No no, you specifically said that Vaillants book had "touches of FICTION" in it, so tell me, where? Show me one example where Vaillant added even a slight bit of fiction?
And yes, Vaillants book is a written documentary. Everything he stated was based off first hand testimonies from the experts he interviewed. Biologists like Dale Miquelle and George Schaller read it, loved it and thought it was a fabulous book and very informative. Vaillant never exaggerated anything.
For you to claim that he added even a "touch" of fiction is a bold statement and you have to back that up with actual proof. You can't just accuse reputable authors of such things, period.
Do you understand what a scientific work is?
John Vaillant's book
The Tiger is
his ACCOUNT of a Tiger being responsible for killing two men in a remote part of Russia - a
STORY. Whatever information he managed to collect in relation to these killings, he did not make this information public (a requirement of scientific works), and did not choose to write a scientific paper to be published in a journal - he decided to tell a story instead.
When YOU are telling a story, you tend to take CREATIVE LIBERTIES in it in order to make it more interesting for potential readers (touches of fiction involved) - YOU do not have to adopt a
critical lens to scrutinize information at hand and neither you have to conform to scientific dictums.
Following are good reviews of the book:
1)
www.nytimes.com/2010/10/10/books/review/Lewine-t.html2)
www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/books/the-tiger-john-vaillants-mesmerizing-tale-of-a-man-eating-tiger-vengeance-and-survival/If you think that Vaillant's ACCOUNT does not have touches of fiction in it and can be taken at face value like a genuine scientific work, then request him to disclose his materials for independent verification and scrutiny.
Qualitative research is different:
They can't be verified? Are you serious? The accounts I posted were reported and documented by TIGER AUTHORITIES/EXPERTS who worked with tigers their whole life. Even Amur tiger investigators, who specifically investigate cases of this nature. Their specialists.
And? They are still mere ACCOUNTS - subjective content. You are allowed to share them and/or to cite them but numerous ACCOUNTS cannot be independently verified. These must be distinguished from true scientific works.
John Vaillant's work is not scientific - he did not seek peer review for information at his disposal. All WE have is a story from him which some of the experts happen to like or appreciate. There is no form of scrutiny involved.
[1] I shall give you some perspective. I shared a video of a female bear managing to drive a Tiger away while protecting her cubs. My observation is that the Tiger was unable to kill the bear early on, and the clash turned into a brawl and the Tiger had to flee in the end. This is in line with my personal view that Tiger's approach is to invest a great deal of its strength in the initial killing blow - if this does not work then a Tiger is in for a lengthy fight (possibility of injuries increase manifold) and this does not bode well for a solitary hunting lifestyle. However, you assumed that the Tiger was toying with the bear in this case. So two people watch the same video and drew different conclusions.
In the same token, information collected by John Vaillant to tell his story might be perceived differently by another individual, if made public.
You understand how subjective these matters are now? ACCOUNTS can be highly subjective.
Additionally, even large groups of people can be guilty of believing in something false or exaggerated tales. One fine day, an individual attempts to challenge a widely held belief and viola he is in trouble. Refer to the
whalers analogy below.
CAUTION is the key word...
The reason you also said that, is because you know you can't show me a SINGLE example of a lion showing intelligence on that level. Tigers have shown that they are very capable of ABSTRACT THINKING, can apply it to a source and react. There's also numerous CONFIRMED accounts of tigers carrying out vengeful attacks and killings, which no lion or land mammal has shown for that matter.
The video you posted of the lions so-called "greater" intelligence didn't prove anything. They never showed anything conclusive at all, that proves lions are more intelligent than tigers. Not even close.
Animal trainers and handlers that have worked with both cats have stated that tigers are more intelligent, more cunning and more focused predators.
I strongly suggest you watch the documentary from big cat expert; Boone Smith - called "Big Cat Games". What it takes a tiger only 25 seconds to find a piece of meat, the lion, even after 6-7 minutes is still hopeless and just gives up. The tiger wins the entire competition. Even beating the Cheetah.
This programme:
Your views are SUBJECTIVE.
I clearly highlighted a scientific work in relation to evaluating intelligence of lions and tigers from a group of biologists, and you are choosing to dismiss it because it does not conform to your biased worldview which is heavily shaped by John Vaillant's ACCOUNT among others. As of Tiger fandom is not a thing...
Solid research with sound reasoning:
"They can solve puzzles that solitary leopards and tigers can’t—evidence that sociality promotes high-level cognition"The social intelligence hypothesis posits that having to navigate a complex communal life, which involves challenges such as keeping track of who is a friend and who is an enemy, has pushed group-living animals to evolve the mental machinery required to solve and remember mental tasks such as the box puzzle. In other words, social complexity leads to cognitive complexity.Researchers have long explored this idea by observing animals such as chimpanzees, dolphins and elephants, but biologist Natalia Borrego of South Africa's University of KwaZulu-Natal focuses on big cats. “You have a lot of closely related species with these diverse ecological challenges and different social systems,” she says.
Borrego and her team presented the rope challenge to 12 captive lions at Florida's Lion Country Safari. Eleven of them successfully solved it: seven on their own and four after watching another lion do it. Ten of the 11 recalled the solution five to seven months later. The results were recently published in the journal Animal Cognition.
“That they remember what they've learned isn't terribly surprising,” says Oakland University cognitive psychologist Jennifer Vonk, who studies cognition in bears. But she finds the social facilitation—the fact that some individuals figured it out after being paired with another lion—particularly exciting. “We don't always see those kinds of effects—even in primates,” she adds.
In a follow-up experiment using a similar conceptual puzzle, lions outperformed leopards and tigers (which are both solitary big cats)—
more evidence for the social intelligence hypothesis. But Borrego acknowledges that habitat and diet could also be factors in cognitive evolution. “The evolution of cognitive complexity is itself complex,” she says.LINK:
www.scientificamerican.com/article/lions-are-the-brainiest-of-the-big-cats/Actual publication:
dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=6676324Scientific experiments clearly show which animals are smarter than the others. This is why mere ACCOUNTS are not as credible because theoretical underpinnigs are unclear.
You focus entirely on ACCOUNTS of individuals who have worked with Tigers but offer nothing scientific here. This is why I advised you to exercise CAUTION in your judgement.
LMAO!! - Show me one single claim I've made about the tiger, that I never backed up with evidence?? I challenge you?
I claimed that tigers can and have killed adult Elephants and Rhinos, and then provided numerous VERIFIED accounts reported by experts/forest officials, which confirmed it, and what did you do?....Oh yeah, you, like the ignorant person that you are, completely shitted on the accounts and accused actual experts and authorities of basically spreading "lies" and exaggerations. Your a joke.
I also claimed that tigers are the usual winners against Brown bears in a fight, and then like I always do, I provided numerous, in fact, all the documented fight statistics reported by Russian authorities/biologists etc... which again, CONFIRMED exactly what I claimed.
I can understand if you said that about a Tigerfan who never posts any proof of his claims. But I ALWAYS post proof, period. There's the huge difference!
Then I showed you verified legit accounts showing the tigers great intelligence, and again, like you ALWAYS DO, you shitted on those accounts too.
What kind of evidence you are talking about? Mere ACCOUNTS of individuals studying Tigers? Have these individuals worked with lions? Just because these individuals have studied or continue to study Tigers, does not make them foolproof to
biases and/or
exaggerations. This is akin to accounts of pre-WWII whalers who were notorious for exaggerating their kills and even making stuff up at times. These whalers spent their entire lives studying and hunting whales - as credible in the business as possible.
You did post a footage of a Tiger apparently attacking and killing a female bear, and I considered it to be valid. I completely acknowledge the fact that a Tiger is capable of killing a bear of certain size.
There is a complete lack of solid evidence of a Tiger managing to kill an adult Elephant and Rhino on its own. I posted a footage of an Indian wildlife specialist in which it is glaringly obvious that a Tiger would typically avoid confrontation with an adult Elephant which is kinda LOGICAL given the sheer disparity in size and strength of both animals. I can entertain the notion of a Tiger challenging an adult Elephant at some point in time only to learn that this is a bit much. A Tiger taking its chances with an Elephant neonate is far more likely.
In fact, I pointed out that even lion predation on elephants is a rare occurrence. The legendary Savuti pride is particularly noted for predation on elephants (these occurrences are documented, scientifically evaluated, and made public), but this is a whole pride. And a pride of lions = far more capable in predation than a solitary Tiger.
So, yes, you are overreaching in these discussions because you take those accounts at face value which cannot be independently verified.
You are clearly a very ignorant person. Even when I post a whole shit-load of conclusive proof from EXPERTS, you still dispute it. Now, what does that show about you??
I have pointed out to you before that you have a BIG MOUTH. I give fellow members the benefit of doubt at times (numerous times) but I have limited tolerance for INSULTING.
I have [only] suggested to you the need to exercise CAUTION in your judgements because you
overrely upon ACCOUNTS of individuals in assessing Tigers which as I have pointed out above, can highly subjective (callback to
[1]). Instead of taking my advice in good faith, you are turning this into an issue of EGO. Your chief rival in these debates here was sorted out because he did not heed my advice about not to insult other members. You better.
You are in no position to question my credibility because I am a researcher/scientist as well, and I understand things that you do not. You are in no position to lecture me about what type of content is credible or not. I am a joke? I dismiss ACCOUNTS? What is this - kintergarden?
You have no idea about subjectivity factor in qualitative research works and why these are not suitable for generalizability.
I never once claimed that the tiger is "unstoppable". Stop over-exaggerating and calm down.
I've also acknowledged the fact that a Brown bear is capable of killing a tiger and has done so. My point was only that the tiger is the GENERAL winner in such a fight, which the fight statistics clearly show and prove.
Now why are you getting all dramatic and mentioning SEA creatures for? LOL....Obviously they'll win in the water, and the tiger wins on land. You can't compare.
See above.
Now speaking of exaggerations....Remember when you stated this:What about that completely ridiculous and laughable statement you said? Your a hypocrite. Practice what you preach, otherwise you'll only end up exposing yourself.
I've never claimed anything near as laughable or as childish as that. I could easily say that your so far up the ladder of Lion fandom!
is not an exaggeration - experienced adult lion (male) being the point (CONTEXT). Male lions are very strong cats on average, and I have posted clear evidence of male lions capable of wrestling animals larger than themselves to the ground - in this very thread. Male lions are also involved in bringing down massive animals such as a Giraffe or an elephant in the wild (Although not exactly solitary) - these developments are also documented.
Of-course, male lions have limitations as well. They can/do suffer injuries during the course of big-game hunting. Although lions have excellent tolerance and endurance, they are still living beings and can die during the course of big-game hunting or otherwise.
Staged Lion versus Tiger scenarios are largely inconclusive and not reliable. I am more interested in natural developments and behavioral patterns. Tiger's approach is to invest a great deal of its strength in the initial killing blow - if this does not work then a Tiger is in for a lengthy fight (possibility of injuries increase manifold) and this does not bode well for a solitary hunting lifestyle. Lion will be patient and wear its enemy down on the other hand.
Nevertheless, if I have misjudged strength of a male lion, I am open to evidence to the contrary. I am not egotistical about these matters.
NOW THIS: YOUR NEXT RESPONSE TO ME SHOULD BE CAREFULLY ARTICULATED. You better control your ego while addressing others here.
