Thread: the "ape" and the child study...

I don't have enough time to read it all yet but it sounds very interesting.

I was learning about feral children in humanities a few months ago, it was concluded that when children were past a certain stage in their development (I think about five years old) and they had been brought up in a non-human environment by non-humans, they would never be able to become full developed (intelligence wise). They could not learn to speak properly or read. They had great difficulty with reacting to and expressing emotions.

Oh, and http://www.koko.org/world/talk_aol.html
http://www.koko.org/world/signlanguage.html

that's really amazing...but i wonder what happened to gua after the study. it must've been heartbreaking to leave her family, as i'm assuming she was required.

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
but i wonder what happened to gua after the study.

Probably kept in a small cage for a good number of years, then blasted into space by NASA

Apes are way more human like then most peope think. I think apes should have more right than other animals. Apes have allmost as much feelings as humans, chickens are just robots with a bit of feeling. Yet they shouldn't be cooked alive by KFC.

wow, Gua pointed to her nose when asked "Where's your nose?"

kinda impressive


edit: damn

The internet chat with the gorilla shows that they can learn words and phrases, but it doesn't know how or when to use them properly. It kept saying 'lipstick' every five seconds. It can, apparently, tell jokes and lie, and that would be real intelligence, the ability to decive and think of ironic situations, blah blah blah, blah blah.

Originally posted by dudesuperior
I was learning about feral children in humanities a few months ago, it was concluded that when children were past a certain stage in their development (I think about five years old) and they had been brought up in a non-human environment by non-humans, they would never be able to become full developed (intelligence wise). They could not learn to speak properly or read. They had great difficulty with reacting to and expressing emotions.

Those studies are interesting, but not exactly scientific. There's a decent chance that the reason the child was abandoned or isolated in the first place was because they showed some sort of mental handicap in development.

So it becomes a chicken and egg type question. For this reason, the examples of feral children aren't really respected by the scientific psychological community as anything more than interesting happenstances.

Back on topic, I haven't had a chance to read the stuff in the link yet...I'll definitely look at it a little later.

i know it seems long...but it really takes less than five minutes to read, and is very interesting

Interesting stuff.

The only part I take issue with is where they imply that the ape develops 'language' skills. While it's true that they can understand and use (surprisingly complex) symbol systems, they can't learn true language.

Originally posted by bradybaker
he only part I take issue with is where they imply that the ape develops 'language' skills. While it's true that they can understand and use (surprisingly complex) symbol systems, they can't learn true language.

I guess it depends on the definition of language, and how high you set the bar.

Apes lack the breath control required for extended speech.

But sign language is a "language" - a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols. There are a large number of studies on use of symbols with apes, mammals, and other animals.

Maybe I read too much Dr. Doolittle, but I've assumed most animals have a basic language (even if its only 4 phrases - I'm hungy, I'm horny, I'm angry, I feel good!)

With our big brains, human languages are at a higher level of complexity, but they evolved from animal roots.

Originally posted by Asclepius
I guess it depends on the definition of language, and how high you set the bar.

Apes lack the breath control required for extended speech. *

But sign language is a "language" - a systematic means of communicating by the use of sounds or conventional symbols. *There are a large number of studies on use of symbols with apes, mammals, and other animals.

Maybe I read too much Dr. Doolittle, but I've assumed most animals have a basic language (even if its only 4 phrases - I'm hungy, I'm horny, I'm angry, I feel good!)

With our big brains, human languages are at a higher level of complexity, but they evolved from animal roots.

All languages, even sign language, make use of syntax (i.e. grammar, rules by which words can be combined). Primates have never been able to grasp this concept, so the symbol systems acquired by primates are not considered languages.

Originally posted by bradybaker

All languages, even sign language, make use of syntax (i.e. grammar, rules by which words can be combined). Primates have never been able to grasp this concept, so the symbol systems acquired by primates are not considered languages.

what are they considered then?

Originally posted by mongreloctopus
what are they considered then?

Symbol systems.

Con Slobodchikoff at Northern Arizona University has done studies in animal communication and cognition. Using sonograms to analyze the distress calls of Gunnison's prairie dog, he has found that prairie dog colonies have a communication system that includes nouns, verbs and adjectives. They can tell one another what kind of predator is approaching-man, hawk, coyote, dog (noun)-and they can tell each other how fast it's moving (verb). They can say whether a human is carrying a gun or not[/b]

Slobodchikoff. 1991 Semantic information distinguishing individual predators in the alarm calls of Gunnison's prairie dogs. Animal Behavior 42:13-19
Slobodchikoff. 2002 Cognition and communication in prairie dogs. The Cognitive Animal. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

I found this in Animals in Translation by Temple Grandin - a very interesting book on animals, psychology, neurology, and autism. Very readable and fascinating insights!

very compelling asclepius...hopefully i stumble upon that book somehow.

i think many animals have language (or "symbol") systems much more intricate than we give them credit for. ..

even in humans, body language and tone is often more important than the actual words being used. anyone who has seen a sheepdog control sheep with nothing more than subtle head movements and varying intensity of the eyes understands that this is the case in animals as well.