>> In Group 1, this test consisted of showing a sign as the sample and then a randomized set of abstract objects not previously seen by bees (set 3: random set with chromatic properties).
Thanks for the clarification.
It's clear you find this subject very interesting. I guess I do too, but I'm very skeptical of claims like in the above article. I think it's very easy to fall prey to various cognitive biases while carrying out this sort of research, particularly when it comes time to interpret results.
This recent Aeon article seems to sum up my concerns (I am not affiliated with Aeon or the author of the article in any way):
Thanks for the clarification.
It's clear you find this subject very interesting. I guess I do too, but I'm very skeptical of claims like in the above article. I think it's very easy to fall prey to various cognitive biases while carrying out this sort of research, particularly when it comes time to interpret results.
This recent Aeon article seems to sum up my concerns (I am not affiliated with Aeon or the author of the article in any way):
How natural is numeracy?
https://aeon.co/essays/why-do-humans-have-numbers-are-they-c...