Counting monkeys tick off yet another 'human' ability

[lygophile]

72 and 66% is really not impressive. since its a mutliple choice out of two, randomly clicking would have a 50% result.

all they might be doing is seperating "many" from "few", and be bad at it.

parrets can count better then that.

[JDnx]

is it really that far-fetched that monkeys can count?

there's evidence that dogs can count

[lygophile]

i'm not saying it's far-fetched. i'm just saying these results are not very impressive and do not establish that they can count - not anything i would call counting anyway.

[JDnx]

more study is necessary, i like to think that they can count

[hydrobot2003]

Give the monkey a banana! Monkey plus Annunaki = Human Being. haha

[spiderman1321]

LMAO i went into a computing exam without a clue and got 65%

[mcinerney101]

62% seems like its just guessing to me

[whiskers123]

50% is guessing...

[bornfromground]

is crappy guessing

[gemcutter187]

N is not nearly high enough, weak power!

[Sickopath333]

This is a pretty big leap and I imagine most peer-reviewers (just sounded weird saying that) would probably downplay this. I remember a while ago now, Ripley's Believe it or Not footage where a dog would bark the right number of times to answer multiplication questions and I think square roots as well. Take that concept with a grain of salt (it was videotaped, but still, just a show), but all it takes is conditioning (ever see people train dogs before) to make an animal behave a certain way.

[benoitcsirois]

They should have monkey school and start teaching monkeys at a young age!

[DarkProject]

Now here is a test that some of the youtubers need to do before they should be allowed to register, i bet half of em would haven an epic fail.

[prodprod]

The design of the experiment seems very odd -- with the dot on the screen always being shown at the same time as the beep and so far as I can see always being the same number as the beep -- one beep, one dot.

They may simply be conditioning the monkeys such that when the screen flashes and they're then given a choice, they pick the square with the larger number of boxes in it.

More often than not.

They should have beeps, then dots, then a choice of three or more outcomes.

[rippanation]

Yeah stick a bunch of them in a room with a bunch of typewriters and give them an infinite ammount of time? hmmm? i wonder what they would produce? Its like planet of the apes all over again lol.

[GoombaDaddy]

hmm...... i say continue experiment. i remain unconvinced that they are actually counting. Larger sample needed!

[djancak]

flawed experiment. invalid conclusion. please fix.

[BossMadOne]

Chickens have been trained for years to do this..

[Zimy0]

What does she mean "this means animals..."? Humans are animals too...

[whitephillyboy13]

my god... they can do better math than some 8th graders i know! lol they need to fill the screen with 4 or 5 choices to see if thier conclusion/hypothesis is correct

[HelmutHair]

72% & 62% of the time?

How can they successfully count 9 beeps but not 6?

This is not very conclusive. I remain unimpressed.

Fail.

[writeincode]

they're not saying that theyre particularly good but they are capable. Were it just chance it would be much closer to 50%.

[UncleKennybobs]

I can count.

[elchino87]

I really ope in the real study they had more than 2 choices...cuz if not this is just pure stupidity

[Ghotiolo]

yes lets make animals smarter and let them rule the world

[sikorski]

I know people who couldn't do better.

[CCCheezus]

50% chance and... why don't we see the 'whole' monkey? There's not some dude with a fake monkey hand pressing it up on a screen?

[purtymusic]

There's only two choices.

PISH!

[sweekun]

its a 50/50 shot. doesnt prove shit

[dakkon10]

wow, you guys forget according to this video the monkeys had a 50% chance of getting it right, meaning you could do it blindfolded and with your ears plugged and still have a 50% chance to get it right.

[mcresearch]

That's right but if the monkeys were scoring 50% correct, that would show that they couldn't do the task. Instead they consistently scored over 70% correct.

[L33754UC3]

i wish i could read

[MashedPotatoes5]

I wish I could type :(

[Xtremename]

Dam that's better than most people :P

[iloveallecchianime]

wow smarter than bush

[warknit]

it would be messed up if they were just pressing one of the two buttons randomly....

[BioLogical94]

MONKEYS ARE SMART

[Avalikia]

This does not prove that they can count. Many animals are good at knowing how many things are there without counting. People do this all the time; if you see three kids, you know that there are three kids without counting them. Without the ability to count, animals develop this skill farther than people do, but it only works with smaller numbers. This test does not elimiate this technique. When a monkey can tell the difference between 23 and 24, THEN I will be impressed.

[calladuz]

Pigs can do this with a high success rate i believe

[redbull2501]

thats dumb 66% isnt high enough percentage wise to say that animals actually can count and stuff. I would want like 95% success rate for this claim.. you dont need to be frikkin einsteine to count 3 beeps to 3 squares.

[BlueBajs]

It's MONKEYS you stupid Youtube commenter.

[redbull2501]

Yes I know but saying they can count and work our mathematical equations and cure cancer is going a bit far considering the simplicity of their task and the poor success rate.

[MashedPotatoes5]

I'd like to see you try, you probably would need to count on your fingers :)

[redbull2501]

and toes.

[Tetrafirez]

Dude I don't even think 66% of Americans can count beeps while watching squares. Plus a few in, the monkey counted 7 of them and without hesitation pushed the representation of 7 on the screen.

People just don't like being challenged by something that has been considered "subhuman" for centuries, and that is why they can't accept this.

[redbull2501]

Lol, I dont think americans are a good example.. Im not questioning the fact that the monkey did work it out himself, its just a really low percentage that could be easily guessed.

People can train their dogs to give them a high 5, big deal.

[WannaBeLink]

my dog gives me high fives!

[Grafix59z]

mine too :D!!

[BioLogical94]

I dont think bulls have fingers >_>

[zabbazabba23]

this shows that these monkeys are good guessers

[franknyt]

Monkey was given a choice of many RED squares or few RED squares, it guestimated correctly 2 red squares appeared, it chose the selection that showed 3 RED squares. But what the fuck do I know I would dozed off by then.

[MonkeyMania001]

If you read the original article in the journal (not news story) there is no mention of monkeys counting--only estimating. I think the idea of counting came from the Newscientist reporters.

[websnarf]

I am wondering if we could petition Newscientist to rename itself NewAgeScientist.

[CousinoMacul]

You're just jealous that a monkey will take your job some day.

[websnarf]

Don't you see? If they get my job, yours will soon follow! And then we will be living in a post-nuclear apocalypse! All I can say is, get your hands off me you damn dirty apes!

Seriously though, how about NewAgePseudoScientist? The initials are NAPS. I think its perfect.

Hint to NewScientist: YouTube now implements a video annotation feature. You might like to use it to "clarify" some of the remarks in the conclusion of this video.

[jam2go]

a monkey took my job

[qwerty7546]

you work for Newscientist ?

[djancak]

i lol'd. and then i cried afterwards.

[b4skin]

You know, really I should self-regulate my 'negative' responses. The title using human as 'human' indicates that the authors did in fact take a comparative analysis between monkey/human and I let my emotions run my fingers. Oh,well count 1 for the monkeys and Newscientistvideo.

[b4skin]

Woops, read it again and that's not how they meant it at all. I take my point back, but the difference (mentally) between verbal/non-verbal counting sounds intriguing.

[CactosS]

one step closer to conquer the world

[dafttool]

I would like to see young humans, who have not been exposed to any math schooling, put through this same experiment, being given the same instructions, to see how they measure up with monkeys. At what point (age-wise) do humans start doing as well or better than the monkeys given this task?

I spent many years working with several primate species and was always astounded at how childlike they were, especially chimpanzees.

[b4skin]

I completely agree with you, dafttool, because the assertion they are making by the video name indicates just that comparison (which is why I and others are disappointed in it). Could it not be just as misinformative not to account for how/why a monkeys reasoning abilities might be different from our own, thus this video actually places ourselves on such a pedestal (which I know is counter-intuitive to the look-at-how-human the monkey is so we should repect it more presentation).

[b4skin]

Dafttool, I would also think, humanely, comparisons between human children/monkeys would not work in that what level of parental guidance includes math associations.  Which again may play a HUGE factor in what monkeys regard as natural/necessary functional behavior to teach. So, what would THE OFFSPRING of a monkey whose parents were exposed to necessary mathmatical reasonings for survival conclude?

[dafttool]

That's one reason why I mentioned no schooling in math, which would be a very small & difficult sample group to find since early on humans start teaching the basics without even thinking about it. And certainly primates teach their young early on as well. I believe there has been studies where primates taught sign language immediately begin teaching sign language to other primates they are around, incorporating it into their interactions.

[websnarf]

No it does not prove that. It proves they have can *estimate* addition. Human do *not* learn to add this way, and do not achieve only 66% accuracy. This is some different kind of mental skill.

[n3wby001]

Those monkeys are smarter than some humans.

[b4skin]

So I now have faith that Darwinism is correct because I'm happy that other cute/cuddly human-monkeys can count just like us if we would just modify our perceptions and give them a chance.

[b4skin]

...and i'd like to add that as 'scientists', if an assersion PROVES to be incorrect (or even ambiguous) the scientist would either restate the case to include the possibility of said ambiguity or recant their statement entirely. Your reputation is at stake here esp. if what we are seeing is multiple writers of your videos associating themselves as one (newscientistvideo) which of course is only logical to be the case. -or define/redefine what 'counting' means to _you (an important distinction).

[VerboseVindication]

I'm enjoying all the comments on here so much. I guess everyone is so eager to try and disprove this study because being able to count is one of the few things they feel makes them smarter than monkies. And since they can't do much else that makes them seem smarter than a monkey, they now feel threatened now their one smart thing has been taken away.

[djancak]

obvious troll is obvious

[b4skin]

I think what's really happening is instead of respect for what monkeys CAN do, we posters are concerned that the real comprehension of what we as humans term as counting is actually more abstract than mere observatory comparison (though we certainly must begin there). I am not even even saying that monkeys cannot achieve this behavior, but AM saying that this footage certainly doesn't show it to be scientifically observed!

[qwerty7546]

i mean this is ridiculous. people allow me quote this "And since they can't do much else that makes them seem smarter than a monkey, they now feel threatened now their one smart thing has been taken away." really? I MEAN REALLY?!? / shoot me.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Any amount of time spent in a western nightclub would prove that to be a hopeless cause!!

[djancak]

why were the comments reset?

once again, this video is NOT scientific, and these monkeys do NOT know math.

[MaxSafeheaD]

Not scientific? What are you talking about? It's a video report on a scientific study, how is it not scientific?

[djancak]

If someone says that their study is 'scientific' that doesn't actually make it so. Plenty of creationists do just that.

This study is not scientific because they're claiming evidence for counting monkeys but instead merely testing the monkeys' ability to determine more or less (which they fail quite often also, 30% of the time!).

To determine whether or not the monkey is counting, the screen should be filled with at least more than two choices.

[Kujien]

Then how is he doing it?

[newscientistvideo]

Hi djancak, the comments weren't reset. We spotted a mistake in the credits of the video, and had to republish it.

[djancak]

i spotted a mistake in the conclusion, is that going to be fixed as well?

[newscientistvideo]

If there were a major mistake, then of course we'd correct it. We're not aware of one, though.

The fact that the monkeys make mistakes doesn't mean they can't count. Humans make mistakes, and that doesn't mean we can't count. :)

Actually the monkeys mostly make mistakes when the correct and incorrect answers are very similar, which is the same error pattern observed in humans.

[djancak]

I must admit that I am very disturbed that as a 'newscientist', you are not able to distinguish the difference between reciting the order of items in a list and counting. I am also disturbed that you fail to see the flaw in giving the monkeys a consistent 50% chance of getting the answer correct. Even just one slip-up like this majorly discredits the newscientist's credibility, and makes evolutionary scientists look bad, and makes psuedoscience more appealing.

PLEASE fix this, for humanity!

[djancak]

oops, i just noticed that i falsely accused newscientistvideo of something from a different 'monkey counting' video: watch?v=VM5QS_adrIQ

my conclusion remains, however.

[newscientistvideo]

Yes, I think you'll find the "monkey counting" video you mentioned is actually from the TelegraphTV channel. Nothing on there is our fault. :)

We did cover that particular bit of research in this video: watch?v=nTgeLEWr614 and we emphasised that the chimps showed better MEMORY skills, which of course isn't the same as counting. That was the upshot of that study.

[qwerty7546]

But you say in the video that the monkeys were right 65% of the time. possibble confclusions:

1. the monkeys know how to count

2. the monkeys got lucky

3. the monkeys associated longer beep times with "crowded" boxes

I dont see how your video disproves #2 or 3. i think i'll have to agree with djanak. this video is not really "scientific" ,unless i'm missing something here" -looking forward to your reply :)

[qwerty7546]

"Both monkeys tended to make mistakes when the right and wrong answers were numerically similar. For instance, if the choices were one and eight, the animals rarely got it wrong. But they found it harder to choose between, say, five and six." -NS

if anything i think i'm right on conclusion 3. I;m really pissed off about this now. SCIENTIFIC ????

[newscientistvideo]

And how are the monkeys assessing the "length of beep", given that the beeps are presented as separate, discrete beeps rather than one long beep? :)

More to the point, there was an additional control, where the monkeys had to count a random sequence of visual squares and auditory beeps. So, for instance, "square square beep square beep" would be 5, and they had to hit the image with 5 blocks to get it right.

[djancak]

If someone looks at one object then later another, they can tell if one is bigger than the other. If someone gets punched in the stomache then later kicked in the groin, they can tell which one hurt more than the other. If somebody has to sit and watch a screen then later watch another, they can tell how bored they were watching one versus the other. But of course this comparison is hard to make when the quantities are close (like in the video). There is no counting involved whatsoever.

[newscientistvideo]

The video is only reporting on the science, and is intended to give a brisk, simple description of it. For more detail, you can always read our article (linked to from the right of the vid) or even the source paper, which is freely available (the DOI is 10.1016/j.cognition.2008.05.00­6).

One can't entirely exclude possibility 2, in ANY experiment. But the results went through all the usual statistical analyses, and remained significant even with a p-value of 0.001, which is pretty good. (cntd)

[djancak]

If the 'usual statistical analysis' allows this kind of content to be considered 'scientific', then how can we trust ANYTHING that comes from newscientist? I suggest that we utilize the self-correcting mechanism of the scientific method and DISCARD THIS MISINFORMATION.

I know you need content for newscientist, but it's better to have no content than false or misleading content.

[b4skin]

I agree with the emotion, but disagree with the conclusion. Getting them to change BECAUSE we respect them is more powerful/appropriate. C'mon, be honest, having false/misleading content ALLOWS for Socratic analysis which leads (by scientific endeavour) to what we term as 'truth'.

Which is why I, personally, am glad you started this whole new'scientist' call-out in the first place djancak!

[newscientistvideo]

I was only making the point that possibility 2 ("the monkeys got lucky") is ALWAYS a possibility, in any experiment. By itself, doing stats obviously doesn't make something scientific. One also needs, for instance, a null hypothesis (which in this case was that the monkeys would perform at chance). (another comment to follow)

[newscientistvideo]

If I've understood you, you're taking issue with the interpretation of the experiment as "counting".

The researchers call it "nonverbal numerical ability", which is obviously more precise. It's a distinct system from the one we use for verbal counting, but is seemingly still present in humans - when humans have to count nonverbally, their performance is very similar to the monkeys'.

It may be a "lower form" as b4skin says, but it allows monkeys to do addition and possibly even multiplication.

[qwerty7546]

i have to admit djancak that you can not make judgements based onthe the clip alone.

i'd love to go through the paper if i had the time :)

btw- this is where karl pilkington (if youre familiar with him) gets his monkey news. NS and ananova :)

[b4skin]

Wow, your responses only solidify djancak's assersions that you are setting an emotional standard of behavior observation. If making counting mistakes occurs in humans from the human relying on similarity vs. true comprehension, then this again is not 'true counting', it is, like the monkeys, a 'lower form' of comparative analysis (which IS NOT counting).

He is asking you for clarification, not only on the emotional level of respect for your name, but for how you blatantly disregard it.

[MaxSafeheaD]

You could say there is a good chance that counting plays a role in the monkeys decision but it may also partially rely on other instincts - like qwerty7546 mentioned instinctively picking 'crowded' boxes for more beeps/squares.

perhaps playing the beeps then get a monkey to physically put that many objects in a tray?

[GFl1ve]

ANIMALS? OHRLLY BECAUSE I RECALL THEY ONLY TESTED MONKIES, THE SMARTEST ANIMALS. (apart from humans)

[teemuruskeepaa]

Abstarct math calculations? Math is based on laws of calculus. Randomly thrown estimate, wheather a monkey or a human is not abstract math

[hartnell114]

unless it was just guessing and managed to get higher than 50% average,or knew the differance between more and less,i think any monkey would know the differance between one and many, give one one banana and the other three,see how quickly the other monkey gets pissed

[appleasodkaa]

Go monkeys!

[HighGuy512]

intriguing!