from the limited work I have done with our sociopathic cousins the difference between us and the apes is what de Waal calls empathy, Hodobler and Wilson call eusociality and Chomskey calls LAD. I think we have a qualitative difference in how our brains work a organ of humanness most likely caused by a frame-shift mutation.
de Waal's latest book claims that empathy came from the primate world? Chimpanzees can behave with empathy. So can bonobos and other great apes. I've read Hodobler and Wilson's work on eusociality. I think it is true that we are eusocial and the other great apes aren't. I suppose I didn't list it because eusociality is a function of having complex language and the desire to teach and by taught etc. But point taken. I've never heard of Chomskey's LAD.
It is a complex eusociality and teach/taught are part of the same thing.(in my mind) on empathy I think the word requires a split cognitive empathy (the ability to figure out what the other guy is thinking/feeling) and emotional empathy (giving a shit about what the other guy things and feels). if one lacks cognitive empathy he is a aspie. lacking emotional empathy is sociopathy. The chimps I met have a bit of the first one and none of the second.
The desire for humans to ask questions is remarkable. And it is even more remarkable to know that after decades of linguistic training, no chimpanzee has ever asked a question. No other animal on the planet has ever asked a question. Only humans do this. Who asked the first question?
My favourite quote, of course.
very stimulating. Are there non-ape animals (dolphins? elephants? crows?) which have better human like characteristics than chimps?
Good question. As a teacher of middle school children, (people I see as primitive adults) a question about them nags at me now. Do we spend a pathetic amount of time on the questions that students should be asking? Educational policy around me focuses so much on the answers that my students provide to me. So much, that if I cannot get them to provide the correct answers to particular tests, I may face penalties. Why the focus on their answers? Does it not seem like we should instead focus on my student's questions? If questioning is reflective of higher order thinking, I'd expect that educational assessment should also focus some on the questions that students are able to form about the topics in which they've studied.
I read your comments with anguish. You are absolutely right. The tests need to be changed. The tests should have questions like: Write three questions you would ask the two Georges about the revolution: George Washington and King George III. Marks would be given on the ability to ask questions -- if marks have to be given at all. Real teaching is subversive. The students will learn more from the model of a human being you present than from the content of their courses. That's the real challenge. Whoops, just spent the last hour looking back on Ivan Illich's work and thought, particularly Deschooling Society (1970).
Sure, that too. What I meant is that students tend to come into the classroom or whatever the setting is with a preconceived notion of what the subject is, what the course is about and how the person leading it should do it. These are limiting. Limits can be useful in guiding learning, but it's so easy to cross the line of limits to guide and limited opportunity. So, for me step 1 is always disorientation. Both the body and the mind get stronger when challenged. Physically, this is accomplished when the body is forced to deal with stress in different ranges of motion and activity. Similarly, the mind improves when it is forced to grapple with problems or finding the way to solutions. Of course, this dynamic must also be balanced with "rest" times for the "muscles" to relax, regroup, reflect, refocus, etc. Humans that are comfortable are not improving, are not learning. This goes for teachers as well, as I'm sure you know. Teachers are there to learn just as much as students, but for very different purposes.
Give me one specific example of how you might disorient a class. I actually do this every class, every time. I say, "I can't function in straight lines. Perhaps quoting the artist Hundertvasser, "The straight line leads to the downfall of humanity" or "The straight line is ungodly" or "there are no straight lines in nature" (although I'm not sure about the horizon) and then we move desks into some other more circular format.
- Hundertvasser
Well, it depends on how I've read the room. Note that my line of teaching was EFL, so a little different from regular school or even university. If it's a class of people who are already engaged with each other and talking I'll probably refocus their attention by simply beginning my lesson without speaking or instructing them. I generally accomplish this by beginning to do something on the board. Sometimes I won't speak at all, instead eliciting responses from students to get them to work together to figure out what I want them to do. If it's a quiet class, I might hand out a script that students are supposed to read to a partner standing across the room from them. They aren't allowed to move closer together or to spell the words, or mime anything, but they can describe what they mean. Then as they become comfortable, I'd turn on the radio and increase the volume until they're forced to shout as loud as they can. Of course, afterward, I would give some kind of explanation of the methods used. In language learning, people expect to hear words, or to write them. The biggest obstacle in language acquisition is not memorizing words or structures, but really the learner's own hangups and fears of being perceived as foolish. The next biggest obstacle is getting students to understand that communication is the core of language learning and that communication is more than simple words or grammar. When things go "as expected" it's easy to begin fudging details and in a learning situation, particularly language learning, that's not desirable.
Couldn't agree more. The key to a great mind and a great scientist is to never stop asking questions.
In terms of traits I discussed in this article, New Caledonian Crows are contenders for most complex non-human technology. Chimpanzees (and the other great apes) certainly make more varied tools, but New Caledonian Crows have tool technologies that show patterns of complexity and distribution that are more similar to the way human technology evolves. New Caledonian Crows have a tool that shows evidence of increased complexity over multiple generations. Still not conclusive though. In terms of language, we don't really understand dolphin language fully yet. So I don't want rule out the possibility that they can transfer information in a more efficient way than chimpanzees. Elephants aren't really contenders in any of these categories, although they do excel as tool makers. They are one of the few non-apes that make tools for non-food related reasons.