animal cognition

A Conversation Across Species

What happens when a bird masters human logic, proving intelligence knows no species? Alex the parrot’s story will change your perspective. For the complete tale, exclusive reader Q&A, and weekly actionable insights —join me for free on Substack

In the 1970s, a commonly held belief, especially among non–pet owners, was that animals were essentially automatons, reacting to stimuli but lacking the abilities to think or feel. Animal psychologist Irene Pepperberg sought to test the theory. In 1977, she brought Alex, an African gray parrot—a species famed for its mimicry—into her Brandeis University lab. She began an experiment that would eventually blur the boundary between human animal and nonhuman animal minds.

One of the ways Pepperberg taught Alex was through the Model/Rival technique, where two humans interacted in front of him so he could observe words used purposefully rather than merely repeated. Within a few years, Alex had a working vocabulary of more than a hundred words. Alex could identify objects by color, shape, or material—and even combine those concepts when asked questions like, “What color three-corner wood?” correctly answering “green.” He could infer absence, identifying a missing color through the process of elimination, demonstrating logic-based reasoning. When shown two items and asked, “Which is bigger?” or “Which is greener?” he chose accurately. He understood abstract ideas like “same,” “different,” and even “none,” correctly answering “none” when asked how many green keys were among a group of colored keys. He could also group objects conceptually (e.g., all keys as “metal,” all fruits as “food”).

Alex grasped the concept of individual identity; when researchers asked him which bird they were pointing to, he would appropriately answer “Alex” for himself or name another bird—like “Griffin” or “Arthur.” He identified letters by sound, not just shape. When Pepperberg showed him a written letter and asked, “What sound?” Alex could produce the correct phoneme, indicating phonological awareness—an ability linked to early literacy in humans.

He created words for unfamiliar objects by joining elements of known objects; he came up with “banerry” the first time he saw an apple, apparently blending “banana” and “cherry”—a creative leap suggesting flexible thought. He used refusals like “No” or “Don’t want that” with unambiguous purpose. Alex showed rudimentary counting skills, counting up to eight, and in controlled tests, adding together two small groups of items when asked, “How many total?”

Alex’s intelligence came with a distinct personality. He teased researchers by deliberately mislabeling objects, then laughing when they looked surprised. When a student once misidentified a color, Alex corrected her—“No, blue!”—and repeated himself until she agreed. When a trainer ate lunch without sharing it with him, Alex muttered “Naughty!” while turning his back in offense. When Alex lost his temper and bit a researcher, he later said, “I’m sorry,” without being prompted—a sign of contextual awareness and social repair behavior rather than mimicry. He showed empathy-like responses. If a researcher seemed upset or frustrated, Alex sometimes said, “Don’t be sad,” or “It’s OK,” echoing appropriate emotional cues.

Alex died unexpectedly in 2007. His final recorded words to Pepperberg were “You be good. See you tomorrow. I love you.” Alex left behind more than data; he left a challenge to our assumptions about animal consciousness. His life invites science to reconsider the borders of intelligence—not as an exclusive human territory, but as an area still largely unexplored across the living world.

Loved this animal tale? Subscribe for free here and join a community of people who love animals: thekindlife.substack.com

Compassion in Action:

Consider making compassionate consumer choices. Cruelty-free products are cosmetics, skincare, or household items not tested on animals at any stage, from ingredients to final formulation. Look for certifications like Leaping Bunny, which requires strict no-testing policies throughout the supply chain as well as independent, third-party verification.

If you know of others who might enjoy this, please:

Share

Leave a comment

This is just the start—join my Substack for deeper dives into untold animal adventures, weekly updates, and a community of animal lovers: thekindlife.substack.com

by

Do Animals Think & Feel?

Read on Substack https://thekindlife.substack.com/p/do-animals-think-and-feel

Ask anyone who lives with pets whether animals think and feel, and they’ll likely raise an eyebrow, privately wonder whether you’re nuts, and answer, of course they do. Over time, more and more researchers have come to agree.

Not long ago—by that I mean the late 20th century—the widely held belief was that animals were incapable of thought and emotion and only reacted mechanistically to stimuli. The foundations of this are traceable in part to 17th century philosopher René Descartes who posited that nonhuman animals were “automata”—complex biological machines devoid of reason, thought, consciousness, sentience, and feeling. Their cries, for example, were machine-like reflexes and pre-programmed responses to stimuli rather than indicative of pain or feeling.

Religion, moral convenience, and psychological and social factors have played a role in this thinking and have justified a comfortable status quo. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam religions believe that humans are uniquely made in the image of God. Only humans possess souls, so goes the thinking, and animals lack inner experience, rational thought, and the ability to feel genuine emotion and pain. There’s a psychological incentive to downgrade or deny animal cognition and sentience and to dismiss animal suffering as robotic reactions—it makes eating meat, animal experimentation, and the cruel practices of factory farming much less troublesome.

For years some scientists and philosophers contended that since animals couldn’t use language to report their inner experience, its existence couldn’t be scientifically validated and therefore should not be assumed. In the early and mid-20th century, strict behaviorists B.F. Skinner and John B. Watson led a movement that focused on observable behavior, treated references to animal consciousness, feelings, and thoughts as scientifically meaningless, and confined research to measurable stimuli and response. For decades the study of animal sentience and concern about the ethical treatment of animals lay more or less dormant.

Over the last several decades, evidence from the disciplines of ethology (animal behavior), animal cognition and comparative psychology, neuroscience and neurobiology, evolutionary biology and psychology, and cognitive science has made it harder to maintain the belief that animals do not think or feel. Researchers began designing experimental methods yielding strong and converging evidence that animals think (demonstrating flexible, goal-directed cognition) and feel (have conscious experiences such as fear, pain, and pleasure). Experiments with diverse mammals and nonmammals (including insects) have shown that various animals can solve problems, plan ahead, remember past events, recognize individuals and self, use tools, display grief, joy, jealousy, empathy, and fairness, and exhibit metacognition (knowing that you don’t know). Brain imaging and neurophysiology have shown a biological continuity between humans and animal brain structures and activity patterns linked to emotion, pain, and consciousness.

A number of scientific groups and conferences have issued statements on animal cognition and sentience. For example, the University of Cambridge Declaration of Consciousness (2012) states that nonhuman animals, including mammals, birds, and sea creatures, have the neurological substrates for consciousness. The New York University Declaration on Animal Consciousness (2024), signed by 500+ scientists, affirms strong support for conscious experience in mammals and birds, and a realistic probability in all vertebrates and in many invertebrates (cephalopods, crustaceans, insects), and urges welfare considerations.

Marc Bekoff, Professor Emeritus of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Colorado at Boulder, states in his book The Emotional Lives of Animals, “Human beings are a part of the animal kingdom, not apart from it. The separation of ‘us’ and ‘them’ creates a false picture and is responsible for much suffering.”

Intermittently I’ll be writing articles summarizing research findings and providing anecdotal stories about animal cognition and sentience. Stay tuned!

Do you have any personal stories about something an animal did that gave you a window into their thinking? If so, I’d love to hear it.

Compassion in Action:

The next time you are about to buy factory-farmed meat (which is what is sold in virtually every grocery store), consider what that animal likely endured and whether you feel comfortable supporting a large-scale industrial system that prioritizes efficiency and profit over animal welfare. For meat eaters, an alternative is to look for labels that say sustainably raised, locally raised on pasture-based farms, humanely raised, free-range, or Certified Humane, or contact a butcher who will likely know of local farmers who raise animals.

Read on Substack https://thekindlife.substack.com/p/do-animals-think-and-feel