Not signed in (Sign In)
  1.  (131.1)
    •  
      CommentAuthormuse hick
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2007
     (131.2)
    i am not surprised. some days i can barely work out how many fingers i have
    •  
      CommentAuthorVespers
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2007
     (131.3)
    Is anyone really suprised? I mean, ever since they invented calculators, people haven't had reason to be good at numbers. Chimps have more reason; counting the days until they revolt and take over the lab, perhaps.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeDec 3rd 2007
     (131.4)
    Mark, first cancer, now an ape-driven inferiority complex... we may need to find you some more cheerful evening reading material!
  2.  (131.5)
    Haha. That's probably true, Ariana. I must learn to accept science, not fear it!
  3.  (131.6)
    After tutoring kids in maths...I'm really, really not surprised.

    This was on the TV news here. At the end, the announcer said "scientists are still coming up with theories as to why this is...one is that chimpanzees are more excited by peanuts." HaHA. Sigh.
    •  
      CommentAuthorCarnadine
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2007
     (131.7)
    That's interesting. Is it biological (as the article seems to imply) or ontogenetic? Why would chimpanzees need better short-term memory than humans?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAriana
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2007
     (131.8)
    It doesn't actually look like it's better memory, though -- it looks like it's faster response time. I just scanned the article (hah) but it looks like when the numbers were up for longer, chimps and humans had similar scores. It wasn't until they shortened the time available to process the information that the humans fell behind.

    And I'd be willing to bet that none of the test students were gamers.
  4.  (131.9)
    And I'd be willing to bet that none of the test students were gamers.


    Perhaps that's the next stage of the chimpanzee vs college student challenge:

    •  
      CommentAuthorCarnadine
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2007
     (131.10)
    Ariana: You're right; "short term memory" isn't the right term - but I don't think "response time" is quite it either. What the experiment measures is the ability to absorb a piece of visual information displayed for a very short period of time - I believe that would be photographic memory. Though I do wonder how well the chimps would do against gamers. :)

    I notice that they only talk about one chimpanzee here, the one that's particularly good at the test. They don't mention how the other chimps did, which rather decreases the value of the information in the article. I wonder how well the average chimp would do against an average human.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroldhat
    • CommentTimeDec 4th 2007
     (131.11)