You have probably heard the news — correction, old news — that chimpanzees exhibit signs of culture. In fact, I’ve blogged about it. [See Chimpanzee Chopsticks: Culture Feels Natural]
But wait. Is it truly “culture” when one troop of chimps uses sticks to fish termites out of holes while another uses rolled-up leaves, etc.? Is it fully the result of individual innovation and transmission of this innovation to others of the same generation and following generations via learning? In the excellent Discover Blogs post, The genetic side to chimpanzee culture, we learn -
Many previous studies have shown that apes (and probably even monkeys) can imitate and learn from each other. As a result, traditions and habits can spread in non-genetic ways. This is the essence of culture, and it means that individuals and groups end up behaving in varied ways.
And the new news -
Kevin Langergraber at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology has found that much of this variation in behaviour could have a genetic influence.
How was this determined? Good question. By this finding -
Groups of chimps with starkly differing cultures are also genetically distant and the greater the gap between their behaviours, the greater the gap between their genes. And only a small number of actions varied between groups that were genetically similar.
Wow. Could genes act on something that seemingly specific? Could the use of a stick vs. a leaf be genetically determined? Or, like the use of a fork vs. chopsticks, might it be fully explained by culture?
I think part of the problem is phrasing and thinking in such concepts as “genetically determined” and “fully explained.” Genetically . . . encouraged . . . predisposed . . . or something, might be better.
When I taught developmental psychology I instructed my students that, if considering the potential heritability of traits, it helps to keep in mind that, roughly speaking, genes control the development and functioning of cells. Whenever hypothesizing that a behavior “is genetic,” it can be instructive to consider how. What goes on at the cellular level to produce the “genetic” effect?
For instance, a classic example of genetic influence on development was provided by the Minnesota Twin Family Study. Namely, the two males, separated shortly after birth, who grew up to be Budweiser-loving firemen. If we speculate that genes played a role, it can be instructive to ponder what went on at the cellular level to produce the outcome. Surely, there is no such things as a Budweiser gene (something I lack, if there were). But, sure, genes might influence what type of beer a person prefers. More bitter, less, etc. But I wouldn’t say that the genes “determine” the selection of Budweiser. Or, on the other hand, that culture fully explains it.
As for chimps and their alleged culture, I wonder. Is it all genes? No. All culture? No. What it is, I think, is a fascinating puzzle.
Leave a Reply