Comments on: Unlike humans, chimpanzees only punish when they’ve been personally wronged

By: Kim Harrell

Kim Harrell — Mon, 03 Sep 2012 16:27:33 +0000

I’d be interested to know if it would make any difference at all if the “actor’s” punishment would also return the food to the “victim”; that is, would apparently righting the wrong appeal to the chimp any more than third-party punishment alone? Maybe they would like to see someone get food as opposed to no one? Just curious.

Oh, and “Vervet Vendettas” would be a great name for a band, to paraphrase Dave Barry. : )

By: jake

jake — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:52:56 +0000

Interesting point about third party punishment and might makes right.
People often defend the concept of anarchy as being a natural state of being- but does anyone really consider what might makes right means? Sure if you are a single unattached healthy male then let the good times roll, but for the rest of society- no one wants or likes living in a free-for-all.
Pro-anarchists claim that societies will naturally form and create laws and protection for people. Sure does, but then guess what? you are back to having a government.

Sorry if this seems like a tangent- but the topic at hand was parallels between human and chimp society right?

By: Susan Durham

Susan Durham — Fri, 31 Aug 2012 17:46:21 +0000

@Kyle, I was thinking the same thing, without wanting ANY bonobos to be subjected to becoming lab-animals. I’m not a Peta, but reading this makes me think these chimps may be socially retarded because of their living circumstances.

Remember when we thought chimps didn’t hunt or eat meat? I think the days of saying chimps do or don’t do this or that may be coming to an end, along with keeping them in relative isolation to use as rats for comparison with humans.

And by the way, which humans are we comparing them to? The normal ones? Are they next to the unicorns?

And furthermore, chimps DO preemptive warfare, as when they will kill lion cubs that are born too close to their territory, which is something that most experts on war advise AGAINST! And that’s all I have to say about THAT!

By: Todd S.

Todd S. — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 20:29:47 +0000

“This behaviour, so crucial to our stable societies, seems to have evolved after our ancestors split away from the other apes”

Hmm, I would say it is crucial to establishment of states, not societies. In other words, it’s more important to political theory than social.

By: Lilly

Lilly — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 16:18:00 +0000

Like Arno said, maybe what we consider as stealing food is really not a punishable offence for chimps. They certainly seem to be operating on a basis of “winners, keepers” for other things. Maybe the chimps who fight the perpetrators when food is directly stolen from them, are not punishing them at all: maybe they’re just fighting for food.

By: Arno

Arno — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 12:47:59 +0000

The question of third-party punishing seems to be quite closely related to the rules of the society. Maybe chimps do punish transgressions against social norms, too, but simply see this experiment not as an instance of theft, but just of clever acquisition of food? Different human societies have quite different rules…

By: SP

SP — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 09:06:38 +0000

Ed, it is unreasonable of me to ask more of your wonderful site, but I found myself with unanswered questions regarding this research. In particular, I wondered if it had been established that the “actor” was aware that they had the opportunity to punish and would have taken it if they had been the direct victim of the theft. The following aside in your write up made me think that the research may have addressed this point “The only consistent use of punishment was by dominant chimps, castigating subordinates who steal their food directly” but I could not be sure. I know I should look for myself, but I thought you might find the feedback useful. Thanks for everything.

By: Charles Sullivan

Charles Sullivan — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 03:07:52 +0000

Don’t chimps sometimes engage in ‘punishment’ when third-party violence is involved, especially if the victim is kin or close cohort?

Food distribution is only one area where third-party ‘punishment’ could take place.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Tue, 28 Aug 2012 01:41:36 +0000

What about Bonobos? They cooperate more than chimpanzees.

By: Tk

Tk — Mon, 27 Aug 2012 22:30:49 +0000

It seems to me there’s a lot of problematic interpretation going on with the labels “victim” and “thief.” If I were the “actor” chimp, all I would see is the experimenters playing favorites. The so-called “victim” is actually a lucky chimp who gets to play with a box that has food in it. Meanwhile, the hungry “thief” is just sitting there, wondering how come she doesn’t get any. So, when given the chance, why shouldn’t the she claim her fair share? Why shouldn’t she deserve that food just as much as the “victim”? Even if the “victim” had the first chance to get the food, I don’t have to think that it’s rightfully hers. When the “thief” takes the snack, I say, “Way to go; stick it to the researchers’ pet!”

The point is, how do we know this experiment is really testing for third-party punishment at all? Do the researchers offer any justification for their interpretation of the situation?