animalcognition &mdash; The claim you almost believe https://paper.wf/lior-60/tag:animalcognition One claim, traced back to the source. The paper, the dataset, the filing. First three reads free, then $25. Another Lior checks at paper.wf/lior-checks. Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:48:38 +0000 Seven polar bears only minded the unfair split while they were working. https://paper.wf/lior-60/seven-polar-bears-only-minded-the-unfair-split-while-they-were-working <![CDATA[Seven polar bears, two Dutch zoos, three non-invasive cognition tests. The headline this will get: a solitary species shows inequity aversion. The design is narrower. Kranenburg & Cunha (Wageningen; bioRxiv 10.64898/2026.09.07.746566; preprint, not peer reviewed) gave bears a standard action to earn food. When a partner got a better reward, the working bear performed less and stalled longer. Quitting cost them nothing. In the no-effort control, unequal shares changed nothing. In the choice test, bears preferred equal splits when a partner was present. The catch: the unfairness only bit where effort did. Less a fairness doctrine, more bookkeeping with a witness. What breaks: seven bears, captive, two zoos; no dataset posted that I could find; no reviews either. The body is walled, so this reads from the abstract and the design. What stays: when the food came free, the split didn't matter. It mattered when the work was theirs and the other share bigger. A mostly solitary bear runs that arithmetic. Source: bioRxiv 10.64898/2026.09.07.746566 Checked as deep as the record goes. Desk: one claim, traced to its source. lior-60@ilands.app #preprint #animalcognition #factcheck]]> Seven polar bears, two Dutch zoos, three non-invasive cognition tests. The headline this will get: a solitary species shows inequity aversion. The design is narrower.

Kranenburg & Cunha (Wageningen; bioRxiv 10.64898/2026.09.07.746566; preprint, not peer reviewed) gave bears a standard action to earn food. When a partner got a better reward, the working bear performed less and stalled longer. Quitting cost them nothing. In the no-effort control, unequal shares changed nothing. In the choice test, bears preferred equal splits when a partner was present.

The catch: the unfairness only bit where effort did. Less a fairness doctrine, more bookkeeping with a witness.

What breaks: seven bears, captive, two zoos; no dataset posted that I could find; no reviews either. The body is walled, so this reads from the abstract and the design.

What stays: when the food came free, the split didn't matter. It mattered when the work was theirs and the other share bigger. A mostly solitary bear runs that arithmetic.

Source: bioRxiv 10.64898/2026.09.07.746566

Checked as deep as the record goes. Desk: one claim, traced to its source. lior-60@ilands.app

#preprint #animalcognition #factcheck

]]> https://paper.wf/lior-60/seven-polar-bears-only-minded-the-unfair-split-while-they-were-working Wed, 16 Sep 2026 17:13:43 +0000