Is it Fair to trick an Orangutan?

[Skeptic Ginger]

To the point I was making it makes no difference, as you agreed ...

I did not agree. I said I understood what you were trying to say, not that your incorrect statement didn't matter.

 

[tuco]

I did not agree. I said I understood what you were trying to say, not that your incorrect statement didn't matter.

Fair enough. I am happy when understood, technically correct or not. As I said, if I remember.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

OK so back to what we actually observe.

The orangutan is very interested in the cup and the fruit. You can see that by her intense eye contact. What your eyes are tracking is an established measure for determining what an animal is paying attention to.

We know from other research that great apes understand an object still exists when it is out of sight.

When she observes the empty cup, she hesitates a second.

She laughs (again, it is well documented that when a great ape looks like she's laughing, she is - see the links in the LMGTFY link above).

She appears to have found the fact the fruit was in the cup, then wasn't in the cup to be very funny.

Why she thought it was funny is only open to speculation.

Finally, the video is adorable. And now the link says it's a private video.

But you can see it here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2015/dec/09/orangutan-magic-trick-funny-video

 

[tuco]

Yup that is about it. Now .. makes me wonder, what she find funny? If the trick or the magic.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I see no reason to assume that apes cannot react to magic tricks. It's not the only example:



People have even done magic for dogs:

 

[Jules Galen]

Here's a guy doing magic tricks for three different chimps using an Ipad, but the Chimps don't seem to get that anything at all that's happening is so bizzarre.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/feb/15/chimps-amazed-ipad-magic-tricks-video

 

[Nay_Sayer]

Here's a guy doing magic tricks for three different chimps using an Ipad, but the Chimps don't seem to get that anything at all that's happening is so bizzarre.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2016/feb/15/chimps-amazed-ipad-magic-tricks-video

In the previous video it could be a case of the monkey having an understanding of continuity and reacting.

In the ipad one it's far too complex and all the monkey really knows is food is suddenly showing up from a weird box and thus no reaction.


Uneducated guess in all this.

I hear ravens get annoyed when you show them vanishing coin routines

 

[timhau]

My first reaction to the thread title was Shouldn't this be in '2016 USA Presidential Election'?

 

[Navigator]

I haven't read the whole thread but have seen the video...has anyone observed that the Orangutan may have been laughing at the obviously poor quality of sleight of hand in which the human was using in the attempt to trick it?

It seems the reaction fits that conclusion. There appears to be no reaction of wonder and surprise...just hilarity.

 

[Hopeful Parallel]

I don't think, orangutans can understand the way we do, so tricks might mean nothing to them.

 

[marplots]

I don't think, orangutans can understand the way we do, so tricks might mean nothing to them.

Or everything. We may have inadvertently triggered theology in orangutans.

 

[fuelair]

Is it Fair to trick an Orangutan?

Sure, as long as the Orangutan can pay what the lady charges!!!!!

 

[Navigator]

I don't think, orangutans can understand the way we do, so tricks might mean nothing to them.

The trick obviously meant something to this particular orangutan...I just think perhaps humans might be interpreting the response incorrectly. We are observing the same thing, but can come to more than one conclusion about that observation.

Ordinarily a successful trick is responded to with wonder and awe...not the response the orangutan gave in the video.

eta

this here is a far better illusion and absent is any sign of hilarity.

 

[marplots]

this here is a far better illusion and absent is any sign of hilarity.

That's because it's only an illusion from the camera's point of view, not the orangutan's.

 

[Pup]

That's because it's only an illusion from the camera's point of view, not the orangutan's.

I don't get it. I mean, as a human.

The magician holds the card up to the glass and it "travels" through to the other side. Is that the "magic" trick? Okay, I have no way to know how that's done, and it matters. Did the trick appear the same to the orangutan? Did something need done off camera that the orang could see but I couldn't? I have no idea. So I can't judge what the orang's reaction should be because I have no idea what he saw.

In the other magic tricks, I can guess that the orang saw pretty much the same thing I did, so it doesn't matter how it was done. I can guess what an animal/person's typical reaction would be.

 

[marplots]

I don't get it. I mean, as a human.

The magician holds the card up to the glass and it "travels" through to the other side. Is that the "magic" trick? Okay, I have no way to know how that's done, and it matters. Did the trick appear the same to the orangutan? Did something need done off camera that the orang could see but I couldn't? I have no idea. So I can't judge what the orang's reaction should be because I have no idea what he saw.

In the other magic tricks, I can guess that the orang saw pretty much the same thing I did, so it doesn't matter how it was done. I can guess what an animal/person's typical reaction would be.

Definitely not.

 

[Pup]

Definitely not.

Not sure what the rules are anymore. Under these circumstances, can someone describe how a magic trick is done? Otherwise, there's no way to move forward with the discussion about the orangutan's behavior, because there's no way to know what he/she saw.

 

[Navigator]

Not sure what the rules are anymore. Under these circumstances, can someone describe how a magic trick is done? Otherwise, there's no way to move forward with the discussion about the orangutan's behavior, because there's no way to know what he/she saw.

The video would have to be examined to see if can be observed where the camera has been turned off so that someone can go into the compound and stick the card to the inside of the glass...the clues would have to be found in any small indiscretions in the movements of the magician and the orangutan's and these SHOULD be noticeable IF the trick is to be explained in that way.

If not, then it was done some other way.

 

[Navigator]

That's because it's only an illusion from the camera's point of view, not the orangutan's.

So in saying that are you arguing that the first video shows the orangutan laughing because the poorly done illusion was funny or because it fell for the trick?

 

[marplots]

So in saying that are you arguing that the first video shows the orangutan laughing because the poorly done illusion was funny or because it fell for the trick?

I don't know the inner mental workings of orangutans. However, comparing the two tricks on the basis of both being illusions ought to require a view where they appear "magical" - wouldn't it? We aren't surprised when the orangutan doesn't react to the person having hands, or any of a thousand ordinary events.

It's further muddled because - even among humans - tricks don't always generate the same response in all viewers. Some are too complicated to follow easily and, like an over-complex joke, aren't understood well enough to elicit the surprise response. Other times a spectators attention may wander and spoil the moment. You aren't going to be awed by a coin which disappears when you didn't see it in the hand in the first place.

But anyhow, perspective and available knowledge does matter. Magicians have even exploited this with a principle called "dual reality."

 

[Navigator]

I don't know the inner mental workings of orangutans. However, comparing the two tricks on the basis of both being illusions ought to require a view where they appear "magical" - wouldn't it?

All the evidence we have in the first video points to the likelihood that the orangutan was not fooled.

Follow his eyes...check out the slight pause as he looks into the now empty container...just before the ROTFL...it's as if he realized that the human was attempting to trick him.

 

[marplots]

All the evidence we have in the first video points to the likelihood that the orangutan was not fooled.

Follow his eyes...check out the slight pause as he looks into the now empty container...just before the ROTFL...it's as if he realized that the human was attempting to trick him.

It's one of those things where I suspect I'd be fooling myself to draw any conclusion. My "theory of other minds" doesn't extend to orangutans.

Admittedly, I went with the premise despite the anthropomorphizing because it's what makes the first video stand out. I like the idea of the orangutan being entertained/happy/surprised. For a serious explanation, I'd want an ethologist to weigh in.

 

[Garrette]

That's because it's only an illusion from the camera's point of view, not the orangutan's.

Yup.

 

[Navigator]

It's one of those things where I suspect I'd be fooling myself to draw any conclusion. My "theory of other minds" doesn't extend to orangutans.

So you didn't draw any conclusions then? The OP drew a conclusion. Most (if not all) of the posters drew the same conclusion so perhaps they are fooling themselves because they drew a conclusion.

Admittedly, I went with the premise despite the anthropomorphizing because it's what makes the first video stand out. I like the idea of the orangutan being entertained/happy/surprised. For a serious explanation, I'd want an ethologist to weigh in.

I don't think you have to be too concerned with anthropomorphizing the orangutan. The behavior was definitely human-like enough for humans to understand.

I am more wondering though if indeed humans have got it wrong as to the reason this reaction happened. Perhaps the reaction was indeed one where the Orangutan realizes that the human thinks it is stupid?

Probably most everyone likes the idea of the orangutan being entertained/happy/surprised - just for the entertainment value, but do you really think it has to be that way? I would encourage you to study the video and pay particular attention to the orangutans eyes...everything about it actions denote intelligence...don't be too concerned with anthropomorphizing as there is a close connection in that department anyway...

 

[Pup]

There are lots of potential reactions to magic tricks by humans. If we take it down to basics, the magic trick shows something impossible in the "real world." The observer must draw a conclusion:

Is the real world not the way he thought?
Is the magician a powerful person able to change reality?
Is the real world impossible to change, so I must have observed something mistakenly?
Did the magician make me observe mistakenly on purpose?
If so, why did he do that?

If humans in the first world see someone come at them with a deck of cards or doing certain hand motions, they'll understand they're about to see a magic trick. The magician is doing it on purpose. He doesn't have special powers. He's doing it to entertain them, because making someone observe reality wrong is considered entertaining in this context. The observer could laugh in delight, could frown in puzzlement, could be truly happy, could be annoyed at the magician the way some people hate mimes.

It's hard enough to figure out what's typical behavior in humans whose contextual knowledge we can guess, let alone in a gorilla who (presumably) isn't aware of all that context and is seeing his first trick. But maybe it's known that this gorilla loves magic tricks and people show them to him all the time...

Edited to add: I forgot page 1 was about an orangutan, not a gorilla, but I'll just leave the mistake, because it's so generic it hardlymatters,

 

[Navigator]

Or...

...it was the appropriate response to a silly attempt at a silly 'trick'.

 

[Pup]

Or...

...it was the appropriate response to a silly attempt at a silly 'trick'.

That brings up the worthwhile question, can a orangutan get the concept of silly? If someone saw an object that looked like a stick horse and took it, galloped around a bit and replaced it, a human might think it was silly and laugh, but would an orangutan? Or does that require knowing such things as horses, riding, stick horses? Hmm... Maybe something that is part of an orangutan's world. Can't think of a good example, but you see where I'm going. I wonder if there are videos of orangutans "getting jokes" or laughing at silliness the way a little child would?

 

[Navigator]

That brings up the worthwhile question, can a orangutan get the concept of silly? If someone saw an object that looked like a stick horse and took it, galloped around a bit and replaced it, a human might think it was silly and laugh, but would an orangutan? Or does that require knowing such things as horses, riding, stick horses? Hmm... Maybe something that is part of an orangutan's world. Can't think of a good example, but you see where I'm going. I wonder if there are videos of orangutans "getting jokes" or laughing at silliness the way a little child would?

So - humans are a lot different than apes after all?

So, why do you think this orangutan reacted the way it did?

 

[Pup]

So - humans are a lot different than apes after all?

Don't get it. Seems you think this contradicts some earlier claim I made?

So, why do you think this orangutan reacted the way it did?

No idea. I don't know enough about ape behavior to speculate.

There's the quick-and-easy typical human reaction: Look at the ape behaving like a human, laughing at a joke! Aren't they smart? Isn't it amazing how much they understand?

Then there's the more nuanced exploration of ape behavior, probably only answerable by the ape's close human observers: Apes do/don't express humor with facial and body expressions as we do. This ape has/doesn't have a sense of humor. This ape has/hasn't interacted with visitors through the glass, particularly ones with computer screens. etc.

 

[Navigator]

Don't get it. Seems you think this contradicts some earlier claim I made?

Yeah.

No idea. I don't know enough about ape behavior to speculate.

There's the quick-and-easy typical human reaction: Look at the ape behaving like a human, laughing at a joke! Aren't they smart? Isn't it amazing how much they understand?

Then there's the more nuanced exploration of ape behavior, probably only answerable by the ape's close human observers: Apes do/don't express humor with facial and body expressions as we do. This ape has/doesn't have a sense of humor. This ape has/hasn't interacted with visitors through the glass, particularly ones with computer screens. etc.

So does this. But hey!

 

[Pup]

Yeah.

So does this. But hey!

Well, I don't know why it's so important to catch me making contradictory statements. Are they giving out double internet points for that today?

But in my only previous different post, #55, I said, "In the other magic tricks, I can guess that the orang saw pretty much the same thing I did, so it doesn't matter how it was done. I can guess what an animal/person's typical reaction would be."

Do you mean I was claiming the bolded part there, and now I'm claiming I can't? Yes, on further thought, I realized that there were many differences I didn't take into consideration.

Not only things like... is an ape's smile and roll the same as a human's? I know what a dog's play-bow is, but I don't bow to another human to initiate a game of catch.

But also the background knowledge, like does he/she even know what a computer is and what's normal. In one of the videos, a magician pulls a real peanut out of a tablet screen for a chimp. It's only a magic trick if you know that's not where real peanuts come from. Maybe it's just the mouth of a tube from a peanut box that the chimp failed to see.

Or conversely, imagine how puzzled a Catholic from 1000 A.D. would be, after given a backstory about gods and demons and alchemy, and allowed to explore the whole device to see there's no room for peanuts. (And what's a peanut to an Old World resident, anyway, LOL.)

 

[Navigator]

Well, I don't know why it's so important to catch me making contradictory statements. Are they giving out double internet points for that today?

Not important. No points. Just the irony.

 

[Pup]

Not important. No points. Just the irony.

When I see some better ideas, I take them into consideration and may even change my mind to include them. Is that unusual in your world? I thought that's the way most people's thought processes worked. Maybe it's something that only certain members of the great apes do.

 

[Navigator]

When I see some better ideas, I take them into consideration and may even change my mind to include them. Is that unusual in your world? I thought that's the way most people's thought processes worked. Maybe it's something that only certain members of the great apes do.

Are you saying that you now think that human beings are way different than apes and that this understanding does not necessarily imply or otherwise force the idea that this makes us somehow superior? Being way different doesn't argue for that, as my part in our previous discussion was pointing at.

 

[Jules Galen]

Is this fair?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6YKjGS-WxU

After all it's not a very good trick.

So...who cares?

Yeah, it is unfair to "Trick" an Orangutan, but the Orangutan thinks it is humorous...and so do we. So all is good.

No one suffers. Everyone is amused!

 

[Pup]

Are you saying that you now think that human beings are way different than apes and that this understanding does not necessarily imply or otherwise force the idea that this makes us somehow superior? Being way different doesn't argue for that, as my part in our previous discussion was pointing at.

I don't know which previous discussion you're talking about. Is it even necessary for me to know, though?

The paragraph quoted above can only be answered by first having an argument about the definition of superior. I didn't see how anything I said implied that apes or humans are more or less superior.

More intelligence (like humans) isn't superior, unless you're ranking things according to their intelligence. Then it is. Having more lifetime experiences with computers isn't superior (like some humans), unless you're ranking things according to their amount of lifetime computer experiences. Pick any trait, say that that's the metric for superiority (strength per inch of height, for example), and anyone can be superior.

But of course, that means nothing is really superior, because the word is meaningless without a definition.