In which Kanzi learns to play make-believe

One generally imagines other members of the animal kingdom, even the ones that fly, to be a little more grounded than humans. After all, storks probably do not tell their chicks that they hatched from eggs delivered by a man in a truck. But what if animals did have the power of make-believe? What might they imagine, and what purpose would it serve — escape, solace, companionship? It may not be a binary; the power of imagination could conceivably exist somewhere on a continuum, like animal communication in relation to human language, and other questions of cognition. For instance, several animals can pass the mirror test — recognising one’s own reflection — but not always. Research shows that about 75 per cent of young adult chimpanzees can pass.

The bonobo is another great ape that has passed the mirror test. And now, an article published in Science has presented evidence that they can play make-believe games, too. It is based on work with one bonobo, Kanzi, who has since died. When scientists pretended to fill two cups from an empty jug, and then poured the imaginary contents of one cup back into the jug, Kanzi was able to identify which cup still contained “juice”. He could also differentiate between cups with real and imaginary juice.

There are caveats, such as the fact that these tests were done with an ape trained to communicate with humans. However, this does indicate that the capacity for some level of imagination exists in bonobos — among humans’ closest relatives, and also known for their complex, matriarchal social organisation. If that power is strong enough, and accompanied by a little flexibility with the truth, it might not be wrong to call them political animals.

📰 In which Kanzi learns to play make-believe

(Editorial Analysis)

Overall Analysis

This editorial explores a fascinating scientific development — evidence that a bonobo named Kanzi may have the capacity for make-believe, a trait traditionally considered uniquely human. The piece begins with a light, almost playful tone, imagining animals as more “grounded” than humans and introducing the idea of imagination in the animal kingdom. The rhetorical questions in the opening paragraph invite curiosity and gently challenge human exceptionalism.

The editorial then shifts from speculative reflection to scientific evidence. By discussing the mirror test and cognitive studies in chimpanzees and bonobos, it establishes a gradual argument: imagination may not be a strictly human trait but something that exists along a continuum. This concept of a “continuum” is central — the author avoids presenting cognition as a binary (either animals have it or they don’t), instead suggesting varying degrees of imaginative capacity.

The discussion of Kanzi’s experiment forms the core of the article. The explanation of how he identified “imaginary juice” demonstrates the ability to engage with pretend scenarios. The language here remains clear and measured, ensuring scientific credibility while keeping the content accessible to general readers.

In the final paragraph, the editorial acknowledges limitations (“caveats”) — such as Kanzi being specially trained — which adds balance and intellectual honesty. However, it ultimately leans toward a broader implication: if bonobos possess imagination and social complexity, the boundary between humans and other animals becomes thinner. The closing line, hinting that they might be “political animals,” adds subtle irony and philosophical depth, connecting imagination with social behavior and even politics.

Overall, the editorial blends scientific reporting with philosophical reflection, encouraging readers to reconsider assumptions about human uniqueness.

Important Vocabulary (5)

1. Grounded – practical and realistic; not imaginative or fanciful.
2. Continuum – a continuous sequence or range without clear divisions.
3. Cognition – the mental process of acquiring knowledge and understanding.
4. Caveats – warnings or limitations that must be considered.
5. Matriarchal – relating to a social system in which women hold primary power.

Conclusion & Tone

The editorial suggests that imagination may not belong exclusively to humans and that scientific research continues to blur the boundaries between species. By combining curiosity, evidence, and philosophical nuance, it prompts readers to rethink the hierarchy of intelligence in the animal kingdom.

Tone: Curious, reflective, and subtly philosophical, with a balanced scientific approach.