I witnessed an interesting phenomenon : invariably when information is presented from some article that hints at either animal intelligence or harmful influence of humans on animals, some armchair commentator will come forward with an alternate explanations that reduces the observed behaviour to a basic mechanistic instinct related to feeding or reproduction or survival. That comment will also be the most upvoted one. The commentator does not present additional information, but for some reason his opinion is given more value than that of the experts who wrote the original study. That phenomenon is particularly prevalent on Reddit.