Editing Primatology (section)

==Primatology in sociobiology==

Where [[sociobiology]] attempts to understand the actions of all animal species within the context of advantageous and disadvantageous behaviors, primatology takes an exclusive look at the order Primates, which includes ''[[Homo sapiens]]''. The interface between primatology and sociobiology examines in detail the evolution of primate behavioral processes, and what studying our closest living primate relatives can tell about our own minds. As the American anthropologist [[Earnest Albert Hooton]] used to say, "{{lang|de|Primas sum: primatum nil a me alienum puto}}." ("I am a primate; nothing about primates is outside of my bailiwick".) The meeting point of these two disciplines has become a nexus of discussion on key issues concerning the evolution of sociality, the development and purpose of language and deceit, and the development and propagation of culture.

Additionally, this interface is of particular interest to the science watchers in science and technology studies, who examine the social conditions which incite, mould, and eventually react to scientific discoveries and knowledge. The STS approach to primatology and sociobiology stretches beyond studying the [[ape]]s, into the realm of observing the people studying the apes.

===Taxonomic basis===

Before [[Charles Darwin|Darwin]] and [[molecular biology]], the father of modern taxonomy, [[Carl Linnaeus]], organized natural objects into kinds, that we now know reflect their evolutionary relatedness. He sorted these kinds by [[morphology (biology)|morphology]], the shape of the object. Animals such as [[gorilla]]s, [[chimpanzee]]s and [[orangutan]]s resemble humans closely, so Linnaeus placed ''Homo sapiens'' together with other similar-looking organisms into the taxonomic order ''Primates''. Modern molecular biology reinforced humanity's place within the Primate order. Humans and simians share the vast majority of their [[DNA]], with chimpanzees sharing between 97-99% genetic identity with humans.

===From grooming to speaking===
{{See also|Origin of language}}
Although [[social grooming]] is observed in many animal species, the grooming activities undertaken by primates are not strictly for the elimination of parasites.<ref name="KappelerSchaik2006">{{cite book|author1=Peter Kappeler|author2=Carel P. van Schaik|title=Cooperation in Primates and Humans: Mechanisms and Evolution|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=9m1HzazNOHsC&q=grooming|date=20 March 2006|publisher=Springer Science & Business Media|isbn=978-3-540-28277-8}}</ref> In primates, grooming is a social activity that strengthens relationships. The amount of grooming taking place between members of a troop is a strong indicator of alliance formation or troop solidarity. [[Robin Dunbar]] suggests a link between primate grooming and the development of human language. The size of the [[neocortex]] in a primate's brain correlates directly to the number of individuals it can keep track of socially, be it a troop of chimps or a tribe of humans.<ref name="Lindenfors2005">{{cite journal |doi=10.1098/rsbl.2005.0362 |title=Neocortex evolution in primates: the 'social brain' is for females |year=2005 |last1=Lindenfors |first1=Patrik |journal=Biology Letters |volume=1 |issue=4 |pages=407–410 |pmid=17148219 |pmc=1626378}}</ref>

This number is referred to as the [[monkeysphere]]. If a population exceeds the size outlined by its cognitive limitations, the group undergoes a schism. Set into an evolutionary context, the Dunbar number shows a drive for the development of a method of bonding that is less labor-intensive than grooming: language. As the monkeysphere grows, the amount of time that would need to be spent grooming troopmates soon becomes unmanageable. Furthermore, it is only possible to bond with one troopmate at a time while grooming. The evolution of vocal communication solves both the time constraint and the one-on-one problem, but at a price.

Language allows for bonding with multiple people at the same time at a distance, but the bonding produced by language is less intense. This view of language evolution covers the general biological trends needed for language development, but it takes another hypothesis to uncover the evolution of the cognitive processes necessary for language.

===Modularity of the primate mind===
{{Unreferenced section|date=November 2021}}
[[Noam Chomsky]]'s concept of [[Innateness hypothesis|innate language]] addresses the existence of [[universal grammar]], which suggests a special kind of "device" all humans are born with whose sole purpose is language. [[Jerry Fodor|Fodor]]'s modular mind hypothesis expands on this concept, suggesting the existence of preprogrammed modules for dealing with many, or all aspects of cognition. Although these modules do not need to be physically distinct, they must be functionally distinct. There was an experiment to teach language to orangutans at the [[Smithsonian]] National Zoo using a computer system developed by primatologist [[Francine Neago]] in conjunction with [[IBM]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Norin Chai : "La valeur des découvertes de Francine Néago est incontestable" |url=https://www.sciencesetavenir.fr/animaux/grands-mammiferes/norin-chai-la-valeur-des-decouvertes-de-francine-neago-est-incontestable_103360 |author=Kergoat, M. |date=8 April 2016 |publisher=Scienes Avenir |language=fr |trans-title=Norin Chai: The value of Francine Néago's discoveries is undeniable}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |title=Orang utan language project |url=https://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ThinkTank/ResearchProjects/OLP/default.cfm |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070205212005/https://nationalzoo.si.edu/Animals/ThinkTank/ResearchProjects/OLP/default.cfm |archive-date=5 February 2007 |work=Think Tank Research Projects |publisher=Smithsonian Zoological Park}}</ref>

The massive modularity theory thesis posits that there is a huge number of tremendously interlinked but specialized modules running programs called [[Darwinian algorithm]]s, or DA. DA can be selected for just as a gene can, eventually improving cognition. The contrary theory, of generalist mind, suggests that the brain is just a big computer that runs one program, the mind. If the mind is a general computer, for instance, the ability to use reasoning should be identical regardless of the context. This is not what is observed. When faced with abstract numbers and letters with no "real world" significance, respondents of the [[Wason selection task|Wason card test]] generally do very poorly. However, when exposed to a test with an identical rule set but socially relevant content, respondents score markedly higher. The difference is especially pronounced when the content is about reward and payment. This test strongly suggests that human logic is based on a module originally developed in a social environment to root out cheaters, and that either the module is at a huge disadvantage where abstract thinking is involved, or that other less effective modules are used when faced with abstract logic.

Further evidence supporting the modular mind has steadily emerged with some startling revelations concerning primates. A very recent study indicated that human babies and grown monkeys approach and process numbers in a similar fashion, suggesting an evolved set of DA for mathematics (Jordan). The conceptualization of both human infants and primate adults is cross-sensory, meaning that they can add 15 red dots to 20 beeps and approximate the answer to be 35 grey squares. As more evidence of basic [[Philosophy of psychology|cognitive modules]] are uncovered, they will undoubtedly form a more solid foundation upon which the more complex behaviors can be understood.

In contradiction to this, neuroscientist [[Jaak Panksepp]] has argued that the mind is not a computer nor is it massively modular. He states that no evidence of massive modularity or the brain as a digital computer has been gained through actual neuroscience, as opposed to psychological studies. He criticises psychologists who use the massive modularity thesis for not integrating neuroscience into their understanding.<ref>{{Citation |last=Panksepp |first=Jaak |title=The Seven Sins of Evolutionary Psychology |work=Evolution and Cognition |volume=6 |issue=2 |year=2000 |url=http://www.flyfishingdevon.co.uk/salmon/year3/psy364criticisms-evolutionary-psychology/panksepp_seven_sins.pdf |last2=Panksepp |first2=Jules B.}}</ref>

===The primate theory of mind===

Primate behavior, like human behavior, is highly social and ripe with the intrigue of [[kingmaker|kingmaking]], powerplays, deception, cuckoldry, and apology. In order to understand the staggeringly complex nature of primate interactions, we look to [[theory of mind]]. Theory of mind asks whether or not an individual recognizes and can keep track of [[information asymmetry]] amongst individuals in the group, and whether or not they can attribute [[folk psychology|folk psychological states]] to their peers. If some primates can tell what others know and want and act accordingly, they can gain advantage and status.

Recently, chimpanzee theory of mind has been advanced by [[Felix Warneken]] of the [[Max Planck Institute]]. His studies have shown that chimpanzees can recognize whether a researcher desires a dropped object, and act accordingly by picking it up. Even more compelling is the observation that chimps will only act if the object is dropped in an accidental-looking manner: if the researcher drops the object in a way that appears intentional, the chimp will ignore the object.

In a related experiment, groups of chimps were given rope-pulling problems they could not solve individually. Warneken's subjects rapidly figured out which individual in the group was the best rope puller and assigned it the bulk of the task. This research is highly indicative of the ability of chimps to detect the folk psychological state of "desire", as well as the ability to recognize that other individuals are better at certain tasks than they are.

However primates do not always fare so well in situations requiring theory of mind. In one experiment pairs of chimpanzees who had been close grooming partners were offered two levers. Pressing one lever would bring them food and another would bring their grooming partner food. Pressing the lever to clearly give their grooming partner much-wanted food would not take away from how much food they themselves got. For some reason, the chimps were unwilling to depress the lever that would give their long-time chums food. It is plausible but unlikely that the chimps figured there was finite food and it would eventually decrease their own food reward. The experiments are open to such interpretations making it hard to establish anything for certain.

One phenomenon which would indicate a possible fragility of theory of mind in primates occurs when a baboon gets lost. Under such circumstances, the lost baboon generally makes "call barks" to announce that it is lost. Previous to the 1990s it was thought that these call barks would then be returned by the other baboons, similar to the case is in [[vervet monkeys]]. However, when researchers studied this formally in the past few years they found something surprising: Only the baboons who were lost would ever give call barks. Even if an infant was wailing in agony just a few hundred meters away, its mother who would clearly recognise its voice and would be frantic about his safety (or alternatively run towards her infant depending on her own perceived safety), would often simply stare in his direction visibly agitated. If the anguishing baboon mother made any type of call at all, the infant would instantly recognise her and run to her position. This type of logic appears to be lost on the baboon, suggesting a serious gap in theory of mind of this otherwise seemingly very intelligent primate species. However, it is also possible that baboons do not return call barks for ecological reasons, for example because returning the call bark might call attention to the lost baboon, putting it at greater risk from predators.

===Criticisms===

Scientific studies concerning primate and human behavior have been subject to the same set of political and social complications, or biases, as every other scientific discipline. The borderline and multidisciplinary nature of primatology and sociobiology make them ripe fields of study because they are amalgams of objective and subjective sciences. Current scientific practice, especially in the hard sciences, requires a total dissociation of personal experience from the finished scientific product (Bauchspies 8). This is a strategy that is incompatible with observational field studies, and weakens them in the eyes of [[hard science]]. As mentioned above, the [[#Western primatology|Western school of primatology]] tries to minimize subjectivity, while the [[#Japanese primatology|Japanese school of primatology]] tends to embrace the closeness inherent in studying nature.

Social critics of science, some operating from within the field, are critical of primatology and sociobiology. Claims are made that researchers bring pre-existing opinions on issues concerning human sociality to their studies, and then seek evidence that agrees with their worldview or otherwise furthers a sociopolitical agenda. In particular, the use of primatological studies to assert gender roles, and to both promote and subvert feminism has been a point of contention.

Several research papers on primate cognition were retracted in 2010. Their lead author, primatologist Marc Hauser, was dismissed from Harvard University after an internal investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct in his laboratory. Data supporting the authors' conclusion that [[cottontop tamarin]] monkeys displayed pattern-learning behavior similar to human infants reportedly could not be located after a three-year investigation.<ref>Johnson, Carolyn. [http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2010/08/10/author_on_leave_after_harvard_inquiry/?p1=News_links "Author on Leave After Harvard Inquiry"], The Boston Globe, 10 August 2010. Retrieved 29 August 2010.</ref>