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.
(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.
Intelligence of the big cats...
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.