What do you think?
Rate this book
Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are
From a scientist and writer E.O. Wilson has called "the world authority on primate social behavior" comes a fascinating look at the most provocative aspects of human nature through our two closest cousins in the ape family. From "one of the world's greatest experts on primate behavior" (Desmond Morris) comes a look at the most provocative aspects of human nature-power, sex, violence, kindness, and morality-through our closest cousins. For nearly twenty years, Frans De Waal has studied both the famously aggressive chimpanzee and the egalitarian, matriarchal bonobo, two species whose DNA is nearly identical to ours. The result is an engrossing narrative that reveals what their behavior can teach us about ourselves.
312 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
273 people are currently reading
7743 people want to read
About the author
Frans de Waal
45 books1,750 followersFrans de Waal has been named one of Time magazine’s 100 Most Influential People. The author of Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals Are?, among many other works, he is the C. H. Candler Professor in Emory University’s Psychology Department and director of the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. He lives in Atlanta, Georgia.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews
January 12, 2015
Back in the 1980s, I took several anthropology courses at university. I emerged from them thinking that studying chimpanzees would help my understanding of humanity. In part, I was right--the missing piece to the puzzle was the bonobo (otherwise known as pygmy chimpanzee). They were not even mentioned in any class that I took at that time.
Frans de Waal is an excellent guide to the behaviour and psychology of both chimps and bonobos. He also seems to have a solid grounding in human philosophers and their theories which have shaped modern society and modern primatology. He speculates how our image of ourselves would be different if we had discovered the bonobo before we became acquainted with the chimpanzee. What if we got fixated on the species where females are the dominant gender? Where males' status is specifically tied to their mothers' status? Where having sex solves almost every problem? Instead, we studied chimps first--where the males are dominant and pretty brutal about it. Where murder happens. Where "border patrols" go out to guard territory and pummel any interlopers. And where hunting & killing of other species is a regular occurrence.
Anthropology has tended to get hung up on the violence of chimp society and ignores the behaviours that are stepping stones toward morality. There is a need in chimp society for the males to hang together or they will surely hang apart. There is cooperation, insight into the emotions and thoughts of others, and affection as well as hostility.
All three species, human, chimpanzee and bonobo are closely related genetically: 98% by all accounts. It makes sense to study both of our closest relatives to gain insights into ourselves.
Frans de Waal is an excellent guide to the behaviour and psychology of both chimps and bonobos. He also seems to have a solid grounding in human philosophers and their theories which have shaped modern society and modern primatology. He speculates how our image of ourselves would be different if we had discovered the bonobo before we became acquainted with the chimpanzee. What if we got fixated on the species where females are the dominant gender? Where males' status is specifically tied to their mothers' status? Where having sex solves almost every problem? Instead, we studied chimps first--where the males are dominant and pretty brutal about it. Where murder happens. Where "border patrols" go out to guard territory and pummel any interlopers. And where hunting & killing of other species is a regular occurrence.
Anthropology has tended to get hung up on the violence of chimp society and ignores the behaviours that are stepping stones toward morality. There is a need in chimp society for the males to hang together or they will surely hang apart. There is cooperation, insight into the emotions and thoughts of others, and affection as well as hostility.
All three species, human, chimpanzee and bonobo are closely related genetically: 98% by all accounts. It makes sense to study both of our closest relatives to gain insights into ourselves.
June 6, 2023
İnsan doğası hakkında son 40 yıldır yazılanlar kadar kasvetli ve hatalısı yok: Bencil genlerimiz olduğunu, iyilik denilen şeyin sahte olduğunu, sadece başkalarını etkilemek için ahlaklı davrandığımızı, vahşice saldırarak yok ederek hayatta kaldığımızı okuyoruz.
Ama evrim yarışını daha iyi bağışıklık sistemine sahip olmakla, soğuğa direnmekle ya da yiyecek bulma konusunda daha becerikli olmakla da kazanabilirsiniz.
Rousseau'nun toplumsal varlığının yerini bencil bireyci Hobbes alıyor.
Kubrick'in "2001: Uzay Yolculuğu" filminin başında, sersemletici tek bir imgeyle şiddetin iyi olduğu gösterilir: İnsansılar arası kavgada, biri diğerine bir zebra kemiğiyle vurup, silah zaferle havaya kaldırılır ve binlerce yıl sonra uzay gemisine dönüşür.
İyi de insan kendi çıkarından başka bir şey düşünmüyorsa, neden bir bebek başka bebeğin ağladığını duyunca ağlar (kimseyi etkilemeye çalışmadığından emin olabiliriz);
insan saldırıp yoketme genetiğindeyse, çenemizin neden bu kadar zayıfken, beynimiz neden bu kadar büyüktür.
Doğal seçilim için daha az saldırganlık, işbirliğine açıklık ve özenli olmak da avantaj sağlayabilir.
Süreç başarıya giden yolu belirlemez, domuz ahırı gibi bir ortamda yaşarken Beethoven besteleri çıkabilir (gerçektir).
Evrimsel ortaklıklarımız barışçıl ve empatik, dayanışmacı bonobolar ile zalim ve hiyerarşik şempanzelerin özelliklerini birlikte taşımaktayız; şempanzeler cinsel sorunları güçle çözerken, bonobolar güç meselesini cinsellikle çözerler.
Bonobolar arasında hiç ölümcül savaş yoktur, avcılık çok azdır, erkek egemenliği yoktur ve muazzam cinsellik vardır. ŞEMPANZE ŞEYTANİ yüzümüzse BONOBO MELEKSİ yüzümüz olsa gerek.
Dişilerin dayanışmasına dayalı yiyeceklerin kontrolünü ellerinde tutma ve emzirerek edindikleri empati, bonoboları dişi merkezli ve barışçıl kılarken; erkek merkezli ve şiddet kullanıcı şempanze gruplarında bile güçlü denetleme mekanizmaları ve dengeleri vardır.
Son çalışmalara kadar, şempanzeler üzerinden insan doğası açıklamaları yaygın destek bulurken, bonobolar neredeyse görmezden gelindi. Halbuki "mevkiyi çok önemseyen ve ilkelce güç kullanan şempanze vahşi ve ehlileşmemiş bir maymundur; bonobolar ise ilkel güçten uzak, olağanüstü duyarlı ve nazik bir mahluktur"(Tratz ve Heck, Münih Hellabrunn Hayvanat Bahçesi).
Bonoboların özelliklerinin bilinmemesinin nedeni BARIŞÇILLIKLARIDIR; araştırmalarda birbirlerini katlettikleri ortaya çıksa şimdiye herkes bonoboları ezberlemişti.
Sadece kendilerinin değil, diğerlerinin de isimlerini bilen, geçmiş ve gelecek duyguları olan, yüzleri ve benzerlerini/akrabalarını tanıyabilen maymunları izlenir kılan bu zekâları, yaptıkları her işe kattıkları şaşırtıcı öngörü ve incelikleridir.
Desmond Morris'in "çıplak maymunlarız" sözünü doğrulayacak kadar ortak eğilimlere sahip olduğumuzu bilimsel gözlemlerde görmekteyiz.
Kendi iktidarında fazlaca havalanmasının mukabili dökülen kanına bulanmış erkek şempanzeler gibi zayıf düşünce güvenecek dal arıyor, açığını arayan diğer erkekler tarafından alaşağı edilme korkusuyla başkalarıyla kadınlar gibi rahat konuşamıyor, yaralama ve öldürme eğilimimize rağmen her şeyin yoluna gireceğini duymak istiyoruz.
Yine erkek şempanzeler gibi iktidar saplantısıyla kurnazca, böl ve yönet taktikleri ve müttefikler edinerek, zorla hakimiyet, destekçileri mutlu etmek ve isyanı engellemek üzerinden siyaset yapıyoruz.
İnsanlar dahil tüm primatların erkekleri rekabet için rekabet ederken, dişileri sadece gerekliyse rekabet ederler. Akademik toplantılardaki ilk karşılaşmalarda bile kolaylıkla gözlenir bu durum. Erkekler için iktidar en büyük afrodizyaktır ve bağımlılık yapar. Bir erkeği kürsüsünden düşürmek, bir bebeğin elinden en sevdiği eşyayı almaya benzer. Buna karşın genel söylem, HEP BAŞKALARININ İKTİDAR PEŞİNDE KOŞTUĞU şeklindedir.
Bir hiyerarşi içindeki konumlar, (ki sembol ve işaretlerle gösterilir) yarışma ile belirlense de, düzen bir kere kurulunca çatışma gereğini ortadan kaldırmaktadır. Merdivenin alt basamaklarında olanlar daha yüksekte olmayı tercih etseler de kötünün iyisine, yani kendi hallerine bırakılmaya rıza gösterirler.
Bonoboların ormanlarda geniş gruplar halinde yaşaması, dişilerin hiyerarşilere karşı dayanışmalarını kolaylaştırır; bu durum hayvanat bahçesindeki şempanzelerde de görülürken, arazide dağınık yaşayanlarda asla olmaz.
İki dişi ile yaşayan erkek şempanze bütün yiyeceği kendine alırken, aynı koşullardaki bonobo erkeği dişilerin dayanışması nedeniyle yiyeceğe yaklaşamaz bile.
Dişi bonobo dayanışmasında genel belirleyici yaştır; gençlere had bildirmede ise şiddet yoktur ve sadece tepkisiz kalma, dikkate almama şeklinde tepki gösterilir.
Erkek bonobo annesinin peşinden ayrılmadan erişkinleşir; erkek hiyerarşisi de şempanzeler gibi erkek koalisyonları kurarak değil, annelerinin gözündeki konumları için yarışmalarıyla oluşur.
Bonobo erkekleri kendi kaderlerini denetleme becerisinden mahrumdurlar.
Doğada bir erkek şempanze başına iki dişi düşerken (doğumda eşit, sonrasında erkek ölüm oranı çok yüksek), bonobo oranı bire birdir.
Erkek egemen şempanze hiyerşisinde zirve aniden, 4-5 yılda bir değişirken, dişi egemen bonobolarda bu değişim hem daha ender (genelde ölümle) hem de kademeli olur.
Alfa erkek şempanze genelde kavgaları önler veya ayırır; şempanzeler ise bir kavgada yenen veya yenileni destekleyebilir; hatta alfa erkek bile protesto ve tecrit edilebilir.
Sosyal Darwincilik tabiriyle insanın kendisinden başkasını düşünmeyen, haris ve şiddet yanlısı doğası vardır diye dayatılırken, Darwin'in empati ve ahlâk üzerine yazdığı cümleler bunun tam reddidir: "Pek çok hayvan bir diğerinin acı ya da tehlike altında olma gibi duygularını paylaşabiliyor; belirgin sosyal güdülere sahip her hayvan, zihinsel gücü de insanınki kadar ya da ona yakın geliştiğinde, kaçınılmaz olarak bir AHLÂKİ hassasiyet ya da VİCDAN edinecektir..
Reagan ve özellikle "toplum diye bir şey yoktur, tek tek kadınlar ve erkekler vardır" diyen Teatcher döneminde zirveye çıkan çiğ bireycilik kökenli izahlar, şişirilmiş borsa balonunun patlamasıyla yerini aniden değişen "İşbirliği Geni", "Başkalarına Özen", "Ahlâkın Evrimsel Kökeni" isimli kitaplara bıraktı.
Amerikalılar bazen ülkelerinin dünya nüfusunun %4'ünü barındırdığını ve gücün zayıflık olduğunu unutuyorlar; ayrıca ülkelerindeki gelir uçurumunun aşırı boyutlarda olmasının yarattığı gerilimi ve sağlıksızlıktaki ciddi artışı göz ardı ediyorlar; güçlü olana yakınlaşmaktan elde edilecek çok az şey olduğu için şempanzelerde olduğu gibi ikincil oyuncuların her zaman ve hınçla bir koalisyon oluşturabileceği unutulmamalıdır.
En iç çatışmalı canlı olan insan, hem çevresini hem kendi türünü inanılmaz bir biçimde yok edebilen, yine de engin empati sahibi ve şimdiye kadar hiç görülmemiş ölçüde sevmeyi bilen bir hayvan. Bu canlı bütün diğerlerine baskın çıkmışsa, aynaya dürüstçe bakması ve hem karşısında duran CAN DÜŞMANINI hem de DAHA İYİ BİR DÜNYA İNŞA ETMEK İÇİN HAZIR BAŞ MÜTTEFİKİNİ tanıması çok önemlidir.
Ama evrim yarışını daha iyi bağışıklık sistemine sahip olmakla, soğuğa direnmekle ya da yiyecek bulma konusunda daha becerikli olmakla da kazanabilirsiniz.
Rousseau'nun toplumsal varlığının yerini bencil bireyci Hobbes alıyor.
Kubrick'in "2001: Uzay Yolculuğu" filminin başında, sersemletici tek bir imgeyle şiddetin iyi olduğu gösterilir: İnsansılar arası kavgada, biri diğerine bir zebra kemiğiyle vurup, silah zaferle havaya kaldırılır ve binlerce yıl sonra uzay gemisine dönüşür.
İyi de insan kendi çıkarından başka bir şey düşünmüyorsa, neden bir bebek başka bebeğin ağladığını duyunca ağlar (kimseyi etkilemeye çalışmadığından emin olabiliriz);
insan saldırıp yoketme genetiğindeyse, çenemizin neden bu kadar zayıfken, beynimiz neden bu kadar büyüktür.
Doğal seçilim için daha az saldırganlık, işbirliğine açıklık ve özenli olmak da avantaj sağlayabilir.
Süreç başarıya giden yolu belirlemez, domuz ahırı gibi bir ortamda yaşarken Beethoven besteleri çıkabilir (gerçektir).
Evrimsel ortaklıklarımız barışçıl ve empatik, dayanışmacı bonobolar ile zalim ve hiyerarşik şempanzelerin özelliklerini birlikte taşımaktayız; şempanzeler cinsel sorunları güçle çözerken, bonobolar güç meselesini cinsellikle çözerler.
Bonobolar arasında hiç ölümcül savaş yoktur, avcılık çok azdır, erkek egemenliği yoktur ve muazzam cinsellik vardır. ŞEMPANZE ŞEYTANİ yüzümüzse BONOBO MELEKSİ yüzümüz olsa gerek.
Dişilerin dayanışmasına dayalı yiyeceklerin kontrolünü ellerinde tutma ve emzirerek edindikleri empati, bonoboları dişi merkezli ve barışçıl kılarken; erkek merkezli ve şiddet kullanıcı şempanze gruplarında bile güçlü denetleme mekanizmaları ve dengeleri vardır.
Son çalışmalara kadar, şempanzeler üzerinden insan doğası açıklamaları yaygın destek bulurken, bonobolar neredeyse görmezden gelindi. Halbuki "mevkiyi çok önemseyen ve ilkelce güç kullanan şempanze vahşi ve ehlileşmemiş bir maymundur; bonobolar ise ilkel güçten uzak, olağanüstü duyarlı ve nazik bir mahluktur"(Tratz ve Heck, Münih Hellabrunn Hayvanat Bahçesi).
Bonoboların özelliklerinin bilinmemesinin nedeni BARIŞÇILLIKLARIDIR; araştırmalarda birbirlerini katlettikleri ortaya çıksa şimdiye herkes bonoboları ezberlemişti.
Sadece kendilerinin değil, diğerlerinin de isimlerini bilen, geçmiş ve gelecek duyguları olan, yüzleri ve benzerlerini/akrabalarını tanıyabilen maymunları izlenir kılan bu zekâları, yaptıkları her işe kattıkları şaşırtıcı öngörü ve incelikleridir.
Desmond Morris'in "çıplak maymunlarız" sözünü doğrulayacak kadar ortak eğilimlere sahip olduğumuzu bilimsel gözlemlerde görmekteyiz.
Kendi iktidarında fazlaca havalanmasının mukabili dökülen kanına bulanmış erkek şempanzeler gibi zayıf düşünce güvenecek dal arıyor, açığını arayan diğer erkekler tarafından alaşağı edilme korkusuyla başkalarıyla kadınlar gibi rahat konuşamıyor, yaralama ve öldürme eğilimimize rağmen her şeyin yoluna gireceğini duymak istiyoruz.
Yine erkek şempanzeler gibi iktidar saplantısıyla kurnazca, böl ve yönet taktikleri ve müttefikler edinerek, zorla hakimiyet, destekçileri mutlu etmek ve isyanı engellemek üzerinden siyaset yapıyoruz.
İnsanlar dahil tüm primatların erkekleri rekabet için rekabet ederken, dişileri sadece gerekliyse rekabet ederler. Akademik toplantılardaki ilk karşılaşmalarda bile kolaylıkla gözlenir bu durum. Erkekler için iktidar en büyük afrodizyaktır ve bağımlılık yapar. Bir erkeği kürsüsünden düşürmek, bir bebeğin elinden en sevdiği eşyayı almaya benzer. Buna karşın genel söylem, HEP BAŞKALARININ İKTİDAR PEŞİNDE KOŞTUĞU şeklindedir.
Bir hiyerarşi içindeki konumlar, (ki sembol ve işaretlerle gösterilir) yarışma ile belirlense de, düzen bir kere kurulunca çatışma gereğini ortadan kaldırmaktadır. Merdivenin alt basamaklarında olanlar daha yüksekte olmayı tercih etseler de kötünün iyisine, yani kendi hallerine bırakılmaya rıza gösterirler.
Bonoboların ormanlarda geniş gruplar halinde yaşaması, dişilerin hiyerarşilere karşı dayanışmalarını kolaylaştırır; bu durum hayvanat bahçesindeki şempanzelerde de görülürken, arazide dağınık yaşayanlarda asla olmaz.
İki dişi ile yaşayan erkek şempanze bütün yiyeceği kendine alırken, aynı koşullardaki bonobo erkeği dişilerin dayanışması nedeniyle yiyeceğe yaklaşamaz bile.
Dişi bonobo dayanışmasında genel belirleyici yaştır; gençlere had bildirmede ise şiddet yoktur ve sadece tepkisiz kalma, dikkate almama şeklinde tepki gösterilir.
Erkek bonobo annesinin peşinden ayrılmadan erişkinleşir; erkek hiyerarşisi de şempanzeler gibi erkek koalisyonları kurarak değil, annelerinin gözündeki konumları için yarışmalarıyla oluşur.
Bonobo erkekleri kendi kaderlerini denetleme becerisinden mahrumdurlar.
Doğada bir erkek şempanze başına iki dişi düşerken (doğumda eşit, sonrasında erkek ölüm oranı çok yüksek), bonobo oranı bire birdir.
Erkek egemen şempanze hiyerşisinde zirve aniden, 4-5 yılda bir değişirken, dişi egemen bonobolarda bu değişim hem daha ender (genelde ölümle) hem de kademeli olur.
Alfa erkek şempanze genelde kavgaları önler veya ayırır; şempanzeler ise bir kavgada yenen veya yenileni destekleyebilir; hatta alfa erkek bile protesto ve tecrit edilebilir.
Sosyal Darwincilik tabiriyle insanın kendisinden başkasını düşünmeyen, haris ve şiddet yanlısı doğası vardır diye dayatılırken, Darwin'in empati ve ahlâk üzerine yazdığı cümleler bunun tam reddidir: "Pek çok hayvan bir diğerinin acı ya da tehlike altında olma gibi duygularını paylaşabiliyor; belirgin sosyal güdülere sahip her hayvan, zihinsel gücü de insanınki kadar ya da ona yakın geliştiğinde, kaçınılmaz olarak bir AHLÂKİ hassasiyet ya da VİCDAN edinecektir..
Reagan ve özellikle "toplum diye bir şey yoktur, tek tek kadınlar ve erkekler vardır" diyen Teatcher döneminde zirveye çıkan çiğ bireycilik kökenli izahlar, şişirilmiş borsa balonunun patlamasıyla yerini aniden değişen "İşbirliği Geni", "Başkalarına Özen", "Ahlâkın Evrimsel Kökeni" isimli kitaplara bıraktı.
Amerikalılar bazen ülkelerinin dünya nüfusunun %4'ünü barındırdığını ve gücün zayıflık olduğunu unutuyorlar; ayrıca ülkelerindeki gelir uçurumunun aşırı boyutlarda olmasının yarattığı gerilimi ve sağlıksızlıktaki ciddi artışı göz ardı ediyorlar; güçlü olana yakınlaşmaktan elde edilecek çok az şey olduğu için şempanzelerde olduğu gibi ikincil oyuncuların her zaman ve hınçla bir koalisyon oluşturabileceği unutulmamalıdır.
En iç çatışmalı canlı olan insan, hem çevresini hem kendi türünü inanılmaz bir biçimde yok edebilen, yine de engin empati sahibi ve şimdiye kadar hiç görülmemiş ölçüde sevmeyi bilen bir hayvan. Bu canlı bütün diğerlerine baskın çıkmışsa, aynaya dürüstçe bakması ve hem karşısında duran CAN DÜŞMANINI hem de DAHA İYİ BİR DÜNYA İNŞA ETMEK İÇİN HAZIR BAŞ MÜTTEFİKİNİ tanıması çok önemlidir.
July 18, 2018
As one would expect from a book called "Our Inner Ape" written by a popular primatologist, this book was largely about similarities between humans and our closest primate relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, and the evolutionary cause of these similarities. At the heart of De Waal's argument that biologists, primatologists, and most importantly evolutionary psychologists have emphasized the connections between chimp behavior and human behavior at the expense of the other side of human behavior, which is much more analogous to that of the bonobos.
The hallmark of chimp behavior, as observed by researchers is competitiveness, the struggle for power through violence and calculated social maneuvering. The image of the chimpanzee's violent streak has been used in pop culture and junk science as an eerie reminder that, unchecked by the constructs and contracts of society, man's biological makeup urges him to reckless violence. 2001: A Space Odyssey comes to mind. Through a series of anecdotes and a fairly thorough summation of the findings of the scientific community, De Waal provides a convincing argument that we've been blinded by the bludgeoning clubs to the more complex picture. Not only do bonobos - the sexiest primates you've never heard of - shed light on our empathetic sides, but the very chimps that are so often maligned for their competitiveness live in such complex societies and show such interdependence that is makes our apocalyptic visions of apes - naked or otherwise - murdering each other down to the very last individual seem silly and ignorant.
For such a champion of the bonobo (the only champion of the species I can think of) De Waal spends little time on the species. From this text, I still gather that the chimpanzee is our closest relative. Past scientists didn't pick the wrong species, they merely misrepresented it. Through a series of clearly organized chapters, De Waal compares how chimps and bonobos fall on a continuum of different traits including power, sex, violence, and kindness. He's always careful to connect both sides of the story back to humanity and in so doing, shows that humans are capable of any type of behavior and these behaviors can easily be explained in evolutionary terms. Most of this is pretty obvious stuff - relatively light, enjoyable reading that affirms nature again and again.
De Waal's strength lies in his enthusiasm for his research and his passionate retelling of so many great anecdotes. Two particular stories stick in my mind. The first, of a captive bonobo caring for an injured bird until it was well enough to fly from the enclosure, confirms, as much as anything else that empathy exists in nature. The reluctance of psychologists in particular and scientists in general of applying human traits to animals is largely debunked. Why would psychology and science attribute such qualities to humans but not animals? Haven't we seen again and again that we're animals ourselves? The second story, on the other end of the spectrum, of an alliance between a young upstart male chimp and an older calculating male murdering the current leader of a captive group, going so far as to squeeze this leader's testicles from his body shows the primate drive for power and the willingness to use violence to achieve that power.
My only other complaint about De Waal's enjoyable book is that he often manipulates the reader's sympathies to strengthen his points. He's all too human in many of his depictions of nature.
I agree with De Waal's descriptions of man's current relationship with evolution. However, I'm glad that he doesn't spend too much ink debunking social darwinism. I hope we can all agree to take that theory's weaknesses for granted.
The hallmark of chimp behavior, as observed by researchers is competitiveness, the struggle for power through violence and calculated social maneuvering. The image of the chimpanzee's violent streak has been used in pop culture and junk science as an eerie reminder that, unchecked by the constructs and contracts of society, man's biological makeup urges him to reckless violence. 2001: A Space Odyssey comes to mind. Through a series of anecdotes and a fairly thorough summation of the findings of the scientific community, De Waal provides a convincing argument that we've been blinded by the bludgeoning clubs to the more complex picture. Not only do bonobos - the sexiest primates you've never heard of - shed light on our empathetic sides, but the very chimps that are so often maligned for their competitiveness live in such complex societies and show such interdependence that is makes our apocalyptic visions of apes - naked or otherwise - murdering each other down to the very last individual seem silly and ignorant.
For such a champion of the bonobo (the only champion of the species I can think of) De Waal spends little time on the species. From this text, I still gather that the chimpanzee is our closest relative. Past scientists didn't pick the wrong species, they merely misrepresented it. Through a series of clearly organized chapters, De Waal compares how chimps and bonobos fall on a continuum of different traits including power, sex, violence, and kindness. He's always careful to connect both sides of the story back to humanity and in so doing, shows that humans are capable of any type of behavior and these behaviors can easily be explained in evolutionary terms. Most of this is pretty obvious stuff - relatively light, enjoyable reading that affirms nature again and again.
De Waal's strength lies in his enthusiasm for his research and his passionate retelling of so many great anecdotes. Two particular stories stick in my mind. The first, of a captive bonobo caring for an injured bird until it was well enough to fly from the enclosure, confirms, as much as anything else that empathy exists in nature. The reluctance of psychologists in particular and scientists in general of applying human traits to animals is largely debunked. Why would psychology and science attribute such qualities to humans but not animals? Haven't we seen again and again that we're animals ourselves? The second story, on the other end of the spectrum, of an alliance between a young upstart male chimp and an older calculating male murdering the current leader of a captive group, going so far as to squeeze this leader's testicles from his body shows the primate drive for power and the willingness to use violence to achieve that power.
My only other complaint about De Waal's enjoyable book is that he often manipulates the reader's sympathies to strengthen his points. He's all too human in many of his depictions of nature.
I agree with De Waal's descriptions of man's current relationship with evolution. However, I'm glad that he doesn't spend too much ink debunking social darwinism. I hope we can all agree to take that theory's weaknesses for granted.
February 9, 2023
"One can take the ape out of the jungle, but not the jungle out of the ape."
To my mind, the author hit the nail on the head in discussing the double-layered nature of human societies in all their variations. He did so in good part by contrasting the social arrangements of chimps and bonobos (our two closest relatives on the evolution tree).
An engaging and informative book that I would recommend, if one has an open mind.
To my mind, the author hit the nail on the head in discussing the double-layered nature of human societies in all their variations. He did so in good part by contrasting the social arrangements of chimps and bonobos (our two closest relatives on the evolution tree).
An engaging and informative book that I would recommend, if one has an open mind.
January 7, 2016
Mixed feelings about this one. I am interested in the subject but wasn't totally engaged by the writing. In particular, I felt the author adopted an unattractive condescending tone when criticising others, which is something he likes to do a lot. I had the impression some of his barbs were intended as humour, but instead he came over as rather arrogant and disdainful.
That said, there is plenty of interesting stuff in here about chimpanzees and bonobos. Dr. de Waal is clearly an expert in his field and his observations cover empathy, self-awareness, reciprocity, alliance building and many other aspects of ape behaviour. He comments that previous popular books on the subject have concentrated on chimps rather than bonobos, and seeks to redress the balance. Bonobos are probably best known for constantly engaging in sexual activity. They are generally less aggressive than chimps and their societies are female dominated (also far more gender unequal than those of chimps. According to the author, male bonobos occupy a massively inferior social position to females).
A cynic might suggest that the generally peaceful, female dominated and sexually permissive bonobos seem to bear little relation to most human societies. Dr. de Waal suggests otherwise. He argues, not unreasonably, that humans tend to ascribe our aggressive tendencies to our genetic ancestry, whilst unfairly rejecting the idea that our capacity for empathy has any such connection. He puts forward an intriguing theory about the origins of the nuclear family in human society. I think I would like to read some alternative theories before making up my mind, but Dr. de Waal's arguments seem plausible. I also agree with his view that there is unlikely to be much further evolution of the human body, since survival rates into adulthood are now such as to eliminate competitive advantage from any new mutations. However not all of the author's arguments about human society were as convincing. Dr. de Waal is self-consciously "liberal" in his social outlook and at times this led him into arguments that were tendentious and even inconsistent at times.
Quite an interesting and thought provoking read though.
That said, there is plenty of interesting stuff in here about chimpanzees and bonobos. Dr. de Waal is clearly an expert in his field and his observations cover empathy, self-awareness, reciprocity, alliance building and many other aspects of ape behaviour. He comments that previous popular books on the subject have concentrated on chimps rather than bonobos, and seeks to redress the balance. Bonobos are probably best known for constantly engaging in sexual activity. They are generally less aggressive than chimps and their societies are female dominated (also far more gender unequal than those of chimps. According to the author, male bonobos occupy a massively inferior social position to females).
A cynic might suggest that the generally peaceful, female dominated and sexually permissive bonobos seem to bear little relation to most human societies. Dr. de Waal suggests otherwise. He argues, not unreasonably, that humans tend to ascribe our aggressive tendencies to our genetic ancestry, whilst unfairly rejecting the idea that our capacity for empathy has any such connection. He puts forward an intriguing theory about the origins of the nuclear family in human society. I think I would like to read some alternative theories before making up my mind, but Dr. de Waal's arguments seem plausible. I also agree with his view that there is unlikely to be much further evolution of the human body, since survival rates into adulthood are now such as to eliminate competitive advantage from any new mutations. However not all of the author's arguments about human society were as convincing. Dr. de Waal is self-consciously "liberal" in his social outlook and at times this led him into arguments that were tendentious and even inconsistent at times.
Quite an interesting and thought provoking read though.
July 30, 2012
Great read for anyone wanting to learn more about lessons to be gained on human nature based on recent discoveries about our primate relatives, especially chimps and bonoboes. The model of chimps as Edenic creatures was darkened by discovery of their versions of warfare and murder, while the pansexual and female dominated society of bonoboes can't provide an ideal model of human society because of the contrast with our core dependence on the nuclear family. The major topics covered in the book are the foundations for human patterns of power, sex, violence, and kindness, all explored with lucid prose dosed with wry humor. He calls for more scientific approaches to empathy, cooperation, and consiliation, and argues against any simplistic biological determinism in our propensity to violence. While this book, published in 2005, is a bit academic in its scope, his later volume, The Age of Empathy, in 2009, may be even more accessible to the lay reader.
October 30, 2017
Tam bir popüler bilim kitabı. Okuması çok rahat ve anlaşılabilir bir dil kullanılmış. Güncel örnekler özellikle politik alandan seçilerek verilmiş. Tekrarlar çok fazla, aynı örnek farklı yerlerde defalarca veriliyor. “Gen Bencildir” kitabına eleştirel yaklaşım getirmesi ilginç. Evrim kuramını anlamaktan çok antropolojiye merak duyuyorsanız öncelik verin bence.
January 31, 2021
Si hay una idea clave en este libro, debe de ser esta: tradicionalmente la biología ha insistido en que nuestra naturaleza animal nos hace peores, sobre todo tras comprobar que nuestro pariente más cercano, el chimpancé, tiene un comportamiento bastante violento. En El mono que llevamos dentro Frans de Waal quiere cuestionar ese lugar común haciéndonos reparar en los bonobos, tan parecidos genéticamente al ser humano como el chimpancé, pero fundamentalmente pacíficos. Además, incluso los chimpancés, al igual que otros primates, muestran de forma corriente conductas colaborativas, de resolución de conflictos o ayuda a los miembros más débiles de la comunidad, así que quizás nuestros instintos no nos hacen tan despiadados como pretende el darwinismo social.
Todo esto es muy interesante, pero a lo largo del libro aparece como disuelto en un caldo impreciso y con muchas contradicciones. En algunos momentos, parece que lo que se quiere destacar es nuestra capacidad de elegir y el componente cultural. En otros, lo instintivo tiene un peso innegable (sobre todo en lo que se refiere a las diferencias entre hombres y mujeres, vaya por dios). Resulta también difícil saber cuándo De Waal habla como científico y cuándo está expresando opiniones personales. En el último capítulo, que es una especie de sumario de todo lo dicho en el libro, parece que el autor va a definir un poco más qué quiere decir, pero al final todo se queda en una especie de «ni de izquierdas ni de derechas» (sí, porque nuestra naturaleza animal tiene implicaciones políticas), en una vuelta a «digo esto, pero no niego lo contrario».
Lo que más he disfrutado de este libro son las anécdotas sobre chimpancés, bonobos y gorilas, cómo se relacionan entre sí y con sus cuidadores. ¿A quién no le gusta una buena anécdota, y si es sobre animales, mejor? O de humanos comportándose como animales. Además, Frans de Waal las narra con mucha gracia (aunque no ahorra ni un ápice de horror en la descripción de los episodios de violencia primate). Si entre los varios libros que ha escrito hay alguno sobre todo narrativo, de batallitas de naturalista, ese me gustaría leerlo, y le pondría seguramente alguna estrella más que a este. O alguno donde haya más ciencia, y un mensaje más definido, a ese también.
Todo esto es muy interesante, pero a lo largo del libro aparece como disuelto en un caldo impreciso y con muchas contradicciones. En algunos momentos, parece que lo que se quiere destacar es nuestra capacidad de elegir y el componente cultural. En otros, lo instintivo tiene un peso innegable (sobre todo en lo que se refiere a las diferencias entre hombres y mujeres, vaya por dios). Resulta también difícil saber cuándo De Waal habla como científico y cuándo está expresando opiniones personales. En el último capítulo, que es una especie de sumario de todo lo dicho en el libro, parece que el autor va a definir un poco más qué quiere decir, pero al final todo se queda en una especie de «ni de izquierdas ni de derechas» (sí, porque nuestra naturaleza animal tiene implicaciones políticas), en una vuelta a «digo esto, pero no niego lo contrario».
Lo que más he disfrutado de este libro son las anécdotas sobre chimpancés, bonobos y gorilas, cómo se relacionan entre sí y con sus cuidadores. ¿A quién no le gusta una buena anécdota, y si es sobre animales, mejor? O de humanos comportándose como animales. Además, Frans de Waal las narra con mucha gracia (aunque no ahorra ni un ápice de horror en la descripción de los episodios de violencia primate). Si entre los varios libros que ha escrito hay alguno sobre todo narrativo, de batallitas de naturalista, ese me gustaría leerlo, y le pondría seguramente alguna estrella más que a este. O alguno donde haya más ciencia, y un mensaje más definido, a ese también.
July 23, 2020
El autor es biólogo e investigador especializado en psicología, primatología y etología. La obra no es una novela, es un ensayo sobre lo que nos acerca y lo que nos aleja (casi nada) de nuestros parientes más cercanos: los chimpancés y los bonobós.
Un trabajo totalmente apasionante que, sin duda, nos ayuda a ponernos en nuestro sitio, a bajarnos del pedestal que nosotros solos nos hemos construido y a reconocernos en todas y cada una de las actitudes, individuales y colectivas, de nuestros hermanos antropoides. ¿Qué somos más, chimpacés o bonobos? Yo, modestamente, creo que, como especie, estamos entre ambos y tenemos rasgos claros de cada una de ellas; en lo personal,.. soy más bonobo. ;-)
Ya lo he dicho, apasionante.
Un trabajo totalmente apasionante que, sin duda, nos ayuda a ponernos en nuestro sitio, a bajarnos del pedestal que nosotros solos nos hemos construido y a reconocernos en todas y cada una de las actitudes, individuales y colectivas, de nuestros hermanos antropoides. ¿Qué somos más, chimpacés o bonobos? Yo, modestamente, creo que, como especie, estamos entre ambos y tenemos rasgos claros de cada una de ellas; en lo personal,.. soy más bonobo. ;-)
Ya lo he dicho, apasionante.
Read
January 18, 2022Gnothi seauton, yani "kendini bil"; kişinin kainatın derinliklerine bakabilmesi için önce kendini tanıyabilmesi, kendini bilmesi gerektiğini düşünen bir insan olarak, bunun bir birey ve bir tür olarak kişinin kendi doğasını tanıyabilmesi için okunması gereken kitaplardan biri olduğunu düşünüyorum.
July 21, 2020
The "Inner Ape" takes it's title from Helena Bonham Carter's answer to how she prepared for her role in the remake of the Planet of the Apes. It touches on the contrasts between bonabos and chimpanzees and their similarties to humans using anecdotes and results of studies.
Information I found interesting was: chimps and bonobos split from each other 2.5 mya vs 5mya from us; and when Jane Goodall broke the news that chimps hunted to kill her message was unwelcome.
Her colleagues aksed her to downplay the evidence.
P47 > Females of species in which the mates stay around makes them favour mates who are gentle, protective and good providers. For males this is an all or nothing game. Consequently males are built to fight, with a tendencies to probe rivals for weak spots and a blindess to danger. Risk-taking is a male characteristic, as is the hiding of vulnerablities.
P 60: Status rituals among chimpanzees are not just about power; they are also about harmony.
Page 65: Both species have a one to one sex ratio at birth but end up being two females so male for chimps due to high mortality rates due to intercommunity warfare. Male bonobos lead longer, healthier lives.
Page 69: Two-against-one dynamics are a familiar problem in human families with triplets, where one triplet is left out of games by the other two. The lore among hunting peoples says that men should never set off in a party of three since two will turn against the third.
P71: This is consistent with the "strength is weakness"paradox, which says the most powerful player makes the least attractive political ally.
P 73 > The Ministers of France, Russia and Germany, noting China was on their side too, proclaimed their opposition to the US planned invasion of Iraq was used as an emiample of minor pl yers standing up to a powerful entity.
P74: Egalitarianism is not based on mutual love and even less on passivity. It's an actively maintained condition that recognizes the universal human desire to control and dominate. Instead of denying the will to power, egalitarians know it too well. They deal with it every day.
P75: Monkeys tend to support winners, which means that dominate individuals rarely meet resistance. Chimps are fundementally different in that they support losers as often as winners. The tendency to rally around underdogs creates unstable hierarchy in which power at the top is shakier than in any monkey group.
P77: Egalitarian lack the social hierarchy that could impose its will in disputes, hence they depend on arbitration.
P79: When we elect leaders, we in effect tell them "You can be high up there in the capital as long as we find you useful." Democracy thus elegantly satiefies two human tendencies: the will to power and the desire to hold it in check. [not sure that is working out for us]
P129-130: An anthropologist told the story about Eipo-Papuan village heads taking their first plane trip. They wanted to leave the plane door open so they could drop heavy rocks onto enemies in the next village. It was the invention of the bomb by neolithic man.
P142: Upon the author's arrival in America, from Europe [the Netherlands] he was taken back by the amount of violence in the media: everything from sit-coms, comedies, dramas, movies... If you said "Dances With Wolves" is violent, peopled looked at you as if you were crazy.
Which do we value most: harmony or competitiveness?
P150: Chimpanzee females have far fewer fiights than males, probably because they work harder to avoid them. If a fight does occur however, females rarely reconcile.
P154: The nature of girls' and boys' disputes is different as well. Individual A walks up to B, who turns away as if A doesn't exist. Boys wouldn't see this as a fight. For the two girls the encounter may be excruciating. A Finnish research team observed far fewer fights among girls than boys in the school yard but when they asked the students at the end of the day the numbers were the same. They found that discord among the girls outlasted that among the boys. Boys might stay angry for hours, whereas the girls might stay angry the rest of their lives!
P163: As soon as a male has lost a confrontation, he takes it out on the smaller guy and enjoys a relatively stress free life. Rather than withdrawing and sulking their quick to shift their problems to others.
P192-193: In Europe, no one blinks an eye at naked breasts, which can be seen at beaches, but if the author was to say he had a gun at home everyone would be terribly upset. One culture fears guns more than breasts, another fears breasts more than guns.
P204: One day a woman came into the Arnham Zoo front desk complaining that her son had been hit by a rock thrown by a chimpanzee. It turned out the son had thrown the same rock at the chimpanzee.
P207: Monkeys who had been willing to work for cucumbers went on strike when other monkeys were being paid with grapes, and even threw cucumbers out of the test chamber.
P231: The United States used to have the world's healthiest and tallest citizens, but now ranks at the bottom among industrialized nations and at the top in terms of teenage pregancy and infant mortality.
P232: The top 1% of Americans have more to spend than the bottom 40% taken together. [from 2005, It may be worse now] ...large income disparties erode the social fabric. They induce resentment and undermine trust. The result is that the world's richest nation has one of thfpoorest he lth records.
I hope these examples make you think the book is worth reading.
Information I found interesting was: chimps and bonobos split from each other 2.5 mya vs 5mya from us; and when Jane Goodall broke the news that chimps hunted to kill her message was unwelcome.
Her colleagues aksed her to downplay the evidence.
P47 > Females of species in which the mates stay around makes them favour mates who are gentle, protective and good providers. For males this is an all or nothing game. Consequently males are built to fight, with a tendencies to probe rivals for weak spots and a blindess to danger. Risk-taking is a male characteristic, as is the hiding of vulnerablities.
P 60: Status rituals among chimpanzees are not just about power; they are also about harmony.
Page 65: Both species have a one to one sex ratio at birth but end up being two females so male for chimps due to high mortality rates due to intercommunity warfare. Male bonobos lead longer, healthier lives.
Page 69: Two-against-one dynamics are a familiar problem in human families with triplets, where one triplet is left out of games by the other two. The lore among hunting peoples says that men should never set off in a party of three since two will turn against the third.
P71: This is consistent with the "strength is weakness"paradox, which says the most powerful player makes the least attractive political ally.
P 73 > The Ministers of France, Russia and Germany, noting China was on their side too, proclaimed their opposition to the US planned invasion of Iraq was used as an emiample of minor pl yers standing up to a powerful entity.
P74: Egalitarianism is not based on mutual love and even less on passivity. It's an actively maintained condition that recognizes the universal human desire to control and dominate. Instead of denying the will to power, egalitarians know it too well. They deal with it every day.
P75: Monkeys tend to support winners, which means that dominate individuals rarely meet resistance. Chimps are fundementally different in that they support losers as often as winners. The tendency to rally around underdogs creates unstable hierarchy in which power at the top is shakier than in any monkey group.
P77: Egalitarian lack the social hierarchy that could impose its will in disputes, hence they depend on arbitration.
P79: When we elect leaders, we in effect tell them "You can be high up there in the capital as long as we find you useful." Democracy thus elegantly satiefies two human tendencies: the will to power and the desire to hold it in check. [not sure that is working out for us]
P129-130: An anthropologist told the story about Eipo-Papuan village heads taking their first plane trip. They wanted to leave the plane door open so they could drop heavy rocks onto enemies in the next village. It was the invention of the bomb by neolithic man.
P142: Upon the author's arrival in America, from Europe [the Netherlands] he was taken back by the amount of violence in the media: everything from sit-coms, comedies, dramas, movies... If you said "Dances With Wolves" is violent, peopled looked at you as if you were crazy.
Which do we value most: harmony or competitiveness?
P150: Chimpanzee females have far fewer fiights than males, probably because they work harder to avoid them. If a fight does occur however, females rarely reconcile.
P154: The nature of girls' and boys' disputes is different as well. Individual A walks up to B, who turns away as if A doesn't exist. Boys wouldn't see this as a fight. For the two girls the encounter may be excruciating. A Finnish research team observed far fewer fights among girls than boys in the school yard but when they asked the students at the end of the day the numbers were the same. They found that discord among the girls outlasted that among the boys. Boys might stay angry for hours, whereas the girls might stay angry the rest of their lives!
P163: As soon as a male has lost a confrontation, he takes it out on the smaller guy and enjoys a relatively stress free life. Rather than withdrawing and sulking their quick to shift their problems to others.
P192-193: In Europe, no one blinks an eye at naked breasts, which can be seen at beaches, but if the author was to say he had a gun at home everyone would be terribly upset. One culture fears guns more than breasts, another fears breasts more than guns.
P204: One day a woman came into the Arnham Zoo front desk complaining that her son had been hit by a rock thrown by a chimpanzee. It turned out the son had thrown the same rock at the chimpanzee.
P207: Monkeys who had been willing to work for cucumbers went on strike when other monkeys were being paid with grapes, and even threw cucumbers out of the test chamber.
P231: The United States used to have the world's healthiest and tallest citizens, but now ranks at the bottom among industrialized nations and at the top in terms of teenage pregancy and infant mortality.
P232: The top 1% of Americans have more to spend than the bottom 40% taken together. [from 2005, It may be worse now] ...large income disparties erode the social fabric. They induce resentment and undermine trust. The result is that the world's richest nation has one of thfpoorest he lth records.
I hope these examples make you think the book is worth reading.
June 9, 2019
waal, kurduğumuz empatinin hoşgörü, anlayış ve iyilik yapabilme gibi sonuçları doğurabilecek olması dışında başka, daha karanlık şeyleri yapabilme gücünü de verdiğini söyler, burada bu şiddet, şöyle açıklar : "...başkalarını anlama yeteneğimiz onları bile bile incitmeyi de mümkün kılar. duygudaşlık da, zalimlik de insanın davranışının başkasını nasıl etkileyeceğini tahmin etme melekesinden kaynaklanır." sonra bir takım içinde şiddet unsuru olan örnekler veriyor yazar, sonuna şunu ekliyor: "başkalarının neler hissettiğini tahmin edebilme becerimize rağmen ya da tam da bu yüzden sergileyebiliyoruz böylesi hunharlıkları. "
March 25, 2021
This is a book that I came across reading another book. I can't be certain, but perhaps it was something by either Steven Pinker or Yuval Noah Harari. In any case, I have become increasingly interested in evolutionary biology and psychology, perhaps spurred on by the insight that all of history (and literature) is a sub-discipline of biology. While this book offered many great insights, I would highly recommend reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" or something by Y. N. Harari before reading this book. Even books such as the "The Political Brain" by Drew Weston would be a better read if you are more interested in the human aspect of research rather than the research on primates. Overall, though, quite an enjoyable read.
April 24, 2009
I went into this book wanting to believe everything de Waal wrote, as his Good Natured shone such light on how much we have in common with other primates. He demonstrated that most of our ideas of goodness exist in our older genetic neighbors and that goodness is more natural than we often give it credit. Like in much of de Waal’s writing, here he compares beliefs of human behavior to observation of other primates, specifically chimpanzees and bonobos, which sport radically different social behaviors, both of which reflect how we are today. But this time it’s a very difficult book with which to agree.
One would expect de Waal would collect social experiments to compare human behavior, or at least use specific anecdotes of human behavior when contrasting his primate anecdotes. Instead he namedrops concepts from Sigmund Freud, the Bible, and even the Beatles. Even when these are made in jest, they show how unscientific de Waal’s approach is. They’re nice metaphors, but with all his references to evolutionary psychology and comparative conclusions, they cease to merely be metaphors. In many cases he makes only cursory references to scientific studies, such as one that found students of Economics tend to be more egotistical - and then, without describing the study at all, decides Economics make people emotionally dead.
The worst was a comparison of lesser members of a primate group deposing the alpha male for behavior they didn’t like, and directly implying that this behavior was on display in the international human community after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Not only are countries highly complex meta-interactional organizations whose opinions can only be guessed by polling, but nobody deposed the United States in anything. Their forces are still in Iraq, even after a change of presidents, and while hated, when the recent economic crisis came about the U.S. was still seen in a leadership roll. If he wanted to make the argument that there was structural similarity he would need a heck of a lot more data to suggest the same thing that happens in a closely nit pod of primates was similar to the attitudes of billions of humans spread across multiple continents who don’t interact on a regular basis. Instead de Waal merely cites this as an example and moves on, as he does with nearly every far-fetched example.
He is not even consistent in his approach: in one section he argues that there is no in-born behavior, but in another argues that all sexual attitudes and rules are inherent to a species. So rape is not genetic, but a new alpha male killing everyone else’s children is. He does not acknowledge this inconsistency or discuss the possible problems presented by this flaw in his system. Things like this leave it harder to have faith in his work.
Typically I’d recommend ignoring his conclusions and merely reading what he has to say about chimps and bonobos, as what they do has very obvious ramifications for our behavior. That the typically more violent chimps adopted peaceful behavior when put into groups largely made up of peace-enforcing bonobos, for instance, shows that non-human animals can learn peaceful behavior. But this is not a book of scientific studies. It’s a book of de Waal’s conclusions, inescapable, and often quite questionable. If you’re the type of reader who likes to pause frequently and fight with the author, this could be worthwhile. If you aren’t, though, I recommend reading a couple of topical reviews like that of the New York Times that merely summarizes his discoveries. It will take much less time, spare you the unscientific science, and you’ll be back out in the world mediating a whole lot sooner.
One would expect de Waal would collect social experiments to compare human behavior, or at least use specific anecdotes of human behavior when contrasting his primate anecdotes. Instead he namedrops concepts from Sigmund Freud, the Bible, and even the Beatles. Even when these are made in jest, they show how unscientific de Waal’s approach is. They’re nice metaphors, but with all his references to evolutionary psychology and comparative conclusions, they cease to merely be metaphors. In many cases he makes only cursory references to scientific studies, such as one that found students of Economics tend to be more egotistical - and then, without describing the study at all, decides Economics make people emotionally dead.
The worst was a comparison of lesser members of a primate group deposing the alpha male for behavior they didn’t like, and directly implying that this behavior was on display in the international human community after the U.S. invasion of Iraq. Not only are countries highly complex meta-interactional organizations whose opinions can only be guessed by polling, but nobody deposed the United States in anything. Their forces are still in Iraq, even after a change of presidents, and while hated, when the recent economic crisis came about the U.S. was still seen in a leadership roll. If he wanted to make the argument that there was structural similarity he would need a heck of a lot more data to suggest the same thing that happens in a closely nit pod of primates was similar to the attitudes of billions of humans spread across multiple continents who don’t interact on a regular basis. Instead de Waal merely cites this as an example and moves on, as he does with nearly every far-fetched example.
He is not even consistent in his approach: in one section he argues that there is no in-born behavior, but in another argues that all sexual attitudes and rules are inherent to a species. So rape is not genetic, but a new alpha male killing everyone else’s children is. He does not acknowledge this inconsistency or discuss the possible problems presented by this flaw in his system. Things like this leave it harder to have faith in his work.
Typically I’d recommend ignoring his conclusions and merely reading what he has to say about chimps and bonobos, as what they do has very obvious ramifications for our behavior. That the typically more violent chimps adopted peaceful behavior when put into groups largely made up of peace-enforcing bonobos, for instance, shows that non-human animals can learn peaceful behavior. But this is not a book of scientific studies. It’s a book of de Waal’s conclusions, inescapable, and often quite questionable. If you’re the type of reader who likes to pause frequently and fight with the author, this could be worthwhile. If you aren’t, though, I recommend reading a couple of topical reviews like that of the New York Times that merely summarizes his discoveries. It will take much less time, spare you the unscientific science, and you’ll be back out in the world mediating a whole lot sooner.
May 29, 2008
Wonderfully written on our closest genetic relatives: chimpanzees and bonobos, this book delves into the behavior of patriarchal, aggressive chimpanzees and the matriarchal, peaceful and sexually free bonobos. I find it telling that behavior-wise humans are in the middle of the behavior of the aforementioned apes. Discussing a wide variety of topics such as power, sex, food competition, language, and scapegoats the author shows how humans differ and are similar to the other great apes. The book also discusses how things we consider "human" i.e., empathy, theory of mind, reciprocity, and morality are found in our species' nearest kin.
Read
January 26, 2021الوحشية البشرية × اللطف البشري
يقول عالم النفس (فرانس دي فال) في كتابه
Our Inner Ape: The Best and Worst of Human Nature :
القردة تشبهنا إلى حد كبير لدرجة أنها تُعرف باسم "anthropoids" من اللاتينية "مثل البشر" . يتناقض الشمبانزي المتعطش للسلطة و الوحشية مع البونوبو المحب للسلام والجنس - مثل الدكتور (جيكل) والسيد (هايد). طبيعتنا هي زواج غير مستقر بين الاثنين. إن جانبنا المظلم واضح بشكل مؤلم: ما يقدر بنحو 160 مليون شخص في القرن العشرين فقدوا حياتهم بسبب الحرب والإبادة الجماعية والقمع السياسي - كل ذلك بسبب القدرة البشرية على الوحشية. والأمر الأكثر إزعاجا من هذه الأرقام غير المفهومة هي التعبيرات الشخصية عن القسوة البشرية ، مثل الحادث المروع في بلدة صغيرة بولاية تكساس في عام 1998 حيث عرض ثلاثة رجال بيض على رجل أسود يبلغ من العمر تسعة وأربعين عامًا ، أن يوصلوه بسيارتهم . وبدلاً من أخذه إلى المنزل ، قادوه إلى مكان مهجور وضربوه ، ثم ربطوه بشاحنتهم وسحبوه عدة أميال على طول طريق الأسفلت ، ممزقين رأسه وذراعه الأيمن.
نحن قادرون على مثل هذه الوحشية على الرغم من ، أو ربما على وجه التحديد بسبب قدرتنا على تخيل ما يشعر به الآخرون. من ناحية أخرى ، عندما تقترن هذه القدرة نفسها بموقف إيجابي ، فإنها تدفعنا إلى إرسال الطعام إلى الأشخاص الذين يتضورون جوعًا ، وبذل جهود شجاعة لإنقاذ الغرباء (مثل أثناء الزلازل والحرائق) ، والبكاء عندما يروي شخص ما قصة حزينة ، أو الانضمام إلى فريق البحث عندما يكون طفل الجار مفقودًا. مع الجوانب القاسية والرحيمة ، نقف في العالم مثل (رأس يانوس) ، وجهاننا ينظران في اتجاهين متعاكسين. هذا يمكن أن يربكنا لدرجة أننا أحيانًا نبالغ في تبسيط هويتنا. نحن إما ندعي أننا "تاج الخلق" أو نصور أنفسنا على أننا الأشرار الوحيدين.
لماذا لا نقبل أننا كلا الأمرين؟ يتوافق هذان الجانبان في جنسنا مع أقرب أقربائنا الأحياء. يوضح الشمبانزي الجانب العنيف من الطبيعة البشرية بشكل جيد لدرجة أن القليل من العلماء يكتبون عن أي جانب آخر على الإطلاق. ولكننا أيضًا مخلوقات اجتماعية مكثفة تعتمد على بعضها البعض وتحتاج بالفعل إلى التفاعل مع الآخرين لقيادة حياة عاقله وسعيدة. بجانب الموت ، فإن الحبس الانفرادي هو أقصى عقاب لدينا . أجسادنا وعقولنا ليست مصممة لحياة وحيدة. نصبح مكتئبين بشكل يائس في غياب شراكة بشرية ، وتتدهور صحتنا. في إحدى الدراسات الطبية الأخيرة ، أصبح المتطوعون الأصحاء المعرضون لفيروسات البرد والإنفلونزا يمرضون بسهولة أكبر إذا كان لديهم عدد أقل من الأصدقاء والعائلة من حولهم.
#Maher_Razouk
#ماهررزوق
يقول عالم النفس (فرانس دي فال) في كتابه
Our Inner Ape: The Best and Worst of Human Nature :
القردة تشبهنا إلى حد كبير لدرجة أنها تُعرف باسم "anthropoids" من اللاتينية "مثل البشر" . يتناقض الشمبانزي المتعطش للسلطة و الوحشية مع البونوبو المحب للسلام والجنس - مثل الدكتور (جيكل) والسيد (هايد). طبيعتنا هي زواج غير مستقر بين الاثنين. إن جانبنا المظلم واضح بشكل مؤلم: ما يقدر بنحو 160 مليون شخص في القرن العشرين فقدوا حياتهم بسبب الحرب والإبادة الجماعية والقمع السياسي - كل ذلك بسبب القدرة البشرية على الوحشية. والأمر الأكثر إزعاجا من هذه الأرقام غير المفهومة هي التعبيرات الشخصية عن القسوة البشرية ، مثل الحادث المروع في بلدة صغيرة بولاية تكساس في عام 1998 حيث عرض ثلاثة رجال بيض على رجل أسود يبلغ من العمر تسعة وأربعين عامًا ، أن يوصلوه بسيارتهم . وبدلاً من أخذه إلى المنزل ، قادوه إلى مكان مهجور وضربوه ، ثم ربطوه بشاحنتهم وسحبوه عدة أميال على طول طريق الأسفلت ، ممزقين رأسه وذراعه الأيمن.
نحن قادرون على مثل هذه الوحشية على الرغم من ، أو ربما على وجه التحديد بسبب قدرتنا على تخيل ما يشعر به الآخرون. من ناحية أخرى ، عندما تقترن هذه القدرة نفسها بموقف إيجابي ، فإنها تدفعنا إلى إرسال الطعام إلى الأشخاص الذين يتضورون جوعًا ، وبذل جهود شجاعة لإنقاذ الغرباء (مثل أثناء الزلازل والحرائق) ، والبكاء عندما يروي شخص ما قصة حزينة ، أو الانضمام إلى فريق البحث عندما يكون طفل الجار مفقودًا. مع الجوانب القاسية والرحيمة ، نقف في العالم مثل (رأس يانوس) ، وجهاننا ينظران في اتجاهين متعاكسين. هذا يمكن أن يربكنا لدرجة أننا أحيانًا نبالغ في تبسيط هويتنا. نحن إما ندعي أننا "تاج الخلق" أو نصور أنفسنا على أننا الأشرار الوحيدين.
لماذا لا نقبل أننا كلا الأمرين؟ يتوافق هذان الجانبان في جنسنا مع أقرب أقربائنا الأحياء. يوضح الشمبانزي الجانب العنيف من الطبيعة البشرية بشكل جيد لدرجة أن القليل من العلماء يكتبون عن أي جانب آخر على الإطلاق. ولكننا أيضًا مخلوقات اجتماعية مكثفة تعتمد على بعضها البعض وتحتاج بالفعل إلى التفاعل مع الآخرين لقيادة حياة عاقله وسعيدة. بجانب الموت ، فإن الحبس الانفرادي هو أقصى عقاب لدينا . أجسادنا وعقولنا ليست مصممة لحياة وحيدة. نصبح مكتئبين بشكل يائس في غياب شراكة بشرية ، وتتدهور صحتنا. في إحدى الدراسات الطبية الأخيرة ، أصبح المتطوعون الأصحاء المعرضون لفيروسات البرد والإنفلونزا يمرضون بسهولة أكبر إذا كان لديهم عدد أقل من الأصدقاء والعائلة من حولهم.
#Maher_Razouk
#ماهررزوق
October 10, 2018
İçindeki romantik insanoğlu iyi de olabilir formatında çoğu düşünceye katılmasam da; bakış açısı kazandıran, evrimsel süreçler hakkında düşünce deneyleri oluşturan ve yakın akrabalarımızla aslında o kadar farklı olmadığımızı da fark ettiren okunması gereken bir kitap.
March 19, 2013
هذا الكتاب كان توصية من صديق عظيم وأخ عزيز وافته المنية هو وابنته الرضيعة، إثر حادث أليم مفجع. كان أسعد ضحية أخرى تضاف إلى قائمة ضحايا الفساد والإهمال المستمر لطرقنا السريعة المتهالكة. بوركت أينما كنت يا أسعد.ـ
من المتعارف عليه أننا عندما نقتل ونغتصب ونرتكب الجرائم نكون حينها أبعد ما نكون عن إنسانيتنا. نكون حينها خاضعين لطبيعتنا الحيوانية المنتنة. فيكون الإنسان ((حيواناً)) إذا ارتكب جرما، ويكون الحيوان ((إنساناً)) إذا أتى بحسنة. لكن يبدو أن الخيط الذي يفصل بين الإنسان والحيوان بالكاد يُرى. هذا ما يحاول "القرد الذي بداخلنا" محاربته. يقوم فرانس دي وال بتكسير هذه الصورة النمطية، التي كانت -وما زالت- حجر عثرة في طريق الوصول إلى فهم عميق للطبيعة البشرية.ـ
في "القرد الذي بداخلنا" يعري فرانس الإنسان ويقارنه بأبناء عمومته الشمبانزي، والبونوبو. في البداية يقوم الكاتب بالاسهاب في الحديث عن قردة الشمبانزي والبونوبو وعن الفروق الشاسعة بين النوعين. ثم يقوم في الفصول اللاحقة بالتفصيل أكثر فيما يتعلق بمركزية القوة، والجنس، والنزعات العنفية، والميول نحو الطيبة والعطف.ـ
وفي النهاية, يخصص فرانس فصلاً كاملاً عن الإنسان، أو ما يسميه بالـ"القرد ذو اضطراب ثنائي القطب". إذ يرى فرانس أن الإنسان قد جمع بين النقائض كلها: بين التعاون والمنافسة، بين المؤانسة والأنانية، وبين الإنسجام والنزاع. الإنسان هو المنقذ والسفاح في آن واحد، قادر على إحداث أعظم التضحيات وأفضع الشرور.ـ
من المتعارف عليه أننا عندما نقتل ونغتصب ونرتكب الجرائم نكون حينها أبعد ما نكون عن إنسانيتنا. نكون حينها خاضعين لطبيعتنا الحيوانية المنتنة. فيكون الإنسان ((حيواناً)) إذا ارتكب جرما، ويكون الحيوان ((إنساناً)) إذا أتى بحسنة. لكن يبدو أن الخيط الذي يفصل بين الإنسان والحيوان بالكاد يُرى. هذا ما يحاول "القرد الذي بداخلنا" محاربته. يقوم فرانس دي وال بتكسير هذه الصورة النمطية، التي كانت -وما زالت- حجر عثرة في طريق الوصول إلى فهم عميق للطبيعة البشرية.ـ
في "القرد الذي بداخلنا" يعري فرانس الإنسان ويقارنه بأبناء عمومته الشمبانزي، والبونوبو. في البداية يقوم الكاتب بالاسهاب في الحديث عن قردة الشمبانزي والبونوبو وعن الفروق الشاسعة بين النوعين. ثم يقوم في الفصول اللاحقة بالتفصيل أكثر فيما يتعلق بمركزية القوة، والجنس، والنزعات العنفية، والميول نحو الطيبة والعطف.ـ
وفي النهاية, يخصص فرانس فصلاً كاملاً عن الإنسان، أو ما يسميه بالـ"القرد ذو اضطراب ثنائي القطب". إذ يرى فرانس أن الإنسان قد جمع بين النقائض كلها: بين التعاون والمنافسة، بين المؤانسة والأنانية، وبين الإنسجام والنزاع. الإنسان هو المنقذ والسفاح في آن واحد، قادر على إحداث أعظم التضحيات وأفضع الشرور.ـ
August 5, 2013
This is the first of Franz de Waal's books I have read. He sets out to convince us that we share many social traits with other apes - both positive and negative. Specifically, he debunks the notion that civilized human society is just a thin veneer overlying a violent and aggressive foundation. He disputes Richard Dawkins' notion that "survival of the fittest" implies individual selection only and leaves no room for a social aspect of human/ape evolution.
Along the way, he asks the question, "What differentiates us from apes (primarily chimps and bonobos)?" It's not tool-making; it's not politics; it's not morality. Chimps and bonobos have all those capabilities. In the end, you're left with the impression that the main difference is that we have writing and a more complex spoken language - and some of us are less hairy.
I find his treatment of the question, "How do chimps, bonobos and humans each address the problem of determining paternity?" fascinating. Basically, chimp society is based on a male hierarchy, in which all the infants in a troop are the progeny of the alpha male. Therefore, when a new alpha comes on the scene, his first task it to kill all the infants. Bonobos solve the problem through universal sexual promiscuity - there's no way to know who the father of any given infant might be. Humans solve the same problem through pair-bonding - every male knows (within a certain margin of error) who are his progeny.
I presume that "Inner Ape" is a prologue to de Waal's latest book, "The Bonobo and the Atheist", which addresses directly the claims of the "new atheists" regarding the origins and significance of religion and morality. I'm very much looking forward to reading that.
Along the way, he asks the question, "What differentiates us from apes (primarily chimps and bonobos)?" It's not tool-making; it's not politics; it's not morality. Chimps and bonobos have all those capabilities. In the end, you're left with the impression that the main difference is that we have writing and a more complex spoken language - and some of us are less hairy.
I find his treatment of the question, "How do chimps, bonobos and humans each address the problem of determining paternity?" fascinating. Basically, chimp society is based on a male hierarchy, in which all the infants in a troop are the progeny of the alpha male. Therefore, when a new alpha comes on the scene, his first task it to kill all the infants. Bonobos solve the problem through universal sexual promiscuity - there's no way to know who the father of any given infant might be. Humans solve the same problem through pair-bonding - every male knows (within a certain margin of error) who are his progeny.
I presume that "Inner Ape" is a prologue to de Waal's latest book, "The Bonobo and the Atheist", which addresses directly the claims of the "new atheists" regarding the origins and significance of religion and morality. I'm very much looking forward to reading that.
July 18, 2022
A must read for everyone.
We, homo sapiens are the perfect mix of both species, chimpanzees and bonobos. Many studies and many sciences have come to terms on that. We can see literature such a Wrangham, Hrdy, M. Buss, Saad, Goodall and many more. We tend to eat meat, some people eat it medium rare, and some more blood the better. Chimpanzees love to see fresh blood on their food. On the other hand, bonobos are more like a vegetarian, and do not tend to hunt. There are a zillion differences between these two species, and turns out human beings have a little bit of each one.
We are animals. People do not like to hear that, and most of the time they don't like to hear stuff like evolution theory. People feel insulted when being called an animal, but we do things that far most exceeds animal violent behavior. And we are aware of that.
The book shares stories, real anecdotes and facts. It works, we can be a little bit like bonobos sometimes, and share emotions. I recently remembered something sad and couldn't help but cry. Another emotion is regret, the counterpart of being anxious. If we ever behave in a horrible manner, all we can ever do is not to feel ashamed to accept the consequences of our actions; we have a more complex theory of mind so we can make choices. Morality is a whole other issue, and evolutionary psychology will help us understand differences between male and female whilst hovering around the whole concept of ethology.
We, homo sapiens are the perfect mix of both species, chimpanzees and bonobos. Many studies and many sciences have come to terms on that. We can see literature such a Wrangham, Hrdy, M. Buss, Saad, Goodall and many more. We tend to eat meat, some people eat it medium rare, and some more blood the better. Chimpanzees love to see fresh blood on their food. On the other hand, bonobos are more like a vegetarian, and do not tend to hunt. There are a zillion differences between these two species, and turns out human beings have a little bit of each one.
We are animals. People do not like to hear that, and most of the time they don't like to hear stuff like evolution theory. People feel insulted when being called an animal, but we do things that far most exceeds animal violent behavior. And we are aware of that.
The book shares stories, real anecdotes and facts. It works, we can be a little bit like bonobos sometimes, and share emotions. I recently remembered something sad and couldn't help but cry. Another emotion is regret, the counterpart of being anxious. If we ever behave in a horrible manner, all we can ever do is not to feel ashamed to accept the consequences of our actions; we have a more complex theory of mind so we can make choices. Morality is a whole other issue, and evolutionary psychology will help us understand differences between male and female whilst hovering around the whole concept of ethology.
March 31, 2009
Better than Jared Diamond's The Third Chimpanzee. Diamond only mentioned bonobos in passing; while Frans de Waal discusses them as much as he discusses chimpanzees while only mentions gorillas, ourang-outang, baboons and various monkeys in passing. Frans de Waal's willingness to explore bonobo sexuality make Diamond's "The Third Chimpanzee" seem prudish.
Studying the behavior of our closest species relatives provide a lot of insight into human social behavior.
Politically, Frans de Waal is a liberal social democrat and in the latter portions of that speculates more on modern human society that view becomes more apparent. It's not that I disagree so much with his motivations; but that it seems to not be particularly informed about actual social struggle. If anything, I think his primate studies imply even more radical conclusions the Dutch welfare state's mitigation of capitalist competition.
Frans de Waal writes plainly with many amusing personal anecdotes about both his life and more often about the primates that he has known. This nicely complements the results for more formal and rigorous studies.
I was very amused about the story of capuchin monkeys who went on strike because of unfair pay.
Monkeys show affinity for tough union tactics: Study finds they'll go on strike if treated unfairly
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
Studying the behavior of our closest species relatives provide a lot of insight into human social behavior.
Politically, Frans de Waal is a liberal social democrat and in the latter portions of that speculates more on modern human society that view becomes more apparent. It's not that I disagree so much with his motivations; but that it seems to not be particularly informed about actual social struggle. If anything, I think his primate studies imply even more radical conclusions the Dutch welfare state's mitigation of capitalist competition.
Frans de Waal writes plainly with many amusing personal anecdotes about both his life and more often about the primates that he has known. This nicely complements the results for more formal and rigorous studies.
I was very amused about the story of capuchin monkeys who went on strike because of unfair pay.
Monkeys show affinity for tough union tactics: Study finds they'll go on strike if treated unfairly
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article...
February 28, 2018
We are all apes, like it or not. We share a lot with our great evolutionary cousins, such things as empathy, compassion, kindness, power competition, consolation and violence. Humans are the most violent and the most kind creatures on earth, we are the most bipolar creatures that exist, we do the most terrible things and we do the most kind things, our hate is unmatched, our love is without border. In some ways we are unique in many others we aren't.
We should do better to protect great apes, such magnificent creatures can't be drawn to an extinction! And what it would tell about us if we can't protect even our closest living relatives? If they die off then we would be truly alone, remaining the only great primate alive. Is that what we really want? Like it or not we are primates, we all have our own inner ape inside
We should do better to protect great apes, such magnificent creatures can't be drawn to an extinction! And what it would tell about us if we can't protect even our closest living relatives? If they die off then we would be truly alone, remaining the only great primate alive. Is that what we really want? Like it or not we are primates, we all have our own inner ape inside
May 10, 2017
Kuzenlerimizi ve Biz'i tanıma fırsatını en müthiş haliyle sunuyor.
Öncü ve iyileştirici bir kitap...
Öncü ve iyileştirici bir kitap...
September 22, 2021
Mēdzam domāt, ka cilvēku sliktās īpašības ir iedzimtie dzīvnieciskie instinkti, bet labās, morālās, pat alturiskās īpašības ir tās, kuras mūs padara pārākus un atdala no pārējiem evolūcijas 'brāļiem un māsām'. Tomēr autors (primātu pētnieks) pierāda, ko citu - nav tādu unikālu cilvēcīgu iezīmju, kuru nebūtu sastopamas citur dzīvnieku valstībā. Cilvēki kā kopums ir evolūcijas rezultātāts un tādi ir arī pārējie visi dzīvie organismi.
April 27, 2020
An enjoyable corrective to naive social darwinism.
November 4, 2019
Being both more systematically brutal than chimps and more empathic than bonobos, we are by far the most bipolar ape. Our societies are never completely peaceful, never completely competitive, never ruled by sheer selfishness, and never perfectly moral.
— Frans de Waal
Here’s a true fact … there’s a species of great ape that exhibits the following behaviors:
- They are xenophobic and can be ruthless toward individuals who are not part of their group
- They frequently use violence to settle disputes
- They have a strong sense of hierarchy for which males struggle for dominance
- They engage in sex for social and political advantage
- They commit murder and infanticide
I am, of course, referring to the chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) those semi-arboreal denizens of the forests and savannahs of tropical Africa … oh … and lest I forget … these characteristics also apply to human beings (Homo sapiens). We do the exact same things. It’s not all bad though, humans and the great apes also exhibit empathy, kindness, compassion and altruism. These traits are especially prevalent in the Bonobo or pygmy chimp (Pan paniscus), the smaller, gentler and sexier relatives of the chimpanzee who live in matriarchal colonies in the Congo Basin of Central Africa.
The fact that apes and humans share common behavioral traits shouldn’t come as much of a surprise. Chimpanzees and bonobos are our closest living relatives with whom we share 99% of our DNA. We also share a common ancestor that lived between 6 – 7 million years ago. There are those that therefore believe that we may be able to learn something about ourselves through a study of these primates. This is the topic that Dutch primatologist and ethologist Frans de Waal explores in Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. De Waal has spent his career studying primate social behavior and has accumulated numerous first-hand accounts of cultural traits that we share with chimpanzees and bonobos. It’s therefore natural to ask … to which species are we more similar? The answer is … we’re a hybrid of both. We have the capacity for competition and cooperation, aggression and reconciliation. De Waal evokes the image of the Janus Head (see image above) to illustrate this dual nature.
Probably the most interesting part of the book were the anecdotes that de Waal’s recounts of primate behaviors he’s observed. They struck me as more intelligent, sophisticated and dare I say … human, than I would have imagined. At the same time, I'm not completely convinced that this approach offers more insight into human behavior than say … and I’m just spit balling here … studying humans directly. Goodness knows there is no shortage of test subjects (7.7 billion vs. 30 - 50,000 bonobos).
October 15, 2020
Our Inner Ape is an interesting dose of research, facts and theories. If learning about why we are who we are has gotten you into this book, as mentioned on the book’s cover too, you are in for a big treat.
Right from the beginning, the parallels that Frans draws between our closest cousins: bonobons and chimpanzees, and us will leave you wondering and marveling over the facts and theories that now you have read sound so obvious, but if they weren’t kept in front of you the way they were, you might never have noticed them. After all, humans aren’t as unique and special as we might think of them to be.
Apart from the uncanny physical resemblance that our cousins share with us, you’d be amazed (at least I was) by the amount of behaviour that connects us. Ranging from jealousy to kindness to cruelty, these animals live these emotions and instincts on daily basis. Does that sound human enough to you? Or, does it make us sound ape enough to you?
In fact, it’s not just these apes but various other communities like that of elephants and dolphins that behave and react in, what we would like to call "human-way" . These animals might communicate differently than us, they might look different than us, but to strip them away of the emotions that we proudly call human is not only wrong but unreasonable.
OIA throws light on various aspects of power, sex, violence and kindness that is as prevalent in our cousins as in our community. Various comparisons, especially the ones related to politics, will make you chuckle because of the bizarre familiarity that they have.
Many argue that selfish is the real nature of humans-beings, that without being self-centered and competitive, we couldn’t have made through the survival race – is that really so though? Is our core all dark and light just the exterior? Are we loner at our core and living in community is just a forceful tradition? The book tries to touch upon these endless theories and questions in the wake of evolution and our study of the same.
On the top of the interesting topics that OIA deals with, the way it has been written is highly accessible and easy to grasp. With convenient simple sentences throughout and wittiness sprinkled here and there, I highly recommend this book.
Just to give you some context: the only book that I’ve read on similar topics till now is “In the Shadow of Man” by Jane Goodall (and boy was I impressed!) Thus, this book was awfully informative for me. It might not necessarily be the case for those who are already equipped with knowledge in this field. Yet, I’d suggest giving it a try for its accessibility and relatability.
Right from the beginning, the parallels that Frans draws between our closest cousins: bonobons and chimpanzees, and us will leave you wondering and marveling over the facts and theories that now you have read sound so obvious, but if they weren’t kept in front of you the way they were, you might never have noticed them. After all, humans aren’t as unique and special as we might think of them to be.
Apart from the uncanny physical resemblance that our cousins share with us, you’d be amazed (at least I was) by the amount of behaviour that connects us. Ranging from jealousy to kindness to cruelty, these animals live these emotions and instincts on daily basis. Does that sound human enough to you? Or, does it make us sound ape enough to you?
In fact, it’s not just these apes but various other communities like that of elephants and dolphins that behave and react in, what we would like to call "human-way" . These animals might communicate differently than us, they might look different than us, but to strip them away of the emotions that we proudly call human is not only wrong but unreasonable.
OIA throws light on various aspects of power, sex, violence and kindness that is as prevalent in our cousins as in our community. Various comparisons, especially the ones related to politics, will make you chuckle because of the bizarre familiarity that they have.
Many argue that selfish is the real nature of humans-beings, that without being self-centered and competitive, we couldn’t have made through the survival race – is that really so though? Is our core all dark and light just the exterior? Are we loner at our core and living in community is just a forceful tradition? The book tries to touch upon these endless theories and questions in the wake of evolution and our study of the same.
“In our own species, nothing is more obvious than that we band together against adversaries. This is why it’s often suggested that the best guarantee for world peace would be an extraterrestrial enemy. We could finally put the Orwellian “war is peace” rhetoric into practice.”
On the top of the interesting topics that OIA deals with, the way it has been written is highly accessible and easy to grasp. With convenient simple sentences throughout and wittiness sprinkled here and there, I highly recommend this book.
Just to give you some context: the only book that I’ve read on similar topics till now is “In the Shadow of Man” by Jane Goodall (and boy was I impressed!) Thus, this book was awfully informative for me. It might not necessarily be the case for those who are already equipped with knowledge in this field. Yet, I’d suggest giving it a try for its accessibility and relatability.
March 3, 2018
Reading this book makes me extremely sad. May be that happens when you observe or read about the lives of animals busy in their struggle for survival and procreation. They go to extreme lengths to find food, shelter and mate. The salmon fish travel thousands of miles just to lay eggs in their birthplace. After laying eggs all die in order to be consumed by their offsprings few months later. The female octopus lays just one egg in her life and dies immediately after because of exhaustion. The mayfly spends two years underwater in larva stage, then she develops wings just for 24 hours. in these limited hours she finds a mate, lays eggs and dies immediately after. Thankfully other animals and species dont have to go to such extreme measures. But their life cycles and efforts seem equally futile and meaningless. you began to think about the consequences and purpose of the animal lives in grand scheme of things. Is this all for animals just to fight over food, territory, and mates. Just to repeat same actions endlessly by every generation.
I thought maybe we humans are distinct , maybe the focus of our lives and struggles are completely different from animals. May be our life cycles are distinct and meaningful. The author is keen on presenting facts and theories to make me realize that i am not distinct. That may be all my efforts are just meaningless in grand scheme of things.
We may believe that we humans are distinct in possessing qualities intelligence, emotions, culture, family life, love , hatred, violence ,politics, quest for power,kindness, and empathy. We have just an evolved form of these qualities as compare to animals specially apes. Based on his lifelong work with primates, the author sees humans in an illusion of uniqueness and superiority. But he is cautious of over reductionism in applying evolutionary theory in proving his thesis.Overall the perspective in this book is fresh and very interesting at least to a layman like me.
In my sadness i am just reciting the famous ghazal of Jaun Elia
سر ہی اب پھوڑیے ندامت میں
نیند آنے لگی ہے فرقت میں
ہیں دلیلیں ترے خلاف مگر
سوچتا ہوں تری حمایت میں
روح نے عشق کا فریب دیا
جسم کو جسم کی عداوت میں
اب فقط عادتوں کی ورزش ہے
روح شامل نہیں شکایت میں
عشق کو درمیاں نہ لاؤ کہ میں
چیختا ہوں بدن کی عسرت میں
یہ کچھ آسان تو نہیں ہے کہ ہم
روٹھتے اب بھی ہیں مروت میں
وہ جو تعمیر ہونے والی تھی
لگ گئی آگ اس عمارت میں
زندگی کس طرح بسر ہوگی
دل نہیں لگ رہا محبت میں
حاصل کن ہے یہ جہان خراب
یہی ممکن تھا اتنی عجلت میں
پھر بنایا خدا نے آدم کو
اپنی صورت پہ ایسی صورت میں
اور پھر آدمی نے غور کیا
چھپکلی کی لطیف صنعت میں
اے خدا جو کہیں نہیں موجود
کیا لکھا ہے ہماری قسمت میں
I thought maybe we humans are distinct , maybe the focus of our lives and struggles are completely different from animals. May be our life cycles are distinct and meaningful. The author is keen on presenting facts and theories to make me realize that i am not distinct. That may be all my efforts are just meaningless in grand scheme of things.
We may believe that we humans are distinct in possessing qualities intelligence, emotions, culture, family life, love , hatred, violence ,politics, quest for power,kindness, and empathy. We have just an evolved form of these qualities as compare to animals specially apes. Based on his lifelong work with primates, the author sees humans in an illusion of uniqueness and superiority. But he is cautious of over reductionism in applying evolutionary theory in proving his thesis.Overall the perspective in this book is fresh and very interesting at least to a layman like me.
In my sadness i am just reciting the famous ghazal of Jaun Elia
سر ہی اب پھوڑیے ندامت میں
نیند آنے لگی ہے فرقت میں
ہیں دلیلیں ترے خلاف مگر
سوچتا ہوں تری حمایت میں
روح نے عشق کا فریب دیا
جسم کو جسم کی عداوت میں
اب فقط عادتوں کی ورزش ہے
روح شامل نہیں شکایت میں
عشق کو درمیاں نہ لاؤ کہ میں
چیختا ہوں بدن کی عسرت میں
یہ کچھ آسان تو نہیں ہے کہ ہم
روٹھتے اب بھی ہیں مروت میں
وہ جو تعمیر ہونے والی تھی
لگ گئی آگ اس عمارت میں
زندگی کس طرح بسر ہوگی
دل نہیں لگ رہا محبت میں
حاصل کن ہے یہ جہان خراب
یہی ممکن تھا اتنی عجلت میں
پھر بنایا خدا نے آدم کو
اپنی صورت پہ ایسی صورت میں
اور پھر آدمی نے غور کیا
چھپکلی کی لطیف صنعت میں
اے خدا جو کہیں نہیں موجود
کیا لکھا ہے ہماری قسمت میں
April 14, 2021
Primatolog Frans De Waal bu kitapta %98 ortak DNA ‘yı paylaşan insan - Şempanze - Bonobo davranışlarını kıyaslayarak hepsinin ortak ve farklı yönlerini incelemiş.
Temel tezi şu; Evet şempanzelerin gaddar, acımasız, hırçın mizaçları var ve bu genetik olarak bizimde doğamızda var.
Fakat öte yandan genlerimizin %98’ini paylaştığımız bir kuzenimiz daha var; Bonobo ‘lar. Bonobolar, şempanzelerin kavgacı ve acımasız yapılarının tam aksine - empati sahibi, sağduyulu, barışçı bir yapıya sahipler.
Yazar kitap boyunca hayvanat bahçesinde yaptığı gözlemlerle, yaşadığı deneyimleri anlatıyor. Şempanze - Bonobo ve insan davranışlarının benzer ve farklı yönlerini örneklerle kıyaslıyor.
Hem kavgacı şempanzelerle - hem barışçı bonobolarla çok şey paylaşan melez bir türüz. Ancak tümüyle bencil ve kötü olduğumuz,ahlakımızın bir yanılsama olduğu görüşü’de değiştirilmeye muhtaç. Temelde maymun soyundan gelmişsek, en bayağısından en asiline bir eğilimler spektrumuyla doğduk. Dünya üzerindeki en iç çatışmalı ve çelişkili hayvanız. Hem çevresini, hem kendi türünü yok edebilen, öte yandan empati sahibi ve hiç görülmemiş ölçüde sevebilen bir hayvan türüyüz. Kendimizin bu hem aydınlık hem karanlık yönünü daha iyi tanımamız ve incelememiz gerekiyor. Belki’de ancak böyle daha iyi bir dünya kurabiliriz.
Temel tezi şu; Evet şempanzelerin gaddar, acımasız, hırçın mizaçları var ve bu genetik olarak bizimde doğamızda var.
Fakat öte yandan genlerimizin %98’ini paylaştığımız bir kuzenimiz daha var; Bonobo ‘lar. Bonobolar, şempanzelerin kavgacı ve acımasız yapılarının tam aksine - empati sahibi, sağduyulu, barışçı bir yapıya sahipler.
Yazar kitap boyunca hayvanat bahçesinde yaptığı gözlemlerle, yaşadığı deneyimleri anlatıyor. Şempanze - Bonobo ve insan davranışlarının benzer ve farklı yönlerini örneklerle kıyaslıyor.
Hem kavgacı şempanzelerle - hem barışçı bonobolarla çok şey paylaşan melez bir türüz. Ancak tümüyle bencil ve kötü olduğumuz,ahlakımızın bir yanılsama olduğu görüşü’de değiştirilmeye muhtaç. Temelde maymun soyundan gelmişsek, en bayağısından en asiline bir eğilimler spektrumuyla doğduk. Dünya üzerindeki en iç çatışmalı ve çelişkili hayvanız. Hem çevresini, hem kendi türünü yok edebilen, öte yandan empati sahibi ve hiç görülmemiş ölçüde sevebilen bir hayvan türüyüz. Kendimizin bu hem aydınlık hem karanlık yönünü daha iyi tanımamız ve incelememiz gerekiyor. Belki’de ancak böyle daha iyi bir dünya kurabiliriz.
April 2, 2017
If there is one thing I love it is comparing apes. God this book was fabulous. Other apes have so much to teach us humans. I had been thinking that they could only teach us about sex and violence and I was very satisfied with that. But thanks to Frans, I now know they can also teach us about reciprocity and reconciliation and empathy and stuff and more stuff. This book swings even higher into the tree tops because it is engagingly written, which I don't expect from scientists. Frans throws in a few gags, has opinions, and loves bonobos. As do I. Well done Frans. You can groom me anytime.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 346 reviews