All five females solved the problem the first time they encountered it (!), within 9 minutes on average
Orangutan - photo from Wikipedia
From many studies in apes it became clear that they excel, more than any other animal except man, in solving problems, especially those that require the use of tools. The only animals that come close, and sometimes even surpass them, in this area are - perhaps surprisingly - birds from the crow family.
In a new study conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, the researchers tried to check if apes can solve problems that do not rely on operating a solid tool, but on using water as a tool.
In a study published in the journal Biology Letters, Natasha Mendes and her colleagues placed five female orangutans in front of a transparent tube, filled with water up to a quarter of its height, with a peanut (the prize) floating on the surface of the water. The only opening in the tube was on the top side, and too small to allow the man-hoppers to reach the peanut with their fingers. It was not possible to tilt the receiver in any way, and there were no tools in the room with which the prize could be "fished".
The only other thing found in the room was a drinking device - the female orangutans could only get the peanut if they filled their mouths with water and spat it into the tube several times, thus raising the water level and with it - the peanut.
All five females solved the problem the first time they encountered it (!), within 9 minutes on average. At first they tried to use their hands and mouth to get the peanut out, but after reaching a solution they abandoned these attempts and focused on filling the water. They continued to use the same method in repeated tests, and in the tenth test it only took them half a minute on average to reach the peanut.
The fact that all the subjects reached the solution in such a short time also surprised the researchers. Mendes said in an interview with the science weekly "Nature" that in their opinion many people were not able to give a quick answer to the problem.
יAll planning
An important aspect of the experiment is that the first spit of water into the tube did not yield the reward - at the tills the person had to spit into the tube several times until the level rose to a sufficient level. Nevertheless, as soon as the subject "got the idea" of filling the water, she immediately continued this behavior until the reward was obtained.
Such behavior indicates the ability to plan and the ability to think abstractly, since the female orangutans did not see the tool that was used to solve the problem, and had to develop a mental image of the solution.
The next step, say the researchers, will be to find out if the subjects spit the water in without realizing what they were doing, and only when they saw that the water was rising did they realize the advantage of this action, or did they plan the entire way of the solution in advance. To test this, another experiment will be conducted in which apes will be presented with a reward inside a sealed and non-transparent tube, so that they cannot clearly see the result of putting the water into it. Success in such a test can indicate advance planning, and hence abstract thinking at a high level.
Written by: Yonat Ashchar and Noam Levithan. Originally published in "Galileo" magazine
12 תגובות
It's good that there are experiments that make us open our eyes about the awareness of other life forms besides ourselves!
To all commenters:
In most centers where the behavior of great apes is studied, including this center, the apes get living conditions like in the best zoos, with a large yard with facilities, running water, etc. I am attaching the address of the center's website, so you can see for yourself. If you go a little higher you can also see the principles of research at the center, which is based entirely on observation, without any harm to the animals. By the way, the orangutans were not hungry - they get all their meals on time, and the peanut is just another treat.
There are of course also neuropsychological experiments where electrodes are inserted into the brains of monkeys or even a part of the brain is surgically removed. These experiments quite horrify me, and I am not at all sure that they are all important enough to justify such damage. But again - this is absolutely not the case here. I also don't know of any cases where such experiments on apes were approved.
http://www.eva.mpg.de/psycho/files/apes.html#housing
Dear Mr. Anonymous
You asked well, why only females,
Perhaps the purpose of the study is to show that females have their place in the kitchen and only they are able to take care of the natural problems in peanuts.
Please answer gently
Sabdarmish Yehuda
But why only female orangutans?
Peace be upon you and a morning full of roses!
Unfortunately, a previous response I wrote to you on the same subject has disappeared from the Internet. All I can do is try to restore it.
Below is the reconstruction.
My heart, my heart, with those sea lilies. I am also angry about your musical cruelty. Doesn't every sane person know that the average sea urchin, who hears Zohar Argov's songs, depression, knows what the bitter Argov future awaits her. Couldn't you sing them a different song, for example: "Shoshanat Yaakov Joy and Joy"? At least you would have given a few seconds of happiness to the poor turbans on their way to the dark nitrogen. Shame on you!
Now, when I look at my dear and pious wife, Shoshana, tears of sadness come to my eyes at the memory of other Shoshanas.
May your soul be bundled in a bunch of roses.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
I assume that the experiment with the corresponding information in which the brain activity of the monkeys was measured while moving their limbs will be considered a cruel experiment by you.
As far as I understand, for the sake of the experiment it is necessary to saw off part of the monkey's skull, in order to reach the brain with the electrodes. tie him so that he does not disconnect the electrodes during the experiment and allow him a minimum of movement so that the relevant movements can be observed.
It remains only to guess what the fate of the monkeys is after the experiment.
In my opinion, since in this case the goal is important enough (brain-driven artificial organs for the disabled), such experiments should also be allowed.
On the other hand, for less important purposes, such as cosmetics, etc., even the least cruel experiments should be reduced.
In my opinion, the sea lilies did not like Zohar Argov's songs because it is well known that the sea lilies like the songs of the Mediterranean Sea, the Red Sea and also Idan Reichel's song "From the Depths"
To Sabdarmish Yehuda, no less dear,
Actually you are absolutely right. There is quite a bit of hypocrisy that deserves real reproach among scientists of the type who on the one hand destroy animals in the name of science and on the other hand slander about killing other animals. This hypocrisy also exists in the general public who want to free the laboratory animals but use a rouge and deodorant that was first tested on rabbits.
Your criticism is correct and hits a very sensitive point for me - especially because it is so true. True, there is cognitive dissonance and there is self-conviction but at the end of the day, we kill animals and sometimes unnecessarily.
Cruel experiments are of course something that needs to be tattooed from the ground up. But the question is not only this: what about growing conditions? What about animal experiments for study? Again and again every year at BS University, first-year students are given pairs of shark pairs (yes, a shark) and perform various surgeries on it in order to learn about the muscles of the eyeball and the nervous system, etc. Is it necessary? And what about all those medical teachers who claim that there is nothing like spitting out real blood to teach a doctor how to insert a tube into the trachea and that dummies do not get the same impression as it does with live dogs?
If so, your criticism is spot on and it is difficult and very important to expose the hypocritical faces of scientists and the general public. At the same time, it must be remembered that there is room for improvement and it does not amount to "cruel experiments".
Moreover, I will say that, at least officially, we were told, all those students who started their master's degree at Bar Ilan at the time, that when working with animals we should strive to work with animals as "poor" as possible in the evolutionary hierarchy. ZA if monkeys are the top, then let's put dogs (in a rough way) after them, followed by mice, then cockroaches, and only then the last multi-celled ones (squirrels) - this is the approach today.
The animals that I destroyed then I took from the family of the sea urchins (sea lilies). They do have a nervous system, but I tried to make death quick and immediate (liquid nitrogen) and of course I tried to make their time during the research as enjoyable as possible (I played Zohar Argov songs for them, to my surprise it helped them acclimate).
Greetings friends,
Ami Bachar
I wouldn't solve it.
And besides, why bother?
Peanut and then what?
What will happen in the more distant future?
Better to rest and not think...
Dear Ami Bachar
It's a bit hard for me to understand. On the one hand you justify the killing of your animals in the laboratory but lament the plight of the poor monkeys who eat peanuts all day in comfortable cages.
I have no problem neither with your experiments that will help the human race in the future nor with this experiment that teaches us about the wisdom of our relatives the apes.
I only have a problem with cruel experiments. There is no reason in any case to conduct cruel experiments.
Sabdarmish Yehuda
Then after the experiment we put the monkeys in their cages, where they spent a few more nights until the next experiment.
It's quite shocking to see all these monkeys in the research labs. Although the conditions have improved miraculously in recent years, but still, due to budget and convenience (in the name of science) they are treated like the other animals.
Perhaps this study will make many researchers realize the level of intelligence of the great apes. These are animals that are very close to us and in some cases (let's say compared to members of the Knesset) even surpass us.
Full Disclosure:
I also worked with animals that at the end of the experiment in order to study their biochemistry I had to destroy them. I understand the need for research because the results expand the understanding and allow us future planning that can lead to the salvation of the species or the family. At the same time, it is important to teach and explain both to scientists and the general public the need for respect towards the animals that participate in the experiment and to try to make the time of the latter as enjoyable as possible while fulfilling their duties, against their own good and against their will.