The whole "plant" and "touch purple" is all a simple gag to keep us unaware of Apollo's true level intelligence.
5 days ago | 846
I think when Apollo says he wants fresh water, he's just trollin and just wants to watch Dalton fetch it
5 days ago | 338
Exactly! I have been pointing this out for decades now. In the quest to avoid anthropomorphism, virtually all of science has been committing anthropocentrism to the max!! At least some of conventional biology is now recognizing that non human thought and sentience exists. Not that long ago it was the strict a priori stance that only humans were capable of thought, self awareness, tool use, culture…. So if you observed any of those traits in a non human, you were just wrong from the start. So seems they’ve made some tiny progress toward actual honest observation and description.. as real science demands. But rules that keep humans in a separate category still persist.
5 days ago | 401
I am a complete layman to this topic, but coming from a communication/sociology background I think the biggest flaw in animal-human communication, specifically where an animal is mimicing human speech, is that we forget that an animal has their own logic and "semantics". I see a lot of content with these talking buttons to help dogs and cats talk with their humans, but this is inherently based on a flawed logic, because with the implementation of these buttons, we force the animal to think in a completely different, abstract way to make us understand what they want (and then there is the fallacy of our understanding of the clues they give us). A marvel that we can teach animals to "think" in a human way, yes, and I see it as A form of intelligence, but I am not okay with the premise that we teach an animal to talk to us and then disregard their normal way of species-accurate communication (I know this is not the situation with Apollo and the girls). I have cats, I have tried to introduce the talking buttons to some of them as a form of enrichment, but 1. they weren't interested, and 2. even though they can use it (we only have "food" and "outside" buttons). we already "speak cat" in a sense, so they feel no need to use the button, because we are already recepitve to their body language, the tone of meows (there is a difference between feed me, pet me, found something cool, "MOM SOMEONE SHAT BEHIND THE DOOR" (one of the cats is a real tattletale who lead us to the product, and she does this every time someone misbehaves or something falls, but we call it by the first instance name :D) and "LET ME IN I NEED TO PEE" closed-bathroom-door cries). I think language is not necessarily the best way to measure intelligence in animals, I find tool usage and complex problem solving a more reliable way. But, again, I specialised in human communication, not animals, so I don't know shit.
2 days ago | 5
If a human child was raised the way that Alex was, it would severely limit the child's growth. Children learn language because they are hearing it anytime they are awake. They are exposed to many different speakers and many sources. A child left in a lab, would have a whole lot less variety and less input.
5 days ago | 146
I do think Apollo should be asked more open-ended questions. His display of intelligence is limited to repeated multiple-choice tests.
5 days ago | 191
I have started writing a whole essay about parrot rights but short version: in both science and society at large, widely accepted standards of 'good enough' parrot conditions regularly catastrophically fail to meet their basic needs. this stems from both 1. the poverty of scientific research on parrots in their natural environment, which creates conditions where even lifelong bird-lovers and trained scientists are ignorant of what a humane environment for a parrot looks like, and 2. normalization of keeping "exotic" pet parrots in very isolated conditions, which is made worse by the expense and rarity of pet parrots leaving owners with fewer local resources (compare to e.g. the number of dog parks, vets that specialize in dog care, dog trainers, dog walkers, and social clubs for dog owners in a given city or region).
2 days ago (edited) | 2
I've known people whose parrots learned complete sentences, and then would make their own sentences by changing names for different family members/pets. I've been waiting for Apollo to start doing that. I realize he's still young, but it should be happening any time now. A question I have not heard you ask Apollo is "Who are you talking to?" and teach him to say their name to address them directly the same way you address everyone by name.
2 days ago | 5
I often wonder if other mammals were not consumed by the need to fill their days with whatever that species needs to do just to survive, how much 'intelligence' we would be able to perceive in them, and if we can't perceive their intelligence does that even mean they don't have any or are we just to limited to perceive it ourselves. Who really knows who the more intelligent creature is, or if there even is a 'more' intelligent creature at all...
2 days ago | 2
Dalton: Great job Apollo here's a pistach Apollo: *Takes and eats pistach Apollo: wort wort wort
5 days ago | 12
Very fair. And on a related note, it seems like we always want to anthropomorphize dogs and cats as well as other mammalian subjects while we deanthropomorphize creatures that look less like us (ex: birds, octopuses) but might in fact have very similar cognitive abilities. I'm in school right now looking to become a cognitive psychologist, and while I have immense respect for the scientific method, there's a lot to be said for naturalistic observation and it's totally worthwhile to examine normal animals living normal lives (whether that be in captivity or in the wild), even if such observations don't grant the same objective data as experimentation. I'm not an expert, but I really do think Apollo is a brilliant boy who understands most, if not all, of what he says.
4 days ago | 6
Ohmygod I’ve been saying this for twenty years!! I know that means nothing but you’ve nailed it. The scientific method sucks in relation to animal cognition and understanding of it. 1) it’s to ridged, as you say, 2) it draws the line between them snd us on false assumptions, 3) if it doesn’t like the results, as in the mirror test, tool use, language comprehension, it redraws the line 🤦🏻♀️🤷🏻♀️🤦🏻♀️ 😮 the upswing of video footage and citizen scientists has changed the game. ❤❤❤you’re doing marvellous work!! Apollo forever!! Toot toot! Snac
4 days ago | 5
There is a paradox in the field of Animal Cognition. Cognition itself is a subjective experience no one can prove. We simply believe people who claim to have 3d, 2d, colored, black and white or no imagination. We simply have to trust people who say they hear an internal monologue voice. Of course we will never believe we hallucinate those, but should it be believed upon others and suddenly they need to prove it.
5 days ago | 101
there is acknowledgement nowadays (in psychology at least) that the more variables you try to hold constant—so only the ones of interest are changing—the less generalisable it is to naturalistic settings. now, i do psych stuff, but i'm largely unfamiliar with the study of animal behaviour/psychology (outside of skinner boxes and such) so i don't know how applicable the concept of "generalisablity" is outside of psych research. but basically, yeah i think you're right Dalton
5 days ago | 10
Apollo makes jokes and combines words in novel ways to describe his experience. He has a colorful personality and knows the difference between himself and others. By any good measure he's a non-human person. Alex could apparently ask questions about himself but that's not necessary for high intelligence.
3 days ago | 1
Apollo and Frens
There is a paradox in the field of Animal Cognition. Scientific objectivity inherently and severely stunts the development and capability of the "subject". Take the constraints placed upon Alex & Dr. Pepperberg; what effect would these constraints have on the development of a human infant?
5 days ago | [YT] | 4,716