Intelligence of the big cats...

[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.

https://www.cbs.umn.edu/sites/cbs.umn.ed...havior.pdf


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. Reply