Xref: utzoo rec.birds:453 sci.bio:953
Newsgroups: rec.birds,sci.bio
Path: utzoo!snell
From: snell@utzoo.uucp (snell)
Subject: Intelligent Parrots, or Self-deception and Gullibility.
Message-ID: <1988Mar4.162334.18184@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 88 16:23:34 GMT


In article <308@bacchus.DEC.COM>, larrabee@decwrl.UUCP (Tracy Larrabee) writes:

>In article <495@picuxa.UUCP> gp@picuxa.UUCP (Greg Pasquariello X1190) writes:
>>Is this for real?  Can it be that parrots can not only speak like humans
>>but ALSO _UNDERSTAND_ WHAT THEY ARE SAYING!!!  Maybe we can send a parrot
>>to the moon, not as a test animal, but as an astronaut!  Hell, maybe he can
>>run for President!!
>
>Would you like to send Koko the Gorilla to the moon?  How about the
>African Gray at Purdue who has a 100 word vocabulary--that is, he says and
>understands at least 100 different words.  

I have to wonder what the operational definition of "communicate" is here.
I would accept that some response can be elicited from the parrot
by exposing it to each of 100 or more words.  Perhaps the same response 
is elicited in each case.  I can also accept, since parrots are 
excellent mimics, that a bird might develop an extremely large repertoire 
of "words."  Certainly, there are other birds with immense song repertoires, 
though this in no way implies that they exchange immense quantities of 
information.  Nor does it imply that they have any special ability to think.

I certainly have seen no evidence to support the contention that any
parrot can understand the information content of anything even remotely
approaching 100 different words.  Whether the parrot can utter them or not 
is beside the point.

>He can communicate using the
>concepts of the names of 4 different colors, the first 5 integers, and
>negation.  

Now, I do not scan the contents of the Journal of Irreproducible Results,
but I must admit that I have missed this one.  Please give us a reference
to a study which provides evidence supporting these claims.
I would be happy to read it with a critical (not the same as skeptical)
frame of mind.  Now I have no doubt that a parrot exposed to sufficient
repetitions of an audible sequence "one-two-three-four-five" might come
to mimic that sequence, and not miss a beat.  This in no way indicates
any cognitive awareness of what an integer is.  Similarly, a parrot
might come to mimic a sequence "red-blue-yellow-green," and perhaps
even spontaneously emit parts of the sequence at various times.  
No cognitive awareness need be invoked.

>He can ask that things be done to him or for him or that they
>not be done.  His researchers were espescially surprised when he "learned"
>the concept of negation by himself.  Prior to that they had believed that
>they could not teach him negation because it was thought to be too
>sophisticated a lingustic concept.

Please give us an operational definition of "the concept of negation" as 
it would be applied to parrots.  Exactly what has this bird done, 
or not done, which makes you believe this?

The Purdue Parrot is not the first example of a supposedly intelligent
animal.  One of the parrot's most famous predecesors was a horse
named Clever Hans.  Some 80 years ago, this horse amazed the scientific
world and also the popular press with his apparent abilities to count,
spell, and apparently manifest intelligence.
Clever Hans would perform, not just for his owner who evidently was a 
sincere man who truly believed in the abilities of his horse, but for 
many others as well.  There can be no doubt that it was a remarkable
phenomenon.  I suspect is it rather naive to dismiss Clever Hans as a 
historical curiosity, which could not happen in our more "enlightened" age.
Clever Hans would tap out numbers with his hoof, stopping when he 
reached the right answer.  It was discovered that people were subconsciously
cueing the horse, by a small jerk of the head or some other movement.
The horse was able to detect such movement when it was as small as even
0.2 mm.

As has been pointed out in many analyses since then, not just of Clever
Hans, but of the whole field of self-deception and gullibility, this
desire to communicate with animals is a recurrent fashion.  In the 
1950's the fad became dolpins.  After that, the fad progressed to sign
language with apes (which Ms. Larrabee alludes to when she mentions Koko,
who reportedly described a zebra as a "white tiger.")  The superstar
of ape signing was Nim Chimpsky, named after Noam Chomsky.  Nim's longest
recorded utterance was a 16 word statement, "Give orange me give eat orange
me eat orange give me eat orange give me you."  For a detailed and
enlightening analysis of this, read Umiker-Sebeok and Sebeok (Clever Hans
and Smart Simians, _Anthropos_ 76:89-166, 1981).  Another discussion is in
Wade (Does Man alone have language? Apes Reply in Riddles, and a Horse
says Neigh. _Science_ 208:1349-1351, 1980).  The bottom line is this: the
apes have been busy making monkeys out of their proponents.


In short, I no more think the Purdue Parrot is engaged in intelligent
conversation than I think Clever Hans was.


>The bird has been on TV and written up in magazines and newspapers.

This is not exactly an endorsement--there are many foolish things on 
television.

>He has also plucked all the feathers off his body that he can reach.

It is common for caged animals who are deprived of adequate stimulus
to exhibit such aberrant, abnormal behaviour.  To be anthropocentric
for a moment, I could say that parrot is bored out of his little mind.

>As an addendum, perhaps you don't think that linguistic ability alone
>signifies intelligence. John Lilly and company seem to believe that if
>they could prove that dolphins could communicate using language they would
>have proven that dolphins are sapient beings.  

The fad for dolphin intelligence will continue, likely indefinitely.  I was
as amused as anyone to watch Mr. Spock mind-melt with a whale in Star Trek IV,
but surely the pleasure of the fantasy does not imply any reality.

>Yes, intelligence is a
>multi-faceted thing, but parrots, gorillas, and dolphins are demonstrably
>more advanced with respect to this multi-faceted thing than the other
>animals that most of us have dealings with.

Though clearly not a cut and dried issue, there is much evidence that 
many animals engage in elaborate social interactions.  It is easy, for
those who are so inclined, to anthropomorphise and imagine that these
animals are "demonstrably more advanced."

>Not to mention their laudable lack of sarcastic comments.

You mistake sarcasm for skepticism.  The blind-faith believers in animal
intelligence could use a hearty dose of the latter.
-- 
Name:   Richard Snell
Mail:   Dept. Zoology, Univ. Toronto
        Toronto, Ontario, Canada    M5S 1A1
UUCP:   {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,linus,pyramid,yetti,utai}!utzoo!snell