Chimpanzee Cooperation: Limitations (2/2)
Uploader Comments (tehinfidel)
Top Comments
-
Another excellent set of uploads infidel. Let young earth creationists eat static.
All Comments (22)
-
FAKE.... as soon as the second chimp came in, it went straight to the rope, which means they've been trained ! fuck u ngc.
-
i wouldnt help the dueshbag cimp either if he didnt give me some
-
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention about the monkey experiment, where they share and know about fairness. So, it's not just humans.
-
Yeah, that's what I thought. Go online, look how many people have been scam, and you're telling me humans aren't selfish and greedy. Man, stfu. This is why I want to be a zoologist, stupid humans.
-
Oh, how fucking bullshit. I see trillions of people that are selfish and greedy. That's only because they did the experiment one time. Now this time, the chimpanzee realize that if he wants help, he's going to share, and that he only have to convince the other chimp that he's going to share, and once that other chimp is convince, he'll help, and the chimp will share, or he's going to lose his trust once and for all. I see this all the time. How many times have human backstab?
-
why didn't humans show example how they share the food in the end
-
I agree with the comments, humans are no better
-
fuck off! humans are fucking selfish as SHIT!
-
the ending is so wrong! he's trying to make humans sound like we're good beings.. but nope! lol sad.. this is national geographics... how can we possibly know so much about other species but then know so little about ourselves?
-
were not the selfishness mammels in the world :P
There is an updated study on chimpanzee cooperation and morality linked in the description.
Yamamoto S, Humle T, Tanaka M. Chimpanzees Help Each Other upon Request. PLoS ONE, 2009; 4 (10): e7416 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0007416
tehinfidel 2 years ago
The conclusion that this is the dividing line between chimp and human is simply wrong.
It would be just the same for human, I mean, who would help the cheater?
The conclusion is just self-interest.
dreamy2 2 years ago 16
Yeah, that was part of a running thread through the documentary, trying to nail down the line with recently published papers.
I think the problem with drawing conclusions like that is a deeper issue with science journalism in general, though.
tehinfidel 2 years ago
To quote Steven Novella on the issue:
"This state of affairs has lead to its own category of cliches - the headline cliche. We just have to accept the fact that every new fossil is a 'missing link,' every new discovery is a 'breakthrough,' the smallest of minority opinions will render any issue a 'controversy,' and even the slightest uncertainty means that scientists are 'baffled.'"
It's really rather silly, and it's actually added fuel to the popular distrust of science.
tehinfidel 2 years ago