Monkeys Demand Fair Pay In A World They Never Made

a reply to: Innermost

It is observing injustice. That is the heart of this discussion.

Dogs show similar traits

Dogs are prone to bouts of envy and refuse to play if they are not treated fairly, scientists have found.

The animals stopped cooperating with researchers and began to show signs of distress if they were not offered the same tasty rewards given to other dogs, the study showed.

Affronted dogs refused to offer their paws when invited to and began scratching and yawning, indicating that their stress levels were rising, the scientists report.

The finding suggests that dogs may share the sense of fairness seen in other social animals that engage in cooperative behaviour, such as monkeys.

.....

They now plan to test wolves in the same way.

Last year, Frans de Waal at Emory University in Atlanta conducted similar experiments on capuchin monkeys. In this case, the monkeys were trained to give small stones in return for an edible treat. When de Waal tried to give out the treats unfairly, by offering some monkeys cucumbers instead of tastier grapes, the monkeys either refused the food, or took it and threw it on the floor.

www.theguardian.com...

I read this article about dogs while on the road back in 2012. I see that the capuchin experiments happened before this. I wasn't aware of the monkey experiments at all, and am thankful to Bybyots for bringing it here to us.

Absolutely fascinating topic.

originally posted by: NthOther
So the natural state of affairs is income equality for all? "Economic fairness" was built into evolutionary biology?

Lol. These people will try anything to justify state-socialism.

Actually, this sort of examination of the psychology of fairness is designed more to prevent societal annihilation than to justify state socialism. Anyone that honestly thinks that the present state of economic fairness in the US is sustainable is going to be really surprised when it is inevitably proven to not be. Some of these wake-up calls are just trying to preserve a healthy capitalistic system. What we've got now - this rigged corporate feudal system - won't last another 5 years without military force being used to hold it together. If that's the America that you want for your kids, then I feel bad for your kids.

Me, I'm too old to have a dog in this fight. You kids destroy it all if that's what you want to do. I can do the next 15-20 years or so standing on my head in a drainage ditch, so I won't be suffering regardless of the mess you make of things.

originally posted by: Pimpish
That's true, and usually the ones doing more work are getting paid less. The CEO's are getting million dollar bonuses while the workers, who are doing all the work that keep the company in business, are getting paid peanutes compared to the CEO.

Physical labor wise, sure... try running a large contract before you shoot your mouth about which is more difficult and more stressfull. I recognize that there are outliers and the crap like golden parachutes and federal bailouts has skewed things in the wrong direction... but if you go one step down, into the mid to lower tier big businesses and then into the larger small family businesses, those CEOs and managers live and breath the stress of their job. They don't turn it on at 9AM and then hang it in their work locker at 5:30 on the way out the door... that is a cost and that is a risk and that is why they are compensated more.

a reply to: burdman30ott6

I see your point perfectly and agree but I am looking from a european point of view, specifically british and having worked for years and paid a lot tax even as a low earner not to mention VAT and other hidden taxations while our government is reducing tax on the rich, yes they have raised the tax threshhold meaning some pay no tax but they have also reduced tax for the ultra elite, not only I paid tax but my ancestors all paid tax and some the ultimate price as have many of your countrymen for freedom.
Anyway is it not true that over the last 100 years the number of self employed in america has fallen while the taxation has been passed off the corporations onto the wages packets of your employees thus transferring wealth into the hands and control of an extreme minority along with the power it grant's and thus totally undermining and corrupting your democracy.
Is it right for your or our tax to be taken to fund social and national structure's which only benefit the upper 10 percent in many cases and even less in other cases such as tax breaks for corporations whom have transferred there employee base to china and the far east or bankers whom are nothing but a bunch of self serving greedy little fraudsters or worse keep there mouths shut in the face of such.

originally posted by: candlestick
Maybe the monkey just dislike(/don't want to eat) the cucumber,nothing related with the work.
Monkeys can't talk anyway.

they said if both get cucumbers they will eat the cucumbers all day. They will also eat the first cucumber until they realize the other one is getting grapes, that's when they start rejecting the cucumbers.

I'm sure a scientist would realize if a monkey just had an aversion to cucumbers. If a monkey never eats cucumbers he wouldn't be used in a test that uses them, or they'd use something both typically eats.

My initial comment for reading the thread and watching the video...

EXCELLENT!!! BEST THREAD I HAVE READ ON ATS FOR SOME TIME!!!

Thank you very much for sharing!!!

STAR AND FLAG!!!

originally posted by: Bybyots

Frans de Waal and his team have performed this same experiment with the same results on birds, dogs and chimpanzees.

Knowing that, I have to ask: are all organisms neurologically, or biologically wired to expect to live and operate in a world of economies?

The primary drawback to such a supposition is that the majority of these studies are to lesser or greater extents, anthropomorphic in that they are affixing human interpretation on to animal behaviour.

A handful of comparative psychologists have attempted to demonstrate economic reasoning in non-human animals. Early attempts along these lines focus on the behavior of rats and pigeons. These studies draw on the tenets of behavioral psychology, where the main goal is to discover analogs to human behavior in experimentally-tractable non-human animals. They are also methodologically similar to the work of Ferster and Skinner.[24] Methodological similarities aside, early researchers in non-human economics deviate from behaviorism in their terminology. Although such studies are set up primarily in an operant conditioning chamber, using food rewards for pecking/bar-pressing behavior, the researchers describe pecking and bar pressing not in terms of reinforcement and stimulus–response relationships, but instead in terms of work, demand, budget, and labor. Recent studies have adopted a slightly different approach, taking a more evolutionary perspective, comparing economic behavior of humans to a species of non-human primate, the capuchin monkey.[25]

en.wikipedia.org...

Scientists conducted a study to see if chimpanzees spontaneously bartered foods among each other, using tokens which represented those foods. While results indicated that the animals were cognitively able to understand trade, without enforcement from human experimenters, trade disappeared.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Watching the capuchins in the clip, I was reminded though of pre-toddler (human) behaviour which suggests to me that perhaps, Skinner was to some extent correct, in this respect at least, and that reinforcement is necessary to promote some human functions. Sharing certainly, is something that has to be taught. I had kind of assumed 'trade' to be a natural human predisposition, but suspect now, that it may be more of a hijack of some innate sense of fairness as others have suggested.

Very interesting either way, it's given me something new to think about, thanks.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: burdman30ott6

This is 100% true. Existence is not entitlement.

Existence should not be slavery either. However we are born into a system that has been engineered purposely to enslave the human race. I did not ask to be born into this three dimensional reality, and often look around and know that the entire worldwide system that everyone abides by is wrong. Why must there always be kings/queens/presidents/rulers? Can we not just simply get along? We have the ability in this day and age to feed/house/clothe every human being on the planet. But our make believe economic system prevents us from doing that. And yes, it is indeed a make believe system. It is all pretend. This realization is a step towards true enlightenment.

The whole construct of our society is make believe, pretend. Money is pretend, economies are pretend systems. Yet by allowing ourselves to be governed/ruled by them, we have enslaved ourselves. And it has been this way for so long now that the system is programmed into us from the day we take our first breath.

We have the ability to change the system, but change is scary to most humans. Especially to those at the top of the pyramid. Perhaps one day the human race will realize this and the world will change, until then it's just finding happiness in slavery until you die.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout

originally posted by: Bybyots

Frans de Waal and his team have performed this same experiment with the same results on birds, dogs and chimpanzees.

Knowing that, I have to ask: are all organisms neurologically, or biologically wired to expect to live and operate in a world of economies?

The primary drawback to such a supposition is that the majority of these studies are to lesser or greater extents, anthropomorphic in that they are affixing human interpretation on to animal behaviour.

A handful of comparative psychologists have attempted to demonstrate economic reasoning in non-human animals. Early attempts along these lines focus on the behavior of rats and pigeons. These studies draw on the tenets of behavioral psychology, where the main goal is to discover analogs to human behavior in experimentally-tractable non-human animals. They are also methodologically similar to the work of Ferster and Skinner.[24] Methodological similarities aside, early researchers in non-human economics deviate from behaviorism in their terminology. Although such studies are set up primarily in an operant conditioning chamber, using food rewards for pecking/bar-pressing behavior, the researchers describe pecking and bar pressing not in terms of reinforcement and stimulus–response relationships, but instead in terms of work, demand, budget, and labor. Recent studies have adopted a slightly different approach, taking a more evolutionary perspective, comparing economic behavior of humans to a species of non-human primate, the capuchin monkey.[25]

en.wikipedia.org...

Scientists conducted a study to see if chimpanzees spontaneously bartered foods among each other, using tokens which represented those foods. While results indicated that the animals were cognitively able to understand trade, without enforcement from human experimenters, trade disappeared.

www.sciencedaily.com...

Watching the capuchins in the clip, I was reminded though of pre-toddler (human) behaviour which suggests to me that perhaps, Skinner was to some extent correct, in this respect at least, and that reinforcement is necessary to promote some human functions. Sharing certainly, is something that has to be taught. I had kind of assumed 'trade' to be a natural human predisposition, but suspect now, that it may be more of a hijack of some innate sense of fairness as others have suggested.

Very interesting either way, it's given me something new to think about, thanks.

Similar experiments had been done with Chimpanzees, and their preferred trade items were fruit (oranges, apples) and pictures of opposite sex Chimpanzees. They had similar exchange currency rates (1 picture = 3 oranges, 2 oranges = 3 apples). Those experiments also monitored which parts of the brain were used, and the feeling of whether something is a good deal or a bad deal was done in the hypothalamus.

originally posted by: NthOther
So the natural state of affairs is income equality for all? "Economic fairness" was built into evolutionary biology?

Lol. These people will try anything to justify state-socialism.

Did you actually watch the video?

I took no note of the issue of socialism being brought into play or as the subject matter of the experiment...

At issue was equal work = equal pay...

That does not equal socialism...

a reply to: AutOmatIc

You should read Thoreau's Civil Disobedience.

What you seem to want is a utopian anarchism. I am in agreement with you....but man isn't ready for that yet.

"When free men require laws, they are no longer fit for freedom" is what Pythagoras said. I tend to agree with him on that.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Sharing certainly, is something that has to be taught. I had kind of assumed 'trade' to be a natural human predisposition, but suspect now, that it may be more of a hijack of some innate sense of fairness as others have suggested.

I have come to the same conclusion: that we are using these economic models over and over again like a gymnasium so that we can get fit enough to understand justice.

I have had that justice thing weedling away at my mind since I last read The Republic. Some way to justice seems to have been the primary concern of western philosophy from the beginning.

So, beyond the face value attributed to the grapes and cucumbers, there is the dynamic, "As long as that one gets grapes, this one gets grapes".

a reply to: Bybyots

So, beyond the face value attributed to the grapes and cucumbers, there is the dynamic, "As long as that one gets grapes, this one gets grapes".

Which is correct, insofar as both are dealing rocks...when only one is dealing rocks, then only one should get the grape...anything else is merely an act of benevolence, the concept of which should not, nor cannot be forced upon a free mind...

originally posted by: stormcell
Those experiments also monitored which parts of the brain were used, and the feeling of whether something is a good deal or a bad deal was done in the hypothalamus.

That would make sense on a number of levels. It also explains why Bonobos closely associate food with sex. The ability of what is on offer to satiate 'need' or 'desire' would factor into the decision making of what is a 'fair' trade, those impulse originate, both in terms of food and sexual appetite, in the hypothalamus.

originally posted by: Bybyots
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Sharing certainly, is something that has to be taught. I had kind of assumed 'trade' to be a natural human predisposition, but suspect now, that it may be more of a hijack of some innate sense of fairness as others have suggested.

I have come to the same conclusion: that we are using these economic models over and over again like a gymnasium so that we can get fit enough to understand justice.

I have had that justice thing weedling away at my mind since I last read The Republic. Some way to justice seems to have been the primary concern of western philosophy from the beginning.

So, beyond the face value attributed to the grapes and cucumbers, there is the dynamic, "As long as that one gets grapes, this one gets grapes".

Yep, but...in the natural environment, without the division, what would happen is that they would fight over the grape, assuming equal status. Justice, is a human concept which is maintained through control. The monkeys while responding to unfairness, all thing being equal are under human control. Their true nature would manifest itself much more aggressively to effect the desired result, either attacking the source of the inequity (the person handing out the grapes), or taking the grape from the other monkey. The only way to overcome this problem, is to give everyone grapes. Or put us all in little cages.

I was reading Pavlov's 'Conditioned Reflexes' at the weekend. He puts forth the idea of there being a freedom reflex. He said...

"This reflex was overcome by setting off another against it - the reflex for food."

Uh huh!

a reply to: burdman30ott6

In the company I worked for, in which I'm referring to, I did tech support, not physical labor. I guarantee you talking to idiots on the phone all day was much more stressful than whatever our CEO was supposedly doing, which was just sitting back and collecting a check after the contract with Comcast was done.

We deal with idiots on the phone all day, and then on top of that you have quality assurance going over your call listening and grading every single thing you say. Then you get dinged for missing a word of a greeting they want you to say, etc. I can promise you that's more stressful than negotiating contracts over expensive lunches.

This same company, when I first started working for them were not profitable, they were losing money. The higher ups kept telling the employees to stick with them, once the company became profitable they would make things right. The first quarter the company made a profit they paid out 2/3 of the profits out as bonuses, and I did get a little piece of that and thought it was great, even though I assumed the executives got 80% of the bonuses paid out, at least the peons weren't getting shafted.

Come the next quarter, even bigger profit. They made a huge profit, in the millions. CEO gets a 2 million dollar bonus. Tech's are still told no raises, sorry, and oh yeah, we're cutting your pay and benefits. I left after that and shortly after that 90% of the technicians were laid off as they hired cheaper workers for basically the same job with a slightly different title.

This is just one company and this scene is played over and over again.

Such as the other thread going around on ATS with this as the source - www.cnsnews.com...

OK, so maybe CEO pay hasn't gone up as much since the worker pay is going down. Oh wait - thinkprogress.org...

Here's a snippet -

From 1978 to 2011, CEO compensation increased more than 725 percent, a rise substantially greater than stock market growth and the painfully slow 5.7 percent growth in worker compensation over the same period.

No way in the world their work is that much more difficult and stressful. I wish everyone could do what I did and just walk away from those companies that treat their employees like crap, eventually they'd have to pay people what they're worth instead of what they can get away with like they do now.

I guess I'm just "shooting my mouth" though.

a reply to: Pimpish

Yeah...essentially you are...by your own admission, you have no clue what it is like to have the desire, the urge, the patience, the willingness, and the ability, to provide an environment where other people can earn a living...

You do have the proven ability to sit back and take pot shots at those who do, though...

Wonder what the demand is for that particular skill is in today's job market?

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Thanks for the posts,

With all the divergent ways I could go from there I'll go with this for right now...

Justice, is a human concept which is maintained through control.

I know, this all starts to get really convoluted. I remember a friend that is older and better read than I cracking up really badly when I came to him after The Republic and said something like, "Oh, my God! Do you realize Plato meant for that whole deal to be enforced by rule of law!?".

You're right, I don't give other people jobs. I am self-employed now though. Hopefully eventually I'll be able to hire some other people. I can promise you I won't be taking a 2 million dollar bonus while cutting everyone else's pay.

As far as the rest of the assumptions you're making, you have no idea what I know about desire, urge, patience, willingness and ability to do anything.

How in the world can you possibly defend the FACTS that I posted? The answer is you can't, so instead you take pot shots at me rather than my information. Good job.

originally posted by: Pimpish
a reply to: burdman30ott6

In the company I worked for, in which I'm referring to, I did tech support, not physical labor. I guarantee you talking to idiots on the phone all day was much more stressful than whatever our CEO was supposedly doing, which was just sitting back and collecting a check after the contract with Comcast was done.

We deal with idiots on the phone all day, and then on top of that you have quality assurance going over your call listening and grading every single thing you say. Then you get dinged for missing a word of a greeting they want you to say, etc. I can promise you that's more stressful than negotiating contracts over expensive lunches.

I was a site director for a call center supporting the largest cable provider in the country. I can tell you that your CEO of any company isn't worth what they are paying. You likely had divisional VP's that handled the various aspect of the call center world (Traning and quality, operations, technology...that is usually the big three in a customer contact center division).

That said: the scripts that you are given have a likely purpose of legal indemnification. For example, asking permission to access accounts, etc.

I worked my way up into executive level jobs by starting as a phone agent for AOL back in 2001. I have done that job before, and totally get what you are saying about the stress of it. That is why call centers average 150% annual turnover.

This same company, when I first started working for them were not profitable, they were losing money. The higher ups kept telling the employees to stick with them, once the company became profitable they would make things right. The first quarter the company made a profit they paid out 2/3 of the profits out as bonuses, and I did get a little piece of that and thought it was great, even though I assumed the executives got 80% of the bonuses paid out, at least the peons weren't getting shafted.

It is unlikely I would ever issue bonuses to front line employees. Why? Because the turnover rate....it makes it a bad investment. The front line employee won't be there in another year, without a promotion. Its a risk analysis, and unfortunately front line employees recieving bonuses is a high risk situation in call centers. Instead of "bonus" you should just call it "charity" or "gift".

I get where you are coming from. top level executives rarely earn even a portion of their income. But if you don't understand the work they are doing, it is very hard to criticize their compensation.