For instance, he asserts that because a monkey can see it’s own genitals, the mirror result of a monkey looking at their genitals means nothing. Or alternatively, does not mean what the study authors claim. Really? Has Roma established anything with this assertion? It sounds like hollow argumentation to me.

I believe that millions of primates look at their genitals in mirrors every day. Why? Can they not see their own genitals? Of course they can. The point is, it’s a different point of view, that said primate cannot ordinarily see. Without a mirror.

My point of view is that if an animal observes and manipulates their own body while looking in the mirror, they are making a connection between self and image. If they attempt to manipulate the mirror itself (properly speaking, the image in the mirror), they fail the test.

Also, complaining that animals have experience with the mirror, is only slightly less persnickety. While it may make the test more challenging, it does not absolutely disqualify the test from consideration. The main challenge, I would think, would be to interest the animal for long enough to perform a meaningful test.

Since the activity does not directly relate to the essentials of life (food, shelter, mating), it is important that they spend any time at all on it. It cannot be explained away by bonding and group dynamics. It does not fit with play activity. I am treading outside of my area of expertise, but it does not even sound like the stereotyped activities of any animal I have ever heard of.

In Roma’s zeal not to anthropomorphize, he reveals something perhaps a little more than he realizes. Why is it anthropomorphic logic to “think the monkey in the mirror is another animal…”. It is basic biology for a species to recognize others of it’s species, however primitive that recognition mechanism is. Friend versus foe, kin versus stranger, potential mate versus everything else.

Occam’s razor says the most likely explanantions, by far, are either that the animals think the image is another monkey, or that the image is themselves. To suggest otherwise becomes tendentious and outlandish. “Maybe the animal thinks it’s a vertical pool of water!” “Maybe the animal thinks it’s the eye reflection of a giant creature consisting of only 1 eye!” “Maybe the animal thinks it’s an n-dimensional portal to a parallel universe!”

Or maybe the commentator is just trying to prove how clever they are. Huh.

Mirrors abound in nature. They are called water. Any animal dipping its head down in a pond or waterhole to take a drink is going to see its reflection staring back at them. Obviously, they ‘know’ the reflection is just their reflection and is not another real animal staring up at them. If not, this would make taking a drink a very surreal experience for an animal.

This is actually a problem I have with the MSR test; maybe animals that fail just don’t care who or what is in the mirror because they know it is not real (and/or only show interest because something ‘there’ to one sense but not to the full sensory apparatus is anomalous).

A question for those who might know: has anyone done any tests with false mirrors – say, with a fully sealed (scentproof!) window onto a replica room – and tested responses to different visual stimuli under those conditions?

Your experience with your cat also has other explanations than self recognition. Check out the animal cognition literature and you’ll see that scientists have done a lot of work in this area that cannot be so easily dismissed by an anecdote about a pet.

A moment’s consideration makes it obvious that an ability to recognize one’s own reflection is pretty important to any animal which might happen upon a standing body of water to drink from.

~Rhaco