Animal intelligence: the theories of Thorndike and Köhler.

A review of the study of animal intelligence by Wolfgang Köhler and Edward Thorndike.

Intelligence is one of the great concepts studied by psychology and, moreover, one of the most difficult to explain. Intellect being a defining capacity of the human being, it is difficult to trace its evolutionary roots, it is difficult to trace its evolutionary roots and, therefore, to understand how its Biological bases originated in our species. However, it is not true that the intellectual capacity at our disposal came out of nowhere, and this is also evident in studies of other species with which we have common ancestors: the so-called research on animal intelligence.

The ability to mentally create simple scenes in which problems can be solved virtually, also called insight ability, is also characteristic of some recently evolved animals. The foundations of intelligent behavior can therefore be found in other species contemporary to our own. With regard to the study of animal intelligence, two of the leading psychologists are Wolfgang Köhlerassociated with the psychology of Gestalt, y Edward Thorndike, behavioral psychologist.

Animal intelligence, a multifaceted concept

First of all, we must clarify the object of study of both Kölher and Thorndike. The first of them wishes to verify to what extent there are intelligent behaviors in animals, especially in anthropoids, but he specifies that their level of intelligence is behind that of human beings in terms of insight capacity. The second of them, Thorndike, emphasizes his object of study as a process described in terms of laws of association. Thus, while Köhler looks at the qualitative jumps that occur in the animal's behavior when solving a problem (explained by the fact of the fact of arriving "out of the blue" at the solution of a problem thanks to the power of insight), Thorndike explains problem-solving in animals as a cumulative process of repetitions.

Referring to Thorndike, we emphasize his special interest in the knowledge of sensory faculties, phenotypes, reactions and representational links established by experience when studying animal intelligence. According to his criteria, the word "association" can encompass a multitude of different processes that manifest themselves in multiple contexts. Thus, For Thorndike, association not only does not mark the limits of rational behavior, but it is the substratum of rational behavior, being the mechanism by which certain animals adapt to their environment in the best possible way.. For this reason, he dismisses the negative connotations of a word linked to the laboratory environment.

Kölher, however, considers that there is no associationist psychologist who in his unbiased observations does not distinguish and contrast unintelligent behavior on the one hand and unintelligent behavior on the other. This is why when Thorndike, after his investigations with cats and chickens, mentions that "nothing in their behavior seems intelligent" Kölher considers that whoever formulates the results in these terms should be more flexible in his definition of animal intelligence.

The method

For Thorndike's object of study, i.e., to interpret the ways in which animals act, he constructed a method of study based on the mediation of time curves of progress. These curves of progress in the formation of the "correct" associations, calculated from the records of the animal's times in successive trials, are absolute facts. He considers them good representations of progress in association formation because they account for two essential factors: the disappearance of all activity except that which leads to success, and the performance of the latter activity in a precise and voluntary manner.. 

The place

The medium for this type of analysis was the laboratoryThe laboratory was the place for this type of analysis, since it made it possible to isolate variables as much as possible. As for the animals he studied, he used mainly cats, but also chickens and dogs, to determine the ability and the time it took these animals to construct a set of actions sufficiently effective to reach their goals, that is, to reach the food or whatever the researcher showed them through the grids of the box.

Kölher, despite the occasional use of chickens and dogs as experimental subjects to study animal intelligence, focuses his attention on anthropoids. For these, he constructs a complicated geometry of movements for the animals to reach their target, which is positioned in such a way that it is visually identified by the anthropoids. He also considers of utmost importance the fact that the behavior of these animals must be continuously observed, for which he makes a good analysis based on observation. analysis based on observation. Kölher believes that only by provoking insecurity and perplexity in chimpanzees through slight modifications of the problem can one study the constant adaptation to circumstances that is manifested by intelligent action.

Discussion of animal intelligence

Thorndike concluded that the starting point for association is the set of instinctive activities activated at the moment when the animal feels uncomfortable in the cage, either because of confinement or because of a desire for food. Thus, one of the movements present in the animal's varied behavioral repertoire behavioral repertoire of the animal would be selected for success.. The animal then associates certain impulses that have led to success with the feeling of confinement, and these "useful" impulses are strengthened by the association of the "useful" impulses with the feeling of confinement. are strengthened by the association..

Kölher, in addition to his idea of the importance of the geometrical conditions, took into account that chance can bring animals to privileged and unequal positions since it can sometimes happen that a series of coincidences lead the animal directly to the goal, masking the whole process as a display of animal intelligence. This leads him to the conclusion that the more complex the work to be done, the lower the probability of a solution by chance. He also believes that the experiment becomes more difficult when a part of the problem, if possible the most important part, is not visible from the starting point, but only known from experience. This is why he considers important the complexity of the problem and consequently the discrimination between randomly determined and intelligent behaviors.

Criticisms

Kölher had some objections to Thorndike's experiments. The main one was his criticism of Thorndike's idea that in animals no idea emanates from perception from which to work mentally in the resolution of a problem (as it does in humans), but simply establish connections between experiences. (as is the case in humans), but that they simply made connections between experiences. Köler, however, speaks of the insight capacity of many animals, the property of being able to arrive suddenly at the solution of a problem by means of the mental representation of what is happening in the environment.

Thorndike, in turn, denied that in the animal there is an awareness of the available ideas or impulses, and therefore also denied the possibility that animal association is identical with the association of human psychology. From this position, denied the existence of animal intelligence.

Kölher, however, affirms that intelligent behaviors do exist, at least in anthropoids, even though they are inferior to those of human beings. This lower degree of insight of non-human animals is mainly explained by the lack of the ability to create language and the limitation in the repertoire of possible ideas, which remain tied to the concrete and the immediate environment.