3 ms·
Ok, I saw this in the new wires the other day and wondered when it would come up. They know: humans can agree on what primate gestures mean, most of the time.
by dboreham 4y ago
Ok, I saw this in the new wires the other day and wondered when it would come up.
They know: humans can agree on what primate gestures mean, most of the time.
They don't actually know: what the primates believe the gestures mean.
And: even if there is agreement, why does that say anything about our language being evolved from a common ancestor gesture language? I mean, ok that might be true, but why is this evidence for that.
Let me present my own survey data: I have deer in my yard sometimes. They know that once in a while I will throw out a couple of deadfall apples. So they ask for apples by standing, looking at me through the kitchen window for 10 minutes.
Does this mean that English evolved from Deer-speak? No. The fact they're standing staring at me for a long time implies they're asking for something. Food is the only thing that fits the context. I suppose if I gave them food and they carried on staring, then I might assume they want a back rub...
- lofaszvanitt 4y agoAlso make them - a place (pond?) to drink - and an automatized cow brush.
- milleramp 4y agoI think what is missing is are we then able to use these gestures to successfully communicate back with the primates?
- raydiatian 4y agoWhat is the chimpanzee gesture for “please, sir, don’t tear my limbs off”? Because otherwise “get away from me” or “clean me” or “get on my back” is not going to go over well.
- josefx 4y agoThere was a lot of research into communicating with animals using sign language. I think it never went further than identifying objects, simple tasks and needs. Of course a lot of the research done back then was outright fraud, which might have interfered with alternative approaches. After all, why study alternative ways to communicate with animals when you can use sign language to discuss climate change with a gorilla.
- ggm 4y agoIf we assume (for the sake of a reductive argument) they want either food, or water, then feeding them apples can't resolve which it was, because apples are moist and in Deer-efficiency terms may be "meh: I was thirsty this does" So from a "what action/noun" pair perspective its give <something> and it's not clear what <something> is without a more consistent experiment to make it clear its a choice A or B. But what it can go to is "give" is in this. <stare at human> is pretty strongly bound to 'give me something' -Right up until you realise they want to headbutt you or are staring at their own reflection in the glass or really are just zoned out.. or a million other potential interpretations. The thing here is that Animals are probably doing min/max on the cost/reward outcome and could stare for an hour, for a remarkably diffuse win. If its safe, warm, sheltered and MIGHT have one of food, water or a back rub, it might be a win set against the energy cost of foraging.
- foota 4y agoI guess this explains why humans scroll reddit mindlessly for hours :-)
- pxc 4y ago> If we assume (for the sake of a reductive argument) they want either food, or water, then feeding them apples can't resolve which it was [...] see Quine on radical interpretation and the indeterminacy of translation: https://iep.utm.edu/indeterm/ https://iep.utm.edu/indeterm/
- 8note 4y agoI think it's pretty accepted that people did not evolve from chimpanzees, but rather, people and chimpanzees evolved from some common ancestor
- dboreham 4y agoPretty sure I said that above.
- cvccvroomvroom 4y agoYeah, same. I find it easier and less effort to communicate with hand gestures where possible (especially with non-native speakers) because it reduces cognitive load. I'm wondering if the focus areas of processing are also located in older part of the brain.
- a9h74j 4y agoTemple Grandin has a newer book titled Visual Thinking. She tells of two groups taught to sharpen flints (IIRC). The first group had instruction only by gestures and example; the second group also had written or spoken instruction. Apparently persons in the first group developed skill faster. Overall she suggests that words can distract from visual observation or attention. IIRC Derrick Jensen refers to an experiment in which apes caught on to cheating behavior faster than humans, presumably because they were not fooled by any spoken claims.
- prox 4y agoHave you noticed how chimp’s for example how was seem to have this random look? They never seem to look at anything for long, but somehow they still see everything.
- nicoburns 4y ago> Does this mean that English evolved from Deer-speak? No. The fact they're standing staring at me for a long time implies they're asking for something. This is in itself something that's common to mammalian (and possibly even wider animal) behaviour, and something that humans and deer likely inherited from our common ancestors. It would be entirely possible in an alternate universe for this behaviour to have entirely different meaning.
- JoeAltmaier 4y agoAgreed. Everybody gets this wrong. On Nova I saw a frivolous study that showed babies 'imitating' parents as young as a few weeks. The evidence? A parent face to face with a baby would repeat the babies' random expression. Occasionally the baby would make an expression again. Voila - imitation! Or randomness I guess. Hard to know without actually measuring something and doing statistics. But stories like this are fun and make a good news bite, so we'll continue to see them pop up.