) source (if you want a copy email me or post to WP:RX)
 * Compare the third paragraph of "In dogs" with the abstract here
 * Etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'll try to see if I can do some rewording without looking at the source material at all, sometimes that can fix things. Give me a couple hours from this post to see if I helped it any.   Montanabw (talk)  07:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "In goats" section re-phrased. DrChrissy (talk) 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "In dogs" section re-phrased. DrChrissy (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "In ravens" section re-phrased. DrChrissy (talk) 14:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Chimpanzee" section re-phrased. DrChrissy (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Competitive feeding paradigm" section re-phrased. DrChrissy (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, no, they're not - that paraphrasing is still way too close. Let's look for example at the "In goats" material:
 * Article: Like some NHPs, goats live in fission-fusion societies. They form associations such as coalitions and alliances. They also reconcile after fights. Using the competitive feeding approach, a dominant and a subordinate goat compete for food, but in some cases the subordinate can see things that the dominant can not. In circumstances where dominants can only see one piece of food but subordinates can see both, the subordinate's preferences depend on whether they received aggression from the dominant animal during the study. Goats who received aggression prefer the hidden over the visible piece of food. In contrast, goats who never receive aggression prefer the visible piece of food. In this way, goats who have not received aggression get more food than the other goats.
 * Source: Like chimpanzees and some other nonhuman primates, goats live in fission-fusion societies, form coalitions and alliances, and are known to reconcile after fights. In the current study, a dominant and a subordinate individual competed for food, but in some cases the subordinate could see things that the dominant could not. In the condition where dominants could only see one piece of food but subordinates could see both, subordinates’ preferences depended on whether they received aggression from the dominant animal during the experiment. Subjects who received aggression preferred the hidden over the visible piece of food, whereas subjects who never received aggression significantly preferred the visible piece. By using this strategy, goats who had not received aggression got significantly more food than the other goats.
 * While some minor rephrasing has been done, the two remain almost identical. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok - I give up. You have just lost the project a highly productive editor. I hope that your protection of the project in this way was worth it. DrChrissy (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That isn't necessary. I'm not questioning your good faith - people struggle with adequate paraphrasing, it happens, and it's a skill to learn. But yes, it is important to avoid too-close paraphrasing. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am going to make a very strong suggestion: Just this once, fix it yourself.  I have been where  is, and sometimes the original writer simply cannot find a way out of the woods. You clearly have put a lot of time into reviewing the source material to find these problems, so perhaps instead of wasting talk page bandwidth you could actually fix the problem and in doing so, illustrate you points.  Frankly, you would win a lot of goodwill from other editors if you did so, including me, because you happen to be the queen of pointing out problems but you seldom can be arsed to fix them.  Montanabw (talk)  18:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

For anyone reading this thread, you might think that by retiring I have over-reacted to tagging this article. The truth is actually that this user has requested an investigation of my editing over at WP:CCI (see my Talk page for the link). This is an extremely serious accusation to be making against another editor. This request for a formal investigation has happened without the slightest attempt to open dialogue with myself about Nikkimaria's opinions as to whether my paraphrasing is "too close" or not - note, this is a judgement call. How about a note to my Talk page - "DrChrissy, I have noted that some of your editing appears, in my humble opinion, to be close paraphrasing. Please can we discuss this?" Furthermore, Nikkimaria has tagged articles without giving any indication of where they think there is a copyright concern. How uncollegiate is that? In my opinion, if an editor notices something that could bring the project into disrepute, they are morally obliged to fix it, or at the very least indicate where in the article the problems may exist. A possible consequence of the investigation is that I will be indefinitely site blocked. Reading the "rules", Nikkimaria was under no obligation to open discussion with me, but this is such uncollegiate behaviour I have been seriously considering raising an ANI. And now I see that on this page Nikkimaria has attempted to rewrite sections. The section on goats now inaccurately reflects what the scientists were discussing. In terms of the subject matter (theory of mind), the section is now utter rubbish. DrChrissy (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to raise an ANI if you wish, but please be aware that it may boomerang since, as you note, previous discussion is not required for CCIs. You are also welcome to try to change that practice if you wish. Note also that CCI is not a forum for user sanction - users are not typically blocked, never mind indef-blocked, simply for having CCIs filed or opened.
 * One of the purposes of CCI is to allow others to weigh in on whether or not someone's paraphrasing is "too close" or not, taking it out of the realm of a single person's judgement. Obviously my opinion is known; others there may disagree. But if you're going to speak of moral obligation... it wouldn't be possible for me alone to go through all the articles you have written or edited to check for potential issues, so another purpose of CCI is to allow that work to be distributed among multiple editors, ensuring that issues are fixed more quickly. In the interim, tagging alerts others to a pervasive problem with this article.
 * Montanabw has requested above that I attempt to address the concerns I have raised here. If in your opinion my efforts have resulted in inaccuracies in the article, please feel free to point those out here. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Also pinging Moonriddengirl who noted paraphrasing issues last year. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is clearly WP:Canvassing and thereby also excludes Moonriddengirl from commenting objectively in any future investigation of me that you have requested at WP:CCI. This is going to be a lot of work for someone to go through the 60+ articles I have created...yet you provided only 4 diffs when you requested the investigation. DrChrissy (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Five examples were required, I provided six, including this article (which has multiple instances with various sources, as noted above). And no, it doesn't, but this conversation is getting off-topic for this page. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

User:DrChrissy, it is never comfortable to have one's work challenged, but when there are legitimate reasons for concern it may be necessary. The goal is to evaluate if there are issues and address them as quickly as possible. I am an administrator on Wikipedia who works on copyright - in fact, I initiated the CCI process. As you were told when you suggested in 2015 that User:Jytdog and I were collaborating because he pinged me, this is the area where I work. Beyond that, Nikkimaria plainly explained her pinging me as related to my prior interaction with paraphrase issues on your part. If you believe that in spite of this, my involvement is inappropriate, you may certainly bring up the question at WP:AN.

In a quick review, I can see that there is content that either needs to be removed or for which permission must be verified. For instance, unless you are in position to follow the processes at Donating copyrighted materials, content in Consumer demand tests (animals) that is duplicated from must be removed. If you are in position, please go ahead and do so. Duplication there is extensive and verbatim in the examples section. For instance, without examining the entire article, I see:

That's just an example. There are other sentences also duplicated.

In Wallowing in animals, I see some duplicated and closely paraphrased material from the book The Ethology of Domestic Animals: An Introductory Text. For example:

I did not evaluate the text after finding this area, which is clearly a problem. I selected the passage at random; other areas may also be problematic. Again, if license can be verified, it needs to be. If is not, all content copied or closely paraphrased from that or other sources needs to be removed.

In 2013, you created the article Cobthorn Trust, which included the following content similar to this site:

The text has evolved, but continues to closely paraphrase the source. It has been tagged as a copyright problem since March 2015. I haven't evaluated the rest of the article.

These all constitute issues under copyright policy and plagiarism guideline. CCI is the best process we have for finding such issues and repairing them, as content that we cannot verify to be free for use must be removed. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct in stating that having one's work challenged is uncomfortable, but what makes this worse is that your challenges are now being made very public on the Talk page of a mainspace article. This is the wrong place for such challenges and extremely humiliating for me.  Your posting has nothing whatsoever to do with the content of the article and therefore does not belong here.  The correct place to raise these challenges is either at WP:CCI or on my talk page.  I would be grateful if you moved your posting above to one of those other pages and arranged to have it redacted from this Talk page. DrChrissy (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Alex
By coincidence, the article Alex (parrot) was the #3 article yesterday, being read by about quarter of a million people – I'm not sure why. Anyway, as this case is quite relevant, I have added a section. Andrew D. (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Propose rewrite of lead
The lead in this article may cause confusion as to whether the abbreviation ToM is intended to apply to generic Theory of mind, about which the following comma-delimited clarification applies, or if it is intended to carry the in animals portion when used later in the article. Much of the rest of the lead, which appears to have been copied from the Theory of mind article's lead, is hard to interpret as applying to non-human animals as well.

Your comments please? I don't have access to the cited references. Is this too much WP:OR or WP:Synthesis?  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  20:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Your re-write of the lead looks good to me. I don't believe it is OR or Synth because it is summarising what is said in the main article.  We could possibly use the abbreviation ToMA (Theory of Mind in Animals) to distinguish this from theory of mind in humans, although this might suggest we are arguing they are different - I am not entirely convinced they are.  Other comments are welcome. DrChrissy (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Assuming this passes for consensus, I'll make the proposed change.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  06:05, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Extension
The article starts with stating that, "Theory of mind in animals is an extension to non-human animals of the philosophical and psychological concept of theory of mind (ToM)". But in fact the whole concept 'theory of mind' was invented (or discovered) by ethologists studying chimpanzees. So from the start ToM was searched for in both humans and non-humans. Therefore I think the sentence is slightly misleading. Bever (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Animals
Shouldn't the title specify *non-human* animals? 2600:1700:5531:3810:12C9:EC2F:C652:B6CD (talk) 20:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: See article history. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  09:51, 23 August 2022 (UTC)