I have been pondering this for quite some time. What does it
mean that if you put two chimps--or capuchin monkeys-- in cages and play the" task reward" game with
them, then start changing game, by giving a desired reward to only ONE chimp—visible to the other—giving a grape instead of the previous (and previously acceptable) cucumber? See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3J-QksPnyWI
and also this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJXDpZo
The videos show the grape deprived capuchin quickly starts throwing the cucumber back at the researcher. People I respect seem to be convinced this shows that these monkeys have an “innate sense of fairness.” (In fact that is the title of one f the videos.)
This has been used to comment on how we may need to change in divorce proceedings-- a subject I have a strong opinion about and enormous experience about. (I agree w do need to change them-- alas the humans do seem to act like these monkeys in adversarial family fights--but to use this as a bases for "fairness"? Heaven help us!)
The conclusion that this video proves humans have "an innate sense of fairness" has felt wrong to me from the first moment. It seemed to me what this (very limited) experiment showed was that chimps, like children, were given to temper tantrums. After all, the cucumber and the grape were both gifts or rewards—no one had any “right” to get either one. This is a sort of game, and by throwing the cucumber away the chimp made sure s/he got NOTHING. Unless, of course, as has been posited by some, the chimps are training the researchers as much as the researchers are training the chimps.
If that is the case, rejecting the undesired reward is quite logical. Show the researcher what reward is desired and you will get the desired reward. If this is not the motive we have a real quandary: we have a dogma that says all sentient beings (and unsentient ones) seek survival. To reject food is in no way a contribution to survival. How odd that no one has sought to understand the basis of such a peculiar act!
The videos show the grape deprived capuchin quickly starts throwing the cucumber back at the researcher. People I respect seem to be convinced this shows that these monkeys have an “innate sense of fairness.” (In fact that is the title of one f the videos.)
This has been used to comment on how we may need to change in divorce proceedings-- a subject I have a strong opinion about and enormous experience about. (I agree w do need to change them-- alas the humans do seem to act like these monkeys in adversarial family fights--but to use this as a bases for "fairness"? Heaven help us!)
The conclusion that this video proves humans have "an innate sense of fairness" has felt wrong to me from the first moment. It seemed to me what this (very limited) experiment showed was that chimps, like children, were given to temper tantrums. After all, the cucumber and the grape were both gifts or rewards—no one had any “right” to get either one. This is a sort of game, and by throwing the cucumber away the chimp made sure s/he got NOTHING. Unless, of course, as has been posited by some, the chimps are training the researchers as much as the researchers are training the chimps.
If that is the case, rejecting the undesired reward is quite logical. Show the researcher what reward is desired and you will get the desired reward. If this is not the motive we have a real quandary: we have a dogma that says all sentient beings (and unsentient ones) seek survival. To reject food is in no way a contribution to survival. How odd that no one has sought to understand the basis of such a peculiar act!
To know the limits of this choice—and narrow the
possibilities of what explanations fit the data—we would have to do many more
experiments. How hungry will the chimps need to be to keep whichever piece of
food they get, sweet or not sweet? An hour? A day? Two days?
If the chimps refused the less desired treat to the point of death, we’d have a very large conundrum indeed—although humans seem willing to do so. (We have always called that “ego”. So do we assume chimps have “ego”? Maybe they do.)
If the chimps refused the less desired treat to the point of death, we’d have a very large conundrum indeed—although humans seem willing to do so. (We have always called that “ego”. So do we assume chimps have “ego”? Maybe they do.)
As to the sociological implications of these “grapes or
nothing” experiments, we need to decide do we assume childish behavior, because it can be found
in non human primates, is the basis of
all human behavior? I say no. Yes, children have temper tantrums when they don’t
get what they want. (Yes, divorcing adults often do too.) But there are many
bases, aside from “unfairness”, that mandate that not every child, chimp or
adult can get her desired food, toy, court decision...etc.
What of a child (such as I was) who has food allergies? What if my sister had had a tantrum when she wanted what I ate? Or more likely, what if I had had a tantrum when I could not have ice cream, and she could? No one would argue that such tantrums were a behavior to be permitted or encouraged-- nor one which demonstrates a moral foundation of temper tantrums.
It is also critical to note that some cultures consider everything they have to be in the nature of a gift—not a “right”. In such cultures different results take place in studies where when one gift must be divided. The second recipient—who gets only as much as the original receiver/divider of the gift decides to give—will gladly accept it. In “rights” based cultures, the second person will often reject the windfall if they feels is isn’t “fair. Like the chimp, the recipient takes NOTHING—rather than a less desired result.
I have trouble with basing morality on that thinking, personally. In fact all spiritual teachings have sought to bring out the second way of living in the world—accepting all we get as a gift, rather than a right, and being thankful. Both theist and non theist teachings have taught this.
So I vote not to make the chimps our teachers. I vote to make a higher state of gratitude the resource of choice—not temper tantrums.
What of a child (such as I was) who has food allergies? What if my sister had had a tantrum when she wanted what I ate? Or more likely, what if I had had a tantrum when I could not have ice cream, and she could? No one would argue that such tantrums were a behavior to be permitted or encouraged-- nor one which demonstrates a moral foundation of temper tantrums.
It is also critical to note that some cultures consider everything they have to be in the nature of a gift—not a “right”. In such cultures different results take place in studies where when one gift must be divided. The second recipient—who gets only as much as the original receiver/divider of the gift decides to give—will gladly accept it. In “rights” based cultures, the second person will often reject the windfall if they feels is isn’t “fair. Like the chimp, the recipient takes NOTHING—rather than a less desired result.
I have trouble with basing morality on that thinking, personally. In fact all spiritual teachings have sought to bring out the second way of living in the world—accepting all we get as a gift, rather than a right, and being thankful. Both theist and non theist teachings have taught this.
So I vote not to make the chimps our teachers. I vote to make a higher state of gratitude the resource of choice—not temper tantrums.
