Customer Reviews

Macachiavellian Intelligence: How Rhesus Macaques and Humans Have Conquered the World

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

If chimpanzees and bonobos are our close evolutionary brothers and sisters, then rhesus macaques are, say, our step-brothers: not as genetically close as brothers but close enough to help plan the family reunion. Unfortunately, they are rarely talked about as related to homo sapiens. Maybe that is because, as will be seen in this book, they are so danged nasty.

The point of Dario Maestripieri's book is to give us an anthropological glimpse at rhesus macaques and their very Machiavellian behavior. And the point of doing that is to show that rhesus macaques are very, very similar to humans in certain, and not always good, ways. They are very territorial, trade favors for services, dislike "outsiders" (not of their group) with a passion, stage revolutions of the weak against the strong, etc, etc. Not to sound flippant, but the behavior of rhesus macaques is quite similar in kind to the behavior of human gangs (be they bloods, skinheads, motorcycle gangs, or la cosa nostra). Or to put it differently, rhesus society resembles a slightly less individualistic version of Hobbes's state of nature.

Maestripieri has spent decades looking at how rhesus macaques operate, and the book reads like an anthropology text. Behavior is explained and anecdotes are given to support these explanations. We see how macaques organize themselves into hierarchies (and hierarchies within hierarchies), how (fragile) bonds are formed by exchanging favors for...umm...services, and even how they play oligarchical politics.

To me, the big fault of the book is that the author never really argues the point that we should see rhesus behavior as an illuminator of our own behavior as much as he assumes it. In one chapter, he demonstrates that rhesus males have no part in child rearing, at the very end of the chapter suggesting that fatherly instincts are a recent development in humans. While I have little problem with this assertion (and suspect it may be true), the author leaps from description of macaques to pontificating on implications for humans without going through the middle step of arguing why rhesus behavior is any better a guide to humans than, say, bonobo behavior. (One negative reviewer took issue with certain similar statements the author made suggesting that rhesus females' non-participation in politics gives reason to suspect that human females do not have as much political instinct as males. I suspect that had the author argued why his rhesus descriptions are connected with his human speculations, these "leaps" would be less problematic.)

The other slight problem I had was the authors tendency to confuse proximate with ultimate causal explanations for behavior. Several times he talks about several macaque behaviors, like females' having sex with weaker males only during times when they can't concieve, as cost/benefit analysis. Of ccourse, behaviors like this may have evolved because their benefits outweigh their costs, but the author often describes these acts as if they were MOTIVATED by cost/benefit analysis. (Occasionally, the author will correct himself here but go on in the same chapter to make the same linguistic conflation.)

All in all, I gave the book four stars because I found it extremely interesting (on a subject often overlooked) and very engaging. The author succeeds in giving us great description about rhesus macaques. Where the author does not succeed is in convincing us that rhesus macaques can really illuminate human behavior any better (or even as good as) bonobos and chimpanzees, who are much closer relatives and just as similar behaviorally. Yes, we are similar in ways to rhesus monkeys, but so are we to many animals, most of whom are not close relatives. Pointing out behavioral similarities do not themselves justify analogies; those must be argued for, which is what this book lacks. If you read this book solely as a study and explanation of rhesus macaque behavior, though, the book is illuminating and entertaining indeed.

"Humans can be quite flexible and adjust to their circumstances, but when all the outer layers of individualism and egalitarianism are peeled off, they have a despotic and nepotistic core that is not unlike that of rhesus macaques." - Dario Maestripieri (p164)

Yes, the book could use a writer's touch. But it is by no means difficult reading. Yes, some of the pop culture metaphors are a bit hokey. But it's a book that's meant to be fun, for people like me, who are new to primatology, and are curious as to what primate research is telling us about human nature. I thought the story of the social climbing female named Tequila was an absolute riot, whether or not it was tinged by anthropomorphism. As a layperson, I also understand that this is only one species, and only one window through which to look at primate behavior as a reflection of our own. I expect the experts to squabble over specifics - like a group of rhesus macaques.

But for anyone interested in the big picture of primate and human `culture', and for anyone who appreciates some insights and opinions rather than just facts, I strongly suggest they include this book in their reading along with a few books by Frans de Waal - and the somewhat outdated but still entertaining classic from the sixties by Desmond Morris titled "The Naked Ape".

This book had some very interesting sections and some of the overall insights were thought provoking, but the book was just not organized well at all and it was filled with terrible metaphors. The overall affect of the organization of this work really made this book a disappointing read for me.

The author attempts to make comparisons between his subjects and human beings but the reader never knows when the author is going to make these comparisons. They seem to come from nowhere and the reader just has to take the book as it comes. I would have much rather had the book broken down into cross sections that discuss Rhesus Macaque behavior and then a whole new section that compares that behavior with human behavior. This would have given the book a much firmer structure and would have broken down the information in a much more palatable way for the reader.

Next the metaphors the author used throughout this book were just terrible. For me these metaphors had the affect of dumbing down the content of this work. I'm sure this was not the intent of the author, but I felt as though I were being talked down to throughout this work. The author also uses mixed metaphors which really leaves a bad impression on the reader.

Next at the end of the chapter entitled Sex and Business the author makes some statements that seem extremely misogynistic. The author talks about how women have not learned to achieve political power and how they are much less adept at politics than their male counter parts. Of course the facts are that women have been playing at power politics since the Romans and Greeks and well before that. The author doesn't speak of the fact that the majority of the societies that have developed have formed highly patriarchal societies in which men have been the main beneficiaries and women for the most part have been oppressed. So it is not that women are not adept at power politics but instead they have never had the opportunity to fully participate in the systems. Not only that but women have been able to exert extraordinary influence on politics and the world through very narrow corridors of access.

The author also ignores the huge progress that has been made by women in really the last hundred years or so. For a group that has really only gained full access to the political spectrum (and of course the argument could be made they are still discriminated against) very recently in human history women have made huge impacts everywhere around the world and will continue to make even greater contributions as they are able to make even more gains in the political sphere.

I am sure the author's intent was not to come of as a misogynist but to me he did. He was only trying to make a comparison between Macaque societies and human society. This book would have been much better with some better editing and an additional rewrite, but unfortunately for the author many of the problems were not caught in the editing process and the work suffers terribly for it. The author is a Primatologist not an English Ph.D., but the author has written a book and must be judged on this effort. The author would be greatly served finding a new editor.

The book was not great and I have read works that I would recommend much more highly than this one. It had its moments but they were not enough to redeem this awkward book. If you are just getting into ethology then you may want to give this work a try, but if you are versed int the topic already just skip this particular work.

As someone who has spent hundreds of hours observing, recording and discussing the behavior of rhesus macaques on the island of Cayo Santiago, I feel that Maestripieri's book provides a rare and accurate glimpse into the social lives of the members of this species.

Maestripieri's colorful and detailed description of rhesus macaque society is so authentic, that I found myself nodding my head and chuckling aloud as I recalled witnessing various storylines of the macaque "soap opera" play out before my eyes. I have unwillingly starred in the role of "scapegoat" (p. 52) as a monkey under attack attempted to redirect the aggression to me.

In response to a review that was previously posted, I found the pop culture references to be extremely helpful. Maestripieri has tackled some very complex concepts in ethology and has made them palatable for a general audience. Having given lectures on topics in animal behavior (and specifically, primate behavior), I was impressed with the explanations he offered for representational vs. non-representational communication (p. 134-139) and Trivers' coefficient of relatedness (p. 120), as well as the example he provided for how a rhesus acquires its rank in the hierarchy. That being said, I don't think that this is simply a "starter book." Even for those well-versed in ethology, it would be highly worthwhile to give Maestripieri's book a read, as it draws parallels between human and macaque society that have not been discussed elsewhere.

Some may find the parallels that Maestripieri has drawn between human and macaque society to be controversial or tough to digest. One reviewer seemed to be offended by Chapter 6- Sex and Business. Although my initial training was in anthropology, I am well aware that Maestripieri is presenting arguments that are discussed by evolutionary social psychologists on a daily basis- these are not simply his opinions on the benefits of "Sleeping with a stranger" (p. 92) and "What Females Want" (p. 99).

If you've ever wanted to get into the mind of a rhesus monkey- this is your book!

I finally got a chance to sit down with Macachiavellian Intelligence and found it to be a really interesting read. Maybe it was just the professors I had in college, but if this guy had been my teacher, I think I would have stuck around in the biology world a lot longer. The author takes the reader through a tour of monkey behavior and, in doing so, helps us understand our own behavior as well. The book is interesting, funny at times, and you come away actually knowing more than you did before you read it. I highly recommend.

This is the most original and interesting book about primate and human behavior I've read in a long time. Every page in this book presents some new ideas or some new facts about why rhesus macaques and people behave the way they do. There is a lot of science in this book but also many interesting anecdotes and references to pop culture, art, and literature. Both the author's approach to the subject and his writing style are brilliant. The author has a very direct, honest, no BS approach to questions of social behavior in humans and other primates. He uses evolutionary theory and economic cost-benefit analyses to show that the highly complex and often opportunistic social behavior of rhesus macaques is an adaptation to life in competitive societies, in which survival and success depend on the ability to cooperate with others, through the formation of nepotistic or political alliances, and to exploit them whenever necessary.

No other book about primates I've read before explains as clearly as this one does why human beings are so aggressive when compared to many other animals, and why and how they compete for social status and political power, and fight wars and revolutions. The author applies the same strong evolutionary logic to explain social, sexual, and parenting strategies. This book has made me understand that social behavior can be explained scientifically just like anything else and that there is more to primatology than stories of clever apes in some European zoo or of cute baby orphans raised in African primate sanctuaries or nice suburban homes right outside Cleveland. I've also learned more about human behavior from this book than from all the psychology and philosophy courses I took in college.

The author writes very well and has a witty sense of humor. The book is fast paced and hard to put down once you've started reading it. It's the perfect book to read on a plane or by the swimming pool. A must read for people who like to use their brains.

Dario Maestripieri, who is an associate professor of comparative human development and evolutionary biology at the University of Chicago, has chosen here to write a popular account and analysis of his experiences with rhesus macaque monkeys. Macaques are the long-faced monkeys typically seen stealing food around Hindu temples in TV travelogues about India. Professor Maestripieri's decision results in a book that is easy to read, albeit a bit on the flippant side.

The idea is to compare for a general readership the behavior of rhesus macaques and humans: how we are the same and how we are different. Many similar and very valuable studies have been done with apes, so it is refreshing to read about the lives of our more distant primate cousins for a change. Whether Maestripieri and his editors at the University of Chicago Press should have taken a less colloquial approach is a good question. I was not put off by Maestripieri's style, but I was disappointed in the causal way he seemed to read the minds and intentions of the monkeys. If some of Maestripieri's surmises about what macaques may be thinking (and why) comes back to haunt him, it won't be a big surprise. Anthropological interpretations of animal behavior are notorious for leading field biologists astray. However Maestripieri is clearly an expert on primate behavior (author of over 125 scientific publications and editor of the text, Primate Psychology 2005) and so his interpretations are to be respected.

Nonetheless I would like to take issue with one of them. Maestripieri sees macaque females as using a reproductive strategy that favors having sex with the alpha male of the troop while secretly going off into the bushes with subordinate males. This way, Maestripieri reasons, she gets the best genes from the alpha male while taking out an insurance policy on her soon to be born infant in case something happens to the dominate male. Since macaque males, like lions and some other animals, have a tendency to kill infants from females with whom they have not mated, this seems a wise strategy. Macaque females typically mate with the alpha male when they are most fertile and with the lesser males when they are not fertile. It is interesting to note that macaque males, like their human counterparts, are not entirely sure about when the female is ovulating. Consequently sex becomes, as Maestripieri puts it, a political business for females. He adds that macaque females mate with different males, especially males from outside the troop, just in case the alpha male may be either sterile or too closely related genetically. Again this is good reproductive insurance.

All this is understandable and insightful. However to imagine that human females employ a very similar strategy, as Maestripieri implies, is too simplistic. What human females do FIRST is form a monogamous, long-lasting relationship with the best male available so that their children can have a secure situation in which to develop. Since human offspring are so much more vulnerable for so much longer than macaque offspring, and because human males are usually more nurturing than macaque males, this is a wise strategy. At this point the female, who is "in love" with her choice, doesn't fool around (usually!). However, after some time (the "seven year itch"?) the human female begins to think about upgrading the genetic input and becomes vulnerable to advances from men she perceives as alpha males. Or she may just move on to another male. The difference is that humans practice serial monogamy while rhesus monkeys are not really monogamous at all.

The real question about the value of this book is, do parallels with rhesus macaque behavior lend insight into human psychology? I think the answer is a clear yes. Indeed Maestripieri's central thesis is that the Machiavellian behavior of the macaques in which they selfishly strive for power and control in their relationships with one another is all too similar to the way humans behave. I think he makes this point very well. However there is one very big difference between macaque society and human society: rhesus macaque society is matriarchal while human societies are almost universally patriarchal. This makes a big difference, the main effect being that males in rhesus macaque societies are less important and less involved than they are in human societies. A lesser effect stems from the fact that it is the males in macaque society that leave their family while traditionally in humans it is females who typically go to live with their in-laws.

This brings up the subject of nepotism, to which Maestripieri devotes a chapter (Chapter 3 "Nepotism and Politics"). He begins with some pertinent observations on Machiavelli and contemporary Italian society, noting how nepotism is the key to academic advancement. I was surprised to read that Italian professors often keep a position open for doctoral candidates just in case a relative needs one! (p. 18) Maestripieri follows this with some observations on incest and dispersal, leading to the salient point that it is impossible to understand macaque behavior and their dominance structure without knowing who is related to whom. This apples to human society as well, of course, but is something we more or less take for granted. In macaque society the observer has to watch the females to discern relationships. In human society we also have last names. Interesting. (I guess I should also note that we now have DNA tests for both macaques and humans with the well-known interesting result that the biological father may not be who we think he is.)

Despite the almost jocular tone of the book at times and the lack of scientific rigor in some of Maestripieri's conclusions, I would recommend this book for professionals as well as laypersons because of Maestripieri's perceptive insights into primate behavior gained from many years of study and many years in the field. These insights help us to understand ourselves.

I'm not sure how the author got this book past the editors, but everything in it is brutally honest, as far as I can tell. Naturally, this upsets the PC crowd. Recommend.