Thank you, Jonathan. For the record, I'm a longtime editor for Scientific American but on a contract basis, and ongoing. Very pleased to give deserved notice to The Primate Myth.
I discuss it at some length in my book. A friend who took his class at Harvard says that when she asked a question about how much we can understand human behavior from chimps that he smiled and brushed it aside. He’s more independent in his thinking than many people in the primatological establishment. But he doesn’t want to break free from them, and he’s still getting basic stuff wrong.
In The Goodness Paradox he claims that fundamentally wars are reflections of our primate impulses towards aggression. This raises a number of obvious questions. If this is so, then why have democratic nations in which women have the vote never gone to war with another? Why are all the animals we use in wars domesticated animals (e.g. pigeons, elephants, horses, etc.)? And why are ants the most war-like of all species? All this leads us to the conclusion that war is primarily a problem of obedience in which young men uncritically follow orders from authoritarian leaders. In many respects, it’s our tameness and our obedience that’s the problem.
I make that point in my book, and I’ve written Wrangham, asking him to debate this point. I’ve offered to travel to Cambridge for such a debate. He won’t respond.
When recent studies came out showing how different our genome was from the chimp genome, the legs were cut off from all the claims that we can make inferences about human behavior from apes. Wrangham is among the many who are in denial about this.
Are primatologists really trying to understand human nature by studying chimpanzees? You say that "trying to understand us through study of them is apt to lead us into a wholesale misunderstanding of human nature". However, Wrangham in Goodness Paradox assumes that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had a nature similar to present-day chimpanzees. And that leads to how humans have evolved our present very-different-from chimpanzee nature. And Wrangham's answer is that humans have self-domesticated themselves,
So, I don't think Wrangham is trying to understand human nature through chimpanzees but he is trying to understand how did the human nature evolve. A question very much valid.
Also, isn't our place in primate tree confirmed by genetic analysis. It is not through observation of behavior and anatomy but through analysis of DNA, it has been said that chimpanzees are closest species to humans.
Of all living species, we are closest genetically to chimpanzees, but it turns out in spite of that that we're not very close genetically to chimps. We've been moving along a very, very different path. The primatologists don't want to acknowledge this. They're stuck on old models and in their belief that we have a great continuity in our nature with apes. Wrangham largely accepts this idea. I'm saying something entirely different.
Again, if you're really interested in the subject, you should read my book. Already, two Scientific American editors have written laudatory reviews of my book. These are serious and impartial figures in the science world, and what they're acknowledging is how much evidence has come out in recent decades showing that we're not like apes. Computer studies suggest that even our anatomy rightly places us in a separate order.
It's not just that we are domesticated. It's also that our social structure and our thought is language-based, and we're highly cooperative hunters. There are animals that have those traits, and they can serve as useful models. (Think of dolphins, for example.) But apes don't use language, and they're not domesticated. And chimps get only a small fraction of their nourishment from meat, and even less from meat acquired through cooperative hunting.
Jonathan, this was a fascinating and genuinely enjoyable read. One small observation that came to mind as I was reading: the discussion centers largely on the contrast between bearded and clean-shaven men, but I found myself wondering about the curious middle ground of stubble. It seems to occupy a unique cultural space—neither fully armored nor fully exposed—and often registers as especially attractive in modern contexts. I’m not sure what that says about signaling or selection, but it struck me as an interesting wrinkle alongside an otherwise compelling thesis. And by the way, The Primate Myth really is a terrific read—thought-provoking, engaging, and well worth the time.
Now do nipples.
Well, I did discuss breasts in the book.
Thank you, Jonathan. For the record, I'm a longtime editor for Scientific American but on a contract basis, and ongoing. Very pleased to give deserved notice to The Primate Myth.
Thanks and apologies! I'll fix that. I should have asked. I'm sorry that I didn't think to. Happy New Year!
No worries. Happy New Year.
What do you think of Richard Wrangham's book Goodness Paradox-- which is about how self&domestication in humans made us different from chimpanzees.
I discuss it at some length in my book. A friend who took his class at Harvard says that when she asked a question about how much we can understand human behavior from chimps that he smiled and brushed it aside. He’s more independent in his thinking than many people in the primatological establishment. But he doesn’t want to break free from them, and he’s still getting basic stuff wrong.
In The Goodness Paradox he claims that fundamentally wars are reflections of our primate impulses towards aggression. This raises a number of obvious questions. If this is so, then why have democratic nations in which women have the vote never gone to war with another? Why are all the animals we use in wars domesticated animals (e.g. pigeons, elephants, horses, etc.)? And why are ants the most war-like of all species? All this leads us to the conclusion that war is primarily a problem of obedience in which young men uncritically follow orders from authoritarian leaders. In many respects, it’s our tameness and our obedience that’s the problem.
I make that point in my book, and I’ve written Wrangham, asking him to debate this point. I’ve offered to travel to Cambridge for such a debate. He won’t respond.
When recent studies came out showing how different our genome was from the chimp genome, the legs were cut off from all the claims that we can make inferences about human behavior from apes. Wrangham is among the many who are in denial about this.
BTW, if you’re really interested, but my book! https://www.amazon.com/Primate-Myth-Latest-Science-Theory/dp/B0F27ZZ9ZN
Are primatologists really trying to understand human nature by studying chimpanzees? You say that "trying to understand us through study of them is apt to lead us into a wholesale misunderstanding of human nature". However, Wrangham in Goodness Paradox assumes that the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees had a nature similar to present-day chimpanzees. And that leads to how humans have evolved our present very-different-from chimpanzee nature. And Wrangham's answer is that humans have self-domesticated themselves,
So, I don't think Wrangham is trying to understand human nature through chimpanzees but he is trying to understand how did the human nature evolve. A question very much valid.
Also, isn't our place in primate tree confirmed by genetic analysis. It is not through observation of behavior and anatomy but through analysis of DNA, it has been said that chimpanzees are closest species to humans.
Of all living species, we are closest genetically to chimpanzees, but it turns out in spite of that that we're not very close genetically to chimps. We've been moving along a very, very different path. The primatologists don't want to acknowledge this. They're stuck on old models and in their belief that we have a great continuity in our nature with apes. Wrangham largely accepts this idea. I'm saying something entirely different.
Again, if you're really interested in the subject, you should read my book. Already, two Scientific American editors have written laudatory reviews of my book. These are serious and impartial figures in the science world, and what they're acknowledging is how much evidence has come out in recent decades showing that we're not like apes. Computer studies suggest that even our anatomy rightly places us in a separate order.
It's not just that we are domesticated. It's also that our social structure and our thought is language-based, and we're highly cooperative hunters. There are animals that have those traits, and they can serve as useful models. (Think of dolphins, for example.) But apes don't use language, and they're not domesticated. And chimps get only a small fraction of their nourishment from meat, and even less from meat acquired through cooperative hunting.
Naw. It is to offset the baldness of the older male head.
Jonathan, this was a fascinating and genuinely enjoyable read. One small observation that came to mind as I was reading: the discussion centers largely on the contrast between bearded and clean-shaven men, but I found myself wondering about the curious middle ground of stubble. It seems to occupy a unique cultural space—neither fully armored nor fully exposed—and often registers as especially attractive in modern contexts. I’m not sure what that says about signaling or selection, but it struck me as an interesting wrinkle alongside an otherwise compelling thesis. And by the way, The Primate Myth really is a terrific read—thought-provoking, engaging, and well worth the time.
Thanks! Wish I had an answer to a great question.