> suggests (…) animals, may be capable of some of the kind of sophisticated brain function thought to be exclusively human.
Isn’t everyone tired of this conclusion by now? Who even gets surprised anymore? We should’ve flipped our thinking on human exceptionalism long ago. We’re animals and have more in common with other species than we have uniqueness.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond “Psychologists believe that the relationship between human and canine is a bidirectional attachment bond, which resembles that of the typical human caretaker/infant relationship, and shows all of the usual hallmarks of a typical bond.“
I think the problem is with science reporting--they want to report things as a novel conclusion with far-reaching implications because it makes for a good story.
But yeah, no serious biologist thought dancing was exclusively human before this study. We've known for over half a century that bees communicate by dancing.
> We should’ve flipped our thinking on human exceptionalism long ago.
Disagree. Humans are hard-wired for anthropomorphism. We recognize two dots and an arc as a human face. Taking the hard-wired position and labeling eveything as "human-like" by default is lazy and wrong.
My point is precisely that humans aren’t exceptional and that we should have already left that thinking behind us. How does your point disagree with that? I’m not even remotely suggestion we label anything as “human-like”, I’m advocating for the polar opposite.
It's a common pattern. Scientists study a thing which is commonly known but perhaps not scientifically studied before. Then when they or their university PR department go to promote their work it turns into "Scientists SHOCKED to discover..."
Then people in the comments complain that everybody already knew this, then other people come in to complain about the complaints, explaining that scientific evidence for things which are common knowledge is still valuable and we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes, blah blah blah. It's all so tiresome.
> then other people come in to complain about the complaints (…) It's all so tiresome.
The irony being that so far you’re the only person doing something even remotely similar to that in this submission. Why would your objection to the objection be more valid than the objection? Why be the one to start it when you’re ostensibly annoyed by it?
> we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention
I quoted a section of the article, not the headline. You’re no longer competing for attention once someone clicked on it. On the contrary, every sentence you write which annoys readers is a new opportunity for them to leave.
> and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes
Irrelevant. I didn’t complain of the scientific work itself, I commented on the boring, repetitive remark. That’s on the writer.
> blah blah blah.
Indeed. This whole interaction was unnecessary. My comment wasn’t on this particular study but on the general default belief that humans are cognitively unique, despite umpteen proofs to the contrary.
> We’re animals and have more in common with other species than we have uniqueness.
Our bodies are definitely mammalian, and therefore most of our instinctive behaviors, but it's the differences that make us unique.
We have the capacity for abstract conception with its reasoning and communication and advanced tool building. More than that, however, we have a moral compass and mind to learn and understand the difference between compassion and selfishness, good and evil -- and then we have the free will to choose between those potentials.
Animals only have instinctive self-protection. Only we have the responsibility to be caretakers of each other and the Earth, herself, and all its wonderful creatures.
I love you Toto. I hate that my dad bought you and created demand for the breeding of your kind for simple human gratification. May you rest in heaven and I'll see you at some point in the future.
It is amazing and confusing to me, too, everytime again I read something like that, e.g. also for "animals have feelings, empathy" etc... seriously, really?
Ask anybody who has a pet or observed animals in freedom for a longer time! How can you assume the opposite to begin with, please?
And it is also so directly obvious for most, in the end they are us... we just have developed recordable speech and have the best "hands" it seems... we are not too far off from "them".
Definitely for anyone living in an environment that contains animals. Vastly more so for anyone connected to the Interwebs. Soooo many videos of animals responding to music by dancing. Trying to portray this as "science" is more than just irritating, it is fodder for the anti-science population to advance their garbage positions.
If you are a professor somewhere and this is all you can come up with to publish, might I suggest you need to find a different line of work. Everyone has the right to _try_ becoming whatever they want but there is no right to success at it.
Things are slow at Harvard these days, when they have to boast about things known for decades.
Given the number of people with budgies (parakeets to those who speak broken English) I'm amazed no-one has taken advantage of this to get published before.
I rollerskated to this song when it was the #1 song for many weeks in the late 70s. What a banger!
How do you think I'm gonna get along
Without you, when you're gone?
You took me for everything that I had
And kicked me out on my own
Are you happy, are you satisfied?
How long can you stand the heat?
--Queen "Another One Bites the Dust"
An Indian man whose people endured the depradations of England's imperialists? He's got a solution for fascists, my friends.
Out of the doorway, the bullets rip
To the sound of the beat
Look out
Then, a few years later, I really liked this jam, though I don't care for the song anymore, the lyrics fit my mindset, though not all dancing requires a beat other than the compassionate resonance of the heart of humanity:
We can dance if we want to
We can leave your friends behind
'Cause your friends don't dance
And if they don't dance
Well they're no friends of mine
--Men Without Hats "Safety Dance"
In 2025, feel your heart, feel the love, listen to "Squabble Up" and feel this movement down in your bones. And celebrate good times! Cone on!
Me and all my friends are dancing for ALL the birds trapped in cages, kept away from the beauty of nature, by ignorant narcissistic human beings who know not what life is really worth.
I was literally thinking about how we dance watching my 1 year old instinctively bounce the rhythm of music and then looked at my dog just lovingly stare into my eyes. I’ve only seen humans dance.
Readit News
Isn’t everyone tired of this conclusion by now? Who even gets surprised anymore? We should’ve flipped our thinking on human exceptionalism long ago. We’re animals and have more in common with other species than we have uniqueness.
- https://www.theguardian.com/science/article/2024/aug/07/cats... “Cats appear to grieve death of fellow pets”
- https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/dogs-word... “Man's best friend can understand both the words we say and the tone in which we say them, new brain scans reveal.“
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human%E2%80%93canine_bond “Psychologists believe that the relationship between human and canine is a bidirectional attachment bond, which resembles that of the typical human caretaker/infant relationship, and shows all of the usual hallmarks of a typical bond.“
But yeah, no serious biologist thought dancing was exclusively human before this study. We've known for over half a century that bees communicate by dancing.
Disagree. Humans are hard-wired for anthropomorphism. We recognize two dots and an arc as a human face. Taking the hard-wired position and labeling eveything as "human-like" by default is lazy and wrong.
Then people in the comments complain that everybody already knew this, then other people come in to complain about the complaints, explaining that scientific evidence for things which are common knowledge is still valuable and we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes, blah blah blah. It's all so tiresome.
The irony being that so far you’re the only person doing something even remotely similar to that in this submission. Why would your objection to the objection be more valid than the objection? Why be the one to start it when you’re ostensibly annoyed by it?
> we shouldn't hold sensational headlines against the researchers because they're just competing for attention
I quoted a section of the article, not the headline. You’re no longer competing for attention once someone clicked on it. On the contrary, every sentence you write which annoys readers is a new opportunity for them to leave.
> and besides they probably weren't even the ones to write the sensational takes
Irrelevant. I didn’t complain of the scientific work itself, I commented on the boring, repetitive remark. That’s on the writer.
> blah blah blah.
Indeed. This whole interaction was unnecessary. My comment wasn’t on this particular study but on the general default belief that humans are cognitively unique, despite umpteen proofs to the contrary.
Our bodies are definitely mammalian, and therefore most of our instinctive behaviors, but it's the differences that make us unique.
We have the capacity for abstract conception with its reasoning and communication and advanced tool building. More than that, however, we have a moral compass and mind to learn and understand the difference between compassion and selfishness, good and evil -- and then we have the free will to choose between those potentials.
Animals only have instinctive self-protection. Only we have the responsibility to be caretakers of each other and the Earth, herself, and all its wonderful creatures.
Love will help us transform this world beyond this selfish, destructive idiocy.
Peace be with you. We love you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbSxc6Y1aVA
So for that, I don't need a 'study' to tell me that dogs are jumping left and right (let's very freely call that 'dancing').
And it is also so directly obvious for most, in the end they are us... we just have developed recordable speech and have the best "hands" it seems... we are not too far off from "them".
On-topic: Look at this parrot getting the drop better than most ravers there https://www.instagram.com/reel/C8YwaMitT4F/?igsh=Ym5nNW00MDh... :D
If you are a professor somewhere and this is all you can come up with to publish, might I suggest you need to find a different line of work. Everyone has the right to _try_ becoming whatever they want but there is no right to success at it.
Given the number of people with budgies (parakeets to those who speak broken English) I'm amazed no-one has taken advantage of this to get published before.
Me and all my friends are dancing for ALL the birds trapped in cages, kept away from the beauty of nature, by ignorant narcissistic human beings who know not what life is really worth.