And do we view these traits as the critical factors that make us human? Frans de Waal is a biologist and primatologist. His early work sought to "compare the schmoozing and scheming of chimpanzees involved in power struggles with that of human politicians." (Insert your own joke about chimps & politicians here!) In this TEDtalk, de Waal highlights recent research being done to understand moral behavior in animals.
Frans de Waal biography can be found HERE.
Video running time: 16: 52
Points to ponder:
- Are we a society of competitors? Is winning or losing the only thing that matters? How does competition effect our students? Competition for grades? for jobs? for positions on sports teams or as officials in clubs and fraternities?
- de Waal implies that there may be less complexity to some traits that society has typically considered "human", like fairness. Do you agree? Could a concept like "fairness" really be simpler than we imagine?
- What did you find most interesting about de Waal's talk? For the non-biology and non-psychology people: did anything surprise you in this piece?
- What do you think that capuchin getting the cucumber is thinking when his buddy gets the grapes?
As I watched this video, I was reminded of Robert Sapolsky's TED talk. I wonder if we'll watch that one, too. There's also a very interesting TED talks involving apes and economics . . .
ReplyDeleteAs a non-bio and non-psych person, I found the setup of the experiments very interesting. I was curious about how the scientists figured out what would be tested and how to do it. It seems simple now that I've seen it, but I imagine it would take some thought--and some knowledge of the animals--to figure out how to test for these traits.
Is "Fairness" simple? In these experiments, it was. What was being tested was a simple idea--fairness in distribution of tasty food. In human scenarios, that could be compared to the lunch line--does the lunch lady give you the same amount of ice cream as she gave your roommate? Or does she give you lima beans instead?
But I wonder about more complex situations--like grades, for instance. Is it just as easy to determine whether a grade in a class (for example) is "fair"? Did the students really do the exact same thing (like handing the experimenter a rock)? or maybe the rock was slightly different, or was handed in different ways. Our idea that there should be fairness might be activated, but we might have a harder time determining if something is "fair" or not.
Seems like maybe the concept of fairness might be similar in apes and people, but the kinds of things they judge for "fairness" are more complex.
It is possible, notes Buber, to place ourselves completely into a relationship, to truly understand and "be there" with another person, without masks, pretenses, even without words. Such a moment of relating is called "I-Thou." Each person comes to such a relationship without preconditions. The bond thus created enlarges each person, and each person responds by trying to enhance the other person. The result is true dialogue, true sharing. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Buber.html
ReplyDeleteFairness: the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fairness
I remember taking a philosophy course my Freshman year in college. One of the works we read was “I and Thou” by Martin Buber. Later, I took a course in Buddhism and learned about the “Crimson Heart of Compassion.” My graduate school believed in Carl Rogers’ theories and stressed empathetic listening.
Later in life I became fascinated with Leo Buscaglia who said: “I have a very strong feeling that the opposite of love is not hate - it's apathy. It's not giving a damn.”
I wanted to believe it was possible to be an empathetic person. I think self-preservation makes many of us sympathetic; few are empathetic.
Compretitiveness is lauded in our society. Every day we are reminded to be and do our best. Certainly there are people who don’t necessarily believe that the “ends justify the means,” but a look at the nightly news tells us that much of humanity does believe being the best and/or having power is always the goal.
Competition for grades, being invited to join a club, getting a job, etc. is tempered by the service/learning requirement at our institution. I believe it is hoped that this will carry on for a lifetime once students have graduated. One can learn to feel good about being compassionate towards others without always having to be competitive and looking only for one’s own rewards.
How interesting to watch this in light of other things that I've heard and read today. First, this morning on NPR: a discussion with Romney's former partner(?) at Bain capital, who argues essentially that fairness isn't the right question to ask re: capitalism. Capitalism requires that some accumulate capital. Also, he said, inequalities serve as an important incentive. I didn't listen to the whole discussion, but I imagine he would say that competitiveness is good - and I would certainly agree that it is in many situations. Second, earlier this afternoon I started the summer reading, which ties into the issues of animal behavior and how it relates to human behavior and well-being.
ReplyDeleteFollowing up on some of Jane's comments, I would say that the experiments shown that are meant to test animals' ability or predilection to cooperate and empathize are simple and compelling. But they would be inadequate to test some of the things that are often associated with "justice" or "fairness." Treating everyone equally is only one way to think of fairness. Does everyone always deserve equal treatment? Should treatment be based on one's contribution? Think of the free-rider elephant who just put his big foot down and let the other elephant do all the work. Should s/he be rewarded for merit/cleverness - or get a smaller share for exerting less effort? If we followed the communist motto, shares would be based on what each needs. From my thin understanding of fairness, it can be based on equality or on differentiation.
Anyway ... I enjoyed the antics of the capuchin who got nothing but cucumbers.
I thought the most interesting and simple concept is that fairness and compassion are the pillars of morality. I think it gets more complex when each person interprets fairness differently, or when perhaps all the facts are not known. For example, what if the monkey needed to have a bigger or more sparkly rock to get the grape?
ReplyDeleteI'll echo Teresa's comment regarding the fundamental pillars of morality as being fairness and compassion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with him, but my initial reaction was "that's too simplistic". However, as others have commented above, the experiments were very simple in nature as well. Is it possible that, to prove his point, the author had to keep both the concept and the experiments very simple in order to prove his point? I also need to keep in mind that these presentations must be kept short and thus, could not explain all the research findings.
ReplyDeleteI, too, chuckled at the capuchin who received the cucumber pieces. I found it interesting that it picked up immediately on the fact that the other capuchin received a grape and it didn't waste any time expressing its displeasure with the reward system.
Reality is always more complex than scientific experiments, but that doesn't mean that what the experiments find isn't valid. I think fairness is simple. The two capuchins were given the same opportunity, but not the same reward, so it was unfair.
ReplyDeleteA real life example would be a male Caucasian getting a higher salary than his female African American co-worker, doing the same job. Is it possible he's doing a better job and deserves more pay? yes. It is also possible that she is doing a better job and deserves more pay than him? yes. Life isn't so clear cut as the experiments, but neither is fairness or equal opportunity/equal reward all that complex either.
On the other hand our society IS competitive, and that throws a wrench in the fairness ideal. Someone hired during a recession, where there is an abundance of skilled workers with-out jobs to compete with, is likely to take a lower starting salary and fewer benefits than a co-worker highered during times where the company had to compete for workers with the skill sets they needed. The two workers are un-equal due to chance and circumstance. Is this unfair?
The main thing I want to focus on is how ideas of compassion, empathy and fairness are dependent on knowing the other animal in the test - or at least being present with the other animal. It seems, if we are to suggest that these traits are innate in the human being, then that qualification has to be added. When we don't know the people who are being treated unfairly - the gay men and women looking for equal rights with the heterosexual world, the 99% and the 1% - it seems most humans are willing to avoid acting out of these traits entirely. And as opposed to assuming competitiveness is somehow also innate or "normal" - it seems it is actually a social construct that has been framed as "normal" to make it somehow acceptable to beat our competition into the ground.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought. If competition is innate and "normal" - that doesn't automatically mean that any reward for winning needs to be connected to it. Winning may be enough of a reward if we think of this trait as being innate. It is society that has made the connection between material goods and victory. In capitalism - two competing businesses can fight until one business can claim to have won - but why does that mean the winning business gets to claim all the spoils. What if we made the process more fair by demanding that the winning business share the spoils with the losers? That, it seems to me, would be more "fair," not to mention more certain to keep the competition alive and"fair," as well. If competitiveness is "normal" - than rewards should go to people who lose, as well as to those who win. No one should ever lose everything. Even the "losing" chimp got a cucumber. Competition should be rewarded - not winning.
It also seems that competition shouldn't apply to everything. No one should ever lose when it comes to healthcare and education. Staying alive shouldn't be seen as a reward for beating someone else.
I used to be a big sports fan. I still occasionally root for a baseball team - but when I see this same type of winner-takes-all mentality playing itself out in the market place (and, let's face it, in politics too, which has become more capitalist than democratic) - the more I understand why people choose to not even play. The dog-eat-dog attitude of the capitalist reality has led us away from the traits of compassion, empathy and fairness this video demonstrates are innate in some animals.
Hi Everyone,
ReplyDeleteLike Jane, I was facinated with the set-up of the experiments and with the design of tasks that would point to conclusions about moral behavior in animals. As an observer, it felt a bit like watching a game in which the monkeys tried to figure out what to do to get the results they wanted. The possible paralells with classroom behavior are intriguing and disturbing.
How many of our students try to do this same thing when completing an assignment? When taking a course?
When seeking a degree? How many of them view learning as a process lsimilar to getting that cucumber or that grape?
How many of us instructors view teaching as a similar "experiment" in which we are given rocks (papers, projects, etc.) in exchange for rewards (grades, praise, etc.)? How many of us are aware of the game-like feel of the exchange? Of the protective gear we don as we enter into the exchange?
The design of the experiment we watched was ingenious: the researcher in the room collected the rocks, so that only the fruit might be thrown, at least initially. This is something to consider when designing assignments, I suppose.
Sorry for the typos and irregular formatting here. I'm working from a mobile device which makes it hard to catch and correct errors.
ReplyDeleteI found the talk entertaining, but I am often suspicious of projects that use animal behavior to make implications about "innately" human traits. As a non-scientist, I have difficulties expressing these suspicions....
ReplyDeleteI realize that the scientists behavior around the animals was designed to prevent any sort of suggestion. Still, I wonder what effects it had, especially given de Waal's interesting comments about "contagion," and the fact that some of the animals were not in their natural environments.
Then I wonder if we aren't leaving out something about culture here. I'm sure with a little thought we could come up with examples of how fairness/reciprocity is very different in different cultures. Maybe some of the biologists among us could also let us know if animals have particular cultures, and if fairness/reciprocity is variable among them.
I do think society as a whole promotes competition, but I was really intrigued by the experiments that were performed here. I think it’s very natural to want to receive the same as everyone else (and be upset if you don’t, just as the capuchin was!). Dennis brings up a very good point though – how do we know if it’s “fair” if we aren’t there to witness it? The capuchin probably would not have been nearly as upset if he wasn’t aware the other monkey was being given grapes in exchange for the same rock.
ReplyDeleteI think a little competition can be healthy for everyone. It pushes us to do our best, and to get the most out of each experience. For example, multiple schools broke the first-year Dance Marathon fundraising record this year – and that came from some healthy competition! However, we need to figure out how to avoid situations like the freeloading elephant (however, I give him points for cleverness!)
Was anyone else interested that in their experiment demonstrating "prosocial" behavior in chimps, the altruistic behavior (picking the red token, which gives reward to the other chimp as well as the picking chimp) was selected only about 60% of the time, or 70% when the other chimp solicited it? It seems to me that there's a significant amount of "spin" involved in saying this gives a strong demonstration of altruism when in fact, 30 to 40% of the time the chimp rewarded only him/herself when the reward could have been given to the other at absolutely no cost. This isn't to say that the experiment proves nothing, but only that this altruism they've demonstrated is hardly the best one could hope for.
ReplyDeleteYes, our society promotes competition but too often focuses on the outcome of competition rather than the process and products of it. I think that if we could shift the objective of competition from winning to improvement it could be more inclusive. Improvement doesn't sell tickets, seats in classrooms, or beds in residence halls though.
ReplyDeleteI do believe fairness may be simpler that it seems because I think many animals, including many humans, realize that life isn't zero-sum and see the benefits of helping and promoting others. Although the motivation may be selfish initially (by helping my herd-mate out it will make us all stronger) it does allow for equilibrium to develop.
As a former biology person, I found the methods by which they tested these skills to be incredibly simple, which adds to my thought that fairness is/can be simple.
As a sociologist, it's no surprise that I agree with Dennis (and others) that competition and fairness are social constructs.
ReplyDeleteWatching this video reminded me of several discussions I had with students this semester about fairness and equality with respect to welfare state policy differences among "Western" countries. What is deemed as fair in one context is considered completely unfair in another context. Comparing income tax, healthcare, and unemployment policies (among others) in Scandinavia to those in the US highlights stark cultural differences in the levels of inequality that are deemed "fair" and therefore acceptable.
I also think Lynda makes a really great point about fairness not being the same as equality. What's fair is not always equal. In fact, in a market-based economy tremendous differences (inequalities) in wealth and income are often deemed quite fair (and actually well-deserved).
A question I was left pondering was what explains the preference for grapes over cucumbers? Is there something about capuchins' taste buds that makes this so, or have they learned to like the taste of grapes more than cukes?
de Waal's little quip after that video was that the capuchins like the grapes better because they're more expensive! :-)
DeleteWe have certainly become a society of competitors. However, given some of the nature of the chimps in the study, I'm not sure it is just us that have this trait! I think those animals acted pretty similarly to how a human would react in the same situation (although might use words instead). If even chimps have tendency toward competition, I imagine it is more of a natural tendency rather than a social constructed idea.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I do think that fairness is a simple concept. However, I do believe our society has over-complicated it.
Some people, in situations as the capuchins experiment, would react in the same way: "Hey, I did the same thing as him, and his reward is better, that's not fair." (That's what I imagine the capuchin to be saying). On the flip side, how many people in our society might also not think that we deserve as much as another colleague, friend, or stranger. We have actually created the idea that some people are better than other people, and some would believe the "better" people deserve more than the "lesser" people. I think that is where fairness becomes complicated. In the ideal world where all people are considered equal- and consider themselves equal- we might be able to simply the concept of fairness, as well as competition.
As one who is entrenched in atheltics and therefore competition, I especially enjoyed the capuchin part of the video.It shows that rewards(outcomes) for one may not be that same despite the work(giving of the rock) being equal.
ReplyDeleteThroughout the piece we saw self satisifaction a driving factor in many actions that were taken. While teamwork is necessary, the bottom line may be for what is best of yourself & not the team
I agree with what many have stated that have become a society of competitors, and I think that this fact is reflected in classroom behaviors and activities. I agree with Tom when he states that we have become more concerned with the outcome as opposed to the process and products, and this can be seen in students' expectations regarding grades. Often times, it seems for both students and parents the focus is one the letter grade received as opposed to any long-term takeaway from an exercise.
ReplyDeleteAnd no, I didn't find it very surprising to see animals displaying traits that we think of as innately human. I think humans in general like to see themselves as distinctly separate from other species in a variety of ways, and so there is always some underlying incentive to reserve behaviors as solely human.
Another example of the balance that occurs in our lives...cooperation and competition. I think we all agree we need both in all aspects of our lives. The true beauty is when we can recognize the difference.
ReplyDeleteChildren learn at a very young age to be competive and our society does a very good job of fostering that inspite of the attempts to give everyone a blue ribbon or create a grading system that doesn't make Johnny feel badly. I don't think competition is all bad. Just look at the fun we have on Saturdays and Sundays watching our favorite football team. What would we do without that entertainment?? (I'm sure that's a topic we could discuss at much length) Competition is good. Does competion get in the way of complete learning all we want our students to be and do? I believe it does. As Sara suggests life and situations are not fair. I'm sure that is what the capuchin was feeling when he got the cuke instead of the grape. I think studies like those done video are interesting but I always wonder about the vaiables that somehow never make it into the study and how they would affect the outcomes. I did find the elephants fun and interesting.
ReplyDeleteIn American politics today the importance of competition is given a lot of rhetorical attention. Competition over time certainly has had positive impacts on human development as a spur to innovation and improvement. A society that somehow eliminated competition wouldn't work very well.
ReplyDeleteAt the same time competition sometimes has negative impacts. Not all situations call for competition. Competition in capitalism assumes equal opportunity, which in practice is not a warranted assumption. Not all people are competitive by nature. Not all people respond well to competition or the promise of rewards. Not all competition is fair.
The competitive monoculture being promoted in contemporary political rhetoric will mostly have bad outcomes.
Fairness and envy are intertwined in many situations. While a given division of resources may well be fair, it may not be envy free. Just because an individual has been treated fairly does not mean that he or she will not be envious of how others have been treated.
ReplyDeleteThe "mathematics of fair division" can be used to show that fair solutions are much easier to obtain than those that are envy free.
With a short presentation it is difficult to answer all questions but I am left with several that I am curious about.
ReplyDeleteJust a few of my questions are;
How much of the observed humanness of the behavior is in the eye of the beholder?
Would individuals improve themselves if there was no competition?
Are individuals encouraged to compete because of cooperation? Team sports seem to be more popular than individual sports.
Dr. de Waal refers to the actions of the freeloading elephant as “illegal” I am curious as to why he uses this term?
What would the cooperation activities look like if the individual rewards were less fair?
It is difficult to draw comparisons between the society of animals to those of humans. As I learn of different human civilizations I wonder how could they have developed with such a perceived lack of values. (because of course, our values are correct) For example how the Ik people treat their children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ik_people or how I saw the Pashtuns treat women in Afghanistan. There are many variables to consider.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI am interested in the motivational aspect of the pull-study with the chimp that was not interested in the reward. Sometimes I think that is what we are up against with students who are not interested in a specific subject area and who do not see the potential learning oppotunities as relevant to them. The competitors will do what we ask of them in order to be the best or get the best grade; some students will empathize with our plight and cooperate. How do we motivate all to work for us/with us even when they are not interested? I do believe that when students get into the work they will become interested. In a way, it seems that the research presented highlights compliance and consensus, not cooperation.
DeleteIf this is our nature, empathy and fairness, can it be unlearned. How much is nature or nurture. Are we all wired the same? Or intended to be so. What of behavior that goes against our nature?
ReplyDeleteI think we need to be very careful with the term fair. I have discovered that fair is not the same thing as equal. Is it fair to only teach one way in the classroom when some students might need a different method to learn the material? I think people of my generation think it is unfair for some students to receive extra help. However, my son's generation is used to everyone being encouraged to be successful. The flip side of this is that competition is being watered down.....i.e. everyone gets a trophy and everyone is safe in t-ball. Once again, the answer seems to be moderation. There has to be a balance of promoting competition while still being "fair" to all.
ReplyDelete