We're taking a little summer break right now, but we wanted to share a favorite essay from our archives. Enjoy! --- Welcome back folks! Today, we’ve got an audio essay for you. I won’t say too too much—don’t want to spoil it—but it’s about pupils. Not as in students, but as in the dark cores of our eyes. This one of those that’s been in the works for a little while. About a year ago I started collecting all the cool new pupil-related stuff coming out. Then at some point this summer some extra cool stuff came out and I said, “That’s it—time to do it, time to pull this material together into some kind of episode.” So that’s what we have for you today. And I hope you find it eye-opening. Quick reminder before we get to it: As always, we could really use your help in getting the word out about the show. That might mean subscribing, if you don’t already. It might mean rating or reviewing us on Apple Podcasts. It might mean sending the show to a friend or two. I mean honestly it could mean knitting a Many Minds cardigan for the cold months ahead and sporting it around town. Ceaselessly. Alright all, on to this week’s essay ‘The eye’s mind.’ Enjoy!   A text version of this episode (enriched with images!) is readable on Medium.   Notes 2:00 – The eye of the giant squid was described in detail for the first time in 2012, in this paper. 3:10 – On diversity in animal pupils, see this recent paper. 4:40 – Pupil changes to imagined and linguistically encoded light can be read about here and here. 5:30 – Eckherd Hess’s early research on pupils is summarized in his 1965 Scientific American article, ‘Attitude and Pupil Size’. 6:45 – The 1966 paper by Kahneman and Beatty is here. Or see a 2018 review of more recent research on pupils and cognitive effort. 8:10 – Hess’s studies on the social functions of pupils are recounted in his 1975 Scientific American article, ‘The Role of Pupil Size in Communication’. Several of his classic studies have been replicated just this year (with good but not perfect success). 8:50 – Mariska Kret’s suggestion about how pupils fit the baby schema can be found here. 9:45 – Kret’s studies of pupil mimicry include this one, this one, and this one, among others. 10:15 – The 2021 paper by Wohltjen & Wheatley on “pupillary synchrony” is available here. 12:00 – The 1974 Nature article titled ‘Pupils of a talking parrot’ is available here.   Correction: The audio version of this essay misstated the size of the pupil changes in Daniel Kahneman's classic studies. These changes were roughly .2 to .5 mm, not 2 to 5 mm.

Have you heard of Octopolis? It’s a site off the coast of Australia where octopuses come together. It’s been described as a kind of underwater "settlement" or "city." Now, smart as octopuses are, they are not really known for being particularly sociable. But it seems that, given the right conditions, they can shift in that direction. So it's not a huge leap to wonder whether these kinds of cephalopod congregations could eventually give rise to something else—a culture, a language, maybe something like a civilization.  This is the idea at the center of Ray Nayler's new book, The Mountain in the Sea. It's both a thriller of sorts and a novel of ideas; it’s set in the near future, in the Con Dao archipelago of Vietnam. It grapples with the nature of intelligence and meaning, with the challenges of interspecies communication and companionship, and ultimately with what it means to be human.  Here, Ray and I talk about how he got interested in cephalopods and how he came to know the Con Dao archipelago. We discuss some of the choices he made as an author—choices about what drives the octopuses in his book to develop symbols and about what those symbols are like. We consider the major human characters in his book, in particular two ambitious researchers who embody very different approaches to understanding minds. We also talk a fair bit about AI—another central character in the book, after all, is a super-intelligent android. Along the way, Ray and I touch on Arrival, biosemiotics, the nature of symbols, memory and storytelling, embodiment, epigenetics, cephalopod camouflage, exaptation, and the sandbox that is speculative fiction.  This episode is obviously something a little different for us. Ray is a novelist, after all, but he’s also an intellectual omnivore, and this conversation, maybe more than any other we’ve had on the show, spans three major branches of mind—human, animal, and machine. If you enjoy this episode, note that The Mountain in the Sea just came out in paperback, with a jaw-droppingly cool cover, I’ll add. I highly recommend that you check it out. One more thing, while I have you: If you're enjoying Many Minds, we would be most grateful for your help in getting the word out. You might consider sharing the show with a friend or a colleague, writing us a review on Apple Podcasts, or leaving us a rating on Spotify or Apple. All this would really help us grow our audience.  Alright friends, on to my conversation with Ray Nayler. Enjoy!    A transcript of this episode is available here.     Notes and links 8:30 – For the review of The Mountain in the Sea in question, see here.  14:00 – Con Dao is a national park in Vietnam. 17:00 – For our previous episode about cephalopods, see here. 19:00 – For a book-length introduction to biosemiotics, see here.   24:00 – A video of Japanese macaques washing sweet potatoes.  26:30 – For discussion of the human case, in which environmental pressures of some kind may have propelled cooperation, see our episode with Michael Tomasello.  29:00 – A popular article about RNA editing in cephalopods.  35:00 – A video of the “passing cloud” phenomenon in cuttlefish. A brief article about the phenomenon. A video showing other forms of camouflage in octopuses. 41:00 – An experimental exploration of the movement from “iconic” to “symbolic” communication in humans.  44:00 – A popular article about the communication system used in the movie Arrival.  49:00 – One source of inspiration for Ray’s book was Eduardo Kohn’s How Forests Think.  1:00:00 – An article on the idea of “architects” and “gardeners” among writers.  1:05:00 – Ray’s story ‘The Disintegration Loops’ is available here. 1:11:00 – Ray’s story ‘The Summer Castle’ is available here.  1:13:00 – A popular article about the phenomenon of highly superior autobiographical memory. An essay about the idea that faulty memory is a feature rather than a bug. 1:18:00 – Ray’s story ‘Muallim’ is available here.   Recommendations Ways of Being, by James Bridle Living in Data, by Jer Thorp   Follow Ray on Twitter.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.   For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

There's a common story about the human past that goes something like this. For a few hundred thousand years during the Stone Age we were kind of limping along as a species, in a bit of a cognitive rut, let’s say. But then, quite suddenly, around 30 or 40 thousand years ago in Europe, we really started to come into our own. All of a sudden we became masters of art and ornament, of symbolism and abstract thinking. This story of a kind of "cognitive revolution" in the Upper Paleolithic has been a mainstay of popular discourse for decades. I’m guessing you’re familiar with it. It's been discussed in influential books by Jared Diamond and Yuval Harari; you can read about it on Wikipedia. What you may not know is that this story, compelling as it may be, is almost certainly wrong. My first guest today is Dr. Eleanor Scerri, an archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, where she heads the Pan-African Evolution research group. My second guest is Dr. Manuel Will, an archaeologist and Lecturer at the University of Tübingen in Germany. Together, Eleanor and Manuel are authors of a new paper titled 'The revolution that still isn't: The origins of behavioral complexity in Homo sapiens.' In the paper, they pull together a wealth of evidence showing that there really was no cognitive revolution—no one watershed moment in time and space. Rather, the origins of modern human cognition and culture are to be found not in one part of Europe but across Africa. And they’re also to be found much earlier than that classic picture suggests.  Here, we talk about the “cognitive revolution" model and why it has endured. We discuss a seminal paper from the year 2000 that first influentially challenged the revolution model. We talk about the latest evidence of complex cognition from the Middle Stone Age in Africa—including the perforation of marine shells to make necklaces; and the use of ochre for engraving, painting, and even sunblock. We discuss how, though the same complex cognitive abilities were likely in place for the last few hundred thousand years, those abilities were often expressed patchily in different parts of the world at different times. And we consider the factors that led to this patchy expression, especially changes in population size.   I confess I was always a bit taken with this whole "cognitive revolution" idea. It had a certain mystery and allure. This new picture that’s taking its place is certainly a bit messier, but no less fascinating. And, more importantly, it’s truer to the complexities of the human saga.  Alright friends, on to my conversation with Eleanor Scerri & Manuel Will. Enjoy!   A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links 3:30 – The paper by Dr. Scerri and Dr. Will we discuss in this episode is here. Their paper updates and pays tribute to a classic paper by McBrearty and Brooks, published in 2000. 6:00 – The classic “cognitive revolution” model sometimes discussed under the banner of “behavioral modernity” or the “Great Leap Forward.” It has been recently featured, for instance, in Harari’s Sapiens. 11:00 – Dr. Scerri has written extensively on debates about where humans evolved within Africa—see, e.g., this paper.  18:00 – A study of perforated marine shells in North Africa during the Middle Stone Age. A paper by Dr. Will and colleagues about the use of various marine resources during this period.  23:00 – A paper describing the uses of ochre across Africa during the Middle Stone Age. Another paper describing evidence for ochre processing 100,000 years ago at Blombos Cave in South Africa. At the same site, engraved pieces of ochre have been found. 27:00 – A study examining the evidence that ochre was used as an adhesive. 30:00 – For a recent review of the concept of “cumulative culture,” see here. We discussed the concept of “cumulative culture” in our earlier episode with Dr. Cristine Legare.  37:00 – For an overview of the career of the human brain and the timing of various changes, see our earlier episode with Dr. Jeremy DeSilva. 38:00 – An influential study on the role of demography in the emergence of complex human behavior. 41:00 – On the idea that distinctive human intelligence is due in large part to culture and our abilities to acquire cultural knowledge, see Henrich’s The Secret of Our Success. See also our earlier episode with Dr. Michael Muthukrishna.  45:00 – For discussion of the Neanderthals and why they may have died out, see our earlier episode with Dr. Rebecca Wragg Sykes.    Recommendations Dr. Scerri recommends research on the oldest Homo sapiens fossils, found in Morocco and described here, and new research on the evidence for the widespread burning of landscapes in Malawi, described here.  Dr. Will recommends the forthcoming update of Peter Mitchell’s book, The Archaeology of Southern Africa. See Twitter for more updates from Dr. Scerri and Dr. Will.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.   For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

You know the feeling. You're trying to read or write or think through a project, maybe even just respond to an email, when your attention starts to drift. You may not even notice it until you've already picked up your phone or jumped tabs, until your mind has already wandered way off-piste. This problem of distraction has become a bit of a modern-day obsession. We now fret about how to stay focused, how to avoid time-sucks, how to use our attention wisely. But it turns out this fixation of ours—contemporary as it may seem—is really not so new.  My guest today is Dr. Jamie Kreiner, Professor of History at the University of Georgia. Jamie is the author of a new book titled The Wandering Mind: What Medieval Monks Tell us about Distraction. In the book, Jamie shows that Christian monks in late antiquity and the early middle ages were—like us—a bit obsessed with attention. And their understanding of attention fit within a broad and often remarkably detailed understanding of the mind. In this conversation, Jamie and I talk about why monks in this era cared so much about distraction. We discuss how they understood the relationship between mind and body; how they conceptualized memory, meditation, and mind-wandering. We discuss some of the mnemonic techniques they used, some of the graphical and textual devices that helped keep them focused, and some of the metaphors and visualization techniques they innovated. Along the way we also touch on fasting, sleep, demons and angels, the problem of discernment, the state of pure prayer, the Six Wings mnemonic device, metacognitive maneuvering, and much more.  I’ll just say I really enjoyed The Wandering Mind. As Jamie and I chat about here, the book illuminates an earlier understanding of human psychology that feels deeply familiar in some ways, and delightfully strange in others. I think you definitely get a sense of that in this conversation. Alright friends, on to my chat with Dr. Jamie Kreiner. Enjoy!     A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links 4:00 – A webpage devoted to the Ark of Hugh of Saint Victor.  6:30 – For a detailed (and positive) review essay about The Wandering Mind, see here.  11:30 ­– The Redwall books, by Brian Jacques, are well known for featuring elaborate feasts. An article about some of the best of these. 18:30 – For more on how the body was understood in the early Christian world, see The Burden of the Flesh. 26:30 – Text written continuously is known as scripta continua. 27:30 – Articles that celebrate medieval marginalia can be found here, here, and here.  40:00 – An article about the Six Wings mnemonic. For more on mnemonic techniques in the medieval world, see Mary Carruthers’ book. 53:00 – On the idea of “pure prayer,” see the book, The Ladder of Prayer and the Ship of Stirrings. 57:30 – Dr. Kreiner’s next book, which comes out in January 2024, is a translation of some of John Cassian’s work on distraction.   Dr. Kreiner’s book recommendations can be found in a recent article here.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.  For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

We humans are social animals—and that takes work. As we move through the world, we have to navigate around other people's desires, needs, and beliefs. Much of this work happens in conversation—through our words, our glances, our gestures. It happens in countless different situations, according to different norms and systems. Human social interaction is, in short, a multi-layered, delicate dance. But it’s also not the only kind of social interaction out there. Apes, dogs, and other social species also have to negotiate with others and sometimes with humans. There's not just one species of conversation, in other words—there are many.  My guest today is Dr. Federico Rossano, Associate Professor of Cognitive Science and Director of the Comparative Cognition Lab at the University of California, San Diego. Throughout his career, Federico has studied social interaction from a number of different angles, in a range of different settings, and across different species—including humans, bonobos, orangutans, and most recently dogs.   Here, we discuss the field of conversation analysis and how Federico got started in it. We talk about his early work on how people use gaze in conversation, and how the use of gaze differs across cultures. We discuss how Federico ported some of the tools of conversation analysis over to study social interaction in apes. We also talk about his new line of research on how dogs use soundboards to communicate with their human caretakers. This work has been attracting a lot of buzz and also a bit of pushback, so we dig into the controversy. Along the way, we touch on: Umberto Eco; platypuses; how much work it takes to simply come across as ordinary; the concept of the human interaction engine; the Clever Hans effect; the impossible task; and why many scientists are so skittish about animal language research. This episode is not just about different forms of conversation. It is itself a different form of conversation—at least for us. This was our first ever in-person interview, something we expect to do a bit more of going forward. Alright friends, on to my real-life, 3d, face-to-face chat with Dr. Federico Rossano. Enjoy!    A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links  4:00 – The classic 1964 paper, ‘The Neglected Situation,’ by Erving Goffman. 6:00 – An obituary for the novelist and semiotician, Umberto Eco, who died in 2016. His best-loved novel, perhaps, is The Name of the Rose. He’s also the author of a book of essays called, Kant and the Platypus: Essays on Language and Cognition. 17:30 – The classic paper, ‘On doing “being ordinary”’, by Harvey Sacks.   20:00 – A brief introduction to Conversation Analysis.  32:00 – Dr. Rossano’s work on gaze is summarized in his 2012 chapter, ‘Gaze in Conversation.’ His work on questions in Italian is here.  35:30 – The quote from Georg Simmel is as follows: “[T]he totality of social relations of human beings, their self-assertions and self-abnegation, their intimacies and estrangements, would be changed in unpredictable ways if there occurred no glance of eye to eye.”  39:50 – Dr. Rossano’s work on gaze across cultures is described here.  43:00 – Dr. Rossano did his postdoctoral work with Michael Tomasello, who joined us for a previous episode.  47:00 – Dr. Rossano’s work on bonobo interaction is here and here.  56:00 – Dr. Rossano’s original work on food sharing in orangutans is here. A more recent paper on food sharing is here. 1:05:00 – The idea of the “human interaction engine” was first proposed by Stephen Levinson in 2006.  1:10:30 – See the recent theme issue on ‘Revisiting the human “interaction engine”’. Dr. Rossano’s contributions to the issue are here and here. 1:18:00 – Dr. Rossano’s work on dogs has been done in coordination with the company FluentPet. FluentPet makes the pet-friendly buttons (aka soundboards) made famous by Bunny, the “talking dog of TikTok.” 1:23:30 – For an insider’s view of what happened in the original “animal language” studies, see a paper by Irene Pepperberg here.  1:27:30 – A recent review by Dr. Rossano and colleagues about the use of “augmented interspecies communication devices” like the soundboards he and colleagues are currently studying.  1:38:30 – The “impossible task,” a widely used task in comparative psychology, was first described in 2009. 1:44:45 – A recent podcast discussed the “animal language” debates in detail. Dr. Rossano was featured on the show.    1:57:30 – A paper in which Charles Goodwin discussed the case of his father, Chil, is here.   Dr. Rossano recommends:  Sequence Organization in Interaction, by Emanuel Schegloff Lectures on Conversation, by Harvey Sacks Roots of Human Sociality, edited by Stephen Levison and Nick Enfield Origins of Human Communication, by Michael Tomasello   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. Subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can also now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.  For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Let’s start with a little riddle: What kind of organism has no eyes, no mouth, and no brain, but—arguably—has a mind? Most of the work on non-human minds has, naturally, focused on animals—apes, dogs, whales, bats. Some have considered other branches of the tree of life, too—cephalopods, say, or insects. But, just over the past few decades, some brave scientists and philosophers have begun to look even further. They’re starting to ask whether concepts like planning, memory, and awareness may also extend beyond animals, into an entirely different kingdom of life. They’re starting to take seriously the minds of plants.  My guests today are Paco Calvo and Natalie Lawrence. Paco is director of the Minimal Intelligence Lab at the University of Murcia in Spain and one of the leading figures in the new science of plant intelligence. Natalie is a writer, illustrator, and historian of science based in London. Paco and Natalie are the authors a new book, Planta Sapiens. In it, they make the case that plants—though so often treated as an inert backdrop—are, in fact, cognitive creatures. Albeit creatures of a very different sort.  In this conversation, we talk about the fact that plants are so often ignored, by both lay people and scientists alike, and consider some of the reasons why this may be. We discuss some spectacular phenomena that have recently come to light about plants—how they respond to anesthesia, how they mimic other plants’ leaves, how they seem to be able to “see” their surroundings. We talk about the question of whether certain plants have evolved to be more cognitively sophisticated than others. We consider the fact that plants and animals rely on the very same neurotransmitters and traffic in the same sort of electrical signaling. We also touch on wild versus domesticated plants, Charles Darwin’s root-brain hypothesis, plant sensing as akin to echolocation, the power and dangers of time-lapse photography, and the question of whether plants have inner experience. Plants are super cool in themselves. Honestly, some of the stuff we discuss in this episode—if you’ve never heard it before—will kind of blow your mind. But plants are also more than that: they're a prism through which to examine some of the biggest questions about intelligence and cognition. Questions like: What are the minimal requirements for conscious experience? Are brains necessary for thinking? Can we truly compare the cognitive abilities of very different species? And should we?  One quick announcement: for those who may be new to the show, don’t forget to check out our monthly newsletter. In it, we share recaps of our latest episodes and links to a bunch of other stuff that caught our eye. You can find the sign-up link down in the show notes.  Alright friends, without further ado, on to my conversation with Paco Calvo and Natalie Lawrence. Enjoy!    A transcript of this episode is available here.    Notes and links 3:00 – For a popular overview of research on the mimicking plant, Boquila trifoliata, see here. The recent study testing whether this plant can also mimic unfamiliar (plastic!) plants, see here.  20:00 – The focus on climbing plants began at least as early as Charles Darwin—see his 1875 book, On the Movements and Habits of Climbing Plants.  24:30 – For discussion of domestication and how it affects the behavior, physiology, and cognition of animals, see our earlier episode with Brian Hare. 25:00 – Darwin introduced the term “circumnutation” in his 1880 book, The Power of Movement in Plants. 28:00 – The original paper in which the idea of “plant blindness” was introduced. Since this term was coined, a wealth of research has looked at the underpinnings and consequences of “plant blindness,” and has tested interventions that might mitigate it (e.g., here).   39:00 – A study investigating the effects of anesthetic drugs on several plants, including Venus Fly Traps. 44:00 – A recent article reviewing what we know about neurotransmitters in plants. 51:00 – A very brief overview of the vascular system of plants.  53:00 – Our audio essay on Darwin’s “root-brain hypothesis” (or read here).  57:00 – A recent study on peas reaching toward support poles, suggesting they are able to “see” those supports. 1:00:00 – A study examining “skototropic” behavior in a tropical vine. 1:03:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Calvo and a colleague on the question of plant sentience. Skeptical discussions of the idea of plant sentience can be found here and here.     Paco Calvo recommends: The Sentient Cell (forthcoming), by František Baluška and colleagues White Holes, by Carlo Rivelli   Natalie Lawrence recommends: Other Minds, by Peter Godfrey-Smith   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts.  **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.  For updates about the show, visit our website or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Taking care of some spring cleaning this week, but we're excited to resurface this conversation with Kristin Andrews and Susana Monsó. We'll be back with a fresh episode in two weeks. In the meanwhile, enjoy! - The Many Minds team --- Your friend is in a bit of distress. They’ve just been dunked in a pool, and they can’t pull themselves out. You’re looking on as they’re paddling furiously, trying to hold onto the pool’s ledge. Fortunately, there’s a way to save your friend, to give them an escape route. The thing is, there’s also something else vying for your attention at the moment: a chunk of chocolate. So what do you do? Do you first nab the chocolate and then free your friend? Turns out that most rats in this position—that’s right, rats—will first free their friend and then go for the chocolate. This is one of many studies that have raised profound questions about whether animals are moral beings, about whether they are capable of things like care and empathy. Such studies are doing more than raising questions about animal morality, though; they’re also reshaping our understanding of what animal minds are capable of. My guests today are not one but two philosophers: Dr. Kristin Andrews, Professor of Philosophy at York University in Toronto and Dr. Susana Monsó, Assistant Professor in the Department of Logic, History, and Philosophy of Science at UNED in Spain. Both Susana and Kristin have emerged as central figures in the new conversations and debates that springing about animal minds and animal morality. We cover a lot of ground in this episode. We talk about rats and empathy. We discuss the role of philosophy in the crossdisciplinary study of animal cognition. We talk about Kristin’s most recent book, which is a critical consideration of how scientists are trained to study animals, and Susana’s book, which is an extended investigation into animals’ understandings of death. We zoom in on the “animal morality debate”—about whether animals should be considered moral beings. We consider how touch might inform the debate and social norms and morality are deeply enmeshed than you may realize. As we navigate these lofty ideas, we also touch on the use of thermography to study emotions in marmosets, planning in orangutans, tongue-biting in orcas, and playing dead in possums. This is basically a double episode. It features two amazing guests. It takes on two big topics—the study of animal minds in general and the animal morality debate in particular. It’s also a tad longer than our usual fare, but I promised its packed with useful frameworks, provocative findings, and a bunch of open questions. I think it also picks up steam as we go—so be sure to stick with it, through to the second half. Alright folks, as always, thanks so much for listening. And be sure to send us your guest and topic ideas, your glowing reviews, and your crotchety comments. You can reach us on Twitter or by email at manymindspodcast@gmail.com. Now for my conversation with Dr. Susana Monsó and Dr. Kristin Andrews. Enjoy!   A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links 5:00 – An essay by Dr. Andrews & Dr. Monsó in Aeon magazine, about how rats deserve ethical protections. 7:30 – A popular article about findings that vervet monkeys socially learn food preferences. The original research paper is here. 9:10 – A popular article on the findings that rats can learn to play hide-and-seek. 22:00 – Dr. Andrews’ most recent book is How to Study Animal Minds. Her earlier book, The Animal Mind, is now out in a second edition. 24:00 – Morgan’s Canon has been widely discussed and criticized in recent decades (see here, here, and here). 27:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews on the role of folk psychology in animal cognition research. 33:00 – A paper by Dr. Andrews discussing the idea of “anthropectomy.” 34:00 – The paper by Dan Dennett that makes the distinction between “romantics” and “killjoys.” 35:20 – Dr. Monsó’s recent book (in Spanish) translates as Schrödinger’s Opossum. See also: her essay in Aeon about the phenomenon of “playing dead” and what it tells us about predator cognition; and her recent philosophical papers on the same topic (here, here). 49:30 – See the recent chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews on “animal moral psychologies.” See also a paper by Dr. Monsó and colleagues, ‘Animal morality: What it means and why it matters.’ 51:30 – A classic article by Frans de Waal, ‘Putting the altruism back into altruism.’ 53:40 – An “appreciation and update” to Tinbergen’s four questions. 58:00 – For a review of some of the “rat empathy” studies, see the “animal moral psychologies” chapter by Dr. Monsó & Dr. Andrews. This line of work began with a paper by Bartal and colleagues in 2011. A skeptical take can be found here. 1:01 – A popular article on how chimpanzees pass the “marshmallow test.” 1:04:00 – A paper on (the apparent absence of) “third-party punishment” in chimpanzees. 1:06:00 – A recent paper using thermography to gauge whether marmosets understand each other’s “conversations.” 1:08:00 – One of the now-famous “ape suit” studies by Chris Krupenye and colleagues. 1:11:30 – A recent paper by Dr. Andrews on the possibility of animal social norms. 1:17:00 – A recent paper by Dr. Monsó on “how the study of touch can inform the animal morality debate.” 1:21:00 – A recent paper by Filip Mattens on touch—and the “vigilance” function of touch in particular. 1:25:20 – A video of “eye-poking” in capuchins, which Susan Perry has studied. 1:28:00 – On the WEIRD issue, see our essay on first decade of the acronym.   Dr. Andrews recommends: The Routledge Handbook of the Philosophy of Animal Minds, edited by Dr. Andrews & Jacob Beck ‘Gricean communication, language development, and animal minds,’ by Richard Moore Chimpanzee Memoirs, edited by Stephen Ross* & Lydia Hopper Dr. Monsó recommends: The Animal Cognition entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy The Mind of a Bee, Lars Chittka (forthcoming) An Immense World, Ed Yong (forthcoming) You can read more about Dr. Andrews’ work at her website and follow her on Twitter. You can read more about Dr. Monsó’s work at her website and follow her on Twitter. * Sadly, shortly after this episode was recorded, Stephen Ross died unexpectedly. Read an obituary here.   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts.  **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.  For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Let’s face it, we're all a little bit self-involved. It’s not just that we spend a lot of time thinking about ourselves. There’s another layer to it: we spend a lot of time thinking about what other people think about us. We take pains to present ourselves in the best possible light; we fret over whether we made a good impression; and we do our best to shape and manage our reputations. It’s honestly hard to imagine not doing any of this—seeing ourselves from the outside can feel like pure reflex. But what are the deeper origins of this tendency? When does it arise in childhood? What are the underpinnings and consequences of reputational thinking? My guests today are Dr. Mika Asaba, a postdoc in the Psychology Department at Yale University, and Dr. Hyo Gweon, Associate Professor of Psychology at Stanford University. Together, Mika and Hyo recently published a paper about reputational thinking in young children.   In this conversation, we talk about the broader context of this research and lay out some concepts central to it, like “self-presentational behavior" and "theory of mind." We walk through four experiments in which 3- and 4-year-old children showed a clear interest in their reputations. They strategically communicated to certain people—or about certain events—to make sure they came across well. We then consider the provocative possibility that humans are especially motivated to think about others’ minds when those other minds are thinking about us. We discuss whether similar reputation-related behaviors might be present in other species, and how reputational thinking might vary across cultures. Finally, we touch on a few ways Hyo and Mika are hoping to extend this work into new terrain.  Honestly I got excited about this paper just by reading the first few sentences of the abstract. It takes on such an obviously big and rich and fascinating research question. That basic reflex—to see ourselves through the eyes of others—feels so elemental and so critical to understanding the human mind. Alright friends, without further ado, here’s my conversation with Dr. Mika Asaba & Dr. Hyo Gweon. Enjoy!    A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links 4:30 – Both Dr. Asaba and Dr. Gweon spent time in Rebecca Saxe’s lab at MIT.  7:00 – The website for Dr. Gweon’s ‘Social Learning Lab’ at Stanford. A recent review article by Dr. Gweon describing her lab’s research program. 9:30 – A recent review chapter by Dr. Asaba and Dr. Gweon about how children learn about themselves through praise. 13:00 – In a recent follow-up study to the main paper discussed in this episode, Dr. Asaba, Dr. Gweon, and colleagues examined whether children would demonstrate their competence to a puppet. 15:00 – One of the most influential studies of “theory of mind” capacities in young children, which pioneered the “false belief” paradigm, is here. A meta-analysis of some of the early work on theory of mind; a more recent review article. We discussed “theory of mind” at some length in our recent episode on stories.  19:00 – The paper by Dr. Asaba and Dr. Gweon reporting the four experiments we discuss appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS). It is available here.  36:00 ­– See our earlier episode with Michael Tomasello. 40:00 – A recent review on the personality dimension of “conscientiousness.”    Recommendations  ‘Achieving a good impression: Reputation management and performance goals,’ by Kayla Good and Alex Shaw  ‘Planning with theory of mind,’ by Mark Ho, Rebecca Saxe, and Fiery Cushman    Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts.  **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.  For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

When you think of the dinosaurs, you probably think of supersized lizards. At least I do. They were gargantuan, certainly, and maybe quite agile, but also a bit dim-witted. Maybe not markedly dim-witted, but definitely not the brightest. When dinosaurs terrify us it’s because of their giant jaws and their sheer size, not because they were especially clever or crafty. (Except for those velociraptors in Jurassic park, of course—they were terrifyingly wily.) But, in any case, who really knows? It’s all just fantasy and guesswork, right? I mean, how could we ever know how clever the dinosaurs actually were? My guest today is Dr. Suzana Herculano-Houzel, a comparative neuroanatomist at Vanderbilt University. She studies the diversity and composition of brains across the biological world. For more than a decade now, Suzana and her colleagues have made the case that one of the most revealing things about a brain is not how big it is or how big it is relative to the body, but simply how many neurons it has. This basic variable, she argues, can tell us a lot about the cognitive capabilities of different species. Which means that if we were able, in some way, to estimate the number of neurons in the brain of some extinct creature, we could start to make inferences about its mind and its behaviors.  Here, Suzana and I discuss a recent study of hers in which she does exactly that. She was able to reconstruct the make-up of the brains of certain dinosaurs—such as the theropods, a group that included the venerable Tyrannosaurus Rex. But, before we get to the T-Rex, we first lay some important groundwork. We talk about how Suzana counts neurons, by making a kind of brain soup. We discuss how number of neurons proves to be a better predictor of complex cognition than does the much-discussed Encephalization Quotient (or EQ). We then describe how the brains of different groups of animals tend to obey predictable scaling laws. And with that groundwork laid, we dig into Suzana’s estimate that, in terms of number of neurons, a T-Rex's brain was comparable to a baboon's. Which would mean that it was significantly cleverer than we long thought, that it was probably quite behaviorally flexible and long-lived and may have even had culture. As you might imagine, this study caused quite a bit of a stir and so, finally, Suzana and I discuss some of the criticisms that have been leveled against it.  Alright folks, this is a super thought-provoking episode, whether or not you are—or ever were—a dinosaur geek. And even if you’re not quite ready to accept Suzana’s conclusions about the T-Rex, I think you’ll find that her work opens up a host of new questions and new directions. So, without further ado, on to my chat with Dr. Suzana Herculano-Houzel. Enjoy!     A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links 6:00 – The paper in which Dr. Herculano-Houzel and her collaborator introduced the “brain soup” (aka isotropic fractionator) method.  10:00 – A paper by Dr. Herculano-Houzel about the glia/neuron ratio. 16:00 – The idea of the Encephalization Quotient (EQ) was first laid out by Harry Jerison in a 1973 book, Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence. A paper-length version of the theory is presented here. 23:00 – A recent review paper by Dr. Herculano-Houzel about number of neurons as a correlate of cognitive ability across species. 27:30 – Dr. Herculano-Houzel and colleagues have argued that the human brain is very much a “scaled up” version of the primate brain. See an empirical paper here and a review article here. See also Dr. Herculano-Houzel’s TED talk and book, The Human Advantage.  28:00 – Dr. Herculano-Houzel has found, in a data set of 700 species, that the number of cortical neurons predicts a species’ longevity and age to maturity. 33:00 – A 2022 study in PNAS of neuron numbers across numerous species. The data from this paper formed the basis for some of Dr. Herculano-Houzel’s analyses. 41:30 – For more discussion of planning and future-thinking across species, see our recent episode Traversing the Fourth Dimension, with Dr. Adam Bulley. 46:00 – While Dr. Herculano-Houzel’s study on dinosaur brains has generated much excitement, it also been met with some skepticism in various popular treatments and on Twitter.   48:00 – A popular article describing the idea that dinosaurs were neither warm- nor cold-blooded but “mesotherms.”   Dr. Herculano-Houzel recommends: The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs, by Steve Brusatte Dr. Herculano-Houzel’s The Neuroscience Office Hour: Crash Course   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute, 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. Our artwork is by Ben Oldroyd. Our transcripts are created by Sarah Dopierala. You can subscribe to Many Minds on Apple, Stitcher, Spotify, Pocket Casts, Google Play, or wherever you like to listen to podcasts.  You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here! We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.  For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.

Once upon a time there was a king and a bishop... No, I'm not actually going to tell you a story right now. I just wanted you to notice something: As I started into that, your mind likely shifted into a different mode. You might have started mentally salivating as you anticipated a coming morsel of fiction. That’s because stories are special; they work a kind of magic on us. Humans everywhere—in every known society, starting from a very young age—seem to hunger for narratives. But why? What makes them so palatable and powerful? What do they do to us and for us? This week I’m joined by two guests who research stories and the human mind. The first is Dr. Raymond Mar, Professor of Psychology at York University in Toronto. His work explores a bunch of different aspects of the psychology of stories, including the relationship between fiction reading and social cognition. My second guest is Dr. Jamie Tehrani, Professor of Anthropology at Durham University in the UK. His research examines the cultural evolution of stories, including questions about why certain stories spread and stick around (sometimes for millennia). In this conversation, Raymond, Jamie, and I talk about why stories are so powerful. We discuss what makes something a story, and what makes something a good story. We talk about findings that reading fiction may boost our ability to understand other minds. We consider the origins and diversification of folktales by zooming in on one in particular—Little Red Riding Hood. We talk about why stories are easier to remember than essays, and we examine a few of the ingredients that make certain stories especially memorable. Finally, spoiler alert: we also do a bit of good old-fashioned story time. This is an episode that has been on our wish list forever. Over the past few years there's been so much buzz about stories and storytelling—both in popular media and across different academic disciplines—we thought the topic deserved an extended treatment. And so here you have it: without further ado, my conversation with Jamie Tehrani and Raymond Mar. Enjoy!    A transcript of this episode is available here.   Notes and links 5:00 – Many thinkers have alluded to the function of stories in expanding our experiences. As T.S. Eliot put it, “We read many books, because we cannot know enough people.” 11:30 – A brief popular discussion of the dramatic principle known as ‘Chekhov’s Gun.’ 14:00 – See Lost in a Book, by Victor Nell. For the idea of “narrative transportation,” see the work of Richard Gerrig, especially the book  Experiencing Narrative Worlds. 26:00 – In a recent paper, Dr. Mar has outlined the two routes through which reading fiction may boost social abilities. See also his recent review of work in this area.  29:00 – See Dr. Mar’s earlier review on the cognitive neuroscience of fiction reading. See also his lab’s recent review of published studies on the question of whether brief exposure to fiction can improve social ability.  34:00 – For a review of work using the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ task, see here.  36:00 – On the relationship between the ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ task and oxytocin, see this influential study. See also this attempt to replicate those findings. 37:00 – The study by Robin Dunbar and colleagues on social experience and pain thresholds. 43:30 – See Dr. Tehrani’s study on the phylogeny of Little Red Riding Hood. For anyone unfamiliar, here is a version of the story. For anyone unfamiliar with the Wolf and the Kids, here is a version of the story.  47:00 – On the East Asian story known as the Tiger Grandmother, see here. 52:00 – See Dr. Tehrani’s study of a broad swath of Indo-European folktales. For a general overview of Dr. Tehrani’s work in this area, see here.  55:00 – For discussion of five documented “content biases” and an experimental test of these biases in the context of urban legends, see Dr. Tehrani’s recent study here.  58:00 – The idea of “minimally counter-intuitive” ideas—and their allure—was originally formulated within the cognitive science of religion. For work on “minimally counter-intuitive” elements in the transmission of urban legends, see Dr. Tehrani’s study on “Bloody Mary.” 1:02:00 – See Dr. Mar’s recent meta-analysis comparing stories and essays.   1:07:00 – For discussion of the “auditory cheesecake” idea and the evolutionary origins of music, see our previous episode, The Roots of Rhythm. For ideas about the evolutionary origins of fictions, see Gerrig’s Experiencing Narrative Worlds. 1:10:00 – The study on the role of storytelling among the Agta, a hunter-gatherer group.  1:11:00 – A study finding that scientific abstracts with narrative elements get more citations.    Dr. Tehrani recommends: Why Horror Seduces, by Mathias Clasen ‘The King and the Abbot’ (aka ‘King John and the Abbot of Canterbury’)   Dr. Mar recommends: The Moral Laboratory, by Frank Hakemulder A Wizard of Earthsea, by Ursula K. Le Guin   Many Minds is a project of the Diverse Intelligences Summer Institute (DISI) (https://disi.org), 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 help from Assistant Producer Urte Laukaityte and with creative support from DISI Directors Erica Cartmill and Jacob Foster. 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.  **You can now subscribe to the Many Minds newsletter here!** We welcome your comments, questions, and suggestions. Feel free to email us at: manymindspodcast@gmail.com.  For updates about the show, visit our website (https://disi.org/manyminds/), or follow us on Twitter: @ManyMindsPod.