by Brian RiveraIn this chapter Katherine MacKinnon and Agustin Fuentes provide a biological and evolutionary context for the discussion of human cognition and niche construction. This context is based on primate studies that shed light on the internal working of primate social life and cognition. By seeing the social organizational and behavioral range exhibited by other primates, it is hoped that the reader would get a better baseline to understand what is uniquely human and what is shared across the taxonomic order. This is spelled out as one of the key questions in the chapter “…how does taking a broader look across the Primate order provides a useful framework for understanding the role of an evolved social cognition?”
To better get a sense of the distance at which other primates stand it might be helpful to become familiar with the scientific classification of primates. Humans belong to the genus Homo, the Homini tribe (along with chimpanzees), the Homininae subfamily (along with gorillas), the Hominidae family (along with orangutans) all previous forming “the great apes”, the Simiiformes infraorder (including old and new world monkeys – gibbons, baboons, and spider monkeys) more commonly called just “monkeys”, the Haplorhini suborder (along with tarsiers), and finally the Primates order (along with lemurs). While it should go without saying that humans are not descendants from any of the current primates (but rather humans shared a common ancestor with them), it should be noted that the more proximal two species of primates are in this taxonomic tree, the more genetically similar they are. Therefore, humans are closer genetically to the chimpanzee in their Homini tribe than to orangutans in their Hominidae family. While the chapter provided insight into social and cognitive patters in a variety of different primate species, being aware of this taxonomic can help situate these findings. The framing of the chapter is not simply to learn facts about primate biology or about studies with these groups of primates. Rather, the hope is to develop a framework for understanding evolved capacities found in humans. For example, given that we can see sociality as a pervasive feature of primate evolution present in most primate species, it makes sense to inquire about the type of cognition necessary to successfully live and thrive in a social environment. Then we can ask to what degree this cognitive ability is shared across other species and to what degree it varies across different instances of the same species. This is also a key piece of the framework this chapter hopes to develop. How much variation (of a given biological feature, behavior, or behavioral practice) do you find within and across species? All primates seem to have a large brain in proportion to total body weight (with a convoluted neocortex) however there is also much variation in brain size within the order from the mouse lemur to the modern human. This, to reiterate, would help situate and gain insights from human brain to body ratio. The socio-ecological variability found across primates provides a powerful lens through which to investigate human evolutionary origins. The authors summarize this perfectly stating: “Ecological pressures, the social landscape, and other elements in an individuals’ life history elicit responses govern by the parameters set by physiology, environment, and experience.” This statement already highlights how flexible and dynamic one’s own understanding of primate evolution needs to be if we are to extract useful lessons to apply to our understanding of humans. The chapter also presents some of the history and chronology of primatology. One of the key pieces of this history is the grounding of human cognition in a Neo-Darwinian theory in the 1970s and 1980s that extended to questions of human morality, aggression, and personality. Another key piece of this history is the shift in theory that comes about with the increase in the number of studies and the number of species studied (from only great apes to hominines). This shifts forces a move away from generalized “primate patterns” to observed a variety of behavioral adaptations. But amongst the biological features shared across primates we find reliance of visual pathways, extended periods of infant-dependency, enlarged brain-to-body size ratio, and sociability and group living. Two specific methodological/theoretical tools for examining primate groups are mentioned: niche construction and social network analysis. Niche construction defined as the modification of the functional relationship between organisms and their environments by altering factors of the environment specifically highlights the complexity of primate evolution brought about by the high degrees of interactions (via feedback loops) between primates and their environment. As expressed in the book, extended period of child rearing brings about different group dynamics that increases predation avoidance. This in turn forces predators to adapt to different pray further reducing pressure of predation, which then allowed for increase niche construction through range exploration, social interactions, and foraging opportunities. Part of the niche of primates includes the social group, which is nested under multiple layers of complexity. Social network analysis is a way to understand this complexity by keeping track of the interactions between individuals, the patterns of their relationships, and the population characteristics of the social niche. One final characterization of the chapter is the discussion about brain growth in particular with its relation sociality. The extended period of dependency characterizes primates from other mammals. A newborn wildebeest would be able to stand and walk just after 7 minutes of being born. It would reach full sexual maturity after only 4 years. This is in stark comparison to newborn humans who would take longer than a year to be able to walk and more than a decade to reach sexual maturity. But it seems to be the ability to navigate through and manipulate the social dynamics of the group what primate brains seem uniquely adapted to do. The evidence for this is that not just brain volume, specifically neocortex volume, correlates with sociability (not just group size but the complexity of relations). Of particular importance is the mother-infant relationship given that the extended dependency period seen in primates poses a cost primarily to the mother (which in turn might have driven alloparenting). How does all of this inform Neuroanthropology? While the chapter does a lot to balance primatology history, methods, with case examples in its short length, it can seem at times unclear how it contributes to neuroanthropology. For example, it is not clear how we should judge the particular studies referenced in their relevance for understanding human behavior. If some lab experiments are faulty in their design how could we learn to distinguish a valid study with captive primates? What differences would we expect from those studies with primates in the field? To better be able to realize the information that primatology can provide it would also be advantageous to understand the ways in which early Homo (Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc.) species vary. While all of these species are extinct and do not lend themselves to study like primatology, the discussion about the emergence of bipedalism, the arms race between the pelvic bone and brain size, the use of fire, and the increase in brain size have much to contribute to our understanding of human nervous system evolution. Additionally, there are some (if not many) negative aspects of social human behavior that we can also find reflected in primate evolution. Conflict, aggression, group violence, and infanticide, are all primate behaviors, which vary starkly from chimpanzees to their close cousins bonobos, for example. This comparison shows chimps being more violent and aggressive than bonobos, a violence recognizable in human history. It would have been interesting to see how it varies across other primates as well. The authors also state in the conclusion that “what we share socially and cognitively, not where we differ, that can inform neuroanthropology.” But it is not clear what is not shared and how to tell the difference. Furthermore, it seems odd to limit the contributions of primatology to neuroanthropology to only shared features. The study of cephalopods (such as the squid and octopus) has much to say about the development of nervous systems in general (but also for the human nervous system) particularly because of how different it is from that of the human. It seems that the chapter’s conclusion leaves an unclear link between primatology and neuroanthropology. While it highlights the importance of how sociality can create feedback loops that fundamentally modify the environment (allowing the extension of caring beyond kin), it remains unclear how this process “…changes the selective equation” in terms of genes and phylogeny (in particular as to how it would affect the primate evolutionary branch of humans). If evolutionary biology is to inform the development of humans, it is not enough to say that some primates evolved the capacity for great sociality, but rather a link must then be made as to how that capacity could have been inherited by modern humans. Questions? What are the first human specific behaviors that come to mind? What are some non-human primate specific behaviors that come to mind? What makes them be one or the other (are they learned or physiological)? What are the ways in which primatology inform Neuroanthropology? The author states “If we remove the exclusivity of neo-Darwinian views of evolution, add the ideas of [developmental systems theory], niche construction, and social and symbolical inheritance and place them in the context of ethnographic knowledge, archeological histories, contingency in human behavior and individual agency, we can derive better anthropological answers.” What are “better anthropological answers”? Better than what?
22 Comments
Madi Moore
1/22/2019 06:55:15 pm
Thank you for clearly and concisely laying out the scientific classification of primates! Because I read your blog post before reading the assigned chapter 3 in the textbook, I had a much easier time following along with the text having some primatological (did I just make that word up?) classification background knowledge.
Reply
Madi Moore
2/26/2019 08:10:26 pm
After having more lectures under my belt, this chapter became more clear to me and my understanding of Neuroanthropology and primate social cognition. What I still am left wondering, however, is how do we decide the most useful models in understanding human evolution and behavior? Of course we can use models that are equally related to us (example: chimps), but what advantage do those models give us when we could also use more distant relatives as models?
Reply
Casey Fulkerson
1/22/2019 08:16:52 pm
I also noticed the part on page 84 where MacKinnon and Fuentes talk about the flaws in their research design to test Chimpanzee behavior. It does call into question the validity of their data and I think that these experiments being conducted with captive chimps as opposed to chimps out in their social groups in their habitats (which would then turn to a more observation-based approach I guess) could also skew the data and further cast doubt on their results. While I enjoyed learning about the plasticity of primate behavior and how an environmental change can completely alter the social structure and physiological responses of a primate group (the example of the olive baboons on page 84 was amazing!), I did not really see where it connected with human behavior. Maybe we need to look at the studies done on primate behavior as a way to shed light on the effects of the environment on human social structure and physiology (especially the nervous system) because humans have similar delayed growth-rate as primates do and underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, especially similar those of infant chimpanzees. Plus, some people might frown upon human experimentation, so this seems like a better way.
Reply
Casey Fulkerson
2/26/2019 09:55:30 am
I found this to be an interesting and educational lecture/discussion. I feel as though I have a better grasp on why we study primate brain evolution. Anthropologists study primate brain evolution and primate social cognition in order to develop a model for how the human brain could have evolved and been restructured into what it is today. I learned that we typically look at chimpanzees and bonobos because they are closest to us on the phylogenetic tree, but sometimes it us more useful to look at another primate because they are a better model of a particular behavior. I also learned that genes shared between humans and other primates, say chimpanzees, may not have the same function, but their presence in both species indicates a shared ancestor and are useful for comparative studies.
Reply
Moe Prince
1/22/2019 09:55:09 pm
I really enjoyed how in your post you hit a lot of the different theories in a concise and easy to understand way. A point from the reading that I found incredibly interesting had to do with brain functions increasing. It seems crazy that predators' increasing difficulty hunting homo primates is what lead to homo having more time to dedicate to other activities and social structures. That, in turn, caused them to need more brain power to survive and thrive in their new environment.
Reply
Jennifer Fortunato
1/23/2019 08:08:18 am
Thank you for such a great in depth review of the chapter! In response to your question about uniquely human behaviors, I cannot seem to think of any. As humans we share similar behavior to our non-human primate relatives, however, they may not be exactly the same. For example communication behavior is used in both humans and non-human primates via symbols or gestures, respectively.
Reply
Jennifer Fortunato
2/26/2019 03:09:41 pm
I agree with Casey's response to her original post. This class room discussion definitely helped me understand why we study primate evolution. Using primates, like chimpanzees, to help us better understand how human behavior has evolved. Yes, to study the evolution of sociality in general we can use other organisms like insects, shirmp and fish however, to specifically study human behavior you have to look at those more closely related to humans, chimpanzees and bonobos.
Reply
Janae Hunter
1/23/2019 08:53:18 am
I really loved how you broke this chapter down, it made it a lot easier to understand and read through the chapter. I thought it was interesting to read about the different complex social structures that each group of primates and birds have. I never realized how important niche construction to the development of the brain until now
Reply
Janae Hunter
2/27/2019 09:16:43 am
After talking about this more in class and rereading the chapter, I now have a better understanding of the evolution of primate brains. What stuck out to me the most in this chapter was the complex social structures of primates and how they can shape and reshape their structure in time of trouble like the olive baboons in Kenya. This is was fascinating chapter and gave me a chance to better understanding primatology.
Reply
Brian Rivera
2/26/2019 03:49:11 pm
How much can we (and anthropology) expect to learn about human evolution from primate evolution? I thought of this question not to dismiss what we can learn from primate evolution, but to highlight that there is a real difficulty in discerning what is variation between species and variation within them. As we started exploring the variation in the adaptations of the nervous system different cultures have developed, we saw that these adaptations are very specific to humans (movement in Capoeira and Gymnastics). I have come to question the degree to which primate social behavior can be compared to human social behavior given the degree to which humans can influence their own behavior through language an culture accumulation. There is a sense in which primate social behavior seems reflective of the needs of the immediate environment to a degree that might not be present in humans. As we discussed with alloparenting, it seems that human social behavior might be adapted to the social niche a lot more than to the direct environment. We can see this in the length of parental care required by newborn humans, as we have discussed. This vulnerability of baby humans presupposes there be a great level of parental care in the social environment (which might presuppose a high degree of resource stability). Therefore, even if there are parallels across primates, some human adaptations (perhaps the ones we have a special interest in such as language and culture) might not extend outside of humans.
Reply
Moe Prince
2/27/2019 07:56:57 am
This article also focused on social bonds, but it added niche construction into the mix. It's theorized that brain development and plasticity were developed more in part with the environment anthropoids lived in. They needed more complex mental maps to understand where to get resources and communicate that with other humans. Human's brains are incredibly underdeveloped at birth and they grow the more they socialize.
Reply
2/11/2021 03:24:32 am
s, tablets, and video games for more than seven hours a day are more likely to experience premature thinning of the cortex, the outermost layer of the brain that processes thought and action, a 2018 study found.
Reply
3/27/2021 02:49:15 am
Thenks admin aradıgınız tum metin2 pvp serverler,i bu sitede yani http://editsizserverler.org adresinde bulabilrisiniz, editsiz serverler için en guzel adres
Reply
3/30/2021 05:38:36 am
ankaralıların okey oynadıgı ankara okey odaları https://ankaraokey.org
Reply
Şu sisteminizi düzeltince haber verin, insanı keriz yerine koymayın ben size daha önceden söylemiştim,ciplerimi geri iade etmeniz hiç bir şeyi değiştirmedi. O bir yıldızda mecburiyetten bilin istedim,masalarda donen hileler ve bunlara bilerek musade ediyorsunuz. Kufur eden edene herkesin yaptigi yanina kar kaliyor ve sizde para kazaniyorsunuz,yaziklar olsun size https://duzokeyoynaa.com
Reply
11/18/2021 01:12:14 am
To get started with moderating, editing, and deleting comments, please visit the Comments screen in the dashboard.
Reply
The main topic of our site is beauty. I know when it comes to beauty, the first thing that comes to mind is external beauty. But we know, like everyone else, that inner beauty is also important as external beauty. You can check our site – thebeautyfan.com to understand what I mean. Or we can also review our categories and their content https://agariogame.net
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorThis blog is group authored by Dr. DeCaro and the students in his ANT 474/574: Neuroanthropology. Archives
April 2019
Categories |