- She learned to roller skate faster than they can.
- She never wears her banana costume.
- If a chimp gets aggressive, she chuckles “Oh ho ho, monkey business!”.
- She always makes sure their cage is locked.
“Hey, if you really are a chimpanzee, then you should have no problem eating these nice big fat grubs.”
“In fact, we want to see you CHUG them.”
An offhand comment in 2002 (15 years ago) is enough time for Goodall to float back to earth (remember **all **scientists have unsupported beliefs/theories/hypotheses, that’s why the public sides with the “scientific consensus”.
IOW everyone is insane and/or guessing, its the time/peer tested guesses that have validity.
I’m skeptical that killing and eating the young of other female chimpanzees constitutes evidence of social similarity with humans.
Most human females don’t kill or eat other females’ young, but that’s only because we’ve become socialized against it. It’s fairly clear that the ability (if not an instinct) to do that sort of thing exists in the human population.
I can’t believe people are criticizing Goodall. She’s the Mother Teresa of chimps!
As an anthropology grad student in the 70s, I can state unequivocally that, in spite of the awards, recognition, and press that she received, Goodall was not highly regarded by many in academia. In many respects, she tainted the data significantly by simply interacting with the chimpanzees as she did. In this respect, she followed too closely in the paths of Mead, Lorenz, and other researchers who got way too close. The PR was great, and the situation certainly helped preserve groups of animals that would otherwise have ended up dead, but you have to look at her conclusions through the right filters.
As an aside, the worst wounds I’ve ever seen inflicted were from Japanese macaques, who are only a fraction of the size of chimps.
Does that include the two faces that were destroyed?
You genuinely think socialization is responsible for the absence of this behavior?
It would be hard to name a mammal species whose adult females do not have the ability to at least kill the young of other females. In the vast majority of these, this essentially never happens - and without socialization.
What species are you referring to, as being without socialization?
What is the basis for your conclusion about socialization’s role in behavior?
I think the idea is more along the lines that chimps and humans are among the few social species with the smarts to figure out that killing the young of one mother might give your own young a leg up in the hierarchy. I don’t know that this is true or not, but I think that is where this is coming from. Humans and chimps are highly political, and are “playing chess when everyone else is playing checkers” sort of thing.
I’m not sure that’s the idea, since there are plenty of mammal species where a dominant male may kill off the offspring of a deposed dominant male for the benefit of his own offspring. Lions are a good example.
But that’s a checkers move. The lion “wants” the females to come into heat again. The chess move is when you know that the offspring of a high ranking female is, by birth, higher up on the social ladder than your own kid. But it also just could be social deviant behavior that wasn’t socialized out.
But anyway, if you had something else in mind, why don’t you go ahead and respond to that poster?
“for the benefit of his own offspring” is perhaps a bit misleading, at least in the case of lions. A newly dominant male doesn’t have any offspring. However, killing off the other cubs makes the mothers of these cubs immediately begin ovulating, which means the new male can impregnate them.
On the other hand, by doing that she got other information that no one else was getting.
I suspect looking at the information through the right filters - that is, reading critically - is important in reading scientific research pretty much all the time.
Maybe it wasn’t perfect science, but the PR and communication with the general public was valuable.
It wasnt uncommon (the killing anyway) in history for family members of the ruling class to kill one another. Or even today
…cough…Kim…cough.
ISWYDT 
Given that some of her methodologies were questionable, there’s still no denying that she was the first to record both tool use and hunting in chimps, and those two behaviours has radically altered our views of how sophisticated chimps are. Her contributions shouldn’t be cast aside, just examined critically.
This thread has taken such an interesting turn that I’ve started an IMHO thread about Leakey’s Angels - I hope you’ll all come participate, especially those with professional knowledge about primate behavior, conservation, etc.
It’s not an argument against the existence of socialization. I’m maintaining that very few species provide evidence of a level of socialization anywhere near comprehensive enough to be the explanation for females not killing others’ young.
Which species do you believe are exceptions?
(Humans obviously are. But I can seen no evidence that socialization is needed to avoid infanticide. To the contrary, almost from birth, human females quite typically show conspicuous warmth to infants.)