The Relationship Between Transitive Inference And Social Complexity

As scientists continue to their research, fundamental questions about intelligence are brought to the surface.

Various primates show ability in their environment, some concepts may exist to other than human species or it may not. The author explains in depth the certain behaviours that come with forms of communication. Throughout this article, understanding the behavioural reasoning to observe predictions from one another. Social environment has been said to be suggested to represent the components. This mainstream article published online has a brief report and explains the facts by categories and only facts not opinions or comments. The specific format which describes the details right away and by the following paragraphs that help me understand it easier because it is not hard to read, the concept is right then and there. I like the fact that this article demonstrates the behavior of primates in formats that are understandable and can represent debate lies. Within assumption the examples given of behavior were simply a chimpanzee trying to go up a tree. A few chimpanzees took different roles tring to help each other up a tree. Experiments are said to look for evidence for primate subjects not just performing an act but also understanding

In the article “You Can Grow Your Intelligence”, the author discussed a couple of studies that proved not only can your brain grow, but so can your intelligence. It mentioned facts pertaining to the weight of the brain, connection between nerve cells and how it affects the overall intelligence of a species. One of these studies included animals from different environments being tested on their intelligence. According to the study, the animals that were held in captivity and lived alone were not only found to have smaller brains than the ones who lived in a challenging environment, but had less communication between the brain cells that allows them to think strategically and communicate with others. The article claims this theory to be true

They are ready to call upon the “Clever Hans phenomenon” whenever an animal seems to be exhibiting intelligent behavior. Clever Hans taught psychology some important lessons, but the incident may also have madebehavioral scientists[5] too cautious about the mental abilities of animals. Animals that are easy to train may also be very intelligent. Some of the most trainable creatures, such as dolphins, are also the most likely candidates for genuine animal thinking. But finding ways to get at animals’ real mental capacity can be very difficult. Many pitfalls await the scientist trying to interpret animals’ behavior and make inferences about their intelligence. One is inconsistency An animal might breeze through what we consider a difficult learning task and then fail when presented with what seems obvious to us. When an animal can’t perform well, we don’t know if it really cannot solve the problems put to it or if it just doesn’t want to. Sometimes the difficulty lies in the perceptive abilities of the animals. The animal may have the mental ability and the desire to solve the problem but is unable to make the discriminations[6] being asked of it. For example, a researcher using colored objects to compare learning in a cebus monkey and in a rhesus monkey first found that the rhesus scored much better than the

In these lands, natural selection is law. These natives trust that, much like how physical attributes have evolved over time, mental abilities have as well. They study how behavior has changed over time to benefit survival. They have argued that humans have evolved mental capabilities for specific adaptations such as forming languages, and being able to determine which mates are healthier or stronger.

Only once an organism has already attained a certain level of sustained basic survival in the world can it begin to flourish and excel in the nuances of its own ecosystem and environment, by adding the comparatively marginal benefits of social groups and societies. If social intelligence arose first, it would almost definitely necessitate circumstances in which many of the social benefits of reproduction were more influential on survival than food. In other words, an environment so completely saturated by food and with such a limited number of natural predators, that the need for ecological intelligence was almost completely eliminated, and that primates would be likely to stumble on to food with only minimal effort or intent.

Jeremy Rifkin provides many scientific experiments done on animals to support his claims of animals being similar to humans. I do not agree, animals may have characteristics and abilities to enhance some skills but they do not compare to the cognitive mentality of humans. Animals react based on instincts and energy. Although Rifkin uses the gorilla named Koko, Koko was an exception, she was involved in a controlled experiment. Humans react on cognitive thinking, if they were to react based on feelings or instincts one would be in a huge pickle.

In fact, our evolution by natural selection justifies a moderate level of trust in our cognitive faculties. The brain size of human species has increased from 400cc to 1350cc over several millions of years. In this time archaic humans developed more sophisticated stone tools, harnessed fire, developed language, and began to use symbolic thought. Natural selection seems to have been effective in providing

Kluger states that humans used to be the only species that uses tools, but crows and apes are able to do the same. He also writes that humans were the only species believed to be generous and empathetic, but counters with the fact that monkeys practice charity and elephants mourn the dead (2). The brain is indeed connected to how smart someone may be, but the cerebral cortex is the reason why. The more developed that area of the brain is, the more intelligent that mammal may be. Although some animals don’t possess that part of the brain such as crows, they have an area called the basal ganglia that helps them with learning.

They concede that there may be some spectrum of intelligence, but counter that we cannot count the perception-action coupling so as to approximate the range of intelligence we, or any other organism, might have. I breathed a slight sigh of relief after reading this section. If, at some point, I decide to buy the plant intelligence argument, which at the moment, despite thinking that it makes sense, I cannot do, then I may take solace in the idea that there is still some unquantifiable difference in intelligence between my houseplants and I.

Humans have the most neurons and possibly the largest information processing capacity than any other species, which makes us far superior to any

One of the fish studies that provides evidence of convergence and cognitive functioning in fish, is Schuster studies on archerfish. Archerfish use a blast of water from their mouths to hunt insects, and Shuster believes these archerfish are making complex intelligent decisions while doing so. Shuster explains how the archerfish hunt, and how they cant hit targets out of water at very high speeds, but in many of Shusters experiments it was concluded that the ability for an archerfish to shoot insects at full speed, and on an angle, was something they learned by watching other fish perform this task. Social learning was very popular with the archerfish.

Animals communicate to each other just as we do by making sounds to warn another. However, some nonhuman animals developed languages and cognitive capacities; psychologist refer it as animal cognitive. From the psychology 7th edition textbook by Sandra E. Hockenbury, Susan A. Nolan, and Don H. Hockenbury stated that "Going beyond languages, psychologists today study many aspects of animal behavior, including memory, problem solving, planning, cooperation, and even deception. Collectively, such research reflects an active area of psychological research that is referred to as animal cognitive or comparative cognitive. (289) There are many examples of intelligent nonhuman animals, such as chimpanzees and elephants. Furthermore, the animal that

“Social influence is the process by which the actions of an individual or group affect the behavior of others” (Feldman 495). These influences are strongly experienced by members in the group. Every group is unique and is mostly guided by a particular norm and behavior. An individual in a group passively or actively allows himself to be influenced by the group just to have a sense of belongingness. In the bid to prevent being excluded or rejected from a group, some individuals overtly adhere to the norms of the group. “Thus, people conform to meet the expectations of the group” (Feldman 495).

Luce stated two major difficulties regarding the analysis of transitive preferences. Regenwetter and colleagues (2011) outlined and addressed these challenges. It is important to realize that failure to address Luce’s challenges in the analysis of transitivity can lead to erroneous conclusions.