There is a world somewhere between reality and fiction. Although ignored by many, it is very real and so are those living in it. This forum is about the natural world. Here, wild animals will be heard and respected. The forum offers a glimpse into an unknown world as well as a room with a view on the present and the future. Anyone able to speak on behalf of those living in the emerald forest and the deep blue sea is invited to join.
01-20-2019, 01:35 AM( This post was last modified: 01-20-2019, 06:44 AM by Rishi )
(01-20-2019, 01:14 AM)Shadow Wrote:
(01-20-2019, 01:05 AM)Amnon242 Wrote: I have noticed that many times
"that is why it is important to put all sources for everyone to see" vs. "Source was a distant memory from many threads" vs. "Feel free to serch from youtube threads for instance" vs. "I have noticed that many times"
:-)
If you mean, when I said, that I have seen some people to say, that tigers are 16% smarter because they have 16% bigger brain volume, I made a slight mistake, I hope, that you can forgive me Here is one example about it what people claim... but here it was actually 25% :) But I don´t like to see too many times that kind of nonsense, so if you are more interested what kind of claims people time to time make, seek yourself :)
[/quote]
And whats in the video? Is there an opinion that "tigers are 25% smarter because they have 25% larger brain"? :-) btw 25% larger brain is wrong information, but thats not the issue...
And ok, all I wanted was just a source...as you said"that is why it is important to put all sources for everyone to see". So even if the content of the video corresponds with your refference to "opinions" you should just give the source insted of beaving like a teenage girl during her time of the month :-) But thank you, you finally did what I wanted you to do (assuming that the content of the video really corresponds to "opinion" in question) :-)
Another point is that the opinion "tiger is x% smarter because he has x% larger brain" isprobably gross simplification (although the opinion "larger brain means higher intelligence" has some ratio). But if you say thing like "...And I am happy, that it is just distance memory" or " But I don´t like to see too many times that kind of nonsense" than you should have not made a refference to it :-)
01-20-2019, 01:41 AM( This post was last modified: 01-20-2019, 06:37 AM by Rishi )
(01-20-2019, 01:35 AM)Amnon242 Wrote:
(01-20-2019, 01:14 AM)Shadow Wrote: If you mean, when I said, that I have seen some people to say, that tigers are 16% smarter because they have 16% bigger brain volume, I made a slight mistake, I hope, that you can forgive me Here is one example about it what people claim... but here it was actually 25% :) But I don´t like to see too many times that kind of nonsense, so if you are more interested what kind of claims people time to time make, seek yourself :)
And whats in the video? Is there an opinion that "tigers are 25% smarter because they have 25% larger brain"? :-) btw 25% larger brain is wrong information, but thats not the issue...
And ok, all I wanted was just a source...as you said"that is why it is important to put all sources for everyone to see". So even if the content of the video corresponds with your refference to "opinions" you should just give the source insted of beaving like a teenage girl during her time of the month :-) But thank you, you finally did what I wanted you to do (assuming that the content of the video really correspond to "opinion" in question) :-)
Another point is that the opinion "tiger is x% smarter because he has x% larger brain" isprobably gross simplification (although the opinion "larger brain means higher intelligence" has some ratio). But if you say thing like "...And I am happy, that it is just distance memory" or " But I don´t like to see too many times that kind of nonsense" than you should have not made a refference to it :-)
Ok, maybe we could now focus to seek information again :) I think, that I have put here quite many reports and videos for anyone to see and read, you can do the same. Of course people have different opinions time to time, it is not so dangerous. Some people find some studies interesting and some not, it is just how it is, nothing more :)
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • Rishi
Of course the study is just an investigation, isn't conclusive and is debatable. What we need is more studies like this testing the intelligence of these animals.
But i managed to find a full copy of the study (on Borrego's universitys site) and found that it is extremely questionable.
I thought it was weird that she states that here that there was no difference in exploratory behavior.
"Additionally, within Panthera, we did not observe a link between sociality and exploration. Although lions displayed the greatest exploratory diversity, they did not significantly differ from tigers and leopards (Fig. 4). In agreement with findings in other species, sociality was linked to lowered neophobia but not to exploratory behaviour"
But in the articles it was very highlighted as if that is why lions are smarter. Many people i see got fooled by that. What is going on?
Now here
"As expected, successful individuals spent a significantly higher proportion of time actively working on the puzzle-box. Once again, our overall statistical hypothesis, that innovative problem solving differs among species, was supported, and we observed a significant difference persistence among species. Social species spent the greatest proportion of time working on the puzzle-box."
Wow, so is now working more on the puzzle box now all of a sudden equals to intelligence? So if a tiger is laxy, doesn't care (which she stated here: https://youtu.be/I4v8ydPmuzA?t=700
That the tigers are more relaxed and slow about their movements. And seems to be posted earlier in this thread, a few clips of tigers attempted to open boxes but not being interested in them at all.
You may say this is the reason why the few number of tigers used (7), haven't open the box a lot of the times. Because they simple don't care.
And what in particular is suppose to show that the animal really understands and has cognitive abilities more than the other? Is it understanding the problem, and with further trials remembering and understanding the box problem, solving it in a quicker time eventually to solving it instantly, or just merely "getting" it open the first trial counts as opening the boxes (which apparently Bengali the tiger opened it one time on his first trial and he was placed as solving the problem).
She doesn't mention any of this in her study, actual time during the trial or how it even proves intelligence
Far from a measure of intelligence.. sorry Borrego.
08-02-2019, 01:46 PM( This post was last modified: 08-02-2019, 03:24 PM by Shadow )
This is one interview of Dr. Natalia Borrego. I find it interesting to see interviews of animal experts and watch what they say and how. It gives some background, when reading studies and seeing some tests. Interesting to see, when she gets some new study ready. As she has said, her research about big cat intelligence is ongoing, not ready yet and not anytime soon. Nice that she and some others are doing that research.
08-02-2019, 06:38 PM( This post was last modified: 08-02-2019, 07:00 PM by Shadow )
(08-02-2019, 01:01 PM)RakeshMondal Wrote: Of course the study is just an investigation, isn't conclusive and is debatable. What we need is more studies like this testing the intelligence of these animals.
But i managed to find a full copy of the study (on Borrego's universitys site) and found that it is extremely questionable.
I thought it was weird that she states that here that there was no difference in exploratory behavior.
"Additionally, within Panthera, we did not observe a link between sociality and exploration. Although lions displayed the greatest exploratory diversity, they did not significantly differ from tigers and leopards (Fig. 4). In agreement with findings in other species, sociality was linked to lowered neophobia but not to exploratory behaviour"
But in the articles it was very highlighted as if that is why lions are smarter. Many people i see got fooled by that. What is going on?
Now here
"As expected, successful individuals spent a significantly higher proportion of time actively working on the puzzle-box. Once again, our overall statistical hypothesis, that innovative problem solving differs among species, was supported, and we observed a significant difference persistence among species. Social species spent the greatest proportion of time working on the puzzle-box."
Wow, so is now working more on the puzzle box now all of a sudden equals to intelligence? So if a tiger is laxy, doesn't care (which she stated here: https://youtu.be/I4v8ydPmuzA?t=700
That the tigers are more relaxed and slow about their movements. And seems to be posted earlier in this thread, a few clips of tigers attempted to open boxes but not being interested in them at all.
You may say this is the reason why the few number of tigers used (7), haven't open the box a lot of the times. Because they simple don't care.
And what in particular is suppose to show that the animal really understands and has cognitive abilities more than the other? Is it understanding the problem, and with further trials remembering and understanding the box problem, solving it in a quicker time eventually to solving it instantly, or just merely "getting" it open the first trial counts as opening the boxes (which apparently Bengali the tiger opened it one time on his first trial and he was placed as solving the problem).
She doesn't mention any of this in her study, actual time during the trial or how it even proves intelligence
Far from a measure of intelligence.. sorry Borrego.
I just noticed, that I posted same interview, which you shared too as link. Well hopefully people, who are interested about this kind of research watch it, because there is more information and people can also get a bit better idea about her, Dr. Borrego, overall.
Then again what comes to testing, it´s good to remember that animals weren´t fed before testing in at least 24 hours and when knowing, that captive animals can´t gorge, all should have been relatively hungry before tests and also aware, that inside box there is meat. And that meat, what they usually eat in their feeding times. It is just good to know, when trying to figure out why some animals weren´t interest, when logically thinking all should have had interest to get that meat.
These tests can be seen in many ways naturally. Anyway when talking about this kind of studies it´s good to read whole study, everyone can then make their own conclusions what they think. I personally find these studies interesting and hope to see more in future. Animal behavior and trying to understand it, is fascinating.
Quote from that study:
"Testing Apparatus
We constructed a 61 " 91 " 89 cm puzzle-box of flexible starboard marine grade polymer (Fig. 1). The box had a spring-loaded hinge door and a spring latch held the door closed. Subjects opened the door by grasping a pull attached to the latch and pulling away from the box at a 180# angle; pulling at an angle other than 180# did not engage the latch (Fig. 1). Pulling in the correct direction engaged the spring-latch and the spring-loaded hinge popped the door open. A subject could easily grasp the pull using either its paws or its mouth. We baited the box with each subject's normal dietary portion of raw meat. We drilled holes into the six sides of the box and subjects could see and smell the meat inside."
"Experimental Procedure
Subjects were not fed for at least 24 h before testing to ensure food motivation. Prior to the start of a trial, we sequestered the focal subject in a night pen or an enclosure adjacent to the testing area, then we baited the puzzle-box and placed it inside the testing area. Trials started when a subject was released from the adjacent enclosure/pen into the testing area. Subjects were given three trials and 10 min per trial to successfully open the puzzle-box. In cases where a subject was actively working on the pull at the 10 min mark, the trial ended when the subject ceased interacting with the pull. All trials were videotaped."
If someone noticed this thread and topic now and not before, that study is quite readable. It´s always good to read whole studies, not just some quotes.
08-03-2019, 01:24 PM( This post was last modified: 08-03-2019, 01:31 PM by RakeshMondal )
(08-02-2019, 06:38 PM)Shadow Wrote: I just noticed, that I posted same interview, which you shared too as link. Well hopefully people, who are interested about this kind of research watch it, because there is more information and people can also get a bit better idea about her, Dr. Borrego, overall.
Then again what comes to testing, it´s good to remember that animals weren´t fed before testing in at least 24 hours and when knowing, that captive animals can´t gorge, all should have been relatively hungry before tests and also aware, that inside box there is meat. And that meat, what they usually eat in their feeding times. It is just good to know, when trying to figure out why some animals weren´t interest, when logically thinking all should have had interest to get that meat.
These tests can be seen in many ways naturally. Anyway when talking about this kind of studies it´s good to read whole study, everyone can then make their own conclusions what they think. I personally find these studies interesting and hope to see more in future. Animal behavior and trying to understand it, is fascinating.
Quote from that study:
"Testing Apparatus
We constructed a 61 " 91 " 89 cm puzzle-box of flexible starboard marine grade polymer (Fig. 1). The box had a spring-loaded hinge door and a spring latch held the door closed. Subjects opened the door by grasping a pull attached to the latch and pulling away from the box at a 180# angle; pulling at an angle other than 180# did not engage the latch (Fig. 1). Pulling in the correct direction engaged the spring-latch and the spring-loaded hinge popped the door open. A subject could easily grasp the pull using either its paws or its mouth. We baited the box with each subject's normal dietary portion of raw meat. We drilled holes into the six sides of the box and subjects could see and smell the meat inside."
"Experimental Procedure
Subjects were not fed for at least 24 h before testing to ensure food motivation. Prior to the start of a trial, we sequestered the focal subject in a night pen or an enclosure adjacent to the testing area, then we baited the puzzle-box and placed it inside the testing area. Trials started when a subject was released from the adjacent enclosure/pen into the testing area. Subjects were given three trials and 10 min per trial to successfully open the puzzle-box. In cases where a subject was actively working on the pull at the 10 min mark, the trial ended when the subject ceased interacting with the pull. All trials were videotaped."
If someone noticed this thread and topic now and not before, that study is quite readable. It´s always good to read whole studies, not just some quotes.
She isn't Dr. Borrego. She didn't get a doctorate yet, she is now currently trying to get one.
Yea, It was pretty easy to find the study also. Yes this whole subject is very interesting, but are very hard to carry out. It apparently took Borrego several years to finish it, I respect her work and persistence.
Intelligence is extremely hard to define and humans ironically aren't intelligent enough to understand it Well it may seen logical to you, but these animals are extremely complex living creatures. They are not robots. Tigers are and as seen these videos i found earlier in this thread and on youtube, docile animals, and has no motivation to open any boxes. They seem like instead just wanted to be fed or simply didn't care, walking up to the keepers looking to play or relax.
I noticed she did not mention this at all within her actual study. I will continue.
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. Look at the tigress in the video above. Was she really that motivated?
Like i said, did she mention in the study about this, that they aren't motivated? Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated.
Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
Apparently on another post was another intelligence study on both lions and tigers. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
Tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box.
This also. Borrego doing and testing lions intelligence in different ways. Why doesn't she try this with the other cats too? Why not see if the other cats are capable of these little tasks like this? I forgot she only works with lions. hahah.
I actually have her instagram. Maybe i can ask her about the study, in fact.
08-03-2019, 01:53 PM( This post was last modified: 08-03-2019, 02:05 PM by Shadow )
(08-03-2019, 01:30 PM)RakeshMondal Wrote: This also. Borrego doing and testing lions intelligence in different ways. Why doesn't she try this with the other cats too? Why not see if the other cats are capable of these little tasks like this? I forgot she only works with lions. hahah.
I actually have her instagram. Maybe i can ask her about the study, in fact.
Yes if you are interested to know more, it is always good to ask. Her tests are interesting so there is nothing to lose if asking. I have done that time to time and often also got answers. Of course people can be busy and it can take time, I have got some replies 1-2 weeks after sending email :) I think, that many are interested about research Dr. Borrego does, so if you ask and get answers that is good.
08-03-2019, 02:03 PM( This post was last modified: 08-03-2019, 09:08 PM by Shadow )
(08-03-2019, 01:24 PM)RakeshMondal Wrote:
(08-02-2019, 06:38 PM)Shadow Wrote: I just noticed, that I posted same interview, which you shared too as link. Well hopefully people, who are interested about this kind of research watch it, because there is more information and people can also get a bit better idea about her, Dr. Borrego, overall.
Then again what comes to testing, it´s good to remember that animals weren´t fed before testing in at least 24 hours and when knowing, that captive animals can´t gorge, all should have been relatively hungry before tests and also aware, that inside box there is meat. And that meat, what they usually eat in their feeding times. It is just good to know, when trying to figure out why some animals weren´t interest, when logically thinking all should have had interest to get that meat.
These tests can be seen in many ways naturally. Anyway when talking about this kind of studies it´s good to read whole study, everyone can then make their own conclusions what they think. I personally find these studies interesting and hope to see more in future. Animal behavior and trying to understand it, is fascinating.
Quote from that study:
"Testing Apparatus
We constructed a 61 " 91 " 89 cm puzzle-box of flexible starboard marine grade polymer (Fig. 1). The box had a spring-loaded hinge door and a spring latch held the door closed. Subjects opened the door by grasping a pull attached to the latch and pulling away from the box at a 180# angle; pulling at an angle other than 180# did not engage the latch (Fig. 1). Pulling in the correct direction engaged the spring-latch and the spring-loaded hinge popped the door open. A subject could easily grasp the pull using either its paws or its mouth. We baited the box with each subject's normal dietary portion of raw meat. We drilled holes into the six sides of the box and subjects could see and smell the meat inside."
"Experimental Procedure
Subjects were not fed for at least 24 h before testing to ensure food motivation. Prior to the start of a trial, we sequestered the focal subject in a night pen or an enclosure adjacent to the testing area, then we baited the puzzle-box and placed it inside the testing area. Trials started when a subject was released from the adjacent enclosure/pen into the testing area. Subjects were given three trials and 10 min per trial to successfully open the puzzle-box. In cases where a subject was actively working on the pull at the 10 min mark, the trial ended when the subject ceased interacting with the pull. All trials were videotaped."
If someone noticed this thread and topic now and not before, that study is quite readable. It´s always good to read whole studies, not just some quotes.
She isn't Dr. Borrego. She didn't get a doctorate yet, she is now currently trying to get one.
Yea, It was pretty easy to find the study also. Yes this whole subject is very interesting, but are very hard to carry out. It apparently took Borrego several years to finish it, I respect her work and persistence.
Intelligence is extremely hard to define and humans ironically aren't intelligent enough to understand it Well it may seen logical to you, but these animals are extremely complex living creatures. They are not robots. Tigers are and as seen these videos i found earlier in this thread and on youtube, docile animals, and has no motivation to open any boxes. They seem like instead just wanted to be fed or simply didn't care, walking up to the keepers looking to play or relax.
I noticed she did not mention this at all within her actual study. I will continue.
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. Look at the tigress in the video above. Was she really that motivated?
Like i said, did she mention in the study about this, that they aren't motivated? Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated.
Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
Apparently on another post was another intelligence study on both lions and tigers. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
Tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box.
Just to get this straight, are you now interested about research of animal intelligence or are you upset about it, that Dr. Borrego has made a claim, that lions might be more intelligent in some way, than other big cats?
What comes to that study and that interview, they were already shared in this thread right in the beginning, so in that way you didn´t bring anything new to this discussion. Repeating same things, which already were discussed earlier. But that´s ok, it happens often especially in longer threads and sometimes new members see then some topic first time :)
I have learned to look briefly at least shorter threads like this, then not starting new circle of same discussion too early since last time. But of course if finding some new studies, always interesting.
08-04-2019, 04:04 AM( This post was last modified: 08-04-2019, 04:04 AM by RakeshMondal )
(08-03-2019, 02:03 PM)Shadow Wrote:
(08-03-2019, 01:24 PM)RakeshMondal Wrote:
(08-02-2019, 06:38 PM)Shadow Wrote: I just noticed, that I posted same interview, which you shared too as link. Well hopefully people, who are interested about this kind of research watch it, because there is more information and people can also get a bit better idea about her, Dr. Borrego, overall.
Then again what comes to testing, it´s good to remember that animals weren´t fed before testing in at least 24 hours and when knowing, that captive animals can´t gorge, all should have been relatively hungry before tests and also aware, that inside box there is meat. And that meat, what they usually eat in their feeding times. It is just good to know, when trying to figure out why some animals weren´t interest, when logically thinking all should have had interest to get that meat.
These tests can be seen in many ways naturally. Anyway when talking about this kind of studies it´s good to read whole study, everyone can then make their own conclusions what they think. I personally find these studies interesting and hope to see more in future. Animal behavior and trying to understand it, is fascinating.
Quote from that study:
"Testing Apparatus
We constructed a 61 " 91 " 89 cm puzzle-box of flexible starboard marine grade polymer (Fig. 1). The box had a spring-loaded hinge door and a spring latch held the door closed. Subjects opened the door by grasping a pull attached to the latch and pulling away from the box at a 180# angle; pulling at an angle other than 180# did not engage the latch (Fig. 1). Pulling in the correct direction engaged the spring-latch and the spring-loaded hinge popped the door open. A subject could easily grasp the pull using either its paws or its mouth. We baited the box with each subject's normal dietary portion of raw meat. We drilled holes into the six sides of the box and subjects could see and smell the meat inside."
"Experimental Procedure
Subjects were not fed for at least 24 h before testing to ensure food motivation. Prior to the start of a trial, we sequestered the focal subject in a night pen or an enclosure adjacent to the testing area, then we baited the puzzle-box and placed it inside the testing area. Trials started when a subject was released from the adjacent enclosure/pen into the testing area. Subjects were given three trials and 10 min per trial to successfully open the puzzle-box. In cases where a subject was actively working on the pull at the 10 min mark, the trial ended when the subject ceased interacting with the pull. All trials were videotaped."
If someone noticed this thread and topic now and not before, that study is quite readable. It´s always good to read whole studies, not just some quotes.
She isn't Dr. Borrego. She didn't get a doctorate yet, she is now currently trying to get one.
Yea, It was pretty easy to find the study also. Yes this whole subject is very interesting, but are very hard to carry out. It apparently took Borrego several years to finish it, I respect her work and persistence.
Intelligence is extremely hard to define and humans ironically aren't intelligent enough to understand it Well it may seen logical to you, but these animals are extremely complex living creatures. They are not robots. Tigers are and as seen these videos i found earlier in this thread and on youtube, docile animals, and has no motivation to open any boxes. They seem like instead just wanted to be fed or simply didn't care, walking up to the keepers looking to play or relax.
I noticed she did not mention this at all within her actual study. I will continue.
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. Look at the tigress in the video above. Was she really that motivated?
Like i said, did she mention in the study about this, that they aren't motivated? Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated.
Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
Apparently on another post was another intelligence study on both lions and tigers. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
Tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box.
Just to get this straight, are you now interested about research of animal intelligence or are you upset about it, that Dr. Borrego has made a claim, that lions might be more intelligent in some way, than other big cats?
What comes to that study and that interview, they were already shared in this thread right in the beginning, so in that way you didn´t bring anything new to this discussion. Repeating same things, which already were discussed earlier. But that´s ok, it happens often especially in longer threads and sometimes new members see then some topic first time :)
I have learned to look briefly at least shorter threads like this, then not starting new circle of same discussion too early since last time. But of course if finding some new studies, always interesting.
Is this suppose to be a ad hominem attack or red herring?
My problem is that she did not mention that fact, that the solitary animals ironically weren't interested in opening the boxes, in her study. A scientist would at least tell mention that fact to keep in minf and what they did to prevent it, rather than just shrug it off like that.
So PhD scientist, great. Lions are more intelligent because they are more interested in the boxes. That has got to be the best study i have ever read.
(08-02-2019, 06:38 PM)Shadow Wrote: I just noticed, that I posted same interview, which you shared too as link. Well hopefully people, who are interested about this kind of research watch it, because there is more information and people can also get a bit better idea about her, Dr. Borrego, overall.
Then again what comes to testing, it´s good to remember that animals weren´t fed before testing in at least 24 hours and when knowing, that captive animals can´t gorge, all should have been relatively hungry before tests and also aware, that inside box there is meat. And that meat, what they usually eat in their feeding times. It is just good to know, when trying to figure out why some animals weren´t interest, when logically thinking all should have had interest to get that meat.
These tests can be seen in many ways naturally. Anyway when talking about this kind of studies it´s good to read whole study, everyone can then make their own conclusions what they think. I personally find these studies interesting and hope to see more in future. Animal behavior and trying to understand it, is fascinating.
Quote from that study:
"Testing Apparatus
We constructed a 61 " 91 " 89 cm puzzle-box of flexible starboard marine grade polymer (Fig. 1). The box had a spring-loaded hinge door and a spring latch held the door closed. Subjects opened the door by grasping a pull attached to the latch and pulling away from the box at a 180# angle; pulling at an angle other than 180# did not engage the latch (Fig. 1). Pulling in the correct direction engaged the spring-latch and the spring-loaded hinge popped the door open. A subject could easily grasp the pull using either its paws or its mouth. We baited the box with each subject's normal dietary portion of raw meat. We drilled holes into the six sides of the box and subjects could see and smell the meat inside."
"Experimental Procedure
Subjects were not fed for at least 24 h before testing to ensure food motivation. Prior to the start of a trial, we sequestered the focal subject in a night pen or an enclosure adjacent to the testing area, then we baited the puzzle-box and placed it inside the testing area. Trials started when a subject was released from the adjacent enclosure/pen into the testing area. Subjects were given three trials and 10 min per trial to successfully open the puzzle-box. In cases where a subject was actively working on the pull at the 10 min mark, the trial ended when the subject ceased interacting with the pull. All trials were videotaped."
If someone noticed this thread and topic now and not before, that study is quite readable. It´s always good to read whole studies, not just some quotes.
She isn't Dr. Borrego. She didn't get a doctorate yet, she is now currently trying to get one.
Yea, It was pretty easy to find the study also. Yes this whole subject is very interesting, but are very hard to carry out. It apparently took Borrego several years to finish it, I respect her work and persistence.
Intelligence is extremely hard to define and humans ironically aren't intelligent enough to understand it Well it may seen logical to you, but these animals are extremely complex living creatures. They are not robots. Tigers are and as seen these videos i found earlier in this thread and on youtube, docile animals, and has no motivation to open any boxes. They seem like instead just wanted to be fed or simply didn't care, walking up to the keepers looking to play or relax.
I noticed she did not mention this at all within her actual study. I will continue.
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. Look at the tigress in the video above. Was she really that motivated?
Like i said, did she mention in the study about this, that they aren't motivated? Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated.
Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
Apparently on another post was another intelligence study on both lions and tigers. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
Tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box.
Just to get this straight, are you now interested about research of animal intelligence or are you upset about it, that Dr. Borrego has made a claim, that lions might be more intelligent in some way, than other big cats?
What comes to that study and that interview, they were already shared in this thread right in the beginning, so in that way you didn´t bring anything new to this discussion. Repeating same things, which already were discussed earlier. But that´s ok, it happens often especially in longer threads and sometimes new members see then some topic first time :)
I have learned to look briefly at least shorter threads like this, then not starting new circle of same discussion too early since last time. But of course if finding some new studies, always interesting.
Is this suppose to be a ad hominem attack or red herring?
My problem is that she did not mention that fact, that the solitary animals ironically weren't interested in opening the boxes, in her study. A scientist would at least tell mention that fact to keep in minf and what they did to prevent it, rather than just shrug it off like that.
So PhD scientist, great. Lions are more intelligent because they are more interested in the boxes. That has got to be the best study i have ever read.
Just asking, good to get things clear time to time. But as you notice, while you criticize her, you also weren´t paying too much attention to it, what you claimed. But maybe you too double check things next time before writing strong statements. Some things are quite easy to find out after all.
(08-02-2019, 06:38 PM)Shadow Wrote: I just noticed, that I posted same interview, which you shared too as link. Well hopefully people, who are interested about this kind of research watch it, because there is more information and people can also get a bit better idea about her, Dr. Borrego, overall.
Then again what comes to testing, it´s good to remember that animals weren´t fed before testing in at least 24 hours and when knowing, that captive animals can´t gorge, all should have been relatively hungry before tests and also aware, that inside box there is meat. And that meat, what they usually eat in their feeding times. It is just good to know, when trying to figure out why some animals weren´t interest, when logically thinking all should have had interest to get that meat.
These tests can be seen in many ways naturally. Anyway when talking about this kind of studies it´s good to read whole study, everyone can then make their own conclusions what they think. I personally find these studies interesting and hope to see more in future. Animal behavior and trying to understand it, is fascinating.
Quote from that study:
"Testing Apparatus
We constructed a 61 " 91 " 89 cm puzzle-box of flexible starboard marine grade polymer (Fig. 1). The box had a spring-loaded hinge door and a spring latch held the door closed. Subjects opened the door by grasping a pull attached to the latch and pulling away from the box at a 180# angle; pulling at an angle other than 180# did not engage the latch (Fig. 1). Pulling in the correct direction engaged the spring-latch and the spring-loaded hinge popped the door open. A subject could easily grasp the pull using either its paws or its mouth. We baited the box with each subject's normal dietary portion of raw meat. We drilled holes into the six sides of the box and subjects could see and smell the meat inside."
"Experimental Procedure
Subjects were not fed for at least 24 h before testing to ensure food motivation. Prior to the start of a trial, we sequestered the focal subject in a night pen or an enclosure adjacent to the testing area, then we baited the puzzle-box and placed it inside the testing area. Trials started when a subject was released from the adjacent enclosure/pen into the testing area. Subjects were given three trials and 10 min per trial to successfully open the puzzle-box. In cases where a subject was actively working on the pull at the 10 min mark, the trial ended when the subject ceased interacting with the pull. All trials were videotaped."
If someone noticed this thread and topic now and not before, that study is quite readable. It´s always good to read whole studies, not just some quotes.
She isn't Dr. Borrego. She didn't get a doctorate yet, she is now currently trying to get one.
Yea, It was pretty easy to find the study also. Yes this whole subject is very interesting, but are very hard to carry out. It apparently took Borrego several years to finish it, I respect her work and persistence.
Intelligence is extremely hard to define and humans ironically aren't intelligent enough to understand it Well it may seen logical to you, but these animals are extremely complex living creatures. They are not robots. Tigers are and as seen these videos i found earlier in this thread and on youtube, docile animals, and has no motivation to open any boxes. They seem like instead just wanted to be fed or simply didn't care, walking up to the keepers looking to play or relax.
I noticed she did not mention this at all within her actual study. I will continue.
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. Look at the tigress in the video above. Was she really that motivated?
Like i said, did she mention in the study about this, that they aren't motivated? Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated.
Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
Apparently on another post was another intelligence study on both lions and tigers. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
Tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box.
Just to get this straight, are you now interested about research of animal intelligence or are you upset about it, that Dr. Borrego has made a claim, that lions might be more intelligent in some way, than other big cats?
What comes to that study and that interview, they were already shared in this thread right in the beginning, so in that way you didn´t bring anything new to this discussion. Repeating same things, which already were discussed earlier. But that´s ok, it happens often especially in longer threads and sometimes new members see then some topic first time :)
I have learned to look briefly at least shorter threads like this, then not starting new circle of same discussion too early since last time. But of course if finding some new studies, always interesting.
Is this suppose to be a ad hominem attack or red herring?
My problem is that she did not mention that fact, that the solitary animals ironically weren't interested in opening the boxes, in her study. A scientist would at least tell mention that fact to keep in minf and what they did to prevent it, rather than just shrug it off like that.
So PhD scientist, great. Lions are more intelligent because they are more interested in the boxes. That has got to be the best study i have ever read.
Just asking, good to get things clear time to time. But as you notice, while you criticize her, you also weren´t paying too much attention to it, what you claimed. But maybe you too double check things next time before writing strong statements. Some things are quite easy to find out after all.
I'm curious, did you see the study yourself?
It is nothing far from being scientifically invalid. I also found it weird how articles on news sites and like on sciencedirect.com were talking about the study saying the lions were more exploratory, whereas the actual study says the lions were NOT more exploratory and all the animals had similar levels of exploratory. What the heck?
(08-02-2019, 06:38 PM)Shadow Wrote: I just noticed, that I posted same interview, which you shared too as link. Well hopefully people, who are interested about this kind of research watch it, because there is more information and people can also get a bit better idea about her, Dr. Borrego, overall.
Then again what comes to testing, it´s good to remember that animals weren´t fed before testing in at least 24 hours and when knowing, that captive animals can´t gorge, all should have been relatively hungry before tests and also aware, that inside box there is meat. And that meat, what they usually eat in their feeding times. It is just good to know, when trying to figure out why some animals weren´t interest, when logically thinking all should have had interest to get that meat.
These tests can be seen in many ways naturally. Anyway when talking about this kind of studies it´s good to read whole study, everyone can then make their own conclusions what they think. I personally find these studies interesting and hope to see more in future. Animal behavior and trying to understand it, is fascinating.
Quote from that study:
"Testing Apparatus
We constructed a 61 " 91 " 89 cm puzzle-box of flexible starboard marine grade polymer (Fig. 1). The box had a spring-loaded hinge door and a spring latch held the door closed. Subjects opened the door by grasping a pull attached to the latch and pulling away from the box at a 180# angle; pulling at an angle other than 180# did not engage the latch (Fig. 1). Pulling in the correct direction engaged the spring-latch and the spring-loaded hinge popped the door open. A subject could easily grasp the pull using either its paws or its mouth. We baited the box with each subject's normal dietary portion of raw meat. We drilled holes into the six sides of the box and subjects could see and smell the meat inside."
"Experimental Procedure
Subjects were not fed for at least 24 h before testing to ensure food motivation. Prior to the start of a trial, we sequestered the focal subject in a night pen or an enclosure adjacent to the testing area, then we baited the puzzle-box and placed it inside the testing area. Trials started when a subject was released from the adjacent enclosure/pen into the testing area. Subjects were given three trials and 10 min per trial to successfully open the puzzle-box. In cases where a subject was actively working on the pull at the 10 min mark, the trial ended when the subject ceased interacting with the pull. All trials were videotaped."
If someone noticed this thread and topic now and not before, that study is quite readable. It´s always good to read whole studies, not just some quotes.
She isn't Dr. Borrego. She didn't get a doctorate yet, she is now currently trying to get one.
Yea, It was pretty easy to find the study also. Yes this whole subject is very interesting, but are very hard to carry out. It apparently took Borrego several years to finish it, I respect her work and persistence.
Intelligence is extremely hard to define and humans ironically aren't intelligent enough to understand it Well it may seen logical to you, but these animals are extremely complex living creatures. They are not robots. Tigers are and as seen these videos i found earlier in this thread and on youtube, docile animals, and has no motivation to open any boxes. They seem like instead just wanted to be fed or simply didn't care, walking up to the keepers looking to play or relax.
I noticed she did not mention this at all within her actual study. I will continue.
And apparently the 24 hour thing does nothing. Because in this video below she already notes many of the animals aren't motivated enough and she tries to put the boxes in the enclosure so she cannot rule out that they aren't capable to open the boxes. Look at the tigress in the video above. Was she really that motivated?
Like i said, did she mention in the study about this, that they aren't motivated? Because she states here that ALL the cats were NOT motivated after three trials, during the trials. She states in the video she tries to make them used to it to make sure they aren't motivated.. how do we know if it improved? That might as well make the tiger not care about the box anymore because its part of its enclosure. All she did was just put the box in and assume that it will make the trial better so she cant say they are not motivated.
Bengali the tiger (who actually opened the box previously), was scared of the box. She talks about a tiger who just peed on the box and didn't care.
This is Bengali opening the box. at 0:27 it show another tiger just lying down in front of the box.
Apparently on another post was another intelligence study on both lions and tigers. Same methods used as Borregos study, but instead actually counted the amount of time the animal was actually engaged with the puzzle box. Lions spend quite a lot of time with the box like Borregos study, but did not open the box a single time.
Tigers opened the box many times, the ones who didn't open were simply not interested and barely stayed at the puzzle box.
Just to get this straight, are you now interested about research of animal intelligence or are you upset about it, that Dr. Borrego has made a claim, that lions might be more intelligent in some way, than other big cats?
What comes to that study and that interview, they were already shared in this thread right in the beginning, so in that way you didn´t bring anything new to this discussion. Repeating same things, which already were discussed earlier. But that´s ok, it happens often especially in longer threads and sometimes new members see then some topic first time :)
I have learned to look briefly at least shorter threads like this, then not starting new circle of same discussion too early since last time. But of course if finding some new studies, always interesting.
Is this suppose to be a ad hominem attack or red herring?
My problem is that she did not mention that fact, that the solitary animals ironically weren't interested in opening the boxes, in her study. A scientist would at least tell mention that fact to keep in minf and what they did to prevent it, rather than just shrug it off like that.
So PhD scientist, great. Lions are more intelligent because they are more interested in the boxes. That has got to be the best study i have ever read.
Just asking, good to get things clear time to time. But as you notice, while you criticize her, you also weren´t paying too much attention to it, what you claimed. But maybe you too double check things next time before writing strong statements. Some things are quite easy to find out after all.
I'm curious, did you see the study yourself?
It is nothing far from being scientifically invalid. I also found it weird how articles on news sites and like on sciencedirect.com were talking about the study saying the lions were more exploratory, whereas the actual study says the lions were NOT more exploratory and all the animals had similar levels of exploratory. What the heck?
There are different studies and people can look at those from different perspectives. It´s normal thing. I have said before, that I find studies of Dr. Borrego interesting and hope to see more in future, as she say, more studies are needed. It´s very good, that there are scientists interested to study animal intelligence and behavior.
The following 1 user Likes Shadow's post:1 user Likes Shadow's post • Rishi
Intelligence of the big cats...
Here is one example about it what people claim... but here it was actually 25% :) But I don´t like to see too many times that kind of nonsense, so if you are more interested what kind of claims people time to time make, seek yourself :)
Well it may seen logical to you, but these animals are extremely complex living creatures. They are not robots. Tigers are and as seen these videos i found earlier in this thread and on youtube, docile animals, and has no motivation to open any boxes. They seem like instead just wanted to be fed or simply didn't care, walking up to the keepers looking to play or relax.
