The problem with this experiment is that when the cuttlefish is offered live prey vs frozen prey - it does not account for the fact (and likelihood) that the cuttlefish will fixate on the live prey and ignore the other option entirely. Which is precisely what K H is trying to get at, and why the experiment needs to include 1 live prey (immediately accessible) vs 2 live prey (accessible after a wait) in order to properly prove the point being made by the team that the cuttlefish is in fact delaying gratification due to its purported awareness that each option is mutually exclusive, rather than simply fixating on its preference and ignoring the frozen shrimp (as it was already proven to do when determining its preferences.) In the form the experiment is presented to us in this video, it is definitely unable to support the conclusions the team is making, primarily that the cuttlefish is delaying gratification. It does however successfully prove that cuttlefish have preferences for food and are potentially able to identify that live prey boxes that are blocked off may require a wait time and so it is pointless striking at it until it opens (going so far as to say the cuttlefish recognises the triangle and circle shape as relevant is also a claim/conclusion that cannot be supported going off the experiment as presented in the video without further supporting evidence.) Aside from the issue with how the science is being presented and the conclusions that are drawn from it cannot be substantiated by the evidence given (but acknowledging that the experiment may indeed have more to it than shown in the video), it's still entertaining.
Read the paper linked in the description. They had a control environment specifically to test weather the cuttlefish would pick the frozen shrimp over the live one if it had visual contact with the latter but couldn't reach it. This video doesn't properly demonstrate what the experiment was like, since there were three options that the cuttlefish had to learned to differentiate: non delayed non preferred bait, delayed preferred bait, delayed but non reachable preferred bait. Each of these options was presented to the cuttlefish with different symbols associated. The cuttlefish learned what each symbol meant and behaved accordingly. Is this single paper definitive proof of cuttlefish self control? No, but it sure is an interesting research with useful insight on the subject, that you and many others are judging from what's just a (arguably not very good) summary video. They sacrificed some precision in their explanation trying to get a more accessible video, but this does not give you the right to judge the work of these researchers without actually reading it/looking at it more in depth.
I'm a diver. years ago, I saw 5 cuttlefish swimming side by side in shallow water off the coast of Florida. When I came close to them, all 5 turned towards me in unison. They did now break ranks or dash away. I swam around them and all five remained breast to breast of each other in a straight line but they did turn towards me and watch me. They looked like a team working together. Not loners as you describe. Why would they swim side by side out in the open close to the surface and why didn't they scatter when I started swimming around them? I have been diving since 1968 and have never seen cuttlefish act like that before. Thanks for listening.
Curious. Is it because they look like a bigger entity when they do this? Could it be easier to swim a distance when they do this? Are they possibly working on their water dance project? I'm sure someone knows the real, true answer. I sat by a pond once and watched several pairs of water fowl enter, one pair at a time. They entered in size order, from the smallest to the largest, and the larger ones all waited. Not one pair went in out of turn. It was really something to see, and took about ten minutes. It ended with a beautiful pair of geese hopping in. So interesting.
Once, while snorkeling a reef with a group, I noticed a large (16(ish) inch body) cuttlefish swimming in the bolder strewn seabed near the reef. I went to look at it (used to freedive). As I approached, it swam behind a bolder. I stopped- it peeked out one side, then another. It darted to another bolder, same thing…each time it peeked out, it was a different color. I thought, if this was a child, I’d think it was playing hide and seek, so I followed it- then after a couple more ‘findings’, hid myself to and was found. We played for about twenty minutes, with the fish constantly changing colors. It was one of the great experiences of my life. 7:33
AND our concept of social animals leaves out the vast differences in sociable traits like how canines will stay together (even mixes of dog breeds in a pack) versus felines which exhibit a drawn line (often individualistic or independent over large amounts of time). Cuttlefish mate and fight over a mate; that’s a social activity.
Wouldn't it be the next step to determine if they wanted 1 live shrimp immediately vs 2 live shrimp later? Like the stanford experiment? Using different types of food introduces a confounding variable.
Totally agree. It seemed likely to me that the cuttlefish was simply more interested in live prey. It seems to have learned to wait when a live prey box doesn't open, but there's nothing here that'd make me think it internalized the idea of delayed gratification.
@@843idfa your extreme sexism aside, the video literally explained the experiment, that you all didn't get. They established that the cuttlefish prefers the live shrimp TO SHOW that it is willing to wait to get what it wants. It wanting the live shrimp more is literally the entire point of the experiment. The difference in food type is a controlled variable, because they know this cuttlefish always picks the fresh food over frozen when offered both at the same time.
@@hiimkyle1894 Nowhere else in the "experiment" did they show it eat dead fish, how do we even know it eats dead fish at all? It's no more about preference. I think they planned and executed the experiment, but then realized it doesn't work, so they resorted to dead fish just to wrap it up 😄👎
@@843idfa they literally did show that re-watch the video and try to be less sexist. Even if she died her hair like a rainbow, it makes her no less qualified as a scientist
My guess is that any "stalking" type of predator must be able to delay gratification, whether they live solo or in groups. Patience is a key attribute for a stalking predator. On the other hand, predators that don't use camouflage, for example open-ocean sharks--may not have evolved this behavior because there's little advantage.
octopie do this also ... so do squid ... they even solve puzzles for food ... but they didnt cover any of that in their studies ... which tells me they are repeating already known data and not getting the complete answer because they have limited their tests to one species of cephlopod ... so here we have a perfect example of science being dumber than pocket lint and NOT actually using ALL of the data available to get a result ... they are just using their limited data to make up a result that doesnt include all the facts ... which in and of itself is akin to lying ... which is what science is best at ... lying
We've all grown up watching nature shows where the predator waits until the perfect moment to strike, even though the possibility still existed to strike several times earlier with a fair chance of success. Delayed gratification and the intelligence behind it is probably a lot more widespread than we think it is, stemming from a multitude of different origins perhaps, though our rules may not adequately describe it when we try to quantify everything into neat little boxes.
This reminds me of my old Rhodesian Ridgeback. When we left for work, I got into the habit of hiding various treats under pillows or out of the way areas to amuse him over the long wait for us to return. When I got home, I'd lead him to the ones he missed and praise him for "finding" them. After only a short time I discovered that he would leave every single treat alone until I got home, then he'd race around the house "finding" and happily eating every one of them that he'd already assuredly sniffed out throughout the day, and he'd be rewarded by my laughter and a little playtime. I think many animals aren't as far removed from what we term as "human sentience" as we believe.
I was thinking of my male Shiba Inu. One day I caught him sitting on the ground, just watching the squirrel racing along the top of the backyard fence. Was he plotting how to hunt the squirrel? The next day, he returned to the house with a dead squirrel in his mouth!
What is easily the most amazing aspect of cuttlefish is the brevity of their lives. Four years is very old age. They are born talented both physically and mentally. Compare their behavior with human children of the same age. Amazing. Respect the cephalopods.
INVALID EVIDENCE THAT CUTTLEFISH ARE SMARTER THAN HUMANS /s I think that just shows that cuttlefish are born with more intelligence from genetics than a newborn baby human. There's a lot of variables going into how developed different mammals are born at and debate on nature vs nurture, but considering the fact that cuttlefish haven't invented nukes nor have high-resolution photos of Pluto, I'm pretty sure human babies have much more intelligence _potential._
I'm wondering why the experimenters chose to put the dead shrimp--which the cuttlefish doesn't prefer--into the circle chamber to demonstrate that they exhibit the capacity for delayed gratification. If it were given the mutually exclusive option for both a non-live shrimp and a live crayfish at the same time, wouldn't it still pick the live crayfish? I.e., how much is the cuttlefish actually delaying gratification by waiting for the live crayfish in the triangle chamber if it doesn't like to eat non-live shrimp in the first place. I don't like eggs, but I do like bacon. I wouldn't be delaying myself much--if any--gratification by waiting a few minutes for a plate of bacon to arrive if I were offered eggs now. I guess one question I have is how averse are cuttlefish to non-live shrimp/how much do they like them, how much do they prefer live crayfish over non-live shrimp, etc. I'm curious to know why the experimenters didn't put, say 1 live crayfish in the circle chamber and 2 in the triangle chamber (especially since it's been found that cuttlefish can count), or 1 small live crayfish in the circle chamber and 1 large one in the triangle chamber. Are these concerns even relevant to determine whether cuttlefish exhibit delayed gratification? I think cuttlefish are clearly very intelligent creatures and want to know if anyone has any responses to these potential objections to strengthen the findings of this experiment. Any insight would be appreciated!! Thanks
Yea i was about to write a similar thing. Also, every living thing on planet earth is delaying simple gratification. Almost every species have a special diet they like to go for, preferably. So, every animal is delaying gratification. Bears are standing near the river, waiting for fish to come flying out of the water, when they could have just go to a random bush with berries instead... etc etc. Some people do research just to prove that they are doing research, "to get paid". Doesn't mean the research is any useful.
Yeah they ruined the experiment by adding a secondary variable in the TYPE of food. Now it's inconclusive as to whether it was knowingly waiting for something better or if it had simply found the crawfish much more appealing than the shrimp.
You make a good point, but it might not be healthy for the Cuttlefish to eat that much food for that time period, which is why they present a choice. I feel like if I was given the Marshmallow test today, I would just eat the Marshmallow because 2 Marshmallows feels like hardly a reward for my time. I'd rather just have the one and leave. So there could be variants and issues to this test. That said, I can see how the logic is similar across the shrimp and the crayfish because the value of nourishment. it's the same, if you are starving you don't mind either, this test becomes harder, but if you don't it seems like something easy to wait for the thing you want more. That is the behavior that they are looking to replicate though, because you are intelligent and have the ability to process that food will come if you just can wait. I think you might be thinking this test is testing for behavior more complicated for yourself than it really is. Meaning that it really doesn't matter if one is less valuable than the other, it's kind of the point, even though 2 Marshmallows sounds not very exciting or more consistent, we clearly know that 2 Marshmallows are more valuable than one! We know we can wait and get more, and can wait if we want. We pass the test even if we technically fail because we can still explain those values through language. It doesn't matter that it is the shrimp vs. the crayfish, the one that comes later is still valued more by the subject. So to bring it back to the original test, you or I might fail that test and give a false positive, but that is only because we don't really value the one or two marshmallows that differently, but say they adapt it for Adults and you can take $1 dollar or wait and get $100,000 when the tester gets back, and you know they will come back, we might wait and actually show positive ability to wait as what is theorized. You also could technically do the same by putting a $1 voucher you can trade in for money after the experiment or a $100k voucher, in both cases it is 1 different thing, but we value them differently. In that way it is similar to the Shrimp and the Crayfish for the Cuttlefish, because how else would you solve the problem, if you were limited by the count of something you can give? It would have to be that way: offer the hungry you some scrambled eggs now, or some nice and crispy Bacon later if you wait.
I bumped into a pair of cuttlefish while diving in the seychelles... It was probably the best 10 minutes I've spent in hundreds of dives... They interacted with me,slightly wary of my flash at first but overcame that quickly. They approached, "lights flashing",able to stop,start,turn move up and down effortlessly, no tell-tales of what was happening next. They hung out with me for as I said,10minutes, then...gone,high speed. I by that time, had become detached from the group, so I slowly returned to the anchor and took some more pictures.Actually I got some great pictures I would not have taken if in the group. Cuttlefish to me are obviously intelligent...on a par with octopus...at least.
@@znail4675 It's such a fine line, how we rate intelligence. We're probably more closely related to chimpanzees than cuttlefish are to octopuses if I had to put money on it, but the perceived chasm between our species even though we're so closely related seems vast.. I guess the basic stuff is shared between us, but it looks like a few small changes in the right sequence seems to open up a whole different dimension of intelligence. It's like we figured out how to tap into what ants or mushrooms do.. Cephalopods (the ones we consider intelligent) are fairly solitary creatures, imagine if their intelligence somehow develops into a network that shares information across time in this other way like we do, it's like this other layer of intelligence that we aren't really individually aware of for the most part, this network of interactions and temporal information transfer that isn't directly achieved with genetic information..
The problem with the original marshmallow test was that it required the young children to have learned to trust adults. Which means that the child's previous experience with adults probably effects their behaviour in the test.
Thats not the only problem with it. The Marshmallow test is not a test of intelligence; It is an Impulse Control test. We happen to have tested impulse control more thoroughly, and we KNOW it is a singular and finite resource tapped for all of a subjects application of self-direction, and that Impulse control resource Wears Down from immediate use; though it replenishes with rest, and emotional gratification. If your impulse control gets worn down from protracted fine motor control, then your use of it for keeping a focus of attention will also be diminished. I'm getting pretty disgusted at the mis-representations going on with this test and what it can tell you. It is not a intelligence test AT ALL! Moreover, the testers don't survey the subject's previous experiences that day, not how they slept, not if they have been draining their impulse control all morning with other impulse control uses, NOTHING. The Marshmallow test is GARBAGE!
@@anandsharma7430 The marshmallow test was the test I nominated for review in my first psych-lab course where we were learning to isolate variables and build double blind experiments; there I showed how this test is a joke. It doesn't test ANYTHING in intelligence, nor does it test one's capacity; it only tests the subjects current impulse control. It's been used for decades but produces nothing but Garbage, largely due to INCOMPETENCE in its design, and the reasoning for the conclutions it draws.
Not to mention, I as an adult would not hesitate to eat the first marshmallow and walk out of the room. I like marshmallows enough to eat them, I don't like them enough to sit for 15 minutes doing nothing in return for a marshmallow. Easy choice.
@@MrKreinen These are very interesting points. Anecdotal evidence, but I have myself been less in control after a long day's work when I am tired but I am able to easily dismiss distractions when I am fresh in the morning. Also related to needing to take breaks from demanding work. The point that it is an impulse control test, not an intelligence test, is definitely correct.
as someone who used to work w dwarf cuttlefish, yeah they’re freaking smart. they quickly learned that when i stood over the tank that meant food and would immediately come out to get pole fed. amazing animals, some of the coolest i’ve worked with
tbf koi fish learn the same thing. Recognizing the thing that means food is coming is a pretty basic level of intelligence compared to other stuff they can do
My old red setter was pretty smart too. Every school day at 4pm he would go 1/2 mile up to the main road and wait for me and my brother to get off the school bus. One day I was ill and I watched him sitting in the front yard that afternoon. Come 4pm he got up and walked up the road to meet my brother getting off the school bus. But how did he know what the time was? I finally worked it out. He saw the other kids coming back in their parents cars through the village after they had been picked up from school. He knew that when he saw those cars, we would be coming back soon so he went up to meet us.
Watched a doc where a smaller male cuttlefish pretended to be a girl so he could mate with the girls that the bigger male had gathered under him and was protecting. It worked like a charm
Stick insects come in a wide variety of sizes. The small ones can't win fights for mating rights but their genes persist because the insignificant "beast" can sneak in and mate the female in the presence of, or even under the much larger dominant male.
I would say one main difference with the Stanford experiment and this one is different variables of food and the fact that the cuttlefish can immediately see what it is going to receive if it's patient. What the Stanford experiment tests in children seems to be a more abstract concept of delayed gratification in which you have to imagine the benefits and forgo the real and immediate. It would be interesting to see how an animal fares with a more direct version of that experiment but it is unfortunately hard to experiment with abstract concepts when you have limited ways of communicating with a cuttlefish.
@@soonlet4977 If they truly taught the cuttlefish that a triangle means that the cage opens after 2 minutes and it's not just obliviously staring at the live prey (because it's alive and could get away, for example), unaware of the timer, then they can also teach it that the live prey will appear after 2 minutes, if it ignores the dead prey. This could be done by introducing an opaque box, marked with a triangle.
If this cuttlefish experiment was duplicated exactly with human children, I hypothesize that they would have a much higher chance of waiting. Having a higher value treat visible and moving while waiting only up to two minutes are 3 factors that seem likely to increase someone's ability to wait and stay focused on the higher value treat.
Scrolled to find a comment that noted this. I would like to see this study done where the circle-container contained one live crayfish and the triangle container had two live crayfish. That seems to me like it would provide a better representation of cuttlefish hedonism.
Oh that cuttlefish is adorable. Those eyes!!!! And the experiment is amazing: coming up with the whole set-up, teaching the cuttlefish the conditions, and most of all the fact that the cuttlefish can learn to such a degree.
Learning by a process of elimination or checking for consistency is basic to many (or most?) predators and many birds. Social brds are great at telling feeding times to within minutes. .
Some jumping spider species demonstrate the ability to delay gratification as well. They stalk their prey, then move away around the prey up to an optimal dropping position, then drop down to their prey. It doesn't matter if the prey is out of their vision during their course around the prey.
One of the coolest experiences I had while snorkeling was coming upon a group of reef squid in Belize. Far different from fish, which see you and avoid you, the squid actually WATCHED me. I could sense their intelligence.
I used to try and rescue giant squid [3ftL] that washed on the beach after southerly winter storms from Mexico up the coast of So. California and the ones I could save I could see that they were watching me with those big dark round eyes with white sclera and it looked just like a person lying down looking at up at you very freaky cool like in a Ray Bradbury short story fully aware of my presence ..then I carefully picked them up and we made eye to eye contact... it was like out of this world amazing. I talked to them and waded in as far as I could go waist deep and kind of hold them like cradled as if I was teaching a little kid how to float on their back, then released them and they would float away submerged so I all I could do was hope they would survive.
@@juliekailihiwa8150 That's kinda beautiful. If they have the capacity to remember you (or simply remember that it was a HUMAN that saved them), I wonder if they would help a human in the water get back to the surface or to shore (as long as the giant squid wasn't in a hungry/desperate state). I wonder if they have the capacity for that level of selflessness or give-and-take or not. They'd have to sort of understand that you did something beneficial for them and NOT misinterpret that they slipped from the grasp of a land predator on the beach. I forget if, in "My Octopus Teacher", if she did anything to help the filmmaker or alert him to danger when the reef sharks were around or if she only hid and didn't try to help him (in any way WE could perceive, at least). Octopus are not squid, but your story just made me think of that documentary.
@@Kris_AB Thank you~ Wouldn't that be cool if they did remember their brief human contact and that could put that into aiding a diver or swimmer or someone in distress. Why not? We haven't even explored 95% of the oceans and in depths where the giant squid thrive. Sometimes I think magical thinking has its advantages over scientific data because it forces us to keep an open mind to the unbelievable. I figured those squid were accidentally tossed onto the sand during a high king tide drawn to the bright full moon event and as the moon moved across the night sky they moved with it in currents then into shallows inside the surf break and were stranded. They laid like every 50 ft along the beach in Newport Beach/ Huntington at least once or twice a year. I would find them early morning, so likely they were washed up during the highest point of the tide in early morning. I would like to believe their mishap wasn't all bad...and maybe they were able to see the stars at night, listen to the surf, and witnessed dawn. They floated to the surface drawn to the bright moonlight carried by high tides disoriented and left on the sand awaiting the tides to take them back [but didn't pan out until people like me come along and thanks to social media feel good videos more people are acting on impulse to save animals in distress]. I wondered what they were thinking and how they were processing all of this and if they experience regret or fear since they suddenly could not move without water. Their skin was moist and wet and hoped they could survive if returned to the water in time. Given this incredible possible bonding opportunity I made a point to talk to them in a soft voice in case they were able to hear me or sense my voice, I smiled at them consciously aware not to show my teeth [on the one off that this might be their only image of a human face so why not?], and sent them off with a little Hawaiian prayer for each one when I let them go. Yeah I know animal and marine biologists cringe and poo poo this as textbook Anthropomorphism but been this way since age 3 and fell in love with Opossums and other unpopular looking creatures and felt they were misunderstood and judged for stupid reasons. I am always so disappointed when I read an explotative heading over a video or story and they use MONSTER or SCARY-LOOKING to describe another species based on our human subjective idealized version of beauty. Spiders and blobfish are sexy and pretty to other spiders and blobfish. Ladybugs are beetles, but we like those bc they are cute? Says who? Disney? Clearly I'm not in academia and believe that if more people who are less impressed with science and disbelieve in climate change did think this way... they would care more about the earth and anti-industrialized farming and agriculture or over fishing our seas so whatever works. I bet you appreciate this since too since you started off with "thats kinda beautiful" and ended with My Octopus Teacher!!!! I loved that film too. But it also reaffirms the point Im trying to make ...that only recently do we now really believe octopus are very very intelligent bc of recent studies and documentaries. Like this is the proof of confirmation of our beliefs. When the octopus have been that way for millions if not billions of years. Why is it so hard to consider a species that is far more evolved than us by a gazillion of years, communicates on a higher level that we are incapable of understanding because we are the species less evolved and not enough? We accept how industrious and intelligent octopus are, cuttlefish, with proof and experiments, but isn't every animal plant species extremely intelligent by design too since they'd be dead if they were not? So why not the squid too right? Whales have that similar look in their eyes but more soulful. I had a pet GMO Turkey who was super intelligent and loved being cuddled, spoken to, gobbled really loud if he overheard my laughter [so that right there was vocalized communication but only for him since he was responding to me]] liked certain types of music, liked following neighbors on walks, protective of petite women bc he saw them as his Jennies [hens] but he could zero in on a snake from afar in tall grass and beeline to it so fast making this shrill excited sound in his throat, looking like Velociraptors hunting prey. Since they are the offspring of dinosaurs why does the size of their brain have anything to do with the physical size if the brain and brain stem is made of nano neurons? Wouldn't those reptilian dino brains carry the same ancient DNA and cell memory? Always thought domesticated chickens look and act like baby Dinos from the time they are embryonic to adult. Ever since I was a kid I never questioned or considered that animals and sea life were any less intelligent than humans. I never understood the concept of Speciesism or why humans believe we are superior to animals, or why humans try and match the intelligence of another species to fit our own. Ants & Termites & Bees are more industrious than humans IMO. If every species has the capacity to comprehend it's own survival [whichever way this occurs] the need to mate and reproduce [protect their eggs, babies, raise young], adapting feeding habits to fit the changing environment, exhibiting playful behavior [Domesticated Pigs, Ravens, Crows, Magpies, Octopus, fish, elephants, dolphins, cows, goats, lions, mice, spiders, reptiles, etc... ] I don't understand why any other species would be different. Oh and now they finally say Lobsters and Crustaceans feel pain when boiled..yeah...who wouldn't... thats why they scream and try to crawl out. I could watch animal insect behavior all day long. Thanks Krisb7884 for sharing your thoughtful observations and perspectives here ....love this thread. 😊
@@juliekailihiwa8150 I suggest never try that with a Humboldt squid. Strong, very aggressive and very very fast. They grow big enough to be a very real safety problem. One could decide to try taking you off your feet and drag you under within moments. One can also prevent you drawing a SCUBA knife from the sheath. Humboldts have typically been south of the US/Mex border, but seen as far north as Oregon/Washington waters
@@exgenica wow! Thank you. I've never seen a Humboldt squid.....the squids I carried back to the sea were literally unable to move. How shallow do they swim?
Self control can also be good to not reveal itself while hidding if the reward isn't enough to risk it. This is an animal that likes to hide and blend in, so waiting for prey is it's normal behaviour.
After this concluded, I suggest switching to 1 cray fish in the immediate release tank and two crawfish in the delay. This seems the only way to firmly cement this concept.
Exactly. That or remove the premise of crayfish entirely and stick to frozen shrimp. Live prey is far too tantalizing and something like this would be analogous to the marshmallow experiment except if the alternative delayed choice was the dancing, singing gingerbread man from shrek
I had a 90 gallon saltwater aquarium and I've had cuttlefish and they are extremely interesting and intelligent. There are times where I wondered if it was smarter then me!
Cuttlefish, being cephalopods have a surprising amount of innate intelligence. Although the lifespan of cephalopods is short they demonstrate intelligence all out of keeping with their longevity. It has even been suggested that they could rival humans in the world if they lived as long as humans do.
Their lifespan is definitely limiting, but not as limiting as their solitary lifestyle. There won't be a civilization of octopuses or cuttlefish any time soon simply because there's not many things an octopus hates more than other octopuses. So no cooperation, no huge common goals, no taking care for the weaker or the elderly, no passing knowledge by teaching ... there's so much they lose by being solitary.
Why are we always in pursuit of an Animal with varying degrees of intelligence against Humans, we are the dumbest stupidest destructive species on the Planet, just take a look around you, now you don't have to look for intelligent creatures anymore, they are everywhere
The trouble with the test is it really can only be performed once to demonstrate the choice made by the animal, as the act of getting the prefer food item or quantities quickly causes an expectation and positive feedback incentive that turns the display into a trick, like when people give a dog a treat but won't let him eat it straight away. The dog isn't getting more food but is doing it as its become an expected behaviour.
Theres far worse problems with the experiment its flawed in logic and doesnt even prove they understand time! Im surprise this could have go so far without anyone seeing the problems! Also nothing can be said on intelligence! CAUSE EMOTIONS! The cuttlefish juts makes the decision Live over dead! Theres an easy way to include time but they didnt see it :(
I think if you present the cuttlefish with preferred food vs. non-preferred food, the cuttlefish will focus on preferred food because well... It's preferred. When I'm presented with a salad that I can eat right now but they show me a steak in front of me, I would be focused on the steak and not even look at the salad even if I have to wait a little.
@@znail4675 all he's saying is the test they ran is flawed. it doesn't so delayed gratification so much as it'll hyper fixate on a crayfish over a frozen shrimp.
@@ominith1 But they actually tested that as well. They ran a control test with a box that never opened and in that situation the octopus picked the frozen shrimp and did not hyper focus on the preferred food.
Cuttlefish are fascinating, I’ve always found them so interesting. It doesn’t surprise me - and I’m also pleased to find out - that they have this level of cognition.😊
I was in Tobago some years ago and was floating with thirty or more cuttlefish watching them changing colour subtlety for what seemed at least an hour or so...they seemed very social creatures to me?!?...one love 💜
Two things to state: 1: It's always entertaining looking at a cephalopod. They demonstrate their emotions visually on occasion, which is fascinating. 2: It's understandable it would wait, as a predator. For a predator, it's more exciting going for something active, then inert, even if it's same value. P.S. crayfish/crawdads DO taste better than shrimp, so... Can't blame the cuttlefish for preferring the crayfish. 😂
My wife often turns blue with rage. She can wait for up to two days to stalk and then attack a live prey, me. And certain parts can go bumpy under certain circumstances.
There are a lot of predator animals that will not eat dead unmoving food, period. Others will only eat it if that's all there is. So I'm not at all sure about the conclusions drawn here.
The first part of the test was finding out which the cuttlefish preferred. If they liked the frozen shrimp better than the live crayfish, then they'd have to wait to get the frozen food. But yes, the test could have been improved by putting two crayfish in the triangle box.
yes and no. the best shrimps are way tastier, but you usually can't beat the delectable simplicity of some crab boil seasoning and crayfish with some garlic butter sauce...
"People do this experiment to kids to watch how cute they are"😂😂😂 Yes, that's exactly what we do, forget the original goal of the experiment, no one can resist cuteness.
Yeah the marshmallow test on kids is interesting, but from what I understand it has some imperfections- for one, some kids just don’t like marshmallows, or are simply not food motivated. So by not eating the marshmallow, they pass the test when really they were disinterested. Also, the marshmallow test is not only a patience test, but also a trust test. Does the child trust that an adult will give them an extra marshmallow for waiting, or does the child already have reason (from past experiences) not to trust the word of an adult, and thereby lack interest in the promise of a reward by an adult who in their view may just be lying or teasing them.
Another variable is that if the kid comes from a home that has limited food (eat now or don't eat later) they may instinctively eat the first marshmallow because they don't believe another with come if they wait because at home if they didn't eat they didn't eat at all. It's hard to make the experiment work properly which is why I don't believe it works as a proper test of intelligence, if there's so many factors not considered then how could it ever measure intelligence?? It's why I personally think there's no good way to properly measure intelligence..there will always be some factor not counted in like the willingness or background experiences of the subject which could ruin the results
@@testerwulf3357 But it's not meant to be a test of intelligence - I'm a bit surprised that it was advertised as such here. It's a test of, well, really the ability to delay gratification. (I don't like using the term "self-control" because it's so overused.) And the main purpose of it is to find out: - what allows some children to delay gratification (as you pointed out, experiences so far come into it) and how does the ability correalate with your later biography.
The marchsmallow experiment despite being called that way did not only give the children marshmallow as a "prize", it could also chcolate biscuits or even a smal toy depeding on what would motivate the kid most. So that wasn't it's big methodological problem. But yes, it has been proven to have problems. For those who don't know, the main problem went that teh researchers actually followed the shcool results of groawn up kids for the experiment and then Mischell (the famous researcher), noticing that on average kids who showed delayed gratification then had genraly better test score in teenhood, made a whole theory on why teaching kids to delay gratification was a good thing. Recenty around 2014/2015 another study has shown that the original experiment had a serious bias in the fact that the sample came from kids of researcher and universtiy personnel and thus defnitvely suffred from being one very specific population and thus introduced a big bias.
Honestly though, imagine being the kid that decides to sit their whole life getting marshmallows only to die of old age and never get to eat a single one.
A big issue I have with this experiment is that the food type biases the experiment. Because the shrimp is alive, and shaped more obviously like recognizable food, it biases the cuttlefish's attention. I'm willing to bet if you now repeated this experiment with the same cuttlefish that understrood this settup, but replaced the prefrozen shrimp with a live shrimp, and the live shrimp with multiple live shrimps, it wouldn't think twice before going for the single shrimp. Likewise, if you presented other predatory animals, that are thought to be incapable of performing delayed gratification, with a choice between their natural still alive prey, and dead/skinned/odorless/prepared meat of that prey. I'd hypothesise that they will now instinctively focus on hunting the still alive prey, similar to the result of the cuttlefish. Ask yourself, do you think a cat wouldn't chase after a mouse that appears whilst its eating plain old dried food?
First, it's been shown that the cuttlefish prefers the live food. So the next question is, how much can the cuttlefish eat at one sitting? Knowing that it will only have room in it's tummy for one of them, it waits. Another thought is that perhaps it is mesmerized by the moving live prey the way a cat might ignore a toy that's not moving in favor of another toy it likes better. With the expectation that the more favored toy will move eventually, it ignores the less favorite toy while staring at the favorite toy waiting for it to move. I also agree with KH below, introducing 2 different kinds of food introduces a confounding variable.
Yep, though even if we should one day encounter real 'aliens', interesting how it still illustrates common dilemmas and choices, like 'delayed gratification'.
Extraterrestrials probably won't look anything like we imagine - not 'grey aliens' with large heads and long arms, or any of the creatures depicted in countless Sci-Fi movies. It's like an undersea creature could never conceive of the many types of animals living on dry land or even the land itself, with dry deserts or fields of wheat in the open air. We always draw on elements of the known.
@@michaeld2519 Agree re: our tendency to 'anthropomorphize', though I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of 'convergent' evolution, and the advantages off an efficient bi-pedal body plan with forward facing receptors, located on a central CPU!
I had a half-dozen tanks all connected in sequence. The cuttlefish was in the first tank. Water was pumped from the last tank to the first one. Each tank housed a different environment. Each tank passed into the next. For reasons I simply couldn't understand, the little guy insisted on traversing all intermediate tanks to access the last. This regardless seemed to be a recurring problem. And by the way, if you want to keep octopuses, you must make certain that the smallest openings are securely unavailable to escape. An octopus can pass through an opening the size of it's beak.
Since I learned anything about them, I have been fascinated with Cuttlefish. I want to eventually dive in a location where they live, to watch them, quietly, from a distance, without disturbing or touching anything natural.
I was snorkeling in the Florida Keys, when we came upon 3 cuttlefish swimming together. They actually stopped and watched _us_ for a little while. I have pictures. A few minutes later, they swam off together. They were very curious. And social I would say, because they stayed together.
Cuttlefish probably still have a form of social intelligence, but not once intended for communication. Rather, it is evolved in order to consider what OTHERS are seeing and adapt their camouflage in order to keep themselves safe. In this way they are still considering the perspective of others and so have to develop the ability to simulate complexities.
The lady is impressed that the cuttlefish can delay gratification. I am impressed the cuttlefish recognized symbolic communication: the circle and the triangle.
It's possible it focuses on live bait because the bait moves. It's not a matter of self control as much as live bait distracts from the boring dead bait. A better test may be to place live bait in both...same movement and coloration. Then continue by varying sizes and quantities. 2 in triangle vs 1 in circle.
Concur. The conditions need to be identical. Especially since the subject shows a preference for live prey. Who doesn't like their seafood as fresh as possible?
Being born in a large family in which there were low justice levels, I learned that focusing on myself and not integrating too much gives me more focus on realizing my needs in more intelligent and independent ways, instead of being a victim of another person's willingness to fulfill them. It's probably why I have high self control and am a high achiver. It has its costs, though. It's a lonely life. I've been trying to get more open to other people to get my emotional needs met in the last few years.
@@stevesharpe3370 that's what some told me. So far, he's not much needed, unless I don't notice His influence. There is surely something in the spirit world. I've read and experienced too much not to acknowledge the mind bogling Universe.
I think a control is necessary in this to confirm that if with no experience the cuddlefish will choose the less preferred food in the open feeding tray over the preferred food in the sealed tray. It’s possible that this is just fixation on the preferred food and only mimics a delayed gratification response.
6:56 Experiment is flawed, only the last round they gave him a non-live prey as an immediate item, cuttlefish don't eat dead fish anyway. They should've presented him with 1 live prey versus 2 live preys.
Frozen shimp is what they eat most of the time. If given only frozen shrimp so did it get that or if the live bait was in a box that never opened then it also took the shrimp.
Cuttlefish, octopus and squid are quite intelligent. It's one thing to see cats dogs and birds being smart but to see those odd creatures from the deep gives one pause.
Yeah, isnt that kinda scary? I learned a lot from reading Jacques Cousteau's " Octopus and Squid- the Soft Intelligence". But what really impressed me was reading about Humboldt Squid in Science News. Researchers were interested in stories they'd heard that these squid were dangerous to humans. Oceanographers wanted to research this- but how did they protect themselves from the squid? They tried something similar to a shark cage- well the squid had no trouble getting the cage door open. But when said squid realized the scientists weren't there to harvest them they were peaceful. They had acted aggressively because they were being murdered.
@@michaeld2519.. Divers on the ferry system informed of the one giant octopus in Puget Sound. When it grew tired of being monitored, it would reach around and shut off the air valve on the diver recording it's behavior. .. ;]
When I first saw a video on Cuttlefish, I also saw that, like humans, some are more clever than others. They vary in size, and there was a small male who wanted to get it on with one of the available females, but a larger cuttlefish got to her first. So the smaller cuttle fish used his natural camouflaging ability to mimic the look of a female cuttlefish, and it fooled the larger male into letting him "come on board". So the smaller male linked up to the female and banged her silly, while the larger, *stupider* cuttlefish was looking the other way. The whole thing was going on right under his tentacles and he was clueless. It was hilarious.
A thought: Perhaps cuttlefish really are social creatures after all. Every cuttlefish has three separate semi-autonomous brains, Perhaps those three brains socialize, communicate, form a community, exchange thoughts, learnings and ideas. Maybe a cutttlefish behaves and learns as if it's actually a small society, not just an individual. How could we test this?
What happens to these results when degree of hunger is explored? If the cuttlefish is only ever tested while on a lab regulated feeding schedule, the cuttlefish is likely influenced by that in terms of its resolve. In the wild, it would encounter both feast and famine. Showing it has resolve even in a state of famine might bolster results.
They frequently live to around four…but your point is still valid. It would be interesting to see what they might accomplish, given a human lifespan.🖤🇨🇦
I think about this all of the time! But the problem is that they die before they ever get to meet their kids. If they want to get that advanced, they don't actually need long lifespans, they just need to be able to pass down generational knowledge. As-is, they all start from ground zero, but if they had parents they'd be able to learn from them and spend the rest of their lives developing new skills and tools. The reason a lot of octopus specifically die is because they have a behavior that makes them sit by and protect their eggs, fasting and starving until they die. But researchers once did a surgery on a giant octopus mother to remove that part from her brain, and she abandoned her eggs but she also lived on for a relatively long time. It makes me wonder: If in the future there's a mutation that lets Octopus have better behaviors regarding parenthood, would they become more advanced?
Two marshmallows are better then one as well. The entire point is that the delayed option is the better one, but it requires self control to not just pick the immediate gratification.
6:55 The Cuttlefish could have just been hunting , when a live prey is near , its possible that a frozen shrimp is not interesting , and that can be considered normal behavior i think
The point isn't really that the cuttlefish could resist temptation, the point is that it understood the situation. Btw, the same setup for children, with the bigger prize in plain sight, would surely increase success rates.
The Mashmellow test isnt about intelligence at all. Its purely a test of current impulse control (not even a test of Impulse control capacity, because they don't survey the kids for activities that day, sleep quality, etc. all of which use up impulse control till it gets replenished by gratification and rest). This is a Garbage test, that's been drawing or infering false conclutions for decades. The makers of this test are flat-out INCOMPETENT. The strength of a subject's Self Direction does not correlate directly to problem solving ability.
@@MrKreinen No, they aren't, because that wasn't what the test was for. The people who have later misinterpreted it are wrong. In actuality, beyond a very young age, children will wait for the snack if they trust the person, and won't if not. Children who have learnt not to generally trust adults generally have reasons to, and those reasons usually have an effect on future education and such. The experiment was never intended by anyone to imply what everyone takes it to imply.
@@deathofallthingspotato9919 Well that makes a lot more sense (consistent with the general scholarship). Thanks for alerting me to this misconception. I'll have to look into it again so I can see for myself, but it makes sense that the study has been mischaracterized, particularly by those who cite it to support their political agendas, rather than the Scientists themselves. IDK if the version of this experiment that we reviewed in my 1st year psych lab was the original, a replication, or perhaps even edited by my teacher to serve the class's purposes.
@@deathofallthingspotato9919 After taking a peek at a refresher on the Marshmallow test and its replications, I must compliment you on your rational retroframing, and the improvements made by replications in the decades since it's origin. You might be interested to read a the University of California's 2020 study critiquing/refuting the 1972 Stamford Marshmallow Test (and possibly a 2018 replication) for Not accounting for the variable of "reputation" (or a trusted summery/review, like I did).
@@MrKreinen Yeah, that sounds about right - the key factor in whether someone will wait for a reward is whether they trust that the reward is coming (although of course other factors are present).
I beg to differ @Comment Highlighted. That's not the case. At the beginning, Cuttlefishes, on being given only non living prey, grabbed the non living ones'. During the last experiment, they could have easily taken non living one first and then wait for second one. But since, they were trained for mutual exclusivity of choices (Only one fish can be taken). They waited. Which suggests their cognition ability and self control have been evolved.
They also did a test with a chamber that never opened to see that it did indeed pick the frozen shrimp instead of staying focused on the live one if it knew it couldn't get the live.
One thing I've wondered about is the fact that it usually talks of just telling kids to wait, while animals are put through it repeatedly. Is that the case? Because if so then I can't help but wonder how many of those kids that grab the one marshmallow would wait if they were shown the two they could've had every day for a week.
@@dingo1666 True, but it's still not equal. You can show the animal two treats and if it's a similar age it should gain some understanding. More to the point, with the animals you're not just dealing with one that has heard and "understood" that waiting will win it a better treat, you're also dealing with one that's had it demonstrated to it and experienced the frustration of not getting as much as it could. Experience still teaches more than words, no matter how skilled the parents are at explaining it. Thus, if you really want a proper test, you'd present kids with the options but NOT explain it, instead demonstrating through actions and seeing how long it takes them. I'm still willing to bet that after a few rounds a ton of the kids that supposedly haven't learned to wait for gratification will happily wait rather than experience the frustration of seeing the better item taken away.
Many cephalopods will also play, which was thought to be exclusive to social animals as it teaches skills needed for competition and cooperation within a group. This seems to be right in line with those results. There could be some overall link between these intelligent behaviors, and perhaps others as well, that make them part of an overall “intelligence package”
I wonder if this works on Tuskfish (Choerodon sp.) They are surprisingly intelligent, having the privlege to own one myself (C. fasciata). I have seen it display behaviour such as playing with rocks, shells and pieces of coral skeleton. It uses a rock as an anvil to smash prey (shrimp, small mollusks) on. Also, if you have watched Blue Planet II you will see a Tuskfish in action.
The annoyance present in the body language of that cuttlefish as it waited for the good food was like watching someone tap their fingers impatiently on a desk.
What about different numbers of dead shrimp in the boxes? What if it the food of higher value is always in the 'wait' box and then presented with both types of boxes for which it can't detect the contents? and so on ... Oh dear, I think I'd have too many variations on these tests and exhausted that cuttlefish.
Watch the Octo Lab channel. They are open to experiment ideas. They mainly work with octopus, but occasionally have cuttlefish. The experiments are fascinating (and always humane! They do these to entertain the cephalopods as much as us).
I was going to say it would be interesting to see a similar experiment with an octopus, but the octopus would just figure out a way to open or break the "delay" chamber and get its food immediately
tbf I think that all cephalopods have similar amounts of intelligence, though I do believe that they are smarter than squid and cuttlefish. ...Damn, I'd really love to see experiments carried out to determine which is the most clever..
Adding the difference in food type dilutes the validity of the conclusion. It would be better to provide an immediate small and a delayed large prey of the same type.
You deserve the best shrimp ever 😁 People keep talking about it all the time that no one deserves the shrimp any more than you do. You are probably the only person who is going to get that shrimp 🤭
This proves that the cuttlefish is intelligent enough to know that dead prey won't try and escape, and that energy is better spent on the anticipation of a chance to catch the live prey. Though harder to control conditions, the use of live prey in both containers would prove the claim.
Another detail she shoulda mentioned about them obviously was their tentacles that can shoot out their mouths super fast grabbing prey and retracting them in to their beaks.
NOVA: You should read your comments and see that many people are very confused about things like showing proper controls, randomizing cage placement, etc. This is the danger of doing cute little videos that don't explain all the boring details. AT LEAST highlight in the video that there is a link to the actual paper in the description.
I love these types of experiments. it's clever to devise them and it's even more impressive to watch the experiment being solved through learning the rules.
If it ever did… they changed the food type, so it could easily be that it was just focused on the live prey. If I sat a kid down and said he could have steamed broccoli now or pizza in 15 minutes, then they will pass the test every time.
@@BamaShanks Nope! My daughter would take the steamed Broccoli every time, because both of those things are delicious in her eyes. Now Coriander, on the other hand, is a totally different story...
Yeah, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the experiment. Another possible conclusion, the cuddlefish may be fixated on the movement of the live prey. Two live prey items in one container vs one live prey item in the other container is a better experiment for "delayed" gratification. There is no reason the cuddlefish would know what the shapes are. It does not interact with them in the slightest. They just go after the prey inside.
I love cuttlefish, such fascinating little beings. I'm really surprised that there aren't social cuttlefish, since they can communicate with each other. I'm imagining little wolfpacks of cuttlefish roaming the seas, would be really interesting watching them hunt.
This seems like a bad experiment, why didnt they make it two crawfish vs one crawfish, like the marshmallows experiment. The experiment they did seems more like offering a kid one marshmallow or one piece of broccoli.
I'm a zoologist, and I don't think this test can be applied universally. My ducks can solve puzzles and one of them even passes the mirror test, but they can't do this. It's just what ducks do, they're hard wired to gobble food cuz they live in flocks where if you hesitate, you lose. So they never wait if there's food involved.
They needed to show the cuttlefish going for the frozen shrimp and witnessing the live one get taken away, and then changing its behaviour the next time, before this would be a convincing experiment. With the images shown, it would be easy to conclude the cuttlefish is just too interested in the live one to really even notice the frozen one, and thus not be exhibiting self control.
Curious that at minute 6:36 you have to remind the people watching the video of the circle/triangle, to the people who are watching the video of the experiment (which are obviously people, because animals don't usually watch RUclips videos...), while the cuttlefish watch RUclips videos...), while to the cuttlefish, it is not necessary to explain that the circle is a explain to the cuttlefish that the circle is a quick reward and the triangle is not? are cuttlefish are cuttlefish smarter than those who watch this video? 😆 Curioso que en el minuto 6:36 se tiene que recordar lo del círculo/triángulo, a las personas que están viendo el vídeo de el experimento (que obviamente son personas, porque los animales no suelen ver vídeos de RUclips...), mientras que a la sepia, no hay que explicarle que el círculo es recompensa rápida y el triángulo no... ¿son las sepias más listas que los que ven este vídeo? 😆
Cuttlefish are social as hell, saw them swimming in a school (5-6 together) once and they all synched up to distract me by changing into the shape and color of a nearby fish I had been ignoring. They were hoping I would start ignoring them too... it kind of worked because I had to look to compare at the other fish I had been ignoring and as soon as I looked away they bolted away in the opposite direction in unison.
Knowing I have less self control than a cuttlefish has done wonders for my self esteem
😁😁😁👏👏👏👏👏👏
My brother out here making the cuttlefish feel better about themselves. Bless you!
Same Stanley, same.... 😮💨😀
LMAO! sigh. "Truth in every joke". I can't stop eating cuttlefish.
🟤?
The problem with this experiment is that when the cuttlefish is offered live prey vs frozen prey - it does not account for the fact (and likelihood) that the cuttlefish will fixate on the live prey and ignore the other option entirely. Which is precisely what K H is trying to get at, and why the experiment needs to include 1 live prey (immediately accessible) vs 2 live prey (accessible after a wait) in order to properly prove the point being made by the team that the cuttlefish is in fact delaying gratification due to its purported awareness that each option is mutually exclusive, rather than simply fixating on its preference and ignoring the frozen shrimp (as it was already proven to do when determining its preferences.)
In the form the experiment is presented to us in this video, it is definitely unable to support the conclusions the team is making, primarily that the cuttlefish is delaying gratification. It does however successfully prove that cuttlefish have preferences for food and are potentially able to identify that live prey boxes that are blocked off may require a wait time and so it is pointless striking at it until it opens (going so far as to say the cuttlefish recognises the triangle and circle shape as relevant is also a claim/conclusion that cannot be supported going off the experiment as presented in the video without further supporting evidence.)
Aside from the issue with how the science is being presented and the conclusions that are drawn from it cannot be substantiated by the evidence given (but acknowledging that the experiment may indeed have more to it than shown in the video), it's still entertaining.
Agreed. My dog will laser in on movement and ignore nearby treats. Squirrels especially.
Good Point. Makes sense.
I was going to point that out as well. I would also like to see how control groups that have not been trained react.
They've exhibited very high and complex intelligence so I'm betting they will figure this out too. Would love to see it played out.
Read the paper linked in the description. They had a control environment specifically to test weather the cuttlefish would pick the frozen shrimp over the live one if it had visual contact with the latter but couldn't reach it.
This video doesn't properly demonstrate what the experiment was like, since there were three options that the cuttlefish had to learned to differentiate: non delayed non preferred bait, delayed preferred bait, delayed but non reachable preferred bait. Each of these options was presented to the cuttlefish with different symbols associated. The cuttlefish learned what each symbol meant and behaved accordingly.
Is this single paper definitive proof of cuttlefish self control? No, but it sure is an interesting research with useful insight on the subject, that you and many others are judging from what's just a (arguably not very good) summary video. They sacrificed some precision in their explanation trying to get a more accessible video, but this does not give you the right to judge the work of these researchers without actually reading it/looking at it more in depth.
I'm a diver. years ago, I saw 5 cuttlefish swimming side by side in shallow water off the coast of Florida. When I came close to them, all 5 turned towards me in unison. They did now break ranks or dash away. I swam around them and all five remained breast to breast of each other in a straight line but they did turn towards me and watch me. They looked like a team working together. Not loners as you describe. Why would they swim side by side out in the open close to the surface and why didn't they scatter when I started swimming around them? I have been diving since 1968 and have never seen cuttlefish act like that before. Thanks for listening.
Very interesting!
Curious. Is it because they look like a bigger entity when they do this? Could it be easier to swim a distance when they do this? Are they possibly working on their water dance project? I'm sure someone knows the real, true answer. I sat by a pond once and watched several pairs of water fowl enter, one pair at a time. They entered in size order, from the smallest to the largest, and the larger ones all waited. Not one pair went in out of turn. It was really something to see, and took about ten minutes. It ended with a beautiful pair of geese hopping in. So interesting.
I listened with my eyes
Once, while snorkeling a reef with a group, I noticed a large (16(ish) inch body) cuttlefish swimming in the bolder strewn seabed near the reef. I went to look at it (used to freedive). As I approached, it swam behind a bolder. I stopped- it peeked out one side, then another. It darted to another bolder, same thing…each time it peeked out, it was a different color. I thought, if this was a child, I’d think it was playing hide and seek, so I followed it- then after a couple more ‘findings’, hid myself to and was found. We played for about twenty minutes, with the fish constantly changing colors. It was one of the great experiences of my life. 7:33
AND our concept of social animals leaves out the vast differences in sociable traits like how canines will stay together (even mixes of dog breeds in a pack) versus felines which exhibit a drawn line (often individualistic or independent over large amounts of time). Cuttlefish mate and fight over a mate; that’s a social activity.
"cuttlefish are widely different from humans" I honestly couldn't tell
Obviously never met my ex wife
They don't call it master of camouflage for nothing
Heheheheheh
“They’re solitary creatures”
Me: wait, I thought we’re supposed to be different
easy, cuttlefish is the smart one and human is the dumb one
Wouldn't it be the next step to determine if they wanted 1 live shrimp immediately vs 2 live shrimp later? Like the stanford experiment? Using different types of food introduces a confounding variable.
Totally agree. It seemed likely to me that the cuttlefish was simply more interested in live prey. It seems to have learned to wait when a live prey box doesn't open, but there's nothing here that'd make me think it internalized the idea of delayed gratification.
@@843idfa your extreme sexism aside, the video literally explained the experiment, that you all didn't get. They established that the cuttlefish prefers the live shrimp TO SHOW that it is willing to wait to get what it wants. It wanting the live shrimp more is literally the entire point of the experiment. The difference in food type is a controlled variable, because they know this cuttlefish always picks the fresh food over frozen when offered both at the same time.
@@hiimkyle1894 Nowhere else in the "experiment" did they show it eat dead fish, how do we even know it eats dead fish at all? It's no more about preference. I think they planned and executed the experiment, but then realized it doesn't work, so they resorted to dead fish just to wrap it up 😄👎
@@843idfa they literally did show that re-watch the video and try to be less sexist. Even if she died her hair like a rainbow, it makes her no less qualified as a scientist
@@hiimkyle1894 yeah I was perplexed by that statement too. maybe the trolls couldn't resist the open chamber
It’s so cute how when cuttlefish get excited, they immediately show it with their chromatophores. Like a dog perking up its ears or wagging its tails.
My guess is that any "stalking" type of predator must be able to delay gratification, whether they live solo or in groups. Patience is a key attribute for a stalking predator. On the other hand, predators that don't use camouflage, for example open-ocean sharks--may not have evolved this behavior because there's little advantage.
I would want to see this test with Jumping Spiders, they are also very smart and totally different type of animal.
Also sharks have much more primitive brains
octopie do this also ... so do squid ... they even solve puzzles for food ... but they didnt cover any of that in their studies ... which tells me they are repeating already known data and not getting the complete answer because they have limited their tests to one species of cephlopod ... so here we have a perfect example of science being dumber than pocket lint and NOT actually using ALL of the data available to get a result ... they are just using their limited data to make up a result that doesnt include all the facts ...
which in and of itself is akin to lying ... which is what science is best at ... lying
exactly what I thought!
We've all grown up watching nature shows where the predator waits until the perfect moment to strike, even though the possibility still existed to strike several times earlier with a fair chance of success. Delayed gratification and the intelligence behind it is probably a lot more widespread than we think it is, stemming from a multitude of different origins perhaps, though our rules may not adequately describe it when we try to quantify everything into neat little boxes.
This reminds me of my old Rhodesian Ridgeback.
When we left for work, I got into the habit of hiding various treats under pillows or out of the way areas to amuse him over the long wait for us to return. When I got home, I'd lead him to the ones he missed and praise him for "finding" them.
After only a short time I discovered that he would leave every single treat alone until I got home, then he'd race around the house "finding" and happily eating every one of them that he'd already assuredly sniffed out throughout the day, and he'd be rewarded by my laughter and a little playtime.
I think many animals aren't as far removed from what we term as "human sentience" as we believe.
What an outstanding and very cute example of delayed gratification!
I was thinking of my male Shiba Inu. One day I caught him sitting on the ground, just watching the squirrel racing along the top of the backyard fence. Was he plotting how to hunt the squirrel? The next day, he returned to the house with a dead squirrel in his mouth!
Sentience is not human.
@@shepberryhill4912
Are you saying that humans aren’t sentient? Or do you mean that more species are sentient than just humans? :)
@@valeriebreathet741 I think the premise is that sentience is not an exclusively human trait, or that's the way I read it at least.
What is easily the most amazing aspect of cuttlefish is the brevity of their lives. Four years is very old age. They are born talented both physically and mentally. Compare their behavior with human children of the same age. Amazing. Respect the cephalopods.
Same with the brilliant Octopus. Sigh.
INVALID EVIDENCE THAT CUTTLEFISH ARE SMARTER THAN HUMANS /s
I think that just shows that cuttlefish are born with more intelligence from genetics than a newborn baby human. There's a lot of variables going into how developed different mammals are born at and debate on nature vs nurture, but considering the fact that cuttlefish haven't invented nukes nor have high-resolution photos of Pluto, I'm pretty sure human babies have much more intelligence _potential._
I've given so many dried cuttlefish to domestic birds to strengthen their beaks. I feel a bit guilty about that now ...
@@rosemaryh.4105 Just collect the naturally occuring ones that are deposited on the beach. Natural, organic and cruelty free
@@rosemaryh.4105 you didnt know, its okay, from now on you can change your approach, if you really want to.
I'm wondering why the experimenters chose to put the dead shrimp--which the cuttlefish doesn't prefer--into the circle chamber to demonstrate that they exhibit the capacity for delayed gratification. If it were given the mutually exclusive option for both a non-live shrimp and a live crayfish at the same time, wouldn't it still pick the live crayfish? I.e., how much is the cuttlefish actually delaying gratification by waiting for the live crayfish in the triangle chamber if it doesn't like to eat non-live shrimp in the first place. I don't like eggs, but I do like bacon. I wouldn't be delaying myself much--if any--gratification by waiting a few minutes for a plate of bacon to arrive if I were offered eggs now. I guess one question I have is how averse are cuttlefish to non-live shrimp/how much do they like them, how much do they prefer live crayfish over non-live shrimp, etc. I'm curious to know why the experimenters didn't put, say 1 live crayfish in the circle chamber and 2 in the triangle chamber (especially since it's been found that cuttlefish can count), or 1 small live crayfish in the circle chamber and 1 large one in the triangle chamber. Are these concerns even relevant to determine whether cuttlefish exhibit delayed gratification? I think cuttlefish are clearly very intelligent creatures and want to know if anyone has any responses to these potential objections to strengthen the findings of this experiment. Any insight would be appreciated!! Thanks
Wow good on you mate
That's a good point. In the experiment with children, they used the same food and then more of it if they wait. Same thing with the monkey
Yea i was about to write a similar thing. Also, every living thing on planet earth is delaying simple gratification. Almost every species have a special diet they like to go for, preferably. So, every animal is delaying gratification.
Bears are standing near the river, waiting for fish to come flying out of the water, when they could have just go to a random bush with berries instead... etc etc.
Some people do research just to prove that they are doing research, "to get paid". Doesn't mean the research is any useful.
Yeah they ruined the experiment by adding a secondary variable in the TYPE of food. Now it's inconclusive as to whether it was knowingly waiting for something better or if it had simply found the crawfish much more appealing than the shrimp.
You make a good point, but it might not be healthy for the Cuttlefish to eat that much food for that time period, which is why they present a choice. I feel like if I was given the Marshmallow test today, I would just eat the Marshmallow because 2 Marshmallows feels like hardly a reward for my time. I'd rather just have the one and leave. So there could be variants and issues to this test.
That said, I can see how the logic is similar across the shrimp and the crayfish because the value of nourishment. it's the same, if you are starving you don't mind either, this test becomes harder, but if you don't it seems like something easy to wait for the thing you want more. That is the behavior that they are looking to replicate though, because you are intelligent and have the ability to process that food will come if you just can wait. I think you might be thinking this test is testing for behavior more complicated for yourself than it really is. Meaning that it really doesn't matter if one is less valuable than the other, it's kind of the point, even though 2 Marshmallows sounds not very exciting or more consistent, we clearly know that 2 Marshmallows are more valuable than one! We know we can wait and get more, and can wait if we want. We pass the test even if we technically fail because we can still explain those values through language. It doesn't matter that it is the shrimp vs. the crayfish, the one that comes later is still valued more by the subject. So to bring it back to the original test, you or I might fail that test and give a false positive, but that is only because we don't really value the one or two marshmallows that differently, but say they adapt it for Adults and you can take $1 dollar or wait and get $100,000 when the tester gets back, and you know they will come back, we might wait and actually show positive ability to wait as what is theorized.
You also could technically do the same by putting a $1 voucher you can trade in for money after the experiment or a $100k voucher, in both cases it is 1 different thing, but we value them differently. In that way it is similar to the Shrimp and the Crayfish for the Cuttlefish, because how else would you solve the problem, if you were limited by the count of something you can give? It would have to be that way: offer the hungry you some scrambled eggs now, or some nice and crispy Bacon later if you wait.
I bumped into a pair of cuttlefish while diving in the seychelles...
It was probably the best 10 minutes I've spent in hundreds of dives...
They interacted with me,slightly wary of my flash at first but overcame that quickly.
They approached, "lights flashing",able to stop,start,turn move up and down effortlessly, no tell-tales of what was happening next.
They hung out with me for as I said,10minutes, then...gone,high speed.
I by that time, had become detached from the group, so I slowly returned to the anchor and took some more pictures.Actually I got some great pictures I would not have taken if in the group.
Cuttlefish to me are obviously intelligent...on a par with octopus...at least.
Cuttlefish and Octupus are close relatives with a lot in common, so not strange that both are smart.
Is it true that people see mermen in saychelles? Everyone claims theirs mermaids/men out there
@@angelgoo7772 Santa was over to visit them under X-mas.
@@znail4675 It's such a fine line, how we rate intelligence. We're probably more closely related to chimpanzees than cuttlefish are to octopuses if I had to put money on it, but the perceived chasm between our species even though we're so closely related seems vast.. I guess the basic stuff is shared between us, but it looks like a few small changes in the right sequence seems to open up a whole different dimension of intelligence. It's like we figured out how to tap into what ants or mushrooms do.. Cephalopods (the ones we consider intelligent) are fairly solitary creatures, imagine if their intelligence somehow develops into a network that shares information across time in this other way like we do, it's like this other layer of intelligence that we aren't really individually aware of for the most part, this network of interactions and temporal information transfer that isn't directly achieved with genetic information..
It'd be cool if you could upload the pics & video to share here
The problem with the original marshmallow test was that it required the young children to have learned to trust adults.
Which means that the child's previous experience with adults probably effects their behaviour in the test.
This is a very insightful observation. I've known about the Marshmallow test for a decade but never thought of this confounding factor.
Thats not the only problem with it.
The Marshmallow test is not a test of intelligence; It is an Impulse Control test.
We happen to have tested impulse control more thoroughly, and we KNOW it is a singular and finite resource tapped for all of a subjects application of self-direction, and that Impulse control resource Wears Down from immediate use; though it replenishes with rest, and emotional gratification.
If your impulse control gets worn down from protracted fine motor control, then your use of it for keeping a focus of attention will also be diminished.
I'm getting pretty disgusted at the mis-representations going on with this test and what it can tell you.
It is not a intelligence test AT ALL! Moreover, the testers don't survey the subject's previous experiences that day, not how they slept, not if they have been draining their impulse control all morning with other impulse control uses, NOTHING.
The Marshmallow test is GARBAGE!
@@anandsharma7430 The marshmallow test was the test I nominated for review in my first psych-lab course where we were learning to isolate variables and build double blind experiments; there I showed how this test is a joke.
It doesn't test ANYTHING in intelligence, nor does it test one's capacity; it only tests the subjects current impulse control.
It's been used for decades but produces nothing but Garbage, largely due to INCOMPETENCE in its design, and the reasoning for the conclutions it draws.
Not to mention, I as an adult would not hesitate to eat the first marshmallow and walk out of the room. I like marshmallows enough to eat them, I don't like them enough to sit for 15 minutes doing nothing in return for a marshmallow. Easy choice.
@@MrKreinen These are very interesting points. Anecdotal evidence, but I have myself been less in control after a long day's work when I am tired but I am able to easily dismiss distractions when I am fresh in the morning. Also related to needing to take breaks from demanding work. The point that it is an impulse control test, not an intelligence test, is definitely correct.
It's cute to see the cuttlefish standing up on its tentacles while it carefully observes the choices presented to it.
as someone who used to work w dwarf cuttlefish, yeah they’re freaking smart. they quickly learned that when i stood over the tank that meant food and would immediately come out to get pole fed. amazing animals, some of the coolest i’ve worked with
That's also how my pufferfish behave, this kind of animals are so fascinating
My puffer would watch me intensely through the glass. Puffers can learn tricks too!
tbf koi fish learn the same thing. Recognizing the thing that means food is coming is a pretty basic level of intelligence compared to other stuff they can do
yes as below, my Mum's goldfish are quite pavlovian too.
My old red setter was pretty smart too. Every school day at 4pm he would go 1/2 mile up to the main road and wait for me and my brother to get off the school bus. One day I was ill and I watched him sitting in the front yard that afternoon. Come 4pm he got up and walked up the road to meet my brother getting off the school bus. But how did he know what the time was? I finally worked it out. He saw the other kids coming back in their parents cars through the village after they had been picked up from school. He knew that when he saw those cars, we would be coming back soon so he went up to meet us.
Watched a doc where a smaller male cuttlefish pretended to be a girl so he could mate with the girls that the bigger male had gathered under him and was protecting. It worked like a charm
Ah yes, the Bugs Bunny Approach
You're telling me that cuttlefish have femboys?
Stick insects come in a wide variety of sizes. The small ones can't win fights for mating rights but their genes persist because the insignificant "beast" can sneak in and mate the female in the presence of, or even under the much larger dominant male.
I would say one main difference with the Stanford experiment and this one is different variables of food and the fact that the cuttlefish can immediately see what it is going to receive if it's patient. What the Stanford experiment tests in children seems to be a more abstract concept of delayed gratification in which you have to imagine the benefits and forgo the real and immediate. It would be interesting to see how an animal fares with a more direct version of that experiment but it is unfortunately hard to experiment with abstract concepts when you have limited ways of communicating with a cuttlefish.
The children were explicitly told they get another one. With any animals or creatures, we currently only have visuals to communicate.
@@soonlet4977 If they truly taught the cuttlefish that a triangle means that the cage opens after 2 minutes and it's not just obliviously staring at the live prey (because it's alive and could get away, for example), unaware of the timer, then they can also teach it that the live prey will appear after 2 minutes, if it ignores the dead prey.
This could be done by introducing an opaque box, marked with a triangle.
If this cuttlefish experiment was duplicated exactly with human children, I hypothesize that they would have a much higher chance of waiting. Having a higher value treat visible and moving while waiting only up to two minutes are 3 factors that seem likely to increase someone's ability to wait and stay focused on the higher value treat.
Scrolled to find a comment that noted this. I would like to see this study done where the circle-container contained one live crayfish and the triangle container had two live crayfish. That seems to me like it would provide a better representation of cuttlefish hedonism.
Oh that cuttlefish is adorable. Those eyes!!!!
And the experiment is amazing: coming up with the whole set-up, teaching the cuttlefish the conditions, and most of all the fact that the cuttlefish can learn to such a degree.
I want him to be my cuddlefish!!
Learning by a process of elimination or checking for consistency is basic to many (or most?) predators and many birds. Social brds are great at telling feeding times to within minutes. .
Some jumping spider species demonstrate the ability to delay gratification as well. They stalk their prey, then move away around the prey up to an optimal dropping position, then drop down to their prey. It doesn't matter if the prey is out of their vision during their course around the prey.
One of the coolest experiences I had while snorkeling was coming upon a group of reef squid in Belize. Far different from fish, which see you and avoid you, the squid actually WATCHED me. I could sense their intelligence.
I used to try and rescue giant squid [3ftL] that washed on the beach after southerly winter storms from Mexico up the coast of So. California and the ones I could save I could see that they were watching me with those big dark round eyes with white sclera and it looked just like a person lying down looking at up at you very freaky cool like in a Ray Bradbury short story fully aware of my presence ..then I carefully picked them up and we made eye to eye contact... it was like out of this world amazing. I talked to them and waded in as far as I could go waist deep and kind of hold them like cradled as if I was teaching a little kid how to float on their back, then released them and they would float away submerged so I all I could do was hope they would survive.
@@juliekailihiwa8150
That's kinda beautiful. If they have the capacity to remember you (or simply remember that it was a HUMAN that saved them), I wonder if they would help a human in the water get back to the surface or to shore (as long as the giant squid wasn't in a hungry/desperate state). I wonder if they have the capacity for that level of selflessness or give-and-take or not.
They'd have to sort of understand that you did something beneficial for them and NOT misinterpret that they slipped from the grasp of a land predator on the beach.
I forget if, in "My Octopus Teacher", if she did anything to help the filmmaker or alert him to danger when the reef sharks were around or if she only hid and didn't try to help him (in any way WE could perceive, at least). Octopus are not squid, but your story just made me think of that documentary.
@@Kris_AB Thank you~ Wouldn't that be cool if they did remember their brief human contact and that could put that into aiding a diver or swimmer or someone in distress. Why not? We haven't even explored 95% of the oceans and in depths where the giant squid thrive. Sometimes I think magical thinking has its advantages over scientific data because it forces us to keep an open mind to the unbelievable. I figured those squid were accidentally tossed onto the sand during a high king tide drawn to the bright full moon event and as the moon moved across the night sky they moved with it in currents then into shallows inside the surf break and were stranded. They laid like every 50 ft along the beach in Newport Beach/ Huntington at least once or twice a year. I would find them early morning, so likely they were washed up during the highest point of the tide in early morning. I would like to believe their mishap wasn't all bad...and maybe they were able to see the stars at night, listen to the surf, and witnessed dawn. They floated to the surface drawn to the bright moonlight carried by high tides disoriented and left on the sand awaiting the tides to take them back [but didn't pan out until people like me come along and thanks to social media feel good videos more people are acting on impulse to save animals in distress]. I wondered what they were thinking and how they were processing all of this and if they experience regret or fear since they suddenly could not move without water. Their skin was moist and wet and hoped they could survive if returned to the water in time. Given this incredible possible bonding opportunity I made a point to talk to them in a soft voice in case they were able to hear me or sense my voice, I smiled at them consciously aware not to show my teeth [on the one off that this might be their only image of a human face so why not?], and sent them off with a little Hawaiian prayer for each one when I let them go. Yeah I know animal and marine biologists cringe and poo poo this as textbook Anthropomorphism but been this way since age 3 and fell in love with Opossums and other unpopular looking creatures and felt they were misunderstood and judged for stupid reasons. I am always so disappointed when I read an explotative heading over a video or story and they use MONSTER or SCARY-LOOKING to describe another species based on our human subjective idealized version of beauty. Spiders and blobfish are sexy and pretty to other spiders and blobfish. Ladybugs are beetles, but we like those bc they are cute? Says who? Disney? Clearly I'm not in academia and believe that if more people who are less impressed with science and disbelieve in climate change did think this way... they would care more about the earth and anti-industrialized farming and agriculture or over fishing our seas so whatever works. I bet you appreciate this since too since you started off with "thats kinda beautiful" and ended with My Octopus Teacher!!!! I loved that film too. But it also reaffirms the point Im trying to make ...that only recently do we now really believe octopus are very very intelligent bc of recent studies and documentaries. Like this is the proof of confirmation of our beliefs. When the octopus have been that way for millions if not billions of years. Why is it so hard to consider a species that is far more evolved than us by a gazillion of years, communicates on a higher level that we are incapable of understanding because we are the species less evolved and not enough? We accept how industrious and intelligent octopus are, cuttlefish, with proof and experiments, but isn't every animal plant species extremely intelligent by design too since they'd be dead if they were not? So why not the squid too right? Whales have that similar look in their eyes but more soulful. I had a pet GMO Turkey who was super intelligent and loved being cuddled, spoken to, gobbled really loud if he overheard my laughter [so that right there was vocalized communication but only for him since he was responding to me]] liked certain types of music, liked following neighbors on walks, protective of petite women bc he saw them as his Jennies [hens] but he could zero in on a snake from afar in tall grass and beeline to it so fast making this shrill excited sound in his throat, looking like Velociraptors hunting prey. Since they are the offspring of dinosaurs why does the size of their brain have anything to do with the physical size if the brain and brain stem is made of nano neurons? Wouldn't those reptilian dino brains carry the same ancient DNA and cell memory? Always thought domesticated chickens look and act like baby Dinos from the time they are embryonic to adult. Ever since I was a kid I never questioned or considered that animals and sea life were any less intelligent than humans. I never understood the concept of Speciesism or why humans believe we are superior to animals, or why humans try and match the intelligence of another species to fit our own. Ants & Termites & Bees are more industrious than humans IMO. If every species has the capacity to comprehend it's own survival [whichever way this occurs] the need to mate and reproduce [protect their eggs, babies, raise young], adapting feeding habits to fit the changing environment, exhibiting playful behavior [Domesticated Pigs, Ravens, Crows, Magpies, Octopus, fish, elephants, dolphins, cows, goats, lions, mice, spiders, reptiles, etc... ] I don't understand why any other species would be different. Oh and now they finally say Lobsters and Crustaceans feel pain when boiled..yeah...who wouldn't... thats why they scream and try to crawl out. I could watch animal insect behavior all day long. Thanks Krisb7884 for sharing your thoughtful observations and perspectives here ....love this thread. 😊
@@juliekailihiwa8150 I suggest never try that with a Humboldt squid.
Strong, very aggressive and very very fast. They grow big enough to be a very real safety problem. One could decide to try taking you off your feet and drag you under within moments. One can also prevent you drawing a SCUBA knife from the sheath.
Humboldts have typically been south of the US/Mex border, but seen as far north as Oregon/Washington waters
@@exgenica wow! Thank you. I've never seen a Humboldt squid.....the squids I carried back to the sea were literally unable to move. How shallow do they swim?
Self control can also be good to not reveal itself while hidding if the reward isn't enough to risk it. This is an animal that likes to hide and blend in, so waiting for prey is it's normal behaviour.
After this concluded, I suggest switching to 1 cray fish in the immediate release tank and two crawfish in the delay. This seems the only way to firmly cement this concept.
Exactly. That or remove the premise of crayfish entirely and stick to frozen shrimp. Live prey is far too tantalizing and something like this would be analogous to the marshmallow experiment except if the alternative delayed choice was the dancing, singing gingerbread man from shrek
I never made this comment.... wth is going on.
@@HappyCamper84you sure bout that??
@@Tony-op6xf His pet cuttlefish probably took over his phone and made that comment
I would immediately fail the test as I would suffocate under the water. Respect to cuttlefish!
I had a 90 gallon saltwater aquarium and I've had cuttlefish and they are extremely interesting and intelligent. There are times where I wondered if it was smarter then me!
Fascinating!
My
2
and now you know how to test it
I know this sounds stupid but what did the cuttlefish feel like? 💀.
Cuttlefish, being cephalopods have a surprising amount of innate intelligence. Although the lifespan of cephalopods is short they demonstrate intelligence all out of keeping with their longevity. It has even been suggested that they could rival humans in the world if they lived as long as humans do.
Their lifespan is definitely limiting, but not as limiting as their solitary lifestyle. There won't be a civilization of octopuses or cuttlefish any time soon simply because there's not many things an octopus hates more than other octopuses. So no cooperation, no huge common goals, no taking care for the weaker or the elderly, no passing knowledge by teaching ... there's so much they lose by being solitary.
And they’re tiny and cute :)
And if this eventuates, I , for one, will welcome our mollusc overlords
Why are we always in pursuit of an Animal with varying degrees of intelligence against Humans, we are the dumbest stupidest destructive species on the Planet, just take a look around you, now you don't have to look for intelligent creatures anymore, they are everywhere
The trouble with the test is it really can only be performed once to demonstrate the choice made by the animal, as the act of getting the prefer food item or quantities quickly causes an expectation and positive feedback incentive that turns the display into a trick, like when people give a dog a treat but won't let him eat it straight away. The dog isn't getting more food but is doing it as its become an expected behaviour.
Theres far worse problems with the experiment its flawed in logic and doesnt even prove they understand time! Im surprise this could have go so far without anyone seeing the problems! Also nothing can be said on intelligence! CAUSE EMOTIONS! The cuttlefish juts makes the decision Live over dead! Theres an easy way to include time but they didnt see it :(
It's no coincidence the more we look into animals, we always learn they are smarter and feel more than have been given credit.
Most animals aren't even capable of self awareness. Humans are far stupider than any animal
@King of The Zinger Animals in general are far kinder, more compassionate and loving than most humans.
@King of The Zinger intelligence made human good or evil I guess.
Of course they do because God created them all perfectly.
@@billybob-ro6qf Perfect when left alone, flawed with human interjection.
6:13 seeing the shrimp get whisked away is the funniest thing
I think if you present the cuttlefish with preferred food vs. non-preferred food, the cuttlefish will focus on preferred food because well... It's preferred. When I'm presented with a salad that I can eat right now but they show me a steak in front of me, I would be focused on the steak and not even look at the salad even if I have to wait a little.
Congratulations, you are smarter then the average toddler!
@@znail4675 all he's saying is the test they ran is flawed. it doesn't so delayed gratification so much as it'll hyper fixate on a crayfish over a frozen shrimp.
@@ominith1 But they actually tested that as well. They ran a control test with a box that never opened and in that situation the octopus picked the frozen shrimp and did not hyper focus on the preferred food.
@@znail4675 how long did it take to give up?
thank goodness you went with the Stanford *Marshmallow* Experiment, and not *Prison* Experiment
Lol 😂
I'm zimbardo
that was funny
I’m now trying to imagine what cuttlefish prisoners and prison guards look like.
Cuttlefish are fascinating, I’ve always found them so interesting. It doesn’t surprise me - and I’m also pleased to find out - that they have this level of cognition.😊
I was in Tobago some years ago and was floating with thirty or more cuttlefish watching them changing colour subtlety for what seemed at least an hour or so...they seemed very social creatures to me?!?...one love 💜
Two things to state:
1: It's always entertaining looking at a cephalopod. They demonstrate their emotions visually on occasion, which is fascinating.
2: It's understandable it would wait, as a predator. For a predator, it's more exciting going for something active, then inert, even if it's same value.
P.S. crayfish/crawdads DO taste better than shrimp, so... Can't blame the cuttlefish for preferring the crayfish. 😂
My wife often turns blue with rage. She can wait for up to two days to stalk and then attack a live prey, me. And certain parts can go bumpy under certain circumstances.
There are a lot of predator animals that will not eat dead unmoving food, period. Others will only eat it if that's all there is. So I'm not at all sure about the conclusions drawn here.
The first part of the test was finding out which the cuttlefish preferred. If they liked the frozen shrimp better than the live crayfish, then they'd have to wait to get the frozen food. But yes, the test could have been improved by putting two crayfish in the triangle box.
@@andyharpist2938 🤨
yes and no. the best shrimps are way tastier, but you usually can't beat the delectable simplicity of some crab boil seasoning and crayfish with some garlic butter sauce...
That feeder shrimp was probably talking mad smack behind that pane of glass in the triangle tank, until home girl opened the gates.
They're so cute, they should be called cuDDlefish. See, capital D's resemble their eyes.
~∊DD≋≋≋≋≈≈≈
"People do this experiment to kids to watch how cute they are"😂😂😂
Yes, that's exactly what we do, forget the original goal of the experiment, no one can resist cuteness.
@@haze6647 youright specially when theyer ours
To small fish they are evil monsters!
Cause they have giant teetays!!!! Hlugh💦hlughh💦hlugh💦hlugh💦
6:15 Why do I find this absolutely hilarious?
believe it or not, straight to ohio with him
Went back . Yeah that made me laugh
I'm guessing it's the slide whistle.
Shrimp abduction
6:15 okay but the little shrimp getting sucked up with that sound is hilarious lmao
Yeah the marshmallow test on kids is interesting, but from what I understand it has some imperfections- for one, some kids just don’t like marshmallows, or are simply not food motivated. So by not eating the marshmallow, they pass the test when really they were disinterested. Also, the marshmallow test is not only a patience test, but also a trust test. Does the child trust that an adult will give them an extra marshmallow for waiting, or does the child already have reason (from past experiences) not to trust the word of an adult, and thereby lack interest in the promise of a reward by an adult who in their view may just be lying or teasing them.
Another variable is that if the kid comes from a home that has limited food (eat now or don't eat later) they may instinctively eat the first marshmallow because they don't believe another with come if they wait because at home if they didn't eat they didn't eat at all. It's hard to make the experiment work properly which is why I don't believe it works as a proper test of intelligence, if there's so many factors not considered then how could it ever measure intelligence?? It's why I personally think there's no good way to properly measure intelligence..there will always be some factor not counted in like the willingness or background experiences of the subject which could ruin the results
@@testerwulf3357 But it's not meant to be a test of intelligence - I'm a bit surprised that it was advertised as such here.
It's a test of, well, really the ability to delay gratification. (I don't like using the term "self-control" because it's so overused.) And the main purpose of it is to find out:
- what allows some children to delay gratification (as you pointed out, experiences so far come into it) and how does the ability correalate with your later biography.
i saw a kid eat the marshmellow immediately and i thought it was the smartest thing to do cuz you dont have to sit around for 15 minutes
The marchsmallow experiment despite being called that way did not only give the children marshmallow as a "prize", it could also chcolate biscuits or even a smal toy depeding on what would motivate the kid most. So that wasn't it's big methodological problem.
But yes, it has been proven to have problems. For those who don't know, the main problem went that teh researchers actually followed the shcool results of groawn up kids for the experiment and then Mischell (the famous researcher), noticing that on average kids who showed delayed gratification then had genraly better test score in teenhood, made a whole theory on why teaching kids to delay gratification was a good thing. Recenty around 2014/2015 another study has shown that the original experiment had a serious bias in the fact that the sample came from kids of researcher and universtiy personnel and thus defnitvely suffred from being one very specific population and thus introduced a big bias.
Honestly though, imagine being the kid that decides to sit their whole life getting marshmallows only to die of old age and never get to eat a single one.
I think it is also very interest that the cuttlefish can be taught symbology and that different symbols have different meanings.
A big issue I have with this experiment is that the food type biases the experiment.
Because the shrimp is alive, and shaped more obviously like recognizable food, it biases the cuttlefish's attention.
I'm willing to bet if you now repeated this experiment with the same cuttlefish that understrood this settup, but replaced the prefrozen shrimp with a live shrimp, and the live shrimp with multiple live shrimps, it wouldn't think twice before going for the single shrimp.
Likewise, if you presented other predatory animals, that are thought to be incapable of performing delayed gratification, with a choice between their natural still alive prey, and dead/skinned/odorless/prepared meat of that prey. I'd hypothesise that they will now instinctively focus on hunting the still alive prey, similar to the result of the cuttlefish.
Ask yourself, do you think a cat wouldn't chase after a mouse that appears whilst its eating plain old dried food?
First, it's been shown that the cuttlefish prefers the live food. So the next question is, how much can the cuttlefish eat at one sitting? Knowing that it will only have room in it's tummy for one of them, it waits. Another thought is that perhaps it is mesmerized by the moving live prey the way a cat might ignore a toy that's not moving in favor of another toy it likes better. With the expectation that the more favored toy will move eventually, it ignores the less favorite toy while staring at the favorite toy waiting for it to move. I also agree with KH below, introducing 2 different kinds of food introduces a confounding variable.
I find cuttlefish absolutely fascinating! It's almost as if they are from another world.
Yep, though even if we should one day encounter real 'aliens', interesting how it still illustrates common dilemmas and choices, like 'delayed gratification'.
H.P Lovecraft has entered the chat.
Extraterrestrials probably won't look anything like we imagine - not 'grey aliens' with large heads and long arms, or any of the creatures depicted in countless Sci-Fi movies. It's like an undersea creature could never conceive of the many types of animals living on dry land or even the land itself, with dry deserts or fields of wheat in the open air. We always draw on elements of the known.
@@michaeld2519 Agree re: our tendency to 'anthropomorphize', though I also wouldn't rule out the possibility of 'convergent' evolution, and the advantages off an efficient bi-pedal body plan with forward facing receptors, located on a central CPU!
@@michaeld2519 I think you are absolutely right.
I had a half-dozen tanks all connected in sequence. The cuttlefish was in the
first tank. Water was pumped from the
last tank to the first one. Each tank housed a different environment. Each tank passed into the next. For reasons I simply couldn't understand, the little guy insisted on traversing all intermediate tanks to access the last.
This regardless seemed to be a recurring problem. And by the way, if you want to keep octopuses, you must make certain that the smallest openings are securely unavailable to escape. An octopus can pass through an opening the size of it's beak.
Since I learned anything about them, I have been fascinated with Cuttlefish. I want to eventually dive in a location where they live, to watch them, quietly, from a distance, without disturbing or touching anything natural.
I was snorkeling in the Florida Keys, when we came upon 3 cuttlefish swimming together. They actually stopped and watched _us_ for a little while. I have pictures. A few minutes later, they swam off together. They were very curious. And social I would say, because they stayed together.
Cuttlefish probably still have a form of social intelligence, but not once intended for communication. Rather, it is evolved in order to consider what OTHERS are seeing and adapt their camouflage in order to keep themselves safe. In this way they are still considering the perspective of others and so have to develop the ability to simulate complexities.
The lady is impressed that the cuttlefish can delay gratification. I am impressed the cuttlefish recognized symbolic communication: the circle and the triangle.
It's possible it focuses on live bait because the bait moves. It's not a matter of self control as much as live bait distracts from the boring dead bait.
A better test may be to place live bait in both...same movement and coloration. Then continue by varying sizes and quantities. 2 in triangle vs 1 in circle.
Concur. The conditions need to be identical. Especially since the subject shows a preference for live prey. Who doesn't like their seafood as fresh as possible?
Being born in a large family in which there were low justice levels, I learned that focusing on myself and not integrating too much gives me more focus on realizing my needs in more intelligent and independent ways, instead of being a victim of another person's willingness to fulfill them. It's probably why I have high self control and am a high achiver. It has its costs, though. It's a lonely life. I've been trying to get more open to other people to get my emotional needs met in the last few years.
You don’t need no one but Jesus Daniel
@@stevesharpe3370 that's what some told me. So far, he's not much needed, unless I don't notice His influence. There is surely something in the spirit world. I've read and experienced too much not to acknowledge the mind bogling Universe.
@@stevesharpe3370 Aren’t you a bit too old to have an imaginary friend?
@@HarshDude126 you sound cynical about not being able to get chicks
I think a control is necessary in this to confirm that if with no experience the cuddlefish will choose the less preferred food in the open feeding tray over the preferred food in the sealed tray. It’s possible that this is just fixation on the preferred food and only mimics a delayed gratification response.
6:56 Experiment is flawed, only the last round they gave him a non-live prey as an immediate item, cuttlefish don't eat dead fish anyway. They should've presented him with 1 live prey versus 2 live preys.
Wouldn't it just eat the crayfish in chamber A and wait for chamber B to open? It is an opportunistic predator after all.
@@SuspiciousGanymede they taught him he can only access one of the two boxes
Frozen shimp is what they eat most of the time. If given only frozen shrimp so did it get that or if the live bait was in a box that never opened then it also took the shrimp.
The experiments still flawed.
Cuttlefish, octopus and squid are quite intelligent. It's one thing to see cats dogs and birds being smart but to see those odd creatures from the deep gives one pause.
Especially when you realize that they are much smarter than dogs.
Yeah, isnt that kinda scary? I learned a lot from reading Jacques Cousteau's " Octopus and Squid- the Soft Intelligence". But what really impressed me was reading about Humboldt Squid in Science News. Researchers were interested in stories they'd heard that these squid were dangerous to humans. Oceanographers wanted to research this- but how did they protect themselves from the squid? They tried something similar to a shark cage- well the squid had no trouble getting the cage door open. But when said squid realized the scientists weren't there to harvest them they were peaceful. They had acted aggressively because they were being murdered.
Octopi are extremely intelligent, apparently even more so than dolphins.
High kinesthetic intelligence, hunting and deception skills are a basic necessity to be one of these.
@@michaeld2519.. Divers on the ferry system informed of the one giant octopus in Puget Sound. When it grew tired of being monitored, it would reach around and shut off the air valve on the diver recording it's behavior. .. ;]
When I first saw a video on Cuttlefish, I also saw that, like humans, some are more clever than others. They vary in size, and there was a small male who wanted to get it on with one of the available females, but a larger cuttlefish got to her first. So the smaller cuttle fish used his natural camouflaging ability to mimic the look of a female cuttlefish, and it fooled the larger male into letting him "come on board". So the smaller male linked up to the female and banged her silly, while the larger, *stupider* cuttlefish was looking the other way. The whole thing was going on right under his tentacles and he was clueless. It was hilarious.
More self control than 99% of adult humans. Not bad.
I don’t think I’d eat the shrimp
What kind of horrid human beings have you been associating yourself with?
@@goatfood1504 me neither, especially raw schrimp
This was so fascinating to watch, especially how they trained the cuttlefish to understand all of these things! Amazing!!
A thought: Perhaps cuttlefish really are social creatures after all. Every cuttlefish has three separate semi-autonomous brains, Perhaps those three brains socialize, communicate, form a community, exchange thoughts, learnings and ideas. Maybe a cutttlefish behaves and learns as if it's actually a small society, not just an individual. How could we test this?
Omg the cuttlefish are so adorable!! I could watch this ALL DAY!!!!♥️
What happens to these results when degree of hunger is explored? If the cuttlefish is only ever tested while on a lab regulated feeding schedule, the cuttlefish is likely influenced by that in terms of its resolve. In the wild, it would encounter both feast and famine. Showing it has resolve even in a state of famine might bolster results.
5:17 cuttlefish wants to hug the prey so badly... it's a cuddlefish
Imagine if these guys lived longer than two years. The intelligence they could develop.
If cephalopods lived the same amount of time as humans I legit think they would have got the industrial revolution started like 300mn years ago.
They frequently live to around four…but your point is still valid. It would be interesting to see what they might accomplish, given a human lifespan.🖤🇨🇦
I think about this all of the time! But the problem is that they die before they ever get to meet their kids. If they want to get that advanced, they don't actually need long lifespans, they just need to be able to pass down generational knowledge.
As-is, they all start from ground zero, but if they had parents they'd be able to learn from them and spend the rest of their lives developing new skills and tools.
The reason a lot of octopus specifically die is because they have a behavior that makes them sit by and protect their eggs, fasting and starving until they die. But researchers once did a surgery on a giant octopus mother to remove that part from her brain, and she abandoned her eggs but she also lived on for a relatively long time. It makes me wonder: If in the future there's a mutation that lets Octopus have better behaviors regarding parenthood, would they become more advanced?
maybe short lives is good, like they may have been through a whole lot of generations compared to us.
Really? What change in intelligence is there between a 20 year old and an 80 year old?
Yeah I'm not sold on the self control thing. I'm thinking that the live shrimp is just more preferable.
Um....
That’s the main idea of the experiment.
But don't you think the fact that they are even making a choice on preference is implying some sort of deeper understanding is then happening?
Two marshmallows are better then one as well. The entire point is that the delayed option is the better one, but it requires self control to not just pick the immediate gratification.
6:55 The Cuttlefish could have just been hunting , when a live prey is near , its possible that a frozen shrimp is not interesting , and that can be considered normal behavior i think
The point isn't really that the cuttlefish could resist temptation, the point is that it understood the situation. Btw, the same setup for children, with the bigger prize in plain sight, would surely increase success rates.
The Mashmellow test isnt about intelligence at all. Its purely a test of current impulse control (not even a test of Impulse control capacity, because they don't survey the kids for activities that day, sleep quality, etc. all of which use up impulse control till it gets replenished by gratification and rest). This is a Garbage test, that's been drawing or infering false conclutions for decades. The makers of this test are flat-out INCOMPETENT. The strength of a subject's Self Direction does not correlate directly to problem solving ability.
@@MrKreinen No, they aren't, because that wasn't what the test was for. The people who have later misinterpreted it are wrong. In actuality, beyond a very young age, children will wait for the snack if they trust the person, and won't if not.
Children who have learnt not to generally trust adults generally have reasons to, and those reasons usually have an effect on future education and such.
The experiment was never intended by anyone to imply what everyone takes it to imply.
@@deathofallthingspotato9919
Well that makes a lot more sense (consistent with the general scholarship).
Thanks for alerting me to this misconception.
I'll have to look into it again so I can see for myself, but it makes sense that the study has been mischaracterized, particularly by those who cite it to support their political agendas, rather than the Scientists themselves.
IDK if the version of this experiment that we reviewed in my 1st year psych lab was the original, a replication, or perhaps even edited by my teacher to serve the class's purposes.
@@deathofallthingspotato9919 After taking a peek at a refresher on the Marshmallow test and its replications, I must compliment you on your rational retroframing, and the improvements made by replications in the decades since it's origin.
You might be interested to read a the University of California's 2020 study critiquing/refuting the 1972 Stamford Marshmallow Test (and possibly a 2018 replication) for Not accounting for the variable of "reputation" (or a trusted summery/review, like I did).
@@MrKreinen Yeah, that sounds about right - the key factor in whether someone will wait for a reward is whether they trust that the reward is coming (although of course other factors are present).
I’m thinking the Cuttlefish was going for the live food no matter what happens 🤔
I was thinking this
That's what they're testing. Whether it will wait to get what it wants more or just go for what it can get at any moment
I beg to differ @Comment Highlighted. That's not the case. At the beginning, Cuttlefishes, on being given only non living prey, grabbed the non living ones'. During the last experiment, they could have easily taken non living one first and then wait for second one. But since, they were trained for mutual exclusivity of choices (Only one fish can be taken). They waited. Which suggests their cognition ability and self control have been evolved.
They also did a test with a chamber that never opened to see that it did indeed pick the frozen shrimp instead of staying focused on the live one if it knew it couldn't get the live.
It's called a cuddlefish because it's a soft floating pillow!
That cuttlefish is 4 parallel universes ahead of me
One thing I've wondered about is the fact that it usually talks of just telling kids to wait, while animals are put through it repeatedly. Is that the case? Because if so then I can't help but wonder how many of those kids that grab the one marshmallow would wait if they were shown the two they could've had every day for a week.
But you can talk to kids and tell them. They know what 'two marshmallows' means. If they don't, I blame the parents.
@@dingo1666 True, but it's still not equal. You can show the animal two treats and if it's a similar age it should gain some understanding. More to the point, with the animals you're not just dealing with one that has heard and "understood" that waiting will win it a better treat, you're also dealing with one that's had it demonstrated to it and experienced the frustration of not getting as much as it could. Experience still teaches more than words, no matter how skilled the parents are at explaining it. Thus, if you really want a proper test, you'd present kids with the options but NOT explain it, instead demonstrating through actions and seeing how long it takes them. I'm still willing to bet that after a few rounds a ton of the kids that supposedly haven't learned to wait for gratification will happily wait rather than experience the frustration of seeing the better item taken away.
Many cephalopods will also play, which was thought to be exclusive to social animals as it teaches skills needed for competition and cooperation within a group. This seems to be right in line with those results. There could be some overall link between these intelligent behaviors, and perhaps others as well, that make them part of an overall “intelligence package”
This was very interesting. Thank you for uploading.
Thanks for watching :)
I wonder if this works on Tuskfish (Choerodon sp.) They are surprisingly intelligent, having the privlege to own one myself (C. fasciata). I have seen it display behaviour such as playing with rocks, shells and pieces of coral skeleton. It uses a rock as an anvil to smash prey (shrimp, small mollusks) on.
Also, if you have watched Blue Planet II you will see a Tuskfish in action.
The annoyance present in the body language of that cuttlefish as it waited for the good food was like watching someone tap their fingers impatiently on a desk.
What about different numbers of dead shrimp in the boxes? What if it the food of higher value is always in the 'wait' box and then presented with both types of boxes for which it can't detect the contents? and so on ... Oh dear, I think I'd have too many variations on these tests and exhausted that cuttlefish.
Watch the Octo Lab channel. They are open to experiment ideas. They mainly work with octopus, but occasionally have cuttlefish. The experiments are fascinating (and always humane! They do these to entertain the cephalopods as much as us).
@@y_fam_goeglyd "The experiments are fascinating (and always humane!"
Not to the shrimp.
I was going to say it would be interesting to see a similar experiment with an octopus, but the octopus would just figure out a way to open or break the "delay" chamber and get its food immediately
That's cuz octopi are jus'gangsta. ,🤭
tbf I think that all cephalopods have similar amounts of intelligence, though I do believe that they are smarter than squid and cuttlefish.
...Damn, I'd really love to see experiments carried out to determine which is the most clever..
Adding the difference in food type dilutes the validity of the conclusion.
It would be better to provide an immediate small and a delayed large prey of the same type.
The shrimp was like "I understand you want to test his intelligence but what this got to do with me?"
Person. Woman. Man. Camera. TV.
That was easy. Where's my shrimp.?
You deserve the best shrimp ever 😁
People keep talking about it all the time that no one deserves the shrimp any more than you do. You are probably the only person who is going to get that shrimp 🤭
Or, the fact that the cuddle fish are visual creatures, the live food just held their attention.
Hi, I'm the Director/Producer of this short documentary. Feel free to ask me questions! Also, you can jump to the cuttlefish experiment at 3:16.
On average, if this was researched, how long could the cuttlefish be patient for?
@@RC13.1 Up to around 2 minutes! Each cuttlefish was a little different though.
@@GregKestin Fascinating, thank you!
Is there a peer reviewed publication from this study?
@@kosephdrums yes! The link is in the video description
They've been around 500 million years! I think they've already passed🤭
Thousands *
@@billyramirezhealthybydesig5188 millions*
The more we learn the more interesting our world becomes- plus cuttlefish are pretty cute !
I always love science that finds commonalities across species lines. Keep doing this excellent work!
Not me PROUD of the cuttlefish for waiting patiently 😅😅🤣
Was there a control group? Did they try this experiment with non-conditioned cuttlefish? As presented, it’s pretty hard to draw any conclusions.
This proves that the cuttlefish is intelligent enough to know that dead prey won't try and escape, and that energy is better spent on the anticipation of a chance to catch the live prey.
Though harder to control conditions, the use of live prey in both containers would prove the claim.
Another detail she shoulda mentioned about them obviously was their tentacles that can shoot out their mouths super fast grabbing prey and retracting them in to their beaks.
Very interesting and clever experiment!
NOVA: You should read your comments and see that many people are very confused about things like showing proper controls, randomizing cage placement, etc. This is the danger of doing cute little videos that don't explain all the boring details. AT LEAST highlight in the video that there is a link to the actual paper in the description.
agreed. watching this I assume they ran proper controls, but if they don't spend a few seconds mentioning them, who knows.
I love these types of experiments. it's clever to devise them and it's even more impressive to watch the experiment being solved through learning the rules.
If it ever did… they changed the food type, so it could easily be that it was just focused on the live prey. If I sat a kid down and said he could have steamed broccoli now or pizza in 15 minutes, then they will pass the test every time.
@@BamaShanks Nope! My daughter would take the steamed Broccoli every time, because both of those things are delicious in her eyes. Now Coriander, on the other hand, is a totally different story...
This is amazing science and story telling!
Yeah, the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the experiment. Another possible conclusion, the cuddlefish may be fixated on the movement of the live prey. Two live prey items in one container vs one live prey item in the other container is a better experiment for "delayed" gratification.
There is no reason the cuddlefish would know what the shapes are. It does not interact with them in the slightest. They just go after the prey inside.
I love cuttlefish, such fascinating little beings.
I'm really surprised that there aren't social cuttlefish, since they can communicate with each other.
I'm imagining little wolfpacks of cuttlefish roaming the seas, would be really interesting watching them hunt.
This seems like a bad experiment, why didnt they make it two crawfish vs one crawfish, like the marshmallows experiment. The experiment they did seems more like offering a kid one marshmallow or one piece of broccoli.
They don't hate the frozen food though…
My favorite animal.
Mine too, now!
@@GregKestin mine to!
It's taste so good that I can't resist
I'm a zoologist, and I don't think this test can be applied universally. My ducks can solve puzzles and one of them even passes the mirror test, but they can't do this. It's just what ducks do, they're hard wired to gobble food cuz they live in flocks where if you hesitate, you lose. So they never wait if there's food involved.
If smart enough it will do anything to get out of this laboratory setting! Well under the idea it will be set free...
They needed to show the cuttlefish going for the frozen shrimp and witnessing the live one get taken away, and then changing its behaviour the next time, before this would be a convincing experiment. With the images shown, it would be easy to conclude the cuttlefish is just too interested in the live one to really even notice the frozen one, and thus not be exhibiting self control.
It's nice to meet you, friend! This was an amazing sharing. I really appreciate your sharing it with all of us. Very aweosme video!
"DELAYED GRATIFICATION DOESN'T EXIST UNTIL AGE 4 OR 5" Im in my 40's and could wait 5 let alone 15 minutes for that marshmallow or anything else!
This video alone tested my patience, talk about dragging out a subject, and repeatedly stating the obvious.
Curious that at minute 6:36 you have to remind the people watching the video of the circle/triangle, to the people who are watching the video of the experiment (which are obviously people, because animals don't usually watch RUclips videos...), while the cuttlefish watch RUclips videos...), while to the cuttlefish, it is not necessary to explain that the circle is a explain to the cuttlefish that the circle is a quick reward and the triangle is not? are cuttlefish are cuttlefish smarter than those who watch this video? 😆
Curioso que en el minuto 6:36 se tiene que recordar lo del círculo/triángulo, a las personas que están viendo el vídeo de el experimento (que obviamente son personas, porque los animales no suelen ver vídeos de RUclips...), mientras que a la sepia, no hay que explicarle que el círculo es recompensa rápida y el triángulo no... ¿son las sepias más listas que los que ven este vídeo? 😆
Cuttlefish are social as hell, saw them swimming in a school (5-6 together) once and they all synched up to distract me by changing into the shape and color of a nearby fish I had been ignoring. They were hoping I would start ignoring them too... it kind of worked because I had to look to compare at the other fish I had been ignoring and as soon as I looked away they bolted away in the opposite direction in unison.
I love the spirit of animals.Sometime they're smarter then little humans .So smart.Great experiment