3 ms·

Maybe the gorrila thought the sink should have been more substantial for them to sit on, and Kate was bad for what could be viewed as a situation which set the

Maybe the gorrila thought the sink should have been more substantial for them to sit on, and Kate was bad for what could be viewed as a situation which set the gorilla up to fail? Its all about perspective.

maxbond 3y ago
In the absence of other evidence, I'm going to accept the interpretation of the person who regularly conversed with Koko, trusting that they developed expertise in interpreting her statements the same way any two people learn to understand each other better over time.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  No, you are projecting human experience into the void of a few words, best represented with the saying "less is more". Is that not a mistake of science? Otherwise you are suggesting the gorilla cant feel humiliation and yet I'm pretty sure most animals feel it, so why wouldn't the gorilla say what they said, ie set up to fail and direct that sentiment at the person using their limited vocabulary?
  - maxbond 3y ago
    Pardon? I don't see how I'm doing any of those things. I'm suggesting that, if we don't have new evidence to bring to bare on the issue, we should probably take the word of the person who was there in the room, who studied and developed proficiency in this specialty, and developed experience communicating with Koko in particular. I definitely didn't suggest Koko was incapable of experiencing humiliation. I'm sure something like what you're describing could happen, but the researchers who have the skills I outlined and were physically present (thus able to see body language and able to ask followup questions) are in a better position to evaluate that then we are. If I said anything to unintentionally imply these things, I am always interested in feedback about how my writing could be clearer.
    - darkclouds 3y ago
      > thus able to see body language and able to ask followup questions) are in a better position to evaluate that then we are. I'll quote Thomas Pynchon, if you dont ask the right question, you dont have to worry about the answer. Do you know what questions were asked, and do you know if those questions came from outside the cohort? Subconcious bias is such a divisive and diverse field of knowledge, but one that is expanding rapidly with todays technology and surveillance. Does anyone know what bought Francine Patterson to be interested in Koko, was it her interest in developmental psychology?
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
- earthboundkid 3y ago
  To be clear, Koko’s handlers covered up sexual harassment by the gorilla: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Nipple_fixation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Nipple_fixati...
  - maxbond 3y ago
    I condemn Patterson's behavior (in my view the gorilla can't be held morally or legally responsible for it's actions, the handlers are responsible for them) but I don't see why that should change my mind that she probably knows better about what Koko meant? If they organized some kind of Weinsteninan cult of silence and abuse then I could see how we might view them as dishonest and refuse to take them at their word, but that's not what the article describes? Am I missing something? I read that section of Wikipedia and the Slate article it cites (though that was more about the hypothesis Koko couldn't speak and that it was a Clever Hans scenario - an argument I'm open to as a refutation of what I said) and I'm not seeing a suggestion of a cover up, I'm seeing someone behaving inappropriately and being a missing stair in the weirdest way, and then getting sued for it. I have to take care of some household stuff, so I don't have have to read more articles at this particular moment or I would try another source, but if I picked the wrong one let me know. None of this is an endorsement, if we take these statements as read (and I have no reason to doubt them), Patterson (and anyone else who behaved that way) is guilty of a serious crime and can't be trusted to supervise anyone or work with animals.
  - darkclouds 3y ago
    Until a moment ago, I didn't even know what sex the gorilla was, but can see it was female. So many different angles to this, Identify crisis in animals, seen through out the animal kingdom, some even seen in humans, I see the zoo was in san francisco, so air pollution could have been a factor, were hair samples taken to measure the chemical content, like manganese when thinking of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl in gas guzzling US vehicles, due to where manganese can accumulate in the body and where else it can be distributed. Thats something that radioactive isotopes show all the time. Like I said so many different angles with this, what angle does science or law want to fixate on, in order to win an argument?

maxbond 3y ago

In the absence of other evidence, I'm going to accept the interpretation of the person who regularly conversed with Koko, trusting that they developed expertise in interpreting her statements the same way any two people learn to understand each other better over time.

darkclouds 3y ago
No, you are projecting human experience into the void of a few words, best represented with the saying "less is more". Is that not a mistake of science? Otherwise you are suggesting the gorilla cant feel humiliation and yet I'm pretty sure most animals feel it, so why wouldn't the gorilla say what they said, ie set up to fail and direct that sentiment at the person using their limited vocabulary?
- maxbond 3y ago
  Pardon? I don't see how I'm doing any of those things. I'm suggesting that, if we don't have new evidence to bring to bare on the issue, we should probably take the word of the person who was there in the room, who studied and developed proficiency in this specialty, and developed experience communicating with Koko in particular. I definitely didn't suggest Koko was incapable of experiencing humiliation. I'm sure something like what you're describing could happen, but the researchers who have the skills I outlined and were physically present (thus able to see body language and able to ask followup questions) are in a better position to evaluate that then we are. If I said anything to unintentionally imply these things, I am always interested in feedback about how my writing could be clearer.
  - darkclouds 3y ago
    > thus able to see body language and able to ask followup questions) are in a better position to evaluate that then we are. I'll quote Thomas Pynchon, if you dont ask the right question, you dont have to worry about the answer. Do you know what questions were asked, and do you know if those questions came from outside the cohort? Subconcious bias is such a divisive and diverse field of knowledge, but one that is expanding rapidly with todays technology and surveillance. Does anyone know what bought Francine Patterson to be interested in Koko, was it her interest in developmental psychology?
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
earthboundkid 3y ago
To be clear, Koko’s handlers covered up sexual harassment by the gorilla: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Nipple_fixation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_(gorilla)#Nipple_fixati...
- maxbond 3y ago
  I condemn Patterson's behavior (in my view the gorilla can't be held morally or legally responsible for it's actions, the handlers are responsible for them) but I don't see why that should change my mind that she probably knows better about what Koko meant? If they organized some kind of Weinsteninan cult of silence and abuse then I could see how we might view them as dishonest and refuse to take them at their word, but that's not what the article describes? Am I missing something? I read that section of Wikipedia and the Slate article it cites (though that was more about the hypothesis Koko couldn't speak and that it was a Clever Hans scenario - an argument I'm open to as a refutation of what I said) and I'm not seeing a suggestion of a cover up, I'm seeing someone behaving inappropriately and being a missing stair in the weirdest way, and then getting sued for it. I have to take care of some household stuff, so I don't have have to read more articles at this particular moment or I would try another source, but if I picked the wrong one let me know. None of this is an endorsement, if we take these statements as read (and I have no reason to doubt them), Patterson (and anyone else who behaved that way) is guilty of a serious crime and can't be trusted to supervise anyone or work with animals.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  Until a moment ago, I didn't even know what sex the gorilla was, but can see it was female. So many different angles to this, Identify crisis in animals, seen through out the animal kingdom, some even seen in humans, I see the zoo was in san francisco, so air pollution could have been a factor, were hair samples taken to measure the chemical content, like manganese when thinking of Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl in gas guzzling US vehicles, due to where manganese can accumulate in the body and where else it can be distributed. Thats something that radioactive isotopes show all the time. Like I said so many different angles with this, what angle does science or law want to fixate on, in order to win an argument?