On 2014 Jul 17, Alexander Weiss commented:

Wilson et al. tested how participants reacted to doing no more than thinking. They couched this research question in the human ability to engage in “directed conscious thought” and asked whether this activity was pleasant. It was not. In fact, many participants self-administered electric shocks when given the opportunity to do so during the thinking task. Discussing their findings, the authors stress the “thinking” aspect of their tasks and concluded that “people prefer doing to thinking”.

I question this interpretation. Removal of stimuli individuals find pleasing (“doing”), is a means of shaping behavior and is as aversive to chimpanzees and pigeons (Ferster, 1958) as it was, presumably, to the participants of this study. The importance of “doing” for animals by providing environmental enrichment in the form of puzzles, games, and social contact is enshrined in animal welfare regulation (see the 1985 amendment to the 1966 United States Animal Welfare Act) based on decades of research showing, for example, that a lack of enrichment is associated with self-injurious behavior (Lutz & Novak 2005).

Engaging in “directed conscious thought” is thus either common across a range of different species or it is not the aversive stimuli in question. The over-interpretation of well-known phenomena, however, is probably unique to humans and most definitely aversive.

References

C. B. Ferster, Control of behavior in chimpanzees and pigeons by time out from positive reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 72, 1-38 (1958).

C. K. Lutz, M. A. Novak, Environmental enrichment for nonhuman primates: Theory and application. ILAR J. 46, 178-191 (2005).

On 2014 Jul 17, Alexander Weiss commented:

Wilson et al. tested how participants reacted to doing no more than thinking. They couched this research question in the human ability to engage in “directed conscious thought” and asked whether this activity was pleasant. It was not. In fact, many participants self-administered electric shocks when given the opportunity to do so during the thinking task. Discussing their findings, the authors stress the “thinking” aspect of their tasks and concluded that “people prefer doing to thinking”.

I question this interpretation. Removal of stimuli individuals find pleasing (“doing”), is a means of shaping behavior and is as aversive to chimpanzees and pigeons (Ferster, 1958) as it was, presumably, to the participants of this study. The importance of “doing” for animals by providing environmental enrichment in the form of puzzles, games, and social contact is enshrined in animal welfare regulation (see the 1985 amendment to the 1966 United States Animal Welfare Act) based on decades of research showing, for example, that a lack of enrichment is associated with self-injurious behavior (Lutz & Novak 2005).

Engaging in “directed conscious thought” is thus either common across a range of different species or it is not the aversive stimuli in question. The over-interpretation of well-known phenomena, however, is probably unique to humans and most definitely aversive.

References

C. B. Ferster, Control of behavior in chimpanzees and pigeons by time out from positive reinforcement. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied 72, 1-38 (1958).

C. K. Lutz, M. A. Novak, Environmental enrichment for nonhuman primates: Theory and application. ILAR J. 46, 178-191 (2005).