Chimpanzees Spontaneously Dance to Music(phys.org)
phys.org
Chimpanzees Spontaneously Dance to Music
https://phys.org/news/2019-12-chimpanzees-spontaneously-music.html
56 comments
Yeah seriously. Imagine being locked up and loud music blasted at you. This isn't science, this is inhumane; imagine doing this to a human.
Some things aren't worth knowing, considering the suffering it would take to learn.
Some things aren't worth knowing, considering the suffering it would take to learn.
I do think it's worth knowing why we dance.
We dance to display fitness to mates and increase agility.
But then why don't chimps dance? Or any other mammals really. I mean it seems clear that fitness display is a part of why we do it, but it can't be the whole reason.
Humans are the only mammal that uses distance running for hunting, resulting in different injuries than chimps, etc.
What's the connection with running? Certainly that's another way in which we are unique, and it's the reason we are uniquely hairless too, for cooling.
But dancing still seems to me to want a better explanation than just saying it's a fitness display, as that would seem to explain almost anything.
But dancing still seems to me to want a better explanation than just saying it's a fitness display, as that would seem to explain almost anything.
Joint health is the connection, consider the unique knee injuries that tend to result from distance running. Dancing displays the range of motion in place so your mate can judge you with out having to run.
There's a lot of overlap, consider these factors that relate to dancing and hunting: timing aspect combined with shifting weight and body position, arm/leg coordination, underlying percussion track 60-140 bpm (the range of a heart beat), percussion generally broken down into 4 part segments corresponding with heart pumping.
So it seems like to be good at dancing (or long distance hunting) you have a good sense of timing over a long period, are aware of your heart beat, and most importantly no debilitating ankle, hip, knee, or foot injuries.
That should make a clear case for how dancing could have evolved culturally as a metric for hunting ability rather than genetically.
There's a lot of overlap, consider these factors that relate to dancing and hunting: timing aspect combined with shifting weight and body position, arm/leg coordination, underlying percussion track 60-140 bpm (the range of a heart beat), percussion generally broken down into 4 part segments corresponding with heart pumping.
So it seems like to be good at dancing (or long distance hunting) you have a good sense of timing over a long period, are aware of your heart beat, and most importantly no debilitating ankle, hip, knee, or foot injuries.
That should make a clear case for how dancing could have evolved culturally as a metric for hunting ability rather than genetically.
OK, thanks, that makes some sense.
The issue I'd still raise is why we dance in time, several people organised with music, when dancing solo would seem plenty for such a display? That's what lots of animals do. But none of them synchronise it.
The issue I'd still raise is why we dance in time, several people organised with music, when dancing solo would seem plenty for such a display? That's what lots of animals do. But none of them synchronise it.
Yea those are good points. I'm not sure - I would bet the answer is cultural rather than genetic though. Hearing and group coordination may be really important in persistence hunting or maybe to indicate social acceptance. There are a lot of interesting theories in evolutionary biology, but no good way to test them.
The left to right swinging is the textbook example of animals undergoing prolonged extreme stress and insufficient stimulation. It’s probably the most recognizable sign.
It’s baffling that any researcher was honestly thinking otherwise.
It’s baffling that any researcher was honestly thinking otherwise.
Ya. It’s almost enough to give the researchers the benefit of the doubt. Nah.
"researchers played music to a group of chimps (three adult males and four females) and found that all of the chimps responded to the music by moving in dance-like ways—though the degree to which they danced varied greatly between them. [...] the chimps had different moves."
So, we have 7 chimps that responded to an unusual sound (we really don't want to call that danceable music) from a source unknown to them in 7 different ways, and we have n researchers that were set out to interpret that as dance? And these researchers can make a living out of that and get published?
p.s. I skimmed through the original article. It looks like science and this might even be a standard approach in this field (I don't know) but ... I cannot describe what I think of it.
So, we have 7 chimps that responded to an unusual sound (we really don't want to call that danceable music) from a source unknown to them in 7 different ways, and we have n researchers that were set out to interpret that as dance? And these researchers can make a living out of that and get published?
p.s. I skimmed through the original article. It looks like science and this might even be a standard approach in this field (I don't know) but ... I cannot describe what I think of it.
No kidding. This is a quintessential example of what is wrong in research. If you were to just read the paper you’d definitely come to the conclusion that the researchers want to make—that monkeys dance much like we do. Then you go and watch the video and find their conclusion...biased at the least.
The instances in which this type of tomfoolery becomes truly malignant are the ones in which it’s less obvious. I.e researchers have hidden or hashed the original data and then published something that we can’t unscramble.
I’m literally expecting to hear “everybody dance now” and end up hearing that charade instead. Lol.
The instances in which this type of tomfoolery becomes truly malignant are the ones in which it’s less obvious. I.e researchers have hidden or hashed the original data and then published something that we can’t unscramble.
I’m literally expecting to hear “everybody dance now” and end up hearing that charade instead. Lol.
Which is the really super awesome part of science. You find chimps that don't care when they hear music. You find chimps that make "dance like moves" when you play atonal non-syncopated note structures, you find chimps that make "dance like moves" when you play dialog. Then you go through and plot your results and you show that this particular study isn't really indicative of what is going on.
My mother once lamented "How can they call that science? That isn't a valid way to test that statement." And I reminded her, publishing a paper isn't "science", forming a hypothesis and a set of experiments to prove or disprove that hypothesis, and then having others test your hypothesis in different ways and getting the same result. THAT is the scientific process. And after that happens you know something new and you can demonstrate it on demand, each time, every time, because you know what is going on.
My mother once lamented "How can they call that science? That isn't a valid way to test that statement." And I reminded her, publishing a paper isn't "science", forming a hypothesis and a set of experiments to prove or disprove that hypothesis, and then having others test your hypothesis in different ways and getting the same result. THAT is the scientific process. And after that happens you know something new and you can demonstrate it on demand, each time, every time, because you know what is going on.
> It looks like science and this might even be a standard approach in this field
One of them. I don't see anything wrong with it. Science works that way: you start with informal observation, if you see something curious enough, you move to formalizing observation. You search for operational definition of "dancing". After that you could watch a little more and to test your definition and to find other variables you need to control in an experiment. And only then you probably can stage an experiment, controlling everything that needs to be controlled, using "blind" observers having instructions on what to observe and how to measure, but not knowing goals of observation.
It is very important to know how to watch Nature, how to see something new and do not miss it. Your proposed idea "to avoid known words and to describe in terms of observed behavior" wouldn't work for this task. You would drown in describing words and you drown your readers. And probably no one would see few important observations in a heap of unimportant.
The funny thing -- scientists do not what dance is. Even in people we do not know what dance is. How we could call something "the dance" if we do not know what dance is? Should we believe a person when she says she was dancing? Or maybe we should believe our perception which has its ways to distinguish dance from not dance? I think, that it is the case when an informal perception based approach is the best. Just because we have no satisfying formal definition of a dance.
One of them. I don't see anything wrong with it. Science works that way: you start with informal observation, if you see something curious enough, you move to formalizing observation. You search for operational definition of "dancing". After that you could watch a little more and to test your definition and to find other variables you need to control in an experiment. And only then you probably can stage an experiment, controlling everything that needs to be controlled, using "blind" observers having instructions on what to observe and how to measure, but not knowing goals of observation.
It is very important to know how to watch Nature, how to see something new and do not miss it. Your proposed idea "to avoid known words and to describe in terms of observed behavior" wouldn't work for this task. You would drown in describing words and you drown your readers. And probably no one would see few important observations in a heap of unimportant.
The funny thing -- scientists do not what dance is. Even in people we do not know what dance is. How we could call something "the dance" if we do not know what dance is? Should we believe a person when she says she was dancing? Or maybe we should believe our perception which has its ways to distinguish dance from not dance? I think, that it is the case when an informal perception based approach is the best. Just because we have no satisfying formal definition of a dance.
Okay, let's discuss just two details:
- They discuss an effect size related to gender based on the observation of n=7 chimpanzees. Unfortunately, the software didn't stop them from calculate t-tests etc. but this is simply ridiculous. At this point, we simply ignore the fact that the chimpanzees "participate in experiments on a voluntary basis". Self-selection bias is unheard of.
- Other statements are based on the observation of n=1 chimpanzee. Again, unfortunately the software didn't stop them from calculating an anova. At best, this is a case study. Don't get me wrong, case studies can be very useful and informative. I'm a big fan of good case studies. But you shouldn't disguise it as something else.
If you don't have data suitable for statistical analysis, forget about it. Do something else. Don't pretend you're a physicist.
BTW I don't question that animals respond to music. Why not. But just repeating piano samples doesn't make sound music -- not even techno. Don't ask animals to dance to sound no human would dance to.
- They discuss an effect size related to gender based on the observation of n=7 chimpanzees. Unfortunately, the software didn't stop them from calculate t-tests etc. but this is simply ridiculous. At this point, we simply ignore the fact that the chimpanzees "participate in experiments on a voluntary basis". Self-selection bias is unheard of.
- Other statements are based on the observation of n=1 chimpanzee. Again, unfortunately the software didn't stop them from calculating an anova. At best, this is a case study. Don't get me wrong, case studies can be very useful and informative. I'm a big fan of good case studies. But you shouldn't disguise it as something else.
If you don't have data suitable for statistical analysis, forget about it. Do something else. Don't pretend you're a physicist.
BTW I don't question that animals respond to music. Why not. But just repeating piano samples doesn't make sound music -- not even techno. Don't ask animals to dance to sound no human would dance to.
This is not music, but machine noise. And the animal moves in a rhythm unrelated to said noise. So I'd guess it's a sign of stress.
I had the same thought. If I was subject to that noise for long enough I'd be rocking back and forth too.
But, maybe that's not a sign of stress in chimps.
But, maybe that's not a sign of stress in chimps.
There is a genre of music called "noise", which is much like what the term sounds like.
I remember coming home from a noise concert with a friend one day, and going down in to the subway, where there was a construction worker hammering away with a jackhammer. My friend and I found ourselves really enjoying it, and appreciatively nodded our heads to the beat.
Lots of experimental and avant garde music is also frequently described as "noise" to people who aren't fans of it. Back at the dawn of the rock-and-roll genre and of jazz, people to whom these were new types of music also frequently characterized them as "just noise". I've heard the "that's not music" accusation being thrown at heavy metal and dissonant traditional Japanese music.
That's not to say that chimpanzees must be fans of what was played to them, but the realm of music is much wider than most people that listen only to mainstream music appreciate.
I remember coming home from a noise concert with a friend one day, and going down in to the subway, where there was a construction worker hammering away with a jackhammer. My friend and I found ourselves really enjoying it, and appreciatively nodded our heads to the beat.
Lots of experimental and avant garde music is also frequently described as "noise" to people who aren't fans of it. Back at the dawn of the rock-and-roll genre and of jazz, people to whom these were new types of music also frequently characterized them as "just noise". I've heard the "that's not music" accusation being thrown at heavy metal and dissonant traditional Japanese music.
That's not to say that chimpanzees must be fans of what was played to them, but the realm of music is much wider than most people that listen only to mainstream music appreciate.
I don't think that is a fair comparison/conclusion because you could also then argue that torture is pleasurable because we can find some people who feel that (at least a subset of torture) is pleasurable to them and therefore people who feel that torture is torture should learn to enjoy it as pleasure.
I think this points to the conclusion that you can literally enjoy anything if you contact it repeatedly with the right attitude.
What is truly bizarre is how rare rhythmic entrainment seems to be [1]. Powered oscillators naturally entrain to one another, like the synchronization of metronomes. Since neurons are powered oscillators, it would seem that even simple animals would be able to move to a beat.
Yet, we are unable to train mice, birds or primates to tap out the beat to a song!
My theory is that all animals have extensive defense mechanisms to prevent motor entrainment to external stimuli, since that would make one very vulnerable. Therefore, they only exhibit entrainment during ritualized mating, etc.
Humans have evolved to let down our defenses, on occasion, to support social entrainment. Yet, it is still really hard to dance or appreciate music when we are uncomfortable or stressed.
One test of this theory would involve giving animals drugs like mdma to see if it helps them loosen up and appreciate the beat. It works with people, after all. But I suppose proposals like that would be taboo science. Or, perhaps it would be unethical to give chimps mdma?
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-016-1013-x
Yet, we are unable to train mice, birds or primates to tap out the beat to a song!
My theory is that all animals have extensive defense mechanisms to prevent motor entrainment to external stimuli, since that would make one very vulnerable. Therefore, they only exhibit entrainment during ritualized mating, etc.
Humans have evolved to let down our defenses, on occasion, to support social entrainment. Yet, it is still really hard to dance or appreciate music when we are uncomfortable or stressed.
One test of this theory would involve giving animals drugs like mdma to see if it helps them loosen up and appreciate the beat. It works with people, after all. But I suppose proposals like that would be taboo science. Or, perhaps it would be unethical to give chimps mdma?
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13423-016-1013-x
>>> My theory is that all animals have extensive defense mechanisms to prevent motor entrainment to external stimuli, since that would make one very vulnerable. Therefore, they only exhibit entrainment during ritualized mating, etc.
Wow, seems very reasonable! It made mi think about it in a bit different way: as other animals are thought as "following instinct" and "closer to nature" maybe this inhibition systems are way more advanced in humans than in other animals. It would make explaining dance harder, but would fit great to big literary topos "men vs nature".
Is it completely your theory or was it inspired by something that you could recommend?
Wow, seems very reasonable! It made mi think about it in a bit different way: as other animals are thought as "following instinct" and "closer to nature" maybe this inhibition systems are way more advanced in humans than in other animals. It would make explaining dance harder, but would fit great to big literary topos "men vs nature".
Is it completely your theory or was it inspired by something that you could recommend?
> to support social entrainment
Possibly. I can't find the write-up of this, but there's a nice idea that this may have another purpose: Dancing as a group might be a way to fool savannah predators that your tribe is one large animal, not individual hairless tasty meals.
Possibly. I can't find the write-up of this, but there's a nice idea that this may have another purpose: Dancing as a group might be a way to fool savannah predators that your tribe is one large animal, not individual hairless tasty meals.
The Dancing Plague of 1518
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_plague_of_1518
I spent a lot of time with Chimps in West Africa, getting to play with, carry and interact with them a couple of different times [1]
Sitting with a fully-grown chimp on your lap with her face inches from yours while she grooms your beard is a very, very special experience. It's impossible to spent more than 10 minutes with them and not clearly see they are us and we are them. Their facial expressions, they happiness, their playfulness, their grief. Everything about them is like looking in a mirror, or watching a ~5 year old child play.
Absolutely amazing.
I have no doubt they would dance to music, and do a lot more things that show intelligence and higher thinking.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfdo3s8tPUk
Sitting with a fully-grown chimp on your lap with her face inches from yours while she grooms your beard is a very, very special experience. It's impossible to spent more than 10 minutes with them and not clearly see they are us and we are them. Their facial expressions, they happiness, their playfulness, their grief. Everything about them is like looking in a mirror, or watching a ~5 year old child play.
Absolutely amazing.
I have no doubt they would dance to music, and do a lot more things that show intelligence and higher thinking.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mfdo3s8tPUk
I've heard that adult chimps get strong enough to rip chunks of flesh off with their hands. If this is accurate, how old can a chimp get before roughhousing with them like you do with that baby chimp is totally out of the question?Are the adult chimps you've interacted with friendly enough to reliably groom human beards without issue, or is it more of a situation where the humans keep track of which chimps they need to steer clear of?
Yep, they could have torn my arms off if they wanted to. People keep track of which ones are OK to play with.
>It's impossible to spent more than 10 minutes with them and not clearly see they are us and we are them.
You see the similarities even more clearly in bonobos.
You see the similarities even more clearly in bonobos.
> You see the similarities even more clearly in bonobos
I would have loved to visit them, but on this particular trip around Africa I wasn't geared up to drive into the heart of the DRC, which as I understand is the only place on earth they live in the wild.
One day I'll go back and drive right across it.
I would have loved to visit them, but on this particular trip around Africa I wasn't geared up to drive into the heart of the DRC, which as I understand is the only place on earth they live in the wild.
One day I'll go back and drive right across it.
I am certain we are them. Emotions and feelings are entirely an animal trait in us.
Whether they are us is a more complicated question. What are their language and reasoning abilities? Apparently no animals ask questions, even after being “asked”. Seems that questioning and reasoning is what makes us human (sapient).
I’m pointing this out because most people would say that it’s the emotions and feelings that distinguish us. That’s not the case.
Whether they are us is a more complicated question. What are their language and reasoning abilities? Apparently no animals ask questions, even after being “asked”. Seems that questioning and reasoning is what makes us human (sapient).
I’m pointing this out because most people would say that it’s the emotions and feelings that distinguish us. That’s not the case.
> What are their language and reasoning abilities? Apparently no animals ask questions, even after being “asked”.
I might misunderstood your statement here, but e.g. dogs can understand a lot of things people say, not just purely pre-learned "commands" but the context of what is going on. They also ask (simple) questions all the time, but they use their body language for that. Most of the time it's some form of "what's going on", but pretty much every dog lover knows the specific "are you taking me with you" pose & look when you dress up to go out, and they're unsure if you'll take them too. Now, obviously it's nothing nearly as complex as "Why do we exists" which are uniquely human type of questions to ask, but IMHO very comparable to the level of my kid when he was 1-2 years old.
I might misunderstood your statement here, but e.g. dogs can understand a lot of things people say, not just purely pre-learned "commands" but the context of what is going on. They also ask (simple) questions all the time, but they use their body language for that. Most of the time it's some form of "what's going on", but pretty much every dog lover knows the specific "are you taking me with you" pose & look when you dress up to go out, and they're unsure if you'll take them too. Now, obviously it's nothing nearly as complex as "Why do we exists" which are uniquely human type of questions to ask, but IMHO very comparable to the level of my kid when he was 1-2 years old.
I think it’s clear mammals and certainly primates exhibit emotional behaviour, in which case it’s clear our common ancestors must have exhibited such behaviour. The question is, is our experience of those emotions similar?
I see no reason to doubt it. The question boils down to whether animals have a sense of self and experience a ‘first person’ view of the world. Experimental evidence suggests that several species, including primates do have a sense of self and there’s so evidence they also have a theory of mind [0].
It has been argued that a first person experience of the world is not required for advanced reasoning, language, etc in discussions of AI. That may be the case. In which case our first person experience may be independent of and pre-date our advanced reasoning skills. Even if it is required for reasoning ability that’s also consistent with us having it first. I just don’t see any reason to see them as necessary for each other either way.
Finally, if the experience of the world and the basis of our responses to stimulus did undergo such a dramatic shift at some point, that seems like an extremely dangerous transition. An awful lot could go wrong with that, and in fact everything about such a shift would have to go extraordinarily well or the result would be catastrophic failure. All evolutionary transitions have to progress through stages that are each viable at every step. Huge leaps don’t happen, because the odds of success are impossibly low. It seems more likely to me that our emotional responses are similar to closely related species, because the neurological basis for them, and mental experience of them are also similar. Otherwise we need to figure out why a radically different mental experience evolved, and why, and how come it leads to no appreciable difference in emotional behaviour.
[0] https://www.discoverwildlife.com/news/theory-of-mind-demonst...
I see no reason to doubt it. The question boils down to whether animals have a sense of self and experience a ‘first person’ view of the world. Experimental evidence suggests that several species, including primates do have a sense of self and there’s so evidence they also have a theory of mind [0].
It has been argued that a first person experience of the world is not required for advanced reasoning, language, etc in discussions of AI. That may be the case. In which case our first person experience may be independent of and pre-date our advanced reasoning skills. Even if it is required for reasoning ability that’s also consistent with us having it first. I just don’t see any reason to see them as necessary for each other either way.
Finally, if the experience of the world and the basis of our responses to stimulus did undergo such a dramatic shift at some point, that seems like an extremely dangerous transition. An awful lot could go wrong with that, and in fact everything about such a shift would have to go extraordinarily well or the result would be catastrophic failure. All evolutionary transitions have to progress through stages that are each viable at every step. Huge leaps don’t happen, because the odds of success are impossibly low. It seems more likely to me that our emotional responses are similar to closely related species, because the neurological basis for them, and mental experience of them are also similar. Otherwise we need to figure out why a radically different mental experience evolved, and why, and how come it leads to no appreciable difference in emotional behaviour.
[0] https://www.discoverwildlife.com/news/theory-of-mind-demonst...
I watched some of your other videos, I'm curious what drew you to hacker news (I see the account is since 2011 and you started your road trips in 2009), were you a programmer before starting your travels? Or just interested in tech?
I'm going to check out your book. as the hardcore road trip thing is something I was really close to doing at one point in my life. Although in terms of pure perspective I'd probably take less of a 'chimps are just like us' view of it, which is just my more skeptical scientific but also cynical nature - but also because I've found this is a common tendency in humans to find such patterns which don't really fit as cleanly as they seem (upon closer analysis).
But I haven't played with chimps in person so I should probably not talk without experiencing it.
I'm going to check out your book. as the hardcore road trip thing is something I was really close to doing at one point in my life. Although in terms of pure perspective I'd probably take less of a 'chimps are just like us' view of it, which is just my more skeptical scientific but also cynical nature - but also because I've found this is a common tendency in humans to find such patterns which don't really fit as cleanly as they seem (upon closer analysis).
But I haven't played with chimps in person so I should probably not talk without experiencing it.
Yep, I studied Software Engineering and worked as that for a few years to pay for the Pan-American highway trip.
Then after that I worked again as a developer for 4 years to save up for the Africa trip.
I'm toying with the idea of going back to a desk job now to pay for the next adventure that is in the planning stages.
I'm usually a skeptical scientist on most topics. Playing with a chimp face to face is a different thing.
Then after that I worked again as a developer for 4 years to save up for the Africa trip.
I'm toying with the idea of going back to a desk job now to pay for the next adventure that is in the planning stages.
I'm usually a skeptical scientist on most topics. Playing with a chimp face to face is a different thing.
What are you thinking next? Asia? Middle East? Eastern Europe? Or keeping it a surprise.
I want to do a US road trip with the wifey at some point, mostly down east coast from where I live in Toronto down to Texas. With a lot of stops in the north east because I’m a history nerd and really into early US founding history and there’s lots of small towns with history on the coastal areas.
I want to do a US road trip with the wifey at some point, mostly down east coast from where I live in Toronto down to Texas. With a lot of stops in the north east because I’m a history nerd and really into early US founding history and there’s lots of small towns with history on the coastal areas.
I don't have anything locked in yet. When I look at the world map, it's really only the middle east, London to Singapore or around Australia that I have not explored. I have to decide how long I want to save money for before I hit the road again, which will dictate how much I have for the trip and therefore which one of the above it becomes.
I spent a lot of time exploring the US this summer and had a great time!
I spent a lot of time exploring the US this summer and had a great time!
I haven't gone through all the research to fully understand the argument, but I watched the videos. Not convincing at all.
If I were to make this claim, I'd show a chimpanzee at rest in the video, without any music, then start the music. And actual music, not this loud machinery that would make me sway left and right due to stress.
Edit: not saying that chimps don't dance. Just that this is a very unusual setting.
If I were to make this claim, I'd show a chimpanzee at rest in the video, without any music, then start the music. And actual music, not this loud machinery that would make me sway left and right due to stress.
Edit: not saying that chimps don't dance. Just that this is a very unusual setting.
The cages these animals are in looks horrendous and I think that any result that comes forward from such an experiment is biased at the very least. With the current state of technologyouldnt it be more possible to set up these experiments in their natural habitat? I'm thinking about a large amount of cameras that track the animals. At least the animals have a better habitat to live in because this view is abhorrent, and so far I've het to see an animal experimention plant that has a beter environment for animals.
And in another light, how valuable is this kind of research where an extremely intelligent animal is out in solitary confinement and is given tests? There is so much information lost in the process due to interpretation and external factors. Let alone the hilariously low N size.
Also horses, elephants and a large swath or other animals have been shown to appreciate music. I don't even get why this party got funded to study an even higher echelon animal of which it is very reasonable to assume it is able to dance.
And in another light, how valuable is this kind of research where an extremely intelligent animal is out in solitary confinement and is given tests? There is so much information lost in the process due to interpretation and external factors. Let alone the hilariously low N size.
Also horses, elephants and a large swath or other animals have been shown to appreciate music. I don't even get why this party got funded to study an even higher echelon animal of which it is very reasonable to assume it is able to dance.
Those rooms look like torture rooms and then that music.
Honestly the choice of music could make this a response to an unusual stressor, but an expert could probably infer from posture and facial expression whether they are in distress.
Agreed, this is a lot of speculation from short clips by people who probably don't know what they are talking about or what conditions these animals were really in.
But I have to say the article description:
> He was subjected to periods of piano music with a repetitive bass note for 24 days.
combined with the choice of music in the videos is just asking for the internet outrage machine to react.
But I have to say the article description:
> He was subjected to periods of piano music with a repetitive bass note for 24 days.
combined with the choice of music in the videos is just asking for the internet outrage machine to react.
upon hearing some very rhythmic joyfull children music our dog when he was younger would jump on his feet and start kind of happily bouncing around, not just like running or jumping, more like rhythmically walking and turning while swinging body (very profoundly shifting weight between the paws of different sides) from side to side - it was as close to dancing as i suppose a dog untrained to dance can get, reminded a lot how very young children do it.
That "music" sounds like what they would play to someone being tortured to keep him awake for days.
Birds can dance too - with really good rhythm. Dogs, not so much.
They never tested this before??
I checked the video and it sounds like torture to my hears.
I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tracks in Guantanamo...
I wouldn't be surprised if they used the same tracks in Guantanamo...
This is kinda disturbing. Animal experimentation that saves lives is being disrupted while this kind of thing, with no observable value, and clear detriment to the animal, persists?
Sure, I am curious about animals and music, but this just seems to misrepresent both.
Someone please explan how I am wrong and overreacting, since that is usually my rally cry in comments.
Sure, I am curious about animals and music, but this just seems to misrepresent both.
Someone please explan how I am wrong and overreacting, since that is usually my rally cry in comments.
What if understanding innate brain response to music helps inform brain science and cognition and in turn leads to better understanding of e.g. locked-in or coma patients?
What if dancing helps improve the lives of animals held for scientific experimentation?
What if dancing helps improve the lives of animals held for scientific experimentation?
Sometimes science involves learning things for which an immediate economic benefit is not apparent. It could very well be that a decade or two from now, our knowledge that animals brains universally react to rhythms is a useful datum in cracking some critical piece of knowledge about how brains work and, potentially, how to fix them. Or, alternately, it could turn out to be practically worthless. But we don't know, and knowing more things is almost always not worse than knowing fewer things.
Also, your argument assumes a lot of things: 1.) animal experimentation is being disrupted, 2.) playing music for chimps is clearly detrimental to them, and 3.) the resources that went into this study (these particular chimps, these researchers, and their funding) could have gone into some specific but unidentified better study which did have an pre-observable value. If all of those things are true, which has definitely not been established, than I would grant that science is likely not being conducted in a way that is maximally efficient, but unless there's some hugely valuable experiment that is being overlooked for this, I don't see why you're disturbed.
Also, your argument assumes a lot of things: 1.) animal experimentation is being disrupted, 2.) playing music for chimps is clearly detrimental to them, and 3.) the resources that went into this study (these particular chimps, these researchers, and their funding) could have gone into some specific but unidentified better study which did have an pre-observable value. If all of those things are true, which has definitely not been established, than I would grant that science is likely not being conducted in a way that is maximally efficient, but unless there's some hugely valuable experiment that is being overlooked for this, I don't see why you're disturbed.
tho if there is one field that almost always results in nothing from random experimentation, it’s psychology.
FTA:
"Many stereotypies can be induced by confinement; for example, cats pace in zoo cages.[11] Pregnant sows whose feed is restricted bite at their stalls' bars and chew without anything in their mouths.[12] In laboratory rats and mice, grooming is the most common activity other than sleep, and grooming stereotypies have been used to investigate several animal models of anxiety and depression.[13]
Examples of stereotypical behaviours include pacing, rocking, swimming in circles, excessive sleeping, self-mutilation (including feather picking and excessive grooming), and mouthing cage bars."