Genes Play Major Role in Primate Social Behavior, Study Finds

Nicholas Wade, New York Times, December 19, 2011

Social behavior among primates–including humans–has a substantial genetic basis, a team of scientists has concluded from a new survey of social structure across the primate family tree.

The scientists, at the University of Oxford in England, looked at the evolutionary family tree of 217 primate species whose social organization is known. Their findings, published in the journal Nature, challenge some of the leading theories of social behavior, including:

• That social structure is shaped by environment–for instance, a species whose food is widely dispersed may need to live in large groups.

{snip}

• And the so-called social brain hypothesis: that intelligence and brain volume increase with group size because individuals must manage more social relationships.

By contrast, the new survey emphasizes the major role of genetics in shaping sociality. Being rooted in genetics, social structure is hard to change, and a species has to operate with whatever social structure it inherits.

If social behavior were mostly shaped by ecology, then related species living in different environments should display a variety of social structures. But the Oxford biologists–Susanne Shultz, Christopher Opie and Quentin Atkinson–found the opposite was true: Primate species tended to have the same social structure as their close relatives, regardless of how and where they live.

{snip}

The researchers suggest that sociality emerged about 52 million years ago. The earliest primates sought safety by being solitary and inconspicuous, moving only at night. It seems that when they shifted to daytime activity, they sought safety in numbers.

It was from these loose, unstructured groups that more specific forms of primate social behavior began to evolve, some 16 million years ago. These included pair bonding, an arrangement adopted by gorillas and humans, and the multi-male, multi-female groups typical of baboons and chimpanzees.

The fact that related species have similar social structures, presumably because the genes for social behavior are inherited from a common ancestor, “spells trouble” for ecological explanations, Joan B. Silk, a primate expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote in a commentary in Nature. Also, the finding that there has not been a steady progression from small groups to large ones challenges the social brain hypothesis, Dr. Silk said.

The Oxford survey confirms that the structure of human society, too, is likely to have a genetic basis, since humans are in the primate family, said Bernard Chapais, an expert on human social evolution at the University of Montreal.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Curious, the New York Times doesn’t permit comments for that article as it does for others it publishes.

  • Anonymous

    That just blew a whole so big through the left it is actually quite sad

  • John Engelman

    This lends credence to the assertions found in “Sociobiology: The New Synthesis,” by E. O. Wilson

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesis

    This angered many liberals nearly as much as “The Bell Curve.” As time goes on, however, the scientific evidence for both books increases.

  • GenX ANZAC

    ……”These included pair bonding, an arrangement adopted by gorillas and humans, and the multi-male, multi-female groups typical of baboons and chimpanzees”.

    It’s nice to hear that not all of the native bipeds on the African continent practice the uni-male/polygamy model, it’s a shame about the ganging up/safety in numbers mentality though.

    If you look at one of the diagrams illustrating this theory of gene=culture=genes.

    http://goo.gl/F703D

    Sounds exactly like what Amreners have been saying for years.

    Also of interest..

    http://goo.gl/ZiGlC

    http://goo.gl/Lz38C

    http://goo.gl/KcdLh

  • Anonymous

    This provides scientific evidence of “Sociobiology: the New Synthesis,” by E.O. Wilson.
     
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology:_The_New_Synthesis  
     
    Many progressives were nearly as angry at this book when it was published in 1975 as they were later angry at “The Bell Curve.” Those on the left dislike biological explanations of human behavior and aptitudes because they suggest limits to leftist reforms.