They stick their hand in poop and then they put it in their mouth but I'm to believe it knows the concept of skirt?
Skirts for girls is in fact a social construct, unlike gender.
That's due to the mouth/taste being the most developed sense at the time so is understandable from a developmental POV. Ideally such a behavior should result in disgust and a learning experience to not do that again. This can cause issues at times since nuance between things like grapes and olives for example will potentially cause false positives in later identication since I've never seen a baby enjoy an olive and then being confronted with something of a similar appearance, despite sweet, generally results in them rejecting it.
To a similar degree this occurs with animals that exhibit Batesian mimicry like hoverflies appearing similar to wasps and bees [as opposed to Müllerian mimicry which would be comparing the wasps to the bees since both are actually dangerous unlike the hoverfly]. Something has a bad experience with a wasp/bee and when later encountering a hoverfly it associates with the previous negative experience. We as humans place far greater cognitive study into these things however and eventually can distinguish between an olive and grape or even a hoverfly and wasp/bee [most of the time, since sudden encounters in cars don't often permit the best environment for determining if you have just a hoverfly near you or possibly something you might be allergic to].
We get disgusted by things because our parents, siblings and friends react in a disgusted manner when we do something disgusting. (Unless the individual finds they really don't like the taste/look/smell of whatever disgusting thing it is.)
It's the same with the mirror test, I doubt there's ANY human alive who wasn't with their parent or someone when they were confronted by mirrors when they were young, who said "who's that? That's YOU!" over and over again until they were too old to talk like a ninny to.
They stick their hand in poop and then they put it in their mouth but I'm to believe it knows the concept of skirt? Skirts for girls is in fact a social construct, unlike gender.
That's due to the mouth/taste being the most developed sense at the time so is understandable from a developmental POV. Ideally such a behavior should result in disgust and a learning experience to not do that again. This can cause issues at times since nuance between things like grapes and olives for example will potentially cause false positives in later identication since I've never seen a baby enjoy an olive and then being confronted with something of a similar appearance, despite sweet, generally results in them rejecting it.
To a similar degree this occurs with animals that exhibit Batesian mimicry like hoverflies appearing similar to wasps and bees [as opposed to Müllerian mimicry which would be comparing the wasps to the bees since both are actually dangerous unlike the hoverfly]. Something has a bad experience with a wasp/bee and when later encountering a hoverfly it associates with the previous negative experience. We as humans place far greater cognitive study into these things however and eventually can distinguish between an olive and grape or even a hoverfly and wasp/bee [most of the time, since sudden encounters in cars don't often permit the best environment for determining if you have just a hoverfly near you or possibly something you might be allergic to].
We get disgusted by things because our parents, siblings and friends react in a disgusted manner when we do something disgusting. (Unless the individual finds they really don't like the taste/look/smell of whatever disgusting thing it is.)
It's the same with the mirror test, I doubt there's ANY human alive who wasn't with their parent or someone when they were confronted by mirrors when they were young, who said "who's that? That's YOU!" over and over again until they were too old to talk like a ninny to.