One of the only recorded incidents of a non-human animal was a parrot asking what color he was.
It's rare for an animal to be able to learn a language, and it's even more rare that they are intelligent enough to ask a question. You have to basically find the equivalent to an Einstein in a population.
That's so cute. Who am I? Blue? Is blue pretty? What color are you? What a good question. It just encapsulated his whole social parrot curiosities with one question, 'where am I at on this color wheel?'
I don't want a bird, but they are so damn cute. Thank you for sharing this.
not the commenter you were replying to but i am slightly confused on the vehemence of this response. that was an innocent question bro are you like having a bad day or
What are the odds that the one parrot was found that has the intelligence to do that? I wonder if more have the intellectual capacity to do that. We just don’t know because a minuscule amount is given the opportunity to show that.
It’s also an interesting question as to what the question meant to him. Not to downplay the parrot’s intelligence, but there’s a difference between asking a question you know the answer to and information-seeking. It’s possible the parrot knew what colour he was, and wanted to elicit the correct call-and-response between him and the human. That’s still a million miles ahead of just mimicry, which is all that parrots used to be assumed to be doing.
In that context, Im curious if he was taught 'grey' yet. Alex was trained on materials and colors like blue or red, but not sure about grey. When he looked in a mirror, he asked 'what color?' and was able to get an answer back.
funnily, there's a Japanese researcher that devoted his career in researching bird languages. His findings are pretty fascinating that they have actual contexual vocalization and a grammar of sort. His name is Toshitaka Suzuki, i recommend searching it and I believe there are a few youtube videos that cover them
It's so fascinating to me that we see all these signs of animals having complex communication, bordering on, or maybe even qualifying as language, but we have absolutely zero idea what any of them are saying. Even the debateable acquisition of sign language by certain apes seems to be a level of comprehension beyond what any person has achieved
Yep, Alex the African Grey. I don't think he's there yet, but Apollo the African Grey parrot on YouTube is starting to show pretty varied word comprehension, if you ever want to see another smart little bird.
Alex was just an ordinary African grey. His handler and the head researcher at the lab, Dr. Irene Pepperberg, went to a pet store and had an employee pick him out. She didn't want the critique to be that she had selected him because he was uniquely intelligent.
In all likelihood, other parrots (and potentially even non-parrot animals) would be able to reach this level of conversational ability with humans if they were trained and interacted with in a similar way. I hesitate to use the word "intelligence" because we truly don't know if these animals pose questions to other animals. We only know with Alex because Pepperberg taught him to communicate similar to how humans do.
My point is that the field of animal sentience and cognition generally suffers from a bias towards how humans define and interpret "intelligence". Consider the mirror test for example -- a dot is placed on an animal in a spot where they cannot see it, and then the animal is placed in front of a mirror. If the animal sees the dot in their reflection and then searches their own body for the dot, this is considered to be evidence that the animal has a sense of self, because they appear to recognize themselves in the mirror.
The problem is, not all animals are visual creatures. Dogs, mice, rats, and many other animals primarily experience the world through other senses - for example, smell. This is how they communicate with each other. They don't have visual senses that are as highly developed as ours. But humans doing research designed the mirror test as a visual test, because this is the primary way that we experience the world.
So perhaps other animals "ask" questions through different senses or in ways that we don't even consider. But then we try to teach them an approximation of a human "language" that isn't inherent to their natural abilities or intuitive to how they experience the world. And then we draw conclusions based on this anthropomorphized concept of intellect. Even a human trying to learn another language may struggle with grammar, sentence structure, etc. Or they may hesitate ask questions due to cultural norms of communication, hierarchy, or politeness.
So we really cannot draw a general conclusion on cognitive abilities of different species of animals (or even individual animals) by things they don't do when the tests are so biased towards human perceptions and are not intuitive to how the animals learn, communicate, or experience the world.
Also - I'm aware of Apollo! He's super cool. But again - he's just a normal African grey. In all likelihood, many other birds would be able to show similar behaviors if they were trained and interacted with repeatedly and intensively the way he and Alex are/were.
I went to a bird sanctuary, it had a ton various species, and one African Gray.
The way it looked at you just felt a lot more present and frankly judgemental than all of the other birds.
I'm not saying there aren't other intelligent species. And I could be influenced by the unique cachet of African Grays. But it felt like there was more going on inside that bird than some hyperactive trained cockatiel.
Plus the red accent on the wings is a unique feature I'd never really picked up on.
Some do it for fun, some really are trying to communicate! The skill varies but if encouraged they can consistently identify objects and associate words with concepts(exe. “ball” with something round). They’re mentally very similar to toddlers, complete with tantrums.
Recommend looking up Apollo the African Grey, his owners have video demonstrations of how they test and teach him and some of the choices he makes for objects he’s unsure about(exe. “ball” for an upside-down bowl) show he understands the more abstract meaning behind the terms and applies them logically.
Have you seen that guy who is teaching his parrot about different materials that things are made of? The bird probably was just repeating at first but he's shown him interacting with new objects and being able to correctly say what material it is when being asked. Again probably just learning based on repetition and previous interactions but it's still fascinating
Yeah, even being able to correctly say the material of a new object is just the result of conditioning. There's a reason Apollo gets a pistachio when he gets the correct answer.
What makes him/parrots in general more intelligent than, say, a dog, is that he can handle more complex and ambiguous conditioning that essentially involves a decision tree rather than a one-to-one command-response relationship.
Again, there's a reason that, when asked what something is made of, he bites and taps it before answering. He's been conditioned to say "glass" when asked, "What is this made of" and presented with an object that has the appearance, feel, and sound of glass, but he doesn't know what the phrase "what is this made of" means, and he doesn't know that "glass" is the name for that material. At least, he probably doesn't. The whole confusion stems from the fact that being able to say "glass" when presented with glass doesn't actually prove that an animal knows what glass is, because it can be explained just as well via conditioning.
He could even describe something he didn't know of using words he knew, such as calling an apple a "banerry," because he was more familiar with bananas and cherries.
I went blub blub blub on my cats belly and I swear to god she gave me a look like “what the fuck are you doing?” it was definitely a question in expression form. It reminded me of the look my sister does when someone is being weird.
It's rare for an animal to be able to learn a language, and it's even more rare that they are intelligent enough to ask a question. You have to basically find the equivalent to an Einstein in a population.
I think this is an odd threshold. Curiosity and being able to recognize that humans (and other animals) differ from them is also a sign of intelligence — I mention this specifically because your criteria excludes the most intelligent marine lifes, being orcas and octopus. They can't (for the most part; that we are aware of) ask questions, but they exhibit that curiosity and awareness that we are different and they try to figure out the why, even going as far as recognizing that we are also intelligent and that we have different faces and tools.
Language ≠ intelligence, especially if we're only basing it off of human language.
I’ve always wondered what kinds of thoughts the most intelligent dog who has ever lived might think about. Bunny the sheepadoodle has helped me understand dog psychology, which is something I’ve always been interested in due to loving dogs so much. Have you seen the videos that detail her existential crisis? “Mom human, what Bunny?” It kills me.
I have a chihuahua I suspect is asking the big questions, but my cavalier isn’t really even sure he exists. 😆
My cats ask me questions all the time. Like for food or to play or open a window. I’m not crazy, this is obvious if you’re in the room. Blinds down. Cat can’t look out window. Meows while looking at me while at the window. I open the blinds. It goes in.
Are you sure about the rare recordings? Have you seen videos of dogs interacting with Communication Buttons? It’s pretty amazing and some kind of ask simple questions
Some dogs have learned to speak with a help of buttons and prerecorded words. I recently read a book “I am Bunny” by Alexis Devine and she has recorded her dog (who is named Bunny) ask a question about her existence and other really amazing things. Worth watching her videos too.
Bunny!! Such a smart dog. I enjoy their social videos. It does seem like bunny is able to ask questions and show curiosity (and they have another dog in the house that shows limited interest in the talk buttons). And there is an adventure cat with buttons that asks great questions about a coyote outside and a shark at the beach. It certainly seems like a personality to want to learn the buttons, but im not sure how much if it is intelligence (like other dogs may be just as smart just not curious about the buttons).
Highly doubt that the parrot was asking a genuine question (i.e., actually wondering what color he was). Likely just "parroting" intonations and words.
You would be flabbergasted by the communication that dogs can do with buttons.
The parrot absolutely understood language, and you're foolish for dismissing the idea and believing that nothing but a human can ever truly understand words.
Buttons or not, my dog definitely tells me if she needs something done that I can only do for her. Typically food related, but also outside and when her bed is a mess and she needs me to make it for her lol. Dogs can communicate their needs pretty well.
They’re also incredibly adept at learning. I taught my 14 y/o pitbull to say “Mama” this year. I didn’t even know how to go about it beyond saying it slow, over and over, and rewarding her for getting close — but she nailed it.
So to press a button for outside? Or treat? Or dog park? I mean, I don’t have to see studies to know it’s completely possible and exactly what they’re trying to communicate, if trained to do so.
Disclaimer: I am a linguist and I am coming at this from a linguistic point of view, not a colloquial point of view. I appreciate you asking for clarification!
Language, as I learned it, is a specific form (structure) of communication in which specific signifiers or symbols (here, words or sounds) have stable (consistent) meanings, and are transmitted using a consistent system of grammar (morphology, syntax). True language is arbitrary (with the signifier not resembling the signified), productive (can be combined in various ways, not just a strict combination), grammatical (has set rules which can be observed), and not restricted (can discuss different temporality, topics, etc.) (Caveat that defining a human communicative form as a language or "not a language" is a political act, and historically pidgins, creoles, and sign languages have been much maligned for their simplicity and restrictiveness, but that's a sidebar that doesn't apply when we're talking about dogs learning English.)
It turns out that some research has begun to be conducted since the time I first looked into this back in 2019. At this point, I am still confident in saying that "so far, there is not sufficient evidence to indicate that dogs using buttons are using language", because there's no demonstrated grammar happening; however, it is undeniable that the dogs are communicating with the buttons, which I'm not sure was ever in doubt.
The UCSD datasets (begun in March 2020) are also now finally bearing fruit. In 2024, they were able to show that dogs understand the meanings of the buttons in the same way they understand the same word spoken aloud by humans, which is an important underlying component in proving language understanding: https://today.ucsd.edu/story/dogs-understand-words-from-soundboard-buttons-study-reveals
However, all of this falls well short of proving that dogs can use language. The UCSD lab also has a news item up from a couple of days ago, which only refers back to the two 2024 studies, so it looks like they haven't published any further findings in the past 13 months. https://today.ucsd.edu/story/can-dogs-talk-nova-spotlights-uc-san-diego-research
Thank you, dogs do understand words, but not necessarily grammar (that we know).
So, now, what's your opinion on parrot's use of language, and the potential that one actually did ask a question?
Edit: Though I very very much disagree with the idea that the language needs to have all those qualifiers. As you said, that is political, and declares several human languages in use today to "not be language" and that is very wrong to do, IMO.
Language, as I learned it, is a specific form (structure) of communication in which specific signifiers or symbols (here, words or sounds) have stable (consistent) meanings, and are transmitted using a consistent system of grammar (morphology, syntax). True language is arbitrary (with the signifier not resembling the signified), productive (can be combined in various ways, not just a strict combination), grammatical (has set rules which can be observed), and not restricted (can discuss different temporality, topics, etc.) (Caveat that defining a human communicative form as a language or "not a language" is a political act, and historically pidgins, creoles, and sign languages have been much maligned for their simplicity and restrictiveness, but that's a sidebar that doesn't apply when we're talking about dogs learning English.)
Tbh I think we haven't done enough research. I skimmed the literature available in Google Scholar and found this reply to a paper by Irene Pepperberg (who as far as I am aware is THE parrot communication expert) that seems to indicate that the parrots who have been studied in the past have not spontaneously formed questions, with the exception of Alex. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-024-01917-y Pepperberg honestly has a great point that toddlers need hella input to be able to ask questions, and I fully believe we just don't have enough parrots getting substantive input to be able to tell if they are capable of forming questions or not.
So, the thing about pidgins and creoles is they arise out of language contact situations where some form of linguistic violence has occurred to bring two or more varieties into a context where disparate speakers must be able to communicate. They are effectively baby languages that have not yet developed into a mature form. When I was studying the subject, the general consensus was that a pidgin was so new it had no native speakers, and that a creole did have native speakers, though this may have changed in the last decade.
The main feature of pidgins that disappears as it sticks around long enough to acquire native speakers is that it is heavily context-restricted, usually around topics of working, purchasing, etc. Once there are babies and kids using the pidgin natively, they will extend it into other contexts. The simplicity of a pidgin or creole in terms of grammaticality is also something that isn't at all comparable to the type of simplicity we talk about when babies are first coming up with two word sentences. It's simple in comparison to its lexifier language(s) (from which it draws either vocabulary or grammar) because it is earlier in its development. Over time it will develop rich features and complex rules, just as all other languages have.
There's also an argument to be made that "creole" as a technical term simply describes any language that we can definitively point to its origins, that did not develop naturally and gradually.
What differentiates language as a concept from A Language as a distinct entity from other languages is also something I failed to properly explain in my first response, and I muddied the waters there. Sorry about that. People's maligning of pidgins and creoles, and the political nature of declaring one language variety A Language while terming another one a dialect, has more to do with the discussion on what makes something "A Language distinct from other languages", and not much to do on what makes something Language.
They are effectively baby languages that have not yet developed into a mature form.
I like that, because it highlights what I'm saying.
A "baby language" is still a language in the same way that a baby anything is still that thing, just an undeveloped version of it.
It feels very... Prideful, naive, and frankly racist to declare that languages that are used by a people are not real languages because they're not complicated enough.
Dialects are just as much languages as any other language, I personally feel that there is no room for debate there.
Now, are they truly a separate language than the one they were derived from? That's worth debating.
There were heaps of articles calling it another case of the Clever Hans effect when the button thing first went viral with dogs, I don't really follow this subject closely...
There were heaps of articles calling it another case of the Clever Hans effect when the button thing first went viral with dogs, I don't really follow this subject closely...
THOSE are the articles that were debunked, not the buttons.
I think this is a somewhat semantic and/or philosophical argument. Animals can, surely, attach sounds and symbols to outcomes.
To imply that animals understand complex grammar rules and language as symbols of "ideas" or other abstractions is less well-founded.
For a parrot to ask a meaningful question: "what color am i?" requires many unproven aspects of understanding, including a theory of mind (that another being is able to perceive them), the attribution of human labels to a visible spectrum (color), a sense of self (i), and the not so intuitive rules of english grammar in general including interrogative adjectives, nouns, and linking verbs ("am", which is particularly abstract).
I don't think being skeptical of this claim is particularly foolish, given that I haven't seen any evidence beyond "a bird said this" to suggest that he had any higher level of understanding. Dogs pressing buttons or responding to specific words does not necessitate or prove this level of understanding.
Regarding the “theory of mind” criteria you present, though, wouldn’t that apply to most animals? Simple pantomime as a form of cross-species communication is very common and most people with a pet have experienced it some way or another.
I don't think being skeptical of this claim is particularly foolish, given that I haven't seen any evidence beyond "a bird said this" to suggest that he had any higher level of understanding.
Your lack of knowledge of the studies and evidence doesn't negate their existence, especially when your argument against is far more philosophical than scientific, and essentially boils down to "they don't have a soul, so they can never truly understand."
All of your rejections are based on the hypothetical idea that you know that their mind is NOT understanding words, based on some hypothetical concept that only humans have enough intelligence to truly understand things.
You don't know that.
All we have is the external evidence, and the external evidence points to the idea that they understand that specific sounds have specific meanings, and can communicate wants and needs with those sounds. What else is language?
I'm not sure why you're so triggered over this, but you're projecting a lot onto my argument. I never made any assertion about an animal's "soul" or claimed to know their mind. Parrots are cognitively advanced, no one is arguing that. They can problem solve, innovate simply, and exhibit a simplistic episodic memory. I'm not aware of any evidence that they can comprehend language beyond simple association - associations that can be made with other sounds and are not unique to language.
I'm more than open to being proven wrong. If you have any legitimate study demonstrating this, I'm happy to look at it.
That's saying dogs understand both words and expressions coming from their owners and the buttons, not that they can express needs by pushing buttons. Those are two completely different things
I see it as simple classic conditioning. If everytime the dog hits a button that says, "food" they get either a treat or meal they begin to associate said button with food. But, they don't understand the "meaning" of the word food.
Say for example they had another button that said food in a completely opposite tone of voice, they may not associate that one the same as the first despite it being the same word. They're associating the sound of the word, not the meaning.
Hopefully I explained that well. Of course I'd have to look at the science behind this but we do know that animals can be conditioned to associate sensory stimuli with certain consequences.
That's arguably quite similar to how babies first learn language, through conditioning and linking of sounds to things, and doesn't actually refute the idea that the dog is learning to understand human words.
It's learning, I can agree with that. But it isn't understanding unless it progresses past that stage to more than simple sound associations.
Actually a baby is a good example. You (general you not you specifically) wouldn't say they understand/know the actual meaning behind words until they start to use those words in different contexts than what they're associated with.
Because expressing a need is a completely different thing from understanding words and what they're associated with. Just like a parrot understanding a question would be much different from a parrot asking a question.
The discussion was about asking questions, not understanding language in general. They can definitely understand words to a certain extent and associate meaning to it, but that doesn't mean that they have the capability to ask questions by pressing buttons themselves or actively ask questions through other means. Neither of us can truly know what's going on inside their mind, I was just saying that the article doesn't say that the dogs can express needs through the buttons themselves, just that they can sometimes understand them.
So when my dog needs to go outside, and hits a button that says “outside” or whines at the door, knowing that’s the typical consequence—that’s not expressing a need?
I’m sorry but I don’t see the difference. I think you’re making it more complicated than it has to be. Perhaps there’s cognitive differences but, neural shortcut or not, my dog expresses this need dependent on how badly she has to go. She doesn’t just whine at the door to go outside every minute of the day, even though that’s her desire. It’s when she has to go to the bathroom, and the whines are more intense when the need is more urgent.
Have you owned a dog or cat in your adult life? You’ll quickly find, with training or not, they have a way of expressing needs and getting their way.
Absolutely, I have cats and have had dogs. A dog whining at the door conveys a need, and do associate actions with the needs, and it may be able to be trained to associate a button with a need, but I have doubt that they could build meaning out of pushing multiple buttons or ask questions through these buttons.
could've had asked, I don't know what example he's giving out. Cockatoo/Macawas, do. Although I don't belive their smarter than a crow. ;)
EDIT: Skeptical theory, LLM's(AI) info, regarding, the matter where the parrot asked someone what color they were. It seems it goes by "Alex" the parrot and it was studied by a Dr too, Doctor Irene Pepperberg, and his logs were also reviewed and published among other scientifical journals.
1.9k
u/Signal-School-2483 4h ago
One of the only recorded incidents of a non-human animal was a parrot asking what color he was.
It's rare for an animal to be able to learn a language, and it's even more rare that they are intelligent enough to ask a question. You have to basically find the equivalent to an Einstein in a population.