Many Minds

Welcome to our first episode of 2021! Super excited to get this year going—we’ve got, I promise, lots of great conversations in store for you. But this week, to kick things off, we have a brief audio essay. It’s about tracks—that’s right, footprints. This might seem at first glance like a narrow topic but, fear not, it contains multitudes. I started thinking about this theme a month or so ago after the first snowfall of the winter. It was just a dusting but perfect conditions for clear, distinct footprints. I was out in the park totally transfixed by these crisp perfect animal tracks. (I’m still not sure what kind of animal, some small to medium mammal.) And, anyway, I got to thinking about how many of us have lost touch with tracks—just like we’ve lost touch with so many other natural phenomena, from bird calls to constellations. And I started thinking about the many meanings of tracks. The roles they’ve played. What they can tell us. So that was the seed from which this essay grew. In it we talk about how archaeologists have used trackways to reconstruct our prehistory; about how, according to some, tracking played a role in our cognitive evolution; and we talk about how about tracks are mainstay of myth and metaphor and visual culture. Lots here folks—I think you’ll enjoy it.   A text version of this essay is available on Medium.   Notes and links 2:45 – The Laetoli prints have been written about in numerous places. Early reports by Mary Leakey and colleagues are here and here. A brief, accessible, up-to-date overview is here. 4:15 – The 2013 prints from Norfolk, England are widely known as the Happisburgh prints. Read the original report here. 4:40 – Read the paper about the 2020 prints from White Sands National Monument here. A popular article about the trackway can be read here. 6:15 – Read Kim Shaw-Williams’ “social trackways theory” paper here. More recently, he has expanded these ideas to cover the evolution of language. 8:20 – A 2003 paper by Deborah Wells and colleagues, about the directional tracking abilities of dogs, can be read here. A follow-up is here.  9:30 – Louis Liebenberg’s book The Art of Tracking: The Origin of Science can be read here. 10:45 – The Robert Macfarlane quote comes from his book The Old Ways. 11:00 – Ethnographic evidence of peopel's ability to recognize individual tracks in some communities is discussed by Liebenberg and Shaw-Williams. 11:30 – Wikipedia has articles about the Ciguapa and Curupira. Read about the Konderong here. The number words of the Xerénte can be read about here. Sesotho time metaphors are briefly mentioned here. 12:15 – Read about the origins of Chinese characters in bird tracks here. View scanned pages of the Boturini Codex here. 13:55 – One recent new analysis of the Laetoli prints can be read here. Another striking recently reported ancient trackway is mentioned here. 14:20 – The Emerson essay from which this quote comes can be viewed here. Correction: The audio version of this episode misstates the age of the trackway discovered near Norfolk, England. It is estimated to be 800,000 years old, not 80,000.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play—or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

When you think of domestication, I bet you think of farm animals—you know cows and pigs and alpacas—or maybe house pets. You might think of corn or wheat or rice. You probably don’t think of us—humans, Homo sapiens. But, by the end of today’s conversation, I’m guessing you will. For this episode I talked with Dr. Brian Hare of Duke University. He’s a core member of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience there, as well a Professor of Evolutionary Anthropology. Along with Vanessa Woods, he’s the author of book published this summer titled Survival of the Friendliest: Understanding our Origins and Rediscovering our Common Humanity. We talked about Brian’s research with dogs, foxes, and bonobos and how it led him to a big idea at the center of this new book. The idea is that, much as we domesticated farm animals to make them tamer and easier to work with, we also seem to have domesticated ourselves at some point in our evolutionary past. This process is known as self-domestication—a selection for friendliness. But beyond making us gentler and smilier, the domestication process also had a bunch of unexpected impacts on our behaviors, bodies, and brains. Really unexpected, like the fact that we have globe-shaped heads. According to Brian and Vanessa’s account, self-domestication was in fact the force that allowed ancient humans to develop larger social networks and, in turn, more sophisticated technologies. So it may hold the answer to why we’re still around while other hominin species—like the Neanderthals—aren’t. As Brian says at one point in our conversation, the book is really offering an account of human nature. And, importantly, it’s a dual nature. Lurking behind our friendliness—co-existing and co-evolved with our newfound chumminess—is a darker side, a capacity for real cruelty. I consider the human self-domestication hypothesis to be one of the most fascinating ideas of that last decade. Right now it’s really at the center of a lot of conversations about human origins and about human and animal minds. Enjoy!   A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links Note: Much of what we discuss is covered in Survival of the Friendliest, but additional readings and sources are also listed here. 6:42 – Read the paper inspired by Dr. Hare’s early observations about how his dog Oreo could understand human pointing gestures. 8:40 – In one study, Dr. Hare traveled to Siberia to study a population of domesticated foxes—and specifically to ask whether they would show a predilection for cooperative communication. The long-running fox-farm experiment is the subject of a book titled How to Tame a Fox (And Build a Dog). 10:50 – Around the same time as his research in Siberia, Dr. Hare also published work examining how bonobos exhibit more tolerance than chimpanzees. 15:15 – A recent article voicing skepticism about the fox-farm research and the so-called “domestication syndrome.” 17:30 – See Dr. Hare’s 2017 book, Bonobos: Unique in Mind, Brain, and Behavior, co-authored with Shinya Yamamato. 30:00 – A long-standing puzzle in paleoanthropology is why modern human behavior—as judged by advanced tool use, symbolism, etc.—lagged behind modern human anatomy by more than a hundred thousand years. The eventual emergence of modern behavior is sometimes described as the Upper Paleolithic Revolution. 40:00 – An article Dr. Hare published along with Robert L. Cieri, Steven Churchill, and other colleagues on the origins of “behavioral modernity.” 48:30 – Steven Pinker—among other scholars—has argued that violence has declined in human societies from prehistory until today. This idea has been both influential and controversial. 58:45 – Evidence from social psychology suggests that cross-group friendships might be especially powerful in changing attitudes. Here’s one paper on the power of inter-group contact.   Brian Hare’s end-of-show recommendations: Richard Wrangham, The Goodness Paradox David Livingston Smith, On Inhumanity David Stasavage, The Decline and Rise of Democracy See also: books by Joseph Henrich and Michael Tomasello   The best way to keep up with Dr. Hare’s work is on Twitter (@bharedogguy) website: http://brianhare.net/   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back folks! Today’s episode is a conversation about the nature of knowledge. I talked with Dr. Briana Toole, an Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Claremont McKenna College. Briana specializes in epistemology—the branch of philosophy that grapples with all things knowledge-related. In her work she is helping develop a new framework called “standpoint epistemology.” The basic idea is that what we know depends in part on our social position—on our gender, our race, and other factors. We flesh out this idea by walking through a bunch of examples that show how where we stand shapes the facts we attend to, believe, accept, and resist. We also talk about our moment present, polarized and fractured as it is. As we discuss, standpoint epistemology might offer tools to help us make sense of what’s happening, understand where others are coming from, and maybe even bridge some of the chasms that divide us. Enjoy!   A transcript of this show is available here.   Notes and links 2:10 – Learn more about Dr. Toole’s outreach organization, Corrupt the Youth. And for more about Dr. Toole’s work with the program see this recent profile in Guernica magazine. 6:15 – Socrates was sentenced to death for corrupting the youth. 9:00 – Corrupt the Youth often begins with lessons on the allegory of the cave and the ring of Gyges. 19:50 – For more on the significance of “fake barn country,” see this entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Gettier’s groundbreaking paper is here. 23:00 – We mention a number of early pioneers in standpoint epistemology, including Rebecca Kukla, Sandra Harding, and Donna Haraway. 26:40 – Jane Addams’s letter about women and public housekeeping. 32:20 – Dr. Toole’s recent paper—‘From Standpoint Epistemology to Epistemic Oppression’—discusses the distinction between marginalized and dominant knowers, among other topics. 32:55 – Kristie Dotson’s classic paper on epistemic oppression. You can also listen to a podcast with her here.    37:00 – Indigenous communities in Australia have long known that certain birds spread fire in order to flush out prey. This example is discussed in Dr. Toole’s article ‘Demarginalizing Standpoint Epistemology.’ 38:20 – We discuss three key theses in the standpoint epistemology framework: the situated knowledge thesis; the achievement thesis; and the epistemic privilege thesis. 41:10 – Read more about W.E.B. Dubois’s notion of “double consciousness” here. 43:29 – The particular sense of “conceptual resources” we discuss here was introduced by Gaile Pohlhaus, and is further developed by Dr. Toole in her paper, ‘From Standpoint Epistemology to Epistemic Oppression.’ 44:50 – The concept of “misogynoir” is discussed here. 59:40 – The notion of “consciousness raising” has its roots feminism, as discussed here. 1:11:35 – A recent interview in The Atlantic in which former US President Barack Obama referred to our current moment as one of “epistemological crisis.”   Briana Toole’s end-of-show recommendations: Feminist Theory: From Margin to Center, by bell hooks Sister Outsider, by Audre Lorde Learning from the Outsider Within, Patricia Hill Collins Race and Epistemologies of Ignorance, edited by Shannon Sullivan an Nancy Tuana The best way to keep up with Dr. Toole’s work is at her website: http://www.brianatoole.com/   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Today we’ve got another installment in our “behind the paper” format. In case you missed the first iteration, these are 30-minute or so interviews that dig into recent notable papers. This episode takes on a timeless question: Do concepts differ from one language to the next, or are they basically the same? Maybe you think we already know the answer. You’ve probably heard of cases where one language labels a concept that other languages don’t—the German word schaudenfreude, or the Danish notion of hygge, or, my favorite, the Japan concept of tsundoku. These examples are fun and get a lot of attention, and they certainly make it clear that there’s at least some variation. But a more provocative possibility is that even everyday words that seem easy to translate—words for concepts like chair, beautiful, or walk—might actually differ considerably from one language to the next. Today I talk to Dr. Bill Thompson, a postdoc at Princeton University in the Department of Computer Science and Dr. Gary Lupyan, a Professor at the University of Wisconsin in the Department of Psychology. Along with their co-author Sean Roberts, they published a paper this summer that looks at just this issue, at whether basic words have the same meanings across languages. The paper’s title is: “Cultural influences on word meanings revealed through large-scale semantic alignment.” We talk about the computational approach they use to quantify the similarity of word meanings. We consider their finding that certain kinds of concepts are more similar across languages than others. We discuss the role of culture in shaping concepts. And we talk a bit about why their paper caused something of a stir online. I found this to be a really thought-provoking conversation. It circles around one of the deepest questions we can ask about the human mind: Where do our concepts come from? Spoiler: we don’t settle the question once and for all here. But we do throw some light on it—perhaps. Without further ado, here’s my conversation with Dr. Bill Thompson and Dr. Gary Lupyan. Enjoy!   The paper we discuss is here. A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links 9:20 – A very brief introduction to distributional semantics. A core tenet of such approaches is that “you shall know a word by the company it keeps”—as J. R. Firth famously put it. 16:00 – The Intercontinental Dictionary Series divides the words of the world’s languages into 22 semantic domains. See also this blog post by Sean Roberts, in which he reports the results of a survey the authors did on how translatable people thought words from these domains would be across languages. 22:10 – The D-Place dataset is here. 27:00 – The popular write-up which, when shared on Twitter, caused a bit of a stir.   End-of-show reading recommendations: Comparing lexicons cross-linguistically, by Asifa Majid The Conceptual Mind: New Directions in the Study of Concepts, edited by Eric Margolis and Stephen Laurence Words and the Mind, edited by Barbara Malt and Phillip Wolff Does vocabulary help structure the mind? by Gary Lupyan and Martin Zettersten   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

You probably think you know the Neanderthals. We’ve all been hearing about them since we were kids, after all. They were all over the comics; they were in museum dioramas and on cartoons. They were always cast as mammoth-eating, cave-dwelling dimwits—nasty brutes, in other words. You probably also learned that they died off because they couldn’t keep pace with us, Homo sapiens, their svelter, savvier superiors. That’s story we had long been told anyhow. But, over the past few decades, there’s been a slow-moving sea change—a revolution in how archaeologists understand our closest cousins. For this episode I talked to Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes about this revolution. She is a Neanderthal specialist and the author of the new book Kindred: Neanderthal Life, Love, Death and Art. Rebecca and I discuss the new picture of Neanderthals emerging from the latest archaeological research. We talk about where they lived, what they ate, the tools and clothing they made. We talk about the evidence that they had a considerable degree of cognitive sophistication and—very possibly—an aesthetic sense. Once we put all this together—and let the new picture come into focus—the gap long thought to separate them from us from them starts to close. And this makes the question of why they vanished about 40 thousand years ago all the more puzzling. I really hope you enjoy this one—I certainly did. And if you do, I definitely encourage you to check out Kindred!   A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links  Most of the topics we discuss are treated in detail in Rebecca Wragg Sykes’s book, Kindred. 5:40 – Earlier book-length treatments of the Neanderthals include The Smart Neanderthal and Neanderthals Revisited. 9:15 – The archaeological site of Atapuerca in Spain, which includes the Sima de los Huesos (Pit of Bones). 11:20 – The Neander Valley in Germany was the site of the very first Neanderthal find in 1856. 11:50 – Another early site was Krapina, Croatia, which is now home to a Neanderthal museum. 24:30 – A recent academic article on the complexity of Neanderthal tool use. 28:27 – A French site—La Folie—gives a sense of what some Neanderthal dwellings were like. 41:05 – A popular article about the “wow site” at Bruniquel. The original academic article. 49:16 – An article on the evidence that Neanderthals were preparing and using birch tar. 56:45 – Some evidence suggests Neanderthals were interested in bird feathers and talons. 1:01:30 – There is now evidence for repeated phases of interbreeding between human and Neanderthals. 1:05:00 – Other ancient hominin species included the Denisovans. 1:07:00 – There are some reasons to believe that pathogens carried by humans may have played a role in the demise of the Neanderthals. 1:13:30 – Another richly imaginative treatment of ancient human life is Ancestral Geographies of the Neolithic, by Mark Edmonds. To keep up with the latest Neanderthal research, Dr. Wragg Sykes recommends following archaeologists such as John Hawks (@johnhawks). She is also on Twitter (@LeMoustier) and her website is: https://www.rebeccawraggsykes.com/. Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back folks! Today is a return to one of our favorite formats: the audio essay. If you like your audio essays short, concise, and full of tidbits, then this mini will not disappoint. We take a look at a 140-year-old idea but very much a radical one—the root-brain hypothesis. It was proposed by Charles Darwin in a book published in the twilight of his career. The idea, in short, is that plants have a structure that is, in some ways, brain-like—and it is located underground, at their roots. We talk about how Darwin and his son Francis arrived at this idea, why it was ignored for so long, and how it’s recently stirred to life. Enjoy!   A text version of this “mini” is available here.   Notes and links 2:15 – The last page of Darwin’s The Power of Movement in Plants (1880). 3:25 – The 2009 paper by Dr. Baluška and colleagues about the history and modern revival of the “root-brain hypothesis.” 6:00 – The tinfoil hats experiment—and its influence—is discussed in this 2009 paper. 8:00 – The dust-up between Darwin and Sachs is described in this 1996 paper. 8:47 – The 2011 paper listing many of the environmental variables plants are now known to be sensitive to. 9:28 – Dr. Gagliano and colleagues’ paper on associative learning in plant and on plants’ use of sounds to find water. The possibility of echolocation is discussed here. 9:45 – For broader context surrounding the question of plants may have something like a brain, see Oné R. Pagán's essay titled 'The brain: A concept in flux.' 9:57 – The 2006 paper that inaugurated the field of “plant neurobiology.” 10:34 – Discussions of the “transition zone” of the root can be found in the 2009 paper by Baluška and colleagues, as well as in this more technical paper from 2010. 11:00 – The response letter to the original “plant neurobiology” paper, signed by 36 plant biologists. 12:00 – Michael Pollan’s 2013 article ‘The Intelligent Plant’ in The New Yorker. 12:05 – Anthony Trewavas’s letter, highlighting the power of metaphors in science. 12:26 – The 2020 paper about pea tendrils in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. Correction: The audio version of this episode misstates the publication year of Darwin's final book, about worms. The correct year is 1881, not 1883.    Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play—or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Imagine a friend’s face. How much detail do you see? Do you see the color of their hair? What about the curve of their smile? For many people, this mental image will be relatively vivid. A somewhat watered down picture, sure, but still a picture—still something similar to what they would see if that friend were sitting across from them. For other folks, though, there’s no image there at all. There's just no way to will it into being. Such people have what is now known as “aphantasia”—the inability to generate visual imagery. Today I talk with Dr. Rebecca Keogh, a cognitive neuroscientist at the University of New South Wales in Australia. Dr. Keogh is one of the leading researchers in the new, fast-evolving study of aphantasia. We talk about the work she and her colleagues are doing to explore the full spectrum of individual differences in visual imagery ability, how these differences arise in the brain, and how they impact different aspects of everyday life, from how we dream, to how we envision the future, to how we respond to trauma. We also talk about folks on the other end of the spectrum—those with so-called “hyperphantasia,” who experience visual images in extraordinary detail. And we get a sneak preview of some of the questions that Rebecca and her colleagues are taking on next. This episode takes us, for the first time on Many Minds, into the fascinating terrain of individual differences—into questions about how other human minds may differ from our own, often in ways that invisible and unexpected. This is terrain we definitely plan to revisit in future episodes. Had a blast with this one folks—hope you enjoy it, too!   A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links  3:16 – The 2015 paper in Cortex that introduced the term “aphantasia,” but the spectrum of visual imagery ability has been studied since the 1800s. 5:08 – In the 1980s Martha Farah and colleagues studied a case of acquired “aphantasia,” though they didn’t use the term at the time. 8:30 – The Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VVIQ) was first introduced in 1973 by David Mark. 12:15 – The 2018 paper in Cortex by Dr. Keogh and Dr. Joel Pearson. 15:15 – A 2008 paper by Dr. Pearson introducing the binocular rival method of measuring mental imagery. 23:15 – An overview of the idea of separate “what” and “where” pathways in the brain. 27:23 – The 2020 paper—'A cognitive profile of multi-sensory imagery, memory and dreaming in aphantasia’—by Alexei Dawes, Dr. Keogh, and colleagues. 41:30 – The 2020 paper by Dr. Keogh and colleagues about the role of cortical excitability in visual imagery. 44:30 – Phosphenes are a kind of visual experience that is not induced by light entering the retina. 48:15 – A primer on Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation (tDCS). 51:45 – A pre-print by Marcus Wicken, Dr. Keogh, and Dr. Pearson using skin conductance to examine the level of fear experienced by aphantasic and control participants. 1:01:45 – A paper by Dr. Adam Zeman and colleagues titled ‘Phantasia–The psychological significance of lifelong visual imagery vividness extremes,’ which discusses vocational choices in people with extreme imagery.   Rebecca Keogh’s end-of-show recommendations: Aphantasia: Experiences, Perceptions, and Insights by Alan Kendle The Cambridge Handbook of the Imagination by Anna Abraham   The best way to keep up with Dr. Keogh’s work is to follow her on Twitter (@Becca_Keogh_PhD). To keep tabs on aphantasia research more broadly, you can follow other prominent aphantasia researchers such as Dr. Joel Pearson (@ProfJoelPearson) and Dr. Adam Zeman (@ZemanLab). You can also check out the Future Minds Lab and sign up for their mailing list: https://www.futuremindslab.com/.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/).   You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

We’ve got a little something different for you today­—a new format we’ll be experimenting with over the next few months. You can think of it as a kind of “behind the paper” series. The idea is to take notable articles from the last year or so and talk to their authors. We’ll delve into each paper’s backstory, sketch its broader context, and dig up some of that fun stuff that just doesn’t get mentioned in a formal scientific write-up. We’ll still be doing our longform interviews as well, but we’ll be mixing in shorter ones in this style. For this first installment we’re discussing a paper published in March of this year titled ‘Baboon thanatology’. It describes a truly startling behavior: when an infant baboon dies, it’s mother may carry its corpse around for days, sometimes a week or longer. She might continue to groom it or care for it in other ways. The paper is one of a raft of recent articles on how animals respond to death and dying. This new research area of “comparative thanatology” asks whether animals truly understand this basic bodily process, whether they grieve, whether they get that death is final and irreversible. To talk about this deep stuff, I’m joined in this episode by not one but two of the study’s authors—Dr. Alecia Carter, who is a Lecturer in Evolutionary Anthropology at University College London and Dr. Elise Huchard, a CNRS Research Scientist at the Institute of Evolutionary Sciences, at the University of Montpellier. Hope you enjoy this format. As always, let us know what you think. On to my conversation with Alecia and Elise. Enjoy!   The paper we discuss—by Alecia Carter, Alice Baniel, Guy Cowlishaw, and Elise Huchard—is here. A transcript of this interview is available here.   Notes and links  2:25 – More info about the Tsaobis Baboon Project in Namibia. Dr. Carter and Dr. Huchard co-direct the project with Dr. Guy Cowlishaw. 7:35 – A 2018 special issue on ‘Evolutionary thanatology’ that helped crystallize the field and another one from 2020. 8:40 ­– See the famous 2009 photo of chimpanzees appearing to grieve. It may have helped kick-start the field of comparative thanatology. 26:35 – Dr. Carter is now directing a project—‘Thanatobase’—to collect further records of primate responses to death and dying.   End-of-show recommendations: How Animals Grieve by Barbara King Comparative Thanatology by James R. Anderson Mama's Last Hug by Frans de Waal   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted and produced by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Welcome back everyone! Hope you all had a great August. And hope you’re all—like me—jazzed about the start of Season 2 of Many Minds. There’s a viral video clip from 2014—maybe you’ve seen it. It features a subject in a pretty remarkable psychology experiment. He’s put in room full of different apparatuses, one of which contains reward. After sizing up the room, the subject gets started. The first thing he does is tug on a string until he can reach a short stick that’s tied to the end of it. He then uses that stick to retrieve a stone that was just out of his reach, behind some bars; then he retrieves another stone in the same way; then a third. One at a time, he picks up the stones, takes them across the way, and plunks them down a tube. Nothing happens at first but, after the third stone, the combined weight lowers a trap door, releasing a long stick. The subject then uses that long stick to carefully pry out his reward from a deep hole. It’s an impressive display of problem solving. But what’s most remarkable is that the subject in question is not a Psych 101 student but a bird—a New Caledonian crow, to be exact—and his name is 007. My guest on today’s show is Alex Taylor, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Auckland. He’s the one who devised this challenge for 007—it brings together a number of tasks he’s used with New Caledonian crows over the years to try to understand their striking capacities for tool use, for planning, and for reasoning of different kinds. We talk about how Alex got interested in crows and how he studies them; we talk about what seems to be going on in their minds when they solve multi-step puzzles; we talk about the kinds of tools that crows make and use in the wild and the emerging evidence that using those tools puts them in a good mood. We then zoom out to discuss some of the leading ideas about what drives the evolution of intelligence behavior, whether in crows or chimps or children. We also touch on some of Alex’s new work with another species—the kea, an alpine parrot native to the south Island of New Zealand. We talk about how the kea are in some ways a foil to the New Caledonian crow—a bit more curious, a bit more fun-loving—but also super sharp in their own ways. This conversation was a real treat. Like many folks, it seems, during the lockdown this spring I found myself with a newfound interest in birds. So I was especially excited to get to tour the world of avian cognition with Alex—a leading researcher in the area and an affable guide at that. I think you’ll get a kick out of this one folks—and I’m happy to bet it’ll have you looking at your neighborhood corvids in a whole new light. Without further preamble, here’s my conversation with Dr. Alex Taylor. Enjoy.   A transcript of this interview is available here.   Notes and links 4:00 ­– A popular article about the famed feats of Betty, a New Caledonian crow. An early publication establishing these crows’ impressive tool-making abilities. 8:00 – The corvid family is large and diverse. Accessible introductions to corvids and corvid cognition can be found here and here. 13:30 – Dr. Taylor’s first study with crows dealt with meta-tool use—the use of one tool on another. An image depicting the set-up of the study can be found here. 17:30 – An article about how New Caledonian crows craft and use tools in the wild. 19:34 – A study suggesting that the pandanus tools made by New Caledonian crows may exhibit cumulative cultural evolution. (We discussed the importance of cumulative culture in humans in an earlier episode.) 22:20 – A 2019 study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues investigating the types of mental representations crows seem to be using during multi-stage problem solving tasks. 24:10 – A 2019 study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues suggesting crows might enjoy using tools. The procedure involved a cognitive bias task first developed in this 2004 study. 30:50 – A classic study in psychology analyzing individual differences in how much people like thinking—that is, their “need for cognition.” 35:00 – Aesop’s fable about the crow and the pitcher. The fable was first adapted into an experimental task in this study. Dr. Taylor and colleagues have since used variations of the task to probe crows’ causal understanding. Here is one overview of this work. 41:20 – A study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues examining how human children do on the Aesop’s fable task. 42:35 – Dr. Taylor’s “signature testing” proposal is discussed here. 53:50 – A 2017 study showing that monkeys can be trained to pass the mirror test by using laser pointers. (We discussed the mirror test in a previous episode.) 56:34 – A paper by Dr. Taylor and a colleague discussing the equivocal evidence for the “technical intelligence hypothesis”—the idea that selection for tool use leads to selection for general intelligence. 58:17– An article about “encephalization” as a proxy for animal intelligence. 1:02: 35 – A paper by the philosopher Kim Sterelny about the origins of human intelligence. 1:04:33 – Read about the charismatic kea here. 1:09:45 – A 2017 study showing that a distinctive vocalization produced by kea may be involved in positive emotional contagion, much like human laughter. In a new project, in collaboration with Ximena Nelson and other colleagues, Dr. Taylor is trying to further understand this behavior. 1:10:48 – A recent study by Dr. Taylor and colleagues about the kea’s ability to integrate different kinds of information. Watch a video about this study here.   Alex Taylor’s end-of-show recommendations: The Genius of Birds by Jennifer Ackerman The Bird Way by Jennifer Ackerman Bird Brain by Nathan Emery   The best way to keep up with Dr. Taylor’s work is to follow his lab on Twitter (@AnimalMindsUoA) or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/AnimalMindsUoA/). You can also check out his lab website: http://www.animalmindslab.com.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

If you’re listening to this podcast, it’s a safe bet that you’re interested in minds. You probably have been for awhile. But what sparked it in you? What’s kept it going? For some folks it may have been something they learned in school. Perhaps it was a stray factoid. It could have been a museum visit, or a scientific finding they heard about on the radio. But very often it seems that what sparks or stokes our interest in minds comes from elsewhere—from outside the classroom, from outside non-fiction writing, from outside science altogether. In this episode, we asked a group of creative folks to reflect on what got them thinking about minds. All our contributors are past participants in the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (or DISI)—and specifically in the storyteller program. This is a residency for creative folks working in any medium. So here’s the exact question we asked them: “What is one work of fiction—movie, novel, short story, etc—that has kindled your interest in mind, cognition, and intelligence? This could be from childhood or college or just last week.” Here are their answers. Enjoy!   A transcript of this episode is available here.   Contributor / work referenced: MOsley WOtta / The Point (film) Ada Brunstein / The Neapolitan Novels (book series) Abeer Hoque / The Bluest Eye (book) Angel Teng / 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) Amey Zhang / Maniac (TV show) Richa Rudola / Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (film) Mallessa (Les) James / The Dictionary Taylor Beck / The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock (poem) Boris Oicherman / The Weather Project (art installation) Laura Sydell / When Things Fall Apart (book)   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://www.diverseintelligencessummer.com/), which is made possible by a generous grant from the Templeton World Charity Foundation to UCLA. It is hosted by Kensy Cooperrider, with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster, and Associate Director Hilda Loury. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd (https://www.mayhilldesigns.co.uk/). Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala (https://sarahdopierala.wordpress.com/). You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play—or wherever you like to listen to podcasts. We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com. For updates about the show, follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.