On Tue, 22 Jun 1999, Michael J. Kane wrote:
> Michael, I found the idea of culture in non-human primates
> to be interesting (although I can't say that I was very
> surprised by it). However, I'm not at all sure I understand
> what point you're trying to make here, following your
> description of potato-washing monkeys:
>
> "One thought that pops up in my mind is that if one looks for
> something or behavior long enough, one will eventually find
> it."
>
> How does this follow from the demonstration that monkeys
> can learn some behaviors through observation?
>
> And do you really believe that we can find evidence of
> ANY behavior (or evidence supporting any hypothesis?)
> if we look hard enough????
>
> Perhaps I misunderstand you intention.
>
> -Mike
>
From what I understand,the potatoes were placed in a barrel on the
beach by the researchers and they waited to see what would happen.
And the washing incident was some kind of serendipitious event and this
eventually led to observational learning.The potato-washing behavior
would probably still exist without the presence of the researchers.
What is not clear is whether,the chimps would employ similar behavior
if they had to dig the potatoes from the ground .
The idea that we may find evidence for behavior if we look hard enough
may not be that farfetched:
Jane Goodall spent months or years looking for specific social behavior
in chimps and Aha! she found some.
In the beginnig phase of operant conditioning,we are told to look for
successive approximations and then reinforce.
Please note that the observed behavior may be emitted spontaneously,
but the discriminatory tasks of selecting certain tasks to reinforce is
brought about by the experimenter-hence a "confirmation bias" to look
for something and its subsequent intentional exaggeration.
MIchael Sylvester
DAytona Beach,Florida "I am beginning to enjoy those long posts."
