Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Goldfish Smarter Than Dolphins 530

flergum writes "While dolphins may have big brains, laboratory rats and goldfish can outwit them. It appears that the large brains are a function of their environment rather than intelligence. From the article: 'Dolphins have a superabundance of glia and very few neurons... The dolphin's brain is not made for information processing it is designed to counter the thermal challenges of being a mammal in water.' I guess this means that the Navy will start recruiting and training goldfish for those mine search and destroy missions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Goldfish Smarter Than Dolphins

Comments Filter:
  • by MustardMan ( 52102 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @02:57AM (#15946908)
    You know what really disturbs me? The number of people I've met who actually believe that idiotic myth. We really live in a pathetic state of education when this type of nonsense is accepted without question.
  • Bizzaro science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kawolski ( 939414 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:04AM (#15946932)
    "You put an animal in a box, even a lab rat or gerbil, and the first thing it wants to do is climb out of it. If you don't put a lid on top of the bowl a goldfish it will eventually jump out to enlarge the environment it is living in," he said. "But a dolphin will never do that. In the marine parks, the dividers to keep the dolphins apart are only a foot or two above the water between the different pools," he said. Manger says the thought to jump over would simply not cross their unsophisticated minds.

    So because the dolphin isn't brainless enough to jump out of its tank and beach itself and die in the process, that makes them stupid? I suppose by comparison the child that plays away from road isn't as smart as the kid that plays in traffic, you know, the one that's seeking to "enlarge his environment" by becoming road pizza.
  • by bm_luethke ( 253362 ) <`luethkeb' `at' `comcast.net'> on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:10AM (#15946949)
    I'm not anything close to the people who think dolphins are really really intelligent (though Douglas Adams makes a pretty good case), but IRTFA and I can not see how this is a serious article.

    It ends: "Manger also points to the tuna industry, which under consumer pressure has gone to great lengths to prevent dolphins from being caught and killed by accident in nets.

    "If they were really intelligent, they would just jump over the net because it doesn't come out of the water," he said."

    Umm, yea, they would if they ware smart? *sigh* - how did this make *any* news at all. Even assuming that the gist of the article is true (about the different types of brain material) the rest is crap - was it "peer reviewed" (as the article points out) by other idiots? Maybe it is all a Rovian plot to discredit Aljazeera.net? I can not take the article and it's contents with any real sense of belief - it is so idiotic that I can not trust the rest of it. That's not to say they are incorrect - just that this individual article is is pure crap and one should not use it to base any belief on.
  • by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:13AM (#15946958)
    I just spent about 10 minutes with a fly swat trying to kill **one** fucking fly that is buzzing around indoors. Does that make the fly smarter than me?

    A fly has pretty much a hard-wired brain, but it is highly effective at finding food and keeping it alive.

    Some while ago, some researchers managed to get a dish of 1500 (or 15000??) rat brain cells to fly a 747 simulator -- including handling complex actions like landing with wind shear. I bet it took less time to train the rat brain than it takes for a human to attend flight school. I guess a rat brain in a pilot's uniform doesn't pick up as much skirt though.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:27AM (#15946997)
    And where is your evidence to the contrary?

    I hope that was a joke. If not then it supports everything he said about the sorry state of the education system. You don't need evidence to dismiss an unsupported (and let's face it, completely implausbile sounding) claim. The burden of proof runs the other way entirely.
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) * on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:28AM (#15947002)
    In a goldfish's behavior when you approach it for feeding. Believe me, they remember what your behavior indicates is about to happen.

    KFG
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:46AM (#15947056)
    I always found it a bit strange that goldfish should have only 3 seconds of memory. When I take my hand to the right corner of my little aquarium, the goldfish swims up and wait for food to arive. I don't need to drop food, it always swim up there when I do it.

    How can a fish with 3 second memory remember how the environment look like when he's getting foodsupplies?
  • by jopet ( 538074 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:48AM (#15947058) Journal
    While it is obvious and quite dated knowledge that the sheer size of a brain is no indicator for "intelligence" (let us avoid the discussion what intelligence is in the first place for the moment), it is provably wrong that dolphins just do what they are "conditioned" to do. There have been many experiments that show that dolphins are capable to do a lot more than just demonstrate conditioned reflexes, including understand a several-word sign language and coming up with what could be called creative solutions.

    Nothing of that sort has been demonstrated for goldfish yet, but that does not mean it cannot be done, just that we simply do not know yet.

    It has been shown for other species that they show surprisingly intelligent behaviour when trained and it is probably impossible to defined what "more intelligent" should mean for non-humans (it is already quite arbitrarily defined for humans). So the bottom line is - more animals are more intelligent than most people think. And dolphins have shown a quite surprising range of abilities that was not observed in any other marine animal yet.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:51AM (#15947064)
    Another task is identifying unauthorized swimmers (likes Islamic terrorists) seeking to enter a harbor where naval warships are anchored.

    Oh come on, you can't possibly believe this bullshit.
  • by kfg ( 145172 ) * on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:52AM (#15947065)
    . . .our interaction with dolphins off Tiputa Pass and Trousers Point (you can find both easily on Google) was qualitatively different from any with fish.

    Bearing in mind that you have far more in common with a dolphin than with any fish, whatever the intelligence of either is.

    KFG
  • by theshowmecanuck ( 703852 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @04:00AM (#15947087) Journal

    Then there is this obsevation from another researcher in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.

    But measuring intelligence by glia and cortex ratios could be just as unreliable as the big-brain theory, said the head of Vancouver Aquarium's cetacean research program, Lance Barrett-Lennard.

    Wading into the debate, Barrett-Lennard said the highly social networks of dolphins indicates they have strong social intelligence.

    ''A dolphin could have a brain the size of a walnut and it wouldn't affect the observations they live very complex and social lives,'' Barrett-Lennard said. ''They keep account of who their friends are, with very complicated hierarchies and allegiances.

    "The other thing is they have spatial maps. They know exactly where to go when they need to look for certain food.''

    And another thing... goldfish jump out of their bowls and *die*. Yep, self destructing is sure a smart thing to do. NOT! It's not like a Dolphin can jump out of the tank, catch a bus to the ocean and take off. Or maybe it might want to stop at a Starbucks on the way. Have to think on that a while. Anyway, it is probably a smarter thing to stay put for them. Glad I figured that out.

  • Re:Bizzaro science (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @04:19AM (#15947141)
    You know, the environment that the behavioral instincts of dolphins have developed to survive in?

    An intelligent animal is supposed to think on its own, taking into account his particular environment at the moment, and not merely rely on its instincts.

  • by m874t232 ( 973431 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @04:37AM (#15947179)
    You don't need evidence to dismiss an unsupported (and let's face it, completely implausbile sounding) claim.

    Of course, you need evidence to dismiss a claim. You may choose not to bother dismissing it, but in that case, the claim simply remains unresolved.

    I hope that was a joke. If not then it supports everything he said about the sorry state of the education system.

    It's unscientific thinking like yours--dismissing claims for "sounding implausible" and placing "burdens of evidenc on people on a whim--that illustrates how poor our science education is.
  • by azbot ( 544794 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @04:42AM (#15947191)
    I disagree that jumping out of ones environment is a smart move, especially if you don't know what's on the other side. I disagree that dolphins are dumb because they get caught in nets because: a) how do you jump over a net if you find your self in the absolute center? b) maybe most do 'just jump over' and the ones caught are the dumb few. c) if a dolphin doesn't jump over a net it will become sushi, a dolphin probably doesn't know that it should jump over a net unless it knows it's dangerous, if a dolphin knows the net is dangerous - it's probably already been caught (see sushi statement). d) nets (i think) are designed to be fairly invisible, dolphins aren't known for having excellent eyesight and I don't know if their echo location is good enough to spot a net... Let's have a fish off and stick a dolphin and a goldfish in a tank and see who wins... actually to make it fair lets stick quite a few goldfish in there...
  • Clearly it was a slow news weekend. This report got a ton of coverage, which seems unwarranted given some of the abitrary standards of "intelligence" put forward by the researchers. The Wikipedia article on dolphin intelligence [wikipedia.org] provides a far better balanced view of the subject.

    I had a quick look at the University of the Witwatersrand website. Dr. Manger is a lecturer at the School of Anatomical Sciences. He is not an animal behaviorologist.

    While Dr. Manger is no doubt qualified to discuss the structure of a dolphin's brain, he is in no better qualified to draw conclusions about dolphin intelligence than any of us here on Slashdot. Perhaps this explains some of his eccentric statements, or why his opinions contrast so sharply with other research indicating a high level of social complexity in dolphin behavior.

    That Dr. Manger's study is "peer-reviewed" is really neither here or nor there, since peer review usually occurs within an author's specialty and Manger's most controversial findings transcend his field.

    Dr. Manger's comment that dolphins should be smart enough to jump out of tuna nets would seem simply bizzare if they weren't so outright callous.

  • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @05:08AM (#15947229) Journal
    The argument about fish nets is real poor, because dolphins can still get stuck in those nets while being smarter than goldfish. Unless goldfish elegantly finds their way out of the equivalent of a large fish nets (which goldfish get through from physical size reasons), it doesn't prove one thing or another. Unless there are fish or marine mammals that don't get stuck from pure intelligence, it doesn't say dolphins are more stupid than any others in particular.
  • by gilroy ( 155262 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @05:12AM (#15947238) Homepage Journal
    Glial cells apparently aren't really just placeholders and heaters. Scientific American ran a really good article a while back called "Did Scientists Miss Half the Brain?". (There is what appears to be a summary at this location [sciammind.com].) It details a modern understanding of brain structure, which has overturned the former conception of glial cells as "just" structural elements supporting neurons. It would seem that glial cells can both sense and emit neurotransmitters, and those neurotransmitters can affect the operation of neurons. So linked to the electrochemical network we usually think of as the brain is another purely chemical one as well.

    Also, even in humans, there is a "superabundance" of glial cells, in that there are approximately 10 glial cells [athabascau.ca] for every neuron.
  • by perrin ( 891 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @05:20AM (#15947253)
    What is really disturbing about this story is not how wrong it is, but how it spread like wildfire through the echo chamber that is the web pages of the "respectable" news media. There seems to be zero interest in vetting stories anymore. Anything that sounds like a sensation and be linked to some other news page somewhere, is worth publishing, without a critical word added.

    Back on topic, did you know that as far as we know, only three animals understand the concept of 'pointing at something'? These three are humans, chimpanzees and dolphins. Try it with your cat or dog. It will continue to look at your hand, not where you want it look, until the cows come home. Understanding symbols that stand for vectors in space require a greal deal of abstract thinking.
  • Re:Bizzaro science (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @05:44AM (#15947305)
    Sure, okay, maybe they don't comprehend the concept of going over something out of water. But consider that they probably have no space-escape instinct. In other words, dolphins have no reason to have developed claustraphbia, because it would be a very rare case indeed where getting stuck in a small space would even come up for a dolphin. They just plain don't run into closed spaces much. Considering this we realise they that probably concieve of space in a completly different way from how we do. I mean, they move in 3D, and rarely have any restrictions, but with constant forces pushing them one way or another. So I think this tell us alot about how dolphins conceive of the concept of free space, paths, and obstacles. It could be that the concept of being "blocked" from something isn't very inate. So they are bad at solving one type of problem but it doesn't tell us that they are "dumb" in any general sense.

    There is another issue at hand. Their brain is certainly different from ours, and they have followed a different evolutionary path, with a different set of problems. There is no telling what problems they might be GOOD at solving, evidence of one that they are bad at is not evidence that they are dumb. Consider many of the people in history who have been considered the most "intelligent". Many were schitzofrenic, which is fundamentally an inability to tell fact from fiction, and basically properly asses a situation in a rational way. The results of this can look extremly "stupid". Many have had social disorders as well, such that they did stupid things which caused them much pain in their lives... that's pretty "dumb". Still we consider them smart because they could solve problems no-one else could solve. There are many types of intelligence, and lack of one does not imply a low sum of them all.
    Basically, we think of intelligence as someone who can solve a problem we can't. Often this implies they can't solve some problems that we can. The differences between humans and dolphins are much larger than within our species, it seems likely that they are good at a fairly disparate class of problems from what we're good at. It has oft been speculated by AI theorists that problems we consider hard are actually fairly easy compared to the problems we consider easy. The one's we consider easy are just the one's evolution needed to get 99.9% right, I.E. walking, learning language, etc. Consider abstract algebra. There are only a few axioms, and that's all there is to learn. From then on it's just a few theorems. learning Abstract math is really quite simple compared to learning natural language, with it's thousands rules and idioms, we're just not wired for it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @06:49AM (#15947435)
    Of course, you need evidence to dismiss a claim. You may choose not to bother dismissing it, but in that case, the claim simply remains unresolved.

    No, you need evidence to disprove a claim. If you choose not to bother disproving it, then you have dismissed it. That's what dismissing a claim means.

    It's uncritical thinking like yours -- using words wrongly and not even bothering to check your spelling and punctuation before you post -- that illustrates how poor your entire education system is.
  • Re:Furthermore (Score:1, Insightful)

    by smchris ( 464899 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @07:30AM (#15947516)
    1. Dolphins have a cognitive sense of self, as shown in their ability to recognize that they are seeing themselves in mirrors. This is an ability only found in dolphins and higher primates (including humans).

    Academic B.S. Every cat I've had has recognized itself in the mirror. I can make eye contact with my cat _in_the_mirror_ and have it turn and look me in the face. Flow chart out the cognitive ramifications of that. How _deep_ that "self" recognition lies is a question for future cognitive science.

    HOWEVER, the last two cats we got as kittens. They did NOT understand mirrors until they were going into cat adolescence. Might the researchers who tested cats have failed to appreciate that cat brains go through developmental stages the same as people brains?

    Furthermore, consider the anoles commonly sold as "chameleons". Put a male one in front of a mirror and it will make an aggressive display. It thinks it is seeing _another_ anole. Do cats do this? No, they do not. Why? I suggest because they know what they are seeing isn't a threat (i.e. themselves).

    Oddly, I think cognitive science is _still_ being hampered hundreds of years after Descartes' need as a Christian to distinguish humans from animals in his discussions of cognition. Rather, I would suggest that once cognitive science has duplicated a cat, tacked on a logic unit and a speech unit, and gotten it down to mobile size, it will have created one scary smart and dangerous robot.

  • Re:Furthermore (Score:4, Insightful)

    by xigxag ( 167441 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:39AM (#15947753)
    Academic B.S. Every cat I've had has recognized itself in the mirror. I can make eye contact with my cat _in_the_mirror_ and have it turn and look me in the face.

    Your example doesn't constitute the proof you think it does. If you are staring at each other through a mirror, that means YOU recognize its mirror image, and in return it recognizes YOUR mirror image. It doesn't have to recognize its own mirror image to pass that test. In fact if you stand off to the side while staring at someone in the mirror, you'll notice that you don't even have to see your own image at all to stare at someone else.

    The issue is not whether cats can recognize the existence of other objects in a mirror. Clearly they can. The question is whether it can recognize that the cat-shaped object is itself, and use that information in some intelligent fashion.
  • by epl ( 140556 ) <epl@@@lustgas...nu> on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:42AM (#15947768)
    In that sense, we are not much smarter than goldfish with our ~15-45s of short-term memory [wikipedia.org].
  • by Jackmn ( 895532 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @08:51AM (#15947813)
    Of course, you need evidence to dismiss a claim.
    If the claims is unsubstantiated then you can safely dismiss it.

    The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. 'Prove me wrong' is not a valid substitute for evidence.

    It's unscientific thinking like yours
    Placing the burden of proof on the individual making the claim is scientific.
  • by alittlespice ( 934609 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @09:11AM (#15947906) Homepage
    From TFA:
    Manger said observed behaviour supports his iconoclastic take on dolphins as dim-wits.
    "You put an animal in a box, even a lab rat or gerbil, and the first thing it wants to do is climb out of it. If you don't put a lid on top of the bowl a goldfish it will eventually jump out to enlarge the environment it is living in," he said.
    "But a dolphin will never do that. In the marine parks, the dividers to keep the dolphins apart are only a foot or two above the water between the different pools," he said.
    Manger says the thought to jump over would simply not cross their unsophisticated minds.


    This has got to be some of the worst logic ever. For one, the goldfish would die, that doesn't make it smart, it makes it stupid.

    And for dolpins not to escape, could be argued that they're smart enough to know they have an easy life where they are in the fully staffed spa of luxury. Who'd want to leave?

    I think from the article, that Dolphins are even more intelligent than the so called scientist that came up with this theory.

    On a side note, anyone find it odd that this is report in Aljazeera?

  • by c_forq ( 924234 ) <forquerc+slash@gmail.com> on Monday August 21, 2006 @09:44AM (#15948080)
    Actually I think the grandparent is dead on, and you help his point. You don't need evidence to dismiss something, but you damn well should have a reason that has some support. That support in most cases is evidence. If you don't have a reason, or if that reason doesn't have any support, then why the hell are you dismissing the idea?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @10:13AM (#15948265)
    You know, the (perhaps apocryphal) stockbrokers jumping out of buildings because they realized that they were bankrupt. Using your monkey logic, does that prove that human beings aren't any more intelligent than goldfish?
    Social intelligence actually would dictate that the self-aware individual might sacrifice itself for the good of the whole so jumping out of the tank could be an entirely conscious (or subconscious) decision in the same way that the Wall St. leap was. Go figure.
  • by Zak3056 ( 69287 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @10:27AM (#15948366) Journal
    The news story, although bizarely linked to Aljazeera (!), is attributed to Reuters down the bottom. So it's not quite as "pure crap" as you might think

    Yes, because it's not like Reuters has had issues with credibility in the recent past, or anything.

  • I read an article in Scientific American about how dolphins play with each other or by themselves when they're bored. Older dolphins will teach younger ones how to generate complex vorticies in the water, and then inject them with air, making these weird stable rings that they can fool around with. I just googled for the info, and this story [earthtrust.org] popped up. My goldfish are pretty clever for such little animals, I guess, but they certainly don't play like this.

    Moreover, the hunting patterns of dolphins are considerably more complex and 'intelligent-looking' than those of goldfish. Dolphins are more social, sure, but it takes more than a bunch of friendly animals to realize that they can use fishing nets to hunt.

    Brain size and composition have ALWAYS been a bad indicator of intelligence. If it were the case merely that a big brain was enough to be smart, we'd be badly outclassed. From human to human, we'd see fair differences in intelligence, just based on the size of the brain (assuming that most human brains are composed similarly, and by increasing size, we merely increase the number of cells making up that brain -- tell me if that assumption is terribly off). Obviously this isn't true.

    Fact of the situation: we're REALLY bad at figuring out what makes intelligence and what makes the brain work at all. I don't buy that goldfish are smarter yet. One study or group of studies is insufficient to make me believe this in the face of the observable evidence of intelligence or lack thereof.
  • by Fantastic Lad ( 198284 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @11:07AM (#15948677)
    They are notorious propaganda-mongers with no validity as a real news source.

    You may as well post an article about how scientists have discovered life on the moon and use the Weekly World News as a source.


    CNN and FOX News are any better?

    Come on. ALL major news sources are propaganda outlets. That's how it works. The problem only arises when people think that their own country's news agency are above corruption.

    As for the article, I'm sure the guy interviewed really believes his studies. How does that reflect on Aljazeera? All they're doing is reporting on recent claims from academia. All newspapers report stupid science news. So what?


    -FL

  • Jerry Levy (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wonkavader ( 605434 ) on Monday August 21, 2006 @01:04PM (#15949545)
    Jerry Levy (one of my favorite psychologists) has an interesting theory about dolphins and how dumber they are then people expect. Intelligence tests do find that the big-brained dolphins are not anywhere near as clever as they ought to be judging by brain size.

    Humans have a great big corpus collousum -- it keeps both hemispheres of the brain at the same activation level. When we sleep, both sides function in unison -- I think we're talking deep sleep, here, not REM, where the two hemispheres are both active.

    Dolphins cannot sleep for long. They need to breath, which means coming up for air, and so the corpus callousum of the dolphin is small -- the two hemispheres do NOT have the same activation. One goes flat while the other stays active. Hence, the dolphin is only really effectively using about half his brain at any time.

    And hence, the dolphin is only half as smart as you'd expect per the brain size.
  • Trolls (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 21, 2006 @03:30PM (#15950533)
    To contrast with the 6 troll responses you've gotten, I'd like to say that it's pretty damn incredible of you to stick with your boyfriend after his stroke. Many lesser women would leave and find someone without disability. People will always go for the cheap "Slashdot users don't have significant others" joke, despite it's clear falsehood, but it's true that most of the world doesn't have a significant other who's as committed as you.

    Good luck to both of you.

Work without a vision is slavery, Vision without work is a pipe dream, But vision with work is the hope of the world.

Working...