Cognitive Ethology

tortadise · Oct 22, 2014

Well it comes across many times on the forum about behavioral stigmas of tortoises. So I wanted to start a conversation about the scientific roots and study of this. Its very difficult for many people to dissociate cognitive emotions, feelings, morals, and fear with there pets. The constant visual perception of us as keepers of animals fires off a stimuli in our minds of what the animal does. We as a higher functioning species that utilize our prefrontal cortex for more than just "Survival" will always seem to associate any animals behavior in a subconscious comparative form. Its very scientific and leads to a lot of physiological understandings for a keeper or person to maintain the behavior of animals in no way relative to our thoughts. But we do it. So I want to see what comes of this discussion.

A lot is very difficult to explain. I certainly don't posses the credentials to argue/debate the root cause for certain behaviors animals do. But to me when an issue arises within some tortoise keeping. I look at the root issue that COULD be causing the issue. Not a social relationship or depiction of emotion. Which is very common to ascertain. Again subconscious relations to a parallelism of our lives is what I see with these associations and labeling of "why did my tortoise do this?" "Does he need a friend?" "is he sad?" etc.. just a few examples.

Now discuss.
Attached is a paper on Cognitive Ethology. its a very good read and explains the theories and scientific findings of animals cognition.

zenoandthetortoise · Oct 22, 2014

Great post. Love the topic and Dennett. I won't be able to give the read it deserves till later, but looking forward to discussing.

Thanks

ALDABRAMAN · Oct 22, 2014

~ Great thread, way above my education levels, LOL.

peasinapod · Oct 22, 2014

I had a course in primate cognition and another one in behabioural biology. Both were extremely interesting and showed how hard it is to just observe, without interpreting anything.

ascott · Oct 22, 2014

We humans always mirror our emotions on a behavior...even if the behavior is the most basic, pure and primal one.....it is, in my opinion, ok--as long as we are not serious about it....for fun and for fun captions it is entertaining...but literal application can be detrimental to the "victim".....great thread by the way.

zenoandthetortoise · Oct 23, 2014

ascott said:
We humans always mirror our emotions on a behavior...even if the behavior is the most basic, pure and primal one.....it is, in my opinion, ok--as long as we are not serious about it....for fun and for fun captions it is entertaining...but literal application can be detrimental to the "victim".....great thread by the way.

This response is more interesting than the original post. It's your opinion and that's fine, but what is it based on? Any specific elements of the paper presented or cognitive science in general that leads you to the opinion of inescapable anthropomorphism? Or is this perhaps an a priori, self generated conclusion, immune to the toils of Dr Dennett and others. I'm not a behavioral scientist but one of my best friends is, and although I haven't asked her specifically, I don't think much of her PhD work centered around fun captions.
Another way to look at the same question; in your opinion, what would behavioral science look like if it were completely devoid of 'emotional mirroring'?

tortadise · Oct 23, 2014

peasinapod said:
I had a course in primate cognition and another one in behabioural biology. Both were extremely interesting and showed how hard it is to just observe, without interpreting anything.

Yes primates (mainly chimpanzees) were largely studied in cognitive responses. They actually develop tools to assist with but cracking. But have difference of that cognition and ours is they truly use it as a tool for consumption survival. We use tools for survival in a way. But establish emotions(excitement) when completing a task with a tool. It's a very fine line and to me displays the differences in how maybe(just an opinion here) should of not developed into higher cognition. Look where it has led us too.

Got a little off topic there ha. Tortoises/turtles obviously have cognition for sure. After all they can associate the keeper as "bringer of food" obviously this action is repeated numerous times on a cycle. So when would we think they would divert from this behavior trigger back to "wild" behavior. I've tried this with my sulcatas. Completely cut them off from any grocery green, treat, or anything being given to them via me or my mom. They still come over to us out of curiosity. But I noticed the change of more grazing and different behavior when I cut them off early spring the behavior changed to more survivalist early summer.

tortadise · Oct 23, 2014

zenoandthetortoise said:
This response is more interesting than the original post. It's your opinion and that's fine, but what is it based on? Any specific elements of the paper presented or cognitive science in general that leads you to the opinion of inescapable anthropomorphism? Or is this perhaps an a priori, self generated conclusion, immune to the toils of Dr Dennett and others. I'm not a behavioral scientist but one of my best friends is, and although I haven't asked her specifically, I don't think much of her PhD work centered around fun captions.
Another way to look at the same question; in your opinion, what would behavioral science look like if it were completely devoid of 'emotional mirroring'?

I think (opinion) there would be nothing to look at all if we devoid emotions, morales, etc... We would be an animal surviving living as we know what's best for us to continue survival. This is how I look at tortoises or any animal I facilitate. To the best of my knowledge that it. Being human and integrated into society as we live is very difficult to become a total wild human. Which I have no idea to accomplish anyways.

ascott · Oct 23, 2014

zenoandthetortoise said:
This response is more interesting than the original post. It's your opinion and that's fine, but what is it based on? Any specific elements of the paper presented or cognitive science in general that leads you to the opinion of inescapable anthropomorphism? Or is this perhaps an a priori, self generated conclusion, immune to the toils of Dr Dennett and others. I'm not a behavioral scientist but one of my best friends is, and although I haven't asked her specifically, I don't think much of her PhD work centered around fun captions.
Another way to look at the same question; in your opinion, what would behavioral science look like if it were completely devoid of 'emotional mirroring'?

I do believe it is difficult for humans to be free of this behavior (we all do it, have done it and will likely continue to do so)....humans seem to have a deep seeded need to "relate" to everything around them (again, not a negative behavior, as long as this behavior does not create a harmful situation for another creature at its expense)...therefore we readily put our emotions onto another creatures behavior, regardless of the reality of that moment...I will relate in the area of tortoise, okay? How many times have you seen here "my tortoise is so lonely, it just sits there and looks so sad, he needs a friend"--now, in reality the tortoise is not lonely, it is not sad-- but I do believe that the observer has some desire to relate to the tort by its simple behavior or lack there of....instead of taking into account that perhaps the tort is just sitting still, content, comfortable--and not sad and lonely at all and certainly would not want to share prime space with another tortoise because it is lonely.....did I express this right here for understanding of what my point was/is? I hope so.

I would hope that your friend did not spend loads of money on schooling to be taught to utilize fun captions....but if you observe human behavior you will see that many use "fun captions" throughout life---the silly cat videos, dog videos with human captions as to what the cat or dog must be saying--it is a common human behavior to do...and can be down right fun...again, if nothing is suffering as a result of our behavior...

Finally, in my opinion, I do not believe that humans are capable of NOT doing this....it is a behavior that we do, for many reasons...it is all good and fun and helpful in many ways to allow humans to bond to other creatures...but it should also be turned off when logically required to do so.

puffy137 · Oct 27, 2014

I'm really not 'projecting' but why do my 2 male tortoises only mount the same females again & again for months . Never deviating to other females of s similar size & age to their paramours??? No one seems to have an answer to this.Those 2 females might have been the ones to produce eggs previously, , but even so, that would not explain their exclusivity.

zenoandthetortoise · Oct 27, 2014

ascott said:
Finally, in my opinion, I do not believe that humans are capable of NOT doing this....it is a behavior that we do, for many reasons...it is all good and fun and helpful in many ways to allow humans to bond to other creatures...but it should also be turned off when logically required to do so.

We seem to reach this impasse in every topic of dialogue; you have your opinion, which is all fine and good, but you provide nothing to support your opinion, which makes it less than compelling.
When you say "...I don't not believe that humans are Not capable of not doing this.. ", are you referring to all humans including cognitive neuroscientists and animal behaviorists ? Or the average anonymous internet poster ? If the former, what research shows evidence of anthropomorphic prejudice ? If the later , who cares? That has nothing to do with the post. Finally, whatever your intended meaning, why bury it in a triple negative ? Regardless, I hope you are able to get past the cynicism and enjoy the objective pursuits of science. I find it an endless source of fascination and inspiration.

Cheers!

ascott · Oct 27, 2014

We seem to reach this impasse in every topic of dialogue; you have your opinion, which is all fine and good, but you provide nothing to support your opinion, which makes it less than compelling.

LOL..so, you see...here is where science and non science always seems to meet....I am perfectly fine with folks who are clearly scientifically driven....it is always something I adore watching...however, there are those, who simply are led by something much greater than science...and the two rarely see eye to eye....to each is their own my friend, to each is their own....when I share I do so not to convince or gain a winning side, but just to share....

zenoandthetortoise · Oct 28, 2014

ascott said:
LOL..so, you see...here is where science and non science always seems to meet....I am perfectly fine with folks who are clearly scientifically driven....it is always something I adore watching...however, there are those, who simply are led by something much greater than science...and the two rarely see eye to eye....to each is their own my friend, to each is their own....when I share I do so not to convince or gain a winning side, but just to share....

As much as I enjoy being part of something adorable, I should apparently clarify. The intention behind the word 'compelling ' was not in reference to 'winning ' , but in making a logically valid argument. The win, as it were, is the gain of objective knowledge. As the context of this forum is biological organisms and the accompanying environmental constants, what other analysis would be relevant, if not scientific? 'Much greater than science", at that. This is not a rhetorical question; I am fascinated to learn what other rubric of inquiry you are proposing.

ascott · Oct 28, 2014

I hope you are able to get past the cynicism and enjoy the objective pursuits of science. I find it an endless source of fascination and inspiration.

I "feel" as though you would need to understand a person who is driven by faith vs that of a person who is driven by science...while I used the word "adore" as a positive word it appears as though you took it as some type of belittlement....again, I am only seeing this based on your reply....so please understand, I use that word as a positive and not any other way.

While I do give way to the great things "science" has to offer, truly I do. It is simply not enough to me. When there are so many things that can not be explained for certain with science-- there is simply something greater driving us all (my opinion here and I make no attempt whatsoever to supply scientific means by which to understand this, as there is no science for faith)....

Faith does not require objective scientific proof, just does not---sometimes things are what they are just because that is what they are, period.

this forum is biological organisms and the accompanying environmental constants, what other analysis would be relevant, if not scientific

Ah, here is where we again "seem" to think differently. Biological organisms (living things with some type of life force) are a prime example of unpredictable outcome at every turn---while science may dictate what it knows to "likely be the outcome" it does little to prove constant 100% of the time. Environmental constants--this just does not exist either--you can set up a space with what we think is the same, but the outside forces can create a glitch more times than not.....again, something that science can not prove 100% of the time for 100% of environments....just can't.

This is where you and I can go round and round for infinite posts....and while that would prove a method in which to better understand one another---we will never be 100% clear of what we learn---there are just too many variables with dealing with biological organisms in this ever changing environment my friend.....also, I am guilty for my participation that has now taken this thread entirely in a different direction

))...I would be happy to continue sharing out thoughts and beliefs on a new thread if you so choose to....but as for this thread--I am going to respectfully bow out...

zenoandthetortoise · Oct 28, 2014

ascott said:
I "feel" as though you would need to understand a person who is driven by faith vs that of a person who is driven by science...while I used the word "adore" as a positive word it appears as though you took it as some type of belittlement....again, I am only seeing this based on your reply....so please understand, I use that word as a positive and not any other way.

While I do give way to the great things "science" has to offer, truly I do. It is simply not enough to me. When there are so many things that can not be explained for certain with science-- there is simply something greater driving us all (my opinion here and I make no attempt whatsoever to supply scientific means by which to understand this, as there is no science for faith)....

Faith does not require objective scientific proof, just does not---sometimes things are what they are just because that is what they are, period.

Ah, here is where we again "seem" to think differently. Biological organisms (living things with some type of life force) are a prime example of unpredictable outcome at every turn---while science may dictate what it knows to "likely be the outcome" it does little to prove constant 100% of the time. Environmental constants--this just does not exist either--you can set up a space with what we think is the same, but the outside forces can create a glitch more times than not.....again, something that science can not prove 100% of the time for 100% of environments....just can't.

This is where you and I can go round and round for infinite posts....and while that would prove a method in which to better understand one another---we will never be 100% clear of what we learn---there are just too many variables with dealing with biological organisms in this ever changing environment my friend.....also, I am guilty for my participation that has now taken this thread entirely in a different direction ))...I would be happy to continue sharing out thoughts and beliefs on a new thread if you so choose to....but as for this thread--I am going to respectfully bow out...

Let me respond first by stating, unequivocally, that I did not take 'adore' as belittling. I strive to be adorable at all times and simply took this as validation

Your other comments do confuse me, and this goes back to the OP. It seems (forgive for paraphrasing several responses here) that you initially considered research into animal cognition as uselessly anthropomorphic except as entertainment. Then the implication was that scientific analysis was inappropriate or insufficient to measure such things. Finally, faith is invoked as explanatory. Taking 'faith' in the broadest sense, (so as not to offend or incur the wrath of the moderators) what part could it possibly play in tortoise husbandry in general or animal cognition in particular? I haven't the slightest idea what that would look like. I've been told I'm terrible at typing with appropriate tone, so please hear genuine curiosity.

Kapidolo Farms · Oct 28, 2014

puff 137 said:
I'm really not 'projecting' but why do my 2 male tortoises only mount the same females again & again for months . Never deviating to other females of s similar size & age to their paramours??? No one seems to have an answer to this.Those 2 females might have been the ones to produce eggs previously, , but even so, that would not explain their exclusivity.

To respond to your question requires more information. How many males and females are there that can freely associate with each other? Then, I'd want confirmation that the sex identity of each animal is correct, their total time history together etc. There are many variables. A big one is how do you know they don't mount the other female(s)? Maybe you just didn't observe it?

I don't intend to suggest you can't sex a tortoise, but considering so many posts here on TFO are "what sex is it" I consider that there is room for error on that. Etc.

Alaskamike · Oct 29, 2014

I actually read that whole article. Dennett can certainly get long winded and convoluted at times, but he is a philosopher at heart , a scientist in mindset and by education so to be expected ( no offense Daniel

. Good work BTW.

My taken away from this is much simpler and more to the point of our " job" as tortoise keepers - be they pets or business. A caution with overly projecting human thoughts and emotions onto our torts as explanation for behavior :
- Leo follows humpy all over the enclosure - he must like him.
- Sheldon's been hiding in his corner too much - he must be lonely.
- Boxy comes running whenever he sees me in the yard - he misses me
- Tank keeps walking over to the cat - he must want to be friends.
- Hubert's been mounting the yard gnome , he needs a girlfriend
- Bobby's been trying to ram my daughter - he must not like kids.

Projection is a common response in interpreting behavior; Be it with animals or other people. More often than not , I believe ( without proof) we do this for our own comfort in believing we understand the world.

Doing this can ameliorate ones own confusion when observing behavior in our tortoises , but does nothing positive to benefit the animal. Far better to attempt understanding of behavior with a more objective eye , knowing the species and fixated on basic , known needs: food, shelter, hydration, exersize, security ( safety) , sunlight and temperature.

tortadise · Oct 29, 2014

Alaskamike said:
I actually read that whole article. Dennett can certainly get long winded and convoluted at times, but he is a philosopher at heart , a scientist in mindset and by education so to be expected ( no offense Daniel. Good work BTW.

My taken away from this is much simpler and more to the point of our " job" as tortoise keepers - be they pets or business. A caution with overly projecting human thoughts and emotions onto our torts as explanation for behavior :
- Leo follows humpy all over the enclosure - he must like him.
- Sheldon's been hiding in his corner too much - he must be lonely.
- Boxy comes running whenever he sees me in the yard - he misses me
- Tank keeps walking over to the cat - he must want to be friends.
- Hubert's been mounting the yard gnome , he needs a girlfriend
- Bobby's been trying to ram my daughter - he must not like kids.

Projection is a common response in interpreting behavior; Be it with animals or other people. More often than not , I believe ( without proof) we do this for our own comfort in believing we understand the world.

Doing this can ameliorate ones own confusion when observing behavior in our tortoises , but does nothing positive to benefit the animal. Far better to attempt understanding of behavior with a more objective eye , knowing the species and fixated on basic , known needs: food, shelter, hydration, exersize, security ( safety) , sunlight and temperature.

Fantastic synopsis Mike. I concur with your statements.

Kapidolo Farms · Oct 29, 2014

tortadise said:
Fantastic synopsis Mike. I concur with your statements.

Yeah, what he said!

I've actually used that near exact phrase "project onto your tortoise", hence that whole "lets play barbie" post. The animals care about what the animals care about, and that is not you the owner. How chelonians treat each other is a much better POV to take about how to care for them, than what we project, wll that and looking at in-situ environmental ques.

I see how cats and dogs treat each other (cats to cats and dogs to dogs), and my cat is more than sure I just some lumbering naked cat that must wear clothes 'cause I licked all my own hair off, he pittys me I'm sure, that's possibly his projection onto me. I'm also sure he is somewhat envious of me for my hands, cause they pet him, use can openers, and clean the litter box, oh, what a cat could do if a cat had hands, solve that door problem too.

Great post Kelly, now I'll read the article since AlaskaMike has projected what it's about so well

puffy137 · Oct 30, 2014

Will said:
To respond to your question requires more information. How many males and females are there that can freely associate with each other? Then, I'd want confirmation that the sex identity of each animal is correct, their total time history together etc. There are many variables. A big one is how do you know they don't mount the other female(s)? Maybe you just didn't observe it?

I don't intend to suggest you can't sex a tortoise, but considering so many posts here on TFO are "what sex is it" I consider that there is room for error on that. Etc.

Hello Will, I have 25 tortoise altogether now all originating from 4 babies , 2 bought in about 1993,& 2 more babies bought a couple of years later..They have reproduced & now there are 8 females of various ages & 7 males , this year they have produced 12 healthy babies. I have labelled them , pink for girls , blue for boys , lol with their names clearly marked, In their old enclosure ( a raised flower bed) I was overlooked by a neighbours house so I couldn't watch them much, now they are in a bigger pen & I have a bench there where I can sit for long periods feeding & watching them. I was confused a few months ago because Ceasar was constantly mounting what I thought was another male , but on closer inspection I now know Reeva is a female.,The confusion arose because I thought her plastron was slightly concave, but her gular horn is intact , whereas with other males there are signs of wear & tear. As far as how I know who is mounting who , lol , I can hear the ' clunking ' even though they are secluded inside their fake Acropolis abode. & if I remove that I can see that they are still keeping 'faithful' lol. sounds so silly but its true .!!!

Cognitive Ethology

Well-Known Member

Attachments

Active Member

KEEPER AT HEART

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads