Evidence from Sapolsky for quasi-sociopathy in baboons, part 1

Here are some notes on Robert Sapolsky’s ‘A Primate’s Memoir’ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Primate%27s_Memoir), which was published two decades ago.
 
This book cannot be cited as a formal reference because it is a semi-fictional work (as clearly stated by the author in the Acknowledgements, and in contrast with e.g. Hans Kummer’s book, which is far more literal and precise, https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691628929/in-quest-of-the-sacred-baboon and https://www.amazon.com.au/Quest-Sacred-Baboon-Scientists-Journey/dp/0691603367).
 
Sapolsky’s book is engaging. However, as a report on biology, much of it has to be taken in context.
 
Sapolsky does not actually discuss the biology of baboons in much depth, the book being largely about human behaviour (the title of the book is a clever play on this ambiguity). However, what he does tell us about baboons is worth heeding because he did, after all, get to know certain individuals intimately over virtually their whole lives.
 
I present various points in no particular order, below.
 
Sapolsky’s treatment of the predation regime affecting Papio anubis (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_baboon) in the Serengeti Ecosystem seems incoherent. I remain puzzled as to how a monkey survives in such open environments, with so many large predators. Sapolsky sheds no light on this either explicitly or implicitly. This is a problem, because one cannot understand baboons without this framework. (For example, see the second-last paragraph on page 15).
 
On page 16, Sapolsky nicely debunks the outdated assumption that the males of the group are gallant heroes, defending all their charges from predators. His observations over decades taught him that a given male will generally only defend those juveniles he thinks are his own (with puzzling exceptions. e.g. see bottom of page 19, re Joshua). So, the overall dynamic w.r.t. predators remain mysterious.

Sapolsky goes into the myth of the heroic male defending the group in detail on pages 238-9 – while at the same time describing a vivid exception to this rule.
 
On page 17, Sapolsky nicely describes the puzzle of classism among females of P. anubis.
 
What shines out virtually every time Sapolsky describes anything to do with his baboons is their (to me, astonishing) individual variation. Not only do their various personalities stick out like sore thumbs, but it almost seems that they are more, not less, individually idiosyncratic than humans.

I do not think Sapolsky exaggerates this aspect. Monkeys really are as individual as we are, and this complicates generalisations to the degree that almost anything one writes about their quasi-sociopathy can be challenged by exceptions. The individuals are all recognisable by their behaviour as well as their appearance. Furthermore, as Sapolsky saw time and again, one can even recognise a particular individual’s offspring by inherited features such as ‘flat foreheads’ (page 98). See details on individual variation on e.g. pages 102-3 and 173-4 and 233-4 and 238-9.
 
What is even more interesting is that, in Sapolsky’s experience, some individuals are so inferior that one wonders how such traits persist despite the razor of natural selection. For example (see page 99), the male Nebuchanezzar was "mean, stupid, and untalented...only one eye...bad posture...never made a friend...just bullied everyone...never went anywhere in the hierarchy...as a prime-aged male, there were still a lot of occasions where he could throw his weight around, and he invariably did...excelled at kidnapping...Nebuchanezzar was an inveterate kidnapper...Nebuchanezzar would instantly set upon and chase and pummel some screaming female until he’d wrested her infant away...one day Nebuchanezzar broke the infant’s arm while flailing for her...she has limped ever since...why did Isaac take the strategy that we recognize as being such a ‘nice’ one, while Nebuchanezzar behaved in a manner that was vicious and rotten? ...all I can conclude is that Nebuchanezzar was a shit on some fundamental level. And during 1980, the troop would have agreed heartily."
 
On pages 99-100, Sapolsky discusses kidnapping = hostage-taking, and the evolutionary paradox is poses. In his experience, sometimes the probable-father ‘kidnaps’ what is likely his own infant, to prevent it being kidnapped by other males in the middle of a quarrel. Complex, but my point is that this does not sound overall like paternal behaviour to me.
 
At the bottom of page 24, Sapolsky clearly describes an unambivalent case of rape (exceptional but true in this species, and all the more interesting because the female concerned was a few weeks pregnant at the time (see page 96).
 
See page 41 ff: it is interesting that, when Sapolsky started to anaesthetise males by darting them surreptitiously, the males quickly learned the game and became ever more devious and vigilant in their game with Sapolsky to avoid or delay being drugged and rendered unconscious. The implication, which I am sure Sapolsky would agree with, is how intelligent baboons are; they really were more or less his intellectual and strategic match in this game.

However, what Sapolsky does not discuss is the first question that came to my mind: how come these males, which Sapolsky acknowledges were in many cases close to hooligans and thugs, did not take to attacking him to solve the problem?

This reveals something fundamental in the psychology of baboons, but Sapolsky does not address the question.
 
In the middle of page 43: far from sharing the flesh obtained by hunting, males of P. anubis "are unbelievably aggressive fighting over a kill" (and in this case, as is true typically, the impala was not even killed and continued to scream throughout the proceedings, risking attraction of the spotted hyena, which Sapolsky does not seem to have considered).
 
On page 50, Sapolsky mentions that the skin under the baboon’s fur is "surprisingly white", the implication being of the contrast between this and the ‘black’ skin of the face, ears, hands, feet, and ischial callosities. It strikes me that a possible function of this lack of melanin in the skin under the fur is that, in the short periods of exposure to the sun during grooming, the skin is able to synthesise vitamin D without getting sunburned. (The question, which nobody seems to have asked, is why all of the skin of baboons is not dark.)
 
On page 95, Sapolsky states that "baboons are endowed with long, vengeful memories". My point (apparently unnoticed by Saposky) is the anomaly between this kind of intelligence and how it is used (i.e. not for reciprocal altruism, something that relies on memory). Has ever clearly pointed out that baboons have long memories when it comes to grudges, but not so much when it comes to favours – something that would support the notion of ‘quasi-sociopathy?
 
On page 97, Sapolsky writes about "the rare baboons that manage to establish friendships".
 
Sapolsky is realistic about the nasty nature of baboons, in human terms. Readers will see this in little sentences, sprinkled through the book, e.g. on page 100: “Among baboons, when the going gets tough, the first thought is to find someone else to pay for it.”

Sapolsky explains this in terms of "displaced aggression". However, but my point is that this sort of habitual behaviour would be sociopathic, and certainly immoral, if it occurred in human societies. We humans do, of course, ‘take it out’ on each other. However, this seems far more normal and ‘accepted’ in baboons. There seems to be no justice associated with it, nor any comforting of victims as occurs in chimps. This is surely a prime reason why Sapolsky, after all his intimate years with P. anubis, has not grown fond of the species (although he loves it as the biologist and empathetic human that he is).
 
On page 104 Sapolsky, mentions an anomaly. Males will form temporary coalitions to unseat the current alpha-male, ganging up to six-strong to do so. However, they seem so woefully inept at actually cooperating with each other in this endeavour that they do not nearly make the most of this numbers-game. I read between the lines that baboons are so poor at teamwork that the coalition-approach works almost despite the ganging-up rather than because of it. He says "I can’t conceive that the six had it together enough to have a strategy. Baboons are simply not up to that". Do readers see how remarkable this is, in the middle of this great intelligence and this intense politicking?
 
And again on page 169, in similar vein: "Male baboons are not renowned for their self-discipline. Or their capacity for gratification postponement, or their communal spirit. Or their trustworthiness, for that matter. The wonderfully cooperative junta that had overthrown Saul lasted all of a morning before it disintegrated into factionalism and both metaphorical and literal backbiting...male baboons, of any rank, rarely lead troop progressions or, to state things more accurately, are rarely followed. They don’t know what they are doing..." That Sapolsky saw fit to make generalisations like this is noteworthy, given the individual variation among males. This individuality seemed to extend to all aspects of their personalities, although Sapolsky does not state this.
 
On page 107, Sapolsky describes how the African man Thomas had an uncanny ability to attract violence by the African savanna buffalo, and how he survived life-threatening attack after attack, as if it were nothing special. Most of the time, I do not mind Sapolsky's liberties with the facts for dramatic effect, because he is a good story-teller, managing to maintain credibility despite exaggeration and fictional license. However, he does not seem to be a naturalist beyond a fairly narrow spectrum, and in many places in the book dismisses ungulates as being unworthy of interest. The disregard for the truth that is implied in his account of Thomas’s interactions with the bovine is unfortunate; there is so much that he has missed here by lapsing into teenage-boy mode in recounting these tales, and this is one part of his book where I would far have preferred Hans Kummer’s scientific soberness and precise language. I would have preferred this whole section, amusing as it is, to have been omitted from the book, because it is biologically worthless. Nobody needs to hear more exaggerations and hyperbole about the relationship between the African savanna buffalo and the human species, when this biologically fascinating matter has already been so confused.
 
(By the way, Sapolsky also lapses into teenage-level nonsense on the topic of the drinking of blood by the Maasai. His yarn here lacks all credibility (e.g. he simultaneously claims that the Maasai are ‘protein-starved’ on page 118, which seems absurd).
 
I read between the lines that Sapolsky did not bring to awareness the puzzle of why no individual baboon ever teaches any other individual anything. He just seems to have lacked a search-image for this.
 
On page 236, Sapolsky inadvertently makes a significant observation w.r.t. the relationship between grooming and the control of parasites. As I have previously mentioned, grooming in monkeys is ambivalent. While it no doubt does control parasitic invertebrates, it seems excessive for this function, and is presumably done partly for other reasons (e.g. social lubrication for its own sake). Sapolsky mentions that one male newcomer, Absolom, was "covered with skin parasites" when Sapolsky anaesthetised him. This was after what sounds like months of no grooming during his male-debut in the group, when all others largely ignored him. So, here we have an experimental result that grooming is necessary for control of fleas, lice, ticks, etc.. However, I wish Sapolsky had discussed this explicitly, because over his decades he must surely have anaesthetised other male individuals in similar circumstances. Readers are not told about the results, and are left with only an empty anecdote.
 
Sapolsky (e.g. page 237) is clear on the fact that, although males have great influence in the groups, it is usually the case that nobody misses them when they die or leave. This is another implicit example of quasi-sociopathy which I wish Sapolsky had made explicit. Do readers see the anomaly: that such intelligent and socially complex primates (with long memories) have so much going on with males, but neither the females nor the other males even seem to notice, let alone grieve, when an influential male is subtracted.

to be continued in https://www.inaturalist.org/journal/milewski/68177-evidence-from-sapolsky-for-quasi-sociopathy-in-baboons-part-2#...

Publicado el julio 4, 2022 10:34 MAÑANA por milewski