Just came across this today and thought it was interesting. I just like anything to do with the brain, even in other species.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/04/110405113026.htm

I personally think humans rather than having a single social instinct across the population may have multiple social instincts. Saying humans have instincts is not a very popular idea, but I feel we should remain open to the idea.

It is my opinion society is being driven by the social instincts of one group. I refer to the instinct as a hierarchial social instinct. This I believe drives both the trend of forming hierarchy social organization and power structure. In addition, I feel this also may be related to pair bonding. I don't see this one as being similar to either the common chimp and bonobo structures.

Others I feel show more of a bonobo social structure. This one is more egalitarian in nature with both a lack of hierarchial structure and gender bias. I feel this one dominated the human population until more recent times when the population size had grown significantly. I estimate this change started within the last 10 to 20 thousands years.

The reason this interests me is I feel a number of social traits may be a result of this differing social instinct rather than related to the autism spectrum. The article linked to does mention a link between the common chimp social behavior and signs of autism related structures in the brain. However, I believe this is a case of separate but evolutionarily related developments. I feel these are independently inheritable traits.

My primary concern is we may be assuming all humans should live by the same socialization rules and those who do not may be mistakenly assumed to have some other condition. I think some conditions can lead to exaggeration of the socialization instinct, but it is still independently inheritable.

I think that is fascinating as well.


I recently read an interesting book on a related subject-- the development of empathy in animals.

The Age of Empathy by Frans de Waal

Regardless of how one feels about his political/philosophical leanings, the first two thirds of the book was (IMO) remarkably erudite and clearly written with respect to the known neurobiology involved, and it pulled in a lot of very good behavioral research.

One thing that I found particularly fascinating was the notion that many animal species may have capacities that we simply haven't been smart enough to devise ways of testing. After all, not all animals have the same manual dexterity, orthopedic structure, or sensory ennervation that human beings do.

It was interesting to consider that cetaceans may only fail the mirror test because they don't have limbs that allow them to touch their own bodies all over, for example.

But I imagine that for anyone that believes human beings to be uniquely differentiable from "the animal kingdom" it probably is fairly disturbing content.

Like you, Jamie, I find it fascinating stuff.

Sounds like an interesting book, definitely one I will consider reading. Had to look up the word erudite as I had never heard that one before...lol.

I totally agree with the idea we often misinterpret the reasons behind our observations. It is good to see they are considering animals may not display a skill due to a physical limitation as opposed to a mental limitation.

One technique I find useful in regards to understanding what is going on in the brain of animals including humans is observing eye movement and physical movement. For instance, a dog makes a quick decision to move towards a goal, but is very slow to change it's path if the position of the goal changes. Cats on the other hand take longer to decide on a course of action and are quick to change their path if the goal changes position. This is just my observation and not scientifically verified.

I watched two programs on Animal Planet last night about chimp vs. bonobo societies. I was intrigued by the empathy the bonobos displayed (and, of course, their matriarchal hierarchy!).



Agreed!

I am particularly intrigued by the bonobo society. Although they appear matriarchial, I do not see any strong evidence of hierarhial structure. There is some evidence of a lead female, but I am not so sure this is as much a leadership structure as a preference organization based on respect.

The bonobo organization seems to be driven primarily by sex, with the males and females primarily favoring female contact. I see the net result of this organization is to center the females within the group and place the males on the outside. This makes sense if the bonobos are at high risk from predators, although I am not sure this is the case. I may not have considered other possible advantages to female centering. From an investment point of view in regards to population growth rate, females are definitely the most valuable.