CBC Radio49%

Bumblebees can solve complex puzzles like chimpanzees and elephants, study finds 23%

By Sheena Goodyear0%

6/8/2026, 3:05:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Hasty Generalization, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 17.9% saturation with 136 hits. Analysis detected 1,311 faulty-reasoning hits from 760 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.9% and a BS Rank of 23% (17,024 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 77.80% of the article peer group.

Scientist Juha-Heikki Kantola always knew bees were smart. 
But when he watched them solve a variation of a puzzle originally designed for chimpanzees, he was blown away. 
Kantola is one of the authors of a new study in which bumblebees figured out how to manoeuvre a ball to access a sugary reward, with no previous training. 
"There's a certain kind of decisiveness about their actions," Kantola, a physicist at Finland's University of Oulu, told "As It Happens" host Nil Köksal. 
"It just leaves you with the feeling that there's something going on in the brains of these creatures." 
The study's authors say the findings, published last week in the journal Science, prove that insects can solve problems spontaneously, a cognitive ability usually associated with large-brained vertebrates. 
Variation of the 'box-and-banana problem' 
The researchers put the bumblebees through a series of experiments based on late psychologist Wolfgang Köhler's "box-and-banana problem." 
Köhler famously demonstrated that chimpanzees could spontaneously solve problems by combining objects in new ways, including stacking boxes to snag an out-of-reach banana. 
Since then, several other animals  including monkeys, elephants, pigeons and crows  have passed variations of this test. 
For the bumblebees, the researchers swapped a banana for sugar, and the boxes for a ball. 
The experiments were conducted in small enclosures that are too shallow for the bees to take flight. 
First, they taught the bees to associate a blue painted circle on the floor, representing a flower, with a sugary treat. 
Then, they moved the flower to the ceiling, just out of reach, and introduced a small ball. 
The majority of bees (73 per cent) pushed the ball underneath the circle and climbed it to retrieve their sweet reward. 
It's not the first time bumblebees have solved puzzles for treats in a lab setting. 
But the researchers say their study stands out because the bees were "fully naïve." 
"In many previous studies of insight-like problem-solving, the animals have had extensive experience with objects, test environments or other problem-solving tasks," behavioural ecologist Olli Loukola, one of the study's authors, said in a press release. 
"Here, the bees had never been trained to use the ball to reach the flower, and they had no previous experience with this kind of solution." 
Bumblebees solve puzzles in real life, too 
But in a 2022 study, bees moved wooden balls around seemingly just for fun, even when there was no reward. 
So how do we know these bees weren't doing the same thing, and just happened upon the flower randomly? 
To rule this out, the researchers added another layer to experiment. 
The bees were allowed to explore a space with a left and right chamber, only one of which had the blue circle, before scientists introduced the ball. 
The researchers then used a red light to make the circle invisible, and dropped the ball in. 
Most of the bees  23 out of 30  successfully remembered where the circle was and maneuvered the ball accordingly. 
Conservation biologist Amanda Liczner, who was not involved in the research, says it makes sense that bumblebees can solve complex problems in the lab. 
After all, she says, they do it in nature all the time. 
When they leave the nest to forage, they must learn how to get nectar out of flowers. 
Each flower is different, she says, and some "can be quite tricky." 
Then they need to find their way back to the nest, often flying in larger and larger circles, likely to get a lay of the land and plot their route back. 
"Bumble bees have incredible capacity for learning and memory," Liczner, a post-doctoral researcher at Western University in London, Ont., said in an email. 
"You can see how these behaviours might then lend themselves to solving problems such as the one presented in the study." 
She says she hopes this research will give people a new appreciation for native bee populations, and the motivation to protect them. 
One way to do so, she says, is by avoiding pesticides, which can negatively impact their memory and, therefore, ability to perform the tasks necessary for survival. 
"The more you learn about them the more you realize how incredible they are," she said. 
Kantola says it's hard to define things like consciousness or intelligence. 
But he says the study shows that some of the cognitive abilities people think of as "special to mankind" aren't so special after all. 
"That's somehow, you know, heartwarming for me in this day and age," he said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.9%Sheena Goodyear: 3.4%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias17.9%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.9%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Sheena Goodyear: 3.6%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic10.3%This article: 9.6%Sheena Goodyear: 1.6%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic9.6%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 1.0%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.6%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Sheena Goodyear: 2.9%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect1.4%This article: 3.6%Sheena Goodyear: 0.8%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.6%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.8%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.3%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.0%This article: 5.9%Sheena Goodyear: 1.9%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 1.2%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 4.8%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 1.2%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Sheena Goodyear: 0.3%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error4.1%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.6%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.4%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Sheena Goodyear: 2.3%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect5.4%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.7%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Sheena Goodyear: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.1%This article: 1.4%Sheena Goodyear: 0.1%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.3%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.1%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.2%Sheena Goodyear: 4.3%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority14.2%This article: 2.5%Sheena Goodyear: 0.9%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.5%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.1%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 13.6%Sheena Goodyear: 4.7%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization13.6%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.5%Sheena Goodyear: 0.3%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon2.5%This article: 11.8%Sheena Goodyear: 4.9%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion11.8%This article: 5.5%Sheena Goodyear: 0.3%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question5.5%This article: 8.6%Sheena Goodyear: 2.3%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.6%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.4%Sheena Goodyear: 0.2%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof1.4%This article: 1.6%Sheena Goodyear: 0.2%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature1.6%This article: 5.4%Sheena Goodyear: 0.3%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division5.4%This article: 4.2%Sheena Goodyear: 4.0%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal4.2%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Sheena Goodyear: 1.5%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.1%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Sheena Goodyear: 0.8%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.8%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 14.1%Sheena Goodyear: 1.7%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice14.1%This article: 6.4%Sheena Goodyear: 1.3%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination6.4%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.5%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sheena Goodyear: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Sheena Goodyear: 0.7%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.6%

760 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers47%attributed speech403writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageJuha-Heikki Kantola • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJuha-Heikki Kantola • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageOlli Loukola • 35 words • 100.0% coverageOlli Loukola • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 17 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 12 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 21 words • 0.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 22 words • 100.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 27 words • 100.0% coverageAmanda Liczner • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJuha-Heikki Kantola • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJuha-Heikki Kantola • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJuha-Heikki Kantola • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Olli Loukola

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words17% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+43.0 ptsWriter: 14.4%Olli Loukola: 57.4%57.4%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.