If you haven’t heard about it, the mirror test is one of the top ways humans have been able to test animals for self-awareness. The most recent addition to these ranks is the manta ray, an animal that has recently been observed recognizing itself in its reflection. But where some are meeting the news with great acclaim, others are reminded of the flaws in the test.
Developed in 1970 by psychologist Gordon Gallup Jr., the mirror test has been around for decades and used as a way to test for “self-recognition.” The test generally involves just what you’d expect: using a reflective surface to gauge an animal’s reaction. Does the animal think there is another of its kind nearby? Or will it recognize eventually realize that the “other animal” is itself? To make this even more apparent, sometimes a distinguishing mark–like a red dot–is put on the animal, to see if it will recognize something that doesn’t belong and react accordingly.
Animals that recognize themselves during the mirror test usually progress through four stages:
- A social response (derived from the initial idea that the animal is near another of its kind);
- Physical inspection of the mirror (like looking behind the mirror);
- Repetitive mirror-testing behavior (like moving its body while observing the reflection);
- And then finally realizing that its looking at itself in the reflection.
There have been various animals who have passed the mirror test: Asian elephants, bonobos, chimps, dolphins, Eurasian magpies and, of course, humans (among others). So with the success of this test, why do some say that it doesn’t work?
Because we’re humans.
Or, more specifically, we come with human-bias: we like to–literally and figuratively–view the world through our own lens, and not the lens of others. While sight may be our main option for recognizing ourselves and one another, it’s not the same for many animals. A dog, for example, mainly relies on its sense of smell. A self-awareness test may need to involve a scent, and that’s if dogs have the ability to self-recognize.
But now take into consideration an animal like a bat, whose interaction with its environment is nearly fully reliant on sonar and echolocation. How does one test for self-recognition with sound? Or catfish, which use the thousands of taste receptors on its body to interact with its world by taste, smell and touch ? Or animals that use magnetic fields to get around? Could it be that some of these animals have the capacity for self-recognition, but just not the way we understand it?
Detractors have also pointed out that self-recognition doesn’t necessarily mean self-awareness in the human sense. Ants, for example, can self-recognize according to some studies. But it is a derivative of their need to self-clean. Beyond that, life in an ant-hill is driven entirely by pheromone signals to fulfill ones purpose in that hive: there’s no chance for little Antony or Antonia to try that late night comedy gig they’ve been thinking about trying out. There doesn’t seem to be any existential questions about identity and individual needs. No Mirror test has changed their sense of “self” at all.
Or take computers, which can recognize their own systems, but aren’t self-aware like we are (yet).
So while the mirror test is a marvelous way to test animals with a strong sense of sight, it’s a poor way to test for self-awareness. With the thousands of ways various animals have evolved around the world, who knows what they can see or understand that even we can’t? And why stop there? Plants could be self-aware in a way we’ll never be able to tell if we keep judging by human senses.
It’s a valuable lesson for humanity, and perhaps proves we need a mirror test of our own, for reflection: you’ll learn more if you look at things through a different perspective every now and then.
Feature Image source: La’nick