[Titanscape (OP)]

It is amazing as to just how trusting the human species is. It is part of so many actions and interactions...! Other animals lack this greatly. Chimps for example lack trust. Trust in needed for civilisation...

<font color="green">Titanscape</font id="green">

[another_someone]

Not sure where you get the notion that no animal but humans are capable of trust.  Most dog owners would consider that their dogs show great trust in them.  In fact, most pets, or domestic animals, will show some trust in those who care for them, but probably dogs are exceptionally so.

Chips, like humans, are social animals (albeit, they live in much smaller social groups, but then early humans also lived in smaller social groups), and have personal relationships with other members of the group that require as much trust as any human relationship.

Any animal where the parent(s) provide support for the young must have a relationship of trust between parent and child.

George

[gecko]

yes, that is a broad generalization. our trust is nothing in comparison to a pack of wolves.

just like usual, humans are no exceptional animal

[DoctorBeaver]

I think it's true to say that most wild animals do not trust humans; nor do many trust others of their own or other species. However, there are plenty of examples of animals relying on one another's actions to survive.

Take meerkats as an example. They post sentries who act as lookouts while others tend the young. If those tending the young didn't trust the sentries, that system would never work.

Chimps when hunting rely on each other to take appropriate action at the appropriate time. They "trust" that the others will perform their duty. Without that group trust they would not be able to hunt in the manner they do.

Then there are wild creatures that seem to have an innate trust of humans - dolphins, for example; or even the robin in your back garden. Normally we would refer to this behaviour as "tame", but whatever name you give it there must be an element of trust involved.

Brand new forum at
http://beaverlandforum.y4a.net
More than just science

[neilep]

I once heard that Robins just have more guile than other birds..because they have to..
 
As for Humans having trust....hmmm...for me, being a right cynical git, trust needs to be earned either by display or personal experience, though I might tend to think that humans, although understand the nature of trust are inherently wary of each other.....but then...I may be projecting my personal prejudiced there.
 
However, as mentioned , I think (in MY opinion) that the rest of the animal kingdom do display trust, or if not natural in theirproclivity can  mostly be tamed to display trust towards humans....
 

..as George states... domestic dogs just go ahead and display unconditional trust....as well as other household pets....(perhaps apart from a pet Hippo []...as they are rude and never close the fridge ) they of course have no cognitive comprehension of the nature of trust, which, even for us, is just a term used to describe a feeling of integrity and reliance.


Men are the same as women, just inside out !

[Monox D. I-Fly]

Take meerkats as an example. They post sentries who act as lookouts while others tend the young. If those tending the young didn't trust the sentries, that system would never work.

What if it's not their ability to trust but instead their inability to lie?

[alancalverd]

All social animals rely on the assumption that others will play their part in collecting nectar, tending to the air conditioning, defending the nest, protecting the young, bringing down the prey, whatever. At the very least, most birds assume that one will forage and return whilst the other incubates the eggs. Indeed apart from sparrows, which seem exceptionally prone to adultery, humans are one of the least trustworthy species and even go to great lengths to elect professional liars and traitors to positions of authority.

[Colin2B]

apart from sparrows, which seem exceptionally prone to adultery, ......

Naturalists differentiate between social monogamy and sexual monogamy. Most birds are socially monogamous by staying together during breeding season and taking part in parenting - feeding or brooding young, feeding brooding partner. About 90% of birds are socially monogamous but a large proportion of those have what are called extra-pair copulations (EPCs) ie they play away. Apparently songbirds are more likely to do it.

[littlebrowndragon]

It is amazing as to just how trusting the human species is. It is part of so many actions and interactions...! Other animals lack this greatly. Chimps for example lack trust. Trust in needed for civilisation...

<font color="green">Titanscape</font id="green">

I certainly do not agree that humans are a trusting species.  In fact, any look at modern society shows nothing but distrust and its consequence, paranoia. 

As to animals being trusting...…… I think that animals are cooperative rather than trusting.  Animals are just naturally cooperative - until they come into contact with human beings for a long time.

Take chimps.  Chimps have been studied by animal behaviourists such as Jane Goodall.  To study her chimps, Jane Goodall actually stalked them - and I mean stalked, here.  The chimps, while they demonstrated to Goodall every sign of requiring her to go away and leave them alone in peace, in the end had to resign themselves to her presence, to her flat refusal to leave them alone (and therefore to her psychologically damaging presence).  Goodall, I think, drove her chimps nuts  That they resigned themselves to her presence is, I think, down to animals being naturally cooperative, and not to trust.

[Bored chemist]

LOL
If a group of chimps decided they didn't like Goodall, they could (and would) tear her apart- literally.
After all, they do it to other chimps.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/

...down to animals being naturally cooperative, and not to trust.

Cooperation are two sides of the same coin.

[littlebrowndragon]

If a group of chimps decided they didn't like Goodall, they could (and would) tear her apart- literally.After all, they do it to other chimps.

Chimps behave like that because they have been driven nuts by behaviourist stalkers.  When Goodall discovered such behaviour in chimps - and this only after at least 1 decade of observation i.e. of stalking the animals, - she did not link such behaviour to her own, albeit unwitting, treatment of her subjects.  But the fact is quite simply this: if you or I were to be subjected to the same treatment as those chimps, we too would be driven nuts.  One person stalking another person is a crime, after all, and this because it is acknowledged that being stalked induces mental ill-health. 

[littlebrowndragon]

Cooperation are two sides of the same coin.

I am sure they are related.  For example, one can be cooperative with other people without necessarily trusting them. 

[evan_au]

We regularly get trolls and obsessed individuals posting on this forum.
- If they violate their cooperative agreement when they signed up, they get a warning.
- If they continue to be non-cooperative, they are expelled from the group.
- Trust, but verify!

Moderation, sanctions and exclusion are some tools that can be used to make the internet a safe (virtual) place.

This is better than allowing social media groups to turn on individuals, which has unfortunately sometimes led to social isolation, depression and suicide in the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

[Bored chemist]

Chimps behave like that because they have been driven nuts by behaviourist stalkers.

Then why didn't they attack her?

[littlebrowndragon]

We regularly get trolls and obsessed individuals posting on this forum.
- If they violate their cooperative agreement when they signed up, they get a warning.
- If they continue to be non-cooperative, they are expelled from the group.
- Trust, but verify!

Moderation, sanctions and exclusion are some tools that can be used to make the internet a safe (virtual) place.

This is better than allowing social media groups to turn on individuals, which has unfortunately sometimes led to social isolation, depression and suicide in the real world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust,_but_verify

I don't know if this is intended as a "warning" to me or not, but call me a troll if you wish.  Imply that I am obsessed and uncooperative if you wish.  In fact, call me any nasty old name you wish.       

I have opinions about science as, surely, do all forum members.  However, I have too much experience to expect freedom of speech among certain groups of people and perhaps this is one such group.  It would be a shame for you if that were so.  I do not think that echo chambers serve any good function, most of all to those locked inside of them.  In truth, echo chambers are a symptom of degraded minds and do a great deal of damage to those who uphold them and live within their bounds.  Perhaps, however, the damaging psychological effects of echo chambers would best be pursued on a thread on the psychology forum.

[Bored chemist]

You forgot to answer the question.

Chimps behave like that because they have been driven nuts by behaviourist stalkers.

Then why didn't they attack her?

Incidentally, turning up and making obviously false claims then failing to address criticism is trolling.

I have opinions about science

That's interesting.
Why not post about science then, rather than obvious nonsense?

[littlebrowndragon]

Incidentally, turning up and making obviously false claims then failing to address criticism is trolling.

Firstly, the question asked required some thought, hence my delay in answering.

Secondly, as I said earlier, call me any old name you wish.

Thirdly, as to "obviously false claims", I do believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, that science does not assess the validity of claims according to whether they are deemed "obviously" false or "obviously" true. My understanding is that the scientific method was developed in order that such claims could be assessed for their validity in a considerably more robust fashion.  (And the scientific method notwithstanding, I do appreciate that science does not agree with my claims, as is also made clear from the reaction to them by forum members.)

Finally, to the interesting and very pertinent question posed earlier: Then why didn't they attack her?

My understanding of the situation is that the chimps did attack Goodall at first.  This in order to discourage her from stalking them.  Obviously they did not kill her but I believe they did injure her occasionally.  She was certainly very wary of them for a long time until, according to Goodall, they became "habituated" to her presence. 

My interpretation of the psychology of what was going on certainly does not match Goodall’s.  Animals and humans can, in fact, communicate perfectly well – when both parties are behaving naturally, that is.  In the case of Goodall and the chimps, my understanding of the situation is that the chimps were behaving perfectly naturally (at first) by signaling loudly and clearly to Goodall that they did not want her hanging around.  However, Goodall was not behaving naturally.  She refused to cooperate with the chimps, refused to “take the hint”, as it were, and so persisted and persisted in ignoring the chimps’ requests.

The chimps would never have met this unnatural behavior before.  In the face of Goodall’s relentlessness, her totally, to them, alien behavior, they were finally at a loss as to how to deal with her.   And so in the end they just gave up trying to communicate their needs to her i.e. asking her to “push off”.  I suggest that this “giving up” is what Goodall mistakenly refers to as “habituation”.

There are parallels in human to human interactions when one side is behaving naturally and the other not.  For example, take Stockholm Syndrome where prisoners fall in love with their jailors.  Another well known phenomenon is when a client/patient falls in love with their therapist.  These are all well documented phenomena.  I suggest that something along these lines was happening between the chimps and Goodall (and subsequently between all animals and their stalkers i.e. the animal behaviorists).   

[Bored chemist]

correct me if I am wrong, that science does not assess the validity of claims according to whether they are deemed "obviously" false or "obviously" true

An assessment of trolling does.


Stockholm syndrome happens (sometimes) when "there is no escape".
But in this case any of the chimps could have ripped her apart any time they chose.
So I'm still waiting for an answer.
If they were so bothered by her so much that it might drive them nuts, why not just dispose of her?

[Petrochemicals]

Because people will instantly think that  what they see is what is real, reliance on there own senses. Like people who reply to threads in the assumption that they are current rather than an aged regurgitation because of the general order of things. Poor misguided pompous fools.

A magic trick is the same, people are amazed that their own belief in their own senses is wrong. "my god i'm a moron!"

Bah humbug

[yor_on]

I don't know dragon. I think BC made some valid counterpoints, but I also think that you might have some justice in your own interpretation, which I guess might come from your own experiences. But if we take intrusions in our lives as danger signs, which I suspect most animals to do, then after a while finding no danger to exist, we might also become indifferent to it. Another thing I think one need to guard against is reading in human feelings and thoughts in a animal, be it a pet or not. Although I do think they have feelings same as us and can express both love and trust.