The main problem with operant conditioning is that it presupposed that every action could be (and was) broken down into componented parts, which each then were rewarded in some fashion. The catch-all “complexity” just didn’t capture the kinds of things that were going on in social modeling. The fact that this bird had an exponential leap in displayed learning when operant conditioning was discontinued, and social modeling begun, shows that operant conditioning was a poor universal model for learning.
Here’s the damn parrot apparently showing conceptual discernment of size, color, number and shape:
He is huge in the kind of psych that I practice and has been a great influence on the educational system as well as concepts of behavior modification.
The name is slipping my mind, but it has been hypothesized that the “mind†or “imagination†is just a testing ground for playing out observed scenarios in a safe way.
Anyway, until you said “autistic†I didn’t recognize the woman that you were talking about, but she is pretty well known in psychology. I once saw a documentary about the parrot studies on NOVA or one of those shows. It seemed pretty credible and was very interesting, perhaps it will come on again. As I think of it, I believe the show was Scientific American with Alan Alda, which is on PBS. Whatever the case, the information seemed a lot more reproducible than Coco the gorilla’s sign language.
So the parrot can now name colours as well? That’s a cute technique Dunny – add new information as you go.
You could have said the bird also did X and Y early in our conversation to underline your point and I might have ceded my argument but you chose not to? Apparently, ad-hominems were a more ‘intelligent’ way of advancing your case?
Anyway, it was for this reason I stated: “I stand by my claim – on what you’ve posted here – that I’m not even slightly convinced that this bird is exhibiting ‘intelligence’” (I’ve highlighted it here just in case you later add that the parrot performed a scene from Macbeth and conducted the Vienna Symphony)
Anyway, it’s been fun – if not informative. Thanks for the ride
Dunamis, that is one smart bird. Have they been able to duplicate these results with other birds? It is pretty impressive that the bird knows can associate sounds with letters and then associate letters with words… The jump to actually spell words is incredible. However, recognizing color is the most impressive thing the bird is able to do…
So, is the bird one of a kind, or just the first in a long line that will be tested for intelligence?
If you look at the article from the Times, they say that another, Griffin is being trained now. But he is way behind. The bird is not special bird though – I think she got it from a pet store. It just takes patience and training and innovative thinking to see these things I suppose.
The interesting thing about this is that you get different results from training people. One three year old might be able to do what another three year old can’t, and I bet that’s the mental range of these birds, if they are indeed bright.
So, the pitfall would be to train another bird thinking that they were standardized when in fact you are dealing with a mentally retarded model. If there’s interest in this they should get a bunch of birds.
The problem is that “I bet that’s the mental range of these birds” was the opinion of folks that could not, using operant conditioning, get them to understand, that is respond to, the concept of color. So to now to say “I bet that’s the mental range of these birds,” is a sentence proven to be in part reliant upon method, not necessarily upon the birds.
I was comparing parrots to humans in the sense that they may be on a bell curve of brain functioning, much like humans. There are some people whose brains do no work well and they can’t learn, such as classic mentally retarded people.
If aliens landed on Earth and decide to try to teach us their ways, well they might sample you and have success, and then they might sample “Johnny-the-fetal-alcohol-child †from the grocery store and have none. This could result in you being seen as a fluke. So, it would be wise to try a random sampling of subject.
