# Learning and personality in fish



## mantisdragon91

A study out of Sweden shows that fish have distinct personalities and the ability to learn. So much for those of you(and yes I'm looking at you ED) who say that our frogs can't recognize us and learn to adjust their behavior accordingly.

Study Reveals that Fishes Have Distinct Personalities - Research Update | That Fish Blog


----------



## zBrinks

Interesting - do you happen to have the actual scientific references, or are you relying on the blog for your information?


----------



## frogparty

associating people with food doesn't really qualify as intelligence in my opinion. Since I have worked extensively with trout and other salmonids both in the wild and in hatchery settings, I think my experience is relevant here. The "shy" fish are actually using their habitat to more full advantage, not fighting the current to find food, but instead letting the current bring food to them."shyness" in this case is efficiency, and is a much more desirable trait, because the animal remains relatively inconspicuous, and exerts far less energy to obtain food. The "bold" fish are exerting far more energ in their search for food, and are also making themselves more vulnerable to predation. "Boldness" then in this case, is counterproductive, "less intelligent" if you will. hatchery rased fish for the most part never learn how to use their fluid environment to full advantage, and so have a much lower success rate once in the wild. Also, since they have "learned" to associate shadows on the water with food, and are ony looking UP for food, they are much more easily preyed upon.
This is CONDITIONING, not intelligence. 
Frogs definitely get conditioned to associate people with food, Ill vouch for that, but I wouldnt call it intelligence


----------



## Ed

zBrinks said:


> Interesting - do you happen to have the actual scientific references, or are you relying on the blog for your information?


The blog doesn't list the actual reference and if you use a string search you can actually run across a large body of literature that goes back quite awhile supporting frogparty's statement... 

It also isn't surprising that the behaviors in the blog would also play a direct role in adaptation towards captivity as bolder animals tend to have a higher threshold of stress tolerance and increased adrenaline threshold before responding to feeding stimulus or a threat... 


As an example Domestication and growth hormone alter antipredator behaviour and growth patterns in juvenile brown trout, Salmo trutta - Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences increases in growth hormone actually increase the behaviors noted in Frank's blog. 

I didn't see anything in the blog that seperates conditioning from actual learning...


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogparty said:


> associating people with food doesn't really qualify as intelligence in my opinion. Since I have worked extensively with trout and other salmonids both in the wild and in hatchery settings, I think my experience is relevant here. The "shy" fish are actually using their habitat to more full advantage, not fighting the current to find food, but instead letting the current bring food to them."shyness" in this case is efficiency, and is a much more desirable trait, because the animal remains relatively inconspicuous, and exerts far less energy to obtain food. The "bold" fish are exerting far more energ in their search for food, and are also making themselves more vulnerable to predation. "Boldness" then in this case, is counterproductive, "less intelligent" if you will. hatchery rased fish for the most part never learn how to use their fluid environment to full advantage, and so have a much lower success rate once in the wild. Also, since they have "learned" to associate shadows on the water with food, and are ony looking UP for food, they are much more easily preyed upon.
> This is CONDITIONING, not intelligence.
> Frogs definitely get conditioned to associate people with food, Ill vouch for that, but I wouldnt call it intelligence


The question than becomes where does conditioning stop and learning begin? How do we separate the two? For instance I have numerous lizards and frogs in my collection that will recognize me and come out to beg for food but will totally ignore my girlfriend and other visitors to the animal room, conversely I have a Phelsuma Standingi loose in my animal room that totally ignores my girlfriend but bolts for the most inacessible space in the room the moment it sees me( Obviouly it has learned that Lauren will not attempt to catch it, while I most certainly will) Once animals can recognize individuals and adjust their behavior accordingly is this not learning?

I also belatedly realized that the link to the study was not in the article. I have attached it below

http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/22214/1/gupea_2077_22214_1.pdf


----------



## frogparty

if the conditioning is counterproductive to survival, you can't really call it intelligence.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogparty said:


> if the conditioning is counterproductive to survival, you can't really call it intelligence.


Than by your definition we aren't an intelligent species, since we are conditioned to do a ton of things that are counterproductive to our survival


----------



## frogparty

agreed. But is that destructive behavior not a product of generations of CONDITIONING, while we are only recently LEARNING how to attempt to live in harmony with our planet?


----------



## frogparty

there are many "primitive" cultures that lived in harmony with the planet for thousands of years, that are now being CONDITIONED by the outside world to change their behavior patterns
For a prime example of this, read "The Shamans Apprentice" and compare amazonian tribes polyculture faming to todays monoculture crops. Their orginal way of gardening is INTELLIGENCE. They have been CONDITIONED to do things a different way, which becomes counterproductive for their lives


----------



## mantisdragon91

This is all true but because my Phelsuma Standingii has learned to recognize me as a predator as oppossed to my girlfriend(which is definetely beneficial to it's survival as a free roamer as opposed to a captive) I would consider that as a sign of intelligence.


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> This is all true but because my Phelsuma Standingii has learned to recognize me as a predator as oppossed to my girlfriend(which is definetely beneficial to it's survival as a free roamer as opposed to a captive) I would consider that as a sign of intelligence.


 
I suggest looking up conditioned response.... 

One of the things that always surprises me is that when dealing with herps, people stick to the visual as the sole thing that is conditioned ignoring that herps also pick up on vibrations such as those caused by foot steps.


----------



## frogparty

many lizards, especially monitor lizards, have been extensively tested and definitely show signs of intelligence far beyond what was initially believed. But lizards are not fish, or frogs.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> I suggest looking up conditioned response....
> 
> One of the things that always surprises me is that when dealing with herps, people stick to the visual as the sole thing that is conditioned ignoring that herps also pick up on vibrations such as those caused by foot steps.


I'd agree except the gecko in question only flees when he makes actual visual contact with me. I am also still trying to get a concrete answer on when conditioning stops and true learning begins?


----------



## edwardsatc

mantisdragon91 said:


> I also belatedly realized that the link to the study was not in the article. I have attached it below
> 
> http://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/22214/1/gupea_2077_22214_1.pdf


Roman, I don't think that's the right article. I believe it is this one:

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/22217/1/gupea_2077_22217_1.pdf

I took a cursory look at the paper and the author does not seem to conclude any sort of intelligence, rather that certain behavioral and non-behavioral variables can mold the fishes "personality" (boldness, shyness, etc...). I don't see any link between personality and learning being made. In fact, I didn't see any mention of "learning" in the paper ( though I did not read it in it's entirety).


----------



## edwardsatc

Ed said:


> I suggest looking up conditioned response....
> 
> One of the things that always surprises me is that when dealing with herps, people stick to the visual as the sole thing that is conditioned ignoring that herps also pick up on vibrations such as those caused by foot steps.


Or chemosensory mechanisms ...


----------



## frogparty

I think conditioning is learned RESPONSES to outside stimuli, while learning implies self driven problem solving ability. 
This is why, in our educational system that rewards the ability to regurgitate facts on command, instead of learning how to solve abstract problems individually,we produce students who retain(LEARN) very little in comparison to the amount of stimuli they are provided with.


----------



## mantisdragon91

frogparty said:


> many lizards, especially monitor lizards, have been extensively tested and definitely show signs of intelligence far beyond what was initially believed. But lizards are not fish, or frogs.


Having worked with Oscars and other large Cichlids in the past I would argue that they have quite a bit of intelligence as well.


----------



## Ed

Roman,

Did you read the actual thesis you linked to??? If you did, can you point me to where the linked article supports Frank's blog? I can find a lot on competition etc but nothing about learning to the extent Frank discusses or you espouse.

So the lizard can't be registering your footsteps with the visual sighting being within the flight distance? 

How about doing some research into the literature on your own? Your fingers seem to work just fine.... 

I provided a citation that some behavior changes that look like learning are actually a response to increased hormonal control


Ed


----------



## Ed

edwardsatc said:


> Roman, I don't think that's the right article. I believe it is this one:
> 
> https://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/22217/1/gupea_2077_22217_1.pdf
> 
> I took a cursory look at the paper and the author does not seem to conclude any sort of intelligence, rather that certain behavioral and non-behavioral variables can mold the fishes "personality" (boldness, shyness, etc...). I don't see any link between personality and learning being made. In fact, I didn't see any mention of "learning" in the paper ( though I did not read it in it's entirety).


Donn beat me to it...


----------



## frogparty

I think its very hard for us as animal keepers in general to seperate the two, because as a whole we have a horrible tedancy to anthropomorphize all our pets.


----------



## Ed

edwardsatc said:


> Roman, I don't think that's the right article. I believe it is this one:
> 
> https://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/22217/1/gupea_2077_22217_1.pdf
> 
> I took a cursory look at the paper and the author does not seem to conclude any sort of intelligence, rather that certain behavioral and non-behavioral variables can mold the fishes "personality" (boldness, shyness, etc...). I don't see any link between personality and learning being made. In fact, I didn't see any mention of "learning" in the paper ( though I did not read it in it's entirety).


And these behaviors are also known to be strongly affected by sensitivity and levels of various hormones including adrenaline.... One of the things that results in "bolder" behaviors (such as that seen in domesticated animals) is a requirement for increased levels of adrenaline before a response to a threat is triggered....


----------



## earthfrog

Behavioural changes induced by ink in aplysia fasciata (Mollusca, Gastropoda): Evidence for a social signal role of inking - Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Roman,
> 
> Did you read the actual thesis you linked to??? If you did, can you point me to where the linked article supports Frank's blog? I can find a lot on competition etc but nothing about learning to the extent Frank discusses or you espouse.
> 
> So the lizard can't be registering your footsteps with the visual sighting being within the flight distance?
> 
> How about doing some research into the literature on your own? Your fingers seem to work just fine....
> 
> I provided a citation that some behavior changes that look like learning are actually a response to increased hormonal control
> 
> 
> Ed



Perhaps you would care to peruse the link attached. There are some interesting learned behaviors examples of which are listed there including juvenile crocs learning to avoid flashlights in a matter of days, and a blue swift learning to eat inanimate objects(lettuce) by observing the desert iguana it was housed with.


SpringerLink - Learning & Behavior, Volume 20, Number 1


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Perhaps you would care to peruse the link attached. There are some interesting learned behaviors examples of which are listed there including juvenile crocs learning to avoid flashlights in a matter of days, and a blue swift learning to eat inanimate objects(lettuce) by observing the desert iguana it was housed with.
> 
> 
> SpringerLink - Learning & Behavior, Volume 20, Number 1


 
I'm not sure why plant eating in a genus known to eat flowers and fruits is a surprise.... see for example http://www.lacerta.de/AS/Bibliografie/BIB_1811.pdf 

Did you read the whole article? 

Ed


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> I'm not sure why plant eating in a genus known to eat flowers and fruits is a surprise.... see for example http://www.lacerta.de/AS/Bibliografie/BIB_1811.pdf
> 
> Did you read the whole article?
> 
> Ed


I did. The swifts in questions are know to eat blooms and flowers, not lettuce which was a learned behavior adopted from the desert iguanas at least according to the people sited in the link(I believe it was page 14 or thereabouts)


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> I did. The swifts in questions are know to eat blooms and flowers, not lettuce which was a learned behavior adopted from the desert iguanas at least according to the people sited in the link(I believe it was page 14 or thereabouts)


There argument for it is really weak as plant matter is already a normal food item regadless if "lettuce" is novel or not.. Lettuce is novel for the iguana as well and there is no indication of how they excluded the ability of the Sceloperus being able to determine if it was edible on thier own. They had also ceased feeding the lizards mealworms so there was incentive for a dietary switch initially that continued after the resumption.. they stated insectivory but skipped over the fact that this species does feed on plants. This example has significant flaws. 

In your crocodile example, there is no example that the flashlight was the stimulus they avoided and not the actual boat. It would not be a difficult for a negative stimulus to become associated with the boat given that capture not only was negative for the captured juvenile but the others that could hear the distress calls.... So there isn't any reason to expect that those animals did not treat it as a they would an unrelated large crocodile or a large predatory fish. 

and as I noted in prior conversations the real issue is that the language around learning lacks significant ability to describe learning versus conditioning.


----------



## mantisdragon91

The how do you explain the excerpt and references listed below:

*It has been shown that large reptiles demonstrate unexpected complexity in cognitive abilities such as the foraging strategies of the white-throated monitor (Varanus albigularis; Kaufman, Burghardt, & Phillips, 1996) and the investigative/object play behavior of a captive Komodo dragon (V. komodoensis; Burghardt et al.,2002). Thus, it is likely that ectothermic reptiles are quite amenable to environmental enrichment (Burghardt, Ward, & Rosscoe, 1996).*

The complete link to the article talking about how learning behaviors in snakes are alterted by caging design is listed below.

http://www.animalsandsociety.org/assets/library/118_jaws09021.pdf


----------



## Ed

Roman,

This conversation would be a lot more interesting if you bothered to actually learn what the jargon means and how it applies instead of seaching for and throwing out the buzz words in an attempt to prove your point. That was the behavioral enrichment I was suggesting for you... 

Nothing in the rat snake article is really new.. it was summarized years ago in Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles.... Snakes kept in depauperate enclosures and kept on a regimen with high sanitation showed behavioral and functional differences based on stress as demonstrated by corticosteroid levels in the blood (and the other affects as noted below). 

With respect to your monitor "reference".. if you wanted it translated it basically is saying that monitors tolerate changes to things into thier enclosure that stimulates normal behaviors in a captive enviroment.... which is different than many other reptiles that show increased stress and decreased hormone and immune levels from those things.. Behavioral enrichment is simply providing stimulation to encourage normal behaviors in animals that are either showing a lack of normal behavior or abnormal behaviors. 

And as a final item... none of your subsequent posts have anything to do with fish......


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Roman,
> 
> This conversation would be a lot more interesting if you bothered to actually learn what the jargon means and how it applies instead of seaching for and throwing out the buzz words in an attempt to prove your point. That was the behavioral enrichment I was suggesting for you...
> 
> Nothing in the rat snake article is really new.. it was summarized years ago in Health and Welfare of Captive Reptiles.... Snakes kept in depauperate enclosures and kept on a regimen with high sanitation showed behavioral and functional differences based on stress as demonstrated by corticosteroid levels in the blood (and the other affects as noted below).
> 
> With respect to your monitor "reference".. if you wanted it translated it basically is saying that monitors tolerate changes to things into thier enclosure that stimulates normal behaviors in a captive enviroment.... which is different than many other reptiles that show increased stress and decreased hormone and immune levels from those things.. Behavioral enrichment is simply providing stimulation to encourage normal behaviors in animals that are either showing a lack of normal behavior or abnormal behaviors.
> 
> And as a final item... none of your subsequent posts have anything to do with fish......


Ed,

My original point is that mammals and birds are not the only vertebrates that demonstrate the ability to learn and adapt their behaviors to take advantage of changing environmental opportunities. You can call it what you want but I have seen enough of it in reptiles, amphibians and even fish to be convinced it exists


----------



## Groundhog

I'm coming in on Roman's side on this one (sorry not to get here sooner, buddy).

First of all, Ed, it is bit unfair to suggest someone does not understand the "jargon"--this comes close to conflating credentials with merit, the so-called 'argument from authority." many peer-reviewed journals invite comment from professionals from related fields (And in the real world, I would suggest that it is okay for a dentist or a plumber to argue with a historian as long as they've taken the time to do some serious reading). Some points:

1) We have to agree on a definition of intelligence beyond trials to criterion. The current consensus in evolutionary psychology is that the human brain is not actually a malleable sponge, but modular--it is designed to learn specific things, and some more easily than others. For example, a kid with an IQ of 207 (Wile E. Coyote's and perfect pitch will never learn a humpback whale song as well as a baby humpback whale. A male dog will never be as good a parent as a male cichlid--but I do not think anyone would compare a cichlid to a dog. This may seem quaint, but it speaks to a point: When humans discuss intelligence, we really seem to focus on abstract intelligence--tasks that involve problem solving and/or creativity, or behaviors that remind us of us. 

2) It is probably unfair to compare animals with cerebral cortices to those who lack same. But that does not invalidate Roman's point about the Phelsuma. What makes a conditioned response an example of learning? Conscious awareness? By this standard, only animals who can recognize themselves in mirrors qualify. 

3) What have we seen/learned?

--Some sharks do pack hunt;
--Great white sharks do learn to gauge bird flight and diving patterns;
--Some cichlids sometimes do in fact recognize their keepers and seem to want to interact with them;
--Wood turtles do well in mazes;
--Some--I emphasize some--crocodilians can be trained;
--Some lizards engage in play behavior;
--Red tailed hawks will team up to fool foxes;
--Corvids do a whole bunch of interesting shit, too numerous to discuss here;
--The coyote and the badger do sometimes hunt together (corroborating some Native American stories);
--The hyenas--a wild social predator--of Harar, Ethiopia have learned--no, been actively taught--not to bother domestic animals or children;
--Polar bears--a solitary predator--often like to congregate and play with sled dogs.

Okay, all of these observed behaviors may not be equally interesting. But they point to varying degrees of intellectual flexibility. By contrast, a tiger who has figured how to raid a village and snatch a kid (goat or human) without detection is only doing what is evolutionarily designed to do. Yet somehow, we marvel at this more than Roman's gecko, who has clearly learned to distinguish between two people as distinct individuals.

4) Do we overrate primates? Baboons, for example, have great social intelligence. But mother baboons have been observed swimming with babies, and thought everything was fine because their own heads were above water. The babies drowned. Geezus, a freakin crocodile wouldn't make this blunder!

5) Now we get to our captive fish, amphibians and reptiles. I sense in some people a resistance to the idea that some of our pets recognize us or like us; we would be accused of anthropomorphism. Conversely, there are some of us who do impart human qualities to our poikilothermic charges, and this is equally silly. (Let's be clear: beyond dogs and psittacine dogs, most of our pets probably don't really care. Even cats really like who has the eats.)

--But I have seen too may examples of herps--especially squamates--that seek to initiate interaction with their owners when they're not particularly hungry or cold. 
--I have seen Oscars and pythons trained from a young age to avoid live food (no, it would not be fair to "test" this by starving the animal--may of us would fail as well.) Hell, I raised a South American lungfish that I trained to eat from my fingers, on black worms, then chopped earthworms. My Corydoras, Black Phantoms, African butterfly, Bumblebee gobies, Mudskipper and Swamp skinks were in no danger. I only moved her(?) out because she grew too big. 
--I have personally trained some hylids and racophorids not to eat their smaller cagemates, and you know what? It wasn't even that difficult. (Simple--start small animals on insects only, keep em well fed, they won't view small lizards and frogs as potential prey. For what it's worth, Bert Langerwerf confirmed this at Agama International--his Physignathus and _Polypedates dennysii_ did not prey on the local herps. In the wild, water dragons do eat smaller herps. (No, I would not try this stunt with a Cuban tree frog or Litoria aurea.) 
--I have tested this: A Pyxicephalus, raised from a little guy, can be trained not to bite. This doesn't seem to work with Ceratophrys--there is a cognitive difference. 
--I have seen Phelsuma grandis learn how to catch Rasboras in a paludarium. An arboreal gecko learns to exploit fish as a food source?!? At the very least, the bastards can correct for parallax...
--And I can personally attest that it is not very to difficult to housebreak water dragons (cocincinus is a bit easier than leseurii). 

Now some of you may say that these are only cute anecdotes that prove little. I am not contending that treefrogs, water dragons or skinks are crows or hogs. But they are not clueless, either. 

Now let me pose a question: many of us lizard keepers have observed that iguanians such as collared lizards--visually oriented animals--will watch an insect enter a log and just wait. By contrast, a skink, plated lizard or anguid will scope out both ends of the log, resulting in better success. Is this an example of superior intelligence, i.e., problem-solving skill? Or better sensory apparatus? Or maybe both?


----------



## Ed

I noted pretty early on that the jargon around this whole topic has issues with the usage of the word "learn".. For example through the use of negative stimulation you can "teach" an animal to not respond to what would normally be a trigger.. For example if you used a painful electric shock everytime the animal approached a food item, it will rapidly "learn" to avoid that food item (or no longer respond to instincts like burrowing in mealworms).
Conversely an animal can also be "taught" what was normally a negative stimulus (such as catching up an animal) to no longer be a negative negative by positive reinforcement such as by food items. 

In addition to this mix (which you alluded to) genetic programmings such as parental care in cichlids is often referenced as "learned" as there is typically a increase in proficiency with each experience...but this isn't necessarily due to "learning" but could easily be due to the strengthing of neural pathways programmed by genes.... 

There is a difference between conditioning and other forms of "learning"... conditioning functions on the same level as genetic programming, there isn't an ability to be flexible with it. That is why a dog "taught" that a ringing bell means food will salivate without volition upon application of the stimulus. The dog doesn't respond with salivation to the ringing of all bells, just the one.. this is the same as the lizard "learning" the difference between Roman and other people. I suggest reading Kaufield's The Keeper and the Kept with "recognition by a rattlesnale"... 

This is why it is important to understand the jargon or you will be equating society in capuchins with burrowing in mealworms. All of the above are referenced with the word "learn" yet all are not the same.....


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> I noted pretty early on that the jargon around this whole topic has issues with the usage of the word "learn".. For example through the use of negative stimulation you can "teach" an animal to not respond to what would normally be a trigger.. For example if you used a painful electric shock everytime the animal approached a food item, it will rapidly "learn" to avoid that food item (or no longer respond to instincts like burrowing in mealworms).
> Conversely an animal can also be "taught" what was normally a negative stimulus (such as catching up an animal) to no longer be a negative negative by positive reinforcement such as by food items.
> 
> In addition to this mix (which you alluded to) genetic programmings such as parental care in cichlids is often referenced as "learned" as there is typically a increase in proficiency with each experience...but this isn't necessarily due to "learning" but could easily be due to the strengthing of neural pathways programmed by genes....
> 
> There is a difference between conditioning and other forms of "learning"... conditioning functions on the same level as genetic programming, there isn't an ability to be flexible with it. That is why a dog "taught" that a ringing bell means food will salivate without volition upon application of the stimulus. The dog doesn't respond with salivation to the ringing of all bells, just the one.. this is the same as the lizard "learning" the difference between Roman and other people. I suggest reading Kaufield's The Keeper and the Kept with "recognition by a rattlesnale"...
> 
> This is why it is important to understand the jargon or you will be equating society in capuchins with burrowing in mealworms. All of the above are referenced with the word "learn" yet all are not the same.....


To go back to my original Phelsuma Standingi example this animal was not conditioned to do anything. She was a born and raised in my collection and escaped during a routine cage cleaning. If I constantly chased her until she was conditioned to hide in my presense I can see you argument. However this particular animal was wary of me from the first day of its escape while being totally unafraid of my girlfriend. The only thing I can glean is it observed my capture of other escaped geckos while still captive and realised that I was a threat while Lauren wasn't. However I am open to other interpetations.


----------



## Ed

There are different paths to conditioning.. you just described one.. a second in acclimation... it is a conditioning path....


----------



## mantisdragon91

Interestingly there has just been another study published on learning in Anoles by a couple of researchers at Duke:

Learnin' Lizards - Science News

As I have stated before reptiles, amphibians and fish have more cognitive capacity than we have given them credit for.


----------



## Ed

Can you explain the difference between what was reported and conditioning? As has been noted many times, conditioning is considered a type of "learning"... 

From the Same article


> See Alex Kacelnik of Oxford University in England, who studies cognition in New Caledonian crows, was not exactly wowed by the _Anolis _lizards, though. The ability to discriminate among options, and reverse that learning, is also known in fish, flies and bees, among other animals, he says. “It may well be that lizards do have the same flexibility shown by other taxa,” Kacelnik says, “but the results shown here are nowhere near what we know in birds and mammals [/endquote]
> 
> How is this not the same as conditioning a mealworm to not burrow? Or conditioning a planaria to not avoid light?


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Can you explain the difference between what was reported and conditioning? As has been noted many times, conditioning is considered a type of "learning"...
> 
> From the Same article
> 
> 
> 
> See Alex Kacelnik of Oxford University in England, who studies cognition in New Caledonian crows, was not exactly wowed by the _Anolis _lizards, though. The ability to discriminate among options, and reverse that learning, is also known in fish, flies and bees, among other animals, he says. “It may well be that lizards do have the same flexibility shown by other taxa,” Kacelnik says, “but the results shown here are nowhere near what we know in birds and mammals [/endquote]
> 
> How is this not the same as conditioning a mealworm to not burrow? Or conditioning a planaria to not avoid light?
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how it isn't. As the old saying on porn goes "I know it when I see it" Sorry if we can't always quantify it to your satisfaction but it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Since you chose to take one quote out of the article let me take another:
> 
> *Lizards indeed deserve more respect, says Walter Wilczynski of Georgia State University in Atlanta, who studies the neural basis of animal behavior. “I agree with the authors that reptiles, and amphibians for that matter, are generally dismissed as being incapable of the simplest cognitive task,” he says, “despite the fact that whenever researchers do a careful study like this one, it turns out that, in fact, they do learn, often in a sophisticated way.”*
Click to expand...


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain the difference between what was reported and conditioning? As has been noted many times, conditioning is considered a type of "learning"...
> 
> From the Same article
> 
> Can you explain how it isn't. As the old saying on porn goes "I know it when I see it" Sorry if we can't always quantify it to your satisfaction but it doesn't change the facts on the ground. Since you chose to take one quote out of the article let me take another:
> 
> *Lizards indeed deserve more respect, says Walter Wilczynski of Georgia State University in Atlanta, who studies the neural basis of animal behavior. “I agree with the authors that reptiles, and amphibians for that matter, are generally dismissed as being incapable of the simplest cognitive task,” he says, “despite the fact that whenever researchers do a careful study like this one, it turns out that, in fact, they do learn, often in a sophisticated way.”*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In that article it is very clear that there isn't a consensus on thier "learning ability"... along with the fact that you are biased on proving your point, resulting in you consistently ignore the data and the differences.
> 
> It is a form of conditioning and the article you cited indicates this by several comments, including but not limited to, "that only two were able to unlearn"... that is a good indication that it is conditioning and not true cognition as animals that use cognitive abilities to determine behavioral paths have much more flexibility to reverse conditioning. The fact that it is along the lines of flies.. is also a strong indication it is conditioning and not true cognition.
> 
> Ed
Click to expand...


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed,

With as much respect as I have for your knowledge and background, I am starting to have doubts about your ability to ever admit you are wrong about anything. This is a very serious flaw for someone who claims to be a scientist or has any kind of background related to science. Out of curiousity can you provide at least one example on here of a claim that you have made and have since withdrawn? If not I'm going to have to agree with Tony's earlier assertion in Thuderdome that you are one of those guys that has to be right at all times regardless of the facts on the ground.


----------



## Ed

mantisdragon91 said:


> Ed,
> 
> With as much respect as I have for your knowledge and background, I am starting to have doubts about your ability to ever admit you are wrong about anything. This is a very serious flaw for someone who claims to be a scientist or has any kind of background related to science. Out of curiousity can you provide at least one example on here of a claim that you have made and have since withdrawn? If not I'm going to have to agree with Tony's earlier assertion in Thuderdome that you are one of those guys that has to be right at all times regardless of the facts on the ground.



Roman.

Any particular reason you have abandoned your position for a personal attack? 

In this and the other thread on learning you kept throwing examples up and when I asked you explain the difference between conditioning and your position, you have either ignored the request or skipped over it. I provided citations and counter arguments that are backed up in the literature. 

If you want to see examples of how I've changed my position, I suggest looking at my position for the last ten plus years on nutrition. I have continually updated and modified my thoughts and position on that as better data has become available. 

I am not surprised that you resorted to a personal attack as you are well represented for repeatedly demanding a response from people when you think you have the upper hand in the argument. This is readily seen by your position on panacure/fenbendazole on this and other forums. 

I have been and still am waiting for an explanation from you on how this is different from conditioning.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed,

I ask you again to read the quote below:

*Lizards indeed deserve more respect, says Walter Wilczynski of Georgia State University in Atlanta, who studies the neural basis of animal behavior. “I agree with the authors that reptiles, and amphibians for that matter, are generally dismissed as being incapable of the simplest cognitive task,” he says, “despite the fact that whenever researchers do a careful study like this one, it turns out that, in fact, they do learn, often in a sophisticated way.” *


This is from someone who studies neural basis for animal behavior. Is there a reason that you are so eager to prove that reptiles, amphibians and fish are incapable of learning other than the fact that you originally staked out a position on the other side of the fence? 

Even the quote from the article you chose points out that lizards are capable of learning just not as much as mammals and birds:

*From the Same article



See Alex Kacelnik of Oxford University in England, who studies cognition in New Caledonian crows, was not exactly wowed by the Anolis lizards, though. The ability to discriminate among options, and reverse that learning, is also known in fish, flies and bees, among other animals, he says. “It may well be that lizards do have the same flexibility shown by other taxa,” Kacelnik says, “but the results shown here are nowhere near what we know in birds and mammals

Click to expand...

*


> There may not be a consesus on the amount of learning ability these animals are capable of, but I don't see anyone in the article state that they are incapable of learning all together.


----------



## Ed

Roman,

Lets look at the thread... it is clear that you want your lizards to be intelligent.. but posting a link to an article that specifically references that the same thing is found in flies, doesn't really support your case for intelligence as I think your going to be hard pressed to make the case that flies are intelligent. 


With respect to your last comment on "learning" I again suggest you get a handle on the language. The terminology used around that word in these topics is context importent due to a lack of alternative words to describe the results. As an example, conditioning is described as form of learning but since you can condition a planaria to not avoid light, conditioning isn't considered an example of intelligence. This is why I keep asking you to differentiate it from conditioning. 

The last article in and of itself throws strong doubt on the validity of the interpretation (as well as your own) as demonstrated between the two boldfaced quotes in your last post. The researcher did not rule out rule out conditioning or behavioral plasticity which is why the fact that flies and bees can do it casts such strong doubt on the premise that it is a sign of intelligence..... 
So please demonstrate why it isn't conditioning..


----------



## mantisdragon91

Ed said:


> Roman,
> 
> Lets look at the thread... it is clear that you want your lizards to be intelligent.. but posting a link to an article that specifically references that the same thing is found in flies, doesn't really support your case for intelligence as I think your going to be hard pressed to make the case that flies are intelligent.
> 
> 
> With respect to your last comment on "learning" I again suggest you get a handle on the language. The terminology used around that word in these topics is context importent due to a lack of alternative words to describe the results. As an example, conditioning is described as form of learning but since you can condition a planaria to not avoid light, conditioning isn't considered an example of intelligence. This is why I keep asking you to differentiate it from conditioning.
> 
> The last article in and of itself throws strong doubt on the validity of the interpretation (as well as your own) as demonstrated between the two boldfaced quotes in your last post. The researcher did not rule out rule out conditioning or behavioral plasticity which is why the fact that flies and bees can do it casts such strong doubt on the premise that it is a sign of intelligence.....
> So please demonstrate why it isn't conditioning..


Lets cut through all the semantics since I know you like to twist things as much as possible until someone simply throws up their hands in disgust and leaves.

Neither you or I are trained scientists simply people that have been lucky enough to work with many species of lower vertebrates for a long time. Therefore when some one who studies the neural biology of lower vertebrates for a living states point blank that these animals are capable of a surprising ability to learn, I tend to take their word over yours or mine. At this point the burdern of prooof isn't on me but on you.


----------



## mantisdragon91

Some more detail on the Anolis study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/19/science/19oblizard.html?_r=1&ref=todayspaper


----------



## tclipse

Relevant section @ ~35:48, for a few tests on African monitors. 

http://www.hulu.com/watch/206380/nova-lizard-kings

The monitors tested could count up to six, as well as differentiating between colored targets. The entire episode is definitely worth watching as well. 

Also, at 24:15, there's a section regarding the personalities of captive komodo dragons. Conditioning is obviously a factor, but things like speed of learning, enjoying physical contact, and reports of "playing" seem to point to some level of intelligence.


----------



## Smashtoad

mantisdragon91 said:


> Than by your definition we aren't an intelligent species, since we are conditioned to do a ton of things that are counterproductive to our survival


This statement is ridiculous.


----------



## Smashtoad

mantisdragon91 said:


> To go back to my original Phelsuma Standingi example this animal was not conditioned to do anything. She was a born and raised in my collection and escaped during a routine cage cleaning. If I constantly chased her until she was conditioned to hide in my presense I can see you argument. However this particular animal was wary of me from the first day of its escape while being totally unafraid of my girlfriend. The only thing I can glean is it observed my capture of other escaped geckos while still captive and realised that I was a threat while Lauren wasn't. However I am open to other interpetations.


This is an interesting observation...


----------



## mllaursen

Some of the toxicology studies with D. rerio actually utilize learning (developing a conditioned reponse) as an endpoint for determining EC50. I know of at least 2 studies in progress right now using this approach, one of them here in Wisonsin.


----------

