A new study has found another similarity between humans and our primate cousins, the chimpanzee. They yawn. No big deal, right? They get tired, too, big whup. Well, the study found chimpanzees don’t just yawn but they engage in “contagious yawning.” Like you have experienced, no doubt. A friend or family member yawn’s and you may be tempted to say, “Don’t yawn, you are making me tired!” After having yawned yourself.
But the study, found in the ScienceDaily post, Chimpanzees’ Contagious Yawning Evidence of Empathy, Not Just Sleepiness, Study Shows, also contained these insightful nuggets:
> Scientists at Yerkes discovered chimpanzees yawn more after watching familiar chimpanzees yawn than after watching strangers yawn.
> The research also may help show how social biases strengthen or weaken empathy.
> “The idea is that yawns are contagious for the same reason that smiles, frowns and other facial expressions are contagious,” they write. “Our results support the idea that contagious yawning can be used as a measure of empathy, because the biases we observed were similar to empathy biases previously seen in humans.”
Interesting. Contagious yawning as in indicator of ingroup/outgroup perception.
And finally, I’ve got to applaud this bit of scientific writing — the author included an essential piece of information about the strength of the relationship:
[T]hey yawned 50 percent more frequently in response to seeing members of their group yawn compared to seeing others yawn.
Good to know.
Next question — are chimpanzees more likely to order coffee after dinner if their dinner mates also order coffee? My guess, Yes. But that’s based on my informal observations of their primate cousin, the human.
Blogging heavyweight PZ Myers of Phyarngula isn’t a fan of evolutionary psychology. In fact, he has written,
“Evolutionary psychology is a borderline pseudo-science at the best of times.” [link]
I understand that evolutionary psychology is a softer science and should be ‘consumed’ with a grain of salt. Yet I still find value in it. Maybe I’m biased and blinded by my bias.
It is also possible that PZ Myers is biased. For, like me, he could be described as a bleeding-heart-liberal. And yes, things like sexism have been rationalized and even excused–lauded even– as “natural” by those employing evolutionary psychology-like thought. But being poised to dismiss a field of study out-of-hand strikes me as unscientific.
It reminds me of when the controversial book The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American came out. That book explored the IQ gap between whites and blacks, as well as the relationships between IQ and crime and other variables. It also suggested that our social policies ought to reflect ‘the reality’ of the differences in innate cognitive abilities between groups of people.
Wow! Talk about controversial. Sure, the bulk of the argument and implications should rub the liberal humanist in anyone the wrong way. Yet I believe that it was unscientific for people to completely reject to findings out-of-hand. It seems they cried: No, you can’t even go there.
In my case, I found the book refreshingly bold. It dared to address an elephant in the room, so to speak. While I disagreed with much of the social policy recommendations/implications that Herrnstein and Murray drew, and I think they should have presented their work much more tentatively–with a massive grain of salt–the scientist in me said, “let’s investigate it, whether or not an outcome is potentially repulsive to us.”
As for the measured differences in intelligence between groups, it seems to me this could largely be the result of nurture: of social, cultural, and economic conditions. Yet there also could be an innate element. Could be. Among individuals, intelligence is highly heritable. So the genetic connection is there.
Here’s the thing: not only does animal biology evolve, but animal behaviors evolve as well. The two are inextricably linked. For instance, what good is a dog’s large, cup-shaped ear if it doesn’t have the behavior, the neurological mechanisms, to point it straight ahead in some circumstances, to the side in others, and to fold it closer to the head in yet other cases. These are clearly not the products of dog learning. The behavior is innate.
What got me thinking about all of this? Another new research item on ADHD. How in some cases or in some situations the psychological condition — and especially the behavior coupled with it– might have adaptive value.
Previously, in the post On ADHD, Psychological Diversity and Adaptation, I wrote:
Quite a bit of research into the psychology of other animals has found distinct personalities. In particular, while some individuals are quite out-going, others are not. There is a real, innate difference in degree.
Why would this be the case? Because diversity is adaptive. In physical traits, in psychological traits. Within the talent pool of a social group. When human parents have a number of children, each is somewhat different from the others in disposition. Why would we expect all children to be optimally fit for our current environment?
More recently I encountered this finding at Eurekalert: Creativity is an upside to ADHD
A new study in the Journal of Personality and Individual Differences found adults with ADHD enjoyed more creative achievement than those who didn’t have the disorder.
Yes, the science is of the softer sort. So insert grain of salt here. And yes, what I’m going to engage in next is largely speculation. Yet it is an educated speculation, with softer-type data informing it. So with that said, it seems to me that we currently have a one-size fits all educational environment. Particularly in k-12 schools. Yet human beings have diverse abilities and preferences. Should they all be shoe-horned into that one environment, via medication and other means? I don’t know. If all human social environments were like classrooms, maybe finding ways for ADHD individuals to better function in these is a good idea. Maybe.
Turning more skeptical again, how do we know the above mentioned new research finding is valid? Not easy. Should a person then brush off the finding? I don’t think so. Sure, if we haven’t adequately tested the hypothesis, it should not be presented as a known. But if expressed tentatively, why not consider it? And by all means, criticize it. Criticism and challenge tends to strengthen the scientific endeavor.
Could ADHD be considered a social adaptation in some circumstances? Certainly not all cases. But some cases or degrees in some environments? I’m curious.
On the other side of the coin there is this question: Should ADHD be considered a mental disorder in general, or just in many modern cultures and/or situations? These are important questions, I think, and questions get asked when doing science. They are an essential part of it. Collecting good data is absolutely key, of course, but there is more to science than the collection and presentation of grade-A data alone. To dismiss the intellectual explorations of evolutionary psychology as “pseudoscience” is to misrepresent “real” pseudoscience.
Psychological diversity in behavioral traits and cognitive abilities is likely a good thing. Particularly in environments prone to change. That said, our understanding of human psychology is much closer to the beginning of its journey than its end.
Prior beliefs can limit our understanding. Our potential to learn, even. In the least, like a set of blinders, beliefs can direct our attention onto one view of a phenomenon and keep it there. This can be true for the scientist as well as the lay person.
Recent research into gossip and bullying got me thinking. In particular, the write-up of a psychological finding in Anti-bullying program reduces malicious gossip on school playgrounds seemed to express the attitude that gossip is bad. Which is a common connotation carried by the word. But is it? Fundamentally? Always?
The study, led by the University of Washington, is the first to show that the widely-used Steps to Respect bullying prevention program can curb children’s gossip, an element of playground culture often seen as harmless but capable of causing real harm.
Should gossip be viewed as not harmless but bad, and efforts be made to curb it?
“Gossip is an element of bullying, and it can lead to physical bullying,” said Karin Frey, a UW research associate professor of educational psychology. “Kids will tell you that gossip is just as painful as physical bullying.”
So perhaps gossip is a sort of gateway behavior. Hmm. Can ‘talk’ really lead to bullying? How did the researchers differentiate between mere talk and gossip? And how do they know it leads to bullying?
But wait, isn’t fully free speech a good thing? Is this true only for adults? Shouldn’t we train our attention on the actual harmful behavior … the action, as we do with adults?
The research seems to convey the assumption that all gossip is by nature bad. It can lead to children using sticks and stones against others, and the name-calling itself is portrayed as not inert but hurtful — even when the target is out of earshot.
Should gossip be frowned upon in this broad-brush fashion? Just the malicious form? What exactly is that? How do you draw the line? Is it something like pornography — that we just know it when we observe it?
What about ‘malicious’ gossip about a dangerous kid? Is that bad? What about a malicious gossip about a cheat, about a truly pernicious influence, about…?
As my Almighy Alpha project explores in part, it seems gossip can serve a number of functions [see these]. That is why the behavior is found on all corners of the globe and has been classified by anthropologists as a “human universal.” To gossip is in our nature. Why?
I can see gossip serving a number of functions, including:
1) Information exchange. The ole’ grapevine. Gossip helps answer important questions such as “who can we trust?” For an extremely social species, the who and whats of relationships are a big deal.
Consider the incredible popularity of such media as gossip-laden television programs (and the “gossiping” fans do about the fictional characters) People magazine, sports radio. Etc., etc. Don’t these largely consist of gossip about people outside our social group yet in our lives? We can be fascinated. Why? Because they present a type of information we are drawn to.
2) Verbal attempts at status adjustment: to bring others down, to elevate the self and associates via reputation shaping.
3) A means of transmitting and maintaining social/cultural norms (dress, behavior, values). How else are these norms transmitted? Are they included in health class or social studies? No. Norms are largely transmitted behind gestures, between words.
4) And last and certainly not least, verbal grooming. After talking about the weather, and our own news, what exciting content is there to chat and bond over? The goings-on of others. The exciting goings-on. When two girls criticize a non-present third, the primary function of this gossip, I bet, is for the girls to feel closer to one another. Which is verbal grooming.
Is all gossip bad? No. When is it bad? Now that’s the question — a question that to best answer we need a wider perspective than is evidenced by a narrow view of gossip.
Previously I spoke of a social glue that begins in dyads and ends in groups. However, the glue metaphor isn’t quite right. Those bonds tend to be inflexible. In contrast, a primate’s means of pulling individuals close and keeping them close is highly plastic. It might be more accurate to imagine two entities looped by a band of rubber.
In this paragraph by Allison Jolly we see just how dynamic primate social bonds can be -
“Males are much more social. They groom one another, hug one another, and hold one another’s scrotum in reassurance. They have elaborate systems of shifting alliances, which involve a real politics of power….The males, in short, are both rivalrous and clubby. They can even join as a war platoon, with some of the comradeship that implies.” (31)
Group coalitions, it seems, rely upon fluid alliances. William McCrew may have put his thumb on the issue here:
“Perhaps more telling is the implication that in mutual grooming the individual is committed to a partnership. The dyad is the simplest in social grooming, and this sociality suggests potential for culture.”(32)
Is this as true for humans as it is chimpanzess? Is it possible that group dynamics consist in whole or part of the elastic push and pull of the interactions between couples? Sure.
Groups stick together thanks to the sometimes fleeting, dyadic relations and the interactions they are sustained by. Imagine a game of multi-player “cat’s cradle.” One’s connection to a group can simply consist of a single band to another, that other firmly banded to many more. One need not be banded to all. In fact, two relative enemies can be part of the same group.
Again, in chimpanzee life we see how a third can counteract friction between two. This from Jane Goodall:
“Sometimes, as we have seen, a chimpanzee who has been threatened or attacked seeks reassurance contact not from the aggressor but from a third individual, using postures and gestures of the submissive repertoire.”
(33)
And thus the group does not lose a member, nor the member the group.
Likewise, as has been observed among baboons, powerful females will make an effort to comfort even relatively powerless females by touching and hugging them and gently handling their infants. (34)
What is the “rubber” of the invisible bands? Jolly has observed this form used by chimps: prized foods.
“They even have patronage: a male who has captured a prey animal doles it out to those whose favor he needs. Ntologi, lead male for fifteen years in the Mahale Mountains, systematically gave tidbits to third- and fourth-ranked males who would back him, not to a second-ranker who might challenge him. Males also hand meat to estrous females in exchange for sexual access.” (35)
Among humans, what serves to pull individuals closer? Friendly touches, glances, gestures, behaviors. Even gifts and material symbols, such as gold wedding bands. But mostly talk. The vocalizations of Homo sapiens is less a means of raw information exchange. Rather, our nearly incessant talking is used primarily as a social tool, as a glue or elastic bonding,
Put a silk tie and a thousand dollar jacket on a male primate and you don’t get fully unique class of animal. Corporate ‘good old boys’ maintain their status quo — peace at the top — with such ‘evolved’ things as handshakes and by picking up the check after a meal. In his book Peacemaking Among Primate, Frans de Waal noted that while two high ranking males will not groom one another during times of conflict — when their social position is unsettled – they definitely do once positions have been established. (36)
In essence, powerful males groom each other to establish a working rapport, and perhaps a potential strategic alliance, while keeping an instinctive male antagonism at bay — so long as they are happy with their relative positions.
Closer to the base of a social power structure there is no less activity. What frequently appears to be the mere “scattershot expenditures of social energy,” including over-the-backyard-fence grade chit-chat, we discover an investment in peace, in social harmony.(37) Rubber band stuff.
Of course, while not fully so, our kind is unique. Human beings can be banded to not just other individuals and groups, but to ideas and causes, even when lacking persisting relationships sustaining these. Add this to the complexity of human social dynamics.
John 1:12 illustrates the point, perhaps in a transitional form:
[T]o those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God.
When does allegiance to a person become allegiance to the idea of a person and then to an idea stripped of any personification and obvious connection to a person? Good question. And how is this maintained? Stay tuned . . . .
—–
(31) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 173
(32) McCrew, W. C., The Cultured Chimpanzee: Reflections on Cultural Primatology, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2004, p. 134
(33) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 361
(34) Cheney, D. L., & Seyfarth, R. M. Baboon Metaphysics:The Evolution of a Social Mind, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 2007, p. 75
(35) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, 1999, p. 173
(36) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 18
(37) Wright, R., The Moral Animal: Evolutionary Psychology and Everyday Life, Vintage, NY, 1995 p. 221
[recycled material - first appeared here]
Human apes are intelligent. But they aren’t equally intelligent. While some can, say, learn a second and third language with relative ease, others never fully master their first. And while some have no difficulties mentally computing the volume of stale air in a doctor’s office, other’s need a handy, wallet-sized chart to help them determine how much to tip their waiter.
It is no great surprise, then, that new research into the cognitive abilities of another primate species, the cotton-top tamarin, has revealed that they, too, have individuals that sit in the front of the class and those that don’t know where the front of the class is. So to speak.
Testing for broad cognitive ability, the researchers identified high, middle, and low performing monkeys, determined by a general intelligence score. General intelligence, or “g,” is a hallmark of human cognition, often described as similar to IQ. The effect of “g” in primates may offer insight into the evolution of human general intelligence.
How did the researchers determine they had actually measured “general intelligence”? Good question. Here’s how:
Monkeys with higher “g” scores tended to outperform monkeys with lower scores across the various subtasks in the cognitive task battery.
In other words, individual monkeys that were fast at solving the banana-shaped Rubik’s Cube problem (I’m making this up) also tended to thwart their cohorts in the backgammon competition. Or something.
I wonder, is there such a thing as a brilliant butterfly? A dull goldfish?
Recent Comments