4 ms·

> suggests (…) animals, may be capable of some of the kind of sophisticated brain function thought to be exclusively human. Isn’t everyone tired of this conclu

by latexr 2y ago

> suggests (…) animals, may be capable of some of the kind of sophisticated brain function thought to be exclusively human. Isn’t everyone tired of this conclusion by now? Who even gets surprised anymore? We should’ve flipped our thinking on human exceptionalism long ago. We’re animals and have more in common with other species than we have uniqueness.

thih9 2y ago
Agreed. Any pet owner who actually looks at their pet knows that already. E.g.: - https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/07/cats-appear-to-grieve-death-of-fellow-pets-even-dogs-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/07/cats... “Cats appear to grieve death of fellow pets” - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-words-speech-people-brains https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-word... “Man's best friend can understand both the words we say and the tone in which we say them, new brain scans reveal.“ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond “Psychologists believe that the relationship between human and canine is a bidirectional attachment bond, which resembles that of the typical human caretaker/infant relationship, and shows all of the usual hallmarks of a typical bond.“
lupusreal 2y ago
It's a common pattern. Scientists study a thing which is commonly known but perhaps not scientifically studied before. Then when they or their university PR department go to promote their work it turns into "Scientists SHOCKED to discover..." Then people in the comments complain that everybody already knew this, then other people come in to complain about the complaints, explaining that scientific evidence for things which are common knowledge is still valuable and we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes, blah blah blah. It's all so tiresome.
- latexr 2y ago
  > then other people come in to complain about the complaints (…) It's all so tiresome. The irony being that so far you’re the only person doing something even remotely similar to that in this submission. Why would your objection to the objection be more valid than the objection? Why be the one to start it when you’re ostensibly annoyed by it? > we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention I quoted a section of the article, not the headline. You’re no longer competing for attention once someone clicked on it. On the contrary, every sentence you write which annoys readers is a new opportunity for them to leave. > and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes Irrelevant. I didn’t complain of the scientific work itself, I commented on the boring, repetitive remark. That’s on the writer. > blah blah blah. Indeed. This whole interaction was unnecessary. My comment wasn’t on this particular study but on the general default belief that humans are cognitively unique, despite umpteen proofs to the contrary.
  - lupusreal 2y ago
    If I said anything which is wrong then I would be sorry, but I didn't so I apologize for nothing. The conversation was destined to go as I outlined, so I short circuited it. If you think my comment constitutes an apology for the attention whoring researchers and/or their PR departments do, you're mistaken. My comment is a weary moan about the repetitive nature of internet discourse.
otabdeveloper4 2y ago
> We should’ve flipped our thinking on human exceptionalism long ago. Disagree. Humans are hard-wired for anthropomorphism. We recognize two dots and an arc as a human face. Taking the hard-wired position and labeling eveything as "human-like" by default is lazy and wrong.
- latexr 2y ago
  My point is precisely that humans aren’t exceptional and that we should have already left that thinking behind us. How does your point disagree with that? I’m not even remotely suggestion we label anything as “human-like”, I’m advocating for the polar opposite.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    > My point is precisely that humans aren’t exceptional We don't know that. You're just assuming things.
    - latexr 2y ago
      We do know that. The proof is in the myriad of studies which conclude some animal does something which we previously thought was exclusively human. Human exceptionalism is reduced by every single one of those, never increased. Sure, it is plausible there are indeed some things only humans can do. But at the same time there are a myriad of other things other animals find trivial and we know we can’t do. Thus we’re not exceptional, just different like every other species is. We’ll be much better served scientifically by being humble than by believing everything we do is unique and being constantly proven wrong.
      - card_zero 2y ago
        None of the hundreds of studies with the tedious refrain of "humans aren't unique in doing X" reveal that a human is basically a parrot. There's an endless desire to insinuate it, and say that animals are people too. It's a strong and stupid urge. Animals are nice, they have faces and eyes, they give attention, they can cooperate with us, they can be friends, of a kind, and are warm and cuddly, and can do things that seem clever for animals. But they aren't people. Eh, why do I bother, there will be another of these studies, and another, and a decade from now I'll be posting on a similar thread. I should know better. But these studies aren't making progress toward something, they aren't building up a weight of evidence where the dam will eventually burst and we'll say "oh those dogs and crows and octopuses and horses were people all along, how blind of us not to notice". No, things like the mirror test for self awareness (which is passed by some fish, but not by dogs) are sketchy and inconclusive, and every such "animals are just like us by the way" study that I've seen over the decades has been sketchy and inconclusive, and they're all just piddling around trying to discover something that isn't there to be discovered.
MrMcCall 2y ago
> We’re animals and have more in common with other species than we have uniqueness. Our bodies are definitely mammalian, and therefore most of our instinctive behaviors, but it's the differences that make us unique. We have the capacity for abstract conception with its reasoning and communication and advanced tool building. More than that, however, we have a moral compass and mind to learn and understand the difference between compassion and selfishness, good and evil -- and then we have the free will to choose between those potentials. Animals only have instinctive self-protection. Only we have the responsibility to be caretakers of each other and the Earth, herself, and all its wonderful creatures.
kerkeslager 2y ago
I think the problem is with science reporting--they want to report things as a novel conclusion with far-reaching implications because it makes for a good story. But yeah, no serious biologist thought dancing was exclusively human before this study. We've known for over half a century that bees communicate by dancing.

by latexr 2y ago

thih9 2y ago

Agreed. Any pet owner who actually looks at their pet knows that already. E.g.: - https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/07/cats-appear-to-grieve-death-of-fellow-pets-even-dogs-study-finds https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/07/cats... “Cats appear to grieve death of fellow pets” - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-words-speech-people-brains https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-word... “Man's best friend can understand both the words we say and the tone in which we say them, new brain scans reveal.“ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond “Psychologists believe that the relationship between human and canine is a bidirectional attachment bond, which resembles that of the typical human caretaker/infant relationship, and shows all of the usual hallmarks of a typical bond.“

lupusreal 2y ago

It's a common pattern. Scientists study a thing which is commonly known but perhaps not scientifically studied before. Then when they or their university PR department go to promote their work it turns into "Scientists SHOCKED to discover..." Then people in the comments complain that everybody already knew this, then other people come in to complain about the complaints, explaining that scientific evidence for things which are common knowledge is still valuable and we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes, blah blah blah. It's all so tiresome.

latexr 2y ago
> then other people come in to complain about the complaints (…) It's all so tiresome. The irony being that so far you’re the only person doing something even remotely similar to that in this submission. Why would your objection to the objection be more valid than the objection? Why be the one to start it when you’re ostensibly annoyed by it? > we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention I quoted a section of the article, not the headline. You’re no longer competing for attention once someone clicked on it. On the contrary, every sentence you write which annoys readers is a new opportunity for them to leave. > and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes Irrelevant. I didn’t complain of the scientific work itself, I commented on the boring, repetitive remark. That’s on the writer. > blah blah blah. Indeed. This whole interaction was unnecessary. My comment wasn’t on this particular study but on the general default belief that humans are cognitively unique, despite umpteen proofs to the contrary.
- lupusreal 2y ago
  If I said anything which is wrong then I would be sorry, but I didn't so I apologize for nothing. The conversation was destined to go as I outlined, so I short circuited it. If you think my comment constitutes an apology for the attention whoring researchers and/or their PR departments do, you're mistaken. My comment is a weary moan about the repetitive nature of internet discourse.

otabdeveloper4 2y ago

> We should’ve flipped our thinking on human exceptionalism long ago. Disagree. Humans are hard-wired for anthropomorphism. We recognize two dots and an arc as a human face. Taking the hard-wired position and labeling eveything as "human-like" by default is lazy and wrong.

latexr 2y ago
My point is precisely that humans aren’t exceptional and that we should have already left that thinking behind us. How does your point disagree with that? I’m not even remotely suggestion we label anything as “human-like”, I’m advocating for the polar opposite.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  > My point is precisely that humans aren’t exceptional We don't know that. You're just assuming things.
  - latexr 2y ago
    We do know that. The proof is in the myriad of studies which conclude some animal does something which we previously thought was exclusively human. Human exceptionalism is reduced by every single one of those, never increased. Sure, it is plausible there are indeed some things only humans can do. But at the same time there are a myriad of other things other animals find trivial and we know we can’t do. Thus we’re not exceptional, just different like every other species is. We’ll be much better served scientifically by being humble than by believing everything we do is unique and being constantly proven wrong.
    - card_zero 2y ago
      None of the hundreds of studies with the tedious refrain of "humans aren't unique in doing X" reveal that a human is basically a parrot. There's an endless desire to insinuate it, and say that animals are people too. It's a strong and stupid urge. Animals are nice, they have faces and eyes, they give attention, they can cooperate with us, they can be friends, of a kind, and are warm and cuddly, and can do things that seem clever for animals. But they aren't people. Eh, why do I bother, there will be another of these studies, and another, and a decade from now I'll be posting on a similar thread. I should know better. But these studies aren't making progress toward something, they aren't building up a weight of evidence where the dam will eventually burst and we'll say "oh those dogs and crows and octopuses and horses were people all along, how blind of us not to notice". No, things like the mirror test for self awareness (which is passed by some fish, but not by dogs) are sketchy and inconclusive, and every such "animals are just like us by the way" study that I've seen over the decades has been sketchy and inconclusive, and they're all just piddling around trying to discover something that isn't there to be discovered.

MrMcCall 2y ago

> We’re animals and have more in common with other species than we have uniqueness. Our bodies are definitely mammalian, and therefore most of our instinctive behaviors, but it's the differences that make us unique. We have the capacity for abstract conception with its reasoning and communication and advanced tool building. More than that, however, we have a moral compass and mind to learn and understand the difference between compassion and selfishness, good and evil -- and then we have the free will to choose between those potentials. Animals only have instinctive self-protection. Only we have the responsibility to be caretakers of each other and the Earth, herself, and all its wonderful creatures.

kerkeslager 2y ago

I think the problem is with science reporting--they want to report things as a novel conclusion with far-reaching implications because it makes for a good story. But yeah, no serious biologist thought dancing was exclusively human before this study. We've known for over half a century that bees communicate by dancing.