Thinking Chick

💣 👉🏻👉🏻👉🏻 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻

I’m not just an entertainer. I’m an influence, a wielder of opinion, a force… a force!


Copyright ©2006–2016 ThinkingChick. (Website by TechRen Enterprises )


I’ve liked many, many movies enough to buy the DVD and a few enough to see more than once in the theater. This is one of the few that made me want to see it right away the next day. Yes, I thought it was that good.


Marcia Jeffries (Patricia Neal) works for her uncle’s Arkansas radio station, interviewing colorful everyday characters for her feature “A Face in the Crowd.” She takes her ten-thousand watt smile and tape recorder to the local pokey one day, unwittingly picking the ultimate wild card: a superficially charming ne’er-do-well named Larry Rhodes (Andy Griffith, looking incredibly and convincingly seedy here). Marcia christens him “Lonesome” Rhodes, asking him to talk or sing or anything into her mike. After a lot of aw-shucks nonsense, he lets loose with a stream of blue-eyed soul that makes her eyes light up. You can tell she’s thinking she’s got something special here.


What she doesn’t see is that soon he’s thinking the same thing, and not in a good way. Basically, Marcia unleashed FrankenHick. Lonesome parlays his blinding, fake charm and Machiavellian people skills into increasingly powerful and manipulative (and larger) chunks of the radio and TV market, breaking the 4th wall to bore his way into the hearts of his fans. Soon he’s eyeing politics.


It sounds funny, and for the first 45 minutes or so, it is. (Mr. Shukti and I were both laughing at the Vitjex Variety Hour or whatever you’d call that thing.) Then it’s just disturbing. Andy Griffith is phenomenal in this, playing a frighteningly smooth sociopath. After watching this I was left with the feeling that he was a scorpion that had been waiting patiently for the right sucker to lift him from under his rock. Patricia Neal is outstanding. Her face telegraphs her joy and growing horror at what she’s created. The script is outstanding and these two play it perfectly.







Search









Log in














Switch Edition


Academic Edition


Corporate Edition





Animal Cognition

volume 20 , pages 127–147 ( 2017 ) Cite this article

Domestic chickens are members of an order, Aves, which has been the focus of a revolution in our understanding of neuroanatomical, cognitive, and social complexity. At least some birds are now known to be on par with many mammals in terms of their level of intelligence, emotional sophistication, and social interaction. Yet, views of chickens have largely remained unrevised by this new evidence. In this paper, I examine the peer-reviewed scientific data on the leading edge of cognition, emotions, personality, and sociality in chickens, exploring such areas as self-awareness, cognitive bias, social learning and self-control, and comparing their abilities in these areas with other birds and other vertebrates, particularly mammals. My overall conclusion is that chickens are just as cognitively, emotionally and socially complex as most other birds and mammals in many areas, and that there is a need for further noninvasive comparative behavioral research with chickens as well as a re-framing of current views about their intelligence.
When asked to think of an example of a bird, most people do not think of chickens ( Gallus gallus domesticus ) (Malt and Smith 1984 ). And when people see photographs of domestic chickens behaving like other birds (e.g., roosting in tree tops), it is often cause for surprise and amusement. Why? With over 19 billion worldwide, chickens are the most abundant of all domesticated animals (UN Food and Agricultural Organisation 2011 ), so this perception of chickens is not due to unfamiliarity with them per se. Rather, the answer may lie with the context in which we usually encounter them and how their use interacts with perceptions of their intelligence.
Unlike many other birds, chickens are categorized as a commodity, devoid of authenticity as a real animal with an evolutionary history and phylogenetic context. Thus, arguably, perceptions of chickens shape their use as commodities which, in turn, then reinforces those original perceptions. Animals are typically classified according to the kinds of attributes they possess (Mervis and Rosch 1981 ), and the contexts in which we usually encounter animals shape our views of how representative we think they are of a more general category (Malt and Smith 1984 ). When asked to rate the typicality of chickens as a member of the more general category of birds, raters usually give chickens a low score indicating that they are not considered typical birds (Malt and Smith 1984 ). Therefore, even considerations of birds in general may not apply very well to chickens.
And while many factors are involved in determining attitudes toward other animals, a number of studies have shown that belief in sentience or “mind” is a strong predictor of attitudes toward different types of animal use (Hills 1995 ; Knight and Barnett 2008 ; Knight et al. 2004 ; Phillips and McCulloch 2005 ). Chickens are misperceived as lacking most of the psychological characteristics we recognize in other intelligent animals and are typically thought of as possessing a low level of intelligence compared with other animals (Eddy et al. 1993 ; Nakajima et al. 2002 ; Phillips and McCulloch 2005 ).
Indeed, the very idea of chicken psychology is strange to most people. A recent study showed that when college students were given the opportunity to learn about and personally train chickens (using positive reinforcement), their attitudes shifted in a more informed and positive direction. Student perceptions of chicken intelligence were assessed pre- and post-training. Relative to their initial perceptions of chickens as slow learners, the students’ attitudes shifted to viewing them as intelligent and emotional animals with individual personalities. Interestingly, even pre-training, most students agreed that chickens could feel hunger, pain, and fear, but were less likely to believe chickens could feel more complex emotions, such as boredom, frustration, and happiness. However, boredom, frustration, and happiness were the emotional states with the greatest shifts in student attitudes post-training (Hazel et al. 2015 ).
The scientific literature on chicken cognition and behavior is relatively sparse in many areas, and dominated by applied themes, artificial settings, and methodologies relating to their “management” as a food source. In other studies, their welfare is ultimately related to productivity. Far less numerous are studies of chickens on their own terms—as birds, within an evolutionary and comparative framework. But even basic comparative studies of birds have been limited by concentrating almost exclusively on associative learning, discrimination, and adaptive specializations (such as seed caching), while interest in the evolution of complex intelligence has been focused mostly on primates, dolphins, elephants, and only certain birds, such as corvids (crows) and psittacines (parrots) (Emery 2006 ). Although it is beyond the scope of this paper to explore why this might be, arguably even the scientific community has been influenced by public perceptions of chickens as cognitively simple. Cognitive differences among species do indeed exist, but the fact that studies of very basic associative processes tend to focus on pigeons ( Columba livia ) and chickens (two species who are considered quite atypical as birds and not extremely favored), while studies of more complex cognitive processes, including language-like capacities and tool use, involve corvids and parrots, may have so far precluded chickens from demonstrating more complex cognition. As will be demonstrated in this paper, chicken intelligence appears to have been underestimated and overshadowed by other avian groups. This asymmetry in the literature is likely a reflection of, as well as a contributor to, the disconnect scientists and the public have between chickens as commodities and who they actually are as individuals.
But chickens have much in common with other avian species. Now, more than ever, this simple realization has a special relevance because of the recent transformation in our scientific knowledge of birds in general. In the past few years, numerous studies have shown that there is no “bright line” between “avian” and “mammalian” intelligence and complexity; complex intelligence is found in both birds, mammals, and also fish (Brown 2015 ; Butler 2008 ; Emery 2006 ). Likewise, the brains of birds have historically been viewed as simpler and more primitive than those of mammals. However, that assumption about avian brains has now been overturned by more recent studies showing that there are many functional similarities in the brains of birds and mammals, allowing for similar cognitive abilities. In particular, the avian forebrain (the part of the brain involved in problem-solving and other higher-order cognitive capacities) is actually derived from the same neuroanatomical substrate as the mammalian forebrain, providing more potential evidence for similar cognitive capacities in the two groups (Jarvis et al. 2005 ).
In this paper, I review the evidence from peer-reviewed applied and basic comparative studies of chicken cognition, emotion, and sociality. I place a special focus on more complex capacities which appear to be at the leading edge of intelligence in birds and other animals and only review some of the more fundamental perceptual and cognitive abilities in order to understand the mechanisms underlying these more complex capacities. A recent book on the behavioral biology of chickens by Nicol ( 2015 ) is recommended for a much more comprehensive and wide-ranging description of studies of chicken cognition and behavior.
The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to gain a better understanding of the minds of chickens from the best scientific literature, separating fact from fiction; two, to identify compelling areas for future noninvasive research. Moreover, as with any taxonomic group, species-specific factors, such as evolutionary history and sensory abilities, need to be taken into account in order to interpret findings on cognition, emotion, sociality, and other characteristics and to make better informed comparisons across taxa. Therefore, what follows is a brief description of evolution, phylogeny, and domestication, as well as sensory systems, in chickens.
Domestic chickens descended from red jungle fowl ( Gallus gallus ). They are considered a subspecies of their wild counterparts, who inhabit field edges, groves, and scrubland in India and southeast Asia (Al-Nasser et al. 2007 ). The domestication of the red jungle fowl was well established by 8000 years ago (West and Zhou 1988 ), but molecular studies suggest it could have begun as early as 58,000 years ago (Sawai et al. 2010 ).
Despite their long history of domestication, domestic chickens remain similar to their wild counterparts despite the recent very intense breeding and genetic manipulation directed toward production traits such as egg laying and growth (Rauw et al. 1998 ; Appleby et al. 2004 ). There is no evidence, for instance, that the cognitive or perceptual abilities of domestic chickens have been substantially altered by domestication. It is interesting to note that most animals domesticated for food, such as pigs and chickens, are behaviorally and cognitively quite similar to their ancestors and wild counterparts as they are mainly selected on physical characteristics like rate of growth, fecundity, percentage of body fat, etc. (Held et al. 2009 ). This stands in contrast to the case of dogs and wolves, who, of course, share a number of characteristics with each other but, because dogs were selected as companions, are also distinctly different on several key cognitive and behavioral dimensions (Udell et al. 2010 ). The implications for differential welfare for dogs versus chickens (and other farmed animals) in a “domesticated” setting are evident.
Social groups of jungle fowl and wild or free-ranging domestic chickens usually consist of one dominant male and one dominant female, subordinates of both sexes, and chicks, all occupying a home range during the breeding season (Appleby et al. 2004 ). Within their home range, they have regular roosting sites, including high up in the branches of trees (Appleby et al. 2004 ). Diet is highly varied and ranges from berries and seeds to insects and small vertebrates (Savory et al. 1978 ). Interestingly, despite the fact that domestication tends to make most animals less aggressive toward potential predators, some breeds of domestic chickens are more aggressive than jungle fowl (Väisänen et al. 2005 ).
Chickens are sensitive to touch, and their skin contains numerous kinds of receptors for temperature, pressure, and pain. The beak of the chicken, as in all birds, is a complex sensory organ with numerous nerve endings. The beak not only serves to grasp and manipulate food items, but is also used to manipulate non-food objects in nesting and exploration, drinking, and preening. It is also used as a weapon in defensive and aggressive encounters. At the end of the beak is a specialized cluster of highly sensitive mechanoreceptors, called the bill tip organ, which allows chickens to make fine tactile discriminations (Gentle and Breward 1986 ). Needless to say, damage to the beak is intensely painful, as partially debeaked chickens show a significant increase in guarding behavior, i.e., tucking the bill under the wing, and diminished use of the bill for pecking and preening after the procedure. These pain-related behaviors may continue for months (Duncan et al. 1989 ; Gentle et al. 1990 , 1991 ).
Chickens, like most birds, depend highly on well-developed visual abilities which allow them to focus close-up and far away at the same time in different parts of their visual field (Dawkins 1995 ; Dawkins and Woodington 1997 ), and see a broader range of colors than humans (Ham and Osorio 2007 ). Chickens can detect both low- and high-frequency sound at a variety of pressure levels. Their adeptness with low-frequency sound may include a capacity to detect sounds that humans cannot hear (infra-sound below 20 Hz) (Gleich and Langermann 2011 ). Chickens also possess well-developed senses of smell and taste (Jones and Roper 1997 ). Finally, like some other birds, chickens (though not all breeds) possess the ability to detect and orient to magnetic fields (Freire et al. 2008 ). All of these capacities come into play when assessing their cognitive capacities.
This paper presents a summary of cognitive, emotional, personality, and social characteristics of domestic chickens, built from a comprehensive review of the scientific literature. I first conducted a search on the Web of Science Core Collection using terms relevant to intelligence, cognition, and behavior and followed up with online Google-based direct searches through all of the major peer-reviewed journals (Table 1 ) using similar terms as well as key terms from existing papers (e.g., intelligence, cognition, behavior, learning, memory, sociality, self-awareness, etc.). I also used more specific search terms in Web of Science, e.g., time perception, perspective-taking, etc., within these broader categories when necessary. Additionally, I used these terms to search on ScienceDaily for relevant news items and the peer-reviewed papers they described. I also conducted a complete search of the Web sites of the major authors in these fields for all of their relevant projects. Finally, I searched the reference section of each paper to find additional papers in additional miscellaneous journals (not listed in Table 1 ) and ensured that the overall search was comprehensive. I included books, book chapters, and dissertation theses, as well as both empirical and review papers (which provided further description and interpretation of the empirical data). Both the basic comparative psychology literature and the applied literature were included. No time restrictions were placed on articles for inclusion, but priority was given to more recent papers when appropriate. The reference section of the present paper shows the full breadth of the sources consulted.
There is a deep literature on visual cognition and spatial orientation in chickens (including young chicks) that demonstrates they are capable of such visual feats as completion of visual occlusion, biological motion perception, and object and spatial (even geometric) representations. One of the cognitive capacities most extensively explored in this domain is object permanence, that is, the ability to understand that something exists even when out of sight. Object permanence unfolds in six developmental steps beginning, in Stage one, with a lack of understanding that hidden objects still exist and, in Stage two the ability to visually track the movement of an object. Stages three and four are reached when the subject actively retrieves a partially hidden and fully hidden object, respectively. Stages five and six are defined as the ability to track the location of a hidden object after several visible displacements and infer its location after several invisible displacements, respectively (Piaget 1953 ). Human babies typically achieve the last stage at about age 2 years (Piaget 1964 ).
Object permanence has been studied extensively in many nonhuman animals, who show a range of capacities within this paradigm. The literature on this phenomenon in other animals is too extensive to cite here but suffice to say that many animals, such as great apes, monkeys, cats, dogs, and birds, demonstrate various levels of sophistication in object permanence, with many achieving competence in the final of the six stages (see Gomez 2005 , for a review). I will turn to an examination of object permanence in chickens in the following sections on partly and completely occluded objects.
A number of birds are capable of reaching for partly occluded objects (amodal completion), the equivalent of Stage 3 object
http://www.thinkingchick.com/
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10071-016-1064-4
Xnxx Free Full Movie Search Mother Son
Solo Bank Of Georgia
Hot Studs Pleasing Granny
The Thinking Chick’s Guide to Movies.
Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and ...
Thinking Chick | Гаара | ВКонтакте
THINKING CHICKENS - Kimmela
Thinking chickens: a review of cognition, emotion, and ...
CHIC- Thinking of you - YouTube
Thinking Chick: November 2008
thinkingchick.com - The Thinking Chick’s Guide to Movies.
Metacognition | Center for Teaching | Vanderbilt University
THINK CHIC Comunicación y marketing a la medida
Thinking Chick