Maybe someone who has read the paper can confirm, but I think correlating optimism with a longer reward period is only meaningful if there is a comparative analysis which looks at what level of optimism presents in rats which wait longer for a reward and do not get it. Moreover, what level of optimism presents in rats which have a mixed reward system, i.e., sometimes getting a reward for waiting longer and sometimes not getting it.
I find that cognitive scientists often neglect these basic permutations, and present more intuitive results which are easier to accept because of any number of human biases, but may ultimately be an incomplete presentation of reality. I suspect that optimism traits and reward wait period are uncorrelated, and optimism in rats at least depends on some neurochemical factor.
I wonder if the 'Froot Loops' used in the study contained American-style levels of refined sugar. Maybe the rats just learned that driving the car gets them that sweet, sweet hit of the crack cocaine version of the delicious and nutritious sugar cane.
Plus, even a single human Froot Loop would be quite large for a rat. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like that's a ton of sugar, yet the article makes no mention of the refined sugar content, after even mentioning their having used cocaine before in their studies.
It looks to me like those researchers have zero clue about the effects of refined sugar on human beings, much less lesser mammals such as rats. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this looks like worthless drivel, but with good funding to invest in "cool" toys for disposable animals.
As to happiness, most people confuse pleasure with happiness, but that's a different discussion altogether.
Why would the amount of sugar have any relevance? That "the rats just learned that driving the car gets them that sweet, sweet hit of the crack cocaine version of the delicious and nutritious sugar cane" is exactly the point: They _learned to drive_ to the cocaine.
Would two environments both with no refined adictive additive create a similat conclusion about interesting vs boring environments similar to what the authors claim? I have no idea, so I just read a poor summary of a typical rat addiction study.
The experiment was about whether rats can learn to drive a car. They can. It doesn't matter why. If they learned to talk to get access to sugar, we wouldn't go "yeah, but it's sugar", we'd go "rats can fucking TALK now?!".
That's funny! And true. Fair point.
But would they be jumping up and down when the dude came into the lab if they weren't looking for that next hit?
Or were they starving those poor creatures? I wouldn't doubt it.
I'll hazard a guess that they weren't jumping up and down because they wanted to take another spin in the new moving environmental element.
Or did they remember that when the dude came in, they could take the new thing to get a whole Froot Loop? Perhaps.
> In a study that wouldn't be permitted today, rats swam in glass cylinders filled with water, eventually drowning from exhaustion if they weren't rescued.
Who permits studies? Why would this study NOT be permitted today?
edit to add NOT.
Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) or ethics committees instituted at universities, hospitals, and private research orgs ensure research adheres to ethical standards, balancing scientific benefits against potential harm to subjects. In the United States, IRBs must be registered with the Department of Health and Human Services and comply with FDA regulations.
>Why would torturing and killing animals NOT be permitted today?
Because many people today would prefer that animals NOT be tortured and killed. Good people don't torture animals at all in general, and when we do kill them, it's for a definite end like food or to end suffering, and they are killed in such a way that they do not feel pain.
Increasingly, people don't want to see animals tortured and killed for some unknown or arbitrary end, like "let's just see what happens when we drown this rat dude, for science! lol".
You are bang on correct and complete.
But it's an absolutely sadass commentary on the commentariat here that you have been downvoted. I feel for dang and his cohort, but there are a great deal of trollholes on this internet. (Yeah, I just made up that word.)
Probably on moral grounds, encouraging researchers to find alternative ways to design the study rather than slowly drowning their subjects.
Yes, moral grounds, I'm sure. But there are all sorts of abhorrent treatment of animals - abattoirs, indoor farming, force feeding, etc, etc - so, why is it a moral line to drown rats in the way described? Who decides this stuff?
> Who decides this stuff?
The ethical committee of whatever university or research organisation is responsible for the person who wants to conduct this experiment.
Also, many countries have laws on animal wellbeing that may supersede even a green light from the ethical committee.
I get that you're asking honestly, but it shouldn't be a surprise that academics might sometimes have higher standards than businesses.
You can't eat meat without butchering the animal.
You can do a scientific study without torturing the animal - if you have snow alternative, please explain clearly why, why you study is important enough, and convince the ethics board.
You can't do a drowned rat study without drowning rats.
You can eat all kinds of things without torturing the animals - if you have no alternative please explain clearly why, why eating meat is important enough, and convince - actually absolutely nobody, nobody in power cares about animal suffering in our food system.
Why does one ever have to do a drowned rat study?
And before you ask, no not everyone has to eat meat, but, there is at least the reason that an all plant diet is intractable to some people for the sheer amount of carbohydrates, and for others due to the mental load of making sure they get the nutrients that are hard to get in plants but easy to get in meat.
You're asking a genuine question but careful not to sink too deep into whataboutism.
Just because abhorrent treatment of animals exists in one industry doesn't mean it's OK for it to appear in another, or in this case, in the field of science.
As you can imagine, there isn't a single combined committee for these two...
> abattoirs, indoor farming, force feeding
That is why Tyson et al don't have an IRB.