Jump to content

Why is primate behavior worded in a different terminoloy that our own?


charles brough
 Share

Recommended Posts

Oh, I know women do not "present" as do other primates, but psychology researchers have discovered that women in estrus are more attraced to more "sexy" men and are more apt to wear red (which also is more stimulating to men).

 

Also, men do not go through "rut," but to women they "have inflated egos" and compete for "success" (wealth) and hence status. Young women seek out men with status.

 

After that, what human social behavior is not equally instinctive to other primates? Are we really monogamous creatures? Could it be that we love to watch sports teams only because they represent the male hunting team or war party to a species that evolved as hunter/gatherers through millions of years of evolution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find your question puzzling. Those aspects of primate behaviour that are common to humans and other primates are readily acknowledged as such by those working in the field. Those outside the field who are ignorant of the terminilogy are irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the difference in terminology arose the other way round.

When people first studied animal behaviour (and the things you talk about are not restricted to primates) they knew perfectly well that those behaviours were also found in humans.

But it wouldn't have looked very good in the learned journals to describe the animals as "out on the pull" or whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles - there are also differences that are important to highlight; human female undergo a menstrual cycle not an estrous cycle - and whilst there are interesting parallels and connexions, there are also significant biological and sociological differences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles, did you compare journal articles of cultural anthropology (behavioral studies of people) to those of animals? And are words different?

Or do you compare journal articles about animals to popular language in the pub?

Examples of what I meant are: . . .

 

Gender dimorphism is applied to animals and in anthropology to hominids but rather well avoided in reference to humans in the rest of the social sciences. Most primates are described as polygamous or polygynous, but sociologists, historians, and social theorists prefer to avoid doing that and to infer we are a monogamous species. They want to avoid involving the role of monogamous religions in creating monogamous societies. That we are a territorial animal is avoided in all the social sciences. Also, that we evolved through millions of years as small-group primates is avoided because it would open the way to recognizing the role of ideological systems in binding us into larger groups. Social scientists use the word "altruism" for the effort to achieve group status inherent in the male competition for dominance. They also like to avoid the word "instinct" and prefer "genes," "hormones" and even (imagine it!) "hard wired." (And of course we know our instincts are conditioned or modified by "society." That is not an intelligent excuse.) Also, when you watch the TV news and all the politicians are on giving speeches it has not been referred to in the social sciences as "seeking cues from the dominant male."

 

Believe me, I could go on, but that surely provides enough to illustrate my point. I am sure that, since I am not a presitigous degree bearing academic professional, there is plenty of quibble points that can be made with some of it but . . not most of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Their emotions though only insignificantly different intervals of evolutionary time, are a blink of the universes eye.

 

Yes their more alike us than different.

 

But they are still different. A monkey smells something and gets horny, all we have to do is see something. Its not the same thing.

 

Although you are right, we are very alike and not far evolved from them. Their emotions are to a noticeable degree different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect the difference in terminology arose the other way round.

When people first studied animal behaviour (and the things you talk about are not restricted to primates) they knew perfectly well that those behaviours were also found in humans.

But it wouldn't have looked very good in the learned journals to describe the animals as "out on the pull" or whatever.

 

 

"out on the pull" What planet are you from John :unsure: I love to hear how people can speak the same language but have such wildly differing slang terms... If I understand you I think we Would call it "trolling"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"out on the pull" What planet are you from John :unsure: I love to hear how people can speak the same language but have such wildly differing slang terms... If I understand you I think we Would call it "trolling"...

 

 

It's hitting the bars looking for women, I suppose you could call it “trawling”. :D

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's hitting the bars looking for women, I suppose you could call it “trawling”. :D

 

 

I think slang, especially "sexual" slag is one of the most interesting aspects of different cultures sharing the same language. Slang is how languages evolve until they are no longer compatible. The romance languages are a prime example of this. i was once responsible for a group of visitors from Ireland at our DuPont manufacturing site, While it was obvious they were speaking English understanding them was very difficult, they used many words that were not just spoken differently, many of the words didn't exist in Southern American vernacular... they of course would look at me in disbelief when i spoke as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think slang, especially "sexual" slag is one of the most interesting aspects of different cultures sharing the same language. Slang is how languages evolve until they are no longer compatible. The romance languages are a prime example of this. i was once responsible for a group of visitors from Ireland at our DuPont manufacturing site, While it was obvious they were speaking English understanding them was very difficult, they used many words that were not just spoken differently, many of the words didn't exist in Southern American vernacular... they of course would look at me in disbelief when i spoke as well...

 

 

It can be surprising how short range this issue can be, if I travel 250 miles from my home near Gloucester to Newcastle they may as well be talking Swahili.:blink:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It can be surprising how short range this issue can be, if I travel 250 miles from my home near Gloucester to Newcastle they may as well be talking Swahili.:blink:

 

 

It's not quite that bad in the US, although New Englanders are difficult to follow for me and they look at me when i speak as though they want to drag the words out me because I speak so slowly compared to them.

 

I also change my speech patterns when i visit the mountains and immediately pick up the choppy hillbilly type accent I grew up with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not quite that bad in the US, although New Englanders are difficult to follow for me and they look at me when i speak as though they want to drag the words out me because I speak so slowly compared to them.

 

I also change my speech patterns when i visit the mountains and immediately pick up the choppy hillbilly type accent I grew up with...

 

 

I feel a new topic is called for. Keep your eyes peeled. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.