The mirror test--are we smart enough to test animal intelligence

[Catherine]

I came across a detailed article about the mirror test. It is how we often test animal intelligence and self awareness. If the animal recognizes its image in the way we think it should, then it is intelligent. If it responds differently then we decide that it is not intelligent.

http://news.google.ca/news/url?sr=1&ct2=...t=2&at=dt0

There are a lot of problems with testing animal intelligence. I don't think we are even close to a right method with most species. The mirror method seems to be unreliable. Until elephants were shown really big mirrors they couldn't recognize their own images.
Some creatures are not visual. Some rely on scent more than sight.

What does it say about us that we see recognizing ourselves in a mirror as a criteria for intelligence. It seems to be a pretty low standard for any species.

[Tobi]

Honestly, I wonder about these intelligence tests.
I once did an IQ test online, and I scored "low average."
I tested Misty with some intelligence test for dogs and she failed miserably.
We both had a good laugh at those things  

The mirror test isn't necessarily a good test....as you say, when Elephants were tested they scored badly....until someone found a great big mirror! Duhhh....the testers hadn't thought of that. It says a lot for THEIR intelligence!

Misty didn't like the first view she had of herself in a mirror. She growled at it, and of course, checked out the back of the mirror. After that, she refused to be even the slightest bit interested in her reflection....even though she was pretty!

Sally doesn't show any response whatsoever.

[LPC]

To be frank, thinking that looking at mirrors is a sign of intelligence is just daft! The testers need their heads read, haha!

Intelligence is a complex thing, covering many aspects of consiousness. We are only beginning to discover what is going on in other creatures' heads. The ability to remember, associate patterns, collect materials to construct homes, show compassion for others by reacting to events, etc. are not uniquely human.

[Catherine]

There are obvious signs of intelligence in so many creatures. We don't even know how to test human intelligence. The tests we use have cultural biases. You are only going to score well if you are from the same background as the test.

I don't think "people" who look at mirrors a lot show much intelligence. 
Good for Misty that she didn't respond and wasn't interested.

I don't know how you would test snake intelligence. A mirror is cold glass. Snakes measure heat and recognize things by the size of their heat signature. They also respond to scent  and in some ways sound, but not the way we do.  How do you measure that?
They communicate, but it is not the way we communicate.

Guinea pigs are smart enough to recognize the refrigerator even in a strange home.
Luna Bunny always knows when he is going home. He acts differently. Does he read my mind. He is smart enough to pick  up some subtle clue that I give off.

Maybe we need to start by figuring out how to test the intelligence of the researchers. That could be a challenge.

[LPC]

(02-16-2017, 03:20 PM)Catherine Wrote: We don't even know how to test human intelligence. The tests we use have cultural biases. You are only going to score well if you are from the same background as the test.

Indeed! In 1961 I sat the exam called "11+" which was used in the UK to choose the most able to go to selective academic state schools. I was in the A stream, but our primary school was honest and wouldn't "coach" children for the exam. Instead of school reports and traditional exams, they relied on intelligence tests. They were of the sort which went, "If Andy sits in the first seat and Harry sits in the eighth seat, where does Carol sit?" Maybe easy for us today as adults, but at eleven years old for a child who had never been taught such reasoning, it was a "dark forest". I failed the 11+, but so did almost everyone in our school, including very bright children in the A stream, because our school thought it dishonest (and it was) to teach such skills secretly. Other junior schools had fewer scruples and had many children pass the 11+. This is not a political post, neither a criticism of grammar schools, merely a remark about how intelligence cannot be assessed by some simplistic tests. (By the way, I eventually got into a grammar school at age 16 on the strength of my O Level exams - and was shocked to find quite a few pupils there who were resitting their O Levels, having failed some of them).

[LPC]

(02-16-2017, 03:20 PM)Catherine Wrote: I don't think "people" who look at mirrors a lot show much intelligence. 
Good for Misty that she didn't respond and wasn't interested.

It shows that frequent "mirror watchers" are vain, that's all, haha! Good for Misty! She knew such things weren't important.

[Tobi]

I 'fix my image' in the mirror in the morning, then ride on that illusion for the rest of the day, never giving another thought to it. Unfortunately I go through hedges, storm force winds etc.....so by 8pm I look a lot different! (noticed that by accident one evening! haha)
Misty....now Misty loved me whether I looked like I'd been dragged through a hedge backwards or not, bless her Soul. They all do. They don't mind about things like that. They see us shine. That to me, is more valuable than passing some human-grade 'intelligence test'.

LPC, I passed the 11-plus. Went to grammar school immediately and wanted to be a vet, so was thrilled with the science labs. I'd wanted to be a vet since I was seven. But for some weird reason I ended up bottom of the class in the "C" stream! Thus I was denied Biology, Chemistry, and Physics lessons, and was forced into "Health Education" instead (mostly about reproduction! which I already knew about! haha) That course was designed to educate idiot girls about getting pregnant -or not -and how to avoid it.
I used to secretly learn German in the Health education lessons. As a "C" streamer science was denied to me so I couldn't train to be a vet.
The contender to science was music, so I put my heart and Soul into that instead.

[Catherine]

Everything you are both saying tells me that this whole testing and streaming of children is a big mistake. Children are denied opportunities who would really benefit from them. Other kids are given unfair advantages that they don't use.

I am not fully clear on how your system works, but we have similar things here. Tobi it was wrong to deny you a chance at science classes. They were your interest. You were not given a chance to go in the direction you wanted. Who gave them the right to decide your life direction like that.

LPC, no doubt you belonged in the grammar school if you could pass  the O levels. The kids who were resitting them probably had been coached and given help at the right time, but that didn't mean they could handle the work. That 11+ sounds like it was a tool being misused. Testing young children would be helpful if it shows who needs more instruction. It shouldn't be used to exclude children from opportunities.

This inequality of education opportunity is the reason why I spent so much time tutoring some of my neighbourhood children.  It gave them a chance to take the courses they wanted. The teachers had written them off and I didn't think that was fair. (there is a school guidance counsellor out there that I would like to have words with.) They were as bright as the other neighbours kids(whose parents sometimes did their homework for them). I never did their homework. I worked with them so they could do it themselves. And now they are successful adults.

I am lucky I grew up in a small town. The school wasn't fancy, but they couldn't test or stream children, because they didn't have the resources to do it. There were still inequalities, but everyone got the same teachers and classes. When it was time to move on the a higher level I got a chance to go to a private school. I know it is different from what you call a private school. It was a privately funded school for rich kids, which I was not. Like I said, it was an opportunity that changed my life.
They only offered a university entrance program so I ended up going to university. None of my grade school teachers would have believed it.

When we start testing people and animals and making judgements we really mess things up.
The first thing we need to learn is that testing is more about the tester that the person being tested.
If you test an elephant with a small mirror you are not thinking big enough to test an elephant in the first place.

What is with this obsession with mirrors. I have a small bathroom mirror. Why would I want a bunch of mirrors everywhere else. I do have a full length sewing mirror if I need to look at something I am making. I keep it in the closet unless I need it.
I think  Misty had the right attitude to mirrors.

[Tobi]

I personally won't blame the school. If I didn't train to be a vet it is my own fault. There was nothing except focus and desire stopping me from training later in life and getting the necessary qualifications to go to vet school....only I didn't, because I was focused on other things by then. Also the courses were residential and far away and I wasn't happy later in life to live away from home, even when I had the money to train. So I guess it was my choice.

But yes there is more to knowing a person's or an animal's intelligence than watching their responses to mirrors!
Or indeed, the school protocols, and how so-called 'intelligence' is measured (according to some Board's ideas.)
There are gifted children, who are utter misfits, yet if treated sensitively, can grow and blossom, and become valuable to society. Yet treated insensitively, they can never shine their light!

[Catherine]

I think we have a problem with  testing. We always want to test and measure things. It is an obsession with humans. Who is first? What is your favourite colour/flavour etc.  We miss a lot by worrying about such things.

Testing children to understand how they do things would help them to learn. Some people learn better from what they see others do better with verbal instruction.  It is okay to test hearing and sight, but only if we plan to use the information to help people.
When we test so we can exclude and categorize people we do harm. Sometimes serious decisions were made about children based on one test.
A lot of children's potential was lost because they were labeled by testing. Those labels will follow a person their whole life.

Yes you could have still gone on to be a vet, but often there is a time in our lives when we move in certain directions. If we miss that window we don't go back. You had already moved on to other things.

When the testing has to do with animals it can have a nasty side. We test and label a species as unintelligent and then we feel it is okay to farm them in cruel and inhumane ways. We justify it because we have labeled them unintelligent.
There is a real dark side to our testing. Sometimes we use it to justify cruelty that we are already guilty of.
Lab workers are already using the animals. They can feel better about it if they can prove they are not smart anyhow.

Shouldn't we treat unintelligent animals an people with more kindness. What does it say about us that we don't?