Our Ancestors’ societies were Divided & Ruled by personality, intelligence, sex, age, physique, but they lacked 3rd party mediation by gods, and chiefs, and kings, and big brains [on Coronation Day]
Written by Jane Goodall
Intelligence and Rationality
In a recent article Mason (1982) lists some of the major characteristics of intelligent behavior per se: the ability to respond differentially to a large variety of objects and events; the tendency to modify existing knowledge in light of changing circumstances; a diversity of motives and goals; the use of variable and often indirect means to relate what is known to what is wanted. Mason concludes his list with the comment,
“Evidence of planning, of foresight, of the ability to establish and work towards subgoals, to single out the essential features that define a problem, are the epitome of intelligence.”
This list might have been drawn up to characterize chimpanzee behavior.
Stenhouse (1973) earlier defined intelligent behavior as “that which is adaptively variable within the lifetime of the individual,” and intelligence as the “capacity for intelligent behavior.” By contrast with instinctive behavior, which is fixed and rigid, intelligent behavior is flexible and adaptable. It is possible to learn a nonadaptive behavior but, by definition, an intelligent act cannot be nonadaptive—which is not to say that an intelligent being cannot perform unintelligent actions. Stenhouse’s four-factor theory of the evolution of intelligence postulates that the oldest factor, phylogenetically, is that responsible for sensory-motor control, or efficiency. Next, the central memory store and a factor for abstracting and generalizing information may have evolved more or less simultaneously. Last, and most recently developed, a withholding factor allows an animal to refrain from responding “instinctively” to a given stimulus; an alternative response can then be performed, which may be more adaptive. …
… Humans, of course, are not merely “clever”; we are a rational species. Rationality combines cleverness—“calculating power, the sort of thing that can be measured by intelligence tests”—and integration—having “a firm and effective priority system . . . based on feeling” (Midgley, 1978). Fletcher (1966) makes the same point when he argues that the level of intelligence shown by an individual should not only be taken to mean “the relatively unalterable capacity of the specifically cognitive, conscious, thought-processes” but also the “state of organization of his personality as a whole.” Often, of course, as both Midgley and Fletcher point out, the two go hand in hand. But “intellectuals” sometimes behave in a very irrational way, whereas others, quite unable to solve complex cognitive problems, may be endowed with “sound common sense” (a judgment usually passed only when the priority system of the individual concerned happens to agree with one’s own).
The structure of preferences in which our rationality is embedded is not peculiar to humans but is found also in the higher animals. A chimpanzee who can, without difficulty, solve a complex series of discrimination problems, but who cannot respond appropriately to the challenge of a bigger, stronger male, would not do very well in the natural habitat. …
… Midgley (1978) concludes her discussion on animal and human rationality with these words, “What is special about people is their power of understanding what is going on and using that understanding to regulate it” (italics added). But is this so special to humans? The Premacks’ young chimpanzees were able to distinguish between the behavior of generous and selfish humans and adjust their course of action accordingly. Sarah [chimp] certainly comprehended the problems faced by human actors, and she was able to regulate, in theory, the outcome of those problems. Indeed, we might almost say that she indulged in wishful thinking in her repeated choice of the picture illustrating the disliked Bill sprawled beneath cement blocks.
It has become increasingly obvious over the past decade that man does not stand in isolated splendor, separated from the beasts by an unbridgeable chasm. One by one the attributes that supposedly placed him in this exalted position have been shown to exist in “lowlier” forms of life. The slow march of evolution has progressed with measured strides from cockroach to monkey, monkey to ape, ape to man. Nonetheless, even if we differ from chimpanzees not in kind, but only in degree, it is still an overwhelmingly large degree. This we should not forget. As Yerkes (1943) wrote,
“The ape is at the beginning of a road on which man has advanced far”.
Who’s Who
Figan was first recognized in 1961 when he was a juvenile keeping company with his old mother, Flo, and his younger sister, Fifi. All three first came to camp in 1962. The following year Faben, Figan’s presumed elder brother, also began visiting camp with the rest of the family. Figan was to become alpha male in his early twenties and even as a youngster showed signs of the qualities that would take him to the top of the male hierarchy. He was always quick to take advantage of temporary ill health in one of the older males. He even seized the opportunity to challenge Faben when his elder brother was stricken by polio in 1966. He successfully intimidated him, and remained the higher-ranking brother from then on. As he began to challenge the senior males in earnest from 1970 on, he showed increasing skill in the timing and placing of his displays. Figan had the advantage, too, of close supportive relationships with members of his family. Flo was high ranking during his early adolescence and helped him win victories over other young males. And, having dominated his elder brother, he gradually built a close alliance with him that would be crucial to his acquisition of alpha status. Without Faben’s active support Figan probably could not have seized the top position from the much heavier and more aggressive Humphrey in 1972. Figan had to overcome the slightly older Evered also, which he did with Faben’s unswerving help. As described in Evered’s biography, the two brothers repeatedly displayed at Evered, some times attacking him severely, until their rival was to some extent driven from the center of the community range. Figan had a very excitable temperament and during tense social situations sometimes became so worked up that he would start to scream and would rush to mount or embrace a nearby companion for reassurance. Sometimes he clutched his own genitals in moments of stress. These behaviors seemed to indicate a lack of self-confidence, and many of the observers at Gombe felt that Figan would never make it to the top. Clearly, however, his high motivation and un doubted intelligence were sufficient to overcome this apparent failing.
… Flo was a high-ranking, aggressive female in the early ’60s, and there can be no doubt that her status ,and personality were strong factors in the rise to power of her son Figan, and in Fifi’s present high rank. Probably because of her extreme age, Flo failed in her maternal care of her last two offspring, Flint and infant Flame. Flame disappeared when Flo was very ill, unable even to climb a tree for the night. She recovered, but seemed to have insufficient strength to enforce the independence of juvenile Flint. She continued to give in to his demands to sleep with her at night and to ride her back like an infant, until he was eight and a half years old. When she died in 1972, Flint was unable to cope and in a state of depression fell sick and died himself. …
Changes over the Life Cycle
A little more detail on this subject will serve to emphasize the difference between the sexes.
The male. The extent to which a male of eight years old or less associates with individuals outside his immediate family circle depends largely on the personality and sociability of his mother. True, the child can in a limited way extend periods of association with other families (by refusing to follow his mother when she leaves), but it is the frequency with which she joins others that is the significant factor. …
The female. The early social experiences of the infant and juvenile female also depend on the sociability and personality of the mother. Like her male counterpart, the female child can, to some extent, prolong contact with other family units. However, as a juvenile and early adolescent she does not exhibit the eagerness to participate in gatherings that we have observed in the young male—not until she enters late adolescence at about ten years of age.
… The nature of the society into which he is born inevitably has a marked influence on the development of an infant. The age, rank, and personality of the mother is crucial to certain aspects of infant socialization in all primate groups.
For the chimpanzee youngster, other highly significant factors are the extent to which his mother is social or asocial and, far more than for infants of other species, his position in the family. A firstborn with an asocial mother may spend hour upon hour with only his parent for company. Thus her personality (affectionate or brusque, restrictive or permissive, playful or serious) plays a uniquely important role in his development.
8. Relationships [and Personality]
… The chimpanzees of Gombe have been studied for a quarter of a century.
We have watched youngsters mature and mature individuals grow old. We have noted the pronounced individual variation in behavior that gives each chimpanzee his or her unique personality.
And we have observed and recorded literally thousands of interactions between hundreds of dyads. We can turn now to this wealth of data and search for rules underlying the development of different kinds of relationships between different individuals. …
[MGH: my selections only]
Competitive—between individuals of any age and either sex, during periods when they are competing for status. This sort of relationship is most obvious between pairs of adult males, one of whom is striving to better and the other to maintain his social rank; and between an adolescent male and adult females, during his struggle to dominate them. Sometimes a similar relationship develops between an adoles cent female and some of the older females. Competitive relationships are also evident among infants or juveniles of similar age, particularly males; they are expressed in the frequency with which play bouts lead to aggressive incidents. Other individuals are often drawn into com petitive interactions as coalition partners of one or both of the con testants.
There often comes a point when a relationship between males be comes ambiguous and tense, usually just after a reversal in dominance has taken place. At this stage the individuals concerned may show high levels of both aggressive and friendly behavior. Once the two have adjusted to their new relative positions, the relationship, whether it is basically friendly or unfriendly, stabilizes.
Hostile—characterized by very high levels of aggression, usually in one direction, and by fear and avoidance on the part of the subordinate. Resident females, for instance, are hostile toward new immi grant females. In its extreme form hostility can lead to death, as when adult males attack individuals of a neighboring community. …
… One final point. It has become increasingly clear that while a change in the frequency of interactions between two individuals often indicates a change in their relationship, frequency per se is not a useful measure. When two individuals interact very little, it can mean either that their relationship is hostile and one avoids the other, or that they are very relaxed and tolerant of each other and have no need to interact frequently. Menzel (1975) describes pairs of chimpanzees who virtually never groomed or played and were not often seen in physical contact; yet they were seldom more than 9 meters apart and defended each other in fights. …
… A characteristic shared by most male chimpanzees is the preoccupation, from adolescence on, with maintaining and bettering their social rank, and many of their interactions are devoted to this end.
Change in the relative dominance rank affects not only the type of relationship between two males, but also the extent to which they associate. Figure 8.1 depicts variations in the amount of time that Figan spent with other adult males over an eight-year period. Males who were with him for less than 10 percent of the total number of target hours per year have not been included. The figure shows how Figan’s associations altered in relation to the events described in the Commentary [omitted]. The death of his brother Faben led to a change in Figan’s social status, which resulted after a few months in an increase of association with Humphrey and, subsequently, Jomeo. The marked decrease in his association with Goblin from 1979 on mirrors the intense hostility that developed between them, just as the gradual increase in time spent with Evered from 1976 on reflects the ending of their period of enmity. The amount of time that Figan and Satan spent together fluctuated considerably. From 1976 until Goblin’s challenge in 1979, Satan was the most serious contender for the alpha position. The relationship between Figan and Satan was tense, and this probably explains the yearly fluctuations in their association.
12. Aggression
… In order to investigate why chimpanzees are aggressive, it is necessary to delve into successively deeper levels of behavior. At one level—the immediate cause—an act of aggression is sometimes easy to understand: A tries to snatch B’s fruit; B attacks A. This is a simple case of competition for food. But why didn’t B attack A when A snatched B’s fruit yesterday? Why didn’t B attack I, who is the same sex and age as A, when D took B’s fruit? Why did E, who is the same sex and age as B only threaten A when A snatched E’s fruit?
It is when we ask why the same individual behaves differentially on different occasions, or why different individuals respond differentially to the same situation, that the investigation becomes more complex— and more interesting.
Each chimpanzee has his or her unique set of genetic and environmentally acquired characteristics, which combine to create a calmer or more fearful—or more aggressive—personality.
… An event that occurred in the recent past, such as winning or losing a major fight, can have a temporary or permanent effect on the aggressiveness of an individual. Moreover, a number of environmental factors—ecological (the weather) and social (the number of chimpanzees present)—will affect the behavior of all individuals, making it more or less likely that they will become aggressive in a given situation. …
Immediate Causes
The emotions that give rise to acts of aggression appear to range from mild irritation and annoyance to extremes of rage and hostility. Fear may also serve to trigger acts of aggression. Table 12.1 [above] lists the kinds of situation most likely to lead to aggressive responses of threat or attack among the Gombe chimpanzees. …
… Punishment, Retaliation, and Challenging
Aggression can be triggered during any interaction between two individuals when a conflict of interests is involved: in males competing for mating rights or meat; in females squabbling over food; in youngsters wanting to nurse during weaning, or competing with each other for the opportunity to play with an infant. The aggression may be labeled punitive or coercive when it is directed by a dominant to a subordinate, retaliatory or challenging when the subordinate is the aggressor. Retaliatory aggression may be directed away from the more dominant individual, who (by his actions) caused the aggressive feelings, onto a subordinate scapegoat.
Punishment and coercion
By means of a direct threat or attack, a dominant individual can express disapproval of a subordinate’s behavior. If, for example, B, because he wants a share of A’s food, continues to approach despite A’s bristling hair, A may threaten or attack. Or if B does not move away from a feeding site when A approaches with the obvious intention of taking it over, A may also react aggressively.
There are many times when a subordinate ignores or fails to comply with a specific request or demand by a superior. Coercive aggression may result when the superior, by means of threats or attacks, tries to enforce his wishes. Thus a male may repeatedly display around and eventually attack a female who does not respond correctly (with the crouch-present) to his courtship gestures. He may continue these tactics until she submits. When a female refuses to follow a male at the start of a consortship, the result, as we shall see, may be a particularly severe level 3 attack.
B’s behavior in the above examples may be viewed as explicit “disobedience,” for which he (or she) has been “punished” by A. Implicit disobedience, too, is punished. When a high-ranking male is showing possessive behavior toward a female in estrus and a subordinate male attempts a clandestine copulation, either the male or (more likely) the female may be attacked. A female who replies to calls of other males when her consort male has been trying to lead her (secretively) away may also be punished. …
… Hebb (1945) and de Waal and Hoekstra (1980) have described the deliberate “teasing” of superiors, which led to aggressive punishments. At the Arnhem colony juveniles often approached older individuals who were sitting quietly and threw sand or sticks at them while stamping noisily on the ground. This was one of the most common causes of aggression in the adult females there. At Gombe, youngsters between three and five years of age sometimes dangle above resting adults and kick at their heads and shoulders; often this leads to annoyed threats, particularly from some of the adult males.
There are many occasions when a subordinate inadvertently bothers or startles a superior. Kohler (1925) was the first to describe noisy social disturbance as a cause of aggression in chimpanzees. Commenting on the behavior of his oldest animal, he wrote: “All her life, peace was Tschego’s essential need. When a noisy quarrel broke out among the other animals and came near her, she always grew angry, sprang up, stamped her foot, and struck out with her arms at the disturbers of her peace.” If one of the others came too close, she would seize one of his hands and give it a hard bite. At Gombe youngsters who bump into—or fall onto—individuals who are peacefully resting nearby may be punished. Noisy submissive behavior, particularly the frenzied pant-barking and bobbing of an adolescent male toward his senior, can also provoke an irritable aggressive response.
Retaliation
There are, of course, many occasions when a subordinate becomes annoyed or enraged by the behavior of a superior. At such times he may direct threatening calls and gestures at the aggressor—but usually only when he judges the distance between them great enough for him to do so with impunity. Females and youngsters often behave thus after being attacked by adult males; they rush up trees, give “defiant” waa-barks, and flap with their hands from the safety of the branches. An adult male, after being attacked, may charge after the higher-ranked aggressor, uttering tantrum screams and slapping at the ground in obvious rage. But if his superior stops and turns toward him, he will usually stop chasing immediately. …
… Challenging
The aggression we have considered thus far is that caused by particular activities of other individuals that directly conflict with the needs or desires of the aggressor, or that are aroused by aggression directed toward him. There are other aggressive acts that appear to be elicited in A by the mere presence of another individual, B—what B happens to be doing at the time plays no part in triggering A’s aggression. This pattern was commonly observed in the Arnhem colony, where a male would approach his “prospective opponent from a distance without any apparent relation to the latter’s present be havior” (de Waal and Hoekstra, 1980, p. 932). The sight of B does not always elicit an aggressive response from A, but it does on many occasions and in many different contexts. Often an aggressive incident of this sort starts during a period of social excitement, particularly during reunions and arrival at food sources. At other times the aggression begins when B is sitting peacefully minding his own business. In the Arnhem colony there were occasions when an aggressor “quietly and menacingly prepared himself for the encounter by searching for a stick or a heavy stone,” even when his opponent was out of sight (ibid.).
Because A’s aggressive impulse on these occasions is not obviously correlated with changes in B’s behavior or in the environment, we can assume that it is due to a change that has taken place internally, and that this change has been brought about by B’s seen or known presence. To put it very simply, the sight or thought of B, at that particular moment, puts A in an “aggressive mood.” One could probe deeper and search for reasons that make A feel aggressive at one time and not another; to do this, it would be necessary to monitor A’s behavior for long periods in order to evaluate the various factors that might influence his mood.
Almost all of the aggression that falls into this category is initiated by an individual who occupies a position just below B in social rank. It is important to reemphasize that these are not just isolated incidents: A does not direct aggression toward B just once, but many times and in many contexts. It is obvious that A is actively challenging B. Aggression of this sort, which appears to be motivated on A’s part by a desire to intimidate B, almost always leads in the long term (sometimes after countless such incidents) to a reversal in dominance rank between A and B. Once this reversal has taken place, the relationship tends to become more relaxed. But a young or low-rank ing male, working his way up the hierarchy, will for some time be unable to dominate pairs (or larger numbers) of the senior males when they are together—even if he can intimidate each of them when they are on their own. Just as the mere presence of a single rival, ranking slightly above A, may trigger an aggressive conflict, so may the mere presence of two or more senior males. At Gombe two individuals in particular disrupted pairs or peaceful groups of senior males again and again with vigorous displays. These were Mike and Goblin. Mike, during his struggle for the alpha position, sometimes displayed directly toward groups of up to ten males, most of whom ranked higher than he did. Because he enhanced these displays with noisy empty kerosene cans, the others were easily intimidated. They scattered, and often after a while would gather around Mike and groom him. When Goblin, in his turn, displayed toward two or more senior males, coalitions against him were a frequent result, and often he was at tacked. But eventually, through persistent repetition of these aggressive tactics, he, like Mike, was able to assume the top-ranking position.
Even after one male has unequivocally dominated another, he may from time to time challenge him, with displays or actual attacks, for no obvious reason—especially during a reunion. Alpha males in particular often cause confusion as they charge through peacefully resting groups, sometimes hitting or mildly attacking a senior male in the process. This aggressive behavior may be interpreted as a strategy for reemphasizing and thus maintaining high rank.
The “desire” to dominate is, in fact, one of the most common causes of aggression among adult males at Gombe. Because it occurs in so many contexts, however, and because of the absence of specific eliciting causes, it is not always easy to define.
While many of the conflicts involve intimidation tactics only, they can lead to quite serious fight ing. Adolescent males challenge adult females in this way as they begin their long struggle to subordinate them before turning their attention to the lower ranking of the adult males.
There is, too, a certain amount of competition for social rank among females at Gombe but, as will become apparent, it is very infrequent in comparison with competition between males.
Intervention in the Affairs of Others
Sometimes as a chimpanzee watches an interaction between two or more others, he hurries over and intervenes or joins in aggressively. If the context is agonistic, this action may be in response to an appeal for help by one of the interactants. Or it may be simply the nature of the interaction and the identity of the participants that prompt his behavior. Such interference may be divided into intervention in interactions that are friendly in nature (including sexual) and those that are aggressive.
… To protect
A mother invariably rushes to rescue her infant—and often her older offspring, too—whenvshe sees that the child is being intimidated or hurt by another individual. Often this intervention is a response to a direct appeal for help. If the distress of an infant is due to real danger—as when an adult male is displaying with the youngster—the aggressive, defensive response of the mother (who will leap at and attack the male no matter what his rank) is undoubtedly compounded by feelings of fear. Probably they are feelings similar to those aroused when she herself is in danger. On other occasions, when the individual hurting or frightening her child is less intimidating to the mother (such as when an older youngster is being overly ag gressive in play), her aggression may be more an expression of annoyance.
There are many examples of active intervention by adults and young alike when the victim of a fight is a close family member. Infants may hurl themselves at adult males who are attacking their mothers or siblings. And even nonrelated individuals, of any age and either sex, are likely to rush to try to protect an infant in serious trouble, directing threatening behaviors toward the cause of the distress. ….
… To support a friend or ally
In many instances an individual A will hasten to the support of ally C during a conflict between C and a third party B. Here again the aggressive intervention may be prompted by an appeal for help—when, for example, A’s ally C is subordinate to B. As a result of the intervention, A and C together may be able to turn the tables on B, even if B ranks above each of them on a one-to-one basis.
At other times A joins the conflict between B and C even when ally C is dominant to B and clearly winning the fight before A joins in: A’s participation merely adds emphasis to C’s victory. Interventions of this sort may be motivated by a desire to help ally C, or by a desire to conclusively intimidate B, when B is a rival. (And, whether ally C is winning or losing the fight, A’s support will function to strengthen their coalition relationship.)
… To attack a rival opportunistically
Sometimes an individual seizes the opportunity provided by an ingoing conflict to rush up and hit or stamp on a rival B, at a time when B is fully occupied and unlikely, therefore, to retaliate. The rival may be the winner—as when Satan rushed up and stamped on Goblin a few times as the latter attacked an adolescent male. (Satan at the time was being subjected to repeated challenges by the younger Goblin.) Or the rival may be the loser—as when, in the Arnhem colony, a subordinate female "helped” the alpha male against her high-ranking rival (de Waal and Hoekstra, 1980). In these cases the interventions may be viewed as “sneaky” challenges.
… To stop the aggression
Sometimes an individual who ranks higher than both participants may charge toward, threaten, or mildly hit one or both of them, thereby ending the incident. This sort of intervention, sometimes called impartial “policing” (Kurland, 1977), occurs most often at Gombe when a male displays toward two females who are fighting or squabbling, thereby ending their dispute. A higher-ranking male may break up an attack by a lower-ranking male on a female. And a mother sometimes intervenes in a noisy dispute between her offspring, with threats or slaps directed impartially at either or both. The motivation underlying these interventions is not yet clear. The arbiter may dislike the disturbance and act to stop it. Or he may act from feelings of protectiveness toward both of the combatants. Or, perhaps, he may seize the opportunity to assert his rank by impressing any individuals who happen to be watching. …
… Young adult males in a number of primate species may actually seek out aggressive encounters (at least with neighbors)... [for enjoyment value, ref. to human studies]
… Fear of the Unfamiliar
In a few rare instances we have observed aggressive acts that are directed toward victims who, by their abnormal behavior, appear to frighten the aggressors. The most notable examples took place during the 1966 polio epidemic when, as described, three individuals became partially paralyzed and as a result developed bizarre movements. When the other chimpanzees saw these cripples for the first time, they reacted with extreme fear; as their fear decreased, their behavior became increasingly aggressive, and many of them displayed toward and even hit the victims. When adult male Rix fell from a tree and broke his neck, group members showed intense excitement and anxiety, displayed around the dead body, and threw stones at it; they also directed many aggressive acts at each other. ….
There are other aggressive responses that may also stem from feelings of aversion following fear, such as those directed toward some creatures of different species (pythons, for example), which will be described in a later section.
The sight of “stranger” conspecifics from neighboring communities may elicit feelings of fear, particularly when the strangers are adult males.
Chimpanzees typically show fearful behavior when they travel in the unsafe peripheral zones of their community range, startling at the sound of a twig breaking or at a sudden rustle in the undergrowth. Obviously they are well aware of the danger inherent in a surprise encounter with a strong group of hostile neighboring males. When patrolling individuals return to the “safe” area of the home range after a long period of stealthy travel, they sometimes engage in a series of vigorous charging displays, hurling rocks and branches and sometimes attacking subordinate scapegoats. Such performances may well serve as outlets for tensions built up during travel in the danger zone.
15. Dominance
The actual postures and gestures displayed, and their intensity, depend on the age, sex, personality, relative status, and state of arousal of the individual concerned. De Waal (1978, 1982) and Bygott (1979) found, when they analyzed patterns of dominance in chimpanzees, that the pant-grunt (de Waal’s rapid ohoh) was the best indicator of relative status. … Presenting and crouching are also indicators of relative status, particularly among adult males. The soft bark of mild threat, uttered by confident individuals, is a call that is directed only down the hierarchy.
In chimpanzee society in the wild, males are the dominant sex. A normally healthy adult male is able to dominate all the females of his community, even when a number of them are together.
In some captive situations, coalitions of females can put fully grown males to flight but this almost never happens in the wild, either at Gombe or at Mahale. …
… Figure 15.2 [omitted] shows the rise and fall in the dominance hierarchy of nine adult males, plotted by age. The males were ranked, on the basis of directionality of pant-grunts, within Bygott’s hierarchy of levels: first and second positions are distinguished, and approximate positions within high-, middle-, and low-ranking classes. The figure suggests that although there is much individual variation, males tend to reach their zenith in the hierarchy between age twenty and twenty-six years; the median for six males was twenty-two years. Goblin, who reached top status on a one-to-one basis at the age of fourteen, was exceptional, and his case will be discussed in some detail [MGH: I will check the reasons for this, was it charisma or outstanding cleverness, or strength?]. Before the community split it was much harder for young males to work their way up the hierarchy because there were twice as many senior males to defeat before they could reach a high position.
Once a male reaches about thirty years of age his status drops, gradually or suddenly. Old males such as Goliath, Mike, and Hugo were very low ranking during the last few years of life.
Factors other than age which determine the position of a male in the dominance hierarchy include physical fitness, aggressiveness, skill at fighting, ability to form coalitions, intelligence, and a number of personality factors such as boldness and determination.
Yerkes (1943) observed that some dominance struggles were like “a contest of wills in which self-confidence, initiative, resourcefulness and persistence” seemed to be important.
At Gombe some males strive with much energy to better their social status over a period of years; others work hard for a short while, but give up if they encounter a serious setback; a few seem remarkably unconcerned about their social rank.
Although the hierarchy of the adult males may be relatively stable for months, even years, at a time, there will always be some young, low-ranking males on the lookout for opportunities to better their status, ready to take advantage of a senior should he show signs of ill health or aging, or if he loses an ally. For the most part a reversal of dominance between two males takes place over an extended period of time during which the lower-ranked individual repeatedly challenges the other and eventually wins more and more frequently. In such cases there may be a long period during which it is difficult to ascertain which of the two holds the higher rank. Other changes occur more quickly as the result of one or a few severe, decisive fights.
Conclusion
… We know that there are exceptionally gifted chimpanzees in the wild.
As Kohler’s Sultan shone in the realm of technological problem solving, so Mike and Figan stand out among the Gombe males as masters of reasoned thinking and skillful tactical and social manipulation.
Then there are those, like Pom and Gremlin, who excel at termite fishing. Each chimpanzee has his or her own special characteristics. Indeed, the marked differences in personality from one to another are rivaled only by individual variation in our own species.
In chimpanzee society, genetic diversity is encouraged by the flexible mating patterns that allow all males (including cripples and those of low rank) to sire infants, as long as they have the social skills to persuade females to follow them on consortships.
The more adept males have an even better chance of passing on their genes, so that intelligence, to the extent that it is hereditary, can win out over high rank and aggressiveness.
It is clear, I think, that the higher cognitive abilities of the chimpanzee are called upon in his natural habitat, even though some are brought into play much more frequently than others. Thus we are now in a position to superimpose, one on the other, two portraits of the chimpanzee: the one that is emerging from studies in captivity, and the one that is gradually being painted from observation in the natural habitat. The result? A whole that is even more fascinating, even more complex, than the sum of its parts. Of course, the picture is not yet finished; and it may well be that in some places the reality we are trying to capture has been slightly distorted, that some of the brush strokes are a little crooked or even in the wrong place. But with the quest for understanding joined by scientists from many disciplines, we have a picture that is much closer to reality than was the case twenty-five years ago when the Gombe study first began.
One striking finding from all studies· of the chimpanzee—in laboratory, home, and forest—is the sometimes uncanny similarity between certain aspects of chimpanzee and human behavior: the long period of childhood dependency, the postures and gestures of the nonverbal communication system, the expressions of emotion, the importance of learning, the beginning of dependency on cultural tradition, and the startling resemblance of basic cognitive mechanisms.
Our own success as a species has been due entirely to the explosive development of the human brain. Our intellectual powers are so superior to those of even the most gifted chimpanzee that attempts made by scientists to spell out the similarity of mental processes in man and chimpanzee have largely been met with ridicule or outrage. When Kohler and Yerkes first published their findings on insightful problem solving in chimpanzees, these were instantly and abusively denounced as a “pernicious, I should say disgusting, tendency to depart from the truth” (Pavlov, 1957). But results of this sort were replicated, and the evidence for sophisticated mental performances became ever more convincing.
One by one, the attributes once believed unique to man have been found to exist in “lowlier” forms of life.
Nevertheless, we must not forget for an instant that even if we do differ from the apes not in kind, but only in degree, that degree is still overwhelmingly large. Knowledge of the ways in which our behavior is similar to that of the chimpanzee, combined with knowledge of how it is different, helps us, I believe, to pinpoint what it is that makes man unique. This is not the place to discuss such issues in detail, but I should like at least to mention three points.
First, we have developed a complex symbolic language. We can not only show our children how to do things, we can also tell them how and explain why. As Lorenz (1977) says, this “enables tradition to become free of objects.” We can discuss events that happened in the remote past and make complex contingency plans for a future that may be close or distant. We can. in addition to planning an aggressive foray against our neighbors, determine how best to defend ourselves. Words give substance to abstract thoughts. The interaction of mind with mind broadens ideas and sharpens concepts—even as competitive interactions among chimpanzees can bring about more sophisticated social strategies.
Second, I believe that we are able, as no other creature is, to overcome by conscious choice the “selfish gene” (Dawkins, 1976) of our biological heritage. Our acts of altruism are not always selfish; and by the same token our acts of violence are not inevitable.
Third, while our basic aggressive patterns are not so different from those of a chimpanzee, our comprehension of the suffering we may inflict on our victims is of an entirely different order of magnitude.
[You have now reached the end of this Social Science Files exhibit.]
The Source:
Jane Goodall, The Chimpanzees of Gombe Patterns of Behavior, Belknap Press of Harvard University Press 1986
[This has been a Coronation Day special edition.]
Caption? Adolescent whose Social Media Phone has been confiscated by mother?
Social Science Files displays multidisciplinary writings on a great variety of topics relating to evolutions of social order from the earliest humans to the present day and future machine age.
‘The Heller Files’, quality tools and creative impressions for Social Science.