Chimps outscore students in tests......

matriarch

Rotund retiree
Joined
May 25, 2003
Posts
22,743
Chimps beat humans in memory test
By Helen Briggs
Science reporter, BBC News


Chimpanzees have an extraordinary photographic memory that is far superior to ours, research suggests.

Young chimps outperformed university students in memory tests devised by Japanese scientists.

The tasks involved remembering the location of numbers on a screen, and correctly recalling the sequence.

The findings, published in Current Biology, suggest we may have under-estimated the intelligence of our closest living relatives.

Until now, it had always been assumed that chimps could not match humans in memory and other mental skills.

"There are still many people, including many biologists, who believe that humans are superior to chimpanzees in all cognitive functions," said lead researcher Tetsuro Matsuzawa of Kyoto University.

"No one can imagine that chimpanzees - young chimpanzees at the age of five - have a better performance in a memory task than humans. Here we show for the first time that young chimpanzees have an extraordinary working memory capability for numerical recollection - better than that of human adults tested in the same apparatus, following the same procedure."

Memory tests

Dr Matsuzawa and colleagues tested three pairs of mother and baby chimpanzees against university students in a memory task involving numbers.

The mothers and their five-year-old offspring had already been taught to "count" from one to nine.

During the experiment, each subject was presented with various numerals from one to nine on a touch screen monitor.

The numbers were then replaced with blank squares and the test subject had to remember which number appeared in which location, then touch the appropriate square.

They found that, in general, the young chimps performed better than their mothers and the adult humans.

The university students were slower than all of the three young chimpanzees in their response.

The researchers then varied the amount of time that the numbers appeared on-screen to compare the working memory of humans and chimps.

Chimps performed much better than university students in speed and accuracy when the numbers appeared only briefly on screen.

The shortest time duration, 210 milliseconds, did not leave enough time for the subjects to explore the screen by eye movement - something we do all the time when we read. This is evidence, the researchers believe, that young chimps have a photographic memory which allows them to memorise a complex scene or pattern at a glance. This is sometimes present in human children but declines with age, they say.

"Young chimpanzees have a better memory than human adults," Dr Matsuzawa told BBC News.

"We are still underestimating the intellectual capability of chimpanzees, our evolutionary neighbours."

'Ground-breaking'

Dr Lisa Parr, who works with chimps at the Yerkes Primate Center at Emory University in Atlanta, US, described the research as "ground-breaking".

She said their importance of these primates for understanding the skills necessary for the evolution of modern humans was unparalleled.

"They are our closest living relatives and thus are in a unique position to inform us about our evolutionary heritage," said Dr Parr.

"These studies tell us that elaborate short-term memory skills may have had a much more salient function in early humans than is present in modern humans, perhaps due to our increasing reliance on language-based memory skills."

The research is published in Current Biology, a publication of Cell Press.

Original story
 
But people beat chimps when it comes to catching pennies and cigarette butts tossed to them.
 
JAMESBJOHNSON said:
But people beat chimps when it comes to catching pennies and cigarette butts tossed to them.

True, true.... but it is a close call on who is better at throwing shit at strangers..... :D

-KC
 
Humans had extraordinary memories, until the printing press was invented and a memory like that was no longer necessary.

The troubadours of Europe used to be able to replay 1,000 line songs perfectly after hearing it only once.
 
Memory can be trained. Those students had the potential for the skill, but not the training. We are every one of us capable of far more than we believe ourselves to be, but we frequently deny it to ourselves.
 
An Austrailian aborigine can identify a single pebble from amongst thousands after seeing it once, one reason the S-B IQ test as a measure of overall intelligence has been questioned, intelligences is a better word. Short term memory is extremely useful in a hunter gatherer economy, without maps, compasses, Farmers Almanacs, the Weather Channel, the Wednesday advertising section, etc., we generally only have to remember broad catagories of things.

Divisions of labor in urban civilization requires and rewards a greater capacity for grasping abstraction.

One of the drawbacks of excessive catagorization of course, is the decline in the level of political discourse, which thrived at the peak of print media, but has declined rapidly under the influence of visual media which engages different areas of the brain.
 
It would seem to me that the ability to memorize data is inversly proportional to the ability to actually use the data. The process of evaluating raw data may interfere with the ability to acquire the same data.

The price of being able to easily acquire raw data may be the need to accept said raw data as good and useful. The tendency to just accept raw data is a very dangerous one.
 
I'm not sure that's entirely true, but collecting information and assimilating it into coherent structures are two very different mental activities.

I assume you're referring to eideticer's, who often display difficulty in assimilating the information thay are able to collect so efficiently.

I'm not sure if that's displacement, or mutation, i.e., the overdevelopment of one faculty at the eexpense of another: not all eideticers suffer from it, nor are all highly develoed cognitive thinkers entirely absent minded.

The brain, like anything, requires excercise. If you happen to excel in a specialized area, there might be tendency to neglect others, a weakness of overspecialization.

Eidetic memory is often equated with great intelligence, encouraged and rewarded, whereas strong cognitives are often dismissed cranks when their insights aren't politically convenient.

A minister who can quote chapter and verse of scripture is considered learned, for example, whereas one who teaches the message of spirituality over materialism that is at the core of biblical philosophy is probobly a commie of some sort.
 
I wish you chimps would learn the difference between memory and association and recognition.
 
The skill here being tested would be marvelously useful in the wild-- the brain taking a snapshot of some event as quickly as possible. The number patterns may simply be seen as patterns like any other, made of light and shade.

We would be thinking of them as numbers, but we could train to just snag the pattern in short-term storage as easily as not. On the whole, though, thinking of them as numbers is probably a skill which will reward us more, since panthers are unlikely to be stalking us on a daily basis.
 
One of my novels (A Queen From Eden) features talking chimps -- they get a speech chip that lets them function as human beings. Some of them, without the chip, are still living in their "natural" state in the wild.
 
Oblimo said:
Bah, they "teach the test."
:D



Hungry monkey children have better short-term visual memory than hungover college students.

Whether monkeys can party to frat standards needs more research.
 
rgraham666 said:
Humans had extraordinary memories, until the printing press was invented and a memory like that was no longer necessary.

The troubadours of Europe used to be able to replay 1,000 line songs perfectly after hearing it only once.

I think that's essentially the case. Chimps have better memory because they have no other 'data-keeping' device available. We humans, on the other hand, have pen and paper, PDAs, and so forth.

Memory is like any part of your body. If you don't use it, it becomes weak.
 
I think its interesting, but are they saying they only tested three chimps? Did they only test three university students? And why didn't the university students get to have thier mothers there also?

I would like to see more testing, know exactly what kind of testing, who on earth is funding this testing, and in particular, the credentials of these here chimp researchers.

I mean "Dr. Lisa" ? Give me a break.

But often scientific breakthroughs happen iin strange places, it could be legit.

Lemme splain my skepticism here:

When I was a teenager we had a squirrell monkey. If you set a pack of cigarettes anywhere this monkey could get to, and he's a fuckin monkey, he could climb all over the place, he would take out each cigarette and break it in half, leaving a pile of broken cigarettes.

Now, an anti-smoker might say this is a brilliant monkey who knows cigarettes is bad and was saving lives.

But I knew this monkey was a candy fiend and anything that had a cellophane wrapper he would take out everything looking for candy.

Anyways, I think I saw this on somebody's sig here, oh yea, mine.

"The answers we obtain are almost exclusively determined by the questions we ask"

JMO
 
Lisa Denton said:
I think its interesting, but are they saying they only tested three chimps? Did they only test three university students? And why didn't the university students get to have thier mothers there also?

I would like to see more testing, know exactly what kind of testing, who on earth is funding this testing, and in particular, the credentials of these here chimp researchers.

...

I think the research was done at a primate center. The long-term goal is to have chimps be debt collection agency reps, though baboons may be better suited.
 
xssve said:
I'm not sure that's entirely true, but collecting information and assimilating it into coherent structures are two very different mental activities.

Of course. However, you will note that the mothers of the chimps had less ability to collect raw information than their offspring. It would appear that the simple ability to collect raw data is somewhat less useful in an adult than in a youngster. The conclusion I draw is that the assimulation of raw data is a skill that diminishes as the processing of the data increases. [Note that my conclusion is based simply on the chimpanzees, not on any human comparison.]
 
jomar said:
I think the research was done at a primate center. The long-term goal is to have chimps be debt collection agency reps, though baboons may be better suited.

I did debt collection and I resemble your remark. A babboon would be much better at debt collection than a chimp. However, a human is much more suited to the task, as it is necessary to first recognize the dead beat, rather than just beating the money out of the first human you come across [as tempting as the latter course might be.]
 
R. Richard said:
I did debt collection and I resemble your remark. A babboon would be much better at debt collection than a chimp. However, a human is much more suited to the task, as it is necessary to first recognize the dead beat, rather than just beating the money out of the first human you come across [as tempting as the latter course might be.]

:D

But if the monkeys are shown pictures they immediately recall who to beat and in what order.
 
He, he.

Hey now, I was just saying that I don't think if they only tested 3 chimps that the test was very thorough.

Take 3 peoples from the AH, no names posted, do your own lists in your head:
3 jerks
3 hot and sexy
3 hot and sexy and smart
3 really nice
3 assholes
Now, do any of your lists reflect the AH as a whole?

These chimps, being research chimps, may be involved in these types of testing all the time and know if they do good they will get thier belly scratched and some extra treats. Take 3 more chimps out of the wild and try to test them, they will prolly try to rip your arm off and shit on your research results, literally.

But they might still be smart, or idiots, it deserves more testing, and may very well be important in understanding human intelligence, and the lack of same.

:rose:
 
jomar said:
:D

But if the monkeys are shown pictures they immediately recall who to beat and in what order.

Not really. The ability to recognize a three dimensional object from a two dimensional picture is a learned skill. Early explorers who dealt with primitive peoples discovered the situation early on.
 
R. Richard said:
Not really. The ability to recognize a three dimensional object from a two dimensional picture is a learned skill. Early explorers who dealt with primitive peoples discovered the situation early on.

That's where the virtual reality training comes in. Clearly, if a monkeys can fly a spaceship, they can work the phones.
 
Back
Top