3 ms·

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? Other

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]

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]