WRT the mirror test and differences between some groups and others, I wonder if there is any consideration given to the idea that in some groups there is little household familiarity is with mirrors. Children in such households may even never have seen a mirror, or perhaps only infrequently, while in more sophisticated societies there could well be much earlier, and more frequent exposure to mirrors, and how images are reflected in them.
I don't think this experiment shows that either chimps or humans can/can't pass the test, it's more *when* do they pass it.
I think that all of the categories mentioned, of humans/animals that can clearly perceive that the reflection in the mirror is *them*, none of them pass it before they reach a certain threshold age.
So it's a two stage filter. There are species that never will pass the test (cows? opossums?), then there are those mentioned in the article: humans, chimpazees, elephants, etc. He listed some. There are some, like dogs and cats he says that they come to realize that the reflexion is not another threatening individual, but it's uncertain if they recognize the reflexions as themselves. According to the author, these instances are ambiguous.
But for the other species, those that *can* recognize their own reflexion, it's obvious that none of them can at e.g., 3 months of age. But eventually there comes a time when they *can* and it is the difference between the ages of each species and/or human group that we're using as an indication of relative intelligence that can be affected by how many times they've encountered a mirror, and at what age, *before* they recognize their reflexions.
I'm not saying that test does not work. I'm saying that unless we find a way to account for how familiar the subject is with a mirror, the finding can be much less accurate than otherwise.
While not addressing it he certainly raised this issue. I'm presuming the studies aren't out there so he wrote this post as a way to both appeal to his readers and point [others?] toward finding the relevant data.
I don't see the issue of exposure to be pivotal. What is needed to make the implications really compelling is to consider the matter of "exposure": when, and how often, the child was first exposed to eye-level (their eyes) to mirrors.
Imagine a situation that is not ever likely: 500 identical twins separated at birth, with half being allowed no exposure to mirrors, at all, and the other half having an environment from birth where there were at least two mirrors per room, at eye-level.
We make no measurements or tests until 16 months, then we try the "mark test" on both groups, introducing the second group to mirrors for the first time.
Then we record when each of the 500 kids respond to the test by touching the mark on them.
Would there be a difference? I don't know. But let's extend this fantasy further.
A man puts a gun to your head and says: "from which group will the first child pass the mark test?"
Me, I'd have to bet that it would be from the group that was exposed to mirrors from birth.
But we don't know, and it would be good to know how/if there is any noteworthy advantage from early exposure.
More than mirrors, I think the 'posing for a photograph' tells one more about the emerging personality of a toddler. My wife has a small nursery that takes-in infants from about 7 months old through to their leaving at about 5 years old. She takes photos to document individual development for their parents.
Those kids mostly start oblivious. Some remain pretty oblivious even as 5 yr olds (ie they don't care about how they are presenting). Most pretty soon learn to grimace at the camera (ie pose) while one 18 month old was clearly modifying her behaviour to create a photo/video that would be appealing to her parents (ie 'Shirley Temple' level social competence).
Since semi-retiring sometimes I think I've learnt more about human nature from observing these kids than decades of professional interactions.
Once, while watching a Jane Goodall documentary on chimp, one of many I'd seen, it came to me that everything I needed to know about basic human nature was best learned from these documentaries.
I taught elementary school for a while in the mid 70s/early 80s in the CA state public system. This, too, was pretty informative, probably a lot like what you've noticed.
My daughter grew up in a mirror-rich environment and I distinctly remember her trying to play with her own reflection as if it was another child around 12 months.
We sent our daughter to the best college prep k-12 we could find in our area; this was--lesseee--back in 2002. It was very selective and of course the parents who wanted to send their kids there cared, had a lot of disposable income, and were *extremely* anxious, feeling that this might be a make/break situation, silly as this sounds in retrospect. I was already pretty old (55) and much less anxious just due to more life experience, I suppose.
But it definitely was a place where Tiger Moms sent their kids.
Now, the Head of Lower school was a very intelligent lady, good-natured, who had sense of humor, and had vast experience. There was a group meeting of the parents of the kids who were accepted for kindergarten. She was speaking to everyone, reassuring them that in spite of the school's reputation for academic rigor and very high expectations, they were still kids, for god;s sake, and the school expected that they'd have their ups and downs.
At one point, toward the end, sorta loosen up the crowd I suppose, she said:
"We've dealt with bright young children possibly more than any other school in the area, and I can assure you that they still behave as all children will. We think it's important for the school to give them leeway, to allow them to grow and develop, and they each grow at a different rate.
"So, don't worry if you're child is in kindergarten, working on an art project, and they decide, as children will, to eat some of the paste. We view that a perfectly normal possibility, to be expected, and we should all laugh about it.
"But if it happens a *second* time..."
And she smiled and laughed, but there was *still* a message in there.
Right then I knew that I would probably like the school. ;^)
What strikes me is how few the surveys have been, how small the sample are, and how infrequent.
Administering the mirror test to 500 representative children in 50 countries would be an absolute drop in the bucket for something like the Gates Foundation.
It's absolutely hilarious to do it with your toddlers😂 then again, toddlers are just hilarious🎉
So basically this is yet another stream of accumulating nomological network of evidence for HBD. It's ideology more than ignorance that is stopping people from accepting it. I love this definition of woke by Nathan Cofnas...
> Two containers have the same amount of water, and in the view of the child, the water from one container is poured into another taller, shallower container. The child is then asked which container has more water. Obviously, they have the same, but children often think the taller container has more water, being fooled by appearances. Volume of containers can be deceptive. This is the conservation of volume test, but there are other similar tests.
In one of Steven Pinker's books, a very similar result is described.
You show a child two lines of M&Ms with even spacing between them (both lines share the same spacing). One of the lines is shorter. In view of the child, you rearrange the short line to have much wider spacing, making it longer than the originally-long line. You ask the child which line contains more M&Ms.
Children "often think the (newly) longer line contains more M&Ms". But, if you alter the protocol, and instead of asking about the lines, you offer the children the chance to pick up one of the lines and eat it, this stops being the case. They take the line with more M&Ms. The inference Pinker draws is that the initial result is driven by a desire to cooperate with the experimenter, giving them the answer they obviously want to hear.
This makes me suspicious of the narrow-container experiment.
wild baboons don't pass the mirror test but some species of fish do so not sure this test is sufficiently free of confounders. Also some evidence of ants (and possibly bees) passing.
Isn't this essay just making the point that the mirror test and other IQ like tests for measuring G are culturally constrained?
"How constrained?" is the pertinent question.
Perhaps this can be assessed using moderately inter-ethnic adoptions within a given community. Of, say, ethnic Arab infants by white French people within a relatively poor and ethnically mixed French urban community.
Considering that undernourishment in very poor countries could affect severely cognition in infants and specific infections that could alter nervous system development in some countries with widespread epidemics as well, I wonder how they can be taken into account in these types of studies
I should think the main thing about the mirror test and the reason some animals can do it is if the animal or human realizes that the image is appearing on a flat plane made of some physical stuff - that knocks out the possibility of the image's being a real creature, so it becomes a mere curiosity ("ooh it moves when I move, it could/must be me, like I see myself in water").
WRT the mirror test and differences between some groups and others, I wonder if there is any consideration given to the idea that in some groups there is little household familiarity is with mirrors. Children in such households may even never have seen a mirror, or perhaps only infrequently, while in more sophisticated societies there could well be much earlier, and more frequent exposure to mirrors, and how images are reflected in them.
Honestly, how much exposure to mirrors do you think that chimps get? They pass the test no problem.
I don't think this experiment shows that either chimps or humans can/can't pass the test, it's more *when* do they pass it.
I think that all of the categories mentioned, of humans/animals that can clearly perceive that the reflection in the mirror is *them*, none of them pass it before they reach a certain threshold age.
So it's a two stage filter. There are species that never will pass the test (cows? opossums?), then there are those mentioned in the article: humans, chimpazees, elephants, etc. He listed some. There are some, like dogs and cats he says that they come to realize that the reflexion is not another threatening individual, but it's uncertain if they recognize the reflexions as themselves. According to the author, these instances are ambiguous.
But for the other species, those that *can* recognize their own reflexion, it's obvious that none of them can at e.g., 3 months of age. But eventually there comes a time when they *can* and it is the difference between the ages of each species and/or human group that we're using as an indication of relative intelligence that can be affected by how many times they've encountered a mirror, and at what age, *before* they recognize their reflexions.
I'm not saying that test does not work. I'm saying that unless we find a way to account for how familiar the subject is with a mirror, the finding can be much less accurate than otherwise.
I hope Emil will address this.
While not addressing it he certainly raised this issue. I'm presuming the studies aren't out there so he wrote this post as a way to both appeal to his readers and point [others?] toward finding the relevant data.
Yep.
I don't see the issue of exposure to be pivotal. What is needed to make the implications really compelling is to consider the matter of "exposure": when, and how often, the child was first exposed to eye-level (their eyes) to mirrors.
Imagine a situation that is not ever likely: 500 identical twins separated at birth, with half being allowed no exposure to mirrors, at all, and the other half having an environment from birth where there were at least two mirrors per room, at eye-level.
We make no measurements or tests until 16 months, then we try the "mark test" on both groups, introducing the second group to mirrors for the first time.
Then we record when each of the 500 kids respond to the test by touching the mark on them.
Would there be a difference? I don't know. But let's extend this fantasy further.
A man puts a gun to your head and says: "from which group will the first child pass the mark test?"
Me, I'd have to bet that it would be from the group that was exposed to mirrors from birth.
But we don't know, and it would be good to know how/if there is any noteworthy advantage from early exposure.
More than mirrors, I think the 'posing for a photograph' tells one more about the emerging personality of a toddler. My wife has a small nursery that takes-in infants from about 7 months old through to their leaving at about 5 years old. She takes photos to document individual development for their parents.
Those kids mostly start oblivious. Some remain pretty oblivious even as 5 yr olds (ie they don't care about how they are presenting). Most pretty soon learn to grimace at the camera (ie pose) while one 18 month old was clearly modifying her behaviour to create a photo/video that would be appealing to her parents (ie 'Shirley Temple' level social competence).
Since semi-retiring sometimes I think I've learnt more about human nature from observing these kids than decades of professional interactions.
Hah! Agreed!
Once, while watching a Jane Goodall documentary on chimp, one of many I'd seen, it came to me that everything I needed to know about basic human nature was best learned from these documentaries.
I taught elementary school for a while in the mid 70s/early 80s in the CA state public system. This, too, was pretty informative, probably a lot like what you've noticed.
My daughter grew up in a mirror-rich environment and I distinctly remember her trying to play with her own reflection as if it was another child around 12 months.
Now's a good time for a comic anecdote...
We sent our daughter to the best college prep k-12 we could find in our area; this was--lesseee--back in 2002. It was very selective and of course the parents who wanted to send their kids there cared, had a lot of disposable income, and were *extremely* anxious, feeling that this might be a make/break situation, silly as this sounds in retrospect. I was already pretty old (55) and much less anxious just due to more life experience, I suppose.
But it definitely was a place where Tiger Moms sent their kids.
Now, the Head of Lower school was a very intelligent lady, good-natured, who had sense of humor, and had vast experience. There was a group meeting of the parents of the kids who were accepted for kindergarten. She was speaking to everyone, reassuring them that in spite of the school's reputation for academic rigor and very high expectations, they were still kids, for god;s sake, and the school expected that they'd have their ups and downs.
At one point, toward the end, sorta loosen up the crowd I suppose, she said:
"We've dealt with bright young children possibly more than any other school in the area, and I can assure you that they still behave as all children will. We think it's important for the school to give them leeway, to allow them to grow and develop, and they each grow at a different rate.
"So, don't worry if you're child is in kindergarten, working on an art project, and they decide, as children will, to eat some of the paste. We view that a perfectly normal possibility, to be expected, and we should all laugh about it.
"But if it happens a *second* time..."
And she smiled and laughed, but there was *still* a message in there.
Right then I knew that I would probably like the school. ;^)
A well penned humble brag, my man.
Wasn't it, just?
What strikes me is how few the surveys have been, how small the sample are, and how infrequent.
Administering the mirror test to 500 representative children in 50 countries would be an absolute drop in the bucket for something like the Gates Foundation.
I suspect funding is not easy to source though.
It's absolutely hilarious to do it with your toddlers😂 then again, toddlers are just hilarious🎉
So basically this is yet another stream of accumulating nomological network of evidence for HBD. It's ideology more than ignorance that is stopping people from accepting it. I love this definition of woke by Nathan Cofnas...
Comparing species on certain ages introduces the problem that they develop at different rates.
For example, blacks walk at a higher rate than whites when measured at age 12 months.
Within the same species, it might still be a negative correlation between age they start to walk and intelligence.
"Wokism is what follows from taking the equality thesis seriously, given a background of Christian morality."
> Two containers have the same amount of water, and in the view of the child, the water from one container is poured into another taller, shallower container. The child is then asked which container has more water. Obviously, they have the same, but children often think the taller container has more water, being fooled by appearances. Volume of containers can be deceptive. This is the conservation of volume test, but there are other similar tests.
In one of Steven Pinker's books, a very similar result is described.
You show a child two lines of M&Ms with even spacing between them (both lines share the same spacing). One of the lines is shorter. In view of the child, you rearrange the short line to have much wider spacing, making it longer than the originally-long line. You ask the child which line contains more M&Ms.
Children "often think the (newly) longer line contains more M&Ms". But, if you alter the protocol, and instead of asking about the lines, you offer the children the chance to pick up one of the lines and eat it, this stops being the case. They take the line with more M&Ms. The inference Pinker draws is that the initial result is driven by a desire to cooperate with the experimenter, giving them the answer they obviously want to hear.
This makes me suspicious of the narrow-container experiment.
wild baboons don't pass the mirror test but some species of fish do so not sure this test is sufficiently free of confounders. Also some evidence of ants (and possibly bees) passing.
Isn't this essay just making the point that the mirror test and other IQ like tests for measuring G are culturally constrained?
"How constrained?" is the pertinent question.
Perhaps this can be assessed using moderately inter-ethnic adoptions within a given community. Of, say, ethnic Arab infants by white French people within a relatively poor and ethnically mixed French urban community.
Considering that undernourishment in very poor countries could affect severely cognition in infants and specific infections that could alter nervous system development in some countries with widespread epidemics as well, I wonder how they can be taken into account in these types of studies
I should think the main thing about the mirror test and the reason some animals can do it is if the animal or human realizes that the image is appearing on a flat plane made of some physical stuff - that knocks out the possibility of the image's being a real creature, so it becomes a mere curiosity ("ooh it moves when I move, it could/must be me, like I see myself in water").
Interesting psychometric tests. I had never heard of the mirror test.
My now-adolescent daughter was developmentally very quick and is 98th percentile for academic achievement.
However at eleven months I remember her being utterly confounded by mirrors and trying to touch the child on the other side.