A thought about the evolution of mammals: we know that early rodents were being cooped up in holes in the ground, to avoid predation by the then-dominant dinosaurs. Now, it isn't hard to see how oxytocin would suppress the kind of in-fighting that would lead to rapid extinction under those circumstances, as they slaughtered each other. Thus, being tolerant of their immediate neighbours provided the advantage that lead to its fixing in the population.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:Not really, I was hoping for some experimental research on reciprocity and altruism in bonobos.

Again, it was you that introduced the word "altruism" into this. Why? Nobody has suggested that altruism comes into bonobo behaviour in any case. It's just about how bonobos have reduced intra-group violence relative to chimps.

What?! Did you read the paper? It says absolutely nothing about violence, aggression, or anything about how bonobos are more peaceful than chimpanzees, or anything like that.

The entire paper, which is only 4-5 pages long so it shouldn't take long to read, is focused entirely on how a group of bonobos were looking for food, one got caught in a trap and the others continued on. Later, they trekked all the way back to where the bonobo was caught in a snare, then released him.

This, in science, is an example of altruism (or social cooperation, or reciprocity, etc).

DavidMcC wrote:

The problem is not their science, but your interpretation, where you are assuming that their unevidenced speculation is evidential support for your beliefs.

Gotcha! That's hilarious, but also revealing! If you think you're lecturing a hippy on science, think again. I am NOT a hippy, nor am I influenced in any way by unscientific hippy nonsense, nor were the authors of the NIH paper presenting "unevidenced speculation":

In sum, comparative studies in pair-bonding rodents have revealed neural and genetic mechanisms contributing to social-bonding behaviour.

It is only in the case of the extension to humans, and possible treatment for autism that they are speculative. But this thread is not about autism, or even human psychology.

Yes, so you agree that their discussion on pair-bonding in every species except the two actually studied in the paper is unevidenced speculation, which is what I said. And I've never claimed that you were a "hippy" at all, but I do think that your understanding of how science works could be improved a little.

Mr.Samsa wrote:This, in science, is an example of altruism (or social cooperation, or reciprocity, etc).

No, if you look up "altruism", you'll find it is a motivation, not a behaviour. "Social cooperation" or "empathic behaviour" is the behaviour concerned.
This gets more absurd by the day. You have now gone further than would in implying that bonobos are actually altruistically motivated. I would only argue that they show better social co-operation than chimps, and that this is related to the various factors I listed previously, including the kind of oxytocin they express.

Mr.Samsa, you didn't edit your earlier post, did you, to delete the word "hippy", which has mysteriously disappeared.
But to more important matters (actual science):

epepke wrote:5) Do they have more oxytocin?

Not necessarily more, but a different kind, apparently:

Linked NIH paper wrote:Interestingly, a similar mutational event in the primate AVPR1A may have contributed to the evolution of primate social behaviour. Humans and bonobos, both known for high levels of social reciprocity, empathy and sociosexual bonding, have a repetitive microsatellite locus 3625bp upstream of the transcription start site. In contrast, this microsatellite locus is absent in the common chimpanzee, reminiscent of the genetic differences between highly social and asocial voles at this locus.

Mr.Samsa, the real origin of this stupid row was when you claimed that:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I don't think the belief that bonobos are "peaceful" has been accepted for a while now...

And I pointed out that there were two different issues: in-group and out-group peace, with bonobos being better than chimps at in-group peace, but certainly not at peace with out-groups. That is why it seemed that you were misrepresenting the situation, by being ambiguous about what "peace" meant. No observations ever overthrew anything but the popsci view that bonobos were somehow peaceful towards all-comers, not just their in-group.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:This, in science, is an example of altruism (or social cooperation, or reciprocity, etc).

No, if you look up "altruism", you'll find it is a motivation, not a behaviour. "Social cooperation" or "empathic behaviour" is the behaviour concerned.

When we "look up" words in science, David, we don't turn to wikipedia as you appear to have done, where they define the laymen interpretation of the word as a 'motivation'. Instead, we look at scientific definitions when discussing science. For example, one of the most widely used definitions of 'altruism' is Trivers': "Altruistic behavior can be defined as behavior that benefits another organism, not closely related, while being apparently detrimental to the organism performing the behavior, benefit and detriment being defined in terms of contribution to inclusive fitness". This definition is supported by Axelrod in his seminal paper, "The evolution of cooperation", and it is the standard definition used across all science. The only real variation occurs when we aren't discussing the evolutionary implications of the behavior, and in which we make the definition more general, where altruism becomes any behavior that benefits another at a potential cost to itself (sometimes with the exclusion of kin).

DavidMcC wrote:This gets more absurd by the day. You have now gone further than would in implying that bonobos are actually altruistically motivated. I would only argue that they show better social co-operation than chimps, and that this is related to the various factors I listed previously, including the kind of oxytocin they express.

I have never argued that bonobos are "altruistically motivated", I've just been asking for evidence of such a thing. I've been asking because the original paper that this thread is based on describes a situation of altruism. It's not an example of social cooperation exactly, in that such a term is too broad to describe the behavior we're looking at. That is, the behavior is a better example of altruism, although altruism does fall under the greater category of social cooperation. Regardless, since I've been asking for evidence of "altruism or social cooperation" consistently throughout the thread, this little attempt to distract us from the fact that you have no evidence is pointless.

As for the claim that they show better social cooperation than chimps - any evidence for this? Or, if you want to keep falling back on your oxytocin claim, any evidence that bonobos "express" oxytocin any differently to chimps?

DavidMcC wrote:Mr.Samsa, you didn't edit your earlier post, did you, to delete the word "hippy", which has mysteriously disappeared.

If I edited my post then you would be able to see an automatic board update written at the bottom of my post. It should say something like: "Last edited: TIME and DATE by Mr.Samsa". If it doesn't say that, then you've mistakenly attributed some "hippy" comment to me, perhaps as a confusion with a discussion you're having with someone else who said that to you, or perhaps you misread a word I'd written. The only time an edited post won't include the automatic update message, is when the post is edited before anyone else has replied to it, but since I wasn't online when you replied to the post where you thought I had called you a 'hippy', then it's impossible for me to have edited within that time. If you are terribly concerned, you can PM a mod and ask them if any changes have been made to my posts in this thread, as they can access all edits made to posts. I give them full permission to disclose any details and edits I have made.

DavidMcC wrote:Mr.Samsa, the real origin of this stupid row was when you claimed that:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I don't think the belief that bonobos are "peaceful" has been accepted for a while now...

And I pointed out that there were two different issues: in-group and out-group peace, with bonobos being better than chimps at in-group peace, but certainly not at peace with out-groups. That is why it seemed that you were misrepresenting the situation, by being ambiguous about what "peace" meant. No observations ever overthrew anything but the popsci view that bonobos were somehow peaceful towards all-comers, not just their in-group.

My comment was in response to MacIver and a few others who seemed to be suggesting that bonobos are more peaceful or less aggressive than chimps, which is based on a common belief that has spread through society, and my only intention was to highlight that this isn't true.

It's great that you, supposedly, knew it wasn't true but since I didn't make that comment to you, I don't understand why you seem to have taken offence to it.

Mr.Samsa wrote:My comment was in response to MacIver and a few others who seemed to be suggesting that bonobos are more peaceful or less aggressive than chimps, which is based on a common belief that has spread through society, and my only intention was to highlight that this isn't true.

It seems that you are persisting in your ambiguity concerning what "peacefulness" actually refers to in the case of bonobos. Thus, I repeat that what you are "highlighting" is misleading. It is well established that they co-operate within the group better than do chimps, and the results you refer to describe only their lack of peacefulness towards outsiders. Thus, your persistent ambiguity is puzzling, and hence the relevance of the papers referencing the different form of oxytocin they express.

On the question of your editing out the word "hippy", I can only assume that you still have moderator priveliges, as even my post has apparently changed without trace. I was not imagining the wording you used on the 17th. But., hey, it isn't important, just an indication of your "posting style", I guess.

Mr.Samsa wrote:As for the claim that they show better social cooperation than chimps - any evidence for this? Or, if you want to keep falling back on your oxytocin claim, any evidence that bonobos "express" oxytocin any differently to chimps?

I have already quoted the NIH paper stating clearly that they express a different form of oxytocin, which is known to affect social behaviour in mammals and that this difference appears to correlate with better in-group co-operation across different mammalian species.
A tip: sometimes, it helps to have a multi-disciplinary approach to studies that relate to biology in any way.

epepke wrote:6) Bonobos are "led by females." I'm not even sure what that means.

Presumably, as with meerkats, it means that the female of the alpha pair" wears the trousers", so to speak, by doing what leaders do - lead the way, especially when it comes to deciding, eg, whether to fight or flee when a rival group turns up, or just where to go foraging today. The excellent TV series (called "Meerkat Manor") made of a multi-year Cambridge University behavioural study of wild meerkats in South Africa is a good way to understand it. The same applies to Madagascan ring-tailed lemurs, which show many parallels with meerkats (though I don't know what form of oxytocin they express) -in fact, they are the arboreal equivalent of meerkat burrowers.

Mr.Samsa wrote:My comment was in response to MacIver and a few others who seemed to be suggesting that bonobos are more peaceful or less aggressive than chimps,...

OK, I canot comment on whether MacIver appreciated the difference between behaviour towards family on the one hand and outsiders on the other. The distinction is crucial.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:My comment was in response to MacIver and a few others who seemed to be suggesting that bonobos are more peaceful or less aggressive than chimps, which is based on a common belief that has spread through society, and my only intention was to highlight that this isn't true.

It seems that you are persisting in your ambiguity concerning what "peacefulness" actually refers to in the case of bonobos. Thus, I repeat that what you are "highlighting" is misleading. It is well established that they co-operate within the group better than do chimps, and the results you refer to describe only their lack of peacefulness towards outsiders. Thus, your persistent ambiguity is puzzling, and hence the relevance of the papers referencing the different form of oxytocin they express.

There's no ambiguity there. In the context of the thread and the comments made by MacIver, my comment made perfect sense - as demonstrated by the fact that everyone who replied to it understood it. If you struggled to understand it, then it is through no fault of mine.

DavidMcC wrote:On the question of your editing out the word "hippy", I can only assume that you still have moderator priveliges, as even my post has apparently changed without trace. I was not imagining the wording you used on the 17th. But., hey, it isn't important, just an indication of your "posting style", I guess.

I have no moderator privileges because I'm not a mod. Even if I did have the capability to edit posts, I would not have access to remove the edit reports from the logs. So again, if you are concerned that I am tampering with not only my own posts (which would be a violation of rule "k. edit your posts substantially if others have responded to them.") and if you're concerned that I've hacked into the mod capabilities on the forum (which would be a violation of the section entitled "3.9 Disruption of Service"), then by all means report me. If your accusations are even remotely true, I will be permanently banned from this forum and my IP blacklisted.

I assume you're not going to report me because your concerns are obviously entirely fabricated and you appear to be desperately trying to escape taking responsibility for your own mistaken accusation. Instead of just apologising to me for falsely accusing me of insulting you, or simply just moving on, you had to create a wild conspiracy theory that involves me being some kind of super hacker, capable of destroying all evidence so that no mod or admin could see the work I've been doing behind the scenes. I'd report all of my posts myself, just to air your concerns, if I didn't think that it would be a tremendous waste of the mods' time.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:As for the claim that they show better social cooperation than chimps - any evidence for this? Or, if you want to keep falling back on your oxytocin claim, any evidence that bonobos "express" oxytocin any differently to chimps?

I have already quoted the NIH paper stating clearly that they express a different form of oxytocin, which is known to affect social behaviour in mammals and that this difference appears to correlate with better in-group co-operation across different mammalian species.

No, your quote did no such thing. Your quote discussed the differences in the AVPR1A gene expression between bonobos and chimps, which is the proposed underlying mechanism for vasopressin. The paper makes no claims about different expression of oxytocin in bonobos and chimps. Still, ignoring that mistake, there is still no evidence of differences in social cooperation between bonobos and chimps.

DavidMcC wrote:A tip: sometimes, it helps to have a multi-disciplinary approach to studies that relate to biology in any way.

A tip: sometimes, it helps to have evidence when discussing science and not to make snarky comments when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:My comment was in response to MacIver and a few others who seemed to be suggesting that bonobos are more peaceful or less aggressive than chimps,...

OK, I canot comment on whether MacIver appreciated the difference between behaviour towards family on the one hand and outsiders on the other. The distinction is crucial.

The distinction is irrelevant. It's all in your head and irrelevant to the discussion that took place. There is the common belief in society that bonobos are peaceful. There is no need to define all the words in that sentence because anyone who has discussed bonobos with another person understands the implications of the sentence - it means they have sex instead of fight, they prefer passive retreats over aggression, they prefer to share than to steal, etc etc. These are all common myths about bonobos, and they are often all grouped together under the term "peaceful" because that's how ordinary people use the term.

Mr.Samsa wrote:These are all common myths about bonobos, and they are often all grouped together under the term "peaceful" because that's how ordinary people use the term.

And it seems that you fell for it yourself, by failing to even mention the distinction between in-group and out-group yourself.
There is no point in further, innuendo-riddled "debate" on this intil you realise that. You should not hide behind the "common perception" all the time. Rather, you should point that out. As it happened, that was left to me.

Another (less crucial,but nonetheless worthwhile) point is that, if you don't like a definition on Wikipedia, you should change it.That is tyhe point of Wiki, you shouldn't blame Wiki for a definition problem that you can fix yourself, or get a colleague to.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:These are all common myths about bonobos, and they are often all grouped together under the term "peaceful" because that's how ordinary people use the term.

And it seems that you fell for it yourself, by failing to even mention the distinction between in-group and out-group yourself.
There is no point in further, innuendo-riddled "debate" on this intil you realise that. You should not hide behind the "common perception" all the time. Rather, you should point that out. As it happened, that was left to me.

I didn't mention any in-group out-group distinction because it was entirely and utterly irrelevant. Why would I mention such a redundant fact? Should I have mentioned that bonobos are also a slightly different shade of brown and black, or that they prefer slightly unripe bananas?

Look, it's great that you seem to know this single fact about bonobos, but your continual attempts to insert it into every part of this discussion is becoming very tiresome. It's irrelevant, stop bringing it up.

DavidMcC wrote:Another (less crucial,but nonetheless worthwhile) point is that, if you don't like a definition on Wikipedia, you should change it.That is tyhe point of Wiki, you shouldn't blame Wiki for a definition problem that you can fix yourself, or get a colleague to.

No need to, the definition for the common (laymen) understanding of altruism is accurate enough. When you look up the wikipedia page on how altruism is understood scientifically ("altruism in animals"), you'll find that it actually links to the Trivers' definition I presented above.

Altruism is a well-documented animal behaviour, which appears most obviously in kin relationships but may also be evident amongst wider social groups, in which an animal sacrifices its own well-being for the benefit of another animal. In the science of ethology (the study of behavior), and more generally in the study of social evolution, on occasion, some animals do behave in ways that reduce their individual fitness but increase the fitness of other individuals in the population; this is a functional definition of altruism.

Mr.Samsa wrote:I didn't mention any in-group out-group distinction because it was entirely and utterly irrelevant. Why would I mention such a redundant fact?

Redundant to what? That's absurd. If that is your opinion, there is nothing I can do for you. Fundamentally, it isn't possible to understand the differences between bonobo and chimp behaviour without this distinction.
Also, on the definition of "altruism", if you now claim that the Wiki version is good, why did you blame it for my use of the word? (In fact, I used a different dictionary, IIRC, but didn't remember in time to say so before, as I do not make a habit iof memorising the names of dictionaries that I get my vocabulary from.)

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:I didn't mention any in-group out-group distinction because it was entirely and utterly irrelevant. Why would I mention such a redundant fact?

Redundant to what? That's absurd. If that is your opinion, there is nothing I can do for you. Fundamentally, it isn't possible to understand the differences between bonobo and chimp behaviour without this distinction.

It is redundant because such details are not important when debunking the common myth regarding bonobo behavior. It's like someone posted an article which said something like, "We only use 10% of our brains", with me replying, "That's untrue, we actually use all of our brains", and you pointing out: "Well, that's false because we don't use all of our brains all of the time. You've failed to make this distinction and so I'm going to keep repeating this fact over and over and over again". The distinction may be true, but it is absolutely irrelevant to the point I was making.

DavidMcC wrote:Also, on the definition of "altruism", if you now claim that the Wiki version is good, why did you blame it for my use of the word? (In fact, I used a different dictionary, IIRC, but didn't remember in time to say so before, as I do not make a habit iof memorising the names of dictionaries that I get my vocabulary from.)

I never claimed that the wikipedia version is good. I said that the definition used for the common understanding of the word "altruism" was accurate enough (i.e. the common usage definition accurately described how laymen generally use the word), but since we're in the science forum discussing scientific papers and the scientific understanding of altruism, the common understanding means nothing to us. It is never wise to rely on common usage when discussing scientific terminology - again, look up "evolution" or "abiogenesis" or "choice" in the dictionary and you'll see how vastly and radically they differ from the scientific understanding of these terms. If you are intent on using wikipedia or dictionaries to define terms for you in scientific debates, then at least try to find one that is based on a scientific source, like the wiki page I linked you to which uses the Trivers' definition of altruism.

So, any word from the mods on my nefarious editing practices? Should I prepare to be banned?

Mr.Samsa wrote:It is redundant because such details are not important when debunking the common myth regarding bonobo behavior.

I beg to differ. The way you answered the common myth failed to indicate properly what made it a myth. You implied that bonobos are "violent, just like chimps", but they are not "just like chimps".

As for dictionaries, you are just trying to score points, IMO, as ever.

I certainly considered making a complaint to the current mods, but I haven't bothered.

They are more caring because there is some reproductive advantage for the group to be caring. Follow the behavior in that light and you are more likely to find the process by which they became more caring.

DavidMcC wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:It is redundant because such details are not important when debunking the common myth regarding bonobo behavior.

I beg to differ. The way you answered the common myth failed to indicate properly what made it a myth. You implied that bonobos are "violent, just like chimps", but they are not "just like chimps".

I never made any claim, implicit or explicit, to say that bonobos are violent just like chimps. Maybe I've gone back and edited my posts?! Oh god.

DavidMcC wrote:As for dictionaries, you are just trying to score points, IMO, as ever.

There are no points to be scored. You claimed that altruism was not a behavior when discussing a scientific article on the altruistic behavior of bonobos, and I linked you to multiple scientific sources defining altruism as a behavior. Instead of admitting that bringing a dictionary to a scientific discussion is like bringing a spoon to a gunfight, you have again chosen to attack me and make things personal. If you have no argument or defence, then just drop the point, there's no need to engage in pointless attacks on me.

DavidMcC wrote:I certainly considered making a complaint to the current mods, but I haven't bothered.

Translation: You realised that you were talking shit and instead of admitting your mistake, you're just dropping it in the hopes that people will still believe that I've somehow hacked into the forum and started editing posts?

I'm sorry, but I'm not very happy with the accusations you've been making, and without an apology or even just an admittance of fault on your part, I'm going to contact them myself and hope that they don't mind popping in to clear things up for you.

Mr.Samsa wrote:Translation: You realised that you were talking shit and instead of admitting your mistake, you're just dropping it in the hopes that people will still believe that I've somehow hacked into the forum and started editing posts?

Bullshit. I know that you posted the "hippy" remark on the 17th, and fremoved it after my response, and further removed it from my quote. This is abuse of a power that you should not still have.

I never made any claim, implicit or explicit, to say that bonobos are violent just like chimps.

What you did was to be so vague about the issue that people would have replaced one myth with another - ie that bonobos use violence in the same way as chimps. In science, you have to be more precise - the problem was with what you "never said", to use your own words.