tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post2373680721152912270..comments2024-03-14T23:52:09.893-07:00Comments on The Neurocritic: The Female Macaque BrainThe Neurocritichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-65786005655105452042008-11-23T19:23:00.000-08:002008-11-23T19:23:00.000-08:00Yes, and Twittering too.Yes, and Twittering too.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-73468693505206557122008-11-23T19:14:00.000-08:002008-11-23T19:14:00.000-08:00Were the juvenile monkeys texting each other a lot...Were the juvenile monkeys texting each other a lot?Sandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04943949264511919698noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-81496554892458469412008-11-21T06:11:00.000-08:002008-11-21T06:11:00.000-08:00Oh, I should add that in their Discussion, Greeno ...Oh, I should add that in their Discussion, Greeno and Semple went out of their way to distinguish their monkey results from results in humans, but the NewScientist article did not.<BR/><BR/><I>The sex differences in adult rhesus macaques' rate of vocalisation documented here contrast markedly with the lack of evidence for such differences in our own species. Mehl et al. (2007) recently debunked the idea that in Western cultures, women talk more than men; their data revealed no significant variation between the sexes with respect to the number of words spoken per day. This lack of difference may reflect the fact that modern humans are not female-bonded in the sense that this term is used to describe nonhuman primate social structure. Data on daily word use among traditional societies where female kin networks are strong, and matrilocality is the norm, are needed to assess whether the link between sociality and reliance on vocal communication seen in the present study is relevant also to humans.</I>The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-85265733997250826152008-11-21T06:05:00.000-08:002008-11-21T06:05:00.000-08:00I did get the point of the article, Anonymous, but...I did get the point of the article, Anonymous, but I thought it started out on the wrong foot in the title and first paragraph by (1) bringing up the old stereotype, which it made no effort to rebut; and (2) comparing social vocalizations (grunts, coos, girneys) to gossip.The Neurocritichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08010555869208208621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21605329.post-10058493045306880062008-11-21T05:04:00.000-08:002008-11-21T05:04:00.000-08:00Hmmmm.... i've just read the New Scientist article...Hmmmm.... i've just read the New Scientist article, and you seem to ignore some important sentences that suggest NS did actually get the point of the research. For instance, in the first paragraph:<BR/><BR/>"The gossipy nature of female macaques also adds weight to the theory that human language evolved to forge social bonds," which suggests the real news i is the implication of the work for the evolution of language - not sex differences in humans.... <BR/><BR/>and later on:<BR/><BR/>"Many researchers think that language replaced grooming as a less time-consuming way of preserving close bonds in ever-growing societies.<BR/><BR/>Nathalie Greeno and Stuart Semple from Roehampton University in London hypothesised that if this was true then in species of animals with large social networks, such as macaques, vocal exchanges should be just as important as grooming."<BR/><BR/>and....<BR/><BR/>"It is not known whether early human societies were female-centric, as macaques are, but the team believe that their findings support the theory that human language evolved to strengthen ties between individuals," which also gives the same message.<BR/><BR/>In fact, the article makes no suggestion that this explains sex differences in human communication, because there are none. Instead, it is pointing out that sociability leads to greater language use - which could explain why we developed language in the first place.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com