“…But as eloquently argued elsewhere ( Audet and Lefebvre, 2017 ), this term is conceptually uninformative, given the many ways in which it is applied and assessed. Of these approaches, reversal learning and serial—multiple back-to-back—reversal learning tasks are the most common experimental assays of behavioural flexibility (non-exhaustive examples of each assay in: bees; Strang and Sherry, 2014 ; Raine and Chittka, 2012 ; birds; Bond et al, 2007 ; Morand-Ferron et al, 2022 ; fish; Lucon-Xiccato and Bisazza, 2014 ; Bensky and Bell, 2020 ; frogs; Liu et al, 2016 ; Burmeister, 2022 ; reptiles; Batabyal and Thaker, 2019 ; Gaalema, 2011 ; primates; Cantwell et al, 2022 ; Lacreuse et al, 2018 ; rodents; Rochais et al, 2021 ; Boulougouris et al, 2007 ). We have shown, however, at least for our grackles, faster reversal learning is governed primarily by risk-sensitive learning, so: firstly, these go-to reversal learning assays do not necessarily measure the unit they claim to measure (a point similarly highlighted in: Aljadeff and Lotem, 2021 ; Federspiel et al, 2017 ); and secondly, formal models based on the false premise that variation in learning speed relates to variation in behavioural flexibility require reassessment ( Lea et al, 2020 ; Blaisdell et al, 2021 ; Logan et al, 2022 ; Lukas et al, 2024 ; Logan et al, 2023a ; Logan et al, 2023b ).…”