This is higher learning?

The media were abuzz this week with the "news" that a new study from Oxford University "proved" that dogs are smarter than cats.

But what is the truth of the matter?

Let's start with the actual abstract of the article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America:

Encephalization is not a universal macroevolutionary phenomenon in mammals but is associated with sociality
by Susanne Shultz and Robin Dunbar
Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

Evolutionary encephalization, or increasing brain size relative to body size, is assumed to be a general phenomenon in mammals. However, despite extensive evidence for variation in both absolute and relative brain size in extant species, there have been no explicit tests of patterns of brain size change over evolutionary time. Instead, allometric relationships between brain size and body size have been used as a proxy for evolutionary change, despite the validity of this approach being widely questioned. Here we relate brain size to appearance time for 511 fossil and extant mammalian species to test for temporal changes in relative brain size over time. We show that there is wide variation across groups in encephalization slopes across groups and that encephalization is not universal in mammals. We also find that temporal changes in brain size are not associated with allometric relationships between brain and body size. Furthermore, encephalization trends are associated with sociality in extant species. These findings test a major underlying assumption about the pattern and process of mammalian brain evolution and highlight the role sociality may play in driving the evolution of large brains.

Now, let's analyze this.

The Oxford University web site clarifies the fact that the research team "examined the growth rates of the brain size relative to body size to see if there were any changes in the proportions over time. The growth rates of each mammal group were compared with other mammal groups to see what patterns emerged."

Thus, the study perpetuates the concept of measuring intelligence by "brain size relative to body size". My question is, how in the world would the relative sizes correspond to actual intelligence? How is that supposed to mean anything? Does it mean that a tall or fat human is not as intelligent as a short or thin human?

(If you want a physical measure to "prove" intelligence, what about the fact that cats have 300 million neurons in their cerebral cortex [the "thinking" part of the brain] and dogs have only 160 million neurons? Not that I'm about to support the idea that actual intelligence derives from such physical measures, but scientists do it all the time, so maybe one of them could try to explain why "brain size relative to body size" could be a better measure of intelligence than the number of actual neurons in the brain.)

This study also tracks relative increases in brain size in various species on an evolutionary time scale. At Care2.com, Jake Richardson makes a good point:

For this study, the focus on physical brain measurements depends upon the assumption that an increase in brain size on a evolutionary time scale indicates dogs are smarter than cats. However, there is another assumption involved — that dogs and cats started off with equal intelligence, and dogs increased. Even if dogs and cats millions of years ago had the same size brains, does that mean they were of equal intelligence? It’s possible cats were smarter then, and still smarter now, but have smaller, more efficient brains. What is more likely given that evolution seems to reward creatures with adaptability and diverse skill sets, is that dog and cat intelligences are different, and comparing them is much more complex than simply measuring physical brain size.

There's another factor that needs to be questioned in this study. The study correlates increase in brain size over centuries with "sociality", which is defined in a somewhat circular manner as 'The state or quality of being sociable'. The trouble here is double: how do you define 'being sociable' in terms of behavior in different species, and how do you objectively measure it?

There is no question that dogs have social interactions in ways that are compatible with human perceptions. Cats behave differently, and people are societally trained to believe that cats are aloof, independent, and loners. But careful observation of cats will reveal that they are very sociable animals. Any veterinarian should be able to tell you that in multi-cat households, the cats form their own societal structure. They can be very affectionate toward each other as well as toward humans. I have observed cats comfort a sick cat, and mourn the death of another cat. I have two cats who will each bring me a toy to initiate a game of fetch or some other game.

No one will ever convince me that cats are not social animals, because that would require me to deny years of experience. Just as no one will ever convince me that intelligence is dependent on brain size.

I'm with Mr. Richardson on this one: each species has its own unique way of expressing its intelligence. Unfortunately, the mass media like the easy headline. It's a shame the easy headline has to originate from an institution of higher learning.

The Search for Intelligent Life...

In today's Washington Post we learn that 19 radio telescope observatories and other facilities in 13 countries worked in coordination with each other to search for intelligent life on other planets.

They didn't find it and they won't find it.

I'm not saying that there can't be life on other planets. Simple mathematic probability says there must be. But it's not going to be more humans, or even humans with cute cosmetic differences like pointy ears or walnut shells on their foreheads. They will be completely different forms of life, with completely different forms of communication that will go completely unrecognized.

Much like the communication methods of the numerous animal societies that share our own planet with us.

I know, I have reported on breakthroughs in recognizing animal languages in past posts. But research in this area is still in its primitive stages. Considering how long we've had to observe our fellow creatures, this state of affairs is... well, discouraging, but promising, even if progress seems too slow.

There are even many in the "scientific" community that actively resist the notions of animal intelligence and languages.

And at the same time millions of dollars are wasted looking for human communication coming from unattainable other planets.

Does this make sense to anyone?

If We Could Talk to the Animals...

A little music for a Thursday...



Something interesting about that song is that it consistently refers to talking in each animal's own language: "Can you speak rhinocerous? Of courcerous!" It's pretty cool that a song writer would have that perspective when so often researchers aim to get animals speaking in a human language.

One well-documented example of the latter was the project involving Vicki, "the talking chimp". After much training, the researchers were able to get Vicki to approximate three words: Mama, Papa, and Cup. She did this with great difficulty and signs of stress, and had to use her hands to help her mouth form the "p" sound. The results were akin to getting a dog to say "I love you" or "mama"--you could imagine that the words were being said, but it does take imagination.

The failure to get the chimp to talk led to the myth of the "language instinct", that supposedly only humans have. But while a chimp can't speak English, it is plain that chimps can comprehend a spoken human language. This comprehension reveals that the animals do have language abilities. The inability to speak in a human language is the result of different physical aspects of their bodies, not underdeveloped minds.

More enlightened researchers, such as primatologist Dr Katja Liebal, believe that chimps have their own complex system of communication, and it is up to us to try to understand. Liebal is compiling a dictionary of the chimpanzee language, which uses gestures, facial expressions, and physical displays. She says that chimpanzees have a complex communicative system--even though they can't speak English.

Still, people prefer sameness. Earlier this year, much was made of a short film showing a bonobo chimp shaking her head to indicate "no". I was surprised at this, because I didn't think this was a great revelation. Even my cats will shake their heads to indicate "no". I suppose I should set up a camera and send a video of the cats to the BBC...

Chickens on Thursday

A few fun and interesting videos for a Thursday...

It seems that it's not all that uncommon for brooding chickens to 'babysit' kittens. Here's a chicken with two eggs and two kittens in her nest:



The maker of this video says that the momma cat put her kittens in the chicken's box so she (the cat) could take a break:



There's also a photo of the kittens finally asleep with the chicken here.

In this video, two chickens seem to be intent on preventing two rabbits from fighting:



And finally, for now, a little look at a motion-feedback stabilization system (aka, a chicken):

A Voice for the Big Cats

Alan Rabinowitz is a naturalist who, as a child who stuttered so severely that he couldn't speak at all, made a pledge to an aging jaguar at the Bronx Zoo to become a voice for all the world's big cats.

With no professional help available for his stuttering, he discovered he could talk to animals, and he would sequester himself in his bedroom closet with apartment-compatible pets, and talk to them. "The animals didn't judge me. The animals had no expectations. The animals just let me be who I was." And their inability to talk to him made him feel closer to them. "They didn't have a voice, either."

At the zoo, Rabinowitz gravitated to the big cats. He remembers a tiger, locked in a cage the way he felt locked in his own head. And an old female jaguar who looked sad and broken, the way he felt.

"I swore to the animals that if I could ever find my voice, I would be their voice." he recalled. He reasoned that if animals could make themselves understood, people would treat them a whole lot better than they do.

Rabinowitz did learn to conquer his stutter, and he did remember his promise.

He is now president and CEO of Panthera, an organization active in preserving all wild cats. Rabinowitz takes an extremely wise, long-range approach to preservation: seeking ways for humans and big cats to co-exist in the same areas.

Rabinowitz tells his story and more in this interview with professional smart-ass Stephen Colbert:

The Colbert Report
Alan Rabinowitz

A Challenge to See "White Lion..."

This one will be tough, but undoubtedly worth it. Kevin Richardson's movie, "White Lion... Home is a Journey" opens today (October 15) in just 3 cities in the US: Memphis, St. Louis, and Louisville.



Professional movie reviewers are giving it a middling reaction, saying that it's not action-filled enough, but at the same time they say that it is a beautiful movie and emotionally powerful. That means more to me than overblown action sequences.

The story is told from the perspective of an old man recounting the tale of the young Shangaan boy, Gisani, and his adventures protecting a rare white lion, a messenger of the gods in his cultural lore.

We then see the story of the white lion, Letsatsi, unfold with remarkable close-ups of the lions that portray him and the other animals he encounters. Letatsi is forced from his pride, learns to hunt, and returns to his territory fully grown and ready to claim his due — all the while being stalked by hunters eager to bag such a rare trophy.

Kevin Richardson is depending on this movie's success to support the animals at his Kingdom of the White Lion in Africa. So, every ticket you buy will support the animals you see in the film.

One reviewer made this puzzling statement, without any explanation: Not recommended if you can recall Kimba the White Lion? I wonder what that means? I have been looking forward to this movie since I first heard about it. The trade magazine Variety predicts that this movie will not get a general theatrical release in the US. I hope they're wrong (in 1977, no one thought Star Wars was worth a wide theatrical release). Grab the chance to see it when you can.

What Does It Take to Change People's Perceptions?

As part of its campaign to raise awareness and funds for gibbon conservation, the International Primate Protection League (UK), together with naturalist Bill Oddie, is re-releasing The Goodies’ hit 1975 single "The Funky Gibbon". The track has been re-mastered to include real gibbon sounds.

The music video to accompany the song was only just filmed on October 21. When it is released, I will include it or link to it here.

Since the music video isn't released yet, the clip below is obviously old. But it will give you an idea of the song. The Goodies (Bill Oddie, Tim Brooke-Taylor, and Graham Garden) were an amazingly funny comedy team and, of the dozens of songs they recorded, "The Funky Gibbon" was their biggest chart success. I'm sure the re-released version will do well, but will it make people think, or care, about real gibbons?

More Myths, and Their Outcomes

Here's an interesting little fact: Animal control officers across the country have told the ASPCA that when they alert the media to a dog attack, news outlets respond that they have no interest in reporting on the incident unless it involved a pit bull.

Now, if every time you hear of a dog attack, it involves a pit bull dog, what does that do to your perception of pit bulls?

And in Denver Colorado, this perception has led to a long-standing complete ban on the breed. This ban has survived numerous legal challenges.

Apparently no one ever told the lawmakers or the judges that the breed most responsible for dog bites in Colorado is the Labrador. (And apparently none of those people in power ever bothered to research the issue.)

Mixed up in this mess is the emerging tendency (also reported by the ASPCA) for all short-haired, stocky dogs to be called pit bulls.

Amelia Glynn points out (in her Tails of the City blog) that "nearly every time a pit-bull-attack story appears in the news, it ignites new fervor for breed-specific legislation. However, the mass banning of specific breeds has been shown to be ineffectual when it comes to dog-bite prevention."

BUT... Once you get one breed-specific law on the books, it becomes incredibly easy to add new breeds to the ban.

AND... Certain very powerful and very active so-called "animal rights" organizations have stated that it is their goal to end ALL pet ownership...

Not By Instinct

So much of any animal's mental life and social life goes unrecognized that the myth of instinct was created to explain animal behavior. The myth is such a powerful and convenient replacement for reality that it is going to take a long, long time to replace it with real observations.

Here is one good place to start: What could be more "instinctual" than swinging from a tree branch, for an ape? But look at the orangutans at Ouwehands Dierenpark Rhenen, a zoo in The Netherlands. They had been kept in a low, simple cage that allowed no such activity as swinging from a branch. And when the zoo upgraded their enclosure, they didn't know how to do this quintessential ape maneuver.

So the zoo hired an Olympic gymnast, Epke Zonderland, to teach the orangutans how to swing from branches.

In their natural homes, orangutans rarely are found on the ground, but these had been forced to live on the ground in their old cage. When the zoo moved them to the new enclosure, with 30-foot-high trees, they seemed to not only not know what to do, they even seemed a bit afraid of the trees.

When this story was reported elsewhere, some labeled the orangutans as "lazy". But in reality this shows just how much of what can seem to be "instinctive" in an animal really depends on socialization--learning behavior from others.

Two Additional Points

An article in yesterday's Washington Post brought up two points I should have included in my previous post about The Lost Dogs...

1.
Both the Humane Society of the United States and PETA called for Vick's dogs to be killed. Not rescued. Not rehabilitated. Killed. Always remember those two names, and what they really want to do.

2.
Most of the dogs were gentle but suffering from second-hand trauma--that is, they were aware of what was happening to other dogs, and it scared the hell out of them. Further proof of animals' intelligence and emotional sensitivity.