Monkeys

[Drum God]

I received the following in an email this afternoon:

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water. After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water. Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.

Now, put the cold water away. Remove one monkey from the cage and replace it with a new one. The new monkey sees the banana and wants to climb the stairs.

To his shock, all of the other monkeys attack him. After another attempt and attack, he knows that if he tries to climb the stairs he will be assaulted.

Next, remove another of the original five monkeys and replace it with a new one.

The newcomer goes to the stairs and is attacked. The previous newcomer takes part in the punishment with enthusiasm.

Likewise, replace a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey takes to the stairs he is attacked.

Most of the monkeys that are beating him up have no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they are participating in the beating of the newest monkey. After replacing all of the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys have ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approaches the stairs to try for the banana.


Why not?

Because as far as they know, that is the way it has always been done around here.

The story ends with a political comment that has no bearing on my question.

Put simply, would monkeys (or any other animal really act this way? I understand how a monkey could be conditioned through direct action. Reach for the banana and get doused with cold water. However, in this scenario, the four other monkeys get the negative reinforcement based on the action of a monkey that gets positive reinforcement (he gets the banana). Each monkey decides to prevent one of their number from reaching for the banana so that they do not get doused. To me, that is a pretty huge leap for a monkey to make. He has to understand that when someone else does "X", then something bad happens to him. Can a monkey really make such an indirect connection? I'm not sure that even humans would easily make that connection. My thought is that if everyone except the monkey going for the banana gets doused, then I want to be the one getting the banana. That guy gets the banana and stays dry. Win-win.

I think that this experiment assumes that the monkeys are not starving and that the banana does not represent a desperation move that will be made no matter what the cost.

[qazwart]

What type of monkeys are we talking about? Different monkeys have different social structures and hierarchy. For example, a group of monkeys with a very strong social hierarchy, the alpha male might simply take the banana and not care what happens to the others.

It sounds like a made up experiment to make a political point.

[jasg]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect) to the rescue.

[Captain Amazing]

Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundredth_monkey_effect) to the rescue.

The OP's story isn't about the hundredth monkey effect. It's about monkeys learning to regulate behavior that will have negative consequences even though none of those monkeys themselves have experienced the negative consequences.

[GHO57]

Link dump.

I was looking into something and had these bookmarked,So...
http://www.s-cool.co.uk/alevel/psychology/determinants-of-animal-behaviour/social-learning-in-non-human-animals.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030123073355.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070801161511.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070420133813.htm
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/monkey-200801.html?c=y&page=1
http://biohorizons.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2010/03/10/biohorizons.hzq011.full
http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_LINKS/articles.html
http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/13/3/4.html
... to the rescue?

To sum it up... They are to some extend capable of empathy, and exhibit a form of theory of mind... the basic learning strategy is similar to humans, the methods of social control are effective... apes have pretty well formed understanding of altruistic punishment. The answer is "possibly"; apes, sure thing at least for a while. Some monkeys.. perhaps (macaques are a top contender there). They'll also bound to stop doing it sooner or later if there's no reinforcement, first monkey to forget the rule when others aren't paying attention will break the system down. Or the first hungry one... or just the fastest...

*shrug*

[Oukile]

I'm working directly with macaques, so I can answer this question in macaques species.

He has to understand that when someone else does "X", then something bad happens to him. Can a monkey really make such an indirect connection?

Absolutely. For bad things or for good things just as well. If a caretaker walk towards the banana storage next to the monkey cage, you can be sure that the monkeys know what's coming (and get quite excited). Macaques have a lot of social interactions: if some peanut is thrown in the cage and the alpha monkey (i.e. the dominant one) is in the vicinity and looks interested, the beta and gamma won't dare touch it. Well, the beta may go for it and then ruuuuuun before getting kicked.

I'm not sure that even humans would easily make that connection.

Suppose that I put you in a cage with a banana or bottle of beer or whatever you find attractive, and then every time you try to go for it I touch a button and you get an electric shock. I assure you that you will get the point very quickly.


My thought is that if everyone except the monkey going for the banana gets doused, then I want to be the one getting the banana. That guy gets the banana and stays dry. Win-win.


Then you better be the super-super alpha guy, because even as a human, I can tell you that you don't want to be in a cage together with four freaked-out water-doused macaques.

They are to some extend capable of empathy, and exhibit a form of theory of mind... the basic learning strategy is similar to humans, the methods of social control are effective... apes have pretty well formed understanding of altruistic punishment. The answer is "possibly"; apes, sure thing at least for a while. Some monkeys.. perhaps (macaques are a top contender there).


You are totally right to point out the difference between macaques and apes.


They'll also bound to stop doing it sooner or later if there's no reinforcement, first monkey to forget the rule when others aren't paying attention will break the system down. Or the first hungry one... or just the fastest...


My bet (with macaques) is that some new strong and dominant monkey comes in the cage, takes the alpha position, goes for the banana and when the others protest he beats the crap out of them. The other monkeys who, indeed, have no real motivation for preventing the alpha form getting the banana, will quickly forget the rule "don't touch the banana" and go back to the ancestral rule "don't piss the boss when he wants the banana".

Back to the email in the OP: I'm quite confident that this behavior can be taught, but only a reference to an actual scientific study could corroborate the notion that it can remain stable for a long time.

[Smeghead]

Then you better be the super-super alpha guy, because even as a human, I can tell you that you don't want to be in a cage together with four freaked-out water-doused macaques.


I've only skimmed the thread and didn't read your whole post, but I'm making this my new life motto.

[Wendell Wagner]

This link claims that the experiment described in the OP never happened exactly, although there are vaguely similar experiments:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_the_monkey_banana_and_water_spray_experiment_ever_take_place

[Drum God]

I'm working directly with macaques, so I can answer this question in macaques species.

He has to understand that when someone else does "X", then something bad happens to him. Can a monkey really make such an indirect connection?

Suppose that I put you in a cage with a banana or bottle of beer or whatever you find attractive, and then every time you try to go for it I touch a button and you get an electric shock. I assure you that you will get the point very quickly.



I'm sure I would. But would a monkey get the point that, if he goes for the banana, someone else gets the shock. Why would he care?

[Chronos]

Because when the someone else gets the shock, they beat him up.

[Little Nemo]

I can see the monkeys who are getting sprayed associating stair climbing with an unpleasant experience and beating up any monkey who tried it. And I can see monkeys who get beat up for attemting to climb the stairs learning not to try that.

So the criticial point is whether monkeys who were never sprayed would join in on beating up monkeys who are attempting to climb the stairs. These unsprayed monkeys have no reason to associate any unpleasant experience with another monkey climbing the stairs. The issue seems to be whether monkeys will beat up on another monkey just because the crowd is doing it or do they need a personal incentive for joining in.

[Wendell Wagner]

It seems reasonably clear that no such experiment ever happened, although it vaguely resembles some real ones. This story seems to be mostly told by managment consultants to prove some sort of point, and I don't trust management consultants any further than I can throw them.

[GHO57]

It seems reasonably clear that no such experiment ever happened, although it vaguely resembles some real ones. This story seems to be mostly told by managment consultants to prove some sort of point, and I don't trust management consultants any further than I can throw them.

Just out of curiosity... how far could you throw a 207 pound management consultant?

[Wendell Wagner]

I can't even pick one up.

[Oukile]

I'm working directly with macaques, so I can answer this question in macaques species.



Suppose that I put you in a cage with a banana or bottle of beer or whatever you find attractive, and then every time you try to go for it I touch a button and you get an electric shock. I assure you that you will get the point very quickly.



I'm sure I would. But would a monkey get the point that, if he goes for the banana, someone else gets the shock. Why would he care?

Ah, my banana/beer bottle example was out of the point indeed.

I'm pretty sure that the monkey would get the point that when someone else goes for the banana, he gets doused. See the caretaker heading for the banana storage example. A macaque can recognize someone else's action (e.g. heading towards a specific item) an associate it with a short-term outcome.

[digs]

For me, the real clue was contained in your first sentence:

I received the following in an email this afternoon:


I'm afraid that means that nothing that follows will be true. It may look logical, it may be full of names of scientists and dates of experiments, it may have quotes from prominent politicians or celebrities... but if you researched it, you would find that the entire thing had been twisted or just made up. All to make that "unrelated political point" you referenced.

I do apologize. I think you somehow got on my mom's email list. Retired right-wing upper-class women, who are ready to believe anything that supports their very narrow viewpoints and can't wait to pass it along to a hundred people that are merely related to an old high school friend should never have been given the power to forward emails.

[Drum God]

For me, the real clue was contained in your first sentence:

I received the following in an email this afternoon:


I'm afraid that means that nothing that follows will be true. It may look logical, it may be full of names of scientists and dates of experiments, it may have quotes from prominent politicians or celebrities... but if you researched it, you would find that the entire thing had been twisted or just made up. All to make that "unrelated political point" you referenced.

I do apologize. I think you somehow got on my mom's email list. Retired right-wing upper-class women, who are ready to believe anything that supports their very narrow viewpoints and can't wait to pass it along to a hundred people that are merely related to an old high school friend should never have been given the power to forward emails.

I'm sure you're right about that. I really didn't think that the email was reporting a legitimate scientific experiment. The political point was that we should vote out all incumbent congress members. As such, I thought that the monkey story didn't really apply all that well. I was just curious if monkeys could even make the leaps in reasoning that the story illustrates. It has seemed doubtful to me that monkeys behave that way, though some folks here with actual monkey experience say that it is possible.

[Chronos]

The political point was that we should vote out all incumbent congress members.Ah, thereby guaranteeing that none of them remember the cold water, and that all of them would just assume that "it's always been done this way", without knowing the reasons for anything. Makes perfect sense!

[Wendell Wagner]

I think that the story has different meanings depending on who tells it. When management consultants tell it in their expensive seminars, it means that they are going to introduce an idea that doesn't make much obvious sense. By telling the monkey story, they imply that if there is widespread objection to the new idea in the company that they are giving the seminar to, that simply means that the employees are just like the monkeys. They have objections for no rational reason and discourage new ideas without thinking about them. Therefore the company should ignore the employees' objections and impose the policy on the company that the consultant's new idea must henceforth be used.

The problem with this attitude is not that every idea that management consultants come up with is wrong. Some are indeed good ideas, but there's an awful lot of bad ones too. The problem is not that sometimes employees object to good ideas without thinking about them. That certainly happens. The problem is not that good ideas are sometimes counterintuitive. Some are, and they take a while to get used to. The problem is that by telling this story the management consultant is badgering the company and its employees. They are saying, "If you object to any of my ideas, you can't be doing it for a rational reason. You must be doing it because you're no smarter than the monkeys in this story. You have to accept my ideas without objections."

[Little Nemo]

The problem with this attitude is not that every idea that management consultants come up with is wrong. Some are indeed good ideas, but there's an awful lot of bad ones too. The problem is not that sometimes employees object to good ideas without thinking about them. That certainly happens. The problem is not that good ideas are sometimes counterintuitive. Some are, and they take a while to get used to. The problem is that by telling this story the management consultant is badgering the company and its employees. They are saying, "If you object to any of my ideas, you can't be doing it for a rational reason. You must be doing it because you're no smarter than the monkeys in this story. You have to accept my ideas without objections."Exactly. That first group of monkeys had a sound reason for preventing any monkey from climbing the stairs.

It's a good idea to periodically ask why something is being done and decide whether it still needs to be done. But it's a bad idea to assume that if you don't know the reason for doing something then it must not be important.

[Irishman]

Little Nemo said:
So the criticial point is whether monkeys who were never sprayed would join in on beating up monkeys who are attempting to climb the stairs. These unsprayed monkeys have no reason to associate any unpleasant experience with another monkey climbing the stairs. The issue seems to be whether monkeys will beat up on another monkey just because the crowd is doing it or do they need a personal incentive for joining in.

So you are the new monkey who never experienced water spraying, you see a banana and think, "Time for a tasty snack". *BAM*, the rest of the monkeys start beating you up. Okay, you're slow, you get over it and try again. *BAM* "Clearly I'm not getting this banana." *Huff*

Now along comes the next new monkey. Your thought: "Hey, if I can't have that banana, I'm damned sure not going to let you get it." *BAM*

It's not just that the crowd is doing it, it's a personal incentive as well.

[Freudian Slit]

What if the monkey was never beaten up itself but only saw other monkeys doing the beating?

[Irishman]

So why did that monkey not try to get the banana? Did it decide that watching another monkey get beat up was enough for it to not want to get beat up?

Aren't we beginning to speculate a little far? Isn't that like asking "What if the monkey was given a suit of armor? Would it then succeed in getting the banana?"

[Little Nemo]

Little Nemo said:
So the criticial point is whether monkeys who were never sprayed would join in on beating up monkeys who are attempting to climb the stairs. These unsprayed monkeys have no reason to associate any unpleasant experience with another monkey climbing the stairs. The issue seems to be whether monkeys will beat up on another monkey just because the crowd is doing it or do they need a personal incentive for joining in.

So you are the new monkey who never experienced water spraying, you see a banana and think, "Time for a tasty snack". *BAM*, the rest of the monkeys start beating you up. Okay, you're slow, you get over it and try again. *BAM* "Clearly I'm not getting this banana." *Huff*

Now along comes the next new monkey. Your thought: "Hey, if I can't have that banana, I'm damned sure not going to let you get it." *BAM*

It's not just that the crowd is doing it, it's a personal incentive as well.I don't think preventing somebody else from obtaining something I can't obtain counts as an incentive.

[griffin1977]

Is seems the main cognitive leap needed for the monkeys to act that way is to go from "thing X happening means thing Y is about to happen" (which plenty of animals alot dumber than monkeys can do), to "I must proactively intervene to stop thing X happening so that thing Y won't happen". I have never heard of on any animal being smart enough to do that, but I've never spent much time around monkeys.

[Wendell Wagner]

Once again, nothing like this experiment ever happened, it appears. Speculating about why a monkey would act like the ones did in this supposed experiment is useless. We have no reason to think that monkeys act this way.

[Cheshire Human]

It's not just that the crowd is doing it, it's a personal incentive as well.I don't think preventing somebody else from obtaining something I can't obtain counts as an incentive.

It does for monkeys. Just go to the zoo and watch them for a while. They're mean, selfish little shits! :D

[Little Nemo]

I don't think preventing somebody else from obtaining something I can't obtain counts as an incentive.

It does for monkeys. Just go to the zoo and watch them for a while. They're mean, selfish little shits! :DAnimals rarely fight unless they have a reason. Any fight, even one where a gang is attacking an individual, carries some risk of injury. And all fights consume energy. An animal won't fight unless it feels it's gaining something from it.

[Freudian Slit]

Is this thread making anyone else really hungry?

[TriPolar]

This sounds a lot like the bucket of crabs story. You can keep a bunch of crabs in a bucket without a lid, and none will escape. Every time one of the crabs manages to get a claw on the rim of the bucket to pull himself up, the other crabs will latch onto him, trying to escape themselves, and pull him down. I don't know if that actually happens, but it isn't a learned response.

The behavior described for the monkeys makes no sense. First the monkeys attempt to stop an innocent from climbing the stairs out of empathy. Then they turn to beating him up, why? Out of empathy? Then, if the monkeys can reason well enough to understand that going up the stairs is harmful, why are they so stupid that they'll beat up another monkey for no known reason? Then of course, the most ludicrous part of the story, the monkeys are in a cage. Why would they use the stairs at all? As soon as you hang the banana from a string they'll scamper up the cage and grab the string.

So you might say the cage was electrified, in that case after the water spraying the monkeys that aren;t electrocuted will probably just cower on the ground and be scared of the new monkeys put in the cage.

[Irishman]

Little Nemo said:
I don't think preventing somebody else from obtaining something I can't obtain counts as an incentive.

Selfishness isn't an incentive?

TriPolar said:
The behavior described for the monkeys makes no sense. First the monkeys attempt to stop an innocent from climbing the stairs out of empathy. Then they turn to beating him up, why? Out of empathy? Then, if the monkeys can reason well enough to understand that going up the stairs is harmful, why are they so stupid that they'll beat up another monkey for no known reason? Then of course, the most ludicrous part of the story, the monkeys are in a cage. Why would they use the stairs at all? As soon as you hang the banana from a string they'll scamper up the cage and grab the string.


Who said their motive was empathy? The motive was at first self-preservation, later selfishness. Who proposed empathy?

Second, you misunderstand. They aren't trying to protect the other monkey who is climbing the stairs, they are trying to protect themselves from getting hosed down.

Also, just because it is a "cage" doesn't mean it is made of metal bars. Maybe it's a sealed concrete room with plexiglas windows.

[Little Nemo]

Little Nemo said:
I don't think preventing somebody else from obtaining something I can't obtain counts as an incentive.

Selfishness isn't an incentive? Selfishness would be if you were getting the banana for yourself. But that's not what's happening here.

How does Monkey #1 benefit from preventing Monkey #2 from getting a banana (when Monkey #1 already knows he can't get the banana himself)?

[TriPolar]

Who said their motive was empathy? The motive was at first self-preservation, later selfishness. Who proposed empathy?

Second, you misunderstand. They aren't trying to protect the other monkey who is climbing the stairs, they are trying to protect themselves from getting hosed down.

Also, just because it is a "cage" doesn't mean it is made of metal bars. Maybe it's a sealed concrete room with plexiglas windows.

You are right, I misread the story, but the point is the same, they are supposed to be intelligent enough to detect the cause and effect, but then stupid enough to continue the behavior without it. The story doesn't imply enough repitition to create a conditioned response. There are only 5 monkeys altogether, one new-comer, one who saw this happen 4 times, one who saw it 3 times... Doesn't sound like real behavior to me.

Yes, it could be a smooth walled room, typically called a 'room', not a 'cage'.

My general point is this does not sound like an actual experiment. It sounds like a story made up to elicit an emotional response from people, and distract them from using reason when considering the political comment that followed. The particulars of the political comment are irrelevant, as the OP stated, but any political comment preceded by a story about animal behavior, IMHO puts the story in the category of fiction, and the comment in the category of lies.

[Karen Lingel]

I would make a terrible monkey. If I were in the experiment, I would come to the conclusion that the stairs are the only place safe from cold water. When one of my fellow monkeys started for the stairs, I would make sure I hit the stairs the same exact time.

[Shmendrik]

Is this thread making anyone else really hungry?

Yup. I could go for some monkey right about now.

[Just Ed]

Start with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, hang a banana on a string and place a set of stairs under it. Before long, a monkey will go to the stairs and start to climb towards the banana.

As soon as he touches the stairs, spray all the other monkeys with cold water.Wait right there. OK - does this first monkey get the banana or not? 'Cause it sounds like he does - all the other monkeys get the water spray. So you've got a cage of four wet, pissed off monkeys and one very dry, sated, presumably amused monkey at the top of the stairs. So I guess he eventually goes back down the stairs and you replace your banana-bait? Then what?After a while another monkey makes the attempt with same result, all the other monkeys are sprayed with cold water.All right then, this is another monkey, presumably one of the wet, pissed off, hungry ones. So now your dry, sated, amused monkey is part of the crowd that gets doused, along with three other now really wet, super-pissed monkeys. Oh, and a semi-dry, now-sated, and presumably suitably amused monkey at the top of the stairs. OK. Then?Pretty soon when another monkey tries to climb the stairs, the other monkeys will try to prevent it.Er . . . why? At this point you've got three soggy angry primates, and two semi-dry sated primates. Seems to me if the soggy angry ones have any sense they'll be fighting over who gets to the next banana first, if anything.

So . . . yeah. I don't get it at all. But then, that's just because these "learning moment" fables aren't at all the way things have always been done around here . . .