Talk:Mirror test

Dogs

I recommend the article Do dogs have self awareness, where I found this quote:

"The behavior of the dogs in both experiments supports the idea that dogs can recognize their own odor as being from “themselves.” Dogs may not recognize themselves visually in a mirror, but by changing the self-recognition test to a sense that dogs rely on more strongly, their sense of smell, it looks like they pass the mirror test after all. Whether this means that they truly have self-awareness is still debatable, but by asking the question in a species-appropriate way, scientists can gain greater insight into the minds of our canine companions "

Maybe could be added... Mats33 (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Blink test

Saint Bernard Dog passed blink test, a form of mirror test where it blinks after seeing finger approaching toward his eye from an angle he can see that finger only in the mirror. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwHcyVQsM9Y BiccFloppa (talk) 04:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Any chance you have a more scientific citation for this? I can see a number of problems with this video on its own, and without peer review and more stirctly controlled conditions all sorts of things could be happening. My two cents are that this video too weak evidence to make a claim that dogs pass a vision based version of the mirror test, or even to add it. 2A01:4B00:BE02:3C00:E0A4:5C38:42E2:8A0A (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Any objections: Expanding the mirror test to include odor and chemically based versions.

Currently the article is about the vision based mirror test only, having alternatives like the odor-based version that dogs can pass under the criticism. Any objections to including Odor and chemical based "mirror" tests as a mirror test, remove the odor based mirror from the critisism section, and specify in the passed failed lists which version (odor/vision/chemical) was done? Sklabb (talk) 21:31, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sklabb, I think this is a reasonable idea. I think we should keep the visual test as the "main" one, but it'd be good to have the variants described more fully. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

What does "abnormally good" mean?

The statement about humans having "abnormally good vision" links to the article about the human eye. I've found no reference to any "abnormality" in human vision if we exclude the disease section, which talks in part about abnormally bad vision. I've found no reference to a comparative analysis of human vision performance in comparison to other animals, with animals being mentioned only once (as sharing a specific feature with the human eye, as opposed to having any differences). Since "abnormally good" is poorly defined and there is no evidence supporting it, and possibly the opposite (for instance, many birds of prey have exceptionally good visual acuity, even if I don't have a reference to a comparison with human vision), I suggest to remove this statement. I do not dispute the larger statement, that the "rouge" test may be easier to pass for animals with better visual acuity. I wouldn't without my glasses on, and I think I am conscious. A1957 (talk) 20:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

People with dementia failing MSM

You can go on yt and see dozens of examples of this. Feels worth mentioning! Bit of a show stopper as a definition of "self-awareness" Hamishtodd1 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

How do crabs pass MSM test while gorillas, parrots, etc fail?

Is there a caveat with the study that explains this? Does anyone that know more have thoughts on this? 2600:1014:B1E5:C646:A8A1:823C:8F5A:5BC1 (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)