Why Monkeys Can Only Count To Four

To try everything Brilliant has to offer for free for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/minuteearth . You’ll also get 20% off an annual premium subscription.
There’s an island in the Caribbean where David used to perform magic tricks for monkeys. And it was super cool because it suggested that they have the ability to count! (but only up to four)
LEARN MORE
**************
To learn more about this topic, start your googling with these keywords:
- Approximate number system: A cognitive system that supports the estimation of the magnitude of a group without relying on language or symbols.
- Violation of expectancy looking time measure: A technique used to determine if subjects were surprised by an outcome of an experiment based on the idea that surprising outcomes resulted in longer looking times.
- Cross-species comparison: Comparisons across species that differ in cognitive character.
SUPPORT MINUTEEARTH
**************************
If you like what we do, you can help us!:
- Become our patron: / minuteearth
- Our merch: dftba.com/minuteearth
- Our book: minuteearth.com/books
- Share this video with your friends and family
- Leave us a comment (we read them!)
CREDITS
*********
David Goldenberg | Script Writer, Narrator and Director
Lizah van der Aart & Arcadi Garcia i Rius | Storyboard Artists
Sarah Berman | Illustration, Video Editing and Animation
Nathaniel Schroeder | Music
MinuteEarth is produced by Neptune Studios LLC
neptunestudios.info
OUR STAFF
************
Lizah van der Aart • Sarah Berman • Cameron Duke
Arcadi Garcia i Rius • David Goldenberg • Melissa Hayes
Alex Reich • Henry Reich • Peter Reich
Ever Salazar • Leonardo Souza • Kate Yoshida
OUR LINKS
************
KZbin | / minuteearth
TikTok | / minuteearth
Twitter | / minuteearth
Instagram | / minute_earth
Facebook | / minuteearth
Website | minuteearth.com
Apple Podcasts| podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
REFERENCES
**************
Nieder, A. (2019). A Brain for Numbers: The Biology of the Number Instinct. The MIT Press.
Hauser, M. D., & Carey, S. (2003). Spontaneous representations of small numbers of objects by rhesus macaques: examinations of content and format. Cognitive psychology, 47(4), 367-401. doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0285(03...
Abramson, J. Z., Hernández-Lloreda, V., Call, J., & Colmenares, F. (2011). Relative quantity judgments in South American sea lions (Otaria flavescens). Animal cognition, 14(5), 695-706. doi.org/10.1007/s10071-011-04...
Rodríguez, R.L., Briceño, R.D., Briceño-Aguilar, E. et al. Nephila clavipes spiders (Araneae: Nephilidae) keep track of captured prey counts: testing for a sense of numerosity in an orb-weaver. Anim Cogn 18, 307-314 (2015). doi.org/10.1007/s10071-014-08...
Santos, L. R., Sulkowski, G. M., Spaepen, G. M., & Hauser, M. D. (2002). Object individuation using property/kind information in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). Cognition, 83(3), 241-264. doi.org/10.1016/s0010-0277(02...

[@syelallouch]

I keep telling them, "Count on your fingers", but then they start arguing with me about whether or not the thumb is a finger. It's a whole thing.

[@Novenae_CCG]

Count on your digits.

[@alanherlan3429]

@@Novenae_CCG that sounds like an argument about toes being digits would follow

[@Bacopa68]

A long time I saw a guy from PNG showing how they count in base-20. 5 digits on one hand, and the joints and segments are another 5. The other hand and arm add up to 20. They then point at a digit/joint/segment to convey the "20's" place and so forth.

[@StefanReich]

When the monkey said "Yeek yaak jeek", I felt he made a really good point

[@Novenae_CCG]

@@alanherlan3429 I did think about it, and I posted it anyway. I mean, why _not_ use your toes?

[@daanwilmer]

This desperately needs the song "I can only count to four" as background music

[@MinuteEarth]

That was the soundtrack to much of our production process!

[@TheJohn553]

That's so cool 😂

[@alankoh807]

This remind me of Drowning Pool - "Let the bodies hit the floor"

[@accountwith16chr]

@@alankoh807 There's a parody of that song but it's replaced with "I can only count to four", 'tis the reference!

[@dragoncatoverload]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/q2nGlHqgltdne9Usi=1SMaGWlkFcgvLkIY I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOUR

[@ErilynOfAnachronos]

Took me 2 minutes to realize that any difference below 4 is also 25% or more.

[@minor_2nd]

I realized that in only a matter of seconds, it's really easy. You just scroll downto the comment section, and read your comment :P

[@kruks]

This could be tested using something smaller. We could test to see if 100 blueberries vs 125 blueberries is noticed and figure out what the percentage threshold is. If monkeys care about blueberries, anyway.

[@rosverlegaspo6752]

@@kruks 100 and 125 has about 20% difference, so is 4 and 5.

[@KiokuJonny]

​@@rosverlegaspo6752 While 100 is 80% of 125, 125 is 125% of 100. The difference is 25, which can be expressed as both percentages.

[@BGP00]

@@rosverlegaspo6752 well assuming they expect to see 100 and instead 125 were revealed, there would be a 25% difference. (125-100)/100 = 25%

[@Marconius6]

Okay, but what if you placed 6 small apples on the table, and then revealed 4 big ones?

[@MinuteEarth]

There's a whole subset of experiments about just this thing - and the results are pretty interesting (though hard to control for all sorts of potential confounders)

[@yyeetmax2849]

@@MinuteEarth aaaannnddd?? saying there are experiments but not saying anything else is just torturing the curious, at least guide us to the papers, please (and thank you for the video)

[@ianvanancheta9005]

​@yyeetmax2849 bro, there are references in the descriptions of the video for you to check out if you like.

[@yyeetmax2849]

@@ianvanancheta9005 thank you (being curious doesn't mean not being a dumbass sometimes as you an see)

[@stormreach1234]

@@yyeetmax2849 I always like to say intelligence extends in both directions. Some people are just average, but some are incredibly smart- and also sometimes the dumbest people you've ever met. I like to think I'm occasionally smart despite being mostly a dumbass lmao

[@MrBelguin]

I cannot help but think of Blackadder trying to teach Baldrick adding: Blackadder: If I have two beans, and then I add two more beans, what do I have? Baldrick: Some beans. Blackadder: Yes... and no. Let's try again, shall we? I have two beans; then I add two more beans. What does that make? Baldrick: A very small casserole.

[@le9038]

What video game is this?

[@Squirrelthing]

@@le9038 Blackadder is a television series about Lord Blackadder, played by Rowan Atkinson (and his descendants, every new season is a new time period).

[@daveogfans413]

@@le9038 Google is an information retrieval simulator game. It allows you to look up things up and the game will provide simulated information based on your query. You gotta try it.

[@Merennulli]

I guess I need to watch that. A PBS station in a neighboring city used to broadcast British shows during their fundraising and sometime in the early 90s they introduced "The Black Adder", but then aired a rather dull office sitcom set in a yellowish office with an angry boss with a very 70s-ish mustache. I've been stuck with the wrong impression of the show for 30 years until you corrected it just now. 🤦‍♂

[@DrRank]

​@@MerennulliI'm not convinced that you're talking about the same show.

[@galaxyn3214]

This reminds me of *Through the Looking Glass* when the chess queens host a math quiz: "Can you do Addition?" the White Queen asked. "What's one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one and one?" "I don't know," said Alice. "I lost count." "She can't do Addition," the Red Queen interrupted.

[@IndustrialBonecraft]

I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOUR! I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOUR! I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOOOOOOUUR!

[@vanatrix1942]

1, 2, 5, 4 (5, 4)... Mee count so poor....

[@30pranaypawar17]

Young siblings when we give them a perfect half of the m&ms and they still cant trust us and neither count:

[@calvocat]

1! I CAN COUNT TO ONE! 2! I CAN COUNT TO TWO! 3! I CAN COUNT TO THREE! 4! I CAN'T COUNT NO MOREEE!

[@MisterCynic18]

THE ARE FOUR LIGHTS

[@jaredkennedy6576]

One what comes after one Two what comes after two Three what comes after three FOOOOUUUUUURRRRR!

[@d.esanchez3351]

That's no stuff animal. That's famous news host Tulio Triviño, from the super serious chilean news channel 31minutes, no wonder they were surprised that there weren't three, but in fact, two famous news host Tulio Triviño in the box.

[@MinuteEarth]

Tulio!

[@pastaconcarne9100]

tUlio -juanin juan harry

[@levyrangeletchichury9279]

Yes! I knew I would not be the only one to know it. Túlio and the 31 minutes news are the best!

[@nocredits8066]

OMG 31 Minutos reference kdjsha

[@Ildskalli]

We need to put this up top, for Tulio’s honor! ¡Tuuulio, estamos al aire!

[@bimalpandey9736]

So what does that make of Gabe Newell?? He can only count to 2.

[@CrownVirtual]

scientists have been debating this question for centuries

[@pplesandoranges]

Well, if a whole-lifeform can count to 4, a half-lifeform......

[@endermannull4420]

@@pplesandoranges that's crazy

[@halfsine]

@@pplesandoranges GENIUS

[@ZoofyZoof]

He can count to 4. He goes straight from 2 to 4, and has no idea what 3 is.

[@tickaten]

3:23 love that 31 minutos reference!

[@guystreamsstuff7841]

I screamed IS THAT TULIO out loud

[@chrsalx]

Came here just to say this! ♥️

[@Yuio_Quaz]

I'm happy i'm not alone here

[@poisonjam4564]

Vengo a lo mismo. Estoy en shock!

[@yuzmanito]

Isn't it just a sock monkey? Tulio is literally one. I did have the same reaction tho, he looks like him but it might just be a coincidence

[@nebulan]

Is this similar to Be Smart's recent video about why all numbering systems created by humans usually use tick marks until 4 or 5?

[@superspider64]

I had thought about that as well lol

[@prvashisht]

Not that I mind it, because usually it's slightly to quite different matter, but MinuteEarth usually makes videos on similar topics as those on recent other science channels. I have noticed it at least twice in the last few weeks.

[@malingpalsu]

Tbh a few science channels have discussed similar topics before, like vsauce, but its still interesting with the added info the channels before didnt mention

[@notkamara]

Exactly this!

[@huonglarne]

​@@prvashisht Is minute earth stealing content?

[@grateoraclelewot6326]

I wonder if Richard Adams knew this when he wrote Watership Down. It's built into the rabbit language that they can only count to four. There's no explanation given, but the popular theory is that the rabbits were counting on their paws, and they only have four paws.

[@euthymialy]

The mentioning of only having four paws! I forgot that bit, now I want to read it all over again 🩷

[@octoscorpion2506]

Yes! I was thinking about that. "Hrair" means "thousand" or "many" and "Hrair-roo" means little thousand/more than four or "Fiver"

[@sohopedeco]

3:25 Is that Tulio??? 🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱🇨🇱

[@user56603]

Pensé lo mismo

[@martinsilva2190]

El mismisimo Tulio Triviño

[@sohopedeco]

@@martinsilva2190 Túlio Trivinho in the Brazilian dub🇧🇷

[@Copyright_Infringement]

"I can only count to four. I can only count to four. I can only count to FOOOOOUUURRRRRRR." - Psychostick

[@bhbr-xb6po]

How much were the adults prepared to count? Because if they went into the experiment unprimed, I can imagine lots of them not bothering to count and just eyeballing it just like the other animals.

[@trla6505]

I think we can eyeball better then animals

[@xxizcrilexlxx1505]

​@@trla6505 well we eye Ball diferently than said animals We or at least i throw a random number when eyeballing and then Maybe try counting from there Rather than Just pile vs bigger pile

[@TheFinalChapters]

The thing is, adult humans will subconsciously count the apples, keeping an exact tally of them. When they see all the apples at once, their first thought will be to compare how many apples they see now to how many they counted. Animals and small children do not "count" the apples, as they do not have a number system to count with.

[@spindash64]

​@@bywonlinei guess brains are way better at multiplication and division than addition and subtractkkn

[@ferwiner2]

​@@spindash64I think it is more about visual recognition. I would guess that a set of 4 and set of 5 would not be easily recognisable in a culture that does not use such pattern.

[@Notsoshady4891]

🎵I can only count to four. One, two, five four. I can't count no more.🎵

[@lostprophet8888]

For anyone wondering and wanting to do more research on the topics: The abilities in question are called "Subitizing" for instinctively knowing (not counting) the exact amount of things ≤ 4 and "Approximate Number Sense" (ANS) for being able to differentiate large amount of grouped things, if the difference is big enough. :)

[@maesmattias]

From my marketing lessons I remember that also the human brain begins to have difficulties when the choice between products gets higher than 4. It also confuses us.

[@lares__m]

TULIO TREVIÑO SALE AL FINAL 3:22

[@battlelawlz3572]

“I can only count to 4!” “I can only count to 4!” “I can only count to fouuuuuuurrrrrr!!!”

[@LucasL512]

Isn't it true that humans can immediately see if there are 5 things, but when there are more they have to actually count them. Seems pretty relevant to this video?

[@westonding8953]

Probably. Magicians use these principles too.

[@nikkamagizia]

That was definitely true for me when i worked as a cashier. Had to count really fast sometimes, 5 or less was just instinctive and with more i had to group them into 5s and math out the groups

[@Echo_the_half_glitch]

Yeah, five and six are about the highest numbers that you can do that with, in my experience

[@Niko-zf5ml]

In my experience it’s 4 not 5.

[@LucasL512]

@@Niko-zf5ml perhaps you are a monkey

[@lakrids-pibe]

Performing magic tricks for spiders?? Hehehehe! Now I'm imagining the spider version of Statler and Waldorf. "Boo! It's up his sleeve!"

[@MinuteEarth]

now I feel an overwhelming urge to sketch what that might look like :)

[@bandaro1234]

@@MinuteEarthYes please!

[@falnica]

3:25 Tulio!

[@isacami25]

siiiiiiiiiiiiii

[@yankofelipe7209]

Estamos al aire!

[@billiboi122]

1 WHAT COMES AFTER 1 2 WHAT COMES AFTER 2 3 WHAT COMES AFTER 3 FOOUUUURRR

[@jameskopacz]

3:23 Tulio Triviño?

[@DAN-gf3qx]

TULIO REFERENCE

[@kotzpenner]

Similar thing happens in some human tribes that have been known for this phenomenon too, it's super interesting how nature forms our perception. They are simply unable to count beyond a certain threshold, referring to simply "a lot". Same with colours, a subset of humanity struggles to differentiate shades of blue from green but are perfectly capable to differentiate shades of blue that others can't.

[@penand_paper6661]

Funnily enough, there are even human languages (such as Aka-Jeru (Andaman Islands) and Munduruku (Amazon)) that have no words for numbers above 3 (or sometimes even 2). The people who spoke them had no real need for number words, so all they had words for were "one," "two," "three" "a little" and "a lot."

[@edgargaebolg9307]

On a similar note I've heard of how some older cultures used the number 8 for "a lot" or "all" because it's two fours

[@penand_paper6661]

@@edgargaebolg9307 Awesome - tell me more! In what sense? As in, the biggest number they have in the lang is just used to mean "a lot" (like the number 20 in Ainu), which is sort of a chicken-or-the-egg situation (did 20 come to mean a lot, or a lot come to mean 20)? Or just that eight is special?

[@edgargaebolg9307]

@@penand_paper6661 In ancient Japan the number 8 was used that way but apparently there's not an official reason to why. Some theories I've found are: - 3 and 5 are the male and female numbers, so their sum 8 encompasses all. - The kanji 八 suggests infinite expansion. - It's homophonic with 弥 (ya), which means "more and more" - 4 is a holy number, so 8 is "double holy" and perfect

[@Yakushii]

0:53 - Instead of saying the monkey can count, wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they have some concept of object permanence?

[@MinuteEarth]

Scientists call it an "object tracking system" and it's definitely needed - along with the so-called "approximate number system" that they use

[@LuckySketches]

If they lacked object permanence the number of apples wouldn't affect whether or not they're surprised.

[@ambiguousdrink4067]

I saw some similar experiments with small children and coins. It was something like they valued physically bigger coins more than smaller ones regardless of their actual value. But the more interesting part was how when coins were lined up, they would think 4 coins spaced away were worth more than 4 identical coins lined up one touching the other. Or even how 4 coins were worth more than 5 identical coins, because the were spaced out in such a way that the length of the four-coin line was longer than the five-coin one. Makes you think about how our brains perceive and estimate numbers, sizes, values and such.

[@iang0th]

I've seen a video of that experiment with the spaced-out coins, but I'm not totally convinced the kids aren't just trying to guess what answer the experimenter is looking for and give them that. They show the kid one arrangement of coins, ask a question about it, change the arrangement, repeat the question, and then "obviously" the answer must be different, or they wouldn't have asked again, right? Even adults will sometimes give plainly incorrect answers to questions when they think they're being prompted to give those answers.

[@sociallyineptsnapper]

@@iang0thas someone who is autistic and has spent my entire life trying to figure out what is really being asked when I’m posed a question in school, THIS. THIS is absolutely what happened. The researches gives you two set ups. Four coins pushed together, and four spread apart. They then ask you which is worth more, suggesting they’re looking for two different answers. We shall now reason that the more spread apart ones are worth more because they have something more looking.

[@anrag3151]

3:22 Tulio Triviño!!!

[@triccele]

I wasn't expecting to see a Tulio Triviño on MinuteEarth... What a nice surprise!

[@Baluker]

3:24 Missed opportunity for a "Two-lio" joke

[@filiptomic8531]

Be smart has a video on a very similar topic! Definitely check that one out it was really good

[@frostblitzxdkartoffelliebh6081]

I can’t imagine how a surprised spider or rabbit looks like. How can we tell, that the animal was surprised in this experiment?

[@Clkr3]

They'll dissect their brains and test for the surprise hormone

[@lemguins7031]

I don't know about spiders, but rabbits have eye dilation/restriction and verbalized responses to cue when they're surprised (and no I don't mean talking specifically when I say verbalize haha).

[@thatrandomguy8124]

As a pet rabbit owner, I have learned to read rabbit body language. Its fairly subtle but they have a reaction when they are surprised (or in the case of mine begging for food)

[@sylkapastylka]

I need to research now how a surprised spider looks like, my imagination fails

[@ninjalectualx]

Basing everything on "the animals seemed surprised" is super dubious

[@JigJagging]

“There are four lights!”

[@DangerZone2580]

0:13 neurones activated

[@euthymialy]

Ok as a book nerd I love this because Watership Down was published in 1972 and one of the characters is literally named after the rabbit word for being the runt of too large a litter, Fiver. Richard Adams consulted a naturalist when he was writing his rabbit story and in the text he specifically mentions that rabbits can only count to four, with anything over five being considered hrair meaning "many/a thousand”. Xenofiction is made richer by understanding an animal’s subjective experience and understanding of its world!

[@daisempai3882]

This was my first thought as well! There must have been some inkling then, in research or anecdotally that 4 is the “magic” number

[@seatbelttruck]

Thanks! Should have scrolled down a bit before I posted my comment. I was just wondering whether he researched or just happened to put a correct detail in his book. When I read it in middle school, I just considered it a fun bit of world-building, demonstrating that the rabbits still aren't as smart as humans even though they're talking to each other. It didn't occur to me that it might have basis in fact.

[@euthymialy]

@@seatbelttruck it’s one of my all time favorite books, not only was Richard Adams a lover of nature himself but he took his first book very seriously and wanted it to be as true to reality as he could make it. He struggled to get it published because of its subject matter and maturity, they wanted him to tone it down to better appeal to children and he insisted that he wasn’t making a story targeted towards maintaining innocence but rather to show the harsh realities of wild animals’ lives. He makes it clear that his rabbits know their place in the world as prey animals and gave them an entire culture and mythology to explain their existence and rationalize the horrors they endure. Naming and characterizing the rabbits after human comrades in arms that he knew while serving in the military really brings it home that they’re not gentle little sweet bunnies, but rather just like any wild animal they’re capable of being vicious and cruel to defend themselves and their own. They survive so much in the story that a human wouldn’t think a rabbit could be capable of achieving but Richard makes it clear that in the wild rabbits can swim, they’re clever enough to trick and evade predators, and they’re smart enough to do whatever they need to do to survive. It’s not a fantasy story, it’s as real as he could possibly make it!

[@bloodalchemy]

Four is a very important number to count to, as the great scholar said; "There are Four lights!" - John Luc Picard

[@cheisz5094]

Isn't this related to our ability to instantly recognize up to four objects in a flash of a picture, but struggle to accurately count the number of objects when there are more than four? I recall reading that our brain uses two different regions: one for handling fewer than four objects and another for managing quantities larger than four.

[@thewatcherinthecloud]

King Arthur always counting to 4 even if he's supposed to count to 3. FIVE IS RIGHT OUT.

[@victoraguirre5545]

3:22 Is that... is that Tulio Treviño? Boy, even I was surprised.

[@diracio]

Great, interesting video thanks - one of your best imo!

[@reidflemingworldstoughestm1394]

It's just like Grandpappy always used to say: You can fool a monkey with an apple, but it takes a stuffed animal to fool a toddler.

[@Sinjidkiller]

This is very interesting! it reminds me of the Numberphile videos with Brian Butterworth that were sharing research coming to a related conclusion, that both people and fish alike count groups sizes up to about 4 or 5 discretely, but larger groups are approximated as you describe!

[@beskamir5977]

We shorthand numbers/amounts too. That's why it's a lot easier to visually eyeball 3-5 items but it becomes an impossible task when there's more than 5ish elements. Unless everything's arranged/grouped in a way where eyeballing starts working again. Otherwise, the exact amount of a random assortment of items cannot be known without counting everything, and often counting in itself becomes difficult as elements can get missed or double counted if they're too scattered and there's no systemic way of counting them, marking them, or moving them to a counted pile.

[@artfx9]

5? Aint nobody got that much! Are you the Queen?! What a joker... 5? 😂

[@SoenkeBrockmann]

Took me half the video to realize that the background music is in 5+5+4. This Nathaniel Schroeder is incredible! Making this quite odd Rhythm an easy listening track is pure art!

[@jai-kk5uu]

I am definately calling my nephew a pre verbal human every time he pronounces something wrong from now on

[@AuronDzilk]

In fact you guys have been bringing mistery and happiness to some animals and that's fantastic. The size of results makes sense to count or not to.

[@Chris.Davies]

Birds seem to be able to determine either smaller or greater numbers above 4. But not the actual numbers. And they also understand death. I have watched a Magpie funeral, where several birds repeatedly brought individual pieces of straw, and placed them on the body, and walked around the body making sad sounds. It moved me greatly.

[@FelipeKana1]

Cool video, cool research

[@mm-yt8sf]

i saw a video where the test for dogs was the person would throw balls into tall grass where one can't see them. then after a small number was thrown they would tell the dog to "fetch" and the dog would go looking for a ball. they'd repeat the fetch command but when they said to fetch a 4th time and only 3 were thrown the dog would just look at them and not get it because it knew there weren't any more left in the grass. but it didn't work for larger numbers

[@lompeluiten]

I tought so. I just tought of that experiment. Because I know humans can also instintivly count 4 objects, without actually counting.

[@ostanin_vadym]

Thank you for very interesting video

[@Tony-pm5xo]

If counting is just "naming quantities", it seems to explain some mental biases. Like how 1 and 1000 seems more different than 1 million and 2 millions. Above some number we loss intuition of the underlying quantity and the number become nothing more than a stranger's name

[@gelgamath_9903]

So monkeys are like drummers. They can only count to 4

[@khaoskhaos]

the directional blur when the apples gets switched to toys is funny as hell

[@B1-6911]

"Imagine whats going on inside their head" Monke: I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOUR! I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOUR! I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOUR! I CAN ONLY COUNT TO FOOOOOOOUUUURRRR!!!

[@daviddavidson2357]

"I tricked the toddlers with stuffed animals" "Also don't ask where those moneys went, or why I have a whole bookmark folder on taxidermy on my laptop"

[@andersonklein3587]

For reference, tests performed on human regarding noticing a change in the number of dots revealed that humans can somewhat accurately notice changes in amounts up to 13. So that would indicate even in regards to set sizes human brains are able to deal with about 4 times as many objects, which is pretty impressive.

[@lompeluiten]

And then tey can instinctivly see it has changed, but not knwo the new number after they counted?

[@AnoopKhetani]

3:17 "What is this sorcery! I mean... Goo goo Ga ga!"

[@Unoraptormon]

I kept thinking of the metal song "I can only count to four!" which is a parody of "Let the Bodies Hit the Floor"

[@vianandroid]

Creating a research proposal. Research method: performs magic trick in front of of monkey.

[@ashwinkumarsharma7888]

💐Great explanation for importance of computing and data skills acquired by Human beings.

[@kingghidorah8106]

Very interesting video! But the thing that caught my attention the most is that you have drawn Tulio the chimpanzee from Chilean puppet show 31 Minutos

[@Banana-tg7sv]

So it's like aliens presenting a heap of sand, and revealing a heap of sand. And the aliens wonder why we couldn't notice 67 sand particles missing.

[@sahatrolensius7050]

"Monkeys can only count to 4" Me to the kindergartener: "hello!, monkeys!"

[@Echotracers]

This is a very awesome and valuable study. It really showcases that its important to try to view science from different angles because how we develop and learn can cause us to interpret the results in different parts of our brain and possibly result in different conclusions that may be significant. It makes me remember that ii psychology classes there was a test where you would comparatively measure small weighted objects (containers with sand) by hand while blindfolded and I think it had similar results of objects needing to be about 18-20% different or else the error rate suddenly spiked. Seems interesting.

[@dansandoval9330]

TULIO TRIVIÑO MENTIONED!!!! TULIO TRIVIÑO MENTIONED!!!! TULIO TRIVIÑO MENTIONED!!!! GREATEST VIDEO EVER

[@MrT3a]

This, just after I watched Be Smart video on the subject, got me in a very interesting rabbit hole.

[@alexandergangaware429]

"One apple is a meal. Five apples is a statistic" -Monkey Stalin

[@greenfrog8851]

This is so amazing! My mind is blown.

[@jcf2322]

There’s another educational video that was discussing this as it relates to Roman numerals and the symbols for writing numbers. Like basically at a certain point volume because a more important variable than the specific quantity.

[@xlynx9]

Monkey Magician is a career path I had not considered until now

[@hadialisaadalla9121]

Hi minute earth I love your videos I am learning YOUR EVEN BETTER THAN TED-ED🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉 I love you😊

[@caesarsalad77]

I feel like being able to quickly estimate the relative size or value of something is a good survival skill, while having the vocabulary to denote specific amounts of things is a good societal skill.

[@davidlin1980]

I think there is something with number below 4. There is an experiment where a person is shown some number of items randomly placed on the screen, if the number is 4 or below, a person can almost always instantly recognize how many items there are. But once the number is above 4, (like 5), you will *have* to count it out one by one. Try it out yourself, it's quite fascinating. It's like you just **know** how many items there are if the number is 4 or below. But once it gets over 4, you have to count to be sure.

[@madsli]

"I can count to G!" "That's nothing. I can count to purple backwards!"

[@_mb_2617]

Not a biologist here, but I belive it is rather generally accepted fact that human senses (and I would reasonably expect that also animals) work on logarithmic scale instead of linear. For example touch: if I put a 100g and 110g weights into either of your hands, you would be able to tell them apart, but if it were 200 and 210 grams, you would be much less likely to suceed. Or hearing: when you take 3 tones you would percieve as having same interval 1->2 as 2->3, say an octave, you would find that their physical property frequency is actually in ration 1:2:4 (twice as much as before). It likely boils down to the fact that we do comparisons (this is twice as much as before so I will consider it a next step). Again, I do not do research in biology so feel free to tell me if I am wrong on anything.

[@macmonkeyhat]

Tbh if you did that trick with 70 apples and then revealed 72 apples I wouldn’t of noticed a difference either

[@CallMeMimi27]

yoo, that puppet is from 31minutos! I loved that show

[@MultivectorAnalysis]

@2:42 this made me recall reading something about mathematical advantages for people who speak a language with shorter words for numbers. We're fortunate that the numbers 1-10 in English are almost all just 1 syllable. Perhaps I should start thinking "sev" instead of "seven" when doing math in my head 😅

[@Eric_D_6]

So, I don't think this provides any evidence that monkeys or any of the other non-human animals lack the capacity to count, it just provides evidence that they didn't count in those experiments. If you do the same experiment with a properly distracted adult human, I'm sure the results would be the same as it was for the monkey. The monkey (and others) likely just get distracted by sounds, smells and your behavior way more than an adult human would be. In other words, only humans find it interesting enough to bother counting, but the monkey is smart enough to know that how many they get to eat is only influenced by your behavior and that of other surrounding conditions, not the exact number which were there to start with.

[@Scoopta]

When monkey's can count to higher numbers than one of the most successful gaming companies of all times...and not by an insignificant amount...they can fully double valve's best counting ability...it's genuinely impressive.

[@jfuthey]

3:24 Want to count past four? You’re going to need today’s sponsor, Brilliant.

[@elliottclaassen]

This is cool!

[@doublepinger]

An interesting (and vaguely ethical) experiment would be doing this experiment with dyscalculics. There are interesting papers on the subject, with fMRI results helping a lot. One of the interesting results is multiplication is an extension of addition, and subtraction is also an extension. Not in the same ways though, so difficulty subtracting can happen separately from a difficulty in multiplying, and in the absence of either, division gets knocked out - it's an extension of multiplication, by repeated subtraction. That's not even getting into approximate sense and exact computation being delineable.

[@SapphireRose0205]

Reminds me of how we can inherently tell how many objects are in a non-organized set without counting, until we reach a certain number, i believe it's around 6-8, and then we have to count them out in order to tell

[@tomrutter1637]

Counting isn't a natural talent for humans. It must be taught. Some Isolated tribes in New Guinea have a simple way of "counting" one, few, many. And when asked to pick the next amount in a series, their choices were logarithmic not simply adding just one.

[@lompeluiten]

Counting to 4 is actually completly natural. It is called subitising. Almost all humans can instantly reconize groups up to 4. After that it needs to be learned.

[@mullerpotgieter]

I've seen videos of people doing sleight of hand magic for monkeys and apes. Its adorable

[@AnnoyingMoose]

This reminds me of a scene in the movie Conan The Barbarian. Conan and 2 friends come upon some enemies on the other side of a small hill and they assess their situation. A friend says "We can't win - there must be at least 6 of them!" Then Conan counts them and responds "One...two...three......yeah, I guess you're right."

[@willichtenstein7071]

Somehow I'm reminded of the Disc World Fantasy Novels. Where the Rock Trolls have a base 4 counting system. They also get smarter the colder the temperature. Because their silicone brains can't disperse heat well. It limits their processing capacity. Which is why they live in the high mountains and are nocturnal. Most people only see them during the day when it's hot. Leading humans to think of rock trolls as dumb.

[@tudibelle]

I was wondering if it had any link to the ability to subitise, but it seems not, great video, thank you.

[@nayhem]

Hey, that's a word!

[@nialltracey2599]

When I see a bass guitar, I can instantly tell if it's a four string bass, because I instantly know if it only has 4 strings. If it's got 5 or 6, it takes me a fraction longer. My first feeling is that I don't know how many strings it has, so it's probably a five string. I then find the line of symmetry. If it's a string, it's a 5 string bass (the 3rd string is right in the middle of a 5 string bass, logically); if it's a gap between strings, that means there's an even number of strings, so it's probably a 6 string... which I verify because once I've detected the symmetry, I've split the strings in half in my mind, and I can just mentally focus on half the strings and count, so I'm just looking for three. This video helps me immensely, because I still believed the old received wisdom of visual perception of quantity being on average 5±2 objects, and my ability to only register 4 was below average, but if every animal can only see quantities up to four and it's only language that gives us numbers 5 and above, I feel more normal.

[@RussianSevereWeatherVideos]

Have they tested crows? Seems those nifty borbs can count to way more than four!

[@GoatTheGoat]

You: Why Monkeys Can Only Count To Four? Me: Because it is an animal.

[@ananas_anna]

You should mention the Piraha, a group of Indigenous Amazonians who don't count in their language and who seemingly are unable to learn to count.

[@cheezemonkeyeater]

1: what comes after 1? 2: what comes after 2? 3: what comes after 3? FOURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!

[@TheAres1999]

I can only count four, I can only count to four, I can only count to FOUUUUUR!