Conditioning apes to avoid the bananas
Elisabeth Riba
involving caged chimps/gorillas (the stories vary) who are all punished
(firehose) if any one of them attempts to take the bananas. Once these
apes are conditioned, the scientists switch in new untrained <animals> and
even without external punishment, the other <animals> prevent the new ones
from going for the bananas. Eventually, the scientists keep switching in
new <animals> until there's none who were actually punished by the
scientists, but they're still all afraid to approach the bananas
I've found two variants of it on the web at:
* http://www.screamingbanana.com/DRgorillawarfare1.shtml
* http://acqunet.com/philscorner/past/april/april.html
It makes for a cutesy parable, but it's too vague to ring true for me,
especially since every variant I've seen uses a different ape (chimps vs.
gorillas), different description of how they get the bananas (at the top
of some stairs vs. requiring cooperation), and one includes a circus
trained animal beating them all.
Does anyone have any evidence pro- or con- whether such an experiment
actually took place, with the facts on what actually happened?
Thanks!
--
----------> Elisabeth Anne Riba * l...@osmond-riba.org <----------
"[She] is one of the secret masters of the world: a librarian.
They control information. Don't ever piss one off."
- Spider Robinson, "Callahan Touch"
Elisabeth Riba
> I've found two variants of it on the web at:
> * http://www.screamingbanana.com/DRgorillawarfare1.shtml
> * http://acqunet.com/philscorner/past/april/april.html
> It makes for a cutesy parable, but it's too vague to ring true for me,
> especially since every variant I've seen uses a different ape (chimps vs.
> gorillas),
Oh, look, and here it is again, but the experiment was on "baboons"
http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=655274280.5
> Does anyone have any evidence pro- or con- whether such an experiment
> actually took place, with the facts on what actually happened?
--
H Duffy
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote in message
news:949chh$pfm$1...@news.panix.com...
> There's a story floating around the net/web about a scientific
experiment
> involving caged chimps/gorillas (the stories vary) who are all punished
> (firehose) if any one of them attempts to take the bananas. Once these
> apes are conditioned, the scientists switch in new untrained <animals>
and
> even without external punishment, the other <animals> prevent the new
ones
> from going for the bananas. Eventually, the scientists keep switching
in
> new <animals> until there's none who were actually punished by the
> scientists, but they're still all afraid to approach the bananas
>
> I've found two variants of it on the web at:
> * http://www.screamingbanana.com/DRgorillawarfare1.shtml
> * http://acqunet.com/philscorner/past/april/april.html
>
> It makes for a cutesy parable, but it's too vague to ring true for me,
> especially since every variant I've seen uses a different ape (chimps
vs.
> gorillas), different description of how they get the bananas (at the top
> of some stairs vs. requiring cooperation), and one includes a circus
> trained animal beating them all.
>
> Does anyone have any evidence pro- or con- whether such an experiment
> actually took place, with the facts on what actually happened?
Nothing on this, and no firm cites, so this may be of no use whatsoever,
but I have a vague memory from undergraduate animal behaviour lectures
that some monkeys have been shown to "learn" fear of snakes from other
monkeys, by watching their reaction. An experiment was apparently
performed in which young monkeys were allowed to see older monkeys
responding with terror to a snake, but the younger monkeys were not able
to see the snake; Instead, they were shown some innocuous object such as a
yellow flower. They then learnd to respond with fear to the yellow flower.
Supposing my memory serves me well, and all this is true (and it does more
or less make sense for primates to teach their young about danger in this
way, doesn't it?), the story you cite could well be true. But given that I
have no evidence more convincing than "Well, I read it somewhere several
years ago but I can't remember the exact details", it could well be
nonsense too...
H
jgmc...@my-deja.com
Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
> In alt.folklore.science Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
> > I've found two variants of it on the web at:
> > * http://www.screamingbanana.com/DRgorillawarfare1.shtml
> > * http://acqunet.com/philscorner/past/april/april.html
>
> > It makes for a cutesy parable, but it's too vague to ring true for
me,
> > especially since every variant I've seen uses a different ape
(chimps vs.
> > gorillas),
>
> Oh, look, and here it is again, but the experiment was on "baboons"
> http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=655274280.5
If there's any fruit of truth inside the variegated peels this story
appears to come in, it must be past expiration date; I doubt highly that
any modern behavioral research involving primates and firehoses is
currently sanctioned.
So why a bunch of variants making the rounds now? I'd bet my
Harry Belafonte's Greatest Hits album that there is a Corporate Trainer
Slash Inspirational Speaker (the sleeper agents in the UL game) or two
in the vector path here. This is just the kind of
flexibly-facted-but-head-noddingly-resonant story they love, and when a
good speaker tells a story like this, the urge to repeat it (and the
opportunity to further mutate) is irresistible.
This story also has echoes of the so-called Hundredth Monkey
Phenomenon (another alleged research result in which primates exhibit
behaviors not directly taught).
JGM
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
ra...@joesbar.cc.vt.edu
> Nothing on this, and no firm cites, so this may be of no use whatsoever,
> but I have a vague memory from undergraduate animal behaviour lectures
> that some monkeys have been shown to "learn" fear of snakes from other
> monkeys, by watching their reaction. An experiment was apparently
> performed in which young monkeys were allowed to see older monkeys
> responding with terror to a snake, but the younger monkeys were not able
> to see the snake; Instead, they were shown some innocuous object such as a
> yellow flower. They then learnd to respond with fear to the yellow flower.
> Supposing my memory serves me well, and all this is true (and it does more
> or less make sense for primates to teach their young about danger in this
> way, doesn't it?), the story you cite could well be true. But given that I
> have no evidence more convincing than "Well, I read it somewhere several
> years ago but I can't remember the exact details", it could well be
> nonsense too...
I recall seeing a show on PBS some years ago (probably < 10) that focussed
on monkeys that were causing trouble in Japan. At some point a bunch
were rounded up and sent off to Texas, of all places, because some
rancher there was willing to take them. Anyway, after many years of
living and breeding in Texas, the monkeys had developed a particular
cry to warn of rattlesnakes. They taped this cry and played it back
to some of the Japanese monkeys but got no reaction. Texas raised
monkeys all reacted to the tape. Clearly there is *some* learned
behaviour in monkeys that is passed on to younger generations.
The details are vague in my memory, and I don't recall if they
tried to get monkeys from one group to learn from the other.
I'm thinking this was a Nova show, but I'm not certain of that.
J
--
*****************************************************************************
* Bill Ranck +1-540-231-3951 ra...@vt.edu *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University, Computing Center *
*****************************************************************************
Elisabeth Riba
> If there's any fruit of truth inside the variegated peels this story
> appears to come in, it must be past expiration date; I doubt highly that
> any modern behavioral research involving primates and firehoses is
> currently sanctioned.
> So why a bunch of variants making the rounds now?
I don't know, but there's one irritating troll in an online discussion I
participate in who keeps bringing this one up, even to the point of
telling other posters (especially me) to "Eat a Banana!"
I'd really love to debunk this one and throw it back in his face...
Charles Wm. Dimmick
> I don't know, but there's one irritating troll in an online discussion I
> participate in who keeps bringing this one up, even to the point of
> telling other posters (especially me) to "Eat a Banana!"
>
> I'd really love to debunk this one and throw it back in his face...
At this stage you could start by pointing out to him/her/it that
there is absolutely no documentation anywhere that shows that
this ever happened. Therefore how do we know it is not a fig
newton of his/her imagination? Ask for cites.
Charles Wm. Dimmick
Jim Esler
I read an article a few years ago, probably in Smithsonian, about a
study of a prairie dog town. They found that the prairie dogs not only
had unique warning cries for different kinds of predators, but that the
warnings were unique for specific individual predators. They speculated
that this was tied to the specific hunting behaviors each individual
used. If prairie dogs can develop this level of communication, monkeys
certainly could. And these unique calls would be meaningless (or by
chance could have a different meaning) within another community.
--
Jim Esler
P.S. Standard Disclaimer: I work for them, but I don't speak for them.
Doug Yanega
<l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
> There's a story floating around the net/web about a scientific experiment
> involving caged chimps/gorillas (the stories vary) who are all punished
> (firehose) if any one of them attempts to take the bananas. Once these
> apes are conditioned, the scientists switch in new untrained <animals> and
> even without external punishment, the other <animals> prevent the new ones
> from going for the bananas. Eventually, the scientists keep switching in
> new <animals> until there's none who were actually punished by the
> scientists, but they're still all afraid to approach the bananas
This is not really consistent with my understanding of ape behavior. To
oversimplify a little, one of the very few things humans do that apes do
not is *sympathize* - an ape can watch another ape get caught in a trap,
for instance, but will not learn to avoid the trap until he himself is
caught. Warning cries (in the snake example) are a different thing - the
ability to associate a visual stimulus with a strong reaction of that type
has real survival value, and is instinctive. Expecting them to learn to
*prevent* other apes from doing something is not entirely the same thing.
In nature, there is no situation in which the indirect actions of a fellow
ape could lead to something bad for YOU, except by accident. It's an
illogical and unnatural conceptual connection. What one would expect,
therefore, is that an ape is very unlikely to learn not to go after food
until *they themselves* are victimized by the hose. A newcomer ape should
always go for the food. Most importantly, the other apes have no reason to
associate what THAT ape does with the fact that *they* get hosed, so there
is no reason they should *intervene* and try to prevent the newcomer from
doing anything. In fact, I'd bet that if you hosed every ape but the one
taking the food, then - as a group - they might NEVER learn not to go near
the food, and definitely never learn to prevent others from doing so.
The other suspicious thing about this anecdote is the use of bananas. It's
a cartoon stereotype about apes, rather than some innate preference.
Bananas, after all, do not occur naturally in Africa. If chimps can be
said to have a favorite food, it's probably termites.
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology
Entomology Research Museum Univ. of California
Riverside, CA 92521 909-787-4315 (opinions are mine, not UCR's)
http://entmuseum9.ucr.edu/staff/yanega.html
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness is
the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick
Grant Edwards
>In article <949chh$pfm$1...@news.panix.com>, Elisabeth Riba
><l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>This is not really consistent with my understanding of ape behavior. To
>oversimplify a little, one of the very few things humans do that apes do
>not is *sympathize* - an ape can watch another ape get caught in a trap,
>for instance, but will not learn to avoid the trap until he himself is
>caught.
I remember seeing a documentary on chimpanzees that showed chimp
A getting upset when chimp B was exposed to something negative
that chimp B could not see.
Chimp A was not afraid for himself, as he was separated from
the area containing chimp B and the negative thing: if chimp B
was not present, chimp A wasn't upset by the negative thing.
Chimp A got much less upset when it appeared that chimp B could
see the negative thing.
As usual, no cites...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! .. he dominates the
at DECADENT SUBWAY SCENE.
visi.com
Lon Stowell
>involving caged chimps/gorillas (the stories vary) who are all punished
>(firehose) if any one of them attempts to take the bananas. Once these
>apes are conditioned, the scientists switch in new untrained <animals> and
>even without external punishment, the other <animals> prevent the new ones
>from going for the bananas. Eventually, the scientists keep switching in
>new <animals> until there's none who were actually punished by the
>scientists, but they're still all afraid to approach the bananas
I heard an earlier version of this one, roughly 1968 at
Wright Patterson. The folklore was that the folks that
launched the first chimp into space (Ham) used bananas
to coax him into the capsule. The folklore was that
after his return to earth, he would attempt to tear the
arms off anyone offering him a banana.
mpl...@my-deja.com
Bananas _are_ used in experiments with apes, however, as is reported,
for example, in the true experiment mentioned within the following post
("the Kohler experiment") . Curiously, when I posted this a few days
ago, I received a private e-mail in which the correspondent told
the "ape learns to fear banana story" which this thread is about.
From an earlier post to alt.folklore.urban:
[BEGIN QUOTE OF EARLIER POST]
Subject: Another Chimp Story
Date: 01/15/2001
Author: mplsray <mpl...@my-deja.com>
There is a chimpanzee story which I remember reading as having been
said to be true, but since it contains a "too good to be true" aspect,
I'd like to see if anyone can verify it as actually being true:
I've done a search of Deja.com and Google, and I turned up what is
obviously the type of experiment with which the story begins. The
following is from
http://zobell.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/verma.html
[quote]
Another example: young chimpanzees in captivity play with different
objects variously. If in their enclosure there are empty packing boxes,
they would arrange them on one another. If bamboo sticks are available,
they would "eat" around an end of a stick to make it thinner, and try
to fix this end into hollow of another stick to make a longer pole.
During the World War I Kohler observed that his captive chimpanzees
would climb on a packing box to reach a banana, suspended from the
ceiling. If one box was not enough to reach the food, it would put
another over it, and, if necessary, a third one, and then climb over
boxes and get the banana.[...]
[end quote]
Now, in the story I heard, the experimenter is trying to replicate the
conditions in the Kohler experiment. A chimpanzee is placed in a cage
with a banana attached to a string which is suspended from the ceiling.
There are two boxes in the cage. The idea is to see how long it takes
the chimpanzee to figure out how to get the banana.
An observer is inside the cage with a clipboard, monitoring the
situation. The chimpanzee goes up to him and starts tugging at his
pants leg. The observer takes a step or two forward. The chimpanzee
continues to tug. The man walks forward a bit more. Then suddenly the
chimp climbs up the man, onto his shoulders and grabs the banana--the
observer had been pulled toward the center of the cage, to stand under
the banana!
So, anyone have a cite for this, especially one which shows it to be a
true story or one which debunks it?
[END QUOTE OF EARLIER POST]
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
Simon Slavin
jgmc...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <949k4f$t67$1...@news.panix.com>,
> Elisabeth Riba <l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>
> > * http://www.screamingbanana.com/DRgorillawarfare1.shtml
> > > * http://acqunet.com/philscorner/past/april/april.html
> >
> > Oh, look, and here it is again, but the experiment was on "baboons"
> > http://www.deja.com/=dnc/getdoc.xp?AN=655274280.5
>
> If there's any fruit of truth inside the variegated peels this story
> appears to come in, it must be past expiration date; I doubt highly that
> any modern behavioral research involving primates and firehoses is
> currently sanctioned.
It would be in violation of the rules of my workplace, mostly
because there's so little doubt as to the outcome: even if it
were permissable to treat animals that way for useful research,
this particular piece of research wouldn't add significantly to
our knowledgebase.
I suppose it /might/ have been done in the '50s or '60s. I'll
try a psychological/behavioural database search on Monday if I
remember.
> So why a bunch of variants making the rounds now? I'd bet my
> Harry Belafonte's Greatest Hits album that there is a Corporate Trainer
> Slash Inspirational Speaker (the sleeper agents in the UL game) or two
> in the vector path here.
A description of this (for the sake of argument) imaginary event
would fit nicely into first-year university courses on sociology,
religion, anthropology and psychology. It's also such an
excellent way of explaining the concept of superstition that
anyone who hears it is quite likely to remember it. I suspect
that one or more university lecturers are retelling the story
with little or no attention to whether it actually happened or
not.
Simon.
--
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk | You just gave me a Space:1999 flashback.
No junk email please. | My lawyers will be in touch.
| -- Christian M Gadeken
Some Useless Information
>I recall seeing a show on PBS some years ago (probably < 10) that focussed
>on monkeys that were causing trouble in Japan. At some point a bunch
>were rounded up and sent off to Texas, of all places, because some
>rancher there was willing to take them. Anyway, after many years of
>living and breeding in Texas, the monkeys had developed a particular
>cry to warn of rattlesnakes. They taped this cry and played it back
>to some of the Japanese monkeys but got no reaction.
Japanese monkey to Japanese monkey, "Sure, like we're ever going to
see a rattlesnake around here. Who do they think they're kidding?"
>Texas raised
>monkeys all reacted to the tape. Clearly there is *some* learned
>behaviour in monkeys that is passed on to younger generations.
As if we didn't already know that?
>The details are vague in my memory, and I don't recall if they
>tried to get monkeys from one group to learn from the other.
>I'm thinking this was a Nova show, but I'm not certain of that.
The interesting thing it demonstrates is that the Texas monkeys
used a novel call, rather than a general "danger" warning.
Some Useless Information
<l...@osmond-riba.org> wrote:
>In alt.folklore.science jgmc...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> If there's any fruit of truth inside the variegated peels this story
>> appears to come in, it must be past expiration date; I doubt highly that
>> any modern behavioral research involving primates and firehoses is
>> currently sanctioned.
>
>> So why a bunch of variants making the rounds now?
>
>I don't know, but there's one irritating troll in an online discussion I
>participate in who keeps bringing this one up, even to the point of
>telling other posters (especially me) to "Eat a Banana!"
>
>I'd really love to debunk this one and throw it back in his face...
The reason I like the story is it illustrates an interesting difference
between apes and humans. Humans would say, "Hey Jack, why don't you
try one of those bananas over there?"
Derek Tearne
>The other suspicious thing about this anecdote is the use of bananas. It's
>a cartoon stereotype about apes, rather than some innate preference.
>Bananas, after all, do not occur naturally in Africa. If chimps can be
>said to have a favorite food, it's probably termites.
You know, there were some days while driving through Africa, that I
ate nothing but bananas. The large triangular bananas (plantain)
are a staple carbohydrate source in some parts of Africa. Bananas
have been grown in Africa since before the 16th century - currently
over 7% of the worlds banana production comes from Africa. Zaire,
which is prime chimpanzee (and bonobo) country, is also a perfect
banana growing region.
I think it would be fair to say that the average African chimp captured
for hosing experiments would have be familiar with bananas.
Derek "Bananas aren't native to New Zealand either, that doesn't
stop them growing in my back garden" Tearne
--
Derek Tearne. --- @URL Internet Consultants --- http://url.co.nz/
Some of the more environmentally aware dinosaurs were worried about the
consequences of an accident with the new Iridium enriched fusion reactor.
"If it goes off only the cockroaches and mammals will survive..." they said.
Ben Newsam
>Bananas, after all, do not occur naturally in Africa. If chimps can be
>said to have a favorite food, it's probably termites.
But they *do* like bananas.
--
Ben Newsam
Ben Newsam
<lsto...@triton.dnai.com> writes
According to:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/ch10-3.htm
Ham was already in his suit and in his couch when taken to the launch
site.
--
Ben Newsam
Ben Newsam
<b...@microser.demon.co.uk> writes
<Self followup, for which aplogies>
The report mentions that he had been trained for lever-pulling exercises
with "banana chips" as a reward, and electric shocks as a punishment,
but does not mention being given any rewards while in his space suit. IT
also says elsewhere that all the candidate chimps had been on "low-
residue" diets for nineteen hours before launch. I do not know if
bananas are in that category, but I doubt it.
But on the other hand, from the same report:
--8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<--
"Postlaunch Report for MR-2," 10; MR-2 flight parameter chart; tape of
press conference following MR-2 flight; some flight notes on MR-2,
anon., dated Feb. 1961; House Committee on Science and Astronautics, 87
Cong., 1 sess. (1961), Project Mercury, Second Interim Report, 34-37;
Wayne E. Koons and James L. Lewis, interviews, Houston, Sept. 16, 1965.
Robert F. Wallace, an STG information officer on the scene, reported
that Ham was excited when returned to Hangar S after his flight. Being
unable to debrief his handlers, Ham alone knew at this time how grueling
his flight had been. Flashbulbs and crowding newsmen made him highly
agitated, and he snapped at several people. Back in his trailer, his
suit was not removed until he became calm, and at that time a famous
"grin" photograph was made. Later, when his handler led him back toward
a capsule for pictures requested by the TV crews, Ham again became
highly perturbed. It took three men to calm the "astrochimp" for the
next round of pictures. On April 2, 1963, Ham was given to the National
Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., where for
the past several years he has been in good health and has thrilled many
children.
--8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<----8<--
--
Ben Newsam
mpl...@my-deja.com
mpl...@my-deja.com wrote:
[snip]
I was informed via a private e-mail that the above incident appears in
Raymond Smullyan's _What is the Name of This Book?_ Since I have indeed
read this book, it is likely I read of the incident there.
Simon Slavin
sla...@hearsay.demon.co.uk@localhost (Simon Slavin) wrote:
> I'll
> try a psychological/behavioural database search on Monday if I
> remember.
I did. It was rather unproductive (with the possible exception
of informing our computer admins that I have an interest in
animal-behaviour related to water or hose).
Nagative data, of course: I may very well have missed some way
of phrasing the search-terms, or the research may have been done
in a year which hasn't made it into the databases yet, or
published in a journal which hasn't been indexed.
Searched: Elsevier, sciencedirect, psychinfo (new name for
psychlit) and JSTOR (for anthropology and sociology) with all
easily-accessible year databases. Both spellings of 'behaviour'.
I learned some stuff about spider monkeys and bats, some of which
I'd rather forget. Special bonus: this sentence in an abstract:
# We show how the Kuna use humour to enforce egalitarian
# relations among
# themselves, deal with misfortune and control foreign
# anthropologists.
Karen J. Cravens
<xG0GRBAk...@microser.demon.co.uk>:
>also says elsewhere that all the candidate chimps had been on "low-
>residue" diets for nineteen hours before launch. I do not know if
>bananas are in that category, but I doubt it.
Definitely not.
--
Karen "cite: Nathan's diaper pail" Cravens
Some Useless Information
<de...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>In article <dyanega-1901...@entmuseum4.ucr.edu>,
>dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
>
>
>>The other suspicious thing about this anecdote is the use of bananas. It's
>>a cartoon stereotype about apes, rather than some innate preference.
>>Bananas, after all, do not occur naturally in Africa. If chimps can be
>>said to have a favorite food, it's probably termites.
Bananas actually do grow wild in Africa.
Some Useless Information
<b...@microser.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Yeah, if you think he was mad about the bananas, just imagine if they
had fed him onions and plums!
Doug Yanega
Eucalyptus grows wild in California, that doesn't mean it's native. The
point is that chimps did not evolve in a place where bananas or anything
resembling them occur, so any preferences are learned, not innate.
Bananas are native to Asia (India, Southern China, and around the Malay
Archipelago). They arrived in Africa around 500 AD, and some varieties
can still be found growing in the wild there.
Documentation of the banana extends to before the birth of Christ. In the
3rd century, Pliny wrote of Alexander the Great seeing the sages of India
eating them. They turn up in the Koran, where the plant is referred to as
"the tree of paradise". They were supposedly found when Caesar was alive,
but were considered unfit for human consumption. Also, in one of the
legends of Burma, he says that humans first considered bananas when they
saw birds eating them.
Some Useless Information
dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
>In article <icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net>,
>ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com (Some Useless Information) wrote:
>
>> In article <derek-294330.22540321012001@[192.168.0.1]>, Derek Tearne
>> <de...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <dyanega-1901...@entmuseum4.ucr.edu>,
>> >dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>The other suspicious thing about this anecdote is the use of bananas. It's
>> >>a cartoon stereotype about apes, rather than some innate preference.
>> >>Bananas, after all, do not occur naturally in Africa. If chimps can be
>> >>said to have a favorite food, it's probably termites.
>>
>> Bananas actually do grow wild in Africa.
>
>Eucalyptus grows wild in California, that doesn't mean it's native. The
>point is that chimps did not evolve in a place where bananas or anything
>resembling them occur, so any preferences are learned, not innate.
If that's the point, it's idiotic. My point is that wild chimps live
in an environment that includes the occasional banana tree, so they
are familiar with the food.
>Bananas are native to Asia (India, Southern China, and around the Malay
>Archipelago). They arrived in Africa around 500 AD, and some varieties
>can still be found growing in the wild there.
So chimps have had about 1500 years to learn that bananas are good to
eat.
Lon Stowell
Doug Yanega <dya...@pop.ucr.edu> wrote:
>In article <icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net>,
>ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com (Some Useless Information) wrote:
>
>> In article <derek-294330.22540321012001@[192.168.0.1]>, Derek Tearne
>> <de...@iprolink.co.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <dyanega-1901...@entmuseum4.ucr.edu>,
>> >dya...@pop.ucr.edu (Doug Yanega) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>The other suspicious thing about this anecdote is the use of bananas. It's
>> >>a cartoon stereotype about apes, rather than some innate preference.
>> >>Bananas, after all, do not occur naturally in Africa. If chimps can be
>> >>said to have a favorite food, it's probably termites.
>>
>> Bananas actually do grow wild in Africa.
>
>Eucalyptus grows wild in California, that doesn't mean it's native. The
>point is that chimps did not evolve in a place where bananas or anything
>resembling them occur, so any preferences are learned, not innate.
Only for extremely hair-splitting definitions of "learned"
that would require hilariously wide definitions of "culture"
to be any sort of implication that chimps eat bananas as
part of learned culture.
If there are bananas in the living area, chimps will try them.
So will ants, weevils.
Terence Smith
"Some Useless Information" <ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com> wrote in message
news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
> If that's the point, it's idiotic. My point is that wild chimps live
> in an environment that includes the occasional banana tree, so they
> are familiar with the food.
That would be a *good* point, for very large values of `occassional'. It's
also a gentle and kind point, missing, as it does, the entire objection to
the `monkeys [n.o.s.] eat bananas' legend that is being discussed.
You seem to be a little confused here. When you want to engage in a little
hand-waving, feel free. When you want to label educated points `idiotic',
inanity, and a complete disregard for the protocols and morays pertaining to
academic discourse should only be engaged in for comical effect. You could
start by telling us how long you spent in the environment, or at least the
name of somebody demonstrateably literate who did.
>
> So chimps have had about 1500 years to learn that bananas are good to
> eat.
>
The authors of the schoolbook are still disputing whether green or ripe
bananas are better with chicken.
Terry "And the fox ran away with the geck-oh" Smith.
Some Useless Information
<fred_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Some Useless Information" <ic...@get.no.satisfaction.com> wrote in message
>news:icant-ya02408000...@news.axs4u.net...
>> If that's the point, it's idiotic. My point is that wild chimps live
>> in an environment that includes the occasional banana tree, so they
>> are familiar with the food.
>
>That would be a *good* point, for very large values of `occassional'. It's
>also a gentle and kind point, missing, as it does, the entire objection to
>the `monkeys [n.o.s.] eat bananas' legend that is being discussed.
>
>You seem to be a little confused here. When you want to engage in a little
>hand-waving, feel free. When you want to label educated points `idiotic',
>inanity, and a complete disregard for the protocols and morays pertaining to
>academic discourse should only be engaged in for comical effect. You could
>start by telling us how long you spent in the environment, or at least the
>name of somebody demonstrateably literate who did.
Don't be such a prissy asshole. Whether banana trees are native or
introduced is totally irrelevant to the question of whether animals
eat them, is it not? That is why I say it's an idiotic distinction.
And don't pretend either that this group is about academic discourse.
It's not. The discussion of the silly stories that people tell one
another about alleged scientific facts is not the sort of thing that
learned acamedicians talk about among themselves -- except for
entertainment.
Dave Greene
> There's a story floating around the net/web about a scientific
> experiment involving caged chimps/gorillas (the stories vary) who
> are all punished (firehose) if any one of them attempts to take
> the bananas. Once these apes are conditioned, the scientists switch
> in new untrained <animals> and even without external punishment, the
> other <animals> prevent the new ones from going for the bananas.
> Eventually, the scientists keep switching in new <animals> until
> there's none who were actually punished by the scientists, but
> they're still all afraid to approach the bananas
Interesting. You know, they only need to train 100 monkeys and then
all of them will stop eating bananas ...
Dave "and then they all get typewriters" Greene