Sharp Brains: Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Neuroplasticity, Brain Fitness and Cognitive Health News

Icon

Peace Among Primates (Part 3)

A few days ago we pub­lished the first and sec­ond install­ments of this Peace Among Pri­mates series, by neu­ro­sci­en­tist Robert Sapol­sky. Today we pub­lish the third and final one.

Peace Among Pri­mates (Part 3)

Any­one who says peace is not part of human nature knows too lit­tle about pri­mates, includ­ing our­selves.

–By Robert M. Sapol­sky

Nat­ur­al born killers?

Are there any lessons to be learned here that can be applied to human-on-human vio­lence apart, that is, from the pos­si­ble desir­abil­i­ty of giv­ing fatal cas­es of tuber­cu­lo­sis to aggres­sive peo­ple? Can human behav­ior be as mal­leable and as peace­ful as For­est Troops?

Any bio­log­i­cal anthro­pol­o­gist opin­ing about human behav­ior is required by long-estab­lished tra­di­tion to note that for 99 per­cent of human his­to­ry, humans lived in small, sta­ble bands of relat­ed hunter-gath­er­ers. Game the­o­rists have shown that a small, cohe­sive group is the per­fect set­ting for the emer­gence of coop­er­a­tion: The iden­ti­ties of the oth­er par­tic­i­pants are known, there are oppor­tu­ni­ties to play games togeth­er repeat­ed­ly (and thus the abil­i­ty to pun­ish cheaters), and there is open-book play (play­ers can acquire rep­u­ta­tions). And so, those hunter-gath­er­er bands were high­ly egal­i­tar­i­an. Empir­i­cal and exper­i­men­tal data have also shown the coop­er­a­tive advan­tages of small groups at the oppo­site human extreme, name­ly in the cor­po­rate world.

But the lack of vio­lence with­in small groups can come at a heavy price. Small homoge­nous groups with shared val­ues can be a night­mare of con­for­mi­ty. They can also be dan­ger­ous for out­siders. Uncon­scious­ly emu­lat­ing the mur­der­ous bor­der patrols of close­ly relat­ed male chimps, mil­i­taries through­out his­to­ry have sought to form small, sta­ble units; incul­cate them with rit­u­als of pseudokin­ship; and there­by pro­duce effi­cient, coop­er­a­tive killing machines.

Is it pos­si­ble to achieve the coop­er­a­tive advan­tages of a small group with­out hav­ing the group reflex­ive­ly view out­siders as the Oth­er? One often encoun­ters pes­simism in response to this ques­tion, based on the notion that humans, as pri­mates, are hard-wired for xeno­pho­bia. Some brain-imag­ing stud­ies have appeared to sup­port this view in a par­tic­u­lar­ly dis­cour­ag­ing way. There is a struc­ture deep inside the brain called the amyg­dala, which plays a key role in fear and aggres­sion, and exper­i­ments have shown that when sub­jects are pre­sent­ed with a face of some­one from a dif­fer­ent race, the amyg­dala gets meta­bol­i­cal­ly active aroused, alert, ready for action. This hap­pens even when the face is pre­sent­ed sub­lim­i­nal­ly, which is to say, so rapid­ly that the sub­ject does not con­scious­ly see it.

More recent stud­ies, how­ev­er, should mit­i­gate this pes­simism. Test a per­son who has a lot of expe­ri­ence with peo­ple of dif­fer­ent races, and the amyg­dala does not acti­vate. Or, as in a won­der­ful exper­i­ment by Susan Fiske, of Prince­ton Uni­ver­si­ty, sub­tly bias the sub­ject before­hand to think of peo­ple as indi­vid­u­als rather than as mem­bers of a group, and the amyg­dala does not budge. Humans may be hard-wired to get edgy around the Oth­er, but our views on who falls into that cat­e­go­ry are decid­ed­ly mal­leable.

In the ear­ly 1960s, a ris­ing star of pri­ma­tol­ogy, Irven DeVore of Har­vard Uni­ver­si­ty, pub­lished the first gen­er­al overview of the sub­ject. Dis­cussing his own spe­cial­ty, savan­na baboons, he wrote that they “have acquired an aggres­sive tem­pera­ment as a defense against preda­tors, and aggres­sive­ness can­not be turned on and off like a faucet. It is an inte­gral part of the mon­keys per­son­al­i­ties, so deeply root­ed that it makes them poten­tial aggres­sors in every sit­u­a­tion.  Thus the savan­na baboon became, lit­er­al­ly, a text­book exam­ple of life in an aggres­sive, high­ly strat­i­fied, male-dom­i­nat­ed soci­ety. Yet in my obser­va­tion of For­est Troop, I saw mem­bers of that same species demon­strate enough behav­ioral plas­tic­i­ty to trans­form their soci­ety into a baboon utopia.

The first half of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry was drenched in the blood spilled by Ger­man and Japan­ese aggres­sion, yet only a few decades lat­er it is hard to think of two coun­tries more pacif­ic. Swe­den spent the 17th cen­tu­ry ram­pag­ing through Europe, yet it is now an icon of nur­tur­ing tran­quil­i­ty. Humans have invent­ed the small nomadic band and the con­ti­nen­tal megas­tate, and have demon­strat­ed a flex­i­bil­i­ty where­by uproot­ed descen­dants of the for­mer can func­tion effec­tive­ly in the lat­ter. We lack the type of phys­i­ol­o­gy or anato­my that in oth­er mam­mals deter­mine their mat­ing sys­tem, and have come up with soci­eties based on monogamy, polyg­y­ny, and polyandry. And we have fash­ioned some reli­gions in which vio­lent acts are the entrance to par­adise and oth­er reli­gions in which the same acts con­sign one to hell. Is a world of peace­ful­ly coex­ist­ing human For­est Troops pos­si­ble? Any­one who says, “No, it is beyond our nature, knows too lit­tle about pri­mates, includ­ing our­selves.

Robert Sapolsky– Robert M. Sapol­sky, Ph.D., is the John A. and Cyn­thia Fry Gunn Pro­fes­sor of Bio­log­i­cal Sci­ences and a pro­fes­sor of neu­rol­o­gy and neu­ro­log­i­cal sci­ences at Stan­ford Uni­ver­si­ty. He wrote the clas­sic Why Zebras Don’t Get Ulcers: An Updat­ed Guide to Stress, Stress Relat­ed Dis­eases and Cop­ing. His most recent book is Mon­key­luv: And Oth­er Essays on Our Lives as Ani­mals. A longer ver­sion of this essay appeared in For­eign Affairs. We bring you this post thanks to our col­lab­o­ra­tion with Greater Good Mag­a­zine, a UC-Berke­ley-based quar­ter­ly mag­a­zine that high­lights ground break­ing sci­en­tif­ic research into the roots of com­pas­sion and altru­ism.

Leave a Reply...

Loading Facebook Comments ...

2 Responses

  1. Susan says:

    I work in a 911/police dis­patch cen­ter and I feel the anti-social­ism in myself and see it in most of my cowork­ers as well. Very few of us vol­un­teer to have the new peo­ple sit with us. Few­er still vol­un­teer to become train­ers. Yet if I am forced to have some­one sit w/me after the ini­tial wish to growl, I explain it is noth­ing per­son­al and usu­al­ly enjoy the encounter. I have been in this pro­fes­sion for 20 years. I was treat­ed w/hostility when I first came to vis­it (though I could have cared less,and find that unless you can han­dle the atti­tude on com­ing in you usu­al­ly can not han­dle the job. Hmm­mm

  2. Alvaro says:

    Susan, thanks for shar­ing those very rel­e­vant impres­sions.

    Per­haps you are right, and that cul­tur­al trait helps screen out bad can­di­dates. Per­haps it is some­thing that evolved for a rea­son, but it has out­lived its use­ful­ness.

    I guess the bot­tom line ques­tion is, does such an atti­tude make the dis­patch cen­ter more or less effec­tive? Dr. Sapolk­sky’s main point is that we don’t need to accept any spe­cif­ic behav­ioral trait as genet­ic, fixed, but con­sid­eer whether we ‑and the groups we belong to- would ben­e­fit from dis­play­ing dif­fer­ent behav­ior sets, and put them to prac­tice.

    What would hap­pen if you vol­un­teer to become a train­er just one time?

Leave a Reply

Categories: Cognitive Neuroscience

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

About SharpBrains

As seen in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, BBC News, CNN, Reuters,  SharpBrains is an independent market research firm tracking how brain science can improve our health and our lives.

Search in our archives

Follow us and Engage via…

twitter_logo_header
RSS Feed

Watch All Recordings Now (40+ Speakers, 12+ Hours)