Those of you familiar with my An Almighty Alpha project are aware of my opinion that human beings are a primate species that shares innate, social instincts with the great apes. These instincts include a number that relate to social ordering, such as hierarchy and status. I've encountered two recent studies that, I believe, fail to take that insight into consideration. In doing so they overlook the chest of muscles beneath a more sophisticated yet superficial shirt. So to speak.
1. Why We Kick a Loser When He's Down.
FromWinning Makes People More Aggressive Toward the Defeated we learn,
A new study found that winners -- those who outperformed others on a competitive task -- acted more aggressively against the people they beat than the losers did against the victors.
"It seems that people have a tendency to stomp down on those they have defeated, to really rub it in," said Brad Bushman, co-author of the study and professor of communication and psychology at Ohio State University.
Hmm. To "really rub it in"? To me, the above reasoning runs hollow, if not off-track. In the animal world, after a heated battle, the dominant doesn't merely require the defeated to "cry uncle" and then the two walk away arm-in-arm as buddies who have just played a game of darts. In the animal kingdom, the dominant never lets up nor lets its guard down just after a heated battle. To do so would be . . . stupid. Status is serious business.
And for a loser to act aggressively toward to the victor . . . no, no, no, that is plain stupid. Unless of course you hold some sort of Freudian perspective in which emotional retaliation makes sense above all else. The stupidity holds true particularly if the loser and the victor are from the same social group, and wish to remain so. Instead, the loser needs to behave as if he or she has indeed lost and recognizes it. Otherwise, the loser risks continued aggression if not banishment from the group. Sure, at some other other time the loser my attempt to rise again. But to risk not only status but even group membership itself after a loss is a huge risk . . . to a social species.
The research authors note that,
. . . other research suggests that people are more aggressive when they feel powerful, as they may when they win a competition.
And that that I reply, "of course!" It would be insane for a 'loser' to act more aggressively after evidence that they are a weaker. In a sense, to aggress is to attempt to move up (or protect one's one position). To do this post-loss is not so smart. After a victory, well, maybe you are that strong!
2. Why the Spiritual Realm is "Up."
In my Almighty Alpha book-in-project I wrote a post, "Why Godliness is Up." In it I explored this question:
Could a hominid feel reverent about a deity beneath its feet? Or is something underfoot too easy to dominate, too easy to put under one’s heel and perhaps snuff out?
Why is the spiritual realm generally considered to be above our heads? Because we love the blue sky and twinkling stars? I don't think so. We tend to project the abode of "something greater" in the same direction as the verified geometrical relationship between the average lower-level manager and the corporate CEO. As much research into human behavior has shown, if you are tall, people instinctively view you as somehow greater.
In the clichéd version of a plebe meeting a spiritual guru, the guru sits tranquilly atop a mountain while the plebe struggles to ascend to that level. Whether or not the guru is a material entity or an imagined force. And so I found it curious that the science article,Why revelations have occurred on mountains? Linking mystical experiences and cognitive neuroscience, made no mention of that relationship -- the "moving up means encountering the more powerful" element. Instead I read,
Prolonged stay at high altitudes, especially in social deprivation, may also lead to prefrontal lobe dysfunctions such as low resistance to stress and loss of inhibition. Based on these phenomenological, functional, and neural findings we suggest that exposure to altitudes might contribute to the induction of revelation experiences and might further our understanding of the mountain metaphor in religion.
Sure, slight oxygen deprivation might do funny things to the brain. But why climb the mountain in the first place? My answer: to move up. To brush elbows with the greats. To "hear them," and to elevate one's opinions in the eyes of those who have never ascended that high.
Maybe.
Perhaps I've just been reading too much about chimpanzee behavior. And thinking that were I covered with fur, I might look at a gorilla and think, "Oh look, there goes my distant cousin!"
The threshing floors will be filled with grain; the vats will overflow with new wine and oil. (Joel 2:24)
To promise an abundance of food, there must either be a preexisting surplus to command, or a power capable of generating it. The successful alpha will become known for providing sustenance, whether the instances under its control occurred at in a statistically significant manner (vs. chance levels), or if the instances were beyond its control and merely rubber-stamped with its name.
As mentioned previously, the first food alphas were likely cousin primates such as the chimpanzee. Individual males are capable of controlling the sharing of meat, even when they don't catch it themselves. They merely commandeer it from lower-status individuals. Then they share the meat they now possess.(11) Other chimps gather round to beg.
In his book on the evolution of primate behavior, Christopher Boehm lends his support to the idea that political clout originated in the hunting of large game and the valued surplus it provided the entire group by way of sharing.(12) To the entire group go the spoils, but to the disperser (if not the provider) goes the prestige.
For a god to be given ultimate responsibility for bounty is a clever way for that agent to maintain a respected place in the group. On a individual level it can also make psychological sense in terms of the perception of control. If you want and need something, and perceived control is small--uncertainty thus large--it is comforting to be able to do something that increases one's perception of control. Need rain? Try prayer: do some quasi-begging to the mighty force above. As a brief tangent here, it is no surprise that in an arid land of unpredictable rains, a god would get the nod for providing it. There are dozens of verses in the Bible mentioning this aspect of worship. My guess is that a god of the rainforest would not have the same quality.
For this is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: "The jar of flour will not be used up and the jug of oil will not run dry until the day the LORD gives rain on the land." (1 Kings 17:14)
Of course, it does not make sense to the human being's social brain to get something for nothing. And so individuals cannot pray and pray alone to feel deserving of receiving their desired something. They must also believe, they must follow, they must behave according to group standards, they must be loyal. Not coincidentally, this provides real benefits to the group. Which a god serves.
If you are willing and obedient, you will eat the best from the land; but if you resist and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword." For the mouth of the LORD has spoken. (Isaiah 1:19-20)
"If" indeed.
The terms I commanded your forefathers when I brought them out of Egypt, out of the iron-smelting furnace.' I said, 'Obey me and do everything I command you, and you will be my people, and I will be your God. Then I will fulfill the oath I swore to your forefathers, to give them a land flowing with milk and honey'-the land you possess today." I answered, "Amen, LORD." (Jeremiah 11:4-5)
A land 'flowing' with milk and honey? Talk about bounty! To those within the near reach of hunger, why wouldn't you feel full of thanks? Religion directs those thankful feelings to a supernatural agent, to a social innovation that helps unite and stabilize a social group.
---
(11) McGrew, W. C., Marchant, L. F. & Nishida, T., Great Ape Societies, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996, p. 127
(12) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p. 62
“Eventually Mike [a chimpanzee] calmed down and became a benign alpha. He was exceptionally generous in sharing meat.” (4)
Whenever the day came for Elkanah to sacrifice, he would give portions of the meat to his wife Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters. (1 Samuel 1:4-5)
The human being is an animal. Like our close relative, the chimpanzee, we engage in meat sharing. And like other primates, when hungry we will beg for a share.
“Ape beggars hold out their hand, palm upward, very much as human beggars do on the street.”(5)
If you don't have enough food, you can ask for more. Whom do you ask? An agent who has more or has control of 'more.'
Everything that lives and moves will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything. (Genesis 9:3)
Besides being essential to survival, and perhaps because of it, food is a commodity. It can be traded up front, such as when male chimpanzees will give meat to fertile females in exchange for "access."(6) A gift of food can also be used to invest in a future return on that investment. You give food to 'get on the good side' of another. Which means in the future you will be treated favorably.
While other apes show only a rudimentary ability to plant seeds of favor with food gifts, human beings excel at this. Consider the historically widespread practice of making food gifts to deities. Or, in a more everyday sense, we have the custom of bringing a bottle of wine or some other treat to the house of a party host, as hosts sometimes give departing guests a little something to take with them.
Beyond parent and dependent child relationships, food sharing is actually quite rare in the wild. Among chimpanzees it is the exception rather than the rule.(7) Give food to another . . . why? The social payoff must be greater than the immediate nutritional benefit. And this explains why food sharing is much more common among humans. It isn't just a case of human nature, but of human food production as well. Put briefly, where there is surplus, the immediate value of a food resource diminishes, increasing the value of potential trade.
When we think of food surplus, we tend to think of crops, of agricultural production. Yet perhaps there is a more ancient type. The finding or felling of a large animal also provides a surplus of food. What individual could eat a whole antelope itself? With the successful hunt of a large animal, we have surplus, at least in the near term. That immediate surplus plays no small role in food sharing. Christopher Boehm has noted that among human groups of hunter-gatherers:
“Large game is shared by the entire band, and the resulting prestige lends itself to political ascendancy.”(8)
The prestige, of course, goes to the provider of the rare and rich food resource. The new, the scarce -- the exciting -- why wouldn't others be interested and eager to have some? Jane Goodall has recounted many an observation in which one "brave" individual chimpanzee steals something from the human camp, and other chimps gather round for a share of the novel item. Filched pieces of cardboard and an entire wool sweater proved particularly appealing to chimpanzees, who seemed to appraise their value by chewing and sucking on them.(9)
Of course, the more individuals you can impress, the greater the impact on your prestige. In the Old Testament, Elisha feeds a hundred men with "twenty loaves of barley bread baked from the first ripe grain along with some heads of new grain." (2 Kings 4: 42-43) Later in the Bible, Jesus ups the ante and prestige factor by feeding . . . FOUR THOUSAND! with a mere seven loaves (Matthew 15:36-38). That's one huge piece of cardboard.
In today’s relatively affluent communities, food is not scarce, nor is it a readily threatened resource. With local Albertson’s and Publix supermarkets, the idea of god as the deliverer of food has become more metaphorical -- he provides food for the soul -- if not outright quaint.
But the old time gods, they created the world and the world was the source of all sustenance. As this verse about the Egyptian god Ra tells:
You place every man in his place,
You make what they need,
So every one has his food,
His lifespan counted. (10)
Roughly two thousand years later we find verses like this from a nearby part of the world:
I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. (Genesis 1:29)
Yet who gets their food directly from the land today? Thanks to the world economy, local droughts don't cause the same level of religion-enflaming concern they once did. No rain for weeks? There may be water use restrictions enacted. Can't do the regular washing of your car. Lawns may die. But hunger? Most of the time, it is droughts in other parts of the world that will impact the consumer. In terms of higher prices, which is not quite life-threatening.
It then seems that many verses in the Bible were addressed to farmers.
Then I will send rain on your land in its season, both autumn and spring rains, so that you may gather in your grain, new wine and oil. I will provide grass in the fields for your cattle, and you will eat and be satisfied. (Deuteronomy 11:14-15)
So few people today have gardens, particularly gardens they depend upon to feed their families. And so, again, while they may relate to the following Bible passages in a superficial fashion, I suspect they don't relate to it as deeply as subsistence farmers would.
Isaac planted crops in that land and the same year reaped a hundredfold, because the LORD blessed him. (Genesis 26:12)
As to why a mythical agent would promise his people rain bountiful crops -- this is because he speaks to the primate mind. The chimpanzee who shares food does not do so arbitrarily. He or she is much more inclined to share with family, individuals of 'shared' blood. Then come friends -- members of the extended, pseudo-blood group. Finally, chimps will share food as a commodity of trade. Implicit with a gift is indebtedness, of favor owed. When you fail to act favorably toward the gift provider, you will fail to receive future gifts.
If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees of the field their fruit. (Leviticus 26:3-4)
Follow his decrees. Why? That will maintain social order, an order advantageous to him. Praise him. Why? That will help him maintain his social position. At the top. If you have a friend in that agent at the highest place, you will benefit.
---
(4) Goodall, J. The Chimpanzees of the Gombe: Patterns of Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, p. 75
(5) de Waal, F. Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are, New York, Riverhead Books, 2005, p. 197
(6) Jolly, A. Lucy’s Legacy, 1999, p. 173
(7) de Waal, F. Peacemaking Among Primates, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1989, p. 209
(8) Boehm, C., Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 1999, p.7
(9) Goodall, J., My Friends the Wild Chimpanzees, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C., 1967.
(10) Quirke, S. The Cult of Ra: Sun-Worship in Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson, New York, 2001, p. 161
[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]
[cartoon thanks to jesusandmo.net]
[cartoon thanks to treelobsters.com]
Why do alpha males tend to be keepers of the garden?
Before answering that question, let me explain what I mean by ‘keepers of the garden.’ No primate species but one will cultivate and tend a garden. Yet many if not most will defend a territory -- not because they win Monopoly money for doing so, but because any territory worth defending contains gardens of the naturally occurring sort. Food sources.
Dominant males are also keepers because they fight not to lose what they have. Lastly, our own species qualifies as keepers in terms of tending to it in order to insure and optimize food production. In this regard females play a significant role, the size and importance of that role depending upon the particular culture.
Why do males tend to be 'keepers'? Male primates tend to be larger and stronger. Which makes for a good defender. Additionally, males are more expendable. Evolutionary speaking. If you lose a female, you lose more than one individual. You also endanger if not lose dependent children, as well as lose the potential production of more offspring. The social group that has 5 females to every male will grow more quickly than will the opposite. To put it bluntly, wombs are limited resources. In contrast, as a naturalist friend of mine put it, "sperm is cheap."
Why alpha’s? In terms of physical power and aggressiveness, alphas tend to be "at the top." Perhaps more importantly, in terms of social power, they are definitely at the top of the heap. They are more likely to have others follow them and thereby multiply the muscle available for a task. Indeed, as Jane Goodall and others have documented, dominant males tend to take the lead in defending a "feeding territory for all members."(1)
But why would a territory need to defending? Because resources equate to survival. They are valued for a reason. And can be stolen. As evidenced by these . . . Bible verses [emphasis added].
The sons of Jacob came upon the dead bodies and looted the city where their sister had been defiled. They seized their flocks and herds and donkeys and everything else of theirs in the city and out in the fields. They carried off all their wealth and all their women and children, taking as plunder everything in the houses. (Genesis 34:27-29)
So the LORD our God also gave into our hands Og king of Bashan and all his army. We struck them down, leaving no survivors. At that time we took all his cities. There was not one of the sixty cities that we did not take from them—the whole region of Argob, Og's kingdom in Bashan. All these cities were fortified with high walls and with gates and bars, and there were also a great many unwalled villages. We completely destroyed them, as we had done with Sihon king of Heshbon, destroying every city—men, women and children. But all the livestock and the plunder from their cities we carried off for ourselves. (Deuteronomy 3:3-7)
Gardens need to be protected from vandals and other threats. Yet can you protect a garden from plagues and drought? Well, you can try. And when it comes to food, to not do everything in your power to protect it -- that would be crazy. So maybe the many Bible verses that evidence attempts at assuring a healthy garden -- while they are misguided -- are not so crazy.
Let us fear the LORD our God, who gives autumn and spring rains in season, who assures us of the regular weeks of harvest. (Jeremiah 5:24)
What brings the rains that nourish your garden? If your understanding of nature is rudimentary and/or you have a hyperactive tendency to attribute events to the work of agents (related to the theorized human HADD - hyperactive agency detection device (2)).
Of course, a great leader-god gets credit for the good, because he is loving and/or pleased with his people. So be sure to please him. Refrain from behavior that could anger him. But when plagues strike, when rains don't come and plants wither, this is also a god's doing. But the bad does not reflect poorly on his nature. Rather, a bad turn of events will be attributed to a people's bad actions, which provoked their god. Just ask Pat Robertson. This renown preacher from a more modern age informed people that the reason for the hurricane of 2005 that wrecked havoc on the city of New Orleans -- bringing way too much of those nurturing rains -- was that people had sinned. The nation had been too soft on the issue of abortion.(3)
A productive garden must be nurtured. And protected. This is why religion speaks to the issue so often. Food is indeed sacred -- though in a fully mundane, evolutionary way.
---
(1) de Waal, F. B. M., (ed.), Tree of Origin: What Primate Behavior Can Tell Us About Human Social Evolution, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA, 2001, p. 19
(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology_of_religion
(3) http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1953778_1953776_1953771,00.html
Recent Comments