Study reveals clues to how humans became sociable

Nov 10, 2011
Study reveals clues to how humans became sociable

(PhysOrg.com) -- Humans have evolved to become the most flexible of the primates and being able to live in lots of different social settings sets us apart from non-human primates, suggests research by University of Oxford and the University of Auckland.

A research paper, published in the journal Nature, has provided important new clues to how humans network and socialise today by exploring the of social groupings among primates. The study analysed patterns of among living primates, as well as examining the ‘the root’ of the family tree, in 217 primate species. The researchers then used Bayesian data modelling to reconstruct the most likely explanation for how the grouping behaviour of primates evolved over 74 million years.

Their key finding is that the main step change in social behaviour occurred when primates switched from being mainly active at night to being more active during the day. Primates started out as solitary foragers as by night they could survive by moving quietly on their own in the dark. However, once they switched to daytime activity, they could be seen and were more vulnerable to attack by predators unless they could show strength in numbers. This research paper provides evidence to show that this switch in activity coincided with a significant change in social behaviour as primates started to ‘gang up’ for the first time. The researchers conclude that social bonding began as a way of adapting to a new threat.

The paper also suggests that primates went directly from being solitary foragers into large, mixed-sex groups where group members were loosely bound together. Members could come and go as needed, suggests the research, which is a behaviour still observed in some primates, like lemurs, today. The emergence of more stable groups of primates, in which individuals formed clusters that were smaller in size and maintained close social links, is likely to have developed much later says the paper.

These findings are significant as they throw into doubt previous theories about the evolution of primate social grouping patterns. Previous studies have suggested that complex primate social groups were composed of smaller units that stacked up rather like building blocks. Others have suggested that the bond between a mother and daughter later extended to include other related females, and it was this network of relationships that underpinned the social grouping patterns of mammals.

The data, studied by the research team, included a huge range of social grouping patterns: solitary individuals, family- bonds, pair-bonds, harems, multi-male and multi-female groups. The researchers discovered that the bonding behaviour of primates was strongly determined by their ancestors, with closely related species having very similar social behaviour.

Once the transition from individual to group living took place – 52 million years ago in the ancestral line that gave rise to humans, and later in another branch of the primate family tree – no shift back to solitary behaviour ever occurred. Primate ancestors that subsequently began living in pairs did not switch back to group living, whereas those that began living in harems could transition back and forth with large groups. There was never a transition directly from pair to harem living or vice versa.

The researchers conclude that only humans have had the flexibility to live in a range of different, complicated social settings. Throughout history, humans have lived in monogamous and polygamous societies; in nuclear family and extended family groups. Beyond the home, they have socialised in different work settings, as well as being part of the complicated social structure of wider human society.

Lead author Dr Susanne Shultz, from the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology at the University of Oxford, said: ‘There is an amazing flexibility in the way humans have managed to socialise, network and live together, both in groups and wider society. We have a huge variety of to cope with, according to the different cultural practices and customs. This flexibility in the human lineage has not evolved to anything like this level in other primates. Our findings support previous studies that suggest that more brain power is needed for groups that have a more complicated social life.’

Co-author Kit Opie, also from the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, said: ‘These analyses allow us to look back in time to understand major step changes in social evolution amongst our closest relatives. We now understand why primate sociality is inherently special, as bonded social groups are unusual in mammals, yet the norm in .’

Explore further: Scientists announce Top 10 New Species from 2012

More information: Stepwise evolution of stable sociality in primates, www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7372/full/nature10601.html

Related Stories

Have we met? Research finds 'missing social knowledge'

May 19, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The face looks familiar but... Just as humans don't always know their neighbors, new research at the University of Michigan shows even the most social of animals don't always recognize individuals they regularly ...

Socialising led to bigger brains in some mammals

Nov 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Over millions of years dogs have developed bigger brains than cats because highly social species of mammals need more brain power than solitary animals, according to a study by Oxford University.

Monkeys' grooming habits provide clues to how we socialise

Sep 30, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- A study of female monkeys' grooming habits provides new clues about the way humans socialise. New research reveals a link between the size of the neocortex in the brain, responsible for higher-level ...

How birds prepare for war

Jul 07, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- Just as human soldiers show greater solidarity when entering combat zones, new research from the University of Bristol has demonstrated that birds also increase their affiliative behaviour ...

Recommended for you

Bittersweet: Bait-averse cockroaches shudder at sugar

14 hours ago

Sugar isn't always sweet to German cockroaches, especially to the ones that avoid roach baits. In a study published May 24 in the journal Science, North Carolina State University entomologists show the ne ...

White tiger mystery solved

16 hours ago

White tigers today are only seen in zoos, but they belong in nature, say researchers reporting new evidence about what makes those tigers white. Their spectacular white coats are produced by a single change ...

Scientists announce Top 10 New Species from 2012

23 hours ago

An amazing glow-in-the-dark cockroach, a harp-shaped carnivorous sponge and the smallest vertebrate on Earth are just three of the newly discovered top 10 species selected by the International Institute for ...

User comments : 33

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JerseyJ9
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2011
I know you don't actually read anything on this site because then you wouldn't need to use the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'.

DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2011
I think i saw some of your Great Grand Parents in the pic above.
(ROFL @ EVOLUTION)
gmurphy
5 / 5 (3) Nov 10, 2011
@DontBeBlind, we didn't evolve directly from monkeys, we shared a common ancestor with them around 5 million years ago http://en.wikiped...eat_Apes Please, keep to reading your bible and stay off the science sites, you too are a relic of evolution and don't belong here.
hush1
5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
It's true. You were happier before you acquired what humans label language.

Before language, you had associations in your mind that existed without labels or language. You experienced all your senses without the labels or language used later to describe the experiences your senses provided you.

What is meaning of this stage of life and existence described in the above paragraph?
One meaning for this is to conjecture during this stage of life and existence there was no source of conflict arising from labels and language. Nothing was inconsistent as far as labels and language were concern because labels and language did not exist for you at that time.

The 'language' of your senses provided no source conflict. There was no measure by which senses cast doubt. You had no doubts.

Back to the article with a 'twist' to the above statements:
The greater your social settings, the greater the need for language beyond your senses.
Pirouette
5 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2011
I also think the researchers may want to explore at some point, the social workings of humans within an INTERNET setting, where there is virtually no possibility of physical human contact while the party of two or more are conducting a discussion online, whereby a given topic is provided and the parties give their opinions, either positive or negative or neutral. I have to wonder at what the researchers would decide regarding the human psyche, as to how far humans have really evolved if they read some of the vitriol and name-calling that people in some forums sling at each other, for no other reason than a disagreement of opinion. In Physorg, for instance, civility and etiquette are abandoned in favor of virtual backbiting, lashing out, and outpouring of hate. My first time on Physorg, I was appalled at what I read in so many threads. I could not see any point in nastiness, but there it was. I think the human primate still has further to evolve.
HealingMindN
1 / 5 (1) Nov 10, 2011
Our findings support previous studies that suggest that more brain power is needed for groups that have a more complicated social life...


As far as "complicated," would that be Hollywood Producers? Pentagon Officials? White House Officials? Google Officials? Kardashians?

@Pirouette, totally agree w/ya...
_nigmatic10
1.5 / 5 (2) Nov 10, 2011
In the absence of higher or more developed genetic memory, developing social group dynamics was the next best step for retention of information to enhance evolution and survival of the species.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
I could not see any point in nastiness, but there it was. - P

If you believe in evolution, then you will harbor or imagine a world of humans without, (unfortunately under-researched), what is labeled by humans, aggression.

Dunno, nigmatic10. "The next best step" is the step Nature took that coincidentally coincided with your comfort.

Information theory states no information is created or destroyed. Retention loses meaning. "Enhancement" and "survival" are in conflict (contradictory) to the word "death". Unless you assert the goal of evolution is immortality.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
All humans have 'intrinsic error correction code'. All human languages have this 'code'.

The language kevinrtrs uses - regardless of his awarness - is a language that actually self corrects conflicts.

The conflict is God and no God. If kevinrtrs continues to use the language, the language will prevail:

The 'evolution' of language is simultaneously the 'evolution' of kevinrtrs.

All beliefs under this language become superseded or obsolete - that is what humans label 'evolution'. That thought alone comforts all humans.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
I know you don't actually read anything on this site because then you wouldn't need to use the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance'.

I think he would first need to understand what 'argument' means. Ignorance seems to come natural to him.

As for the article: I was thinking on how to construct a self-repairing robot and the problem that it can't reach all its own parts (including the problem that if one part is damaged - e.g. the manipulator itself - then the problem becomes even worse)...but a 'social' robot could (i.e. where a group of robots can repair each other)

This was sparked by the picture above which shows monkeys fleecing each other for lice. Social groups could be much less subject to parasites as they have a way to get rid of them through mutual grooming.

Maybe study the appearance of a particular type of parasites as it relates to apes becoming social?

...just a thought.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
The function of 'bad-nature' parasites is to by pass 'defense'.

I have no idea why pathogens must exist to assist natural selection. To promote social behavior beneficial to a species?
DontBeBlind
1 / 5 (7) Nov 11, 2011
@DontBeBlind, we didn't evolve directly from monkeys, we shared a common ancestor with them around 5 million years ago http://en.wikiped...eat_Apes Please, keep to reading your bible and stay off the science sites, you too are a relic of evolution and don't belong here.

Any yet you have not one shred of proof from this 5 million years of " human evolution" Wake the hell up monkey boy! Show me 1 half human half ape or ANYTHING , In these in between stages. Theirs nothing. Now type away with your angry little evolved keyboard fingers and make me happy with your ignorant following of your religion Atheism.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
I have no idea why pathogens must exist to assist natural selection.

Pathogens aren't 'bad' (only from the point of view of the species they are pathogenic to). They don't have a specific _purpose_ respective to their hosts' selection (only an effect upon it - two fundamentaly different things)

The pathogen itself plays the same game as any other species: It is adapted to thrive in a certain environment (which just happens to be another organism) - and hence subject to the same evolutionary processes as anything else.

A good example of this is syphilis. 2 centuries ago syphilis was lethal - horribly disfiguring and killing its host. From the point of view of the pathogen this wasn't optimal: The particular group of syphilis bacteria died with the host.

So only those strains that didn't kill the host got to jump to other hosts. Because of this syphilis is, today, comparably innocuous.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Nov 11, 2011
following of your religion Atheism

How is an absence of a thing that thing?

Does not owning a home make you a home owner? No.
So how exactly does being an atheist make you religious?
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
To kill, even in self defense, you must not 'think' about it.
Any thought will prevent instinctive behavior.

In modern times even words/languages have the potential to kill.
All words and languages are premeditated. Premeditation is gradually replacing instinct.

This 'evolution' is too slow for me.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Looking forward to all 'host friendly' pathogens. Abstinence is obviously no solution for host or pathogen.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
This 'evolution' is too slow for me.

This has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is at the genetic level.
Memes are an entirley different critter.

To kill, even in self defense, you must not 'think' about it.

On the contrary. Premeditated murder seems to be very common. Ask any soldier.

I can see no relationship that would indicate having more language creates less murder (or killing if you want to make that distinctino). Quite the contrary.

Apes have been observed to patrol borders and send out raiding parties on nearby groups - to the point of killing individuals of other groups on sight. It seems that this behavior has been with us for a long time and hasn't been much affected by the use of language.

That we should find a way to curb that instinct is certainly true. But the ability to use language doesn't seem to be the key.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
The more you have to 'think' about, the less behavior becomes instinct orientated.

Of course 'evolution' is the wrong word. This is why I used
' '.

All military assures that instinct will never go extinct.
Without instinct no military can exist.

I am looking forward to the 'evolution' of language where the use of language effects human behavior more than today.

There is no time for thought in the instantaneous moment of a trigger pulled - the last thought and/or word before this is 'kill'. Pre- and postmeditation occurs all the time.

This is where cognitive science parts from your view of the 'ability' and 'capability' of language in use.
The cognitive sciences believes this to be the key.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
All military works very hard on any pre- or postmeditation. Militarily, all rationalizations must support instinct.
hush1
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
Excuse me for a second. I need to report abuse. Thanks for the tip.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
I can not report 'rating stalking' with the 'report abuse'. Only written content can be reported. Who do I notify?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
I am looking forward to the 'evolution' of language where the use of language effects human behavior more than today.

I'm certain you have read Orwell's "1984".

"Change of language" does not automatically mean "change for the better". We have already a very disquieting tendency in language to make things more palatable ('friendly fire', 'collateral damage', 'enemy combattant', 'theater of operations', 'misremember', ... )

There is no time for thought in the instantaneous moment of a trigger pulled

Why exactly not? It seems that a lot of premeditation goes into aiming and preparing a weapons system. I find no reason to believe that this awareness of what is one about to do suddenly ceases at the point when the final button is pushed. Can you provide a rationale for this idea?
Also our cognition is always slightly in the future (not in a temporal sense but our thoughts are always trying to anticipate the next tenth of a second - so we are never 'in the moment', anyways)
hush1
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
"Change of language" does not automatically mean "change for the better". We have already a very disquieting tendency in language to make things more palatable ('friendly fire', 'collateral damage', 'enemy combattant', 'theater of operations', 'misremember', ... ) -

Yes. All previously stated: the rationalizations.

Can you provide a rationale for this idea? - AP

Yes. The 'road signs to instinct.

What were you thinking the moment you pulled the trigger?
"Nothing", "I don't remember", "Don't recall"
What was your last thought before the trigger pull? Was this thought continuous during the trigger pull? What was the next thought after this 'continuous' thought?
You can pinpoint instinct. The acts of instinct are wordless.
Words fall short of describing instinct. You can't convey instinct in words adequately. That defeats the purpose of instinct. You can rationalize the before and after of instinct. Temporally pinpoint the inadequate for words event.
hush1
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
Temporally pinpointing the inadequacy for words for/of the event.
Pirouette
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
All military works very hard on any pre- or postmeditation. Militarily, all rationalizations must support instinct.


The military discourages premeditation in its soldiers in the face of the enemy. There is simply no time to think or argue the point. After visual or aural stimuli, the association and recognition of the enemy are strictly instinctive and, under NORMAL reaction, instinct begs firing of one's weapon, since the instinct of self-preservation is the primary language and no other is required.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
...since the instinct of self-preservation is the primary language and no other is required. - P


Self-preservation is evolutionary. The target of this instinct is to eat. The primary 'language' hunger.

You don't eat the victims of territorial disputes or rivalery.

There is simply no time to think or argue the point. - P[q/]
Rationalization to exploit an otherwise NORMAL instinct.

After visual or aural stimuli, the association and recognition of the enemy are strictly instinctive and, under NORMAL reaction, instinct begs firing of one's weapon, - P

Extremely poor wording. Instincts are associations - established neuronal pathways - requiring MINIMAL external simuli to invoke a reaction WITHOUT recognition.

I instinctively ducked and shielded my face with my arm and hand from a flying shoe.
All that was needed was the motion of anything hurling towards me - I'm not interested in recognizing anything except an unrecognizable object approaching me.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
There is simply no time to think or argue the point. - P[q/]
Rationalization to exploit an otherwise NORMAL instinct.

After visual or aural stimuli, the association and recognition of the enemy are strictly instinctive and, under NORMAL reaction, instinct begs firing of one's weapon, - P


Extremely poor wording. Instincts are associations - established neuronal pathways - requiring MINIMAL external simuli to invoke a reaction WITHOUT recognition.

I instinctively ducked and shielded my face with my arm and hand from a flying shoe.
All that was needed was the motion of anything hurling towards me - I'm not interested in recognizing anything except an unrecognizable object approaching me.
hush1
1 / 5 (2) Nov 11, 2011
Sorry double post. And quotes not properly done.
I digress no further on this. You have the last word.
antialias_physorg
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
What were you thinking the moment you pulled the trigger?
"Nothing", "I don't remember", "Don't recall"

I'd say that those are simply statements that
a) you pulled out of your posterior end
b) if true were said by people who didn't want to incriminate themselves (killing in cold blood carries a lot higher sentence than pleading temporary insanity)
Soldiers know full well what they are doing when they pull the trigger. they are trained to.
Actually they are trained to NOT follow their instinct, since many people have at least some form of empathy for another human being. By demonizing or objectifying the target (e.g. done via symbols on aircraft HUD) is one way to do this.
Pirouette
not rated yet Nov 11, 2011
Hush1 says:
"""Self-preservation is evolutionary. The target of this instinct is to eat. The primary 'language' hunger.

You don't eat the victims of territorial disputes or rivalery."""

There have been cases in Africa of cannibalism during such disputes or rivalry, but you could argue that religion may have played a part in that act.
The instinct of self-preservation is characterized by not only hunger, but also of "fight or flight", to run in order to live to fight another day, depending on the situation. If the situation is favorable to winning a battle, the instinct of aggression takes over, otherwise, if in doubt, run like hell.

@anti. . . .soldiers in battle have no time to feel empathy for the enemy firing at them. It is mostly through an instinctive reflex that they understand that it's kill or be killed; any prior "training" in the language of instruction is merely to teach them the use of the weapon, but the actual killing is done at each soldier's discretion, by instinct.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Nov 11, 2011
I have learned much about this topic from antialias and Hush1, who is my Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. :)
Once when I walked around the corner while in a big city, my hackles started to rise for some reason I could not understand. Upon turning the corner, I saw two huge men duking it out in front of a bar and one had what looked like a club in his hand. Since I had no weapon to defend myself with, after I sized up the situation, something told me to go back from whence I came, so I did. That was before cell phones. I always wondered about that feeling that came over me. Had I just turned the corner, I would have walked right into these two apes and either gotten injured, or killed. I think that it was my instincts that saved me.
Pirouette
1 / 5 (1) Nov 13, 2011
Well well, I am in shock that I haven't received any input on the hypothetical situation I submitted above. Perhaps I should have first revealed it to be a story out of thin air, but similar things do happen to people. Many people believe that their instincts are caused by the supernatural or some kind of "gift". I feel that the person rounding the corner has received some kind of "message" from the two men beating each other. It is probably another type of instinct that was prevalent long before humans developed language.
Ethelred
not rated yet Nov 13, 2011
It is far more likely that is from a subconscious processes.

And I don't see why you expected any input. You presented it as a past event. The description seemed to have left out a lot. Sounds for instance.

Many people believe that their instincts are caused by the supernatural or some kind of "gift".
Some people believe in astrology. Some think they saw a UFO and have fantasies about the contents a behavior patterns of the unseen aliens assumed to be inside. Such people are not considered good witnesses so there isn't much to comment on.

Sorry but there have been a lot silly comments about military training on this thread as well. I suspect none of you have been in the military. I have not either but I do a clue about modern training and it has changed since I was of draft age. Not one person even gave a clue they aware it changes over time.

Well it does. Its not instinct. Its training. Training to make behaviors that both use and override instincts.

Ethelred

More news stories

White tiger mystery solved

White tigers today are only seen in zoos, but they belong in nature, say researchers reporting new evidence about what makes those tigers white. Their spectacular white coats are produced by a single change ...

Controlling mood through the motions of mitochondria

(Medical Xpress)—Regulating the distribution of power in neurons is done by a system that makes the national electric grid look simple by comparison. Each neuron has several thousand mitochondria confined ...

A hidden population of exotic neutron stars

(Phys.org) —Magnetars – the dense remains of dead stars that erupt sporadically with bursts of high-energy radiation - are some of the most extreme objects known in the Universe. A major campaign using ...