-------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | No. 1. | +-------------+---------+---------+ | |Min. Sec.| | -------------------------------+-------------+---------+---------+ Box TT (nail plug) |Oct. 19, 1900| 0.40 | | Box UU (old plug at side) |Oct. 19, 1900| | F 60.00| Box VV (wire loop) |Oct. 20, 1900| |{ F 10.00| | | |{ F 10.00| | | |{ F 10.00| Box WW (bar inside) |Oct. 20, 1900| | F 10.00| | | | | | | | | | | | | Box XX (bar outside) |Oct. 23, 1900| im. | after | | | | [25] | | | | F 10.00| Box YY (push bar) |Oct. 30, 1900| 2.00[26]| | Box Beta (single hook) | | | | | | | | | | | | Box LL (triple; nail plug, |Nov. 4, 1900 |16.00[27]| | hook and bar outside) | | | | Box Alpha (catch at back) |Nov. 5, 1900 | .35 | | Box KK (triple; bolt, side-plug|Nov. 7, 1900 | | F 10.00| and knob) | | | F 10.00| Box Theta (bolt at top) |Nov. 19, 1900| | F 10.00| Box Eta (ring at back) |Dec. 17, 1900| im. | | App. QQ (push chute) | | | | Box Gamma (wind) |Jan. 3, 1901 | .20 | | | | | | Box Delta (push back) |Jan. 4, 1901 | | F 5.00| | | | F 5.00| App. QQ (a) (bar chute) |Jan. 6, 1901 | 8.00 | | Box Zeta (new side plug) |Jan. 7, 1901 | 1.10 | after | | | | F 5.00| App. QQ (b) (2½ revolution | | | | chute) |Jan. 9, 1901 | 3.00 | | App. QQ (c) (nail-plug | | | | chute) |Jan. 11, 1901| | F 5.00| | | | F 5.00| Box Epsilon (push down) |Jan. 12, 1901| | F 5.00| | | | F 10.00| App. QQ (d) (ring chute) |Jan. 16, 1901| | F 5.00| | | | F 5.00| App. QQ (e) (hook chute) | | | | App. QQ (f) (string chute) |Jan. 17, 1901| | F 5.00| App. QQ (ff) (string-wire |Jan. 17, 1901| .20 | | chute) | | | | -------------------------------+-------------+---------+---------+
-------------------------------+---------------------------------+ | No. 2. | +-------------+---------+---------+ | |Min. Sec.| | -------------------------------+-------------+---------+---------+ Box TT (nail plug) |Oct. 21, 1900| 14.10 | | Box UU (old plug at side) | | | | Box VV (wire loop) |Oct. 24, 1900| | F 10.00| |Oct. 25, 1900| | F 10.00| | | | | Box WW (bar inside) |Oct. 21, 1900| 5.00 | after| | | | F 30.00| | | | | | | | | Box XX (bar outside) |Oct. 24, 1900| 3.40 | | | | | | | | | | Box YY (push bar) | | | | Box Beta (single hook) |Oct. 30, 1900| 9.00 | after| | | | F 10.00| | | |and 10.00| Box LL (triple; nail plug, |Oct. 3, 1900 | 2.00 | | hook and bar outside) | | | | Box Alpha (catch at back) |Oct. 5, 1900 | 6.00 | | Box KK (triple; bolt, side-plug|Oct. 7, 1900 | | F 60.00| and knob) | | | | Box Theta (bolt at top) | | | | Box Eta (ring at back) | | | | App. QQ (push chute) | | | | Box Gamma (wind) | | | | | | | | Box Delta (push back) | | | | | | | | App. QQ (a) (bar chute) | | | | Box Zeta (new side plug) | | | | | | | | App. QQ (b) (2½ revolution | | | | chute) | | | | App. QQ (c) (nail-plug | | | | chute) | | | | | | | | Box Epsilon (push down) | | | | | | | | App. QQ (d) (ring chute) | | | | | | | | App. QQ (e) (hook chute) | | | | App. QQ (f) (string chute) | | | | App. QQ (ff) (string-wire | | | | chute) | | | | -------------------------------+-------------+---------+---------+
-------------------------------+---------------------------------- | No. 3. +-------------+---------+---------- | |Min. Sec.| -------------------------------+-------------+---------+---------- Box TT (nail plug) |Oct. 21, 1900| 36.00 | Box UU (old plug at side) | | | Box VV (wire loop) |Oct. 22, 1900| |{ F 10.00 | | |{ F 10.00 | | |{ F 10.00 Box WW (bar inside) |Oct. 22, 1900| |{ F 10.00 |Oct. 24, 1900| |{ F 5.00 | | |{ F 10.00 | | |{ F 15.00 Box XX (bar outside) |Oct. 23, 1900| .30 | | | | | | | Box YY (push bar) | | | Box Beta (single hook) |Oct. 24, 1900| im. | | | | | | | Box LL (triple; nail plug, |Nov. 3, 1900 | 1.45 | hook and bar outside) | | | Box Alpha (catch at back) |Nov. 5, 1900 | | Box KK (triple; bolt, side-plug|Nov. 7, 1900 | | F 10.00 and knob) | | | Box Theta (bolt at top) |Jan. 8, 1901 | | F 10.00 Box Eta (ring at back) |Dec. 17, 1900| 4.20 | App. QQ (push chute) |Dec. 17, 1900| | F 60.00 Box Gamma (wind) |Jan. 4, 1901 | | F 10.00 | | | F 10.00 Box Delta (push back) |Jan. 4, 1901 | 2.10 |after[28] | | | F 10.00 App. QQ (a) (bar chute) |Jan. 7, 1901 | | F 10.00 Box Zeta (new side plug) |Jan. 8, 1901 | .50 | | | | App. QQ (b) (2½ revolution | | | chute) |Jan. 8, 1901 | | F 10.00 App. QQ (c) (nail-plug | | | chute) |Jan. 11, 1901| | F 5.00 | | | F 5.00 Box Epsilon (push down) |Jan. 12, 1901| | F 10.00 | | | App. QQ (d) (ring chute) |Jan. 16, 1901| im. | | | | App. QQ (e) (hook chute) |Jan. 16, 1901| | F 5.00 App. QQ (f) (string chute) | | | App. QQ (ff) (string-wire |Jan. 19, 1901| | F 5.00 chute) | | | F 5.00 -------------------------------+-------------+---------+----------
The methods one has to take to get them to do anything, their general conduct in becoming tame and in the experiments throughout, confirm these conclusions. The following particular phenomena are samples of the many which are inconsistent with the presence of reasoning as a general function. No. 1 had learned to open a door by pushing a bar around from a horizontal to a vertical position. The same box was then fitted with two bars. He turned the first bar round thirteen times before attempting to push the other bar around. In box LL all three monkeys would in the early trials do one or two of the acts over and over after they had once done them. No. 1, who had learned to pull a loop of wire off from a nail, failed thereafter to pull off a similar loop made of string. No. 1 and No. 3 had learned to poke their left hands through the cage for me to take and operate a chute with. It was extremely difficult to get either of them to put his right hand through or even to let me take it and pull it through.
A negative answer to the question “Do the monkeys reason?” thus seems inevitable, but I do not attach to the question an importance commensurate with the part it has played historically in animal psychology. For I think it can be shown, and I hope in a later monograph to show, that reasoning is probably but one secondary result of the general function of having free ideas in great numbers, one product of a type of brain which works in great detail, not in gross associations. The denial of reasoning need not mean, and does not to my mind, any denial of continuity between animal and human mentality or any denial that the monkeys are mentally nearer relatives to man than are the other mammals.
So much for supererogatory explanation. Let us now turn to a more definite and fruitful treatment of these records.
The difference between these records and those of the chicks, cats and dogs given on pages 39-65 _passim_ is undeniable. Whereas the latter were practically unanimous, save in the cases of the very easiest performances, in showing a process of gradual learning by a gradual elimination of unsuccessful movements, and a gradual reënforcement of the successful one, these are unanimous, save in the very hardest, in showing a process of sudden acquisition by a rapid, often apparently instantaneous, abandonment of the unsuccessful movements and a selection of the appropriate one which rivals in suddenness the selections made by human beings in similar performances. It is natural to infer that the monkeys who suddenly replace much general pulling and clawing by a single definite pull at a hook or bar have an idea of the hook or bar and of the movement they make. The rate of their progress is so different from that of the cats and dogs that we cannot help imagining as the cause of it a totally different mental function, namely, free ideas instead of vague sense-impressions and impulses. But our interpretation of these results should not be too hasty. We must first consider several other possible explanations of the rapidity of learning by the monkeys before jumping to the conclusion that the forces which bring about the sudden formation of associations in human beings are present.
First of all it might be that the difference was due to the superiority of the monkeys in clear detailed vision. It might be that in given situations where associations were to be formed on the basis of smells, the cats and dogs would show similar rapid learning. There might be, that is, no general difference in type of mental functioning, but only a special difference in the field in which the function worked. This question can be answered by an investigation of the process of forming associations in connection with smells by dogs and cats. Such an investigation will, I hope, soon be carried on in the Columbia Laboratory by Mr. Davis.[29]
Secondly, it might be that the superior mobility and more detailed and definite movements of the monkeys’ hands might have caused the difference. The slowness in the case of the dogs and cats might be at least in part the result of difficulty in executing movements, not in intending them. This difficulty in execution is a matter that cannot be readily estimated, but the movements made by the cats and dogs would not on their face value seem to be hard. They were mostly common to the animals’ ordinary life. At the same time there were certain movements (_e.g._ depressing the lever) which were much more quickly associated with their respective situations by the cats than others were, and if we could suppose that all the movements learned by the monkeys were comparable to these few, it would detract from the necessity of seeking some general mental difference as the explanation of the difference in the results.
In the third place it may be said by some that no comparison of the monkeys with dogs and cats is valid, since the former animals got out of boxes while the latter got in. It may be supposed that the instinctive response to confinement includes an agitation which precludes anything save vague unregulated behavior. Professor Wesley Mills has made such a suggestion in referring to the ‘Animal Intelligence’ in the _Psychological Review_, May, 1899. In the July number of the same journal I tried to show that there was no solid evidence of such a harmful agitation. Nor can we be at all sure that agitation when present does not rather quicken the wits of animals. It often seems to. However I should, of course, allow that for purposes of comparison it would be better to have the circumstances identical. And I should welcome any antagonist who should, by making experiments with kittens after the fashion of these with the monkeys, show that they did learn as suddenly as the latter.
Again we know that, whereas the times taken by a cat in a box to get out are inversely proportional to the strength of the association, inasmuch as they represent fairly the amount of its efforts, on the other hand, the times taken by a monkey to get in represent the amounts of his efforts _plus the amount of time in which he is not trying to get in_. It may be said therefore that the time records of the monkeys prove nothing,—that a record of four minutes may mean thirty seconds of effort and three minutes thirty seconds of sleep,—that one minute may really represent twice as much effort. As a matter of fact this objection would occasionally hold against some single record. The earliest times and the occasional long times amongst very short ones are likely to be too long. The first fact makes the curves have too great a drop at the start, making them seem cases of too sudden learning, but the second fact makes the learning seem indefinite when it really is not. And in the long run the times taken do represent fairly well the amount of effort. I carefully recorded the amount of actual effort in a number of cases and the story it tells concerning the mental processes involved is the same as that told by the time-curves.
Still another explanation is this: The monkeys learn quickly, it is true, but not quickly enough for us to suppose the presence of ideas, or the formation of associations among them. For if there were such ideas, they should in the complex acts do even better than they did. The explanation then is a high degree of facility in the formation of associations of just the same kind as we found in the chicks, dogs and cats.
Such an explanation we could hardly disapprove in any case. No one can from objective evidence set up a standard of speed of learning below which all shall be learning without ideas and above which all shall be learning by ideas. We should not expect any hard and fast demarcation.
This whole matter of the rate of learning should be studied in the light of other facts of behavior. My own judgment, if I had nothing but these time-curves to rely on, would be that there was in them an appearance of learning by ideas which, while possibly explicable by the finer vision and freer movements of the monkey in connection with ordinary mammalian mentality, made it worth while to look farther into their behavior. This we may now do.
What leads the lay mind to attribute superior mental gifts to an animal is not so much the rate of learning as the amount learned. The monkeys obviously form more associations and associations in a greater variety than do the other mammals. The improved rate assists, but another cause of this greater number of associations is the general physical activity of the monkeys, their constant movements of the hands, their instinctive curiosity or tendency to fool with all sorts of objects, to enjoy having sense-impressions, to form associations because of the resulting sound or sight. These mental characteristics are of a high degree of importance from the comparative point of view, but they cannot be used to prove that the monkeys have free ideas, for a large number of associations may be acquired after the purely animal fashion.
What is of more importance is the actual behavior of the animals in connection with the boxes. First of all, as has been stated, all the monkey’s movements are more definite, he seems not merely to pull, but to pull at, not merely to poke, but to push at. He seems, even in his general random play, to go here and there, pick up this, examine the other, etc., more from having the idea strike him than from feeling like doing it. He seems more like a man at the breakfast table than like a man in a fight. Still this appearance may be quite specious, and I think it is likely to lead us to read ideational life into his behavior if we are not cautious. It may be simply general activity of the same sort as the narrower activities of the cat or dog.
In the second place the monkeys often make special movements with a directness which reminds one unavoidably of human actions guided by ideas. For instance, No. 1 escaped from his cage one day and went directly across the room to a table where lay a half of a banana which was in a very inconspicuous place. It seemed as if he had observed the banana and acted with the idea of its position fully in mind. Again, on failing to pull a hook out, No. 1 immediately applied his teeth, though he had before always pulled it out with his hand. So again with a plug. It may be that there is a special inborn tendency to bite at objects pulled unsuccessfully. If not, the act would seem to show the presence of the idea ‘get thing out’ or ‘thing come out’ and associated with it the impulse to use the teeth. We shall see later, however, that in certain other circumstances where we should expect ideas to be present and result in acts they do not.
The fact is that those features in the behavior of the monkeys in forming associations between the sight of a box and the act needed to open it which remind us of learning by ideas may also be possibly explained by general activity and curiosity, the free use of the hand, and superior quickness in forming associations of the animal sort. We must have recourse to more crucial tests or at least seek evidence from a number of different kinds of mental performances. The first of these will naturally be their behavior toward these same mechanisms after a long time-interval.
