Monkey See, Monkey Do


Primate Social Cognition, Human Evolution, and Niche Construction
Evolution of a student





Understanding Primate Brain Evolution



Play, Social Learning, and Teaching




Primate Cognition



Questions for consideration:







Dunbar, R.I.M, and S. Shultz

Kalat, James W.
2012   Biological Psychology. Cengage Learning.

Konner, Melvin

Lende, Daniel H., and Greg Downey, eds.


13 thoughts on “Monkey See, Monkey Do”

  1. It would be nice to talk about the social brain theory in class. I think the social brain hypothesis has become kind of obsolete, but others might still find merit in it. There are several well-known social insects such as bees and wasps that exhibit obvious social behaviors and complex interactions (such as social rank). These animals obviously have significantly smaller brains. You could then argue that the hypothesis holds true for mammals, however, there are species of small rodents, such as meerkats, that have incredible social capacities within their species.

    There was some hypothesis about brain size related to overall body size that seems to fit the trend of intelligence more. I’m not sure if the social brain theory mentions this. It’s also interesting to examine this from the perspective of the food chain. Predators, specifically carnivores, seem to have a certain advantage.

    1. Yes, the social brain theory mentions the brain to body ratio. Initially we did think that brain size correlated with intelligence but now that’s not what we think. A couple of examples of anomalies are elephants and dolphins. They have significantly larger brains than humans but as far as we know, they are not as intelligent as we are. Now we know that not only does brain size make a difference with respect to intelligence but the complexity of social groups also matters. Complexity of social group correlates with increased intelligence.

    2. Most agree that some insects have a social sophistication on par with some vertebrates, but this is usually just chalked up to behavioral routines. There is a caste hierarchy in certain species of paper wasps, but this is a behavioral trait that makes sense. Male wasps are considered workers and female wasps that are born infertile also have this designation. If more than one female was fertile, then there would be constant competition for mating that would take away from other roles in the nest that need to be filled.

      Bees, too, have some incredible cognitive capabilities. They can navigate complex environments and even show memories and preferences for certain flowers. This also makes sense for a bees survival. Complex environmental navigation is an adaptive behavior as well as selecting for certain types of flowers that may present more pollen. However, bees also demonstrate behavioral traits that don’t seem to have an advantage for the species such as expressing positive emotions or counting to four. A study was conducted that showed bees who received sugar water treats were quicker to recover from a scare and continue with tasks.

      Another study showed bees being capable of learning tasks that would not otherwise be learned in nature, such as counting to four.

  2. I would like to discuss the path analysis and the variable relationships from the Dunbar and Schultz during class today. I’m not very comfortable with the different regions of the brain and what responsibilities the regions have, so this article was more difficult for me to digest and understand completely. I would also like to discuss the relationship between the neocortex volume, prefrontal lobe size, and social interactions. I found it interesting that as the brain evolved, the prefrontal lobe increased in size.

  3. Although observational learning is distinct from teaching, since teaching requires specific efforts that facilitate the transfer of information, how can we be certain that nonhuman primates do not teach their children? We’ve learned about social facilitation, emulation, mimicry, and the mirror-neuron system as evidence for social learning, yet, how come we don’t believe that nonhuman primates teach their young? I believe that if these actions are evident in nonhuman primates then there may be some degree of teaching happening although as human observers, we may not perceive any degree of linguistic exchange or demonstration.

  4. I was excited to see that this week’s readings involved the idea of niche construction. This concept is one of the central elements of what some have deemed the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES; for a great review see Laland et al., 2014), and focuses on the idea that niche construction is not a product of evolution, but rather an evolutionary process itself (Laland & O’Brien, 2011). While evolutionary researchers have not denied that organisms interact with their environment, proponents of the EES argue that not enough focus has been paid to the co-evolutionary process involved with organisms and their environments. A way to illustrate the concept of niche construction is to imagine walking on a trampoline. With each step you take, the area around you is altered. Similarly, organisms are constantly affecting and altering the environment around them which can in some cases create new selection pressures.

    For instance, when agricultural practices developed in certain areas of Africa, the environmental change of new areas of standing water led to dramatic increases in populations of mosquitos that carry malaria. Therefore, while the agricultural practices provided more nutrient resources, it also created a new selection pressure where malaria could be transmitted through the vector of the infected mosquitos. This resulted in a now classic example of heterozygote superiority where those with recessive forms of the allele are not susceptible to malaria, however, they develop sickle-cell disease; those with a dominant form of the allele don’t develop sickle-cell disease, but they are also not resistant to malaria; and those with a heterozygous form are both resistant to malaria and also are less likely to develop sickle-cell disease. This example illustrates how selection for various genotypes can occur as a result of self-created selection pressures.

    However, there do not only have to be genetic solutions to problems that arise from the interaction of organisms with their environments. Cultural niche construction refers to the ways in which cultural factors and social transmission play into the evolutionary process. For example, in the case of the mosquitos, some areas have cultural factors such as health care practices or housing that can alleviate the selective pressure of malaria infection. In this case, it is not a genetic change that is altering selection pressure or a trait that is being genetically passed down to the next generation. Rather, cultural factors are impacting selection and, importantly, these cultural factors can be passed onto the next generation—a demonstration of the expanding view regarding how niches can be inherited. I look forward to our class discussion to see how others might see this concept impacting future evolutionary research.

  5. I think it would be extremely interesting to look more at developmental changes in relation to changes in brain size. The Dunbar and Shultz article mentions that humans have the most exponential growth in brain size early in life, and obviously discusses how that could have evolved from more complex social needs. I’d like to see it in relation to Bandura’s social learning theory (“monkey see, monkey do”) and how there may be differences across mammals in when they are able to understand these social interactions and their brain size relative to others when they make these connections. It could also be beneficial to look at the same relationships within the framework of Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. For example, he says that from ages 0-2, children are in the sensorimotor stage; learning and experiencing the world through their senses and actions because they can’t yet communicate as adults. In looking at other primates we could compare how quickly brains develop in accordance with these stages, and even use that to compare with other mammals or social animals (i.e., bees) and look for correlations in brain size (neocortex). This is obviously a much narrower scope than the evolutionary approach the readings for the week discussed, but it could reveal key differences to be investigated further.

  6. The social brain hypothesis intrigues me. I feel as if sometimes an animal’s intelligence/ ability to “learn” is measured not by actual ability or neurological network. Rather, we measure it by the animal’s ability to follow human instruction. I think it would be interesting to explore various methodologies we use when measuring primate intelligence, such as observation vs. biomarkers vs. task completion vs. developed areas of the brain vs. social advantage.
    Is more method more valid than others? And if so, why?

    In addition, I find the concept of “niche construction” very interesting. I like that it takes into account the organism affecting the environment as well as the environment affecting the organism. Sometimes, evolutionary theory seems biased towards just the environment affecting the organism. I wonder how the two affect one another on a smaller scale, as well. Does the environment change among various subspecies, or even different groups of the same species in the same area? Or do different groups simply exist in different environments because they adapted to said environment?

  7. I think the idea of the social brain theory is very interesting, and I would really like to discuss in more in class. I think it would be interesting to look at a study that looks at the brains of similar primates from different social environments. Exactly how significant of a different is needed to alter the brain size/structure. For example, how does parental neglect or abandonment impact social learning and brain development? Also, what would happen if one species were abandoned and raised by or with another similar species? This would obviously present different environmental influences. Would that individual’s brain begin to develop differently with the adoption of the other’s behaviors and customs, or would it resemble others of its own species? That may be off track and unrealistic, I don’t know. But I think it would be very interesting to consider the impacts of very extreme cases.

  8. I had heard of the social brain hypothesis before this class but was not as aware of the critiques of it. The conversation about insects that happened in class gave interesting insight into the varying social complexity in organisms. In a later class, we watched a video that talked about how human brains have an amazing amount of neurons and how certain parts of our brain have developed more than others. Our brains have more neurons than chimps’ brains which continues to show how our brains have developed and changed in order to take on challenges such as greater social complexity. While the social brain hypothesis may not account for all aspects of human brain evolution, I still believe it is important in understanding how our brains came to be what they are today.

  9. I’m thinking about learning and cognition now in terms of the strengthening of neural pathways we spoke about in this class, and before. I still wonder if some knowledge is innate, passed down from generations previous, with specific emphasis on niche construction. I have to think some of what people more or less “inherently” know, or a special skill they are honed in, perhaps they might be more privy to in the first place.

    Such is the case with the San tribe hunting the Elan, which we previously spoke about. It reminds me of growing up, how my family taught me to locate a felled deer a hunter shot. They told me to follow where I thought the deer would be, look for signs, but to chiefly trust my instinct. On more than one occasion, this had led me directly to the deer. How did I know to find the deer?

  10. I think that the social brain hypothesis is interesting and I think it’s relevant. During this class we talked about the connection between intelligence and social relationships and I still think that there’s a connection. I do think that in order to maintain a complex social life and keep everyone straight and function that you do have to be ‘intelligent’ and have more neural connections.

Leave a Reply
