4 ms·

I agree. It seems that much of studying animal behavior consists of confirming what farmers and hunters have known since 3000BC. I think chipmunks in my yard

I agree. It seems that much of studying animal behavior consists of confirming what farmers and hunters have known since 3000BC. I think chipmunks in my yard aren't much different than these crows, though they clearly can't recognize faces. Actually they don't really understand that legs and arms are part of the same being. Which makes me wonder about crows, which seem so smart but don't have much more brain mass than a squirrel.

yareally 11y ago
> don't have much more brain mass than a squirrel. Mass alone isn't a significant measure. It's the mass to size ratio[1], which for crows (EQ 4.1) is similar to chimps (EQ 4.2), with higher EQ generally denoting higher intelligence. For comparison, bottle nose dolphins are 5.9 EQ. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient
- byron_fast 11y ago
  Yeah, true, otherwise whales would have fusion-powered underwater cities. I think in the case of crows they have really good eyes especially compared to chipmunks, who don't seem able to resolve anything other than movement beyond a few feet.
  - yareally 11y ago
    Yep, crows have pretty good eyesight. Speaking of chipmunks, I used to have one shamelessly come to the window where I would put some peanuts out every day for jays and chickadees. This particular chipmunk just couldn't help himself and tapping on the window wouldn't stop him from stuffing his cheeks (he'd just look at me for a moment and then carry on with stuffing). I would have to literally open the window to get him to run off and save some for everyone else. However, as soon as I look away (my PC at home is next to the window), he'd be back stuffing his cheeks again. Perhaps it just couldn't see me that well, as you said, heh. Crows will craft and use tools in the wild[1]. Their intelligence always surprises me, though I think most of us are predisposed to assume birds are not that intelligent when compared to other animals. I used to think that myself before making the study of birds a hobby. Crows snip into the leaf edges and then tear out neat strips of vegetation with which they can probe insect-harboring crevices. These tools have been observed to come in three types: narrow strips, wide strips and multi-stepped strips—which are wide at one end and, via a manufacturing process that involves stepwise snips and tears, become narrow at the opposite end. Studies show that New Caledonian crows are capable of meta-tool use, at a level rivalling the best performances seen in primates. One such study involved putting food in a box out of the crows' reach. The crows were given a stick that was too short to reach the food. However, this short stick could be used to retrieve a longer stick from another box, which could then be used to retrieve the food. This complex behaviour involved the crow realising that a tool could be used on non-food objects, and suppressing the urge to go directly for the food. It was solved by six of seven birds on the first attempt. This behaviour had previously only been observed in primates. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonian_crow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonian_crow
  - crpatino 11y ago
    > otherwise whales would have fusion-powered underwater cities. No, no, no. Why do you have to assume that intelligent beings must always develop complex technology. If you define "intelligent" to be "like us", you will fail to see the intelligence of almost everything else. Our own species learned to develop complex technology because we had (at least) 2 different exceptional qualities: an smart enough brain, and hands with thumbs that are good enough to manipulate objects. Each of this is independently useful (or it would not have evolved at all), but we got lucky an won the lottery twice... and then we were able to combine those two features in non obvious ways. And it took us hundreds of thousands of years to figure out how.
    - yareally 11y ago
      > ...because we had (at least) 2 different exceptional qualities... On the topic of exceptional qualities, what is thought to be behind New Caledonian Crows and their expert tool use & building is their eyes are more rotated to the front of their face than other crows. Thus, they can focus their vision in front of them easier than other crows of similar intelligence and makes it easier to manipulate and use objects. I think there's been other crows that have used primitive tools in lab settings, but nowhere close to what New Caledonian ones do in the wild or in the lab.
      - crpatino 11y ago
        Well, that makes the list go up to 3: Intelligent brain + stereoscopic vision + opposing thumbs. As you point out in your example, many intelligent species have been observed using rudimentary tools. The conventional explanation is that we must be so much more smart than them, since our tools are much more complex. My point is that maybe what they lack is not the raw intelligence to envision the use of tools, but the dexterity to apply that intelligence to the task of complex tool making.
        yareally 11y ago
        > My point is that maybe what they lack is not the raw intelligence to envision the use of tools, but the dexterity to apply that intelligence to the task of complex tool making. Sounds plausible to me. The more difficult question is how does one ever prove that it's true? I agree that it could be, just overcoming the difficulty in testing with species we barely understand/communicate with hasn't caught up yet to our curiosity.

yareally 11y ago

> don't have much more brain mass than a squirrel. Mass alone isn't a significant measure. It's the mass to size ratio[1], which for crows (EQ 4.1) is similar to chimps (EQ 4.2), with higher EQ generally denoting higher intelligence. For comparison, bottle nose dolphins are 5.9 EQ. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encephalization_quotient

byron_fast 11y ago
Yeah, true, otherwise whales would have fusion-powered underwater cities. I think in the case of crows they have really good eyes especially compared to chipmunks, who don't seem able to resolve anything other than movement beyond a few feet.
- yareally 11y ago
  Yep, crows have pretty good eyesight. Speaking of chipmunks, I used to have one shamelessly come to the window where I would put some peanuts out every day for jays and chickadees. This particular chipmunk just couldn't help himself and tapping on the window wouldn't stop him from stuffing his cheeks (he'd just look at me for a moment and then carry on with stuffing). I would have to literally open the window to get him to run off and save some for everyone else. However, as soon as I look away (my PC at home is next to the window), he'd be back stuffing his cheeks again. Perhaps it just couldn't see me that well, as you said, heh. Crows will craft and use tools in the wild[1]. Their intelligence always surprises me, though I think most of us are predisposed to assume birds are not that intelligent when compared to other animals. I used to think that myself before making the study of birds a hobby. Crows snip into the leaf edges and then tear out neat strips of vegetation with which they can probe insect-harboring crevices. These tools have been observed to come in three types: narrow strips, wide strips and multi-stepped strips—which are wide at one end and, via a manufacturing process that involves stepwise snips and tears, become narrow at the opposite end. Studies show that New Caledonian crows are capable of meta-tool use, at a level rivalling the best performances seen in primates. One such study involved putting food in a box out of the crows' reach. The crows were given a stick that was too short to reach the food. However, this short stick could be used to retrieve a longer stick from another box, which could then be used to retrieve the food. This complex behaviour involved the crow realising that a tool could be used on non-food objects, and suppressing the urge to go directly for the food. It was solved by six of seven birds on the first attempt. This behaviour had previously only been observed in primates. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonian_crow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Caledonian_crow
- crpatino 11y ago
  > otherwise whales would have fusion-powered underwater cities. No, no, no. Why do you have to assume that intelligent beings must always develop complex technology. If you define "intelligent" to be "like us", you will fail to see the intelligence of almost everything else. Our own species learned to develop complex technology because we had (at least) 2 different exceptional qualities: an smart enough brain, and hands with thumbs that are good enough to manipulate objects. Each of this is independently useful (or it would not have evolved at all), but we got lucky an won the lottery twice... and then we were able to combine those two features in non obvious ways. And it took us hundreds of thousands of years to figure out how.
  - yareally 11y ago
    > ...because we had (at least) 2 different exceptional qualities... On the topic of exceptional qualities, what is thought to be behind New Caledonian Crows and their expert tool use & building is their eyes are more rotated to the front of their face than other crows. Thus, they can focus their vision in front of them easier than other crows of similar intelligence and makes it easier to manipulate and use objects. I think there's been other crows that have used primitive tools in lab settings, but nowhere close to what New Caledonian ones do in the wild or in the lab.
    - crpatino 11y ago
      Well, that makes the list go up to 3: Intelligent brain + stereoscopic vision + opposing thumbs. As you point out in your example, many intelligent species have been observed using rudimentary tools. The conventional explanation is that we must be so much more smart than them, since our tools are much more complex. My point is that maybe what they lack is not the raw intelligence to envision the use of tools, but the dexterity to apply that intelligence to the task of complex tool making.
      - yareally 11y ago
        > My point is that maybe what they lack is not the raw intelligence to envision the use of tools, but the dexterity to apply that intelligence to the task of complex tool making. Sounds plausible to me. The more difficult question is how does one ever prove that it's true? I agree that it could be, just overcoming the difficulty in testing with species we barely understand/communicate with hasn't caught up yet to our curiosity.