"Chimp short term memory" Topic

So about 5-6 million years ago, it seemed Humans and Chimps went their separate ways. Since then the human brain has evolved incredibly fast, especially in the pre-frontal lobe area. This is where all the complex cognitive and abstract thinking occurs.

One aspect of that is the acquisition of short term "working" memory. I would have thought we would have it all over our furrier cousins. I was shocked to find out we don't. This isn't new research, but the results are new to me.

YouTube link

Or, maybe I did see this already but just forgot.

Very fun. Of course, the natural application of this ability would be to notice details in the wild that could keep you (the chimp) from sticking your mitts where they don't belong, or wasting time when foraging, etc. But how much imaginative speculation does a chimp engage in, perched on that platform in downtown Humanville? With nothing to use its short term memory for, does a chimp start to contemplate the meaning of life? Or figure out a better design for his wargame rules? Or use Google Fu? Or come up with anything artistic? Or engage in philosophical contemplation? Or ask questions about how the world works, in order to learn how to exercise control over it?

Rhetorical questions, all.

Chimps are not smart. They are as dumb as rocks compared to our intellect. That's a provocative, "stupid" assertion. But really, their intellect is closer to that of a bug than it is ours.

I'm reminded of a prodigy I read about years ago. An otherwise non-functioning person, socially (with massive autism issues or something of the like) institutionalized, who nevertheless was virtually unbeatable at chess. Dumb as a rock at everything else but chess….

Human brain is big but slow.

Hence insects have a much much faster reaction times (because its basically just reflex )

When i fly sees a hand it's "brain " sa says lets get the hell out of here,

When a human brain sees a car about to hit your car
It thinks.

"Car like object approaching fast, but is it car? What other possibilities are there? UFO? No its on the ground… big foot with big flash lights? Ect.

I assume something similar is going on with short term memory. To much info rolling around in there

Time spent trying to understand brain function will be well rewarded one day.

Certainly we all have latent capacities we wish we somehow had access to now…. One of the mysteries of life designed to keep our often overinflated egos in check.

Very fun. Of course, the natural application of this ability would be to notice details in the wild that could keep you (the chimp) from sticking your mitts where they don't belong, or wasting time when foraging, etc.

Ya, but we would benefit from this too, would we not?

As per your rhetorical questions I would assume the answer is no. Perhaps they see the world as we did when we were little children. They just would not develop any more than that. We are discussing "working memory" which is a very specific type of cognition which has nothing to do with what you brought up.

I think we are all very well aware that we haven't read any chimp authors, haven't seen any chimp paintings or haven't conversed with any chimp philosophers or chimp rocket scientists. We can always rely on you for bringing up the obvious.

However, I do have to take exception with your allegation of:

Chimps are not smart. They are as dumb as rocks compared to our intellect. That's a provocative, "stupid" assertion. But really, their intellect is closer to that of a bug than it is ours.

Not a chance. They may be the second most intelligent species still alive on the planet. Their intellect is the closest to our own. They can be taught words, can be taught ASL and can be taught to use computers for simple things. Hardly what anyone would call "bug-like intelligence".

I think you let your hyperbole get away from you there. That is, instead of simply agreeing with your own assessment. Which I do.

It *really* depends on what you look at. As far as we can tell, we are the tops at abstract thought. Real planning, conceptualizing, and the like. That is where we separate ourselves from the chimps and other intelligent animals. On the ability to figure out more straight forward issues, chimps (and probably several other animals) are much closer to us than many people appear to be comfortable with.

Did I miss something?
Do chimps understand what the sequence 1-9 represents?
Could it be that the human is overthinking things and the chimps just go for pattern recognition?

Did I miss something?

Yep.

Do chimps understand what the sequence 1-9 represents?

Probably, but that is irrelevant to this experiment.

If you are asking if chimps count and understand the numeral values, see here:

link

Scroll down a bit to get to the chimp section.

Could it be that the human is overthinking things and the chimps just go for pattern recognition?

Don't know what you mean in the first part and yes to the second part. It may be "only" pattern recognition, but that is a form of higher cognitive thought. The chimps seem to do much better than us at it. Chimps seem to easily beat bright human students even after the students had weeks of training.

Remember, it's temporary memory, meaning that once a new puzzle is introduced both chimp and human probably forget the last one. Long term memory (like remembering your name and where you live) is a totally different thing.

….chimps (and probably several other animals) are much closer to us than many people appear to be comfortable with.

+1

Note that this doesn't mean that we aren't extraordinary in our capabilities. It's just that we aren't as *uniquely* extraordinary as some would like to insist. We alone can do *some* of the things that we do, and that is very very important, but much of what we can do can be done by other species as well. It's as much that we have the total package while they have only pieces of it.

At it's core, we are the only ones we know for sure who look up at the stars in the sky and wonder "what the hell are those?". That's different from just being "smart" though.

Define "smart".

How much of what we use is more like "genetic memory"? And how much of what a chimp uses is genetic memory? I'm going to guess that chimps, all other mainly instinct oriented species, are operating on genetic memory, or instinct inherited through evolutionary development. Our species has largely gone away from that and developed an incredibly complex brain that operates on the basis of learned responses, to the degree that we hardly acknowledge instinctive responses at all. Almost everything an adult does is based on plodding through the possibilities and outcomes. Along the way, we are continually interrupted by segues into completely non sequitur thought tangents; my teachers called it "daydreaming" when I didn't pay attention. What it is, or is called, separates us from the beasts….

I'm going to guess that chimps, all other mainly instinct oriented species, are operating on genetic memory, or instinct inherited through evolutionary development

Then you'd guess wrong. Just like you guessed wrong about the migrating frogs

What those chimps are doing has nothing to do with genetic memory. The process used by the humans pitted against them has nothing to do with genetic memory either.

Now that humans and chimps have had their genomes sequenced it is established that the genomes are 97.3 % identical. So chimps use the same part of the brain as we do when they do short term memorization. They seem to be better at that. We seem to be better at most other things. Deal with it.

link

Obviously the "same part of the brain" is not working the same way for both of us. What is making the difference? Just because the same part/area is accessed does not explain anything about the differences in resulting function. So "genetic memory" (probably my use of the term offends your formal education) must be it. There is stuff in there from birth that they do not have to develop in order to use it. We, on the other hand, must learn virtually everything that we use. We don't get free "skills" that allow us to stand up and walk around two hours after birth. We can't climb trees or fight to be fed, etc. and etc. and etc. All other species to a greater or lesser degree are the same in these respects. We homo sapiens are not. We are the most helpless of all mammals at birth and for many months and even years after that. Using the same area of our brains as chimps explains nothing about that latent lore and skill set dichotomy….

I don't think you understood his point. He said that Chimps use the same part of the brain *for short term memorization*. Humans have developed *beyond* that point as well. The argument isn't that humans don't have abilities that Chimps don't have, but rather that in certain tasks that require intelligence Chimps can equal or surpass us. Not all or even *most* tasks, but *some* and perhaps more than any other species. They are closer in intellegence to us of any species we know of.

I understand that short term memory demonstration is seen as some measure of comparative intellect. It isn't. Not anymore than reflexes. A brain that allows blindingly fast reaction times compared to humans is also no measure of intelligence. It is a demonstrated natural or latent talent/skill. It is programmed and comes with birth, or what I call "genetic memory". It is a thoughtless response.

Just because a chimp can be trained to notice patterns and pick them, and do that almost unerringly, and quicker than humans can, does not mean that the chimp has any comprehension that its brain power is being compared to a human's; that a test, or contest, is even being conducted. All that the chimp is aware of is that for some reason it gets rewarded for performing this task again and again….

GWA, everything you say about human babes applies to chimp babies, only less so. You have this idea that a chimp is like an ant, born with every skill it needs already intact. You are 180 degrees wrong in this. Take the time to learn about chimp development. That is why a link was provided for you which you clearly didn't read.

As far as "genetic memory" goes, please refrain from using terms that actually mean something, only to be converted to neologisms for your arguments. Remember "osmosis" from a few threads ago? Using the appropriate terms will help us all.

It is a demonstrated natural or latent talent/skill. It is programmed and comes with birth, or what I call "genetic memory". It is a thoughtless response.

Wrong.

You honestly believe that the ability to select hidden numbers in ascending order on a computer touch screen is preprogrammed by evolution into an animal living in central Africa?

You know nothing about what you are making statements about. This is akin to your, "Frogs aren't dying out, they're just migrating" nonsense.

The chimp was taught the number shapes as sequence, then trained to line that shape association up properly. The training was by reward. It is meaningless otherwise. I never suggested that chimps come into this life knowing numbers.

And I never said that chimp babies are fully capable of taking care of themselves. All infants require protection and teaching in order to learn survival. But the differences between human learning and animal learning are far more vast than the similarities….

We are the most helpless of mammals at birth . . .

Ace, I don't know where you get this stuff. Maybe The Big Book of Making Stuff Up As I Go Along.

All mammal (with a few exceptions ) have childhoods, in very generous terms the longer the childhood the "smarter" the mammal. (Exeptions are say rats, very smart criters not a very long childhood )

Wolves are smart and generally are "grown up" at 2 years.

In more extreme species (chimps, elephants, some whales and humans) it's around 15 years. Even even then they are not "done" and will continue their "education" for many more years. These mammals are much like us, with few innate skills and must taught almost everything.

But the differences between human learning and animal learning are far more vast than the similarities….

Since "animals" covers everything from single celled paramecium all the way up to us, that's such an all inclusive statement as to render it meaningless. You see that, right?

Maybe The Big Book of Making Stuff Up As I Go Along.

What chapter has the migrating frogs? The one after "chimps are as smart as bugs"?

All other animals are closer to each other than the highest IQ among them is close to human.

I've seen migrating frogs lately; all held up at the border of NM and AZ. The ones that didn't try and turn back, or die, became polygamists….

All other animals are closer to each other than the highest IQ among them is close to human.

It's absolutely true, what I said. The next closest intellect to ours (arguably dolphins, whales or chimps/apes – but with science making new discoveries all the time, tomorrow we may read about the most recent observations of sapient zats, octopi or kelp) demonstrates only a cement footprint compared to the high-rise that is the human mind.

ALL (sic) other mental activity in the "animal kingdom" is akin to itself, resembling the human capacity for abstract, manipulative thought about as closely as a rock. So all other mental activity outside the human is closer to itself than it is to ours….

That wouldn't be true even if you said mammal instead of animal.

An elephant, dolphin or chimp are closer to us in intelligence then they are to koala or sloth, the two dumbest mammals alive today.

This is just the old "humans are uniqe" "we are not animals "

In reality we are just bipedal mostly hairless apes with a notably larger brain than the other apes.

Thats it.

We don't know exactly how much bigger a chimp brain would have to be to be very human, but they probably wouldn't need one as big as ours before we could have meaningful full conversations with them.

Unlike what you claim, the more we learn about us and other animals, the fussier and fussier the line between us and them gets.

Big brains are not the answer, or killer whales and elephants would ace us out.

Nothing we've learned has remotely established in other animals a hitherto hidden capacity to imagine and manipulate, inarguably the criteria for comparative intelligence. If a big brained thing sits or swims around all day and does nothing but exist, then intelligence has no purpose beyond existence itself.

Only human minds imagine something other than what is and build tools to create it….

Only human minds imagine something other than what is and build tools to create it….

Well…. No.

Chimps in the wild have been observed for quite time making tools for specific purposes. Was quite a shock when first observed, but clearly the process was demonstrated.

Sorry, Ace. But Gunfreak's got it right, we're just mostly hairless apes with a larger brain than the other apes who happen to have done well for ourselves.

You guys +1.

……….we're just mostly hairless apes with a larger brain than the other apes who happen to have done well for ourselves.

We can say that the chimps and bonobos have done well for themselves too. After all, they are still here while the greater brained Neanderthals are not. Not bad for two species that are as "dumb as rocks" and have an intellect that "is closer to that of a bug than it is ours".

And when chimps and bonobos eventually go extinct (bonobos are officially an endangered species), it'll be just like the Neanderthal. Indirectly or directly at the hands of us.

It's absolutely true, what I said.

Of course it is. It's probably even in "The Big Book of Making Stuff Up As I Go Along". Too bad Amazon does carry it, or that you don't sell it on your webpage. It would help us.

Chimps in the wild have been observed for quite time making tools for specific purposes.

No they don't "make" anything. They take an object and use it the same way they've been using it since time out of mind. No animals take an object and use it for something else, or combine it with other objects and create other objects with the combined/complex tool, etc.

After all, they are still here while the greater brained Neanderthals are not.

Along with the 99% of species that are no longer here. Brains have nothing to do with extinction. And homo sapiens could breed with Neanderthals, and probably other humanoids. So having one species become dominant is a result of evolution and not extinction.

Apes today are not the only apes that were.

And when chimps and bonobos eventually go extinct (bonobos are officially an endangered species), it'll be just like the Neanderthal. Indirectly or directly at the hands of us.

Homo sapiens are in the billions and billions. That's the only reason why other species are threatened today. That this condition existed in the past is nowhere shown. So our species did not exterminate anything. There simply weren't enough of us to do that until modern times….

Homo sapiens are in the billions and billions. That's the only reason why other species are threatened today.

You were so close to linking two adjacent correct sentences. You only needed to swap "only" with "one" to be right. But your point is taken, as you agree with me. Humans are one of the main causes of the extinction of other species, the bonobos included. Hey, didn't I say that exact thing?

That this condition existed in the past is nowhere shown.

If you mean only population wise, then true.

So our species did not exterminate anything. There simply weren't enough of us to do that until modern times….

Our species didn't exterminate anything? Tell that to the mega fauna that we hunted, or the scientists that study them.

If you mean Neanderthals then your statement is 180 degrees from the current consensus from the scientists that study them. So, Humans and Neanderthals competed for the same Eco-niches:

1) Neanderthal skeletons show a very high degree of death causing external injuries. Concurrent Human skeletons do not.

2) Humans adapted better to their environments. They built missile weapons for long range killing ability. This gave them an advantage in warfare and hunting. Neanderthals did not.

3) Neanderthal behaviour precluded them from exploiting their environments that they were in competition with. For instance Neanderthal diets were much more exclusive than that of humans. The last group of surviving Neanderthals were in Gibralter. Oddly enough, fish and shellfish was not a big part of their diet.

4) Some interesting circumstantial evidence. Neanderthals successfully exploited Europe for almost 300,000 years. Humans showed up about 45,000 years ago. By 40,000 years ago the Neanderthals were gone. The 24,000 year old date of the Gibraltar group is being disputed.

A Wiki entry that you may find helpful. Check out the references. Sure beats making unsupported blanket statements.

So our species did not exterminate anything. There simply weren't enough of us to do that until modern times . . .

Dude, please! You're embarrassing yourself.

It's more than just coincidence that the extinction of megafauna species correlates almost exactly with first contact with homo sapiens, thousands or tens of thousands of years ago. The pattern is repeated everywhere: Europe, Asia, Australia, New Zealand, North America, South America, islands in the Pacific, islands in the Indian ocean. Everywhere, in fact, except Africa, where megafauna evolved alongside humans.

Setting aside the debate over whether we wiped out Neanderthals, which Bowman covered well, that still leaves mammoths, mastodons, woolly rhinos, sabertooths, diprotodons, moas, giant ground sloths, cave bears, giant short-faced kangaroos, giant wallabies, marsupial lions – and that's just off the top of my head. Climate change was certainly a contributing factor for some species, but it's foolish to deny the impact of homo sapiens, directly through hunting and indirectly through competition for habitat and resources.

No they don't "make" anything. They take an object and use it the same way they've been using it since time out of mind. No animals take an object and use it for something else, or combine it with other objects and create other objects with the combined/complex tool, etc.

Sorry, wrong again. Tool making and tool use by primates has been observed on countless occasions. Just a few examples:

link

link

link

And there's this, with Dr. Louis Leakey's telling response:

link

This was the first time that an animal, other than a human, was observed to modify an object to create a tool, and then use the tool for a specific purpose.

Until that time, scientists had thought that only humans used and made tools; it was considered the defining characteristic that separated us from other animals. Our species was defined as "Man the Tool Maker." When Louis Leakey received an excited telegram from Jane describing her discoveries, he made his now famous response:

"Now we must redefine tool, redefine Man, or accept chimpanzees as humans."

- Dr. Louis Leakey -

There's more (a lot more) if you need more convincing. Sorry Ace, your "humans are oh so unique" view doesn't hold water.

"…'humans are oh so unique' view doesn't hold water."

It does, because Doug holds the trump card determination so common to the 'humans (read: me) are special' argument by defining the terms by which such a determination is to be made.

It is akin to cheetahs saying they are the fastest land animals (…don't go comparing them to anything, though, in any way other than their predetermined manner) and therefore they are the bestest by far, leaving all others (like those sluggish humans) to be ranked along with slugs and sloths and other tiny, limited mph-capable species. Cheetahs are the bestest, cuz they are the fastest (by their self-determined scale), so all you other 'I can imagine a universe in which I am the center' creatures can suck it.

Sorry, forgot the Wiki link:

link

…….that still leaves mammoths, mastodons, woolly rhinos, sabertooths, diprotodons, moas, giant ground sloths, cave bears, giant short-faced kangaroos, giant wallabies, marsupial lions…..

Don't forget horses in North America. They were all killed off before the Eurasian ones were introduced by the Spanish.

Marsupial lions? What a shame. Would have loved to see one of those.

Now to be fair, many of these animals may have been on the way out anyway and human predation just seems to have hurried up the inevitable. The same thing with Neanderthals. Some of the references on the Wiki page indicate that H. Neanderthalis was headed to extinction and the arrival of Humans was the final nail in the coffin (to borrow an over used cliche )

Climate change was certainly a contributing factor for some species, but it's foolish to deny the impact of homo sapiens, directly through hunting and indirectly through competition for habitat and resources.

The "impact" would have been very small. In other words not decisive, except on islands where the fauna was limited: I should have made that distinction. On continents early man did not hunt any major fauna to extinction. Climate change did all the permanent damage and killing. That so many species died out near or about the same time has nothing to do with hunting cavemen.

Humans have continued to increase in numbers above and beyond disasters and diseases and sweeping climatic changes, etc. We are the species that walks, steals other men's women and adapts. Our greatest trait is our ability to adapt through imagining solutions.

@Charlie 12: "Kanzi" is being trained by humans! Come on. The great apes are capable of being trained to do a lot of things. An elephant can be trained to paint a simple picture, over and over again. The higher mammals are all intelligent and capable of training.

In the wild, in nature, none of this would occur even given countless thousands of years. See the record up to now. Nothing.

Leakey was so yesterday. "Tools" in my use of the term means complex or multipart tools requiring manufacture. Not throwing things or carrying a stick for a ways to smite the termites, etc. Nothing in any of those bits and pieces at those links indicates complex tool making. And not even manipulation of single material tools without heavy human intervention first.

@Bowman: Extinction is complex but it is so trendy to blame humans as the main ingredient. Until "now" humans have never been numerous enough (except on islands) to threaten major fauna. Until c. three hundred years ago, humans never numbered more than c. a third of a billion worldwide….

"Kanzi" is being trained by humans! Come on. The great apes are capable of being trained to do a lot of things. An elephant can be trained to paint a simple picture, over and over again. The higher mammals are all intelligent and capable of training.

In the wild, in nature, none of this would occur even given countless thousands of years. See the record up to now. Nothing.

The observations by Jane Goodall of chimps making and using tools were in the wild; no human intervention whatsoever. And they have been confirmed by other researchers in other locales. The record is clear. And you are (as always), dead wrong.

Leakey was so yesterday. "Tools" in my use of the term means complex or multipart tools requiring manufacture. Not throwing things or carrying a stick for a ways to smite the termites, etc. Nothing in any of those bits and pieces at those links indicates complex tool making. And not even manipulation of single material tools without heavy human intervention first.

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of YOUR definition of tool making and tool use. Is this something out of "The Big Book of Making Stuff Up As I Go Along"? Because your definition of tool making and tool use doesn't jive with those of anthropology and cognitive science. Sorry Ace, you don't get to make-up definitions on the fly to satisfy your peculiar views.

Sorry Ace, you don't get to make-up definitions on the fly to satisfy your peculiar views.

Neologisms has its own chapter in The Big Book of Making Stuff Up As I Go Along

What do those experts know anyways. GWA has his book.

Goodall, Leakey, Johanson – I guess they're all pikers compared to our man Ace. Advanced degrees and decades in the field versus a few minutes banging on a keyboard – I know where I'd put my money.

Chimps *in the wild* have been shown to make tools, use those tools, and, most impressive to me, teach other chimps how to make and use tools.

And you are (as always), dead wrong.

That's a bit extreme, don't you think? I have admitted time and again that "I know practically nothing about almost everything." Guess what, you, all you all, are in exactly the same condition. But do you know it?

Oh, I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of YOUR definition of tool making and tool use.

It isn't mine. "Complex tools" was coined after Leaky, et al. made their discoveries, or rather did their observations: this has been going on virtually as long as apes have been around. There is no evidence in the ground for it, simply because there are no "tools" to see. Apes do not "make" anything. They pick up things and apply them to a job. That is very cool. But it is still "inside the box" of their existence. They never leave it. And they never combine two materials (let alone three or more), and then keep the tool as they move about.

So "tools" went through a revision back there a ways. And "complex" tools became the added distinction. As far as I have heard, it has not been revised by any further observations of animal behavior. Only humans make complex tools ("multipart" is not necessarily synonymous, because not all complex tools are made out of two or more disparate materials).

Only humans think abstractly, recursively, imaginatively. All other animals do their thinking within their sensory perceptions only.

"Outside the box" only applies to human thought. And that makes it literally infinite. Animals other than us are stuck inside their "box" of sensory perception, forever….

… Neologisms …

I didn't make up "multipart tools". But apparently where I got it from, in the dim past, never succeeded in making it a common descriptor.

Chimps *in the wild* have been shown to make tools, use those tools, and, most impressive to me, teach other chimps how to make and use tools.

There isn't anything impressive about animals passing on skills to the young. All animals do it. Lower order animals do it without thinking; all "skills" are latent, or inherent. Apes learn by a combination of natural or instinctive "programming" and observation.

But I disagree: chimps do not "make" tools. They make use of objects, one at a time, never combine them, and never for different purposes. Humans are always "using the wrong tool for the right job". No other animals do this, ever. And even if we did find a single object used for more than one purpose, it would be accidental, not remembered or intentional….

A comment about the OP: chimps resort to heightened short term memory precisely because they don't possess the capacity to think recursively. So they must use a different way of thinking in order to not screw up. Humans frequently "overthink" a problem or situation. But that downside is more than compensated for by imagination and recursion. Infinitely compensated for, I repeat….

That's a bit extreme, don't you think?

No, especially when you say stuff like:

There isn't anything impressive about animals passing on skills to the young. All animals do it.

Female chimps make and use spears: link

Chimps strip leaves off of twigs and fish for termites, and chew up leaves to act as sponges: link

Lots of articles and videos of chimps solving problems, showing insight: link

@jpattern: Unless the "spears" are complex tools they don't really qualify as anything approaching what humans do. Stabbing with a sharpened stick is smart if the prey bites! I'm more interested in the fact that chimps raid and kill each other. And that mothers of dead infants have been observed carrying their dead offspring around long enough for them to be mummified.

But that doesn't approach imaginative thought. Elephants also take notice of their dead. Almost all higher animals do this to a greater or lesser degree.

(We had a grey cat when I was a kid, observed on one occasion to torment a pair of birds by tossing their "chick" into the air beneath where the parents were perched on a clothesline. The parents would flap and flutter and chirp "encouragingly" as the hapless chick appeared to escape the cat, fluttering fecklessly a couple or three feet high, before falling back to the ground and the clutches of our mean kitty. Apparently the feline loved the game of tormenting the adult birds, before finally tiring of it and proceeding to dismembering and eating the immature bird before their eyes….)

Unless the "spears" are complex tools they don't really qualify as anything approaching what humans do.

You and your "complex tools." Just more goalpost-moving.

I suspect that if the following scenario occurred, you'd say, "Well, yeah, but he didn't forge the steel to make the barrel, now, did he?"

I suspect that if the following scenario occurred, you'd say, "Well, yeah, but he didn't forge the steel to make the barrel, now, did he?"

If you can't show me that they understand the ballistics involved, then gun-toting chimps are as "dumb as rocks".

Maybe. Or maybe like the early "savages" introduced to firearms who didn't understand ballistics or the niceties of aiming and squeezing not jerking the trigger, but smart enough to gather that the "point generally in their directing and pull this curved thing and sometimes they fall down" was "good enough" for them.

Were the Aztecs "dumb as rocks?" African natives? Others?

Surely they didn't understand ballistics.

I was going to say some other point I had just thought, but I forgot what it was.

If you can't show me that they understand the ballistics involved, then gun-toting chimps are as "dumb as rocks".

Hah! Don't give him any ideas.