Why humans stand on giant shoulders, but chimps and monkeys don’t

By Ed Yong | March 1, 2012 2:00 pm

We are like dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants. This metaphor, famously used by Isaac Newton, describes how humans build on what has come before. Everything in our culture is the result of knowledge and skills that have slowly accumulated over time. Without this “cumulative culture”, we wouldn’t have our deep scientific knowledge, rich artistic traditions, or sophisticated technology. Simply put, you can’t make a car from scratch – first, you need to invent the wheel.

Are we alone in this respect? Certainly, many other animals can learn knowledge and skills from each other, and many of them have cultural traditions. But Newton’s metaphor involves not just the spread of knowledge, but its gradual improvement. We build on the past, rather than just passing it along. As generations tick by, our culture becomes more complex. Do other species show the same ‘cultural ratchet’?

Lewis Dean from the University of St Andrews tried to answer that question by presenting human children, chimpanzees and capuchin monkeys with the same task: a puzzle box with three, increasingly difficult stages, each one building on the last.

If you slide a door on the box, you reveal a tube with a carrot – nutritious enough for a chimp or monkey, but low on the list of preferred foods. If you push two buttons, you can slide the door further to reveal an apple – a more desirable snack. Finally, you can twist a dial to slide the door ever further to unveil a grape – the ultimate in taste treats. (For children, the tubes contained increasingly attractive stickers.)

All three species tackled the puzzle box in groups, and because there were two sets of doors, rewards, buttons and dials, two individuals could work at the puzzle simultaneously.

Dean found that fewer than 10 per cent of the chimps managed to find the apple after 30 hours, and only one of them got the grape. The capuchins did even worse – after 53 hours, just 5 per cent got the apple, and none of them found the grape. Even when Dean partnered the chimps with a veteran animal that had been trained to solve all three levels, they didn’t benefit. The children had no such problems. After less than three hours, just over half of them had managed stage 2, and just under half had solved stage 3.

Dean thinks that the children succeeded where the other animals failed because of several social traits, including their tendency to teach, imitate, share with, and talk to each other. All of these traits are found in other animals, but to a lesser extent. That difference of degree came through in the puzzle-box experiment.

The children taught each other something about the puzzle box on 23 occasions (“Push that button”). They spoke to each other regularly. They were the only species to imitate each other more often than not. And they spontaneously gave the stickers they earned to their peers on 215 occasions. And the more they learned, spoke, imitated, and shared, the better they did with the puzzle box.

In stark contrast, the chimps and capuchins never taught each other. How could Dean tell? Well, none of them explicitly referenced a part of the box to their peers. They rarely called to each other and when they did, they didn’t even attract their peers to the box, let alone help them to solve it. They tried their own thing more often than imitating each other. When the chimps aped their peers, they only ever did so in the first stage of the puzzle. And never once did they hand over the food that they had earned.

Other scientists have put forward other explanations for cumulative culture in humans that have nothing to do with our social side. For example, some have suggested that other animals steal from each other more often, adhere to stricter pecking orders, or behave more conservatively. All of these traits could prevent them from gradually building their knowledge. But Dean found no evidence in his study to support any of these ideas.

To him, the children succeeded because they saw the box as a social exercise, working together to solve it. It was the means that mattered to them, not the ends. The other species failed because they saw the box as a way to get food for themselves, independently of their peers. Dean says that cumulative culture depends on “a package of social cognitive capabilities” that are either “absent or impoverished in chimpanzees and capuchins”.

Other scientists have looked for evidence of cumulative culture in chimps and failed to find it. But this is the first study to compare how three different species deal with the same task. Victoria Horner from Emory University, who studies the mental abilities of different species, was impressed by Dean’s study. But she points out that the children worked for stickers, while the others worked for food. “Chimps are naturally competitive over food. If they had received stickers or food tokens, would they behave the same way or be more tolerant like the children?” she wonders. “In contrast, if the children were working for candy, would they be so easy-going?”

Horner also says that the study doesn’t mean that chimps and capuchins don’t have cumulative cultures. Chimps certainly have the right elements in place. “They are able to imitate and behave prosocially, and there is suggestive evidence for teaching in nut-cracking,” says Horner. It just takes them longer to invent a new behaviour, and more goes to demonstrate that behaviour to others. She adds, “If cumulative culture does exist in other species, it is extremely rare. Humans are much better at [it] but I don’t think the data support the conclusion that cumulative culture is totally absent in chimpanzees.”

Reference: Dean, Kendal, Schapiro, Thierry & Laland. 2012. Identification of the Social and Cognitive Processes Underlying Human Cumulative Culture. Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1213969

Photo by Gillian Ruth BRown



Comments (10)

  1. Jon F

    “When the chimps aped their peers…”

    I see what you did there.

    Of course, some folks think Newton’s use of the phrase might’ve been a jab at Robert Hooke’s hunched posture, but I’ll spare him the revisionist rod and assume it was a compliment :-)

    I don’t want to jump head-first into evo-psych here, but I think it is worth noting that, as Horner notes, humans seem to absolutely relish in cumulative culture. I mean, there are no fewer than two Internet memes involving Sean Bean, for crying out loud. Chimpanzees, at least (and bonobos lest I leave out the work of a certain other Emory-affiliated primatologist) seem to have some ability for cumulative culture, but maybe their affinity for it is such that individual tasks (eg, termite fishing) are learned over generations and not over mere minutes like ours are.

  2. I wonder if juvenile chimps and monkeys would behave more socially, or if adult humans would cooperate less.

  3. “When the chimps aped their peers, they only ever did so in the first stage of the puzzle”

    Evidence that we are better at aping than other apes, go hominids!

  4. greg

    Children are likely the most likely to engage in the group, their egos are not yet the center of their persona, and they are not versed in obsessive greediness. Adults that disdain money and power ( and often resemble their curiosity and fair play ) seem to continue to be engaged by creative pursuits such as science, music, inventing.

    Those “adults” who delight in dominance and power seem to have abandoned all of childness ( my term denoting what is admirable among the young ) in the blind pursuit of more, even when they are wealthy and ancient. Looking at Rupert Murdoch, the Koch brothers, Rush Limbaugh we can find no more humanity than a Hitler or a Mussolini.

    Yes, we do stand on the shoulders of others. Einstein would stand in awe of what has been done by his fellow humans, but only for a minute – then he would be on the hunt again. I am in constant admiration of the heroes of our times – the scientists and seekers of knowledge. Any of us can access more than was known by any genius that has lived – by way of knowledge easily accessible on the web.

    Contrast this with those useless titans of business we must tolerate in light of being civilized today.

  5. This is my academic supervisor’s paper! Delighted that you covered it, Ed!

    @Jon F: But our tasks are learned over generations: No one could create the internet or an ipad from scratch in a lifetime. The difference is humans seems to have this innate ability to learn from previous generations and build upon and improve technologies. Termite fishing is something that chimps can learn on their own in their lifetime, whereas all our technologies take the ideas and inventions of previous generations and build upon them, making them better, resulting in a ratcheting effect.

    I’d love there to be evidence for cumulative culture in other primates, but just now the evidence is just not there.

  6. SP

    IIRC, in Homo Britannicus, there is a section on Neanderthal handaxe culture, which suggests that handaxe forms did not evolve at any significant rate (or show significant regional diversity) until the emergence of homo sapiens.

  7. @Robert – Dean notes that children are used rather than adults “to help tease out the effects of culture, as adults have been greatly enculturated by society.”

  8. Jon F


    Ah, I’m tracking you now. I think I was sort of approaching it from the wrong angle in terms of how cumulative culture is defined but what you’re saying makes sense. There’s probably a big can of worms to be opened on how culturally biased a human toddler already is versus a chimpanzee toddler (even one reared in captivity) but that’s probably really getting into semantics and I’m not keen to dispute that over the Internet, especially since I don’t think it particularly changes the conclusion here. It is quite interesting, though.

  9. I have to admit that I don’t know a great deal about primate social structures, but I have the impression that bonobos have a more co-operative social structure than chimps; I wonder if they would therefore do better at a task like this? (I don’t know anything about capuchins, so it might be that they already serve as a good control for that.)

  10. Phil marsh

    I believe this is the dividing line between intelligent life and all other life forms – namely the ability to achieve exponential knowledge growth. While a minimum raw mental ability is probably necessary for a species to be intelligent, it is not sufficient. It could be possible that there are examples of species (on Earth or otherwise) that have greater mental ability than some intelligent species but are not in fact intelligent because they can’t grow their knowledge exponentially while the less “brainy” intelligent species can. I believe that intelligent life isn’t really a species but rather a niche. A niche that has only recently been filled on Earth. A species of ape (humans) is, as far as we know, the first to occupy this niche on Earth. However, notice that intelligent does not necessarly equate to wise.


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Not Exactly Rocket Science

Dive into the awe-inspiring, beautiful and quirky world of science news with award-winning writer Ed Yong. No previous experience required.

See More

Collapse bottom bar