Where is the evidence for general intelligence in nonhuman animals?

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ludwig Huber
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Convergent Evolution ◽  
General Intelligence ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Species Comparisons ◽  
Made In

AbstractThis commentary contrasts evolutionary plausibility with empirical evidence and cognitive continuity with radiation and convergent evolution. So far, neither within-species nor between-species comparisons on the basis of rigorous experimental and species-appropriate tests substantiate the claims made in the target article. Caution is advisable on meta-analytical comparisons that primarily rely on publication frequencies and overgeneralizations (from murids and primates to other nonhuman animals).

Future directions for studying the evolution of general intelligence

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith M. Burkart ◽  
Michèle N. Schubiger ◽  
Carel P. van Schaik
Keyword(s):  
Research Agenda ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
General Intelligence ◽  
Future Directions ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Nonhuman Animals

AbstractThe goal of our target article was to lay out current evidence relevant to the question of whether general intelligence can be found in nonhuman animals in order to better understand its evolution in humans. The topic is a controversial one, as evident from the broad range of partly incompatible comments it has elicited. The main goal of our response is to translate these issues into testable empirical predictions, which together can provide the basis for a broad research agenda.

scholarly journals Through what mechanisms do protected areas affect environmental and social outcomes?

2015 ◽  
Vol 370 (1681) ◽  
pp. 20140267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul J. Ferraro ◽  
Merlin M. Hanauer
Keyword(s):  
Experimental Data ◽  
Protected Areas ◽  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Strong Evidence ◽  
Protected Area ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Social Outcomes ◽  
Causal Effects ◽  
The Past ◽  
Made In

To develop effective protected area policies, scholars and practitioners must better understand the mechanisms through which protected areas affect social and environmental outcomes. With strong evidence about mechanisms, the key elements of success can be strengthened, and the key elements of failure can be eliminated or repaired. Unfortunately, empirical evidence about these mechanisms is limited, and little guidance for quantifying them exists. This essay assesses what mechanisms have been hypothesized, what empirical evidence exists for their relative contributions and what advances have been made in the past decade for estimating mechanism causal effects from non-experimental data. The essay concludes with a proposed agenda for building an evidence base about protected area mechanisms.

scholarly journals Acquiring markedness constraints

2013 ◽  
Vol 30 ◽  
pp. 188-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen van de Weijer ◽  
Marjoleine Sloos
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Optimality Theory ◽  
Language Use ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Language Data ◽  
Ambient Data ◽  
Made In

This paper questions the assumption made in classic Optimality Theory (Prince & Smolensky 1993 [2004]) that markedness constraints are an innate part of Universal Grammar. Instead, we argue that constraints are acquired on the basis of the language data to which L1 learning children are exposed. This is argued both on general grounds (innateness is an assumption that should not be invoked lightly) and on the basis of empirical evidence. We investigate this issue for six general markedness constraints in French, and show that all constraints could be acquired on the basis of the ambient data. Second, we show that the order of acquisition of the marked structures matches the frequency of violations of the relevant constraints in the input quite well. This argues in favour of a phonological model in which constraints are acquired, not innate, i.e. a model in which grammatical notions such as constraints are derived from language use.

Taking symbols for granted? Is the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds the product of external symbol systems?

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-141 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Lupyan
Keyword(s):  
Human Performance ◽  
Symbol Systems ◽  
Relational Schemas ◽  
Language And Culture ◽  
Convincing Argument ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Substantial Degree

AbstractThe target article provides a convincing argument that nonhuman animals cannot process role-governed rules, relational schemas, and so on, in a human-like fashion. However, actual human performance is often more similar to that of nonhuman animals than Penn et al. admit. The kind of rule-governed performance the authors take for granted may rely to a substantial degree on language on external symbol systems such as those provided by language and culture.

Knowledge by default

2021 ◽  
Vol 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Gordon
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Cognitive Neuroscience ◽  
Predictive Coding ◽  
Plausible Account ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Analysis By Synthesis

Abstract The target article presents strong empirical evidence that knowledge is basic. However, it offers an unsatisfactory account of what makes knowledge basic. Some current ideas in cognitive neuroscience – predictive coding and analysis by synthesis – point to a more plausible account that better explains the evidence.

It's time to move beyond the “Great Chain of Being”

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Sternberg
Keyword(s):  
Target Article ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Folk Theories ◽  
Great Chain Of Being

AbstractThe target article provides an anthropocentric model of understanding intelligence in nonhuman animals. Such an idea dates back to Plato and, more recently, Lovejoy: On Earth, humans are at the top and other animals at successively lower levels. We then evaluate these other animals by our anthropocentric folk theories of their intelligence rather than by their own adaptive requirements.

The Faces Monkeys Make

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eliza Bliss-Moreau ◽  
Gilda Moadab
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Nonhuman Animal ◽  
Social Signals ◽  
Social Functions ◽  
Macaque Monkeys ◽  
Nonhuman Animals ◽  
Facial Behavior

In the 140-plus years since Darwin popularized the study of nonhuman animal emotion, interest in the emotional lives of nonhuman animals has expanded rapidly. On the basis of Darwin’s anecdotal observations about facial behaviors, it is often assumed that facial behaviors give evidence of emotion in both humans and nonhuman animals. These assumptions are then used to support claims about the evolution of emotion. In this chapter, we explore the empirical evidence about the structure and meaning of facial behaviors generated by macaque monkeys. Evidence indicates that individual facial behaviors occur in a wide variety of contexts and subserve a variety of social functions. Furthermore, macaques are not particularly good at discriminating between all facial behavior categories. Taken together, the evidence suggests that facial behaviors in macaques do not give evidence of specific emotions, but rather serve as complex social signals.

scholarly journals The evolutionary interplay of intergroup conflict and altruism in humans: a review of parochial altruism theory and prospects for its extension

2014 ◽  
Vol 281 (1794) ◽  
pp. 20141539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannes Rusch
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Intergroup Conflict ◽  
Substantial Role ◽  
Direct Benefits ◽  
Central Notion ◽  
Simplifying Assumptions ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Cultural Traits ◽  
Made In

Drawing on an idea proposed by Darwin, it has recently been hypothesized that violent intergroup conflict might have played a substantial role in the evolution of human cooperativeness and altruism. The central notion of this argument, dubbed ‘parochial altruism’, is that the two genetic or cultural traits, aggressiveness against the out-groups and cooperativeness towards the in-group, including self-sacrificial altruistic behaviour, might have coevolved in humans. This review assesses the explanatory power of current theories of ‘parochial altruism’. After a brief synopsis of the existing literature, two pitfalls in the interpretation of the most widely used models are discussed: potential direct benefits and high relatedness between group members implicitly induced by assumptions about conflict structure and frequency. Then, a number of simplifying assumptions made in the construction of these models are pointed out which currently limit their explanatory power. Next, relevant empirical evidence from several disciplines which could guide future theoretical extensions is reviewed. Finally, selected alternative accounts of evolutionary links between intergroup conflict and intragroup cooperation are briefly discussed which could be integrated with parochial altruism in the future.

scholarly journals Gratification, Metamotivation, and Maslow

1977 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-272
Author(s):  
K. G. Agrawal ◽  
B. R. Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Lower Order ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Hierarchy Theory ◽  
Hierarchical Pattern ◽  
Made In

Many writers have criticized Maslow's need hierarchy theory since it lacks empirical evidence. An attempt has been made in this paper to verify Maslow's theory with the hypotheses that (1) needs do not form a hierarchical pattern; (2) even if a pattern exists, the shape is not that of a pyramid; (3) relatively better-off people care for lower order needs; and (4) differences in deficiency of needs would be insignificant. The results indicate that needs follow a descending pattern and that Maslow's theory has little empirical support.

Moving forward with interdisciplinary research on attractiveness-related biases

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dario Maestripieri ◽  
Andrea Henry ◽  
Nora Nickels
Keyword(s):  
Labor Market ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
Functional Significance ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Societal Implications ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Underlying Mechanisms ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Made In

AbstractIn our response, we review and address the comments on our target article made in the 25 commentaries. First, we review and discuss the commentaries that recognized the value of our approach, accepted the main premises and conclusions of our target article, and suggested further avenues for research on attractiveness-related biases. We then respond to commentators who either misinterpreted some parts of our target article or made statements with which we disagree. These commentaries provided us with an opportunity to clarify some aspects of our target article, for example, the fact that we address both the functional significance of attractiveness-related biases and their underlying mechanisms. We provide a rebuttal to two commentaries, in which we are accused of poor scholarship. We conclude our response by addressing two commentaries that discussed the societal implications of the occurrence of attractiveness-related biases in the labor market by briefly discussing the relationship between scientific research and social policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document