Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Recent studies of animal cognitive ability prove that humans aren't much more intelligent than dogs or monkeys.

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Humans Aren't Much Smarter than Dogs

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted December 19, 2007.


Recent studies of animal cognitive ability prove that humans aren't much more intelligent than dogs or monkeys.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Two new studies of animal intelligence caught my attention last week because they prove that humans are no better than dogs and monkeys. This is something I've always felt to be true on an anecdotal level, and now cognitive science backs me up.

A researcher in Vienna, Austria, trained dogs to sort photographs into two categories: pictures of other dogs and pictures of landscapes. This is big news because it means that dogs not only recognize what's happening in symbolic visual representations (photos) but can also figure out how to translate an abstract concept ("dog") into a category of pictures. Previously, nobody thought dogs could categorize photographs or even abstract concepts other than "food" and "enemy."

The other study is even better, partly because it's called "Basic Math in Monkeys and College Students" (oh, those zany editors at PloS Biology). In this study, cognitive scientists gave monkeys and college students a series of very simple tests to determine how quickly and accurately they could add up the number of dots on a screen. On average, the monkeys and students answered in the same amount of time. The students were 94 percent accurate in their answers, while the monkeys were 76 percent accurate. So monkeys are nearly as good as humans at adding dots, even without the benefit of a college education.

What struck me first on contemplating these studies is that cognitive science has taken us in an unforeseen direction. This is a field that promises to study consciousness as if it were a machine, to look at thoughts as electrical impulses and biological structures rather than sublime metaphysics. It would seem, therefore, to run the risk of dehumanizing us, of converting all of our crazy, ambivalent feelings into mere blips on a chart. Instead, what cognitive science has done, at least in these studies, is show us how deeply connected we are to the living creatures around us.

By breaking down our thought processes into their component parts -- pattern recognition, counting -- we are able to see that the building blocks of thought are not unique to Homo sapiens. Dogs and monkeys are doing this shit too. In fact, there is a monkey out there who can add better than a college student (some of the humans did in fact score lower than some of the monkeys in the study).

So what do we do now that we know dogs and monkeys are capable of humanlike intelligence? Shall we test more animals and discover what we already knew about elephants and dolphins having language? I hope so.

If nothing else, this should teach humans to be a lot more damn humble about our supposed niftiness.

Of course, there are dangers in taking this scenario too far. Instead of seeing ourselves as having something in common with animals, we might use this information to make animals into better slaves. Science fiction author David Brin's Uplift series is partly about this. He describes humans using biotech and genetic engineering to "uplift" chimps and dolphins, giving them human-equivalent intelligence. The creatures become fully intelligent, but socially they remain second-class citizens.

The two transformed species are in a constant struggle to prove themselves to the humans, and often fail; Brin portrays the dolphins as liable to slip back into incoherent animalness when threatened.

Still, we have not yet appointed ourselves uplifters. Humans are at a moment in our history when we are still in awe of animals who can think the way we do. Now we have to figure out the appropriate next steps.

Obviously, we need to test more animals for intelligence, using a variety of methods.

Probably the most oddly hopeful news to come out of all of this is the fact that both of these tests were done without any killing or brain invading. The researchers who did the dog test even invented a special paw-operated touch-screen computer for the dogs to use. I like that. Not only have we discovered that dogs are like us, but we've also invented the first dog-friendly user interface. What next? Wii for dogs? That would pave the way for true interspecies bonding.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: dog, animal intelligence, monkey

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd whose cat is unfortunately not among the mentally gifted creatures who can add, sort, or even recognize food.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Depends ...
Posted by: Joshua Holland on Dec 19, 2007 3:46 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... on the human, and on the monkey.

As for this:

"...they prove that humans are no better than dogs and monkeys."

Was that even a question? I doubt it was for dog-owners.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Depends ... Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: Depends ... Posted by: willymack
» RE: Depends ... Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: Depends ... Posted by: blitzmesser
Obvious
Posted by: Crazy H on Dec 19, 2007 4:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This has been a bit of a hot issue for me for some time. I've always known that dogs were better able to reason than they were usually given credit for.

The barrier to this understanding has always been those people (usually religious, but not always) who start out by assuming that humans occupy some higher niche on some cosmic scale than all those other animals.

Animal, vegetable, mineral ... HUMAN.

Not so. We're just another animal. Look at all the people who poo-pooed the idea that an ape could learn sign language. They had such a strong knee-jerk reaction that they refused to accept the overwhelming evidence.

Their "reasoning" leads to overpopulation and depletion of resources - based on the falacious assumption that humans deserve a bigger piece of the pie. (or that ultimate expression of hubris: that some diety designed it that way.)

So much effort has been wasted trying to define that elusive difference. That humans are the tool users (Not so) or that humans are the ones with language (nope) or the ones with the capability of reasoning (huh-uh) the ones capable of predicting the consequences of their actions(wrong-o) the ones who understand death (guess again)

Get over yourselves: you're animals.

I think Heinlein said it best, "Humans are the only animals capable of feeling shame (or who have a need to)"

Much as I like that quote, he too is wrong. Anyone who's caught their dog digging through the garbage knows better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obvious Posted by: blitzmesser
really?
Posted by: particle on Dec 19, 2007 5:50 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My cat would like me to inform you that dogs are appalling suck-ups -- no more intelligent than the average b-school graduate.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: really? Posted by: zorro
» RE: really? Posted by: particle
» RE: really? Posted by: particle
» RE: really? Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: really? LOL Posted by: johnclark
» RE: really? Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: really? Posted by: wavydavy
» RE: really? Posted by: blitzmesser
Now let's look at the other Nations of Advanced Species:
Posted by: Naturalboy on Dec 20, 2007 5:10 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now lets talk about bears! And PIGS, and Coyotes, and all members of the order 'Carnivora' (Canids, Felines, Weasels, sables, minks, foxes, and all typical 'fur' species, plus the Whales, Seals, Dolphins, Otters, et. al).

Then I dare ya to test the intelligence of SKWERLS and some of the other larger Rodentia, with whom we share more DNA than the Carnivora species. After THAT, why dontcha test PARROTS and CROWS and tell me those redneck spawn who slingshot and bb-gun at the birds aren't committing MURDER!

Soon it will be shown to be irrefutable that 'animals' are 'people' too! (maybe not 'human' people, but PEOPLE NEVERTHELESS!).

Finally go check out Chyropterans (Bats), and don't forget the Ungulates (both three and four-toed, including horses, camels, bison, cows, goats, sheep, Llamas, Vicunas, et. al).
Likely you will agree they are some incredibly brainy and wise friends, if you see them for who they are, not the gory muscle which you think you have the god-given 'right' to strip from the person's bones, burn over flames and consume like flesh-eating ghouls from the Night Of The Living Dead.

So TAKE THAT all you hunters! (especially that hunting snuff-film wacko who said "all bears make that sound when you shoot them , just means you hit them in the lung" YEAH RIGHT! What is a bear, some sort of big whoopee cushion that let's out a cry out in agony as they die because you just popped some quasi-organic balloon that god put here fer rednecks to shoot at??).

Humans who eat meat and hunt are nothing less than psychopathic killers who like to murder, and seek a legal means to express their sacred joy and excitement and 'thrill' of lining up a sentient being in their sites, and thoroughly blowing them off the map with high-tech projectiles.

These people are killers and cannibals in the end.

Needless to say we are NOT of the order Carnivora, we are NOT designed to hunt, nor eat flesh (hence our innate revolted reaction to bloody raw meat, we need it cooked, coagulated into indiscernible brown 'Soylent Green' for us to have any interest in meat!)

THINK about it, Sheeple, and then go watch 'Meet Your Meat' on You Tube if you need any further convincing about exactly what you are doing by hunting, slaughtering, buying, and consuming the flesh of our other nations of highly intelligent sentient beings. You owe these people the veryl least of knowing WHO you are killing, butchering, burning and consuming.

And believe me, I've had my share, so I'm goin' to the same hell anyway, so I'm not preaching, just recognizing what we've don and what we do, and pledging NOT TO DO IT ANY MORE!

If ever any of you were disgusted at what went on in Dachau and Awschwitz, now is the time to recognize that this same thing happens every couple of days in the nations slaughterhouses.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» indeed... Posted by: richenza
» RE: Tbone's ignorance... Posted by: Knowmad
» Knowmad's illiteracy Posted by: tbone
» RE: YouBad's OhhBad Posted by: Mycos
THE DOG IS A GENIUS...
Posted by: Roverton on Dec 20, 2007 5:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... at being what it is. They've played us like a fiddle.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: THE DOG IS A GENIUS... Posted by: mandiwrite
Speaking of dogs..........
Posted by: Basenjis on Dec 20, 2007 5:34 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have long suspected that my dogs have abilities I totally lack. My current pair, two of a long line of my favorite breed, demonstrate daily their superior grasp of human language, responding to a surprising number of human words, and even to the little tunes coming from my computer. When those final few computer notes sound, they stand, stretch and get ready to follow me out of the room.

Basenjis are known as the original barkless dogs, preferring to express themselves by a vocabulary of delighful and musical chortles, yodels, crows and grumbles, pairs sometimes throwing back their heads and warbling in duets.

I have no doubt they have abilities I certainly lack as they learn quickly to respond accurately to a wide variety of human words while I'm still baffled after all these years by their unique and extensive doggie vocabulary.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Speaking of dogs.......... Posted by: blitzmesser
What about Pavlov?
Posted by: ProgressiveManiac on Dec 20, 2007 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a long-time dog owner it has been so clear to me that these are quite intelligent animals who often show a surprising level of understanding generally, but understanding of human language in particular. My wife and I used to spell words to keep the dog from understanding, but it did not work (the dog learned to spell some critical words, like c-a-t).

Because of this, I've long wondered about the conclusion made by Pavlov that the dogs he observed were only responding dumbly by habit to human speech. I've had to conclude that Pavlov was only responding dumbly, by the habit of humans to think that they are so very superior.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: What about Pavlov? Posted by: phatkhat
» RE: What about Pavlov? Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: What about Pavlov? Posted by: ProgressiveManiac
Truth and Humanity
Posted by: magistre on Dec 20, 2007 6:46 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This just goes to show that there is more "truth" in the views of Sitchin than the "Bible". And it also allows for the possibility that there is a group of higher (non-human) intelligence that is "running" us (humans).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and yet...
Posted by: sre on Dec 20, 2007 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We kill dogs and cats every day by the thousands all over this country, and we stage dog fights and cock fights, too.
Also, we ban certain breeds of dog as "vicious", blaming the dog for the actions of the owner. This is profiling, pure and simple.
Could it be that this study will cause us to take a closer look at ourselves? Probably not.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ho hum
Posted by: jesme on Dec 20, 2007 7:08 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The science here is fascinating, but no sensible person thinks animals are as intelligent as people. I'll believe it when dogs write a book of philosophy, poetry or physics. Or even a blog. Till then...please.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ho hum Posted by: phatkhat
» How humble? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: How humble? Posted by: jesme
» RE: How humble? Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: How humble? Posted by: particle
» RE: Ho hum Posted by: jesme
» Homility... Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Homility... Posted by: dsh2va
» Assuming that... Posted by: Knowmad
» RE: Assuming that... Posted by: dsh2va
» RE: Ho hum Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: Ho hum Posted by: dsh2va
» RE: Ho hum Posted by: newtype_alpha
» RE: Ho hum Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Ho hum Posted by: dsh2va
» RE: Ho hum -- on target Posted by: truth seeker
» Meaning without context???? Posted by: truth seeker
Dogs vs Humans
Posted by: Basenjis on Dec 20, 2007 8:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dogs are far better than many people at nuance and I strongly suspect they would also rack up higher scores at emotional intelligence if only we were smart enough to read their minds and their body language as they do ours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dogs vs Humans Posted by: Knowmad
Mark
Posted by: rottndog on Dec 20, 2007 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a canine behaviorist all I can say is "Wow, talk about hugely overinterpretting a series of very enlightening studies!
These studies are groundbreaking largely because of the expansion over past years of researchers understanding training methods that actually allow them to teach the animals behaviors which then allow them to ask questions of the animals in ways they haven't been able to in the past. They are also notable because of the willingness of researchers to even find these simple and groundbreaking questions.
All that said, what these are testing and showing are some very simple, base abilities. While those abilities are interesting, and in the case of the chimps truly impressive, they show only what they show. The certainly do open a whole other level of questions and areas of inquiry which is very exciting but even between these studies they are showing VERY different levels of cognitive ability between primates and canines and really shouldn't be lumped together as far as results.
What they do share in common and is really ground breaking is two things, our increasing ability to "ask" the animals what they know and an increasing openmindedness on the part of the scientific community of what the nature and limits of the conceptual and intellectual abilities of other animals may be and not just assume that because they don't speak or act like us that they don't have any of the basic, or even advanced, abilities that we do.
Mark McCabe
Canine Behaviorist
Eldersburg, MD 21784
myk9fun@yahoo.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Mark Posted by: Morell
» the research is silly Posted by: bookie
» RE: Mark Posted by: dogman44
» RE: Mark Posted by: PaulC
Save the cheerleader, save the world ...
Posted by: johnclark on Dec 20, 2007 9:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We were in the fast-burrito restaurant the other night and what did my kids point to on CNN - Claire saving the whales. That and Hiro selling XO's tells me there's lots to learn from sci-fi characters these days.

I'm sure the idea for this piece comes from what gets into the comments here most days (though I like most of the postings on this article, so far). Dogs eating your homework and peeing on your analysis (re: Wii) must be the germ of this. It would have been nice to have one of those dogs that spends all day pawing out troll posts (you know, the WHY DOES ALTERNET PUBLISH THIS CRAP -- ITS NOT ABOUT THE WAR!!!) come to help deliver MoveOn petitions to my Congressman. I would have put the dog on classifying pictures of progressives and jelly fish -- now that would have had an impact on his aide.

As for monkeys, it just shows that NCLB is working. Those students might not know how to count, but I bet they could easily come up with a BCR (see here) to explain how they came up with the wrong answer. All the monkeys could do would be to write "Loves Labor Found". A play, which many of us know, would endanger the human race.

So, Annalee, thank you for all the intelligent work you do here. And thanx Alternet for helping me rediscover her work (I read Bad Subjects back in the gopher days). Oh, and have a happy/merry (insert Winter holiday here)!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mick3
Posted by: mick3 on Dec 20, 2007 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, it'll be just another boon to the military. No telling what our fellow creatures can be trained/forced to do in aid of us humans' habit of warring on one another.

As for cooperating with, learning from, or indulging in any co-equal form of intelligent intercourse with the other animals, this present version of humanity is too steeped in primitive religions--written to control illiterate masses--to step away from hubris and the incomprehensible cruelty of males toward animals and females and take a positive, humane, and progressive view of both humans and all the other creatures of the earth. Many animals suffer, mourn, and care for their fellows. Certain humans, those in the White House, for instance, can't say the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Humans are not of this planet.
Posted by: common intelligence on Dec 20, 2007 1:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The human being is the only mind screwed creature on earth.
But he (it) is a collective enigma. For individually each may transend in it's own. But collectively they are a virus on the planet.
I contend we are either a biological deviant or the result of a catoclismic anomoly that dirupted a natural evolution of dna.

No other member of the fauna desimates there own envioronment or it own life support system.

Even lemings innately have a collective wisdom to do themselves in with out destroying everything and everyone with themselves.

Only humans have a mentality, that collectively, will burn themselves and all others out of house and home if they caN'T HAVE IT ALL their way.

My Dog was smarter and more intellegent than any human I ever came across or read about. Egoless, selfless, yet knew instinctively when to drive off a "bad seed".

The down fall of man (not so kind) is arrrogants. It's not survival of the fittest Darwinian theory that distiquishes intellectual superiority.
For their is no intellectual superior trait that would cling to any religion that would embrace beliefs that would set one being greater than another. Then sacrific it's wjole species to ascert their preservation. Certainly brain size hasn't proven that.

Of course spinning some circle logic, to even say any of this, proves my point.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smarter than cats still open for debait
Posted by: gsmiley on Dec 20, 2007 3:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a high school teacher onct. Your telling me!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

man and dogs
Posted by: john mont on Dec 20, 2007 3:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The sad thing is that dogs would never have voted for BUSH!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No surprise to me
Posted by: Ellen Remore on Dec 21, 2007 8:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe this is obvious inasmuch as I've never met a dog or a monkey that was waiting to be Raptured.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not news
Posted by: TheLimit on Dec 21, 2007 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to anyone who has handled animals on a daily basis for any length of time at all.

We have been trying to tell science for decades - probably as long as scientists have been messing with animals, first to prove they are not smart and now to prove that they are.

Or in other words, the message is in the agenda.

Maybe we should just get science to leave animals up to those who handle them regularly, and see if science can't find something more useful to do than 'prove' the political message of the day is valid.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not news Posted by: PaulC
I entirely agree...but can you please list your sources to the studies?
Posted by: aerialrose on Dec 21, 2007 1:15 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I entirely agree that animals and humans are as smart as one another, only in differing ways of intelligence.

This article, however, does not list any sources to the studies, which makes it seem very illegitimate, even if they were legitimate case studies (which I am not doubting). Can you please list your sources? Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Wrong end of the telescope again
Posted by: Mycos on Dec 22, 2007 4:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This story makes the same mistake as the religions who teach man is separate from other animals as well. Where science continues to show that other animals have any number of qualities we previously assumed were within the abilities of man with his larger brain, they also continue to elevate animals up the ladder of intelligence whenever they make these new discoveries.

But the key to understanding why they are much smarter than we assumed is to simply realize that man isn't as independant of instinctual behaviors we assume dominate in other animals alone.

When looked at from that perspective, there's no sharp break between us and them, but rather a continuum between man and animals. Where instinct tends to dominates them to a lesser degree is of course where we drop down to join up with them. And the continuum doesn't stop there either, with all men being equally rational regarding instinctual prompts, but starting from the "right wing" it continues on. For some reason nature has seen fit to give some of us all the "equipment" to be highly rational and reasoned beings, but the right seems incapable of putting these abilities into play...at least not as much of it one would expect.

Otoh, those that use our newest and most highly developed brain areas, are also very likely to be those who associate themselves with the left-wing. This then makes it seem very likely that it is also the center of complex social skills. Not surprising I suppose when one considers that reason is the only way we can gaurd against over-using the impulses our reptilian brains generate, namely fear, predation, and violent, fight or flight instincts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Orders
Posted by: talkville on Dec 23, 2007 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A case can be made scientifically for the proposition that any living organism is 'conscious' within a range of simplicity and complexity.

The case of humans is of another order of generality. It is that of being conscious of being conscious; self-consciousness.

We share a whole lot of attributes with other living organisms in the first case. The 2nd one is a bit more problematic.

Oscillating the definition of "intelligence" between the two orders leads to a host of bizarre and problematic conclusions.

Even an amoeba is 'intelligent' in securing and assimilating external substance which enhances its growth and longevity!!

As for dogs, an American dog has more liberty and privilege than 3/4 or more of the total human populations of this planet. Now there's a smart move for dogs: get residency
in the US!!

Avoiding the urge to make a fetish of 'intelligence' would go a wholesome long way to clearing up a lot of uses of the WORD to justify immensely un-intelligent (and even in-human) actions and policies in many spheres of our social and individual development as humans. As current events are constantly demonstrating today in Ecology and Political-Economy, much hangs in the balance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]