Dolphins not so smart

[Ace Pace]

Uh wtf at link

Dolphins may have big brains, but a South African-based scientist says laboratory rats and even goldfish can outwit them.

Paul Manger of Johannesburg's University of the Witwatersrand says the super-sized brains of dolphins are a function of being warm-blooded in a cold water environment and not a sign of intelligence.

"We equate our big brain with intelligence. Over the years we have looked at these kinds of things and said the dolphins must be intelligent," he said.

"The real flaw in this logic is that it suggests all brains are built the same... When you look at the structure of the dolphin brain, you see it is not built for complex information processing," he said.

A neuroethologist who looks at brain evolution, Manger's views are sure to cause a stir among a public which has long associated dolphins with intelligence, emotion and other human-like qualities.

They are widely regarded as one of the smartest mammals.

Too few neurons

But Manger, whose peer-reviewed research on the subject has been published in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, says the reality is different.

Brains, he says, are made of neurons and glia. The latter create the environment for the neurons to work properly and producing heat is one of glia's functions.

"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," Manger said.

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.

Jump through hoops

They jump through hoops only because they have been conditioned to do so for a food reward - which may suggest the brain of a single-minded predator rather than a reasoned thinker.

"Dolphins can actually chain up to 16 stimulus response events, but this is indicative of good trainers and not intelligent animals. Stimulus-response conditioning is thought to be a low level of intelligent behaviour," Manger said.

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.

[Lord Zentei]

It will be interesting to see how this model fares.

[Pick]

I'm not certain that I am yet convinced. The reports regarding their use of tools in the wild (utilizing reef formations) and language patterns does seem indicative of intelligence. Additionally, their behavior in regard to mirrors and video playback have long been considered evidence for higher brain functions. We will need to see how this progresses and gather more information. This may be true, but I would like to see a response from the other side in order to assess this situation.

[Shinova]

I am very unconvinced, but I'm going to wait and see what other scientists have to say about it.

[Singular Quartet]

He does raise some good points, though. I've seen several non-mammals that have done one thing he's asking: Move out of their tank for either a larger enviornment or for food (Octopi, actually. They can survive a few minutes out of water, and will climb out to eat any fish they happen to see.)

[Tasoth]

He does raise some good points, though. I've seen several non-mammals that have done one thing he's asking: Move out of their tank for either a larger enviornment or for food (Octopi, actually. They can survive a few minutes out of water, and will climb out to eat any fish they happen to see.)

Which is why I love cephalopods, well cuttlefish and octopi mainly. They're smart enough to realize the jar they unsealed to get the fish can be closed from inside and offer them protection.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

I'm not certain that I am yet convinced. The reports regarding their use of tools in the wild (utilizing reef formations) and language patterns does seem indicative of intelligence. Additionally, their behavior in regard to mirrors and video playback have long been considered evidence for higher brain functions. We will need to see how this progresses and gather more information. This may be true, but I would like to see a response from the other side in order to assess this situation.

Tool use and linguistic ability aren't quite the slam-dunk for advanced intelligence as one might think. After all, birds have been seen using tools, and even the relatively dimwitted songbirds display linguistic ability. For that matter, meerkats, which aren't near the pinnacle of intelligence, pass on information from one generation to the next through teaching. None of these animals (by birds, I mean songbirds and pigeons, not parrots,) are accused of having anything near higher primate or human intelligence.

[Pick]

I'm not certain that I am yet convinced. The reports regarding their use of tools in the wild (utilizing reef formations) and language patterns does seem indicative of intelligence. Additionally, their behavior in regard to mirrors and video playback have long been considered evidence for higher brain functions. We will need to see how this progresses and gather more information. This may be true, but I would like to see a response from the other side in order to assess this situation.

Tool use and linguistic ability aren't quite the slam-dunk for advanced intelligence as one might think. After all, birds have been seen using tools, and even the relatively dimwitted songbirds display linguistic ability. For that matter, meerkats, which aren't near the pinnacle of intelligence, pass on information from one generation to the next through teaching. None of these animals (by birds, I mean songbirds and pigeons, not parrots,) are accused of having anything near higher primate or human intelligence.

True, and as I noted (with italics, even) they seem indicative. I was very clear in establishing that I do not have enough information to make a judgement on the issue at hand.

I don't like his example of dolphins not trying to escape their cages, however. He's making an assumption that they haven't considered it. I know, however, if I were in a cage --one surrounded by an environment that could easily kill me-- would I risk that safety on a jump toward the unknown? Especially if the current environment proved itself not only to be safe, but a reliable source of food (and even entertainment?) Why leave a place that offers you all of your needs? He's assuming that "lust for freedom" is a critical aspect of intelligent behavior. Anyway, this is largely irrelevant, just a tiny irritant.

Regarding octopi and cuttlefish, they are awesome. Period.

[Lord Zentei]

I don't like his example of dolphins not trying to escape their cages, however. He's making an assumption that they haven't considered it. I know, however, if I were in a cage --one surrounded by an environment that could easily kill me-- would I risk that safety on a jump toward the unknown? Especially if the current environment proved itself not only to be safe, but a reliable source of food (and even entertainment?) Why leave a place that offers you all of your needs? He's assuming that "lust for freedom" is a critical aspect of intelligent behavior. Anyway, this is largely irrelevant, just a tiny irritant.

He does also point out the matter of escaping tuna fishing nets.

[Pick]

I don't like his example of dolphins not trying to escape their cages, however. He's making an assumption that they haven't considered it. I know, however, if I were in a cage --one surrounded by an environment that could easily kill me-- would I risk that safety on a jump toward the unknown? Especially if the current environment proved itself not only to be safe, but a reliable source of food (and even entertainment?) Why leave a place that offers you all of your needs? He's assuming that "lust for freedom" is a critical aspect of intelligent behavior. Anyway, this is largely irrelevant, just a tiny irritant.

He does also point out the matter of escaping tuna fishing nets.

I don't want to start a war based on hypotheticals (since the truth, in these cases, will become evident through research, not argumentation), but a tuna net is a pretty strange thing, and one encounter is enough for the dolphins to die. It might occur to them if they had more time or a better grasp of the situation at hand, but I'd think that this might be a problem when they're surrounded by thrashing tuna and being held in a prison of an odd and foreign nature that is rapidly ascending in what I would assume would be a highly unnatural manner.

Does anyone know if research on this has been done in a captive environment?

[Lord Zentei]

I don't want to start a war based on hypotheticals (since the truth, in these cases, will become evident through research, not argumentation), but a tuna net is a pretty strange thing, and one encounter is enough for the dolphins to die. It might occur to them if they had more time or a better grasp of the situation at hand, but I'd think that this might be a problem when they're surrounded by thrashing tuna and being held in a prison of an odd and foreign nature that is rapidly ascending in what I would assume would be a highly unnatural manner.

Perhaps, though should they not then assume that something was very much amiss? Intelligence is also the ability to react correctly to novel situations. Still, I agree that more research is needed.

Does anyone know if research on this has been done in a captive environment?

No idea. At least I have not heard about it.

[wolveraptor]

Should these findings be correct, and also apply to whales, it might go a long way towards explaining why they beach themselves.

[Lord Zentei]

Should these findings be correct, and also apply to whales, it might go a long way towards explaining why they beach themselves.

Perhaps. Though I seem to recall a study that showed sonar was a lot less effective near sandy beaches than rocky ones (the sonar waves scatter instead of reflecting with a nice clear image).

Heh: remarkable that I am acting as a DA for whales.

[slebetman]

It should also be pointed out that humans also have a hard time escaping from nets. The problem for the dolphins is not simply escaping the net but the net forcing them to be underwater for an extended period of time while simultaneously causing stress which drowns the dolphins. If dolphins have gills then they may have a better chance surviving the nets. Also it should be noted that dolphins DO escape from nets provided the net has an escape hatch for dolphins (which tunas are supposedly too dumb to use). Most "dolphin-friendly" tunas are caught this way.

[Shroom Man 777]

The thing is, humans don't have sonar to see the nets. And fins to jump over them before they get too close.

I hope this guy ends up getting a Nobel Prize for establishing a scientific law that proves Dolphins are stupider than squid

[Broomstick]

Why do you assume the dolphin sonar picks up on nets? Particularly when the mesh might be obscured by thrashing tuna?

It's easy for us to sit on shore and point and say "Look how dumb!" but we did, after all, design nets to capture sea creatures so why should we be surprised they do?

Animals are generally good at being what they are, but outside of that can be pretty stupid. A pigeon is pretty stupid by human standards, but at three months of age it has a better grasp of spatial relationships and basic flight priciples than 99% of humanity ever will. We built GPS to do what a stupid homing pigeon does on instinct by its first year of life. No doubt pigeons think we're pretty fucking stupid for getting lost all the time. Who's the dummy here? Who is setting the standards?

I think dolphins are good at being dolphins. That some of them can adapt to captivity and figure out to train humans to feed and entertain them indicates some intellect, but I also think folks who think dolphins are equal to humans by yardsticks that measure things important to being human are frequently delusional.

[Molyneux]

I am very unconvinced. Dolphins have shown learned tool use, complex language (at least, more complex than any other species in the wild which I can think of), and they've passed the mirror test...I would doubt very much that they are less intelligent than creatures which have not passed any of those criteria.

[McC]

Uh...this is being reported exclusively by al-Jazeera, if I'm not mistaken.

I'll wait until I see some independent corroboration of the scientific data, thanks.

[Lord Zentei]

Why do you assume the dolphin sonar picks up on nets? Particularly when the mesh might be obscured by thrashing tuna?

It's easy for us to sit on shore and point and say "Look how dumb!" but we did, after all, design nets to capture sea creatures so why should we be surprised they do?

Quite. This might be relatively straightforward to determine by seeing whether mesh is in fact picked up by sonar.

No doubt pigeons think we're pretty fucking stupid for getting lost all the time. Who's the dummy here? Who is setting the standards?

Of course, that is a sensory perception/reflex/instinct, not intellect.

That some of them can adapt to captivity and figure out to train humans to feed and entertain them indicates some intellect,

No offence, but - huh? By this reasoning, any creature that can be trained in stimulus response is intelligent and training the human, not the reverse.

but I also think folks who think dolphins are equal to humans by yardsticks that measure things important to being human are frequently delusional.

Agreed.

Uh...this is being reported exclusively by al-Jazeera, if I'm not mistaken.

I'll wait until I see some independent corroboration of the scientific data, thanks.

That does put a rather different spin on things.

[Winston Blake]

Uh...this is being reported exclusively by al-Jazeera, if I'm not mistaken.

I'll wait until I see some independent corroboration of the scientific data, thanks.

It appears to be a Reuters story.

The Daily Telegraph has something of a response.

[Talanth]

I can't imagine how sonar would pick up something as fine as a net as I don't think there are any places in it of a wide enough surface area for the sound to reflect off of. And I'm pritty sure I once heared that fish and sea mamles can't see nets for the same reason (the cord is too fine).