3 ms·

Careful with that one. Francine Patterson has been attacked by her "intelligent" peers for all these years because she was able to teach sign language to Koko t

Careful with that one. Francine Patterson has been attacked by her "intelligent" peers for all these years because she was able to teach sign language to Koko the gorilla... and since a gorilla obviously cannot be intelligent, she must have faked the reports... or the best one: even though it looked like the gorilla was using the sign language, what was really happening was that it was just imitating the humans for the treats. Something about saying that animals are intelligent triggers some people, specially the "scientist" types.

sikli15 6y ago
There are legitimate issues with Patterson's work that do cast doubt on her results. Things like speaking for Koko or "correcting" for her when it seemed like Koko was signing something nonsensical. For example, Koko had an apparent fascination with nipples. In front of cameras, Patterson would always say Koko actually meant something else because nipple rhymes with whatever word she's trying to say but in private, according to other caretakers who worked with Koko, Patterson often showed her nipples to Koko almost like a greeting and made other female workers do the same to their discomfort. She would also ask Koko leading questions to get desired responses for cameras which doesn't demonstrate intelligence. Patterson apparently also spoiled Koko, feeding her things that weren't good for her nutritionally, but went to great lengths to keep Koko to herself, going so far as to keep her separated from the male they brought in to keep Koko company. So while I would be excited at the prospect of intelligent animals, I think Koko is unfortunately not a good example.
- AntiImperialist 6y ago
  Things like speaking for Koko or "correcting" for her when it seemed like Koko was signing something nonsensical. Uhm, like you do with humans? OK. She would also ask Koko leading questions to get desired responses for cameras which doesn't demonstrate intelligence. Like they do in the mainstream news with any other human who is being interviewed? OK. For example, Koko had an apparent fascination with nipples. And?
  - JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    All those things invalidate any attempt to prove Koko had language. Which seems obvious from context.
  - sikli15 6y ago
    No. As if she was doing the sign language equivalent of putting words in someone's mouth. It's not like viewers would know the difference. But the other caretakers did and they've spoken out about it. There's no doubt Koko probably understood some things, but not to the complexity that Patterson tried to portray it. And the thing I was getting at with the nipples was Koko was apparently asking to see people's nipples all the time but in demonstrations Patterson would always play it off like Koko was saying something completely different and more intelligent than it actually was.

sikli15 6y ago

There are legitimate issues with Patterson's work that do cast doubt on her results. Things like speaking for Koko or "correcting" for her when it seemed like Koko was signing something nonsensical. For example, Koko had an apparent fascination with nipples. In front of cameras, Patterson would always say Koko actually meant something else because nipple rhymes with whatever word she's trying to say but in private, according to other caretakers who worked with Koko, Patterson often showed her nipples to Koko almost like a greeting and made other female workers do the same to their discomfort. She would also ask Koko leading questions to get desired responses for cameras which doesn't demonstrate intelligence. Patterson apparently also spoiled Koko, feeding her things that weren't good for her nutritionally, but went to great lengths to keep Koko to herself, going so far as to keep her separated from the male they brought in to keep Koko company. So while I would be excited at the prospect of intelligent animals, I think Koko is unfortunately not a good example.

AntiImperialist 6y ago
Things like speaking for Koko or "correcting" for her when it seemed like Koko was signing something nonsensical. Uhm, like you do with humans? OK. She would also ask Koko leading questions to get desired responses for cameras which doesn't demonstrate intelligence. Like they do in the mainstream news with any other human who is being interviewed? OK. For example, Koko had an apparent fascination with nipples. And?
- JoeAltmaier 6y ago
  All those things invalidate any attempt to prove Koko had language. Which seems obvious from context.
- sikli15 6y ago
  No. As if she was doing the sign language equivalent of putting words in someone's mouth. It's not like viewers would know the difference. But the other caretakers did and they've spoken out about it. There's no doubt Koko probably understood some things, but not to the complexity that Patterson tried to portray it. And the thing I was getting at with the nipples was Koko was apparently asking to see people's nipples all the time but in demonstrations Patterson would always play it off like Koko was saying something completely different and more intelligent than it actually was.