Several groups of researchers currently conduct experiments in which chimpanzees and children of approximately the same age are asked to perform an identical task under identical conditions to compare their responses. Some who have interpreted the data thus far suggest that, at least under these circumstances, chimpanzees may be smarter than humans. However, when I read about the experiments, several other considerations occurred to me based on my work with companion animals and experience as the grandmother of an almost 3-year-old.
First, a very abbreviated description of the experiment: An object is placed in a box and the researcher then performs some meaningless ritual before opening the box and revealing the reward. Whereas the chimpanzees eventually eliminate the ritual and simply open the box to get the desired object, the children continue doing exactly what the adult humans did, even when they are only being observed via cameras.
My first thought about these studies was to wonder whether children and chimpanzees of the same age were of comparable development. A chimpanzee in captivity has a lifespan of about 60 years compared to 35-40 years in the wild. Consequently, in terms of developmental age, the chimpanzee could have been older than the child. Thus, rather than comparing the behaviors of two 3-year-olds, the experiment actually may have been comparing that of, say, a 3- and a 5-year-old. As anyone whose been around kids these ages knows, the 3-year-old is still pretty much a dedicated mimic whereas the older the child, the more the tendency to opt for energy-efficiency.
That the children behaved the same when only observed by camera reminded me an experiment done on cats twice, once in the pre- and once in the post-camera era. In this experiment, cats were put in cages they had to open to get to a food reward. Before the cats would do this, they would rub their bodies back and forth on the door of the cage. When the experiment was done more than 5 decades ago, this was perceived as evidence that cats engaged in ritualistic behavior. However, when the experiment was done again years later, the cats still displayed the same behavior for the researchers, but not when they were being observed by camera. Most cat owners who see the display will instantly recognize it as the one most cats use to greet people they like.
So now we have members of one wild species (chimpanzees) who delete any unnecessary steps that stand between them and any reward regardless of human presence, one semi-domesticated one (cats) who display human-pleasing behaviors only in the presence of humans, and young members of one totally domesticated species (human) who always display the researcher-pleasing ritual whether those people are present or not.
From a behavioral standpoint, it seems reasonable that survival of wild animals is much more dependent on procuring food in the most energy-efficient manner. However, for an animal making the transition from wild to domesticated status, the ability to use two different strategies based on the circumstances might ensure greater survival than either method used alone. Although the most energy-efficient approach would ensure the survival of cats living by their wits, cats willing to engage in feeding rituals would ensure their survival in a human environment that relishes this kind of interspecies interaction. As we can see from the size of the feral as well as pet cat population, the ability to use both behaviors has served the feline species well.
Where do kids fit in in all this? Well, we could agree with some researchers (or journalists writing about the research) and say that they’re just dumber, but I have difficulty with that. In addition to the fact that the children and chimps may not have been the same age developmentally, there’s also one practical and one physiological-behavioral factor that deserve consideration. Practically, if these studies are done in a university setting and the kids tested go to daycare of some sort, it’s quite possible that they’re familiar with closed circuit cameras and know exactly what they are. Granted, teachers in such facilities say that the children ignore them, but the children also know from interactions with their parents that they are being or could be watched at any time. Consequently, and particularly if a big deal were made out of any ritual in the child-chimpanzee experiments, it’s possible that those children would continue the ritual, perhaps seeing it as a test of their ability to follow directions/obey whether an adult is present or not.
The physiological-behavioral factor takes us back to domestication which results in a physiologically and behaviorally immature individual compared to any wild ancestors. Because of this, in some ways members of domesticated species have more in common with each other than they do with their respective wild ancestors. And, in fact, some studies of domestic dog behavior indicate that their responses re: problem-solving are closer to that of young children than wolves. This raises the possibility that the behavior of young children might be closer to that of young dogs than primates.
Does all of this mean that I think chimpanzees aren’t intelligent? No at all! I find capacity of all animals to solve problems a never-ending source of awe and fascination. However, as I ponder these studies I always come back to the same point I do when analyzing behaviors in my patients: whatever behavior the animal (both nonhuman and human ) displays, it represents what that individual considers the most energy-efficient way to get the job done at that time. The problem is that, while researchers and wild animals may define the primary goal as getting the treat in the most energy-efficient way even if this means ignoring the authority figure’s ritual, for the child and many companion animals, the primary goal may be to please/fulfill the emotional needs of the authority figure rather than get any treat or toy. Thus, rather than such experiments proving that one species is smart to the other’s dumb, what they really might prove is that members of wild and domesticated species may use their intelligence in different ways to ensure their survival in quite different emotional as well as physical environments.
And I personally think that this is quite brilliant.
Several groups of researchers currently conduct experiments in which chimpanzees and children of approximately the same age are asked to perform an identical task under identical conditions to compare their responses. Some who have interpreted the data thus far suggest that, at least under these circumstances, chimpanzees may be smarter than humans. However, when I read about the experiments, several other considerations occurred to me based on my work with companion animals and experience as the grandmother of an almost 3-year-old.
First, a very abbreviated description of the experiment: An object is placed in a box and the researcher then performs some meaningless ritual before opening the box and revealing the reward. Whereas the chimpanzees eventually eliminate the ritual and simply open the box to get the desired object, the children continue doing exactly what the adult humans did, even when they are only being observed via cameras.
My first thought about these studies was to wonder whether children and chimpanzees of the same age were of comparable development. A chimpanzee in captivity has a lifespan of about 60 years compared to 35-40 years in the wild. Consequently, in terms of developmental age, the chimpanzee could have been older than the child. Thus, rather than comparing the behaviors of two 3-year-olds, the experiment actually may have been comparing that of, say, a 3- and a 5-year-old. As anyone whose been around kids these ages knows, the 3-year-old is still pretty much a dedicated mimic whereas the older the child, the more the tendency to opt for energy-efficiency.
That the children behaved the same when only observed by camera reminded me an experiment done on cats twice, once in the pre- and once in the post-camera era. In this experiment, cats were put in cages they had to open to get to a food reward. Before the cats would do this, they would rub their bodies back and forth on the door of the cage. When the experiment was done more than 5 decades ago, this was perceived as evidence that cats engaged in ritualistic behavior. However, when the experiment was done again years later, the cats still displayed the same behavior for the researchers, but not when they were being observed by camera. Most cat owners who see the display will instantly recognize it as the one most cats use to greet people they like.
So now we have members of one wild species (chimpanzees) who delete any unnecessary steps that stand between them and any reward regardless of human presence, one semi-domesticated one (cats) who display human-pleasing behaviors only in the presence of humans, and young members of one totally domesticated species (human) who always display the researcher-pleasing ritual whether those people are present or not.
From a behavioral standpoint, it seems reasonable that survival of wild animals is much more dependent on procuring food in the most energy-efficient manner. However, for an animal making the transition from wild to domesticated status, the ability to use two different strategies based on the circumstances might ensure greater survival than either method used alone. Although the most energy-efficient approach would ensure the survival of cats living by their wits, cats willing to engage in feeding rituals would ensure their survival in a human environment that relishes this kind of interspecies interaction. As we can see from the size of the feral as well as pet cat population, the ability to use both behaviors has served the feline species well.
Where do kids fit in in all this? Well, we could agree with some researchers (or journalists writing about the research) and say that they’re just dumber, but I have difficulty with that. In addition to the fact that the children and chimps may not have been the same age developmentally, there’s also one practical and one physiological-behavioral factor that deserve consideration. Practically, if these studies are done in a university setting and the kids tested go to daycare of some sort, it’s quite possible that they’re familiar with closed circuit cameras and know exactly what they are. Granted, teachers in such facilities say that the children ignore them, but the children also know from interactions with their parents that they are being or could be watched at any time. Consequently, and particularly if a big deal were made out of any ritual in the child-chimpanzee experiments, it’s possible that those children would continue the ritual, perhaps seeing it as a test of their ability to follow directions/obey whether an adult is present or not.
The physiological-behavioral factor takes us back to domestication which results in a physiologically and behaviorally immature individual compared to any wild ancestors. Because of this, in some ways members of domesticated species have more in common with each other than they do with their respective wild ancestors. And, in fact, some studies of domestic dog behavior indicate that their responses re: problem-solving are closer to that of young children than wolves. This raises the possibility that the behavior of young children might be closer to that of young dogs than primates.
Does all of this mean that I think chimpanzees aren’t intelligent? No at all! I find capacity of all animals to solve problems a never-ending source of awe and fascination. However, as I ponder these studies I always come back to the same point I do when analyzing behaviors in my patients: whatever behavior the animal (both nonhuman and human ) displays, it represents what that individual considers the most energy-efficient way to get the job done at that time. The problem is that, while researchers and wild animals may define the primary goal as getting the treat in the most energy-efficient way even if this means ignoring the authority figure’s ritual, for the child and many companion animals, the primary goal may be to please/fulfill the emotional needs of the authority figure rather than get any treat or toy. Thus, rather than such experiments proving that one species is smart to the other’s dumb, what they really might prove is that members of wild and domesticated species may use their intelligence in different ways to ensure their survival in quite different emotional as well as physical environments.
And I personally think that this is quite brilliant.