Fall 2023 San Diego Community College Student Anthropology Journal

Unless otherwise noted, this work is licensed as Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

“How Scared Are We? A Review of the game Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey” by Kendall McLemore

“Enclosure Impact on Orangutan Tool Use” by Grey Armstrong and JuanDiego Guerrero

“Gaze and Social Vision of a Primate” by Leon Nelson

“Primate Deception” by Raquel Woolley

“Human Evolution Through Problem-Solving” by Jadyn Green

“The evolution of the human brain to what it is today” by Alison Woolridge

“The Male Proclivity for Violence” by Kara Klimek

“How Scared Are We? A Review of the game Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey” by Kendall McLemore

Every human, animal, insect, and creature is afraid of something. Fear is natural and has many categories: fear of bugs, large animals, loss, death, rejection, heights, storms, holes, and more. I do not think hominins had as many phobias as we do today. They were more afraid of predators and natural disasters. In the game Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey, the enemies are accurate considering what early hominins might have been afraid of.

While playing Ancestors, I'm afraid of the non-living threats, like fires and storms, but mostly I fear the living creatures. Late at night, I am not so much afraid of the dark, but of what's in it, the enemies I would run into. Did I save recently? Do I have enough stuff? Is my health bar full? I believe that, having instincts similar to my early hominin ancestors, I am rightfully afraid of giant eagles, snakes, and crocodiles. There are more enemies in the game, but these three are the ones I am least afraid of in reality, but fear in the game.

This game dives deep into our origins and how humans became humans. You play as a primate throughout the game, walking on all fours. As you progress, you can have the primate perform different tasks to help evolve. For example, I stood up to better use my sense of smell. I moved a few points to bipedalism, but could not walk upright, yet I would eventually evolve into it. After playing the game for a while, I wondered if it could be used to teach anthropology. I intentionally sought out several enemies in the game to compare the combat and reactions to scientific articles about similar topics.

First, we look at baboons. "Baboon–hominin comparisons are most often directed toward hominin taxa that occupy an intermediate position in the evolution of possible human ancestors (from about 5 to 2 ma), mainly the general Ardipithecus and Australopithecus," King (2022) says in his article “Baboon perspectives on the ecology and behavior of early human ancestors”. Baboons are different from us, but might react the same way. In King's article, he uses baboons to study what hominins did when they ran into a predator. The most obvious thing they did was run. Our first instinct in danger is to get away from the danger. "The functional connection between predation and escape is an important example. The presence of dangerous predators leads extant primates (e.g., baboons) to climb trees to escape them” (King 2022).

Like early hominins, baboons had to live in their environment and survive the predators that also lived there. They migrated, settled in different biomes, and adapted to situations. Hominins would migrate to a spot that was "safe" for them. However, predators were not far behind. Lakes were where early hominins found abundant food, but most likely had few defenses against crocodiles that also lived there. Glenn King (2022) discovered hominin remains and determined that some causes of death were from crocodiles, based on the bite marks on the bones. Of course, some tried to disprove it. "Applying an alternative method, McPherron et al. concluded that the original results are indistinguishable from a null model based on random" (King 2022), meaning that with all the bones collected, they could not directly determine what the bite marks were. However, with new technology and learning where baboons are found, it is highly probable that crocodiles attacked them. With baboons living by the water, they stuck to the trees to get around after learning and using instinct about the dangers in the water. Also, some have seen crocodiles jump out of shallow water to attack a baboon on several occasions.

Instead of crocodiles attacking baboons, some remains show bites after the hominin had drowned.

Bones from animals that do not habitually reside in rivers and lakes may also represent natural drownings or they may be the remains of carnivore prey. Within the tropics, the most obvious aquatic predators of larger-bodied prey are crocodilians. These come in a variety of sizes and prey on animals ranging from small fish to large-bodied terrestrial mammals. Some species are territorial and will accumulate bones at particular places along lakes and rivers, with at least one researcher proposing that caching of entire carcasses to eat at a later time has been observed [Westaway 2011]

It is not necessarily predation, and they could have drowned randomly in the water. Hominins had tools to transport water if needed, but if they were not careful enough, they could get swept away and eventually drown. We can still drown today if we go too far into the ocean and cannot swim.

Bite marks may not be from predation. A zoo in Australia took two pigs and put them in with crocodiles (Westaway 2011). The first pig was placed in the area of the crocodile for an hour and a half, and the other was placed there for forty-five minutes. The killing and eating of both pigs were similar in process, and we assume it was the same for early hominins: capture by biting, killing by biting, reduction, defleshing, and swallowing. The process after the target is killed is important. They also noticed that it seems like while chewing (postmortem for the prey), the bones are crushed by pressure, resulting in multiple fractures in the bones. This experiment at the zoo helped prove that crocodile bites did not kill hominins. The bites in the flesh, and sometimes through bones, were from the initial bite to capture. The crushed bones were from the chewing and reducing the target to smaller bites, making it easier to swallow (Westaway 2011). Some people may go their entire lives without seeing a crocodile in person if they live in a city or an area without crocodiles. However, they are still just as much of a threat now as they were back then.

The next animal I am afraid of in the game are snakes. As a kid, I always wondered how snakes move without legs. That was the creepiest thing about them; something meant to run coming towards me with no legs. In the article, Hunter–gatherers and other primates as prey, predators, and competitors of snakes, Thomas H. Headland and Harry W. Greene (2011) explore ethnographic observations of snake bites and attacks from 120 Philippine Agta Negritos back when they were still preliterate hunter–gatherers. I love how they start off their article:

Our reactions to snakes range from disgust, horror, and ophidiophobia to curiosity, consumption, and deification. Those responses have been widely discussed by anthropologists, herpetologists, primatologists, psychologists, and philosophers (1–7), often from ecological and evolutionary perspectives; we know little, however, about the dangers that snakes actually posed to extinct hominins or contemporary humans with prehistoric lifestyles. [Headland and Green 2011]

How they describe snakes to us is very accurate. One fact they pointed out is that snakes do not hunt like other animals. Yes, they look for food and will find something in their area, but they will not hunt a hominin. Most snake bites we see are from when hominins are in their territory. One of the snake bites they talk about is when one of the Negritos was foraging and ran into a snake. The snake was not looking or attacking, but he crossed into its territory. If hominins lived in the area close to a snake at the time, then the snake would go around there to hunt for food. Again, snakes did not go out hunting specifically for hominins; they just looked for whatever food they could find. However, the article does talk about giant snakes that did eat hominins and early primates. They had to defend themselves from the snakes and even had snake-hunting parties. The Agta Negritos also hunted giant snakes and pythons. Not only eating them but also using their skin to craft supplies and clothing. After reading that part of the article, I went on my own snake-hunting party in the game. Classic rock was the right music to play as I hunted snakes in the game, trying not to die.

My biggest fear of all in the game were the eagles. When I first encountered an eagle in the game, I was afraid one of them would pick me up. They are much larger than the hominins in the game, but in the game, they do not pick you up. They are difficult initially, but get easier the more you upgrade your weapons. In the 2007 article, “Further evidence for eagle predation of, and feeding damage on, the Taung child”, L.R. Berger and W.S. McGraw talked about the damage to the skull. Just picking someone up by the head and dropping them can cause damage and scratches, but the punctures and "intra-orbital breakages" were the determining factors.

We cannot rule out the possibility that the scratches found on the Taung skull were the product of an agent other than a bird of prey, but we can say with certainty that the damage suffered by the cranium—including intra-orbital breakages, circum-orbital scratches, braincase punctures and the scratched indentations described herein—is consistent with damage known to result from killing and processing activities of extant raptors on primate prey. [Berger and McGraw 2007]

Because of this, we can link early primates to being attacked by eagles, and why we might be afraid of large birds flying overhead. "We therefore propose that consideration should be given to the possibility that large birds of prey have had a potentially significant effect on the evolution of predator avoidance behavior of early hominins." If any large bird starts flying towards me, I will run. Maybe I have the instinct to run. I doubt the bird will be able to pick me up, but there's still that thought in my mind that it will.

I still play Ancestors and pay attention in games where the enemies are animals or large creatures. Out of these three, I am more afraid of eagles. I would rather join a snake-hunting party than an eagle-hunting one. In conclusion, the game enemies were somewhat accurate to reality, but not completely. It's just a game, and it has to add fun and danger somehow.

Bibliography

Berger, L. R., and W. S. McGraw. "Further evidence for eagle predation of, and feeding damage on, the Taung child." South African Journal of Science 103, no. 11-12 (2007): 496-498.

Headland, Thomas N., and Harry W. Greene. "Hunter–gatherers and other primates as prey, predators, and competitors of snakes." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108, no. 52 (2011): E1470-E1474.

King, Glenn E. "Baboon perspectives on the ecology and behavior of early human ancestors." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119, no. 45 (2022): e2116182119.

Private Division, and Take-Two Interactive. Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey. Panache Digital Games. Playstation 4, Xbox One, Microsoft Windows. 2019

Synder, William D., "Have Video Games Evolved Enough to Teach Human Origins?" Advances in Archaeological Practice (2022) 122-127

Westaway, Michael C., Jessica C. Thompson, Walter B. Wood, and Jackson Njau. "Crocodile ecology and the taphonomy of early Australasian sites." Environmental Archaeology 16, no. 2 (2011): 124-136.

Bio

Kendall McLemore, born and raised in St. Louis, MO, is a published author and Navy Veteran. He is working toward achieving a doctorate in English, starting at San Diego City College. His professional goal is to teach English at college or university and continue to write books. Kendall is currently working on his third book, the second in his book series.

“Enclosure Impact on Orangutan Tool Use” by Grey Armstrong and JuanDiego Guerrero

Anthropology is the study of humans. Unfortunately, when trying to understand how humans developed as a species, we are limited by the fact that we only have a few fossil records of the ancient past. To try and understand what we were like hundreds of thousands, or millions of years ago, the best thing we can do is look to our relatives. Studying Primates is how anthropologists learn what humanity might have been like in those early days. This is called primatology: the focused study of nonhuman primates’ behavior, structure, physiology, classification, and distribution. Another interest that primatologists study is the use of tools by primates. We want to know when we started using tools? How did it even begin? Studying how tool use works in other primates – how they learn, how they teach, how they develop – is likely how we too learned and developed. Research from anthropologists has shown that primates primarily learn how to use tools from watching other primates in their group. It also shows that when primates do develop tools on their own, they are more likely to do so when the environment encourages it through plentiful opportunities. This research led us to a new question: how are primates in captivity affected by their environment? In an artificial enclosure, which is designed to provide enrichment, and where food is often delivered in ways that require some effort or challenge from the animals to obtain, do primates develop tools to fit this environment? Also, if primates learn from watching others, do they take inspiration from their keepers? We sought to answer this question and developed a method to find out. We observed primates in captivity to see if and how they used tools. We hypothesize that with the ample opportunity for primates to use tools in captivity and to see tools being used, they are likely to use tools suited to their environment.

The research of other anthropologists and primatologists in the field has revealed a lot about how primates learn to use tools. Tools are objects used to achieve one’s goals. They do not have to be repurposed or modified to be considered a tool. One can just pick up a stick from the ground and use it to scratch their back. That is sufficient enough to be classified as a tool. One can also choose to modify their tools to better achieve a task. For example, taking that same stick and whittling it to be softer. So that it is now more comfortable to use when back-scratching. Many primates have been observed by researchers as using tools to gather food, such as chimpanzees in Cantanhez, Guinea-Bissau using sticks to draw honey out of bee hives (Bessa, Hockings, and Biro 2021).

In addition, Bessa and co-researchers found evidence to suggest that chimpanzee tool use was an example of chimpanzees having their own distinct cultures. They found that the chimpanzees displayed behavioral variation: notable differences in behaviors, actions, and beliefs between two (or more) unique communities:

Variations in honey dipping thus appear to exist between subspecies and within the same subspecies, hence both genetic and environmental explanations might be at play. Hence, it is of particular interest to study this behavior between neighboring communities inhabiting similar habitats, where variation due to the latter two influences is expected to be minimal. [Bessa, Hockings, Biro 2021]

Alongside the cultural aspects of tool use, there is evidence to suggest that the environment plays a role in primate tool use. Studies suggest that the way primates first develop tools is influenced by environmental opportunity; “the opportunity hypothesis was supported at Seringbara, Guinea, where they use tools to harvest widely available army ants, but not to fish termites from rare and peripheral Macrotermes mounds” (Koops, Visalberghi, and van Schaik 2014). This, alongside other evidence gathered by these researchers, suggests that primates are more likely to develop tools to harvest plentiful food sources (Koops, Visalberghi, and van Schaik 2014). In other words, because these food sources are common, primates are more likely to develop ways to harvest them, because there are more chances for them to do so. This brings us back to the question of how primates living in captivity are possibly influenced by their environment. Food in captivity is plentiful, but often provided in enriching ways that require effort. Are primates likely to develop tools to help them extract this food?

One of the recording methods that we used for our Primate observation was to make use of an ethogram. An ethogram is a list, catalog, or encyclopedia of an animal’s behaviors. This cataloging creates an inventory of their actions, movements, and patterns that the animals exhibit. Our sampling methods primarily focused on the Primates’ behavior and actions when it came to tool use. However, we recorded and tracked just about every action we saw to capture the full scope of our subjects’ behavior.

This is the ethogram that we used for our 1 hour primate observation: GR equals grooming, SC equals scratching, PL equals playing, AF equals affiliative vocalization, AG equals aggressive vocalization, TH equals threat display, FC equals food collecting, FS equals food sharing, EA equals Eating, TU equals tool use, CO equals courtship, SE equals sex, SL equals sleeping, CA equals caring for juvenile, TR equals traveling or locomotion, SI equals sitting, and we reserved space for an “other” category in the case where an unlisted action was observed. We could then assign it with a 2-letter code.

Example Ethogram:
Time	GR	SC	PL	AF	AG	TH	VI	FC	FS	EA	TU	CO	SE	SL	CA	TR	SI
5 min.
10 min.
15 min.
20 min.
25 min.
30 min.
35 min.
40 min.
45 min.
50 min.
55 min.
60 min.

In order to keep this research ethical, we refrained from interacting with the orangutans beyond what is normal for a zoo guest. We did not draw their attention in any way, and we kept away from the glass in order for us to be as non-intrusive as possible.

At the zoo we observed an enclosure containing 4 orangutans, and 3 siamangs, specifically with our focus on the orangutans. We documented the actions that we saw being done on an ethogram.

Data collected:
Time	GR	SC	PL	AF	AG	TH	FC	FS	EA	TU	CA	TR	SI
5 min.									X	X		X	X
10 min.							X		X	X	X	X	X
15 min.					X	X		X	X	X	X	X	X
20 min.							X		X	X		X	X
25 min.			X						X	X		X	X
30 min.		X							X	X		X	X
35 min.			X	X					X	X		X	X
40 min.			X						X	X		X	X
45 min.			X						X	X		X	X
50 min.			X						X	X		X	X
55 min.	X					X			X	X		X	X
60 min.	X	X							X			X	X

Over the 60 minutes we observed the orangutans, they mostly alternated between moving around and sitting, and two of them were eating the whole time we were there. To elaborate on some of the other observed actions, the two youngest orangutans played with each other for about 25 total minutes, though they weren’t all consecutive. The orangutans also occasionally made threat displays and aggressive vocalizations at the siamangs, though this was only on two occasions. The action most relevant to our research, however, was their tool use. We documented two types of tool use that we saw, the first was using a stick to collect food from artificial termite mounds. Part of the zoo enclosure included holes set into rocks, made out of PVC pipes, and two different orangutans were observed inserting long sticks into these holes and withdrawing them before eating food off of the sticks. We marked this behavior as food collection (FC). We also documented the baby orangutan observing one of the adult orangutans using these branches to collect food. The adult orangutan would sometimes also feed the baby by inserting the stick into the termite mound and then letting the baby eat the termites off of the stick. This is an example of cultural transmission via tool use. Cultural transmission is the act of passing knowledge and traditions of a culture from one generation to the next. The rest of the tool use (TU) boxes were marked because of the second tool use we observed: using a blanket for warmth. One of the orangutans carried with it a manmade blanket, made of a burlap sack. This orangutan was seen with this blanket almost the entire time. When it was not traveling, it was almost always swaddled in it. Possibly to protect itself from the cold weather, as it was 63 degrees and rain was drizzling now and then on the day we observed them. When this orangutan was not wearing the blanket it was usually dragging it around while holding it in one of its feet, though on one occasion it carried it in its hand while climbing.

We believe that the data we collected overwhelmingly supports our hypothesis. Both instances of tool use we documented were clearly supported by the environment created by the zookeepers. The first, artificial, termite mound-like holes were clearly created by the zookeepers to allow orangutans to collect food through tool use. These holes, which are almost certainly regularly restocked with food by the zookeepers, would be a plentiful source of food, and be an environmental factor that leads to primates using these tools, and passing on this knowledge to other orangutans. A prime example being the baby orangutan that was observing the older orangutan collect food. The second is clearly only possible because of the zookeeper's involvement. The blanket worn by one of the orangutans was man-made, and only a part of the orangutan's environment because the zookeepers allowed it to be there. It’s possible that the orangutan even learned to use the blanket from the zookeepers, who might have wrapped this blanket or a similar one around the orangutan when it was younger. Both these instances of tool use were clearly influenced by the environment that the orangutans find themselves in.

Our primate observation confirmed what previous research has shown: that primate tool use is influenced by their environment, and that primates are more likely to develop tools when those tools would have uses that are beneficial to them. Our hypothesis was that with the many opportunities provided for primates to use tools in captivity, and to see tools being used, they are likely to use tools suited to their environment. Our research and observations of the primates at the zoo have shown varied evidence to support this hypothesis. Opportunities to use tools to gather food are provided and utilized, and even comforts from the elements not present in their native habitats are taken advantage of. More research into this topic could be done. More data across longer stretches of time or with other primate species could reveal new dynamics and nuances. However, with the evidence we have gathered we believe we can safely conclude that primates in captivity, specifically their propensity for tool use is influenced by the artificial, curated environment made for them.

Works Cited

Bessa, Joana, Kimberley Hockings, and Dora Biro. 2021. “First Evidence of Chimpanzee Extractive Tool Use in Cantanhez, Guinea-Bissau: Cross-Community Variation in Honey Dipping.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 9. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fevo.2021.625303/full. Accessed Dec 1, 2023.

Koops, Visalberghi, and van Schaik C. P. 2014. “The ecology of primate material culture.” Biology letters Vol.10. Issue 11. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2014.0508. Accessed Dec 1, 2023.

Whiten, Goodall, McGrew, Nishida, Reynolds, et al. 1999. “Cultures in chimpanzees.” Nature 399: 682–685. https://www.nature.com/articles/21415. Accessed Dec 1, 2023.

Authors' Bios

Grey Armstrong is a student of San Diego City College and has been studying there since 2021. They are currently working towards an associate's degree in liberal arts. They are a dedicated student and committed to achieving their goals and succeeding academically. They are pursuing a career where they can find engaging work and live a life pursuing their hobbies. They enjoy branching out their studies into other fields that they find interesting and exploring their interests.

JuanDiego Guerrero is a community college student from Southwestern College. He is finishing up getting his Associate's Degree for Transfer in English this semester. Afterwards, he plans to transfer to a university in the Fall of 2024 to continue his academic goals and to get a bachelor's degree in creative writing. With future plans of teaching college-level English. His main focus and interests are American literature and creative writing.

“Gaze and Social Vision of a Primate” by Leon Nelson

Introduction

All species of primates have very different patterns of social vision; what captures their attention varies between species. Some are more active than others, and some are more aggressive than others. Age also plays a big factor in where their attention is focused. The older primates are more aware of what is going on around them and studying their environment, while the young ones tend to focus more on playing. Some species are just more territorial and not as open to strangers in their domain. Gaze following is consistent with dominance hierarchies. I analysed social vision and gaze using data on primate focal points gathered through observation at the San Diego Zoo of a family of Bonobos, a group of Orangutans a male and older female a younger female, and a baby orangutan, a Lesser Spot-Nosed Monkey, two Mandrills an older male and a younger male that was much smaller, male Silverback Gorilla, Silvered Leaf Langur, and Black Siamangs. All of these possess very different social gaze-following behavior. For example, the Mandrill was by far the most aggressive species I encountered, as opposed to the others, which are much calmer and more playful. Certain primate species may not have the same visual abilities as other species when it comes to understanding and comprehending what they are looking at.

Background

Primates have vastly different social and cognitive gaze-following behaviors. I investigated primatology, ethology, and the theory of mind, by following the eye gaze of different primate species. Primatology is defined as an anthropological field of science that studies non-human primates, their behavior, their biology, and their evolution over time. Ethology is defined as the scientific and objective study of animal behavior, especially under natural conditions.

Theory of mind refers to an individual's ability to think about what other individuals are thinking. The term has various definitions which can range from mirroring, copying another's actions, to mentalizing, predicting how another will react. Humans are definitely the best at this, but other animals demonstrate this behavior, including dogs, dolphins, elephants, some birds, and of course primates. [Schoenberg 2023, 5.3.4]

I used concepts from several articles to help analyze the cognitive understanding of primates. “Diversity in gaze-following skills across primates” (Rosati 2009, 45-51) compared fifty different research articles to gather data to conclude that different primates have different cognitive abilities. The articles “The Eyes Have It: the neuroethology, function, and Evolution of social gaze” (Emery 2000, 581-604) and “Friendship affects gaze following in a tolerant species of Macaque, Macaca nigra” (Micheletta 2012, 459-467) gives us a better understanding of a dominance hierarchy following social eye gaze. Anthropologically, the articles use evolutionary theory and bring together behavioral evolution in relation to primate social interactions and ways primates think in relation to cognitive evolution.

Social gaze analysis for primatology asks why different primates have different cognitive mechanisms for social gaze, and “why such different cognitive mechanisms have evolved across species” (Rosati 2009, 45). According to Emery, “determining the precise direction of another’s attention may be an important ability for non-human primates. Gaze cues provide salient information about the location of objects but may also function in complex forms of social cognition, such as visual perspective-taking, deception, empathy, and theory of mind” (Emery 2000, 587). Eye gaze plays a crucial role in the outcomes of behaviors, tasks performed in daily rituals, finding food, and social interaction. For example, “gaze-following – or looking in the direction that others are looking – can result from mechanisms ranging from involuntary capture of attention when others shift where they are looking, to shared attention in which two or more observers know they are jointly looking at the same object or event” (Rosati 2009, 45). Micheletta states that “gaze following, the ability to follow the direction that others are looking, is thought to be an important cognitive skill, allowing individuals to obtain valuable information about their social and physical environment” (Micheletta 2012, 3), and this helps them survive (Mitcheletta 2012, 16-17).

Social cognition plays a key role in a dominance hierarchy (Emery 2000, 587). We can easily understand how another person can disrupt our attention, and we will follow what the other person is doing or watching, depending on the circumstances; the same behaviors are followed in human interactions and primate interactions. For example, “primates also possess a great interest in the eyes and the region around them” (Emery 2000, 585). And, Emery states “the largest number of submissive gestures were made by the subjects when the eyes were in contact with the observing monkey” (Emery 2000, 586), and consequently, “the most dominant animal in a social hierarchy receives the highest number of glances (attention from less dominant animals), and glances at other animals the least” (Emery 2000, 587). Micheletta states: “Interestingly, facial expressions of threat seemed to be treated differently according to subject’s dominance status in long-tailed macaques: High ranking individuals are less responsive to threatening signals, probably because for these individuals, threat displays produced by an individual of low rank” (Mitcheletta 2012, 4).

Social gaze may differ between species. What was discovered according to Rosati is that certain primate species may not have the same visual abilities as other species when it comes to understanding and comprehending what they are looking at for example: “in contrast with apes, many monkey species may follow the gaze of others without possessing the same rich cognitive understanding of their visual perceptions” (Rosati 2009, 47). Emery states that:

monkeys, apes (chimpanzees, orangutangs and gorillas) and dogs can follow another individual’s gaze, and that this ability is enhanced when the gaze demonstrator is a conspecific. There is also evidence that apes, and the lesser extent monkey’s, can follow gaze to specific locations and objects in space and that gaze following may be more than reflexive and provide information about an animal’s behavior (and possibly mental) intentions. [Emery 2000, 591]

This ties directly into the hypothesis that different primates have different social gaze-following behaviors, with the understanding that each species has a different level of cognitive understanding; whatever is being observed may have a different meaning for everyone.

Method

I collected data at the San Diego Zoo over two days, totaling three hours, for several different species of primates, related to gaze-following behaviors of individuals and groups of primates, recorded on focal observation sheets (Appendix 1). Primates observed were: Lesser Spot-Nosed monkeys, Mandrill, Gorilla, Silvered Leaf Langur, Orangutans, Black Siamangs, and Bonobos. Each observation took fifteen minutes.

Findings

The first primate observed was a lesser spot-nosed monkey, but I could not make out if this monkey was male or female due to the observation spot around 3 pm, and the weather was still sunny. This monkey is a very mellow creature. At the beginning of the observation, the monkey was sitting on a bamboo walkway, grooming and occasionally glancing at walking bystanders. This was followed by some foraging and locomotion to find leaves to eat. The main point of its eye gaze was to look for leaves to eat and maneuver from branch to branch. It was foraging, then its point of attention followed observers and people passing by. Then it showed an intense focus on grooming, scratching, and looking at the arm of anyone who had food and was eating. The complete attention of the monkey seemed in hopes that it would receive some of the food. This was followed by more grooming and brief eye contact here and there. If you did not have food, the monkey was not interested in you.

The second primate that I observed was the mandrill. This primate provided some very good observational data as it relates to eye gaze and dominance. Mandrills are very territorial and are very aggressive. At the beginning of the observation of the bigger adult male, he was moving about the enclosure, foraging for things to eat. His eye gaze was very focused on me and on other bystanders, watching us, and he moved his focus back to food on the ground. After the crowd grew, he became very aggressive with lots of locomotion, moving back and forth and swinging from branches until he ended up right in front of us. Direct eye contact was made, and the mandrill started bobbing his head up and down and lunging forward. He started to throw dirt. The monkey then started taunting the crowd, smacking the ground with his hands, and showing teeth as if trying to get us to take some sort of action towards him from his taunting displays. The monkey then moved away from the fence and lost attention to foraging for food, and then came back, showing teeth, smacking the ground, and lunging his head up and down trying to be intimidating. This adult male was much more interested in the growing crowd and was showing signs of dominance and territoriality.

The third observation of the mandrill species was of a smaller male in the same cage. The smaller male is just as aggressive as the bigger male with lots of direct eye contact and showing off straight into aggression with the crowd. No signs of aggression were observed between the two mandrills, only towards the onlookers and those invading his space. The focus of the monkey's eye gaze was on the crowd. It began showing its teeth and smacking the ground violently, as if waiting for a member of the crowd to make a move towards it. The mandrill began spinning around and throwing rocks that came through the fence and rolled down towards our feet. A brief shift in eye gaze was shifted from us to foraging and looking for something to eat as if he were suddenly hungry, and we were no longer a threat to him. Then the mandrill raced back to the fence, picked up a log and hurled it towards the opposite direction, and was back at the fence, being intimidating, bobbing its head up and down, and smacking the ground, then he moved through the trees with great speed. The diverse eye gaze of this species is by far the most hostile of all primates observed.

The fourth observation conducted was of a silverback gorilla male, who was the only one out in the enclosure. His main point of focus was dragging a large branch full of leaves and a blanket to the glass and sitting down to eat with an occasional glance through the window towards the cages inside, where all the other gorillas were probably eating. The silverback moved into locomotion and foraging to find another branch to bring back and eat in front of us. After he was done eating, a zoo staff member held a cell phone up to the glass, and that captured his attention for the duration of the observation. During this observation, direct eye contact was never made, and he was more interested in consuming his food than interacting with the crowd.

The fifth observation was that of silvered leaf langurs. The langurs were focused on grooming each other, and the main point of eye gaze was focused on other individuals for grooming. Their concentration broke, followed by locomotion and swinging about the trees and chasing after each other. People gathered at the glass would catch the attention of selected individuals for brief intervals, but most of the langurs were not at all interested in us. The langurs showed more attention towards other members of their group, and lots of signs of affection for each other, including hugging and kissing. Some individuals chased down another individual and started biting it. I’m not sure what brought on this sudden act of aggression. As the monkeys lined up waiting inside to eat, occasional glances at the crowd were observed. The langur’s main gaze was waiting for the cage to open to go in to eat.

The sixth observation was that of an orangutan female. The first signs of tool use I observed were with this species of orangutan. The focus of eye gaze was on inserting a stick into a termite mound, pulling out food, and eating it. Locomotion was observed from one side of the mound to the other to see what could be fished out of the hole in hopes of consumption. The orangutan would shift her focus of eye gaze through the glass to that of the crowd observing her, but only for brief moments, and then move her focus back to that of finding food. The orangutan then dropped the stick and moved to a rock cave, looking at the top of the rock cave, right next to the termite mound, determining whether to enter the dwelling. The orangutan then moved back to the termite mound, recovered the feeding stick, dragging it, and recovered a blanket, which she placed on her head and went back to fishing with the stick in the termite mound.

The seventh observation was that of a baby orangutan. His main focus was playing with a ball and rolling around on the ground. The baby orangutan occasionally glanced at the observers through the window, never really making eye contact. The baby then shifted his focus to climbing branches to the tree net, where he met with another orangutan. They both climbed back down and disappeared out of sight for the rest of the observation.

The eighth observation was that of black siamangs. The main eye focus for the siamangs was grooming each other and kissing. I later found out from zoo staff that it was a mother with her child sitting at the tops of the climbing branches. The mother and the child left their perch atop the branches swinging from the ropes and tree branches. Their focus was on where to grab hold, until they reached the ground and then ascended back to their perch atop the tree, where they sat and looked at the people through the glass to see who was watching them, and then returned their focus back to grooming. After several moments of grooming, the mother and child descended and climbed down to the ground and disappeared inside to eat for the rest of the observation.

The ninth observation was that of an older female orangutan who was more interested in us than the rest of the group. She spent most of the time looking at us through the window, playing with a gourd, and covered with a blanket. She moved towards the glass and the onlookers and started playing and rolling around on the ground in front of the glass. Once the gates opened to the feeding area, she went inside for the rest of the observation to eat.

The tenth observation was that of a male orangutan. He was lying on the ground, covered with a blanket, with a gourd in his hands, watching us. I observed that older orangutans are more interested in us than the younger ones; the younger ones are more interested in playing or focused on things directly in front of them. Orangutans are a very mellow species, from what I observed, with less of a dominance hierarchy and their tank. The male dropped his gourd and blanket and moved up to the glass for face-to-face interactions before disappearing inside for the rest of the observation.

The eleventh and twelfth observations were of a family of eight bonobos. Most of them were resting in the shade or on top of a tree stump. It was difficult to tell them apart. Some were up and moving, and had no interest in the onlookers or what was taking place outside of their enclosure. I observed lots of grooming; they focused on looking through the hair and then lying back down to rest. One of the bonobos moved out of sight. Bonobos are very mellow creatures, from this observation, basking in the sun and occasionally foraging. After fifteen minutes during the last half of the observations, some of them got up and started foraging for food; the main point of focus was on finding and eating food. I observed no interactions with each other except for grooming oneself or another. One Bonobo sat and watched the waterfall falling down the side of the enclosure. I witnessed some moving about swinging from ropes to get to the other side of the enclosure. Three of them gathered food and sat down to eat while the rest were sleeping.

The gaze of the primates was partially determined by the type of barrier. As the silverback gorilla focused on finding food and eating, he paid little attention to the crowd on the other side of the glass. The mandrill, on the other hand, only had a metal fence separating it from us, and was very intimidated by our presence to the point that eye contact was made, and it showed aggression by baring its teeth and smacking the ground. The mandrill also shook his head up and down towards us, and picked up and threw objects in our direction. The interactions of the gorilla may have been different if not separated by the glass, and a connection with the animal could have truly been observed. The orangutan’s cage was very similar to that of the gorilla’s cage, and few human interactions were witnessed due to the glass barrier, except for the older orangutans who had a bigger interest in us than the younger ones, who were more interested in playing and swinging about. The black siamangs in the orangutan enclosure did not show much eye gaze differential. The langurs were also kept behind the glass and were more interested in each other than in the crowd. The lesser spot-nosed monkey did have a fence for an enclosure and was very acceptable to the crowd. Through the observations, a wide variety of gaze-following behaviors were witnessed. The most docile gazes were those of the orangutans, gorillas, black siamangs, lesser spot-nosed monkeys, and the langurs. The most drastic change of gaze went to the mandrill, who showed definite signs of dominance and aggression in his social gaze.

Conclusion

In conclusion, social gaze exists in all species of primates, but the cognitive outcomes from what is being seen differ between the species. Eye gaze plays a vital role in the theory of mind. Primates have quite different social gaze-following behaviors. Cognitive understanding differs between the species of primates. Evolution is a key factor in the study of primatology as well as primate behavior and biology. Different primates have distinct levels of awareness and perception. The primate’s enclosure plays a key factor in interactions with visitors: the encounter at the fence with the mandrill was by far the most incredible we could feel each other’s presence and his social gaze was much more intimidating than any other observation, The gorillas, orangutans, black siamangs, langurs, and the lesser spot-nosed monkey all had very similar patterns of social gaze following tendencies. The older orangutans had a better understanding of their surroundings than the younger orangutans and the black siamangs. You could tell the gorillas had a higher level of understanding as well. The mandrill monkey was studying us and testing us, which proves that each of these individual species of primates has a very different cognitive understanding of what they are seeing.

Work Cited

Emery, Nathan J. "The eyes have it: the neuroethology, function and evolution of social gaze." Neuroscience & biobehavioral reviews 24, no. 6 (2000): 581-604.

Micheletta, Jérôme, and Bridget M. Waller. "Friendship affects gaze following in atolerant species of macaque, Macaca nigra." Animal Behaviour 83, no. 2 (2012): 459-467.

Rosati, Alexandra G., and Brian Hare. "Looking past the model species: diversity in gaze-following skills across primates." Current opinion in neurobiology 19, no. 1 (2009): 45-51.

Appendix 1: field notes

Biographical Sketch

My name is Leon Nelson. I started this college journey four years ago after coming out of a severe substance dependency problem that took twenty-six-plus years to find my way out of. I have successfully completed three full years of community college and have obtained some great academic experience here at San Diego City College. My major is video production and cinema, and I am working on a Bachelor's or master's degree in science alongside my major in video production and cinema. Some academic experience I have gained at City College so far, I have taken audio production and learned how to edit any type of audio whether it be for film, mp3, podcast, radio, TV, news, or interviews I can scrub out audio and replace it add music to it we also gained knowledge of creating public service announcements. In a professional atmosphere, I hope to pick up ADR skills or audio dialogue replacement for major motion pictures and TV shows. I have taken Introduction to Electronic Media where I gained some experience in the digital world of news and reporting or journalism and even got published in the San Diego Union-Tribune with an article on Opioid addiction and Narcan. One of my favorite academic courses I have taken so far was script writing where we were taught fictional script, non-fictional script, and documentary script we learned how to write screenplay and much more. I gained this experience from just three of my direct major classes here at City College, the rest have been general ed courses for the degree. After so many years of addiction, it's hard to even consider myself a professional but that is the goal to become a professional in what I love doing and that is the production of films and remarkable stories to entertain the mind.

One goal of mine is to move on to the film department at SDSU I hear that is the University to go to for film while continuing my work on my bachelor, or a master's degree. I am extremely interested in all aspects of video production including sound editing, film editing, screenplay writing, ADR or audio dialogue replacement, special effects, or CGI, cinematography learning how to operate all multimillion-dollar equipment and sound equipment used to film masterpieces that are where my heart has been set to be in the remainder of life I have left on this planet and to make that dream a reality. Learning how to not cut myself short and some positive affirmations that I am worth it and to be able to experience a professional career that I love and enjoy doing every day I have loved film ever since I was a little kid, and it took me twenty-six years to realize that what I should go to college for now here I am three years in and am starting to set goals for applying at Marvel Studios or major film companies where I can share the abilities I am learning. I have a goal to write and create new things to share with the world. My name is Leon, and I am a recovering addict.

“Primate Deception” by Raquel Woolley

Why do we, as humans, lie? You may think it constitutes a moral failing on the part of the liar, but the actual reason may be more complex than that. Deception can be explained through evolutionary theory. I will present several articles that prove other primates are, in fact, capable of deception, such as false alarm calls about predators, withholding information, concealing weapons, and misleading others. Categories of deception include: concealment, distraction, creating an image, manipulation using social tools, and deflection (Whiten and Byrne 1986). I also hypothesize that this deception is an example of theory of mind.

Primatology is a subfield of biological anthropology that studies non-human primates. Humans are also primates, so studying them helps us learn more about ourselves. By observing interactions between primates, we can clearly see that the ability to deceive is not a uniquely human trait. When you take human morality out of the equation, you are able to see the evolutionary benefits of deception, such as access to resources (i.e., food, potential mates), or as a way of avoiding conflict with other group members. They are similar to the reasons human beings lie, steal, cheat, etc. This is not to say that humans cannot lie for other, more complex reasons, but on a basic level, their motivations are often similar, if not exactly the same. Primates, being so similar to humans, are also one of the few animals that arguably demonstrate theory of mind.

I believe deception qualifies as an example of theory of mind. Theory of mind refers to an individual’s ability to think about what other individuals are thinking (Schoenberg 2022). Several of the articles I reference state that primates do not possess theory of mind, or conclude that the findings of these studies do not support the idea that they do. I disagree with this notion, as I feel that the ability to deceive others, whether directly or indirectly, hinges on having at least some vague notion of how they will react and may also require the deceiver to understand what information the individual has access to, in order to know that they have the ability to deceive them in the first place. This suggests to me the ability to understand what others are thinking, if not their precise emotional state. To be fair, it is a complex concept and not all anthropologists agree with what constitutes theory of mind. Now what exactly constitutes deception?

Deception can be defined in different ways. Tactical deception occurs when an individual uses an ‘honest’ act from his normal repertoire in a different context to mislead familiar individuals (Whiten and Byrne 1988, 233-273). Deception in non-human primates ranges from withholding information to actively misrepresenting events and intentions (Quiatt and Reynolds 1993, 156). There are several different ways that primates can do this: concealment, distraction, creating an image, manipulation using social tools, and deflection. Concealment refers to the individual, or agent, hiding themselves or an object from the view of the target of their deception. Distraction refers to the action of directing the target’s attention from one subject to another, when there is nothing to merit the target's attention. Creating an image involves the agent behaving in a way that causes the target to misinterpret the behavior’s significance for the target. This can manifest in two different ways depending on how the behavior is used to create this false impression: presenting a neutral image by acting in a way that is simply nonthreatening, or presenting an affiliative image. Manipulation using social tools means manipulating one individual, the tool, so as to affect the target to the agent’s benefit, either by deceiving the tool about the agent’s involvement with the target by misleading the tool about the significance of the behavioral interaction between the agent and the target, or deceiving the target about the agent’s involvement with the tool, where it is the target who is deceived about the significance of the interaction caused by the agent’s action on the tool. Finally, we have deflection, which usually involves diverting the target toward a third party, the fall guy. Unlike the tool, whom the agent causes to take an active role in dealing with the target, the fall guy is essentially a passive victim in this sequence (Whiten and Byrne 1988, 233-273). For this article, I focus on more concrete types of deception, and avoid deception-like behaviors such as displays that chimpanzees might do during a “rain dance” (Reed 2023).

A great example of concealment was displayed in a study involving a male chimpanzee, Santino, who had manufactured concealments in order to hide objects to be used as projectiles for future throwing at zoo visitors. All of these objects were placed near the visitors' observation area, allowing Santino to make throws before the crowd could back off. In these instances, Santino gathered the projectiles immediately after they left. On one of these occasions, he did not throw the concealed projectiles, as the group did not return. In all, 46 projectiles were recovered, 35 of which came from concealments. Projectile oriented behavior occurred in seven days in a period of 27 days. The first time, Santino was observed slowly approaching the visitors, displaying no obvious aggressive intent, before suddenly throwing projectiles at them (Osvath and Karvonen 2012). This would also be an example of creating a false image. Santino was presenting a neutral image by making himself appear non-threatening in order to lull his targets into a false sense of security.

We observed what was likely the first instance of this innovation. Further observations showed that the creation of future-oriented concealments became the significantly preferred strategy. What is more, the chimpanzee appeared consistently to combine two deceptive strategies: hiding projectiles and inhibiting dominance display behavior […] These findings suggest that chimpanzees can anticipate the future behaviors of others while those others are not present, and take actions in their current situation towards such potential future behaviors. [Osvath and Karvonen 2012]

Whether Santino’s actions were born out of anger or were simply for his own enjoyment is unclear, but he clearly understood how the observers would react to them.

In their studies, anthropologists R.W. Byrne and A. Whiten reference several examples of primates using distraction. In one of these examples, a baboon was being chased aggressively by another baboon, when he suddenly adopted the alert posture and horizon watching that is normally shown when a neighboring group or predator has been spotted. However, in this case, no such entity existed. As a result, the other baboon stopped to look for the focus of interest and never resumed the chase, presumably having lost interest or forgotten about it entirely (Whiten and Byrne 1988, 233-273). Other examples of primates using distraction to their advantage have occurred in experimental food competitions, in which a lower-ranking individual knows the location of hidden food but will act in ways to prevent his or her naive group-mates from finding it, either by withholding information about its location, or by leading the others away from the location (Hall and Brosnan 2017, 38-44).

Evidence of tactical deception can also be found in false alarm calls during food contests: one individual will use an anti-predator alarm call, causing others to flee, leaving the contested food behind. Subordinates’ alarms cannot simply be attributed to the stress of food competition with more dominant individuals. A study on tufted capuchins found that the monkeys who produced deceptive alarm calls during food competitions did not produce the associated stress hormones (Wheeler et al. 2014). Others then also habituate to the false calls and react less to anti-predator alarms in feeding contexts as a result, indicating possible counter-deception strategies, reminiscent of the old morality tale of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. This just goes to show that these stories may have evolved from these exact types of primate scenarios and they may serve an important human social function in discouraging lying for the safety and survival of both the individual and the group as a whole. It also shows that deception is only effective if done rarely.

As for social manipulation, Byrne and Whiten describe three examples, one of which involved a group of yellow baboons. There were thirteen adult males in the troop they studied, and during mating season, coalitions of two to six mid to low-ranking males frequently challenged the two highest-ranking males for possession of females in estrus. When another male initiated the coalition, the eighth-ranking male would join in the background, then run off with the female while the dominant male chased off the initiator. He was particularly adept at this form of manipulation and most likely learned to do this through experience. Using this tactic, he ended up with a total number of days consorting with potentially fertile females, which was second only to the highest-ranking male in the troop, so there are tangible evolutionary benefits acquired through this type of exploitation of other troop members (Whiten and Byrne 1988, 233-273).

The reasons for these different types of deception may vary depending on the situation, but what they all have in common is that they require a basic understanding of what others are thinking, and they all produce results that are beneficial to the individual. Santino used his surroundings to conceal objects, then presented himself in a nonthreatening manner in order to throw them at unsuspecting observers. Baboons have used distraction by pretending a predator is nearby to diffuse a conflict, and other primates, such as tufted capuchins, have been observed using similar methods to gain access to food. Baboons are also capable of social manipulation by using other group mates as tools to achieve their own ends, such as gaining access to a female. As a theater major, I have a special interest in this subject because deception is the basis of acting. Like Santino, actors are presenting a false image of themselves in order to deceive their audience. In the case of actors, the audience is usually aware of the deception, but I believe that the same basic principle still applies.

Works Cited

Quiatt, Duane and Reynolds, Vernon. (1993). Primate Behavior: Information, social knowledge, and the evolution of culture. Cambridge University Press.

Bio

Raquel Woolley is a new student at San Diego City College. She is a theater major and is currently working to get her Associate's degree and transfer to a four-year university for her BA. She hopes to work as an actor in the future as well as possibly teach theater. Growing up it was always her favorite subject and she participated in many community theater productions. She also worked with children both as a babysitter and as a volunteer behind the scenes at school plays. She has worked in both costume design and set construction at San Diego Mesa College and is currently auditioning for multiple productions at San Diego City College. She has also worked as an extra in a few local films. While not currently employed she has been applying for jobs in both food service and retail.

“Human Evolution Through Problem-Solving” by Jadyn Green

Introduction

Humans are natural problem solvers, and we all subconsciously want to get to the root of the problem. In this literature review, we will be looking at multiple articles that will help us gain a better understanding of humans and the evolution of problem-solving. I believe that humans have evolved to become extraordinary problem solvers due to our social instincts and created environments. This hypothesis comes from two perspectives: how problem-solving has evolved in humans, and how humans have been programmed to automatically think this way. Due to how our brains have evolved to solve problems, this instinct has allowed us to create our modern world today. From our early hominins, we have been wired to solve through our instincts to survive, furthering our creation of tools in our fitted environment.

I searched for scholarly works with keywords such as cognitive thinking, problem-solving, and tool use, and then organized the information thematically. A synthesis of insights from the diverse domains of cognitive thinking, problem-solving strategies, and tool use helps us investigate the multifaceted nature of human intellectual evolution, unraveling the implications of problem-solving for the trajectory of societal development. By shedding light on the interconnectedness of these factors, I aspire to contribute nuanced insights to the ongoing discourse surrounding fundamental aspects of human cognition and its profound role in shaping the contemporary world.

Problem-Solving Across Species

There is plenty of problem-solving in all major vertebrate taxa. To survive and procreate, animals must be able to navigate their environment to obtain essential resources, including food, water, mates, and shelter. The majority of animals inhabit intricate environments with erratic topography and obstructions. We see an example of this with the territorial frog, Allobates femoralis, while being given a detour task in which it had to move around an obstacle (Munteanu et. al. 2016). The experiment showed that the frogs were able to successfully adjust their path and avoid obstacles, showing evidence of spatial cognitive flexibility in an amphibian. We see another example of this in an experiment that tested a small population of the guppy fish, Poecilia reticulata. They were given foraging tasks which included exploration and problem-solving to locate a novel food source (Laland and Reader 1999). To obtain food and evade predators, animals need to be able to solve puzzles. Animals can solve problems simply by investigating their environment and possessing the ability to learn and retain knowledge. Medium-sized quadrupedal bearded capuchins (Cebus libidinosus) use big stones to crack nuts. They carefully place these nuts on anvils and to crack them open, they lift stones above their heads that can weigh as much as 77% of their body weight (Liu et al. 2009). Anthropologists' inquiries concerning hominid stone tool-making are similar to the intriguing questions the monkeys' solution to the palm nut problem raises about their cognitive abilities.

The classic theory is that bipedalism freed the hands from locomotion and allowed them to specialize in tool use, and this was supported by the correlation between complexity in stone tools and encephalization in hominins such as Homo habilis. Recent discoveries are pushing the dates of the first stone tools back before significant encephalization occurred, which is consistent with our observations of living primates. If we can see primates today make tools with a 400cc brain, we can imagine our ancestors doing the same with a 450cc brain. [Schoenberg 2022, 6.1.3]

Tools have been thought to be cognitively demanding, which may have contributed to the evolution of intelligence. This is especially true of their manufacture and use (Teschke et al. 2013).

Problem Solving as Supernormal Stimuli and the Divergence of Human Instinct in the Modern World

Insights from comparative and evolutionary psychology help answer the question: Are humans natural problem solvers? “For comparative psychologists, problem-solving is at its most interesting when it involves individuals gaining some benefit, such as increased foraging success or efficiency, by overcoming some obstacle for which evolution has not provided them with a species-typical solution” (Seed and Mayer 2017). We share with vertebrate taxa that we derive personal gain from solving problems. Our instinctual need to solve has led to our intellectual curiosity becoming supernormal stimuli—behaviors that appeal to our primal instincts (Barrett 2016). Games and puzzles serve as vivid illustrations of supernormal stimuli, tapping into our innate drive to solve problems. Since early hominins, we have been driven by instinct to satisfy ourselves, more specifically, to satisfy our need to solve and create. Consequently, society has transformed, organizing itself around these stimuli, and along with traits such as neotony, we have fostered curiosity and intellect.

The ramifications of this shift are palpable in the contemporary world, where our intrinsic problem-solving tendency can lead to overdesign. An example of this phenomenon is the prioritization of nuclear energy development over the progression of natural energy sources. This preference, harking back to the 1960s when concerns regarding the consequences of nuclear reactors were widespread, underscores our collective fascination with the challenges posed by nuclear energy (Barrett 2010, 168). It provides insight into why nuclear reactors continue to advance, propelled by their captivating complexities, while alternative, natural energy sources are relegated to a secondary status. Solutions are driven more by intellectual curiosity than immediate practical application. It accentuates the impressive progression of humans as exceptional problem solvers within the modern world. Yet, it prompts a crucial question: Have our brains evolved at a pace sufficient for the demands of our adapted environment?

Discussing human instincts related to food, sex, and territorial defense relates to how we as primates have evolved to retool these desires in our modern world. “We may well not want to engineer human beings. But if we do, speeding up what natural selection would do through many millennia of suffering would seem to be the way to go: retooling desires to fit the new environment, getting rid of drives that no longer serve survival” (Barrett 2010, 175). We can highlight the alarming contrasts that we have constructed between human instinct and the modern world, and how this has become the primary driver of today's urgent issues.

Conclusion

Due to our inherent social instincts and the environments we've constructed, humans have transformed into extraordinary problem solvers. This study aimed to explore humans as inherently adept problem solvers, a trait influenced by both our environmental surroundings and innate instincts, and to deepen our understanding of problem-solving dynamics and their implications for the evolution of contemporary society. The innate capacity to tackle challenges has spurred the evolution of our brains across time, ultimately contributing to the establishment of the contemporary world we inhabit today. From the earliest hominins, our instincts have been hardwired to facilitate survival, propelling the development of tools tailored to our environment. This evolutionary journey is evident in the early use of tools for problem-solving, laying the foundation for the ongoing shaping of our present-day world.

Works Cited

Dantzer, B., Stricker, G., Swanson, E. M., & Holekamp, K. E. (2016). Brain size predicts problem-solving ability in mammalian carnivores. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(9), 2532-2537. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1505913113

Liu, Q., Simpson, K., Izar, P., Ottoni, E., Visalberghi, E., & Fragaszy, D. (2009). Kinematics and energetics of nut-cracking in wild capuchin monkeys (Cebus libidinosus) in Piauí, Brazil. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 138(2), 210-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajpa.20920

Munteanu, A. M., Starnberger, I., Pašukonis, A., Bugnyar, T., Hödl, W., & Fitch, W. T. (2016). Take the long way home: Behaviour of a neotropical frog, Allobates femoralis, in a detour task. Behavioural Processes, 126, 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2016.03.009

Rowell, M. K., Pillay, N., & Rymer, T. L. (2021). Problem Solving in Animals: Proposal for an Ontogenetic Perspective. Animals, 11(3), 866. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani11030866

Seed, A., & Mayer, C. (2017). Problem solving. In J. Call, G. M. Burghardt, I. M. Pepperberg, C. T. Snowdon, & T. Zentall (Eds.), APA handbook of comparative psychology: Perception, learning, and cognition (pp. 601–625). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000012-027

Teschke, I., F. Wascher, C. A., Scriba, M. F., Huml, V., Siemers, B., & Tebbich, S. (2013). Did tool-use evolve with enhanced physical cognitive abilities? Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1630). https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0418

Author's Bio

Jadyn Green is a student at San Diego City College. She took an anthropology class as one of her GED requirements; however found that this subject interested her very much. Although she is not majoring in Anthropology, she will always find a deep interest in the subject and is willing to learn more. Jadyn is currently undecided in her major; however, she is hoping to graduate from City College and transfer to a four-year college. She has found a deep interest in the arts, such as painting and ceramics, and hopes to grow these interests into something more through a career. She will be taking a photography class next semester and is excited to see how she will grow in these artistic interests.

“The evolution of the human brain to what it is today” by Alison Woolridge

When thinking about the human brain, it is easy enough to think that humans are the most intelligent animals, and that there is a very cut-and-dry reason as to why. We’re taught as schoolchildren that we are particularly unique as a species, and that the reason that we are is because of the size of our brains, and insults such as “pea brain” were insulting because they target the intelligence of a person based on the size of their brain that they appear to be doing their thinking (or not thinking!) with. In this literature review, I am going to examine research on the topic of encephalization and what exactly it has done for us over the course of human evolution. In other words, what exactly makes us so special compared to other animals? Or are we actually less evolutionarily unique than we thought?

The progression of encephalization in primates was essentially the advancement of intelligence, and is “a measure of capacity, independent of the way capacity is used” (Jerison 1985). Through the use of endocranial casts, or casts made from a mold that is a fossilized skull cavity, brain size for fossilized remains can be determined. Examination of these endocranial casts shows that primates have always had brains on the larger side, perhaps a compensation to do “with their brains what many other species did by morphological specializations” (Jerison 1985). An example of a morphological specialization would be how hummingbirds have evolved to have different shapes and lengths of bills depending on the shapes of the flowers in their environments, so as to more easily reach and consume the nectar that they rely on to survive. Essentially, through evolution, the features of animals have changed to better suit their environments, and for humans, that meant developing a larger brain. Leaps in brain size for our primate ancestors led to huge advancements for humankind, such as learning how to build and use tools. While other animals had to rely on natural selection to eventually produce features that would be tailored to their environments, the human brain gave us the capability to think creatively and get around our physical limitations.

The fact that humans are not (as a species) overly large shows that evolution didn’t do something completely unprecedented; we developed large brains instead of large bodies. “Structural encephalization is a morphological phenomenon” (Jerison 1985), and the primate brain grew to be larger than would typically be expected for the size of the body (Jerison 1985). The fact that humans are not as physically massive as they are intellectually endowed is considered a sign that they are not particularly exceptional among primates (Fonesca-Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel 2012). If humans evolved to be physically large, as well as to have the intelligence that we do, then that would be another matter. It is speculated that the cost of this size difference is shown in the metabolism resource allocation between humans and other primates. Utilizing Kleiber’s Law (any animal with a body mass of 150g will have a basic metabolic rate that is approximately 7.6 times greater than that of an animal with a body mass of 10g) it was determined that the human brain costs the body approximately 20% of its resting metabolic rate at only 2% of the body mass, while other primate brains only cost about 9% of the resting metabolic rate (Fonesca-Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel 2012). The higher the resting metabolic baseline, the higher the caloric need to maintain it, which means more food is needed to consume and more time is needed to find and eat food. It wasn’t realistic to maintain the large numbers of neurons, as well as have more body mass, on a raw diet. The primate metabolism just couldn’t support both a large brain and a large body as “Homo heidelbergensis, Homo neanderthalensis, and Homo sapiens would have had to spend consistently more than 9 h/d feeding to afford their 76-86 billion neurons” (Fonesca-Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel 2012), and fewer hours of feeding would come at the cost of neurons. So why did encephalization evolve, given that the metabolic cost is so much higher to maintain a large brain? Mainly to expand the systems in the human body that require the most brain power to run, like the part of the brain that processes external stimuli and information (Jerison, 1985). This expansion of the human brain allowed us to develop our uniquely human intelligence.

Evolution prompted the expansion of the cerebral cortex, which led to the current complexity of the structure of the human brain.The idea that the human brain is cognitively advanced due to the number of neurons and the size of the cerebral cortex is key, as is the idea that we should compare the size of the parts of the brain (Schoenberg 2021), not just brain:body ratio. All mammalian brains follow a similar plan in their structure, including a larger cerebral cortex (Jerison1985), and “the evolutionary expansion of brain size, and in particular selection pressures toward enlargement of the cerebral cortex, have been most prominent among mammals” (Hofman 1985). It was initially believed that size was the main determiner for intelligence, but it is naturally more complicated than that; you have to consider the surface area of the neocortex, which takes up about half of the mass of the brain as a whole, and the overall information processing capacity of the brain (Jerison 1985). Covered in ridges and folds, the cerebral cortex evolved to be more complex so that there was more surface area without taking up more space within the skull (Hofman1985). “The model for convoluted brains predicts that large (and therefore usually more advanced evolutionarily) brains tend to be more highly convoluted than small brains, which is due to the disproportionally small changes in cortical thickness,” and cortical thickness is directly connected to neuron density (Hofman 1985). In other words, the smaller and denser the neurons, the more folds in the brain, and more folds means higher intelligence. Looking at other determining factors that affect the cognitive ability of a human brain, it is believed that the human brain is not a miracle in its make-up, but it is still unprecedentedly advanced when it comes to cognitive ability (Herculano-Houzel 2012), and that the evolutionary augmentation of the primate brain is in large part due to the degree that primates and other mammals have had to adapt to their environment (Hofman 1985) to make up for a lack of other evolutionary advantages. “Primate brain structures increase in size as linear functions of their numbers of neurons, with insignificant changes in neuronal density, average neuronal size, and non-neuronal/neuronal cell ratios” (Gabi et al. 2010). Humans have the largest number of neurons among primates, if not also all mammals, with an estimated three times more than the next largest primate brains (belonging to gorillas and orangutans) (Fonesca-Azevedo and Herculano-Houzel 2012). With approximately 86 billion neuronal cells and 85 billion non-neuronal cells, the human brain does follow the scaling rules that have been found to apply to primate brains (Gabi et al. 2010). Five different species of primates in male and female pairs were gathered to analyze the neuron and non-neuronal cell densities in primate brains through a process that included humane euthanization, dissection, and utilization of the isotropic fractionator (a 10-step method to determine the total numbers of cells and neurons in the brain). It was determined that the “results demonstrate that while the scaling rules that apply to the body-brain relationship are dependent on the species of primates analyzed, the cellular scaling rules that apply to the brain alone are not” (Gabi et al. 2010). “The human brain has just as many neurons as would be expected of a generic primate brain its size” (Herculano-Houzel, 2012), and is otherwise not particularly unique.

Humans started out on the same playing field as other primates and, due to the luck of the draw, pulled the long straw in terms of evolutionary and environmental factors that allowed the encephalization of the human brain to take place. While our brains today are basically just “scaled up primate brains” (Herculano-Houzel, 2012) there is no doubt that the level and type of intelligence and individuality that we have reached is unique.

Works Cited

Fonesca-Azevedo, Karina and Herculano-Houzel, Suzana. “Metabolic constraint imposes tradeoff between body size and number of brain neurons in human evolution.” PNAS, 2012. https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1206390109

Gabi, Mariana, Christine E. Collins, Peiyan Wong, Laila B. Torres, Jon H. Kaas, and Suzana Herculano-Houzel. "Cellular scaling rules for the brains of an extended number of primate species." Brain Behavior and Evolution 76, no. 1 (2010): 32-44. https://karger.com/bbe/article-pdf/76/1/32/2262141/000319872.pdf

Herculano-Houzel, Suzana. “The Remarkable, yet Not Extraordinary, Human Brain as a Scaled-up Primate Brain and Its Associated Cost.” PNAS, 2012. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1201895109.

Authors Bio

Alison Woolridge is a second-time student at San Diego City College, currently studying for a degree in English Literature. After a rocky start to her college career in which she changed her major four times, she enlisted in the United States Navy to give herself a reboot and do something new. Due to getting medically discharged, she decided to go back to school and work to turn her love of reading into fuel for a profession. Alison plans to pursue a career in either teaching or publishing and has made it her life goal to provide future generations with knowledge and excellent book recommendations.

“The Male Proclivity for Violence” by Kara Klimek

Biological anthropology studies human evolution, genetics, adaptability, and biology in the context of culture and behavior. Here, I will be discussing the male proclivity towards violence and the evolution of male violence to this point: how did we get here, why, and what are the evolutionary advantages of male violence? My primary source is The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence by Michael Ghiglieri (2001). In his book, Ghiglieri approaches the topic of male violence from an evolutionary scope with biological, psychological, and social/cultural lenses. To stay on the subject of biological anthropology, I will be focusing on the evolutionary and biological lenses. Male violence has been a hot topic of discussion for decades, and there’s a multitude of arguments for the reasoning behind male violence. Ghiglieri debunks several of these arguments in his book, mainly concerning environmental, cultural, and social factors. He hypothesizes that men are born with an innate proclivity for violence, and several evolutionary reasons exist for that. I want to slip in a quick disclaimer that no, not all men are violent or have violent tendencies, but a staggering amount do, enough to scare women into taking precautions to protect themselves from men constantly and on a global scale. It is scary being a woman.

Natural selection favors whoever produces the most offspring; this could be due to aesthetic reasons (physical attraction) or competition (violence). However, sexual selection for humans is a bit more complex than that of our closest animal kingdom relatives. We have built a capitalist society, and one of the most attractive qualities a man can possess in the eyes of a woman looking to reproduce is money or economic status. This is merely the evolution of sexual selection to keep up with societal advancements. Women have always sought men who are willing and able to protect and provide for them and their children, and it is no different now. Ghiglieri asserts that “sexual selection has sculpted the evolutionary software programming the differences between men and women” (Ghiglieri 2001, 12). The differences he is alluding to lie in how men and women approach reproduction and the differences in processing the emotions tied to reproduction and relationships due to our biological makeup and psychology, specifically jealousy and rage, and how these two emotions are the catalysts of male violence. Physiologically, men are built to sire as many children as possible; for example, “Moulay Ismail the Bloodthirsty, a seventeenth-century Sharifian emperor, sired 888 children” (Ghiglieri 2001, 45). In contrast, women have much more limited reproductive capabilities in quantity because a woman has a much more involved process of reproduction and an obvious risk of death during pregnancy or childbirth, so she must choose a mate that will provide better resources to aid in the chances of her and her children’s survival. Those resources used to be simpler in early human civilization, but as we have transitioned to money being the facilitator of resources, we have led to men with money being the better option for women looking to reproduce. For a man, the more money you have, the more women you have, and the more women you have, the more offspring you will have; for a woman, your caliber of man depends heavily on your physical appearance, the more attractive you are, the better your chances of catching the attention of a mate who can provide the necessary resources to reproduce. The issue arises when the competition for money (resources) becomes violent, as it often does and almost always has. We all know the trope ‘money is the root of all evil,’ and Ghiglieri quotes Aristotle Onassis saying, “If women didn’t exist, all the money in the world wouldn’t have any meaning” (Ghiglieri 2001, 29). It’s not meant to be taken literally; the takeaway is that men compete for resources with more fervency when women are involved. Ghigleri cites a proposal by Randy and Nancy Thornhill that “rape evolved as a ‘condition-dependent’ sexual strategy of males in a social system in which men win wives by controlling resources. The ‘condition’ that leads to rape is the failure by a male to win the resources and status needed to attract a female” (Ghiglieri 2001, 103). We see endless cases of sexually motivated violence, from men attacking a woman who refused his advances, to men killing other men who have violated their wives or girlfriends, killing cheating partners or cheating partners' new partner (competition), and we see similar behavior in our closest primate relatives, but slightly less complex.

Ghiglieri spends four chapters exploring rape, murder, war, and genocide by human males and compares them with the violence of male great apes.

Our final “time machine” to witness the behavior of the lineage that led to Homo is the comparison of the behavior of human males with that of our nearest living relatives. Our assumptions in doing this are threefold:
1. The great apes and humans share a common ancestor, and thus common genes affecting our social behavior.
2. The more closely related each species of ape is to us, the more genes and behaviors we share in common.
3. Behaviors shared by chimps, bonobos, and humans are far more likely to be instinctive and to have been inherited by all three species from a common ancestor than to have evolved separately. [Ghiglieri 2001, 70]

Rape, murder, and war are all shared behaviors between us and our primate relatives. This Youtube video, “Most Brutal Chimpanzee Society Ever Discovered | Rise of the Warrior Apes,” is actually what prompted me to choose this topic in the first place. The video itself is disturbing, as the behavior observed is so eerily similar to human behavior. Obscene violence over territory and resources is really the name of the game in the animal kingdom. It is different for humans only in complexity, as with murder and rape as well. Rape seems to be a byproduct of war, I will spare sharing the statistics of rapes during various wars mentioned because, frankly, I would like to forget them, but it is numbered going well into the tens of thousands and more. Rape seems to be a widespread phenomenon across all species, and the idea here is that rape is a biological male adaptation. Circling back to sexual selection for a moment, it does not matter, evolutionarily speaking, if the method of successful reproduction is unpleasant for either party. All that matters is that an offspring is produced, and the species continues on. Thus, unfortunately, making rape a viable and successful reproductive strategy and making violence a desirable trait for natural selection. Murder is often committed in an effort to obtain resources (money) by those caught in a cycle of crime and poverty, looking to escape. Those who commit smaller-scale crimes are likely to escalate in the severity of crime committed; usually a robbery turned murder situation, in an innate and instinctual urge to gain resources and secure a mate. We see the same behavior in primates; males can and do kill other males over female attention, food, and territory. It is not at all far off to speculate that we, as humans, inherited these instinctual behavioral patterns from our shared ancestors. For example, Ghiglieri cites a mountain gorilla observation (mountain gorilla DNA is 97.5 percent identical to ours) (Ghiglieri 2001, 129) conducted by researcher Dian Fossey to compare gorilla to human social structure and mating patterns. In an average harem, there are eight members consisting of four adult females, three juveniles, and one adult male silverback who is responsible for the formation of the group. He does not defend a territory but defends his harem against intruding males with staggering violence; 79 percent of encounters between unacquainted males lead to threats of violence, and half lead to violent and often lethal combat. “Combat between these superaggressive males is so demanding, and often so lethal, that macho sexual selection has pumped them up to a size 237 percent heavier than the females’ mere 170 pounds” (Ghiglieri 2001, 130). At around fourteen years old, males leave their harem to start to recruit their own. They roam the forests to look for other harems and must forcibly drag off females from the harems they find in an attempt to avoid confrontation with the silverback guarding his females. Some young males will even kill a female’s infant sired by his rival.

The Dark Side of Man explores the physiological and mental differences between men and women. Aside from the obvious genitalia difference, what else is different? The hypothalamus.

The cherry-size hypothalamus is truly immense in its power. Lying beneath the thalamus and receiving the richest supply of blood in the body, the hypothalamus dictates our emotional and physiological responses to outside challenges. Ruled by more than thirty of the brain’s regulatory hormones, the hypothalamus governs heat, sweat, pleasure, pain, thirst, hunger, sexual desire, behavior, and fulfillment, as well as fight, aggression, and rage. … The hypothalamus makes men and women behave differently. Dutch researcher Dick Swaab found that the sexually dimorphic nucleus of the hypothalamus is two and a half times larger in men than in women. Similarly, neurobiologist Laura Allen found that the INAH-2 and INAH-3 interstitial nuclei of the anterior hypothalamus are significantly larger in men than in women. Neurobiologist Simon LeVay found not only that men’s INAH-3 nucleus is bigger and shaped differently than women’s but also that the INAH-3 nucleus in most homosexual men is the same size and shape as that of women. These findings suggest that sexuality, including sexual orientation and emotions, are dictated by tangible and measurable sex differences in the morphology of the hypothalamus. [Ghiglieri 2001, 34]

The differences in the hypothalamus in men versus women do not necessarily explain male violence, and neither do the differences in physicality, but I still found the information incredibly interesting. Another interesting find, though again not solid evidence supporting the hypothesis, is that a Dutch team found a gene linked to hyperaggression. “Monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA) has earned the nickname “warrior gene” because it has been linked to aggression in observational and survey-based studies… We report an experiment, synthesizing work in psychology and behavioral economics, which demonstrates that aggression occurs with greater intensity and frequency as provocation is experimentally manipulated upwards, especially among low activity MAOA (MAOA-L) subjects” (McDermott et al 2009). Disclaimer: they did not include women in this study, so I feel there is a bias here, but the existence of the gene and its link to hyperaggression piqued my interest.

What else is different? Our muscles, both in build and in capability. The following block quote is so important in order to fully grasp the physical differences between men and women and why violence between men and against women is so common. We see a similar disparity in size and strength, though ours is less extreme, from the gorilla observation mentioned above. Men are simply stronger than us and easily overpower us; they are dangerous just in physicality alone.

Men average seventy-seven pounds of muscle mass, compared to fifty-one pounds in women. This disparity is even greater than it seems: male muscles are 30 to 40 percent stronger biochemically, pound for pound, than women’s and are quicker to neutralize chemical wastes such as lactic acid […] The biochemical evidence is unrelenting: men are designed by nature for higher performance in aggressive, physically demanding action. [Ghiglieri 2001, 15]

Ghiglieri is impressively qualified to write this book; he pulls from his experiences as a platoon sergeant in the Vietnam War and his experiences while doing primate observations in Africa and compiles data from other researchers. The book is fascinating, though it is dark and disheartening. Ghihlieri includes a 15-year-old girl named Kay’s testimony of a violent, gruesome rape that made me physically sick to read; I was shaken for weeks after, I couldn’t focus on the book at all for some time after that story. It took three weeks for me to recenter and detach from what I had read, which, by the way, is how long it took for Kay to be able to walk again after her ordeal. I did read on later to find that she spent 5 hours in surgery and extensive physical therapy and managed to physically recover after about a year, and she is now fully recovered and has a young child. She flew back to Ecuador shortly after the ordeal and testified against her rapist, but he bribed his way out of prison. He was arrested again after police found Kay’s underwear in his house, this time receiving the maximum sentence of fourteen years. Even recounting this story is difficult; it stirs a cold, heavy feeling in my chest, and my throat tightens like I’m going to cry. It is such a difficult thing to grapple with that her story is not entirely unique. This happens to women all over the world every day, and Kay was lucky to survive. It’s scary to be a woman. One night, about a month ago, I decided I would walk to meet a friend for tea. It was 8:30 pm, and I usually refuse to walk alone at night for any reason, but it was so close, and it was only 8:30 pm; there were people around, and it was a five-minute walk. What could happen? There was an elderly woman walking her full-size Golden Doodle, maybe 40 feet ahead of me, and there was a man coming towards us, mumbling to himself and using the storefronts to steady himself while stumbling down the street. Her dog starts barking and lunging at this man. My immediate thought was to cross the street before he got to me, but too many cars were coming, so I moved as far to the left as I could and tried to walk as fast as I could without running. He looked at me, his left hand on the brick to steady himself as he swayed and slurred, “I’ll slit your throat right-f**king now.” I tried not to react, I didn’t want him to know I was scared. I kept walking and checking over my shoulder to make sure he wasn’t following me. He wasn’t; in fact, he seemed to completely forget about me almost immediately after threatening my life, but I couldn’t forget about it at all. I ended up breaking my lease last week and moving. That apartment had a one-car garage I would park in, but I often get off work late and there were always homeless people rummaging through the trash cans by the garage door. I would pull into the garage and put my car in reverse so I could watch my backup camera as the garage door closed. I was afraid of someone sliding under the door as it closed and being stuck in there with someone. I have friends who refuse to pump gas after the sun goes down; I’ve received self-defense weapons as Christmas and birthday gifts; five people have my location at all times on two different apps. I could go on, but you get the point. It is scary to be a woman.

Works Cited

The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books, 2001.

Schoenberg, Arnie. Introduction to Physical Anthropology. Arnie Schoenberg. Accessed December 6, 2023. https://arnieschoenberg.com/anth/bio/intro/section5.html#agonism.

McDermott, Rose, Dustin Tingley, Jonathan Cowden, Giovanni Frazzetto, and Dominic D P Johnson. “Monoamine Oxidase a Gene (MAOA) Predicts Behavioral Aggression Following Provocation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, February 17, 2009. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2650118/.

Most Brutal Chimpanzee Society Ever Discovered | Rise of the Warrior Apes. UK: Discovery UK, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQn1-mLkIHw&t=1s.

Author’s Biography

Kara Klimek is a 25 year old transplant from Atlanta, Georgia. Klimek moved to San Diego in August 2019 after withdrawing from the University of North Georgia abandoning a loose plan to become an MRI Technician, a career path chosen in an adolescent panic, and is now in her second year of college. In the time between moving to San Diego and enrolling in Introduction to Biological Anthropology 102 she has bounced around more than a few restaurants working various positions, and most recently started working as a freelance floral designer. Klimek enrolled in San Diego City College with plans to continue furthering her education, attain a degree in Business with a minor in Philosophy, and possibly start her own floral design company after getting her degree.

Table of Contents

“How Scared Are We? A Review of the game Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey” by Kendall McLemore

“Enclosure Impact on Orangutan Tool Use” by Grey Armstrong and JuanDiego Guerrero

“Gaze and Social Vision of a Primate” by Leon Nelson

“Primate Deception” by Raquel Woolley

“Human Evolution Through Problem-Solving” by Jadyn Green

“The evolution of the human brain to what it is today” by Alison Woolridge

“The Male Proclivity for Violence” by Kara Klimek

“How Scared Are We? A Review of the game Ancestors: The Humankind Odyssey” by Kendall McLemore

Bibliography

Bio

“Enclosure Impact on Orangutan Tool Use” by Grey Armstrong and JuanDiego Guerrero

Works Cited

Authors' Bios

“Gaze and Social Vision of a Primate” by Leon Nelson

Introduction

Background

Method

Findings

Conclusion

Work Cited

Appendix 1: field notes

Biographical Sketch

“Primate Deception” by Raquel Woolley

Works Cited

Bio

“Human Evolution Through Problem-Solving” by Jadyn Green

Introduction

Problem-Solving Across Species

Problem Solving as Supernormal Stimuli and the Divergence of Human Instinct in the Modern World

Conclusion

Works Cited

Author's Bio

“The evolution of the human brain to what it is today” by Alison Woolridge

Works Cited

Authors Bio

“The Male Proclivity for Violence” by Kara Klimek

Works Cited

Author’s Biography