{"id":42212,"date":"2025-01-07T15:20:02","date_gmt":"2025-01-07T21:20:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lafeber.com\/pet-birds\/?p=42212"},"modified":"2026-01-06T15:08:07","modified_gmt":"2026-01-06T21:08:07","slug":"should-we-really-treat-parrots-like-fids-dr-pepperberg-weighs-in","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lafeber.com\/pet-birds\/should-we-really-treat-parrots-like-fids-dr-pepperberg-weighs-in\/","title":{"rendered":"Should We Really Treat Parrots Like “Fids?” Dr. Pepperberg Weighs In"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"African
Despite the impoverished input compared to the rich, concept-driven interaction children receive, parrots still achieve an impressive level of learning and communication. Photo courtesy of Dr. Irene Pepperberg<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Our companion parrots are wonderful\u2026but they are not \u201cfids.” The topic was brought home to me several months ago when a paper was published (Roubalov\u00e1 et al., 2024) that compared the vocabularies of pet African grey parrots to those of young toddlers. The authors argued that the birds and children had the same types of linguistic input because the human owners treated their birds like \u201cfids\u201d (feathered kids) and that any of the numerous observed differences in output were a consequence of inherent differences in the two species. I strongly begged to differ, and wrote a commentary, critiquing the study (Pepperberg, 2024).<\/p>\n

My point was that as much as we care for our companion parrots and try to provide the best possible environments for them, both physically and psychologically, we don\u2019t\u2014and very likely can\u2019t and shouldn\u2019t\u2014treat them just as we treat children. Even my parrot Alex, who was raised in an environment as close to that of a toddler as possible within a laboratory situation, did not receive all the enrichments common to a child (Pepperberg, 1999). And although his repertoire and use of human speech was exceptional, it still was limited by the input he received, which was shaped by our scientific needs.<\/p>\n

\"closeup
A toddler engages with a parent\u2019s constant, targeted input\u2014highlighting the rich and repetitive language exposure that differs significantly from what parrots typically experience. Photo by Jakub Kriz\/Unsplash<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

So, let me start with the results of the study I am critiquing. I cite Roubalov\u00e1 et al., 2024, with my own underlining: \u201cChildren use significantly more object labels, activity and situation labels, and emotional expressions, while parrots produce significantly more conversational expressions, greetings, and multiword utterances in general. These differences could reflect a strong link between learning spoken words and understanding the underlying concepts, an ability seemingly unique to human children (and absent in parrots),<\/u> but also different communicative goals of the two species.\u201d<\/p>\n

I argue, instead, that the differences occurred because of the impoverished input received by the parrots compared to that of the children, and\u2014specifically\u2014that the lack of concepts in the parrots was a consequence of the type of training they were given. What was, however, quite impressive to me was the incredible extent of learning achieved by the parrots despite<\/em> the impoverished input they received!<\/p>\n

What is “Impoverished Input ?”<\/h3>\n

So, what do I mean by \u201cimpoverished input\u201d? Without going into all the details present in my commentary (which is freely available; see below), I\u2019ll quickly summarize some of the points:<\/p>\n