Biology buffs: Explain "conditioning" to me

[Justforfun000]

I was reading the paper the other day, and it was an interesting article about how elephants would ignore a mouse, (contrary to popular myth), but play the sound of a swarm of bees? Alarm and retreat.

They did a study in Africa where they played the sound of a swarm of bees to animals, and every single species with the exception of one showed fear and ran. The one exception was described as naturally quite dumb and potentially unaquainted with bees due to their location.

They then went on to say that a bee expert would tell a human to stand still and that running would increase the chances of inciting the bees to sting more. Then they made a very brief description of conditioning that essentially said offspring of living animals that encountered bees would themselves react the same way without ever having run into them before.

I have never truly understood how this instinct of conditioning is possible. It sounds almost like magic to me. HOW can a type of recognition of sound be passed on to an organism through simple bodily genetics? I find that incredibly fascinating. Does science really understand conditioning or is "how" and "why" simply dirty words to scientists?

Is there an actual pathway of some sort that can be mapped out and explained? What is the mechanism that can explain such traits?

[Darth Servo]

The animal that has it in its genes to run at the first sign of danger is more likely to survive that the one who looks around going "duh, whats that?"

[Kanastrous]

But there has top be some degree of filtering, as to what constitutes a sign of running-away danger...like specific sounds, smells, etc, or at least classes of flight-triggering stimuli. I think (think) that's what Justforfun000 had in mind.

[Darth Servo]

Sure, just as harmless plants and animals often mimic the appearance/sounds/smell of dangerous ones. I don't believe science has discovered how certain sensations are genetically interpreted as dangerous. However, given a random population, some run from the sound a dangerous animal makes while others do not, the ones who run will survive. Those same animals will run from a recording of that sound, or a harmless animal making the same sound.

[Justforfun000]

Right, that's the nitty-gritty I'm getting at. What is the mechanism. I'm baffled as to what can make a FOETUS, (eventually), have the potential to recognize and react appropriately to something as specific and yet-to-be encountered as the sound of a specific animal. I don't understand the biological explanation. I assume there is one.

[Elaro]

Probably, there is a gene (or a series of genes) that code a memory in the brain. If memory is a specific structure of neurons, and we know the brain (an assembly of structures of neurons) gets assembled genetically during pregnancy, it stands to reason that genetics can also code for memory. 'Course, this is not a mecanism, but then again, I am not a biologist.

[Darth Servo]

So you want a molecular explanation. I don't think biologists even begin to understand the chemistry of instincts.

[Justforfun000]

So you want a molecular explanation. I don't think biologists even begin to understand the chemistry of instincts.

Well.....maybe...I'm not sure what I want as to the explanation..I guess whatever I can GET. lol. I'm just trying to fathom what the scientific realm can divulge that makes sense. Like I said earlier, I find it almost mystical or "psychic" if you will on the surface. I think it's truly amazing that we have this kind of capability. I just presumed science had this covered as to the how.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So you want a molecular explanation. I don't think biologists even begin to understand the chemistry of instincts.

Well.....maybe...I'm not sure what I want as to the explanation..I guess whatever I can GET. lol. I'm just trying to fathom what the scientific realm can divulge that makes sense. Like I said earlier, I find it almost mystical or "psychic" if you will on the surface. I think it's truly amazing that we have this kind of capability. I just presumed science had this covered as to the how.

Not on a neural basis no... for a lot of stuff we have what parts of the brain process the information, but that is as close as we get. Functionally what happens is a genetic mutation that alters the way your brain processes the sensory stimuli, if this increases your reproducti8ve fitness it gets passed on... that is pretty much it.

For any one mutation it could act on any part of dozens of chemical and neural pathways from regulation of brain structure to neurotransmitter re-uptake. And there is no guarantee that it is the same mechanism for any particular "danger" (IE. Zebras and Elephants may have different mechanisms for recognizing a lion as dangerous)

[Zixinus]

Was the subject that did not encounter bees itself, only their parents, near their parents when the experiment was conducted? I find it much more reasonable that the child merely followed mommy's lead to run when mommy ran.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Was the subject that did not encounter bees itself, only their parents, near their parents when the experiment was conducted? I find it much more reasonable that the child merely followed mommy's lead to run when mommy ran.

Behavioral biologists are not dumb. They (we in a couple months!) control for that.

One whole in what you are saying is that this occurs in species with zero parental care as well.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This is more a psychology/neurology thing which is likely more down to social conditioning during upbringing than any genetic traits.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is more a psychology/neurology thing which is likely more down to social conditioning during upbringing than any genetic traits.

It would depend on what species. Of course the OP was hardly clear, was he talking about not running? Or was he talking about running? *shrug*

[Admiral Valdemar]

True, some less advanced species have conditioning based very much on simple biochemical interactions, while higher mammals can learn to overcome "gut instinct" as it were. You can get kittens raised with dogs who will never bolt from another canine again.

[Justforfun000]

It would depend on what species. Of course the OP was hardly clear, was he talking about not running? Or was he talking about running? *shrug*

Sorry Aly. My question was derived from the article, but it wasn't actually IN the article so I might have come across confusing. They just used adult animals to test the reactions when they heard the reproduced sound of a swarm of bees. They almost all ran. They just happened to mention an offhand remark about conditioning and that's where I got more curious.

They said something to the effect of animals exposed to other dangerous animals and their signs (like buzzing), would eventually pass this "knowledge" on to their offspring just by natural evolution. It's that ability that I find fascinating and wondered if they have any true understanding of it.

[Ted C]

They did a study in Africa where they played the sound of a swarm of bees to animals, and every single species with the exception of one showed fear and ran. The one exception was described as naturally quite dumb and potentially unaquainted with bees due to their location.

...

I have never truly understood how this instinct of conditioning is possible. It sounds almost like magic to me. HOW can a type of recognition of sound be passed on to an organism through simple bodily genetics? I find that incredibly fascinating. Does science really understand conditioning or is "how" and "why" simply dirty words to scientists?

I'm not seeing where this particular behavior is necessarily genetic. It doesn't sound like they were testing animals that were raised in captivity, where they never encountered swarming insects in their lives.

Conditioned behaviors are learned behaviors, whereas instinctive behaviors are genetic. Most animals are extremely wary -- by instinct -- of anything they've never encountered before, but they will go straight to defensive behavior (be it running, bristling, or attacking) at the first sign of a known threat because they've learned what to do.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It would depend on what species. Of course the OP was hardly clear, was he talking about not running? Or was he talking about running? *shrug*

Sorry Aly. My question was derived from the article, but it wasn't actually IN the article so I might have come across confusing. They just used adult animals to test the reactions when they heard the reproduced sound of a swarm of bees. They almost all ran. They just happened to mention an offhand remark about conditioning and that's where I got more curious.

They said something to the effect of animals exposed to other dangerous animals and their signs (like buzzing), would eventually pass this "knowledge" on to their offspring just by natural evolution. It's that ability that I find fascinating and wondered if they have any true understanding of it.

Ah. Well it depends on the species. For some there is definitely a genetic component, this is why aposomatic colloration works. A snake that tries to eat a poison dart frog is dead unless it has evolved resistance to the toxin. It cant learn that sort of danger via conditioning, only through the evolutionary process that makes their brain process bright contrasting colors as bad. And that can happen in any number of ways depending on the species.

What they SHOULD have done (because apparantly these behavioral biologists are in fact dumb) is to control for learned behaviors by raising the animals in question in captivity out of contact with the stimulus they want to test.

[Justforfun000]

Aly Wrote:

Ah. Well it depends on the species. For some there is definitely a genetic component, this is why aposomatic colloration works. A snake that tries to eat a poison dart frog is dead unless it has evolved resistance to the toxin. It cant learn that sort of danger via conditioning, only through the evolutionary process that makes their brain process bright contrasting colors as bad. And that can happen in any number of ways depending on the species.

Ok. So there is a definite difference between genetic evolution and conditioning. I thought the conditioning fell under the umbrella.

Let me ask this....I'm assuming a baby elephant born in the wild will naturally react the same way to the sound of a swarm if generations of these animals are exposed to this threat whereas an animal not indigenous to the area may not. How did this pass on? Do scientists understand the actual "how" of this instinctive reaction?

What they SHOULD have done (because apparantly these behavioral biologists are in fact dumb) is to control for learned behaviors by raising the animals in question in captivity out of contact with the stimulus they want to test.

I am probably misrepresenting the article due to my trying to recollect it from memory...

Ahh there we go. I did a search and found it online.

Here it is if you're curious.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 617555.ece


Remember my questions arose from the article and its contents...they wasn't specifically created as a respresentation of it. It just got me thinking of conditioning and how it is possible.

Ted C Wrote:

Conditioned behaviors are learned behaviors, whereas instinctive behaviors are genetic. Most animals are extremely wary -- by instinct -- of anything they've never encountered before, but they will go straight to defensive behavior (be it running, bristling, or attacking) at the first sign of a known threat because they've learned what to do.

Hopefully this post will clear up the confusion. I didn't mean to say what the study was doing per se, I was just using it as a springboard for questions.

[Justforfun000]

Well there is a great example of how human memory can be WAY off. After re-reading that article, I see I thought it said quite a few things that were quite different from the truth. It didn't mention the passing on of conditioning at ALL.

In any event, isn't it true though that eventually a species evolves enough to instinctively recognize threats such as the swarm of bees?

[Ted C]

In any event, isn't it true though that eventually a species evolves enough to instinctively recognize threats such as the swarm of bees?

That depends on the species.

"Smart" species tend to learn about threats and how to deal with them, while "stupid" species (think insects) tend to operate like robots, responding only to stimuli only as specified in their programming.

You could use a simple trick to catch an insect over and over, and that insect would never behave differently. It doesn't learn anything; it just follows instinctive behaviors. A large population of insects, however, will have variations in their behavior, so if your trick causes those that respond in certain ways to die, you'll cull them out of the gene pool over time and behaviors that allow them to live to reproduce will come to dominate the population.

If you use a trick to catch a cat, however, it learn that certain actions on its part result in it being trapped. Assuming it doesn't want to be trapped, it will stop the behavior that gets it caught. Its descendants, however, won't know about your trick. They will have to learn from their own experience or avoid your trap simply by mimicking their parent's behavior.

[Justforfun000]

Ted C Wrote:

<snip>

I can understand your example quite easily, but I was under the impression that some learned behaviours became instinctual....am I mistaken?

[Ted C]

I can understand your example quite easily, but I was under the impression that some learned behaviours became instinctual....am I mistaken?

That's certainly possible, but the longer the life expectancy of a species, the less likely it is for conditioned behaviors to become embedded in the genome. The stimulus that triggers an particular behavior will have to be consistent for many generations for it to become instinctive.

I wouldn't really be all that surprised to find that the sound of swarming bees or other stinging insects triggers a fear response in most animals, since bees and the like are found around the world. The actual response to the sound probably varies by species, though. A water buffalo might run from it, while a honey badger would be attracted to it.

[Justforfun000]

So getting to the nitty gritty...how does it get imbedded in the genome? Explain best as you can for a laymen's sake, what is the "how" behind instinct and behaviour? Is there a way to actually trace this or is it just simply THERE and the explanation is just beyond us?

[Ted C]

I don't pretend to have the biology background to properly answer how such a thing happens, but I'll take a stab at it.

The stimulus-response combination has to exist in the first place. For instance, the genome must contain code that triggers a fear response when the animal detects the distinctive buzzing of a swarm of bees. I will not even pretend to know what combination of code allows that to happen, or what combination of mutations would be necessary to create it.

Then, the gene needs to show selective benefit for the species. Animals that have the fear response to the sound of a bee swarm need to have greater reproductive success (presumably due to greater survival rates) as a result.

Those being the case, the gene will become more common in the gene pool as animals that avoid getting stung to death survive to mate.

So, basically, it works like any other genetic factor that improves the reproductive success of its bearers.

[Justforfun000]

The stimulus-response combination has to exist in the first place. For instance, the genome must contain code that triggers a fear response when the animal detects the distinctive buzzing of a swarm of bees. I will not even pretend to know what combination of code allows that to happen, or what combination of mutations would be necessary to create it.

Then, the gene needs to show selective benefit for the species. Animals that have the fear response to the sound of a bee swarm need to have greater reproductive success (presumably due to greater survival rates) as a result.

Those being the case, the gene will become more common in the gene pool as animals that avoid getting stung to death survive to mate.

So, basically, it works like any other genetic factor that improves the reproductive success of its bearers.

Hmmm...I guess that pretty well explains the "why", quite well. I wonder if anyone here might know what the "how" might be. I'm assuming even if science has some kind of answers to this that it would be extremely complex and possibly unable to convey to someone unfamiliar with advanced study, but maybe I'll be surprised.

Funny because I've normally heard that "why" is a dirty word to scientists and "how" is the main concern with research, but it seems that in this case it's easier to get an answer in reverse fashion.