[stavros]

Why would the amount of sugar have any relevance? That "the rats just learned that driving the car gets them that sweet, sweet hit of the crack cocaine version of the delicious and nutritious sugar cane" is exactly the point: They _learned to drive_ to the cocaine.

[dustyventure]

Would two environments both with no refined adictive additive create a similat conclusion about interesting vs boring environments similar to what the authors claim? I have no idea, so I just read a poor summary of a typical rat addiction study.

[stavros]

The experiment was about whether rats can learn to drive a car. They can. It doesn't matter why. If they learned to talk to get access to sugar, we wouldn't go "yeah, but it's sugar", we'd go "rats can fucking TALK now?!".

[MrMcCall]

That's funny! And true. Fair point.

But would they be jumping up and down when the dude came into the lab if they weren't looking for that next hit?

Or were they starving those poor creatures? I wouldn't doubt it.

I'll hazard a guess that they weren't jumping up and down because they wanted to take another spin in the new moving environmental element.

Or did they remember that when the dude came in, they could take the new thing to get a whole Froot Loop? Perhaps.

[dustyventure]

That's what the original experiment was about the first time it made it to the mill, but the article is all about conclusions from the experimenter about rich environments. If you taught your dog a trick I hadn't seen before would you expect me to have a heightened belief that you knew the science of mammal emotions? I would just assume that you had a good treat and had or developed an understanding of some of their more direct physical/cognitive limits.