|
|
Giraldeau, L. - A., Lefebvre, L., & Morand-Ferron, J. (2007). Can a restrictive definition lead to biases and tautologies? Behav. Brain Sci., 30(4), 411–412.
Abstract: We argue that the operational definition proposed by Ramsey et al. does not represent a significant improvement for students of innovation, because it is so restrictive that it might actually prevent the testing of hypotheses on the relationships between innovation, ecology, evolution, culture, and intelligence. To avoid tautological thinking, we need to use an operational definition that is taxonomically unbiased and neutral with respect to the hypotheses to be tested.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W. (1993). Do larger brains mean greater intelligence? Behav. Brain Sci., 16(4), 696–697.
|
|
|
|
Byrne, R. W., & Russon, A. E. (1998). Learning by imitation: a hierachical approach. Behav. Brain Sci., 21, 667–721.
|
|
|
|
Whiten, A., & Byrne, R. W. (1988). Tactical deception in primates. Behav. Brain Sci., 11(02), 233–244.
Abstract: ABSTRACT Tactical deception occurs when an individual is able to use an “honest” act from his normal repertoire in a different context to mislead familiar individuals. Although primates have a reputation for social skill, most primate groups are so intimate that any deception is likely to be subtle and infrequent. Published records are sparse and often anecdotal. We have solicited new records from many primatologists and searched for repeating patterns. This has revealed several different forms of deceptive tactic, which we classify in terms of the function they perform. For each class, we sketch the features of another individual's state of mind that an individual acting with deceptive intent must be able to represent, thus acting as a “natural psychologist.” Our analysis will sharpen attention to apparent taxonomic differences. Before these findings can be generalized, however, behavioral scientists must agree on some fundamental methodological and theoretical questions in the study of the evolution of social cognition.
|
|
