It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: idmonster
a reply to: beezzer
I agree, but just to play devils advocate....
What if every drink you ordered came with an olive and the bartenders reply was,
"just take them out if you don't like 'em*
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
originally posted by: luciddream
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
Im assuming they are monkeys and their knowledge of how certain human contraption works is still mysterious to them. or.. you know.. their previous generation didn't bother to teach them why and told them this is how they always done it.
If they are any smarter, zoo would be not enough to hold them lol.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.
if they make the association with banana = cold shower, so don't climb ladder, beat up one who does, why couldn't they make the association that if climbing = something achieved, then use the ladder in a different way or just knock the ladder over.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.
Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.
originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: WarminIndy
*Ladder is permanently attached to the ground*, maybe now you can see the point behind it?
Im pretty sure, when they left the queen, they left the religion as well.
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.
Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.
I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.
But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.
Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.
I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.
But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.
So they had an agenda that would only work if the monkeys cooperated, to prove the agenda?
So it was not a true scientific experiment, but one made strictly to enforce an agenda. That's what I am seeing in this answer.
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.
Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.
I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.
But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.
So they had an agenda that would only work if the monkeys cooperated, to prove the agenda?
So it was not a true scientific experiment, but one made strictly to enforce an agenda. That's what I am seeing in this answer.
You are purposely skewing what was said. An experiment can have a point as well as an assumed answer (it's called a hypothesis). The experiment works by creating a situation where the assumed answer becomes correct. That doesn't mean that the scientists FORCED the answer to be correct, just that they did an experiment, said they thought that such and such was what would happen, then watched what did happen.
By the way, nailing a ladder to the ground makes sense since if this same experiment occurred naturally in nature, the monkeys wouldn't be able to move the thing the bananas were perched on anyways since the thing would probably be a tree. So a movable ladder is irrelevant to the experiment. You are just being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial.
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: Krazysh0t
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
originally posted by: AfterInfinity
originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: luciddream
Why weren't they smart enough to push the ladder over to the shower spigot and cover it or turn it around?
Given enough time and incentive, I think they would have. But the purpose of the experiment did not include teaching the monkeys how to cheat the experiment.
Is that really cheating? No one said they couldn't use the ladder in different ways. I think the results of the experiment would be published differently if they did.
I think you'll find the scientists didn't actually give the monkeys any instructions, per se. It was more of a Pavlov experiment than a guided study, so no, they didn't say anything like that. They just stuck them in the room and relied on years worth of comprehension involving monkey psychology and behavior.
But there was a definite point to the experiment, so yes, moving the ladder would probably have screwed with the results and NOT given them the answer they were looking for, other than that the monkeys were decidedly uncooperative.
So they had an agenda that would only work if the monkeys cooperated, to prove the agenda?
So it was not a true scientific experiment, but one made strictly to enforce an agenda. That's what I am seeing in this answer.
You are purposely skewing what was said. An experiment can have a point as well as an assumed answer (it's called a hypothesis). The experiment works by creating a situation where the assumed answer becomes correct. That doesn't mean that the scientists FORCED the answer to be correct, just that they did an experiment, said they thought that such and such was what would happen, then watched what did happen.
By the way, nailing a ladder to the ground makes sense since if this same experiment occurred naturally in nature, the monkeys wouldn't be able to move the thing the bananas were perched on anyways since the thing would probably be a tree. So a movable ladder is irrelevant to the experiment. You are just being adversarial for the sake of being adversarial.
Adversarial to your opinion? Because I disagree? Am I your enemy, that you call me an adversary?
I disagree with you and your assumptions, does that make me an enemy? If you have taken the position of know-it-all authority on a given subject and then get in a huff when people disagree with you, what makes you the know-it-all authority in the first place?
I am being adversarial to the scientific experiment, not you. I asked questions about the experiment, I commented about the results of the experiment, but hey, since you are the know-it-all authority on monkey experiments, then perhaps you could share with us the monkey experiments that you have performed.
OK, so monkeys can't move trees, got it. So what would happen if the monkey got to the top, peeled the banana and then redistributed the wealth? How would that have changed the results?
I think every behavior should be noted, not just the ones that fulfill the agenda. After all, isn't noting all behaviors part of science experiments?