Shettleworth 3 and 4
DISCLAIMER: Please do not take my criticism as me wishing we were expected to read the full 600+ page book rather than this shortened version.
I really like reading smaller books rather than big ones. And I don't mean fewer pages so much as how big the actual cover is. And I prefer softback because I bend it around like a monster. I am an abomination. I know. But also smaller books feel right to hold, so I can usually trick myself into thinking it is reading for pleasure. Especially if I have any beers in the fridge.
NOW, with that said. After the first chapter or so I really stopped liking this Shettleworth book very much. I know it is a condensed version but I find myself having to constantly look up terminology because it doesn't have the vocabulary off to the side. There are topics I feel I read over and over without really understanding, and as silly as it sounds; I agree with many of my classmates about just how lacking this book is for pictures.
I thought the explanation for how the idea of cognitive maps is anthropomorphism was easy to understand, but many of the studies she explained afterwards detailing the different ways animals use spatial cognition seemed overly simplified. The diagrams helped some, and I feel like I got the gist, but is that enough? I can tell you that some animals can use geometry to find things but search opposite corners equally as much, and that a bird searched in the center of a ring of pinecones that was moved which showed she could use two different types of visual cues to find where she needed to be. I can also tell you that there was a flaw in testing cognitive maps in rats because they used a beacon, but that even when they fixed it and the rats still tested above chance it only showed that they MIGHT use cognitive maps. I at-first thought that meant the study was kind of pointless, but if it had showed they for sure do not it would have been a breakthrough, so I approve. (Not that anyone asked)
My favorite study it talked about I think was the one that showed how bees use a different way of finding the hive when they are traveling in a well known area but have other ways to find home also. I would like to learn more about this in particular and how it relates to them finding food too. Bees are way more interesting than I ever thought as a kid.
SIDE NOTE: why do we not pronounce circadian "Circa- day-in" because based on its etymology presented in the book it seems like we totally should. Actually, we kind of do. Never mind. Complaint revoked.
Also when the book talked about the precise number system I thought back to a study with children done on object permanence and an "impossible" event. They showed a box blocking a track for a car to slide down, lowered a screen so the box was hidden, removed the box, and the car passed right through. Babies looking longer was supposed to show they had object permanence because they were confused why the box didn't block it. I find it interesting that they use similar reasoning in this study with children and primates. Looking = thinking.
I enjoyed chapter 4 much more. Firstly it was more interesting, talking about theory of mind and what animals understand and how we know it, and secondly I understood it better. Perhaps because I was interested. I've said before that I like reading about how people test things in animals because it seems to help me rationalize it. I like to know "how we know." When the book talked about gaze following and showed an experiment that suggested monkeys had an expectation of the other animal being able to see one of my first thoughts was surprise. I had never considered that animals might not have an understanding of what other animals can see or understand. Could the monkeys we learned about making false anti-predator calls only be connecting that "this noise means run up the tree"?
I really like reading smaller books rather than big ones. And I don't mean fewer pages so much as how big the actual cover is. And I prefer softback because I bend it around like a monster. I am an abomination. I know. But also smaller books feel right to hold, so I can usually trick myself into thinking it is reading for pleasure. Especially if I have any beers in the fridge.
NOW, with that said. After the first chapter or so I really stopped liking this Shettleworth book very much. I know it is a condensed version but I find myself having to constantly look up terminology because it doesn't have the vocabulary off to the side. There are topics I feel I read over and over without really understanding, and as silly as it sounds; I agree with many of my classmates about just how lacking this book is for pictures.
I thought the explanation for how the idea of cognitive maps is anthropomorphism was easy to understand, but many of the studies she explained afterwards detailing the different ways animals use spatial cognition seemed overly simplified. The diagrams helped some, and I feel like I got the gist, but is that enough? I can tell you that some animals can use geometry to find things but search opposite corners equally as much, and that a bird searched in the center of a ring of pinecones that was moved which showed she could use two different types of visual cues to find where she needed to be. I can also tell you that there was a flaw in testing cognitive maps in rats because they used a beacon, but that even when they fixed it and the rats still tested above chance it only showed that they MIGHT use cognitive maps. I at-first thought that meant the study was kind of pointless, but if it had showed they for sure do not it would have been a breakthrough, so I approve. (Not that anyone asked)
My favorite study it talked about I think was the one that showed how bees use a different way of finding the hive when they are traveling in a well known area but have other ways to find home also. I would like to learn more about this in particular and how it relates to them finding food too. Bees are way more interesting than I ever thought as a kid.
SIDE NOTE: why do we not pronounce circadian "Circa- day-in" because based on its etymology presented in the book it seems like we totally should. Actually, we kind of do. Never mind. Complaint revoked.
Also when the book talked about the precise number system I thought back to a study with children done on object permanence and an "impossible" event. They showed a box blocking a track for a car to slide down, lowered a screen so the box was hidden, removed the box, and the car passed right through. Babies looking longer was supposed to show they had object permanence because they were confused why the box didn't block it. I find it interesting that they use similar reasoning in this study with children and primates. Looking = thinking.
I enjoyed chapter 4 much more. Firstly it was more interesting, talking about theory of mind and what animals understand and how we know it, and secondly I understood it better. Perhaps because I was interested. I've said before that I like reading about how people test things in animals because it seems to help me rationalize it. I like to know "how we know." When the book talked about gaze following and showed an experiment that suggested monkeys had an expectation of the other animal being able to see one of my first thoughts was surprise. I had never considered that animals might not have an understanding of what other animals can see or understand. Could the monkeys we learned about making false anti-predator calls only be connecting that "this noise means run up the tree"?
I was also interested in the gaze following. I always relate everything we learn back to my dogs. I often see my dogs following the direction the other one is looking at. I guess the monkeys really are only listening to the call, because if they were following the monkeys gaze they would know that there was no predator, but there is food right there!
ReplyDelete