Aiden Hiller
Mr. Ippolito
AP Biology
9/21/18
Zimmer, Carl. “Seeking Human Generosity's Origins in an Ape's Gift to Another Ape.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/science/generosity-apes-bonobos.html.
Generosity has previously been viewed as a fundamentally human trait, our ability to cooperate and feel compassion for others is key to explaining how we became overwhelmingly successful as a species. However, as we begin to learn more about our primate ancestors, we’re discovering that generosity originated long before humans. In an article by Carl Zimmer published in the New York Times, he examines one study that tested prosociality in chimpanzees and bonobos. The first experiment conducted tested the behavior of bonobos when given an opportunity to act generously. They placed two apes in separate cages connected by a window; the researchers then used a behavior seen in many primate species in which they crack nuts with two rocks. One ape had the rocks and the other had the food, so which was one more likely to act generously? The researchers found that the bonobo with the nuts was much more likely to offer one to his neighbor, but the monkeys with the rocks were stingy and almost never returned the favor. In a separate study of chimpanzees with similar conditions, researchers found that the opposite was true. Chimpanzees will often make the connection that the adjacent monkey needs a tool to reach the food, but they are not likely to share the food. In an experiment only testing generosity with tools, researchers handed the monkeys a stick through the cage and left the room; when they returned, chimpanzees handed the tool back but bonobos held onto it and even teased the researchers with it.
The basis for this difference in behavior shown between bonobos and chimpanzees is their environment. Chimpanzees have to be crafty when finding food, and use many tools to do so, because of limited availability, it’s common to see intraspecific competition for food.Whereas bonobos are limited to the forests of the Democratic Republic of Congo, and don’t have this problem because food sources are abundant. This kind of behavior can be described as reciprocal altruism, in which an organism reduces it’s fitness to increase the fitness of another, hoping that the favor will be returned. Since food sources are scarce for chimpanzees, the penalty is too great for them to be altruistic with food; however, they are more than happy to share tools because they understand their importance and there are plenty to go around. This behavior is comparable to the concept of tit for tat in game theory, the optimal strategy for the prisoner’s dilemma game. It’s interesting how this seems to be genetically embedded in many species; the organisms work together until they feel they have been cheated, and then refuse to cooperate. The article also mentioned how children around age five develop awareness of prosociality, and an understanding that these actions will increase their social standing; it just goes to show that we have much to learn about the genetic basis of behavior.
While the article did a great job of explaining the experiment itself, I think he could have done better with explaining the impacts of this research. Zimmer does not explain what this research indicates; he essentially just paraphrased the results. It was effective in providing background for understanding the purpose of this experiment, and has an alluring title that creates interest. He also incorporated quotes from an unrelated researcher about the contrasting behavior of chimpanzees that added significant substance to the article. The article was paced effectively in a way that maintains the reader’s interest. My only other complaint is that the quote used to conclude the article seems forced, I would have left it more open ended to facilitate the reader’s reflection on the article.
Joseph Daher
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
9/20/18
Zimmer, Carl. “Seeking Human Generosity's Origins in an Ape's Gift to Another Ape.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/science/generosity-apes-bonobos.html.
Aiden chose a well-written, interesting and informative article to review from a reliable news source that well described the original study of Dr. Krupenye on the prosociality of bonobos. The New York Times is a reputable news organization, and the article was written on a study published in a peer-reviewed journal, meaning that the information given in the article is both credible and relevant. I also appreciated his introduction to the article, as he first contextualizes the study by mentioning the origins of generosity in humans and then introduces the article and study. It served as both an intriguing hook and a way to establish his personal writing style. Aiden’s critique of the article was well-justified, as he pointed out the lack of discussion of implications of the study in the New York Times article; the article was largely a retelling of the original study for a more casual audience. His own analysis of the article was thorough and rational, and his tone is much more open-ended than that of the original piece.
Two things that Aiden could improve on are is summarizing the article more concisely and also mentioning the original study and its authors itself. His summary of the article is disproportionately long compared to his analysis, and longer than the abstract of the study itself. Specifically, I feel that it is less important to frame the specifics of the study than to discuss its implications. The use of a rhetorical question however was an interesting way to encourage the reader to actively think. I think that Aiden should have clarified the nature of the original study itself aside from just mentioning the New York Times article. Incorporating Dr. Krupeneye and his colleagues in some manner into his review just as the New York Times Article would lend credibility to his narrative. Mentioning the location of the study at the beginning would also be helpful, instead of near the end. Otherwise, Aiden did a good job of engaging the reader and accurately retelling the article.
One of the most powerful implications of this article and study is that it calls into question the moral superiority of humankind. Many like to think man as separate from the beast through culture, emotion, civilization and morality. However this study demonstrates that elements of behavioral psychology we traditionally view as intrinsically human are actually present in other species as well. Consequently, this means that studying the behavior of primates similar to humans could be used in a way to study human behavior by an approximate relative. It could also helps us learn more about the behavioral shifts that occurred when we evolved from our common ancestor with the bonobo several million years ago, and explain the behavior of homo erectus and homo sapiens prior to civilization.
Brian Li
ReplyDeleteMr. Ippolito
AP Biology
17 October 2018
Zimmer, Carl. “Seeking Human Generosity's Origins in an Ape's Gift to Another Ape.” The New
York Times, The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2018, www.nytimes.com/2018/09/11/science/generosity-apes-bonobos.htm
Aiden does a great job in his first paragraph discussing his article in a style that made the work engaging, instead of a simple regurgitation of the article itself. He forces the reader to examine the human hubris, making us question our own self-perceived exceptionalism. In that sense, it engages the reader by making the piece more personal, as generosity is a trait we usually associate with humans and not other animals. Also, the use of terminology and easy to follow reasoning makes this an extremely educational piece that does not just seek to inform the viewer about a topic, but also the ideas and nuances that come with any discovery. I felt that his explanations for how the primates’ environment influence their behavior were especially interesting. Furthermore, his criticism of Zimmer is thorough with his discussion including not only the article’s content but also its organization.
I felt, however, that despite the level of detail that Aiden was able to present about the topic, he did not address the implications of the research as much as I would have hoped in his second paragraph, especially after drawing connections from the research to concepts of human generosity in his introductory paragraph. It might have been interesting to see a continuation of that discussion and further impacts that he felt came from these experiments. I also thought that he could have elaborated more on the idea of prosociality in the context as child development, which he mentions at the end of his second paragraph. Again, it would help bolster his hook from the beginning that sought to contextualize human behavior in primates.
All in all, this was an extremely impactful and educational piece that made me think about how synthetic this idea of human exceptionalism is, especially when some of our most cherished “human” behaviors such as altruism are seen in animals. It really makes one think about how we sometimes use animals as images of “savagery” or “primitiveness”, when in fact we are still animals that have shared behaviors grounded in evolution.