Talk:Alex (parrot)

Broken Link

The link referring to Alex having a concept of 0 is broken.

Also, an interesting sidenote: Irene Pepperberg used the mirror test on African gray parrots, though Alex was disqualified because some students seeking to entertain Alex told Alex to look in the reflection and say "That's Alex." Her two candidates both failed the test. This doesn't necessarily mean though that all parrots fail the test - I believe Koko the gorilla passes it even though other gorillas do not. Simfish 01:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Self image recognition is apparently a very difficult thing to grasp in the entire animal kingdom —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC).

Link repaired two minutes ago. Athænara ✉ 05:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Wild parrot vocalization

Media reported that wild parrots have individual-specific calls which they use as names. I edit out bit about wild parrots. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.14.19.45 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC).

Inconsistency

In the beginning of the article, Alex is purported to have a vocabulary of 100 words. Further down in the text, that number jumps to 1000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.240.18.81 (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The discrepancy is between the number of words Alex uses in context - those words which appear to have specific meaning for him (about 100), with the words Alex "parrots" without apparent meaning (which is about 1000). Alex sits and babbles in English for much of the day, and uses all kinds of words he's overheard, but which aren't considered part of his "vocabulary." For example, one of Alex's favorite phrases is "you be lunch, I'll be tomorrow" which is parroted from phrases he hears often such as "I'm going to lunch" "You be good" "I'll be back tomorrow." This doesn't mean, however, that Alex has any idea of what the word "lunch" means, and so it isn't considered part of his vocabulary. By contrast, he only uses the word "blue" when asked to describe blue objects, he doesn't sit around randomly naming colors.

That's a long-winded way of saying the 100 number is correct, and the larger number is unnecessary for the purpose of this article. --Camipco 06:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

no. most parrots, who are not trained in the manner of alex, but speak by mimicry alone, are typically given vocabulary numbers by their owners. that would be like saying alex has a vocab of 100 words, but most other parrots that talk have a vocab of zero words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.37.157 (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Abuse

Other experts suspect that Alex was subjected to emotionally abusive behavior, as seen in a National Geographic documentary hosted by Alan Alda.[13] In the documentary, Dr. Pepperberg repeatedly prompts Alex by hitting his beak, and subjects Alex to ridicule.

That´s blatantly false. I've seen the video, and there are no experts in it saying that Alex is abused. Those are merely the conclusions of the editor of that paragraph.Andrev 15:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Does she hit his beak and subject him to ridicule? We could include that if it's factual. delldot talk 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• As long as we state it's in the video, not that experts suspect it, I totally agree with delldot. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

That beak can break a wooden stick of 2cm diameter in seconds, a gentle touch hardly qualifies as abuse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 11:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

As the owner of two African grey parrots (one acquired in 1994, the other in 1996), I know that, during play, these birds will pound on objects with their beaks. I just re-watched the 2001 video with Alda (http://www.pbs.org/saf/1201/video/watchonline.htm). Pepperberg is briefly offering the toy (the spoon, for example) and taking it away. Mostly, Alex attempted to grab the toy with the beak. Sometimes, the object tapped Alex on the beak rather than him grabbing it. Alex, with reflexes superior to a human's, appears to not want to make the effort to grab the toy. He knew he wouldn't be given it at that point and so he just left the spoon bounce off. Watch the video -- it wasn't abusive. Were Pepperberg abusive, Alex would have been a poor study subject and Pepperberg wouldn't have put her face so near him. The AG beak can indeed make short work of a stick -- or nose, lip or eye. --UnSpace (talk) 00:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing quote/refutation of criticism?

I'll always remember "banerry", his name for apple (looks like a cherry, tastes like a banana [to a bird at least]). This seems like pretty good evidence of comprehending language, synthesizing new words. --Belg4mit 17:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

"The Alex Studies" (Pepperberg, Irene Maxine, Harvard University Press, Massachusettes, 1999) goes into depth describing the experimental techniques used to train and evaluate Alex. These techniques were designed to eliminate the effects of things like Clever Hans and rote learning. Even the news articles about the use of a zero-like concept demonstrate the Clever Hans effect could not be occurring. The experimenter did not realize the correct answer was "zero" and would not have asked the question had that been known. The only reason Alex's use of the zero concept was ever discovered was because Alex was not using the "Clever Hans effect." While I'm at it, should "The Alex Studies" be added to the page somehow? I'm not sure where it would go. --UnSpace (talk) 23:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Ripley's

I just saw Alex featured on Ripley's Believe it or Not! Episode 1009 on a scifi channel rerun. Might be worth mentioning. --Stux (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Alex and Me

This book is non-fiction, not a novel (Harper Collins 2008). Verligne (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)