primates Group prosociality Sub-group prosociality Homo sapiens Cooperative breeding: “a breeding system in which group members, other than the genetic parents (alloparents), help one or both parents rear their offspring.” (Hrdy 2009:10) (Modified from Burkart, Hrdy and Van Schaik 2009: Figure 1) “Prosocial behavior—behaviors that produce benefits to others.” (Burkart et al. 2009:176) Callitrichids (marmosets and tamarins) have fellow group-member prosociality for unusual reasons, thus not a contraction of only Homo sapiens having extensive group prosociality: • Pair bonded to polyandrous (1 - 2 adult females, 1 – 4 adult, genetically related males) • Male biased sex ratio • Group has a single breeding female • Fraternal twin births (rare for primates) • High cost of infant care (1 male + 1 female unlikely to have surviving twins among the tamarins) • Multiple ”fathers” for offspring in a group, including twins • Male parenting
by male) produces offspring. 2. Developing offspring procure food resources independent of reproducing female. 3. Offspring behave independently of each other other with respect to resource procurement. 4. The number of offspring surviving to reproductive age is determined by ability of an offspring to procure resources. Offspring develop into reproducing adults Reproducing female . . . . . . 1 2 n behavioral isolation
contribution by male) produces offspring. 2. Offspring behave independently of each other with respect to resource procurement. 3. Offspring receive resources through interaction with reproducing female. 4. The number of offspring surviving to reproductive age depends both on traits of the offspring and resources obtained from the reproducing female. Offspring develop into reproducing adults Reproducing female . . . . . . 1 2 n reproduction Female parenting
Female (with genetic contribution by male) produces offspring. 2. Offspring behave independently of each other with respect to resource procurement. 3. Offspring receive resources through interaction with reproducing female. 4. The number of offspring surviving to reproductive age depends both on traits of the offspring, resources obtained from the reproducing female and her choice of an impregnating male. Offspring develop into reproducing adults Reproducing female . . . . . . 1 2 n reproduction Female parenting Female selection of impregnating male
Male Parenting 1. Female (with genetic contribution by male) produces offspring. 2. Offspring behave independently of each other with respect to resource procurement. 3. Offspring receive resources through interaction with reproducing female. 4. The number of offspring surviving to reproductive age depends both on traits of the offspring, resources obtained from the reproducing female and her choice of an impregnating male. Offspring develop into reproducing adults Reproducing female . . . . . . 1 2 n reproduction Female parenting Female selection of impregnating male Male parenting
Female (with contribution by male) produces offspring. 2. Offspring interact with each other with respect to resource procurement (e.g., altruism). 3. Offspring receive resources through interaction with reproducing female. 4. The number of offspring surviving to reproductive age depends on female parenting and interaction between offspring due to trait A. Offspring develop into reproducing adults; offspring interact with each other via trait A reproducing female transmits trait A (e.g., altruism) reproduction Female parenting Resource related interaction between offspring; e.g. cooperation . . . . . . 1 2 n A A A A
Homo sapiens Cooperative breeding: “a breeding system in which group members, other than the genetic parents (alloparents), help one or both parents rear their offspring.” (Hrdy 2009:10) (Modified from Burkart, Hrdy and Van Schaik 2009: Figure 1) “Prosocial behavior—behaviors that produce benefits to others.” (Burkart et al. 2009:176)
(raw meat) Secondary Distribution (raw meat) Genetic kin Arrow Gift 1 sibling 3 parent 2 cousin 9 consanguine 2 Non-genetic kin affine 20 uncertain 6 other 20 Band 1 2 3 4 7 12 Meat Sharing: !Kung san (1 kill) Based on Marshall 1976: 300-302 1 3 7 2 4 Arrow maker Meat distributed by the owner of the arrow that kills the animal Kills eland Secondary Distribution
Homo sapiens Cooperative breeding: “a breeding system in which group members, other than the genetic parents (alloparents), help one or both parents rear their offspring.” (Hrdy 2009:10) (Modified from Burkart, Hrdy and Van Schaik 2009: Figure 1) “Prosocial behavior—behaviors that produce benefits to others.” (Burkart et al. 2009:176)
Group composed of focal individual X and 9 individuals with the same behavioral repertoire, A. There is low diversity of behaviors across individuals. Number of behaviorally different individuals = 1. X’s mental representation for social relations only needs to take into account 1 kind of social relation. Simple Social Field
Group composed of focal individual X and 9 individuals with different behavioral repertoires A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I. There is high diversity of behaviors across individuals. Number of behaviorally different individuals = 9. Number of distinct dyads (A,B), ( A, C), …, (H, I) = n(n-1)/2 = 9(9-1)/2 = 36. X’s mental representation for social relations needs to take into account 9 +36 = 45 different social relations. Complex Social Field
40 50 60 70 80 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Number of Behaviorally Different Individuals Social Complexity Number of Different Behaviors With dyads Increase number of different individuals Increase dyad formation (coalitions)
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 S o c i a l C o m p l e x i t y N u m b e r o f D i f f e r e n t B e h a v i o r s Number of Behaviorally Different I ndividuals Social Complexity No dyads With dyads high neocortex ratio low neocortex ratio (1) Cognitive Adaptation to Complexity
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 S o c i a l C o m p l e x i t y N u m b e r o f D i f f e r e n t B e h a v i o r s Number of Behaviorally Different I ndividuals Social Complexity Simple social structure: 1 social unit Complex social structure: many small social units No dyads With dyads (2) Structural Adaptation to Complexity
Social Organization 0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Neocortex Ratio Group Size Arboreal Terrestrial Pan Lemurs n ≃ 2 Individualization focal individual dominance hierarchy … coalition Change in Neocortex Change in Organization n ≃ 25 younger biological sister focal female younger female offspring older female offspring older biological sister extensive grooming Matriline “ring-tailed lemurs express only minor behavioral differences between individuals …no extensive differences … as would be seen among anthropoid primates” (Boyd 2000:39) “relationships … are remarkably black or white: either almost wholly affiliative or almost wholly antagonistic.” (Jolly 2005: 5) Lemur catta Pan “And perhaps the most intriguing finding is the selection for high individuality, since apes are rather self-contained individuals with few strong tie networks” (Maryanski and Turner 1992: 30)
30 5 15 Neocortex Ratio OW Monkeys Prosimians “low and erratic fruit availability … [is a] constraint on lemur … group size” (Jolly 1998) “Foraging party size … adjusted to the … abundance of fruit” (Symington 1988: 123) Social unit: “observed values average at 6.7 ± 3.4 individuals” (Lehman et al. 2007:623) “P. troglodytes party size appears to vary little across habitats varying from forest to savannah” (White and Wrangham 1988: 159) Cognitively Constrained Group Size
system Cognitive Constraint Consequence Smaller social units, less integrated groups Trend Exponentially increasing group complexity Emergent Social Organization Constructed Social Organization Anthropoids (Monkeys and Great Apes) Homo (ancestral, modern) Phenotype Transmission (imitation, learning) Genotype Transmission (inclusive fitness, biological kin selection, sexual selection) Trend Increasing individualization Cultural kin relation system Social roles and behavior Culture Transmission (enculturation) Trend Larger, integrated groups
of Self (awareness of one’s existence – chimpanzees have a concept of self) 2. Theory of Mind (project onto others that they have the same mental states as oneself -- chimpanzees may have Theory of Mind) 3. Relation concept (categorize on the basis of patterned behavior between pairs of individuals rather than categorizing on the basis of individual traits -- macaques apparently have the concept of a “mother relation”) 4. Reciprocal Relation concept ( “if Y has the mother relation to me (a female) by virtue of Y engaging in mothering behavior towards me, then person Z has the reciprocal child relation to me when I engage in mothering behavior towards Z” )
right picture of a monkey face, given a cue of the face of another monkey that was systematically related to the rewarded picture; the particular relationship was, in different experiments, ‘mother-daughter’ or ‘sibling’. Monkeys were able to learn this task, showing that they appreciate the closeness of connection among these pairs of individuals.” (Byrne, R. W. & A. Whiten 1997:5; based on Dasser, V. 1988)
Mind projection B A b a c R relation c b S relation b a S relation c b Behavior B c b Behavior B Behavior B C Social interaction behavior arises through individual b directing behavior B towards c in the belief that c will direct behavior B towards b.
S relation c b c b Behavior B Behavior B R relation c b c b Behavior B Behavior B A b a c S relation b a d B C Theory of Mind projections Reciprocal social interaction behavior arises when individuals b and c conceptually share the same reciprocal relations. Behavior B
Working Memory (size) ? 2 ± 1 4 ± 1 6 ± 2 7 ± 2 Breadth of Pro-sociality “Closely bonded kin” “Closely bonded non- kin” “Fellow group members” “ ’Anonymous’ group members” “true strangers” Relation System mother relation (categorization of behavior) mother relation (abstract concept) “relation of a relation is a relation” recursion genealogical tracing symbolic kin term system computational system generative logic Social Organization face-to-face interaction relation based interaction ostensive social organization (e.g., top down organization) ostensive social organization (e.g., genetically controlled) performative social organization (e.g., emergent organization) Individualistic behavior Individualistic behavior
a relation” recursive logic Definition: Let K and L be kin terms in a kinship terminology. Let ego, alter1 and alter2 refer to three persons, each of whose cultural repertoire includes that kinship terminology. The kin term product of K and L, denoted K o L, is a kin term, M, if any, that ego may (properly) use to refer to alter2 when ego (properly) uses the kin term L to refer to alter1 and alter2 (properly) uses the kin term K to refer to alter2. (Originally defined in Read 1984) Kin Term Product: K o L = M Example: K = son, L = uncle, M = cousin son o uncle = cousin K alter 2 speaker alter 1 L M son uncle cousin Kin Terms (generative logic)
example, that two men, A and B, meet each other for the first time. The man A has a relative C who is his mama. At the same time C is the kaga of B. It immediately follows that A and B are kumbali to each other” (Radcliffe-Brown pp. 150-151). C A B mama kaga kumbali Reciprocal of kaga is kuling: kuling of mama is kumbali kuling
classificatory relationships towards a third person, the remaining relationships among all other members of the community can be deduced from this set” (Dousset 2005:22). “suppose two women [ego, A] meet, neither knowing how she is 'related' to the other…They will try to find a third person [man B] … for whom each knows her memorised relationship. … He does not have to be genealogically related to any of these women. … Ego calls B kamuru (MB)… suppose that B calls A yurntalpa (D)…From their relationships [B], Ego and A know that they must be in a cross- cousin relationship (watjirra)….” (Dousset 2008: 273) Product Equation: yurntalpa of kamuru = watjirra
relation biological mother relation kin term product computation of kin relations with symbols Kin Term Space Upper Paleolithic Chauvet Cave: organization of animals into classes of classes matriline relations determined through biological mother relation relation of a relation is a relation m, mm, … d, dd, … md, mmd, … Matriline Space Lower - Middle Paleolithic?? size of working memory marriage constructed as part of defining a father relation Genealogical Space recursion Middle – Upper Paleolithic; personal adornments
!Kung san (a hunter-gatherer group in northwest Botswana) “refer to themselves as 'Zhun/ twasi', which may be sensibly glossed as the real people” (Konner 1972:285). • The Jahai of northern Malaysia refer to themselves as menra or “real people” (van der Sluys 2000:433). • The Beaver Indians of Canada called themselves Dana-zaa or “real people” (Ridington and Ridington 2006: ix). • The Owens Valley Paiute named themselves nümii meaning the “people” (Steward 1936). • The word Inupiat, the name of an Inuit group in northwestern Alaska, means “the real people” (Gadsby 2002: 14). • The Kusunda of Nepal refer to themselves as “mihhaq ‘the people’” (Watters 2006:9). • The Delaware Indians named themselves the lenni-lenape, which means “genuine, pure, real, original, men. (The Lenape-English Dictionary). • The Yaka hunter-gathers of the Congo consider themselves to be “‘ko bato’ (real people)” (Lewis 2002: 102)
Kariera informant, a hunter-gatherer group on the western coast of Australia): “If I am a blackfellow and meet another blackfellow that other must be either my relative or my enemy” (Radcliffe-Brown 1913: 151, emphasis added). • “The moral universe of the Mardu [a hunter-gatherer group in western Australia] is populated solely with relatives” (Tonkinson 1991:57, emphasis added). • Inuit “pre-contact northern groups used a wide range of means to ensure the allocation of food resources within primary cooperating (mainly kinship- based) groupings and redistribution often situationally extending to entire communities.” (Collings et al. 1998: 301, emphasis added)
interaction •Individual behavior •Emergent social system •Isolated units GENETIC BASIS FOR SOCIETY •Shared relation system •Conceptual boundary •Interacting units •Constructed social system •Enculturation CULTURAL BASIS FOR SOCIETY OW Monkey/Ape/Hunter-Gatherer Transition Non-human primate social organization can be modeled as emerging from a biological substrate involving biological kin selection and a behavioral substrate involving social learning expressed through intensive, face-to-face interaction among individuals in a social group. During the evolutionary origin of our species, social organization changed qualitatively to a relational system constructed around a culture- specific, symbolic system of kinship relations. expressed through a kinship terminology. Kinship terminologies are not emergent, but constructed through following out the logic of the product of relations. Evolution in human society social organization is not based on evolution expressed through changes in the frequency distribution of individual traits over a population, but by structural changes in the system of social organization.
insite
iwiwi
nttcom
kei18
mkimura
ran350
skoyamalab
gpeyre
matsui_528
haiinya
toshihr
shunk031
brianwarren
ddemaree
sferik
jmmastey
paigeccino
quramy
trallard
bkeepers
sachag
rocio
addyosmani
chriscoyier
