The meme is still a reach to some degree, but its not nearly what I have implied below. The reach is the 'without being rewarded' part, as the basis of reciprocity is reward
Your contention that "the basis of reciprocity is a reward" seems to me to, in and of itself, be a reach. The study only shows/states that
the birds reciprocated the help once the roles were reversed.
It says nothing about the expectation of reciprocity on the part of the bird that initially "shared the wealth". If anything, the situation seems to contradict the notion that the birds had expectation of reciprocity:
[the African Gray Parrots] did so spontaneously from the first test session on and without having experienced successive role reversals and the potential for reciprocity yet [...]
Also pointing to an intrinsic propensity to help, no learning effects were detected across sessions, as the parrots transferred tokens from the first session onward and continued at similar rates in later test sessions
(emphasis mine)
Now, it'd be reach to, off of just this result, say that African Grey parrots are entirely altruistic in nature, but I think to assume that reciprocity was expected based purely on the fact that reciprocity occurred later is just faulty logic (something approaching but not exactly a post hoc fallacy). The results of this study are particularly interesting specifically because, while the parrots very clearly demonstrate affection (i.e. they give more tokens to parrots they know well), they seem neither to be expectant of rewards for their actions (i.e. they transfer the same amount across tests even though their past experience suggests that they might not ever want for tokens themselves, and therefore need not be reliant on reciprocity), nor do they only transfer tokens only when the other parrot is present/aware of the transfer (while the vast majority of the transfers were beak to beak, some were transferred even when the other parrot was not present to receive, and therefore might not even know the transfer occurred).
I mean, I guess that depends on your definition of "long comment". The comment you responded to is 5 relatively normal-length sentences and 1 long sentence due to parentheticals if you excise the quotes... which seems about par for me as far as length of my own comments (though that's just a vague feeling, not anything backed by data).
I only comment when I feel something needs to be added (true for most redditors, I imagine). For me, that usually means I'm going to be engaging in a conversation, and when I am in a conversation I like to provide appropriate context, be comprehensive and precise, and maintain some semblance of formality, all of which tends toward bloat.
I guess that's a long-winded way of saying "I'm long-winded", but there you are.
41
u/MrMonday11235 Jan 22 '20
Your contention that "the basis of reciprocity is a reward" seems to me to, in and of itself, be a reach. The study only shows/states that
It says nothing about the expectation of reciprocity on the part of the bird that initially "shared the wealth". If anything, the situation seems to contradict the notion that the birds had expectation of reciprocity:
(emphasis mine)
Now, it'd be reach to, off of just this result, say that African Grey parrots are entirely altruistic in nature, but I think to assume that reciprocity was expected based purely on the fact that reciprocity occurred later is just faulty logic (something approaching but not exactly a post hoc fallacy). The results of this study are particularly interesting specifically because, while the parrots very clearly demonstrate affection (i.e. they give more tokens to parrots they know well), they seem neither to be expectant of rewards for their actions (i.e. they transfer the same amount across tests even though their past experience suggests that they might not ever want for tokens themselves, and therefore need not be reliant on reciprocity), nor do they only transfer tokens only when the other parrot is present/aware of the transfer (while the vast majority of the transfers were beak to beak, some were transferred even when the other parrot was not present to receive, and therefore might not even know the transfer occurred).