tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722735165669239585.post2490412317376822325..comments2023-05-24T23:33:57.516+10:00Comments on My Unwelcome Stranger: The old 'bananas and monkeys' storyDenis Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786035137418348609noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722735165669239585.post-71274033632688142272012-03-24T11:28:16.941+11:002012-03-24T11:28:16.941+11:00Thanks for those comments, Bob. I came across the ...Thanks for those comments, Bob. I came across the '100th Monkey Syndrome' when I was researching this topic (scantily, I'll admit), so I'm not unfamiliar with it. As it turns out, Wikipedia, the oracle of the age of 'agreed' truth, has a good discussion of the pros and cons of that particular set of observations, and some of the objections raised are fairly compelling.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect<br /><br />That doesn't mean I think it's totally wrong; there are always shades of grey. I will simply say that <i>agreed</i> correctness is not necessarily truth; otherwise the sun would still be revolving around the Centre of the Universe, good old Planet Earth.<br /><br />I do know that animal (and therefore human) behaviours defy some 'expert' opinion. One I referred to in the piece above; i.e., the 'expert' statement that this <i>could not possibly</i> happen because <i>only </i> the Alpha male would dare try to eat first. The Alpha male would thrash any other monkey who tried.<br /><br />In most cases that would be so, but not all. I saw a fascinating programme once on monkeys in the wild where a young aggressive male fought and killed the Alpha male of the troupe. The females obviously had great affection for the previous dominant male and their behaviour gathering round him and trying to revive him (or hoping for his revival, or mourning him) was quite touching.<br /><br /> But the point here was that the new Alpha male was very rough with the females in mating and general treatment of them and outright cruel to any young members of the troupe. Led by the matriarchs, the outraged females ganged up on him, and even though he was far stronger than any couple of them together, as a group they beat him to within an inch of his life and cast him out, and he dared not come back.<br /><br />The point of this is that if that group of monkeys defied the behaviour that the 'expert' on Alpha males said couldn't happen, then there's no reason why a group of monkeys grouped together in an unnatural environment like a cage wouldn't do the same thing, if they were tired of getting freezing water sprayed on them because of the behaviour of any one of them.<br /><br />So we're right not to discard possibilities that look irrational and are panned by 'experts.' <br /><br />So says I, expert on nothing.Denis Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786035137418348609noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5722735165669239585.post-42129495293569733762012-03-24T09:58:18.994+11:002012-03-24T09:58:18.994+11:00I may be drawing a long bow, but there is a loose ...I may be drawing a long bow, but there is a loose linkage here - even if it is only the species selected for the story. Rupert Sheldrake's book - Presence of the Past has influenced my thinking ever since I read it. Loosely and generally, it can be summed up as 'The Hundredth Monkey Syndrome'. Sheldrake, a scientist with a near-mystical bent, seems to have been embraced by mystics and mainly ignored by science. This disturbed me at the time and still does. There are, it seems to me, flows and patterns in life, in the world, which are not related to discernible genetic, behavioural or experiential factors. Have you never been humming a song, switched on the car radio, and that old 70s song is being played? Or witnessed how a critical balance point is reached (maybe only 15%), and the whole 'way things are done around here' changes? At the time I have noted how quite unconnected, long-standing 'norms' coincided ... the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the end of apartheit, and the recognition of Native Title in Australia. Bearing in mind the length of time these pattern had been in place, the coincidence of such massive changes in such a short period of time was, to me, significant. Has science been too restricted and objective? Are scientists too afraid of ridicule to entertain thoughts 'outside the square'? Might there even be, in fact, a scientific explanation beyond our ken? I certainly don't know, but I am not comfortable with the thought that science has put this type of exploration into the 'too hard' basket.Bob Lakenoreply@blogger.com