«

»

Jun 12 2010

Spinster aunt registers lack of surprise

I knew it!

We acknowledge that systematic meat sharing by male chimpanzees in expectation of, or in return for, immediate copulations might be discovered in future studies. However, current data indicate that such exchanges are so rare, and so different in nature from exchanges among humans, that with respect to chimpanzees, sexual bartering in humans should be regarded as a derived trait with no known antecedents in the behavior of wild chimpanzees. [cite]

Thanks a buttload, SelinaK!

29 comments

  1. yttik

    Does this mean I can now order a salad without people acting like I’m somehow trying to thwart their privilege?

  2. Comrade PhysioProf

    What the fucking fuck does that absurd gibberish even mean?

  3. AlienNumber

    This does make one wonder about what the evo psych(opath)s will have to come up with next. But only for a moment, since whatever they come up with next will be shown, scientifically, to be a whole heap of crap.

  4. octopod

    Immediately before the above clip:

    “We also present new analyses of 28 years of data from two East African chimpanzee study sites…and discuss the results of previously published studies. In at least three chimpanzee communities, 1) the presence of sexually receptive females did not increase hunting probability, 2) males did not share preferentially with sexually receptive females, and 3) sharing with females did not increase a male’s short-term mating success.”

    Well, that just about ties it up, doesn’t it? I look forward to this coming out in full form.

    I wonder why they bothered with the “We acknowledge someone may in future find this to be true”, though? One doesn’t usually see that, or at least not promoted up into the abstract.

  5. Jeff

    Comrade PhysioProf, one of the things that evopsych researchers do is look for behavior in primates that mirrors behavior in humans and use that for evidence that human behavior is due to evolutionary processes.

    It’s all garbage of course, because human behavior is largely shaped by sociocultural factors rather than instincts and “natural” tendencies. I always do a little dance when any research turns idiotic evopsych ideas on their head. I hope Satoshi Kanazawa loses sleep over this.

  6. Ashley

    They don’t need to do a study to figure out how unnatural men are. Go down to Louisiana and stick your finger in the water.

  7. ElizaTheTroll

    Octopod, that statement looks like a typical review-process artifact to me. An evo-psych-positive reviewer may have objected that the data wasn’t sufficient to disprove the meat-for-sex hypothesis either, so they were forced to address that in some way in order to get their study published. That’s just my speculation, of course.

  8. sylvie

    Chimp biology is not human destiny. (Hope I’m not quoting you back to yourself Jill).

  9. Citizen Jane

    Comrade PhysioProf, there was a “study” a while back where someone found that female chimps preferred to have sex with male chimps who had given them meat. Instead of interpreting this as “female chimps prefer males that are nice to them,” or “female chimps prefer males that are better hunters because they will produce stronger offspring” or even “male chimps make efforts to ensure the survival of the mothers of their offspring,” they claimed it as evidence that prostitution is a natural instinct.

  10. ItTakesAVillage__People

    So…

    When chimps want to break with thee, break with thee, do they still fling pooh?

  11. ItTakesAVillage__People

    Oooops!

    Did I screw up with my dots? I will do better, really.

  12. Mary Tracy9

    Octopod, agreed.
    Why don’t come up with “We acknowledge that the tail of the Easter Bunny might be discovered in future studies”?
    Everything that hasn’t been discovered could be discovered. Duh! This is rubbish science.

  13. Jill

    For those of you who have not committed the entire IBTP archive to memory, today’s No. 1 Science Information is related to a post I wrote a year or so ago. In the earlier post I took a dump on mainstream media coverage of some dumb ev-psych paper claiming that male chimps buy sex from female chimps using hunks of meat as money. The paper supposedly proved, via chimp precedent, that human sex slavery is “natural.”

    Should have put this link in today’s post; without it, it’s kind of a non-sequitur, I guess.

  14. iGuest

    I’m with Citizen Jane. There are so many more realistic interpretations for chimps sharing food than “prostitution is natural”. And if you take that ridiculous idea to its “logical” conclusion then human women, who unlike chimps can be sexually receptive without estrus, would own the world. I don’t have any studies to cite, but I’m pretty sure we don’t (own the world, that is). As a matter of fact, I’m pretty sure that men hold the majority of the world’s wealth. They must not be getting much sex. (snark)

    Glad to see there are scientists who are working to debunk the nonsense research conducted by patriarchy apologists. Although, as octopod pointed out, it’s a shame they felt it necessary to second-guess themselves.

  15. veganrampage

    Bonobos!
    These creeps keep studiously ignoring Bonobos, from whom they could draw equally erroneous but radical feminist conclusions.
    They insist on giving us “manswers” instead of answers.

  16. yttik

    I think it’s still kind of funny that Jane Goodall was accused of being too emotional, giving her chimps names, and losing her objectivity by seeing human characteristics in them. However, every single male scientist who has decided chimps prove that human male behavior is uncontrollable and innate, has never been accused of this. Goodall observes that chimps have highly evolved social systems and affectionate relationships, and she’s practicing the dreaded anthropomorphism. Men use chimps sharing meat as evidence of prostitution being justified in human beings and nobody says a word.

  17. SelinaK

    “Bonobos!”

    I didn’t know anything about bonobos until about year ago, seriously.

    Normally I would have found that incredibly strange being that they are one of our closest ape relatives,
    but like Young Earth Creationists who Lie Forthe Lord and cherry pick biblical verses, male supremacist scientists cherry pick species, completely ignore others, and grossly misinterpret animal behavior, all while keeping The Faith and keeping it strong that science will *eventually* prove the Glory of His Name.

    That’s not just bad science, that’s veering on idealogical fanaticism, which has NO place in science.

    (Sorry Jill, my writing tends to get jumbled and stoopid, I rarely post because its hard to write with PTSD and the sedatives/antidepressants I need to take to be able to function semi-normally amongst the living. IBTP, in a BIG way.)

  18. SelinaK

    “Bonobos!”

    I didn’t know anything about bonobos until about year ago, seriously.

    Normally I would have found that incredibly strange being that they are one of our closest ape relatives,
    but like Young Earth Creationists who Lie For the Lord and cherry pick biblical verses, male-supremacist scientists cherry pick species and completely ignore others and grossly misinterpret animal behavior, all while keeping The Faith and keeping it strong that science will *eventually* prove the Glory of His Name.

    That’s not just bad science, that’s veering on idealogical fanaticism, which has NO place in science.

    (Sorry Jill, my writing tends to get jumbled and stoopid, I rarely post because its hard to write with PTSD and the sedatives/antidepressants I need to take to be able to function semi-normally amongst the living. IBTP, in a BIG way.)

  19. SelinaK

    See, I even double post. ugh.

  20. SelinaK

    ibtp

  21. Kayleigh

    I knew it too, Twisty! I KNEW IT TOO!

    HURRAH! I’m going to print this shit off and wave it in the faces of anyone who tries to do the whole ‘buhhhhh, it’s NATURAL, monkeys do it am I right?’
    NO NO NO NO NO! You’re COMPLETELY WRONG!

    (Is it verging on the insane that I will print this off, highlight the appropriate parts and carry it around until it mulches down into what I call ‘bag compost’?)

  22. Notorious Ph.D.

    Whew! Now I can stop having sex with everyone who shares their food with me. Good thing, too — it was starting to cause problems at the office.

  23. wiggles

    I remember the meat-for-sex thing getting quite a bit of media attention. I wonder if these new findings will receive half as much.

    Actually I don’t wonder. You won’t hear shit about this.

  24. Jill

    Is it verging on the insane that I will print this off, highlight the appropriate parts and carry it around until it mulches down into what I call ‘bag compost’?)

    Hell no. But that’s what they want you to think.

  25. Scott

    It’s always good to see empirical evidence knock down anecdotal supposition, but even so, there is a huge fundamental flaw with comparing cultural adaptations in any of the ape families with that of humans, and it goes back to the godbag anti-evolutionist wail that “there is NO WAY my great-granddaddy was a chimp!”

    The problem with that statement is that it implies that humans are *still* evolving from chimps, that maybe in a hundred years or so, another species of humans will spontaneously pop out of a chimpanzee’s hoo-ha.

    Sharing a common ancestry and/or culture is *not* the same as deriving from a current species. Therefore, the link between current chimpanzee culture and human culture is spurious, at best.

    In order to study the origins of human culture, we have to go back in time 50,000 or so years and study what actually happened at the time. And I’m guessing it wasn’t all that different from today, what with the general assholiness of males and all.

    Also: BONOBOS!

  26. Miss Andrist

    @Scott:

    Your great grand-pappy was too a chimp.

    LOL.

    Srsly, more like ~400,000 years. I mean, if you wanted to start with the beginning of artifacts demonstrating culture, and at that point we were Neanderthals. Unless you meant to highlight the high point of human evolution ~50,000 years ago, when we were stone-aging it up as Cro Magnons at the foot of a glacier. Cos (excepting your great grand-pappy!) we diverged from bonobos for the last time ~2 million years ago. (And, I personally tend to think it was a lot different from today, considering today it’s commonly suggested that ONLY males hunted despite the fact that our prey of choice weighed about half as much as a dump truck. But what do I know? Hehe.)

  27. Scott

    @Miss Andrist:

    Point taken. I used 50k years simply because that’s about when anthropologists sort of agree that our species emerged as Homo sapiens sapiens. Meaning that, physically and mentally, we’re pretty much the same folks today as back then. You’re right, we’d have to go back much farther to study the origins of culture.

    Aside from the erroneous technical details of my argument, I still stand by my original (and not very well stated) argument that much of the creationist anti-evolution babble is similar to the arguments put forth by evolutionary psychologists in that they both start from an erroneous assumption of how evolution actually works. Comparisons between current chimp/bonobo/great ape societies and human beings are fundamentally flawed, and amount to nothing more than academic anthropomorphism.

  28. Notorious Ph.D.

    The naturalness of patriarchy is one of those rare places where creationists and evolutionists can agree. Heartwarming, how patriarchy brings people together.

  29. Miss Andrist

    @Scott:

    Yeah, I kinda figured that was where you were going, but I couldn’t pass up an opportunity to say “pappy,” “chimp” and “dump truck” all in one comment. …Making that statement caused me to realized that the portmanteau of “pappy” and “chimp” is “pimp.” Hehe.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>