Of course much of this seems obvious, but I think it's also required to pave the way for more complex research. If you jump into research that does not show re

Of course much of this seems obvious, but I think it's also required to pave the way for more complex research. If you jump into research that does not show results because it's too complex, you don't learn anything. (That particular experiment didn't work, not "the species is too stupid to do X") You have to build up to it both to provide a path of credibility (we know they can do A,B,C, but when we tried D or E those didn't work) and also to develop the facilities, tools, techniques to be able to ask and answer these questions. It feels shameful because so many farmers or 4H students know all of this stuff. We shouldn't need to publish papers to know these animals are intelligent. This is referenced in the article, though - they publish both types of research (this animal can do that & treating your animals well in this way gives these specific benefits) I'm excited for the future where we have a much finer-grained understanding and can probe more specific questions from individual animals though