BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay

Subject: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:14 AM

Monkeys reject unequal pay
SARAH F. BROSNAN & FRANS B. M. DE WAAL
Nature 425, 297–299 (2003)

"A cucumber should be well sliced, and dressed with pepper and vinegar, and then thrown out, as good for nothing". Dr Samuel Johnson's views (quoted in Boswell's Tour to the Hebrides) are close to those of brown capuchin monkeys. A monkey willing to perform a task for a cucumber may refuse to do so if its partner is given a tasty grape. "It's not fair", the complaint of children the world over, is the message. In balking at this unequal pay, the monkey is surely being irrational, rejecting food that is on offer. But the negative emotion of "unfairness" and the refusal to accept inequitable situations has been a positive influence in the long-term in the development of human society, and the same evolutionary pressures seem to have prevailed in other primates as well.

I loved reading this article. In humans that is well known from laboratory studies: Participants often rather would take less money if they know another participant gets the same amount than get more but see the other participant walk away with much more money for the same work or the same money for less work.

This reminds me of what I consider one of the more stupid stories in the Bible, the workers in the vineyard (my translation may be far off, but it is in Mt 20). They complain that they get the same pay for a full day's work as those who only did work for an hour. The employer then says they should not complain for they did get what he had promised. The crooked logic in that story never takes into account how real humans (and monkeys) are.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:24 AM

Wonderful, too, that they are so discriminating about the kind of pay! I love it!

Thanks, Wolfgang!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:39 AM

I thought you'd like it. The old-fashioned behaviourist approach has lots of difficulties explaining that behaviour.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,MMario
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:56 AM

just goes to show you that the monkeys *know* they are being 'paid' to perform.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:20 AM

Great story, now if it had only worked better for women in the equal pay dept.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:21 AM

"...and the bears all demand at least one waltz a day."

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:51 AM

Kat:

Be careful comparing women with monkeys! You could be accused of some kind of chauvinism! :>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Wolfgang
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 11:04 AM

All of the monkeys in this were female. A more informative summary is here.

The burning question left is what did the unfairly rewarded female monkey do who got the grape without doing any work for it? Did she offer to share? No, she sat back and ate the grape with signs of pleasure. You might even have seen a grin but that's speculative.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 11:44 AM

Good story, Wolfgang!

I suspect the Bible parable had to do with non-material considerations, in which case it might might much better sense. Depends on what it's about.

Yeah. Okay, I took a look at it. Here's what I get out of it.

The various workers toil in the vineyard (of life). The vineyard is embodied life as we know it, and we all toil in it, but some harder than others, and some longer than others. People (whose love is conditional) expect favoritism and practice it...so those who toil harder or longer expect a greater allotment of Divine love for having done so...a bigger reward. And they will get a bigger reward from other people, for sure, because people's love is conditional. The ones who worked harder and longer also expect to get to lord it over those who didn't, and form heavenly hierarchies accordingly...of the more righteous and the less righteous, and so on. You see people doing this everywhere in Earthly life, specially in religious orders.

In this respect they are quite unlike the Divine, which does not love conditionally but simply loves, period, and in an equal fashion. Divine love is not divisible...because it's complete love.

One simple parable or demonstration of that is that when the sun shines it shines equally on everyone without prejudice. It doesn't reserve itself for the rich man, the saint, the local preacher, etc. Likewise, when the rain falls it falls equally on everyone.

In such a situation, the "important" man feels vexed, because he figures that he, of all people, ought to get a special dispensation from the "powers that be"...but he doesn't! He gets exactly the same dispensation everyone else does. He gets Divine Love, in full measure, which is his penny for the day's work. Same as everyone else. He gets equality. In such a system the last appear (by contrast to the usual human state of affairs) to come first, and the first last.

That's Love.

It is also, curiously enough, the basic notion underlying pure socialism...but it's efficacy is greater limited by the spiritual maturity of a populace and their leaders, which usually isn't that high. Capitalism is the antithesis of that, being based on self-interest, inequality, and competition (a form of war). Both socialism and capitalism have a useful part to play in human development, but socialism is essentially more egalitarian in its nature. That has not prevented it from being hijacked by some of the most vicious dictators and police states in history, however. People are clever creatures. They can ruin anything, given half a chance.

What humans call "love" is mostly just a form of conditional negotiation. ("I'll give you what you want if I get what I want.")

Since God doesn't want (meaning "lack") anything...there are no conditions to be negotiated. The Divine loves everyone in a complete fashion. Whether they recognize it, are open to it, or accept that love is an entirely different matter! Many (all, in fact) are called. Few step forward and answer (because they don't hear the call in the first place...they're too busy with other matters that concern them). Those who do not step forward and answer cannot be chosen, because it is on them that the choice depends.

All of this, of course, may strike you as utter tripe and fantasy. If so, feel free to go on enjoying your usual concepts of reality. That's what we all do.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 11:57 AM

Gee, LH, you do rattle on some, doncha?? But I am glad someone is willing to take on the burdensome role of Mudcat Spiritual Docent and Cosmic Interpreter.

I do hope you'll come to the next meeting of the Mudcat Green Tea and Literary Insights Circle and share your view of "Meaning in the Teacup, Full or Empty" (our current thematic topic). I am sure we can arrange an honorarium.

Sincerely yours,


A

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:23 PM

Awright!!! Ha! Ha! Ha! That sounds like an event which I absolutely MUST attend. My rates are quite reasonable too. I will speak for a good meal and a glass of wine, or a weekend with Winona R., or a 1/32 scale Revell model of the Kawanishi Shiden (that kit is very hard to find these days).

- LH

p.s. what does "docent" mean?

p.p.s. Wolfgang, I see big trouble brewing in the monkey house. I fear that any day they will elect a really stupid monkey with big ears who will launch a pre-emptive attack on the chinchilla cages, claiming that they are hiding weapons of mass destruction.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:41 PM

LH I was grooving right along to that ramble. It was a good one. I think I will spend a lot of time on that, in fact.

Related to all of the above, I recently have come to believe that we are decensded from the primates who consciously decided to violate the social contract of ritual violence (i.e ritual aggression to accomplish the purpose without carnage), and who made a deliberate and calculated decision, with foresight and malice aforethought, to throw rocks right between the eyes.

Dan

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: harpgirl
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:51 PM

...monkey see, monkey do!

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 12:54 PM

VIOLENCE

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.

                Salvor Hardin

Postulate: This sentiment applies to all species, not just homo sapiens. Discuss.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 01:33 PM

Well the one with the grapes was probably just doing it to catch the eye of some male! Silly grrrls...competing over some fellah!

Seriously, in human life one wouldn't expect another woman to give up her higher salary for her lower-paid sisters, not in this day and age, in a Western society as we know it. She probably had a real struggle to get there, paid her dues, so to speak. Rather than giving that up or resting on her laurels, though, she may do as many really have and work for equal pay for women, overall. The more women who can command higher pay, the more chances others will be able to follow.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:27 PM

Well, Kat, it depends on the society. In some societies the pay may be the primary or at least a key objective, in others accomplishing the work may be the main objective, and the pay is simply not a factor. This would certainly be true in a moneyless society, and there have been some of those.

But what about the violence question posed by Amos? "Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent"? Well, yes, that is generally true in the case of human beings...although...in a case of warfare (launched, one assumes, by the morally incompetent) one may require competent warriors to defend oneself! So there you have a situation arising out of human incompetence which requires further such incompetence, done of course in as competent a manner as possible. :-) Stonewall Jackson was a marvelously competent expert in the organized incompetence that is called "war".

Now for a tiger, violence is a prerequisite to survival, but does that include violence on other tigers? Possibly, when one takes into account territorial requirements and food supply...this leads me to think that a totally nonviolent tiger would be, in fact, incompetent.

It's my belief that human beings are (generally) evolved to a higher level of intelligence (and thus responsibility) than animals, so we ought to be able to find ways of avoiding violence...and we certainly could, if we were all willing to. It's partly just laziness that stands in the way. For instance, we routinely practice violence (by proxy) on untold numbers of domesticated animals merely for the convenience of eating food we have grown accustomed to. There are alternatives, but laziness and habit and profit stand in the way of doing anything substantial to change the situation.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:34 PM

The results of the study aren't really surprising when one considers that inequity aversion in humans is most pronounced during relatively early childhood. How often do parents of two-year-olds hear something like, "Not fair! Suzie got more than me!" ? The fact that it is something human children learn so early and easily would seem to indicate that it is a trait passed down from our "pre-human" ancestors, not a "learned behavior".

I would be very interested to see the same type of study performed with dogs to see if inequity aversion is strictly a primate characteristic or if it is even more deeply ingrained in the mammalian psyche.

Bruce

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,Bonzo the Third
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 02:35 PM

I would be willing to engage in violent or destructive acts for grapes, as long as those acts do not require substantial risk to my own well-being. Phone the ape and monkey house at the Philadelphia Zoo and ask for Bonzo the Third.

I will also work for bananas, mangos, and papayas.

I want to thank Wolfgang for starting this excellent thread!

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 03:56 PM

Life is like a tree full of monkeys. The ones on the top look down and see nothing but smiling faces. The ones on the bottom look up and see nothing but arseholes.

And I don't like cucumber so it's the grape for me every time!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: katlaughing
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:30 PM

LH, I did saay Western society as we know it, basically. I agree with you, otherwise and would actually prefer a more egalitarian society of bartering, sharing and, self-sustainability.

Also, It's my belief that human beings are (generally) evolved to a higher level of intelligence (and thus responsibility) than animals,...I just watched a program about a little MALE Jack Russell terrier named Tokkolos in Namibia at the Harras Wildlife Sanctuary. That little 2yr old dog has a lot to teach us. He was originally supposed to be a companion animal for the director. However when she took him out to exercise, along with a few cheethas which she'd raised from orphanhood, the little dog found himself being followed about by four smaller baby cheetahs. Around there is is/was common for farmers to kill the mother cheetahs if they threaten their cattle herds.

Harras was founded to care for the orphans of such as well as other wildlife. Anyway, little Tokkolos adopted those kittens and mothered them. He not only mothers all of them, he also mothers any other type of animal orphan which comes to the Sanctuary, no matter the species, gender, etc. In the case of four newborn kittens (cheetah, I think) he literally saved them by giving them the good washing up a mother would do which stimulates them to eat, urinate and defecate. It was really incredible to watch him mother, play and discipline those fine cats, esp. as they became bigger, near the size of larger dogs, and on. They clearly respected and obeyed him.

After watching it, I couldn't help but think how much I wished human beings would get along so well without thought of colour, ability, gender, etc.

The other extraordinary thing was the young woman who is the director, having grown up there as the daughter of the original founders, walked among the big cats freely and without any malice from them. There was NO violence, no fear of the animals nor did the animals seem fearful in anyway. Sure, there were territorial spats, but nothing which drew blood.:-) And, Tokkolos reigned over all. An almost Eden on earth it would seem, imo.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:42 PM

That's a fascinating story, Kat. There are some individual animals who are extraordinary individuals, showing a highly developed soul.

Merely being in the presence of a highly developed soul greatly assists other souls, and that is true for animals as well as for human beings. It's the basis behind the formation of spiritual communities. Sounds like the Harras Wildlife Sanctuary is a spiritual community to me.

I like Jack Russells a lot. They're lively, bright little dogs.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 04:54 PM

There has been some other interesting animal research going on lately. Take a look at the news regarding a fossil of a guinnea pig the size of a bison.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:48 PM

Wow!!

LH:

Competency in violence is not the question. The proposition is that an entity resorts to viokence only after having screwed up other possible means of managing things. But I think actually that is just disingenuous, since almost all animals live on some sort of violence. Carnivores against each other, and herbivores against weeds and plants.

In fact just because humans organize their food chain doesn't make it look any less violent from the cow viewpoint, does it? Getting your throat cut or your brains smashed in is no less violent because it is done by an organization with secretaries and all...

Maybe you could argue that if we were truly competent we would live on light and water, but I feel that's going a little far...

:>)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 05:50 PM

Bonzo the Third - your offer interests me. How many bananas would you charge to travel to Windsor, Ontario and pitch overripe durians at Clinton Hammond when he is performing his next gig?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Joybell
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 06:00 PM

Monkeys monkeys an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of computers and an infinite amount of time. I knew I was in the right place. I've been wondering where you were.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 08:06 PM

The vineyard story sounds fine and fair to me. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Just because you are hanging round all day hoping to be hired instead of picking grapes doesn't mean the needs of you and your family are any less. Solidarity!

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 09:15 PM

Yeah! Right on, McGrath! That's the way I see it too.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: rangeroger
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:57 PM

When I was a student at San Diego State I took an experimental psychology course in primate behavior. The proffessor was Dr. Chris Parker. WE spent a lot of our time at the San Diego Zoo observing the primates there.

Chris had done a lot of work with the gorillas and the orangutans there and related a story to us about one of his experiments.

He was in the crowd one day observing Albert,the patriarch Silverback who used to be at the zoo. Someone in the crowd made the comment that a gorilla was as strong as ten men. Chris began to wonder "How do you prove that statement"? Do you put a gorilla at one end of a rope and ten men at the other?

What he came up with was a tube filed with garage door springs witha handle at one end and a tension gauge at the other.This extended through a concrete wall into the gorilla enclosure.Albert would get a reward of a banana slice upon reaching a predetermined tension. The interesting part came when Albert started placing his banana slices on the window where Chris was observing. When Albert failed to pull the handle sufficiently to get a reward he would reach up and take one of his stockpiled slices and reward himself anyway.

As to the strength of the pull? Well over 800 lbs and when Albert reached the point of reward he would simply let go of the handle allowing every thing to crash back into place. Chris said the entire building shook when he did that.

Another interesting note was that Chris also tried the experiment wth Bob, the old orangutan. Bob not only pulled more than Albert(over 1000lbs) he did it one handed and with complete control would slowly let the springs return with nary a sound.

rr

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Mary in Kentucky
Date: 18 Sep 03 - 10:57 PM

LH, you did well with the laborers in the vineyard parable. How 'bout the prodigal son.......I see similarities.....especially the father, and the pouting older son/brother.

And about Jack Russells.....it's been my experience that they are about the most neurotic dog around. I've known three, and they were so attached to their female owners that they went bananas when a male was near. ...Next to Dalmations, about the nastiest dogs to approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Padre
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 12:54 AM

But is a grape 'better' pay than a cucumber - that seems to me the definition of 'unequal' What this report seems to be saying is that some monkeys would rather have what the other table is having, not that one reward is 'more equal' than another. "The grass is always greener...."

If the measure is weight, the cucumber should clearly be the winner.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 01:01 AM

Roger:

So he demonstrated that some gorilla was a s strong as .8 orangoutangs?

What about men? What sort did he test? (Given the variety it is an untestable statement as written anyway!)

A

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 02:10 PM

The question about this monkey for fairness, as others have alluded to above, is whether he may have just been pouty (and therefore self-defeating), rather than taking a stand for justice.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 03:50 PM

Hi, Mary...well, I have to agree that some Jack Russels are real mental cases, but I happened to know one that was a very neat little dog, so I guess that has prejudiced me in their favour. :-)

The prodigal son? I'll have a look at it (again) and see...

I like that story about the orangutan letting the springs return slowly. He was obviously a thinking ape, not just a strong one.

Still haven't heard back from Bonzo the Third, and the zoo staff will not put me through to him. In fact, they laughed at me. Some people!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: katlaughing
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 04:06 PM

I've known two really wonderful Jack Russel terriers, one of which belongs to my dad. She is known as "Jackie O.":-)

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 04:47 PM

Bruce,

to repeat it with dogs is a good idea. My gut feeling is they wouldn't care about 'unequal pay'. But, as they write (too often) at the end of articles: 'Further research is requested.'

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 05:15 PM

I still don't like this particular bible story.
You just have to imagine the landowner using this method of payment the next day and always after that. The needs are of course still the same. But if the workers can get that pay with a tiny fraction of toil you can imagine what happens.

And it is not a very good story about solidarity in my eyes:
Am I not free to do as I wish with my own money?

For that line alone I didn't like it when I was young and I still don't.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 06:46 PM

Well, yeah, but it's not really about money nor is it about normal everyday work situations between a boss and his hired help. I would have been quite annoyed by such a story when I was young too, by the way, for much the same reasons as you are, Wolfgang.

One has to assume that in the society of Jesus' time people were general fairly familiar with the kind of parables that he used to describe spiritual problems and solutions. If not, he would not have spoken to them in that fashion, but in some fashion more suitable to their understanding. It was a society where virtually everyone was quite religious, and would probably understand that such a story was symbolic, not literal.

Now suppose that you took a modern speaker who talks to people about positive thinking, using all of our present vernacular and expressions...and then translated it (as best you could) into ancient Hebrew and went back in a time machine to the year 3 BC and read it to the locals in Palestine. I suspect they would find a lot of it confusing or incomprehensible. You would probably end up getting stoned to death or something. :-)

This is one reason why I do not place my sole dependence for spiritual inspiration on ancient texts and teachers, but instead read all the modern stuff I can on the subject, and try to find living teachers as well. There are some out there.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 19 Sep 03 - 06:58 PM

Grapes are better than cucumbers -- any six-year old knows that!! Why? Fructose, man!!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,Bonzo the Third
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 11:30 AM

Little Hawk, I must decline your offer of bananas for harassing Clinton Hammond at his next gig. I've heard about Clinton Hammond. He's dangerous. Get someone else to do your dirty work. I'm a chimp, not a chump.

However, for a crate of Grade A bananas I will call him up and blow raspberries at him over the phone, long distance...

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 11:39 AM

McGrath - that was communism... from each according to their means, to each according to their needs.

The vinyard parable is this: Those workers employed at the beginning of the day agreed to a price and were happy. They stopped being happy when others came in near the end of the day and got the same price for fewer hours work. The moral (apart from always read the small print) is, your reward will always be equal to your labours, but some may not have to work hard to get it.

I still say that cucumbers are only good for one thing - and that sure as heck ain't eating!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 11:53 AM

Then too, piecework is normally based on a set fee for doing a specific job. You don't get paid more if it takes you five times longer to do it. This is an important thing to remember when hiring certain types of somewhat unscrupulous fellows to paint your house or cut down your dead trees and haul them away. NEVER pay them by the hour!!! They may be there for weeks if you do... Agree on a set price at the beginning and pay them only when the job is completely and properly done...eh, Raptor? :-)

Bonzo - Well, I am a little disappointed at your lack of pluck and enterprise. It's true that Clinton is a dangerous lunatic, but he doesn't normally go to gigs heavily armed. I expected better of you. Furthermore, a crate of bananas for a mere long distance phone call is exorbitant! I will instead offer you one (1) banana to make the call, payable after it's been made.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,Bonzo the Third
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 12:05 PM

I wouldn't think of doing it for less than 10 bananas, payable in advance.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 12:14 PM

6 bananas. 3 in advance, 3 after the job is done.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,Bonzo the Third
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 12:24 PM

It's a deal! Send the first 3 bananas by UPS at once. I'm warming up by practicing my raspberries on fat tourists with cameras and whiny little kids. First I give 'em the raspberry, then I moon 'em! If that doesn't work, I do something really gross. Ha! Ha!

Ooo! Ooo! Ooo! I am salivating already!

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Amos
Date: 20 Sep 03 - 12:57 PM

Equal pay for Equal Monkeys!! Little Hawk Unfair!!

A

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Hrothgar
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 05:08 AM

Back to the original proposition:

All of the monkeys in this were female - why was the experiment done with female monkeys only?

Possibly they couldn't get the male monkeys to work at all, because they were smart enough to figure out that the keepers would have to feed them anyway?

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 03:15 PM

Trying to start trouble are you, Hrothgar? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 04:35 PM

Maybe the males might have been more likely to bite the hand that fed them in such an inconsistent way.

Interpreting all this in terms of "justice" seems a bit stretched to me. Essentially, it's a kind of journalistic PR.

I mean, if you did this kind of experiment with human beings, the kind of reasons for the results shown could include all kinds of other motives as well as a hunger for justice. And as this thread has demonstrated, even when it comes to "justice" there are all kinds of different way of determinig what is just.

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,Wolfgang
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 04:43 PM

Why only female monkeys?
I know your responses were not meant serious but just in case someone is interested: The serious reason for this lies most likely outside of the actual experiment. Females only groups are much easier to keep than mixed or males only groups.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Monkeys refuse unequal pay
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 21 Sep 03 - 05:36 PM

Yes I also suspect that the monkey had no firm grasp of justice nor any desire to be a little proto-warrior for justice, or a union activist in the making. Still, the self-awareness is intriguing, especially in its apparently negative impact on the ability to institute role diversification. This monkey's thought process extends in some fashion to an awareness of community and its benefits or drawbacks. We generally accept (don't we still?) that many social endeavours, e.g. those epitomized by ant communities, function with no understanding by the members. Here, however, we need to consider the functioning of, say, a small community of monkeys, and the need for one or more to stand guard, facing risks and losing out on feeding time or something else. Most people still believe (I think) that altruism is in appearances only, not a conscience decision?

In other words, with this monkey so self-conscious about keeping up with the Jones's, who or what convinces her to serve the greater goodwhen she's not being fed by keepers? The articles above says that resusal to accept injustice "has been a positive influence in the long-term in the development of human society," but these monkeys showed (possibly irrational) self-interest in conjunction with an awareness of community, not a disdain for inequity.

(Do only male monkeys take guard duty?)