this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
456 points (97.1% liked)

Science Memes

11130 readers
3210 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 98 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (5 children)

ARTICLE TEXT:

Humans' invention of zero was crucial for modern mathematics and science, but we're not the only species to consider "nothing" a number. Parrots and monkeys understand the concept of zero, and now bees have joined the club, too.

Honey bees are known to have some numerical skills such as the capacity to count to four, which may come in handy when keeping track of landmarks in their environment. To see whether these abilities extended to understanding zero, researchers trained 10 bees to identify the smaller of two numbers. Across a series of trials, they showed the insects two different pictures displaying a few black shapes on a white background. If the bees flew to the picture with the smaller number of shapes, they were given delicious sugar water, but if they flew toward the larger number, they were punished with bitter-tasting quinine.

Once the bees had learned to consistently make the correct choice, the researchers gave them a new option: a white background containing no shapes at all. Even though the bees had never seen an empty picture before, 64% of the time they chose this option rather than a picture containing two or three shapes, the authors report today in Science. This suggests that the insects understood that "zero" is less than two or three. And they weren't just going for the empty picture because it was new and interesting: Another group of bees trained to always choose the larger number tended to pick the nonzero image in this test.

In further experiments, the researchers showed that bees' understanding of zero was even more sophisticated: For example, they were able to distinguish between one and zero—a challenge even for some other members of the zero club. Advanced numerical abilities like this could give animals an evolutionary advantage, helping them keep track of predators and food sources. And if an insect can display such a thorough grasp of the number zero, write the researchers, then this ability may be more common in the animal kingdom than we think.

Source

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

With the way they tested, couldn't it just have been the difference between "more white" and "less white" and not an actual numerical understanding?

[–] NekoRogue 8 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

And they weren't just going for the empty picture because it was new and interesting: Another group of bees trained to always choose the larger number tended to pick the nonzero image in this test.

[–] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 16 points 7 months ago

It's the same method but reversed rewards so it could still be that they were attracted because more shapes = more black. Was the ratio of color difference consistent each time or were the shapes random sizes?

[–] ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

I mean that's just the opposite conditioning. The bees that chose the pictures with more spots were rewarded for choosing the pictures with more spots. So they'd be conditioned to go for the picture with more spots.

[–] meliaesc@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago

How is that different than counting?

[–] big_slap@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

thank you king

[–] someacnt_@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hmm, "64%" part irks me. What if statistical error was involved?

[–] huginn@feddit.it 11 points 7 months ago

64% of the time 10 bees chose 0 is statistically significant but not with a low p-value.

You'd need to invest a lot more time and effort into proving this to get the P-value lower and I don't expect many institutions are willing to train 1000 bees to try and figure out if they get 0 or not.

[–] anothercatgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 7 months ago

thank you so much for reposting the article text in the comments! it's so much more accessible (fewer taps) this way.

[–] essteeyou@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Amazing! Thanks for sharing. :-)

[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I love bees, and now I respect them even more. Glad it was interesting to someone other than me!

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

Wait until you find out ants pass the mirror test.

One study found that three species, Myrmica rubra, Myrmica ruginodis, and Myrmica sabuleti have shown potential for self-recognition (Cammaerts and Cammaerts, 2015). When exposed to a mirror, ants of all three species marked with a blue dot would attempt to clean themselves by touching the mark. Similar results were not exhibited when ants were marked with a brown dot, which is the same color as their body. It appears that the ants used their mirror reflection to see the unusual blue dot and attempt to clean it. If true, this behavior would indicate self-recognition.

[–] dingus@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

I didn't even realize they could see much at all tbh. I thought most of their navigation was through smell! This is a super interesting article!

[–] anzo@programming.dev 3 points 7 months ago

Amazing, specially considering that gorillas either fight or flee their reflection on mirrors. There are videos on YouTube, quite entertaining btw.

[–] ickplant@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Interesting stuff!

[–] elxeno@lemm.ee 38 points 7 months ago

Bees and recent humans:

[–] Steak@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago (3 children)

The bees just thinking more black bad, less black good. No black best. I don't think it's actually counting.

[–] RecluseRamble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I don't think it's actually counting.

Right. Pretty racist though.

[–] Steak@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago
[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 4 points 7 months ago

They should do a control with 75% of the square covered with one black pip vs 25% covered by five.

[–] Seasoned_Greetings@lemm.ee 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

No black best

This isn't the point? That the vast majority of animals don't have a working concept of "none" or "without" that they can form other logic and correlation with?

[–] Steak@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 months ago

They are just avoiding black dude it's that simple.

[–] littlebluespark@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Heh. I'm sure we all know a few of those non-"recent" humans that can't seem to grasp the concept. I just hope they're in lower numbers than expected this November. 😶

[–] elxeno@lemm.ee 5 points 7 months ago

Found the article just for this part

...recent humans. (Fibonacci introduced zero to Western mathematics around the year 1200.)

A bit different from the bees' "understanding the concept of zero".

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2023/08/28/is-beekeeping-wrong

[–] lugal@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

This might be hard for you to understand but there might even be zero of them left

Editlol, I love how controversial this comment is. The joke was that if there were "zero of them", it wouldn't be hard for to understand for anyone. If it's hard for them to understand, the number of "non recent" humans wouldn't be zero. It's a self contradiction, a paradox, what ever. First and foremost it was a joke.

[–] anzo@programming.dev 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Just read the article. 64% is awfully near to 50%. Specially if the number of trials was low.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Its a 28% increase. To me, thats colloquially significant.

[–] anzo@programming.dev 1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Now, I went to the research article. The number of trials (n) was 10. To me, this is not strong evidence. If an independent group would take upon this work and find similar results, I would very much be inclined to change my mind.

[–] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

10 trials is lot of replication and more than reliable enough. Thats improbable, even for a 50:50. Honestly, I'm quite taken aback that you think 10 repetitions of the same result isn't strong evidence and it screams that no one would ever be deemed independent enough, unless they found the results you wanted.

[–] anzo@programming.dev 0 points 7 months ago

If bees had 2 options, by random chance they would go to any of them (i.e. no learning or concept of zero). That's 50%. The article is based on 10 bees, and only 6.4? chose the correct answer. Ok, I am definitely not understanding this. I would need to re-read it...

[–] ArbitraryValue@sh.itjust.works 4 points 7 months ago

I'm not convinced that this represents "understanding the concept of zero" in a nontrivial sense. Are there species that can be taught to pick the picture with fewer shapes but then don't prefer a picture with no shapes?

CROWS NOW BEES?

[–] anothercatgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

that's so interesting. I feel like we humans abuse the ability to choose nothing.

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] anothercatgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 7 months ago

I'd rather do nothing useful and continue doomscrolling my Lemmy feed.