|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 61 (9209 total) |
| |
The Rutificador chile | |
Total: 919,503 Year: 6,760/9,624 Month: 100/238 Week: 17/83 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 289 days) Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Mike's ego trip | |||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6279 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Pink Sasquatch: I looked on Pubmed, but I couldn't find any raw data, nor anything about the controls... I'm assuming you know that you'd have to look up the actual papers (not just the abstracts) to get that information.
I have seen data on similar experiments with chimps showing the exact opposite - that chimps have incredible difficulty mastering the 'bigger reward later for immediate reward now' concept. Now it's my turn to ask: any references?
my experience with animal behavior experiments is that the more impressive the claim, the more subjective the conclusion on the part of the researchers. I find statements like this disconcerting - the possible taint of anthropomorphism in turn taints important findings; the more impressive the finding, the greater the taint. I suggest you read the papers. Legitimate animal behavior experiments shouldn't suffer from the subjectivity you mention, though I know that far too many non-peer-reviewed pseudo-science books have been published on the subject. Try getting a hold of "Monkeys reject unequal pay". If I recall correctly the language in the paper is extremely tentative - without the sorts of improper jumps in logic that you mention.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9012 From: Canada Joined: |
...that chimps have incredible difficulty mastering the 'bigger reward later for immediate reward now' concept. Did you mean chimps? Or was that supposed to be referring to humans? This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-28-2005 23:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
pink writes: I'm assuming you know that you'd have to look up the actual papers (not just the abstracts) to get that information. Having never used Pubmed, I'm not sure how it works. I was able to find the abstracts, but not the data. Are you saying that I now have to sift the internet to find the paper, or is there a way to get it from Pubmed?
Now it's my turn to ask: any references? Sadly no; otherwise, I would have posted it as evidence that these conclusions ARE unlikely rather than posting that I SUSPECTED them to be unlikely.
custard writes: my experience with animal behavior experiments is that the more impressive the claim, the more subjective the conclusion on the part of the researchers. ps writes: I find statements like this disconcerting - the possible taint of anthropomorphism in turn taints important findings; the more impressive the finding, the greater the taint. Sorry if you find that concerting, but the statement is true.It may not be your experience, and you may have much more experience with animal behavior experiments; but in my experience the more impressive the claim, the more subjective the researchers conclusions have been. Which is precisely why I requested more information, including the raw data and experiment parameters and controls. I don't understand how my treatment of this claim is any different than the way anyone else treats any other kind of claim that are posted. You don't just accept everything posted here as fact, do you? Especially if you are unfamiliar with what was posted. Do I have a problem with animal behaviorists? I suppose my experience, albeit not extensive, has probably biased me in some way; but in then end I don't treat them much differently then I do human behavioralist claims. If someone claims or concludes something that seems odd or particularly interesting I want to see the data and how the experiment was performed. I don't think that is unreasonable or out of the question.
Try getting a hold of "Monkeys reject unequal pay". If I recall correctly the language in the paper is extremely tentative - without the sorts of improper jumps in logic that you mention. I did: http://userwww.service.emory.edu/~sbrosna/Manuscripts/BrosnanUnequalPay.pdf And this is not the study, nor the conclusions, I have been questioning. I find nothing odd about a monkey getting upset when it performs the same task it has seen its conspecific perform, yet receives a lesser reward for its efforts. That claim does not seem extraordinary to me in the least. I've seen my dogs do the EXACT same thing in fact. I'm talking about 'nut monkey' handing 'rock monkey' some nuts; then Rocky pounds the nuts and hands Nutty roughly half of the goods. This is a very interesting interaction. I have never seen animals do things like this unless they were trained to do so. In fact, I am familiar with animals exibiting the opposite behavior (unless it is a mother/child relationship). This is why I want to see the data before I accept the conclusions of the BBC or anyone else reporting on this. This message has been edited by custard, 03-02-2005 15:40 AM This message has been edited by custard, 03-02-2005 15:42 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Did you mean chimps? Or was that supposed to be referring to humans? Good point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6279 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Are you saying that I now have to sift the internet to find the paper, or is there a way to get it from Pubmed? It depends on the journal. Above most abstracts there is a 'button' that will take you to full text. Again, it depends on the journal whether you (or your library) need a subscription or not to view the full text.
in my experience the more impressive the claim, the more subjective the researchers conclusions have been. I'm not sure what your experience is - I believe you cited "psychic parrot lady" as your example of an impressive claim with subjective "researchers". I'd rather see a real example of real peer-reviewed animal behavior research that is subjective as you claim, not just some probably crackpot posting their findings on the net. In fact, it's insulting to place the psychic parrot lady in the same class as legitimate animal behavior researchers. Can you come up with a real example?
If someone claims or concludes something that seems odd or particularly interesting I want to see the data and how the experiment was performed. I don't think that is unreasonable or out of the question. I don't think so either. But it seemed that you were impugning any animal behaviorist that produced a significant result, because their result was significant. That does seem rather unreasonable to me. (At least, it seems, you consider animal behavior researchers as "guilty until proven innocent.")
I find nothing odd about a monkey getting upset when it performs the same task it has seen its conspecific perform, yet receives a lesser reward for its efforts. That claim does not seem extraordinary to me in the least. Wow, really? "Unequal pay" was considered a more groundbreaking finding, since it demonstrated that capuchins have concepts of "greater" and "lesser", and that they are willing to refuse food rewards for ethical reasons. That seems a much more significant finding than cooperative food sharing, which has been observed in primates in the wild.
I've seen my dogs do the EXACT same thing in fact. Your dog refuses food if it is not as desirable as what the other dog gets? Now you are making an "impressive" subjective, anthropomorphic claim here. Where is the data? What was your control experiment? Of course, if you think observing your dogs is equivalent to what animal behaviorist do, then no wonder you have little respect for the field.
I'm talking about 'nut monkey' handing 'rock monkey' some nuts; then Rocky pounds the nuts and hands Nutty roughly half of the goods. I'm not familiar with this study. Since it involves tool use to open nuts, my best guess is that (if it is real) it is a chimp study. There is a large body of research describing cooperative sharing amongst chimps, particularly surrounding rationing after organized group hunts.
Here is a link to a pdf of a de Waal paper you may have missed. It shows a cooperative task between two capuchins where only one capuchin gets the reward, but then shares it with the other capuchin. It is a controlled study with statistically significant results that appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Nature. See what you think of the study...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Buzsaw Inactive Member |
This is not directed at you in particular buz but I am curious why POTM would even be an explicit goal of posting here? I'm an evo and have been here about the same amount of time as you and have been nominated 2x...and both times by Quetzal. I think what creos and evos should be aiming for are post that generate sustained (and interesting) debate. I for example have a fairly miserable record in this regard compared to you or mike the wiz. Virtually all my posts or topics I start die after about 3 maybe 5 responses tops..part of the reason I have cut my posting way down. You and mike have several over the 300 post limits threads. Frankly, I rather have that than the talking to myself posts that I have experienced since my favorite debate opponent Peter Borger was banned...though I do appreciate that the two of you can become overwhelmed by multiple people debating at the same time with just the two of you. Hi Mammuthus.1. POTM isn't a goal of mine, for sure. I've not mentioned it until I noticed my first one and until it has become somewhat of an issue for discussion. It's not used all that much by most and imo, not a so much of a goal to reach as it is a place to recognize posts of particular interest and quality. I suppose it could be missused as a soapbox to promote one's ideology via recognition of another's likeminded view. Hopefully that's not the case and doesn't appear to be, for the most part. As for drawing a crowd in a thread, it's logically easier for me to draw a crowd than you since there's not many representing my minority and provocative viewpoints. It's good sensible posters like you however that are so necessary to make those threads, whether long or short, interesting and informative. Paul the apostle spoke of the gifts of the Holy Spirit to be manifested in the churches and each member has specific gifts to contribute. Likewise, here, each has knowledge and gifts which make each unique in growing a thread into something people want to read. I see at the top of this page as I write that no less than 48 unregistered guests are present at this moment reading stuff in this forum. It takes all of us to make this board that interesting for these folks to come in and read us. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 03-02-2005 18:44 AM In Jehovah God's Universe; time, energy and boundless space had no beginning and will have no ending. The universe, by and through him, is, has always been and forever will be intelligently designed, changed and managed by his providence. buzsaw
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
pink writes:
But it seemed that you were impugning any animal behaviorist that produced a significant result, because their result was significant. That does seem rather unreasonable to me. (At least, it seems, you consider animal behavior researchers as "guilty until proven innocent.") Can you come up with a real example?
Guilty as charged I suppose. Sometimes my inner skeptic gets the best of me. Lumping de Waal in with Psychic Polly was probably not fair - and probably demonstrated an inherent bias on my part. My opinion of animal beviorists dropped drastically after doing some research into the area of animal 'communication,' so my bias is probably a hold over from that. I still want to see the data for the BBC experiment; and, while I will no longer compare it to Psychic Polly, I still have my doubts at this point (which may be remedied by the data).
ps writes: Your dog refuses food if it is not as desirable as what the other dog gets? No, not exactly. Good catch. They will take the food reward regardless, yet one of them exhibit more anxious and demanding behavior if the rewards are unfair.
ps writes: I'm not familiar with this study. Since it involves tool use to open nuts, my best guess is that (if it is real) it is a chimp study. There is a large body of research describing cooperative sharing amongst chimps, particularly surrounding rationing after organized group hunts. I'm pretty sure Ohnai said they were Capuchins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
ps writes: Here is a link to a pdf of a de Waal paper you may have missed. It shows a cooperative task between two capuchins where only one capuchin gets the reward, but then shares it with the other capuchin. It is a controlled study with statistically significant results that appeared in the peer-reviewed journal Nature. See what you think of the study... Thanks for the link. Much better stuff. It's interesting, but the cooperation rate is less than 40%, half of the individual and mutual success rate. Meaning, that the monkeys are LESS LIKELY to share - a suspicion I posted earlier - than the BBC program that was cited indicated. That they share at all is not groundbreaking to me since we have ample studies of animals sharing food in the wild - but they usually don't share 50/50. That cooperate and then share food is interesting though. My protestations at the BBC example were not that primates might sometimes share food after cooperating on a task, it was that they shared 50/50, and, the implication was that they ALWAYS shared. Also, in this experiment I'm curious to know what is considered successful sharing? It is not defined. There are eight apple slices in the reward bowl, is Sharer monkey giving Helper monkey four slices after they cooperate? Three slices? Is only one slice considered a successful share? The BBC program cited said that Nut monkey gave Rock monkey 'about half' the nuts after they had been cracked open.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6732 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Hi buz,
Thanks for your response. quote: I would also hope that it would not be used to backslap the people one agrees with exclusively. Preferably, it would recognize well constructed and written posts regardless whether one agrees or not. I don't pay much attention to the POTM thread as I currently don't have the time to follow the debates so closely and evaluate who has done a particularly remarkable job in each thread or has improved their debating skills. I also don't view it as particularly important to the debate as a whole. That is why I am perplexed with mike's putting such emphasis on POTM.
quote: Thank you for the compliment. But I actually disagree a bit. I am actually quite irrelevant to the EvC forum in general. I enjoy it and learn from it. But there are dozens of evo's who are well informed and are top notch debaters making my contributions expendable. There are only a few creationists at this site like you who persist and debate according to the forum guidelines even if once in a while things get heated. People like you, TrueCreation and even mike the wiz (when he does not get emotional) are much more necessary. Otherwise the forum would consist of debate among fairly like-minded evos (boring..I do that at work), and only a few hit and run posts by less able creos (which is also fairly pointless). You guys sustain the debate. Compare this to some of the sites that have completely biased administration and the difference in quality becomes readily apparent. Many are so one sided and lack even the pretense of debate such that they are worthless. Here at least you and I can debate, completely disagree, and even argue heatedly without being banned just for the fact that we disagree. This may also be what attracts the many unregistered guests.
quote: I agree with you 100% Cheers,M
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6279 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
My protestations at the BBC example were not that primates might sometimes share food after cooperating on a task, it was that they shared 50/50, and, the implication was that they ALWAYS shared. Okay, fair enough - I would likely protest that they ALWAYS shared as well. I guess (due to misunderstanding) I thought you were protesting that it was a significant result. Honestly, I am not familiar with the BBC study (has anyone provided a direct link? I thought Ohnhai's links were to other capuchin stuff...) My argument has been more that similar studies leading to the same underlying conclusion have been done. I just visited Sarah Brosnan's CV page; she was the lead author on most of the capuchin research we've been discussing. She has also authored work on tool-use in chimpanzees. She also lists that her work has been featured on the BBC. Perhaps the BBC program convoluted chimpanzee tool-use with capuchin cooperation, in the way popular science programs often "add" together separate results to produce a "sexier" hour of television. (Another possibility is that it reported on anecdotes, or unpublished chimp tool-use cooperation experiments.)
Also, in this experiment I'm curious to know what is considered successful sharing? It is not defined. It is defined - as the number of pieces (not slices) shared.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
ps writes: It is defined - as the number of pieces (not slices) shared.
Crap, I totally missed that - and I was looking for it. I'll go back and take another look. Thanks for the links Pink. Thanks also for not letting me get away with lumping all researchers into my 'Parapsychologists' bucket. Sometimes it is difficult to maintain one's objectivity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
Buzsaw, Mike, et al:
I second what Mammuthus has so aptly expressed:
mammuthus writes: There are only a few creationists at this site like you who persist and debate according to the forum guidelines even if once in a while things get heated. People like you, TrueCreation and even mike the wiz (when he does not get emotional) are much more necessary. Otherwise the forum would consist of debate among fairly like-minded evos (boring..I do that at work), and only a few hit and run posts by less able creos (which is also fairly pointless). You guys sustain the debate. In fact, while I doubt I'll be siding with Creos any time soon, the constant questioning and debating has really made me re-examine some of the 'facts' about evolution which I previously thought were indisputable. Precisely because you guys are the dissenters, I have learned more about the disagreements about evolution within the scientific community (e.g. the criticisms of neo-Darwinism, punctuated equilibrium), in the course of researching evidence to counter creo arguments. Now I have many questions about things I would have normally taken for granted (accumulated mutation, speciation, and natural selection), which has made me more curious and more knowledgeable about the subject.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6279 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
Sometimes it is difficult to maintain one's objectivity. Hopefully it didn't seem like I was jumping down your throat; I was just trying to be clear in defending the legitimate research. At least your bias makes some sense in the field of animal behavior, where much of what people are exposed to are "weekend" animal behavior "researchers" with little to no training that think they can extrapolate the lives of their pets or anecdotes to all animals of a species, and then "publish" that research as popular books. These books often become bestsellers, because by my guess, the people buying the books enjoy the idea of their pets or other animals having human qualities. Those same people are much less interested in a tentative claim in technical language discussing a slight statistical significance of cooperation under highly controlled conditions. I was just going to reference you to the Chimpanzee Spirituality paper as an example of subjectivity... but I see you've found it...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
custard Inactive Member |
ps writes: Hopefully it didn't seem like I was jumping down your throat; I was just trying to be clear in defending the legitimate research. No worries. That's exactly the way I took it.
These books often become bestsellers, because by my guess, the people buying the books enjoy the idea of their pets or other animals having human qualities.
Yeah, completely bombarded by that. My favorite is 'pet psychics.' What I also find ironic is how that can go the other way: refusing to acknowledge behavior that is similar to that which is considered solely the domain of human beings - which seems to be congruous with Mike's argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
pink sasquatch Member (Idle past 6279 days) Posts: 1567 Joined: |
What I also find ironic is how that can go the other way: refusing to acknowledge behavior that is similar to that which is considered solely the domain of human beings - which seems to be congruous with Mike's argument. Yep, I was thinking the same thing. But I guess the two break down into not too dissimiliar ideas: 1. Humans are special!*2. Some animals are special because they are like humans! * (Sorry Mike, forgot: Humans are uniquely different!)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024