Hundredth Monkey Myth

[xouper]

I just saw this displayed by the forum's random quote generator (or whatever it's called):

If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't.

~ Lyall Watson ~
I had to laugh because that Watson is the same doofus who made up the Hundredth Monkey Myth in his 1979 book Lifetide (http://www.lyallwatson.com/Watson%20text%20html%20/LIFETIDE.HTML), which was later repeated rather credulously by Ken Keyes in his 1982 book The Hundredth Monkey (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/094202401X/102-7869211-9517700) (the full text of which is available online for free with permission of the author, but I can't recall where I found that link).

After being called on it, Watson eventually admitted he made it up.

More on that story in Kendrick Frazier's excellent book The Hundredth Monkey: And Other Paradigms of the Paranormal (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0879756551/ref=ase_csicop/102-7869211-9517700) published by CSICOP.

See also http://skepdic.com/monkey.html

[viscousmemories]

That's pretty funny. :D

Here, I found the whole book (http://www.testament.org/testament/100thmonkey.html) online.

[Godless Wonder]

Hmm, I thought this thread was going to be about
the monkeys, the banana, the stairs, the cold water, and the beatings. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=monkeys+banana+cold+water+beat&btnG=Google+Search)

[xouper]

Hmm, I thought this thread was going to be about
the monkeys, the banana, the stairs, the cold water, and the beatings. (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=monkeys+banana+cold+water+beat&btnG=Google+Search)
Thanks for reminding me of that one. I've had the same question as the author of that webpage, is that story based on any actual studies? Or is it just a parable?

[JoeP]

As the person who put that quote up, I want to defend the words: If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. Meaningful in a fun way. But I have no defence for Lyall Watson. In fact I was disappointed when I found this quote, which I like, was by him. I've read his Supernature, which is likewise full of credulous nonsense. (Razor blades sharpening under cardboard models of the Great Pyramid.)

[wade-w]

It would be an interesting experiment to perform. I've always thought it was a parable, since every time I've seen it was in conjunction with a screed on useless and arbitrary rules, such as a bureaucracy.

[JoeP]

As for the monkeys, I heard a simpler story about scientists, monkeys and bananas, which is not necessarily aprocryphal: the experimenters set out a selection of boxes, frames, chairs etc and hung bananas high up - to see how long the monkey (chimp actually) would take to work out a way of building something to reach the bananas. But the chimp ignored the objects and instead seemed distressed, whimpering at the experimenter and trying to pull her over. Assuming it was a failure, the experimenter followed the chimp over to see what it would do. Once there, the chimp jumped up her arms and onto her shoulders and grabbed the bananas.

[Desert Dweller]

the Hundredth Monkey Myth
Skepticism is easy. finding new information or new ways of looking at existing problems is hard.

In fact the basis of the hundredth monkey is not spurious at all. I refer you to the text and photographs in " The Tree of Knowledge" Maturana & Virella (c1983) The pictures and text refer to study of monkeys on Islands off the coast of Japan. Indeed it was found that information (about washing potatoes,
about floating grain on water to separate it from sand) was transferred. Young monkeys learned more quickly and older ones were slower.

If you are going to knock something then I think you ought to check it out thorougly. As I said it's easy to knock, anyone can do it.

[xouper]

onthedole: If you are going to knock something then I think you ought to check it out thorougly. As I said it's easy to knock, anyone can do it.
Speaking of checking things out thoroughly, it is apparent you haven't yet read Amundson or even the skepdic link I posted. There never was a "hundredth monkey" on those islands. The monkey population was never that large, and furthermore, there was nothing mysterious or paranormal about how any of the monkeys learned to wash potatoes. The Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon that Lyall Watson describes in his book is indeed a myth.

[Desert Dweller]

There never was a "hundredth monkey" on those islands
i never thought that the number was any more than an image. The point is that monkeys were observed learning new skills and these skills were passed on to others some of whom were on neighbouring isles. No the population was not huge, it was (if I recall correctly) a left over study population.
Learning to wash potatoes was a new skill as was learning to float grain on the water to permit sand to sink a new skill. Both these were passed on and I thought this was the point. I never imagined anything mystical about this...if I were to follow up such transmission I'd probably look at cellular communication.

[Soubrette]

I don't think anyone would dispute that monkeys are able to learn some things and pass those traits on through teaching or at least observation, onthedole, I believe that in some areas of monkeydom, an observer can tell where a monkey comes from just from how it hunts insects or cracks nuts.

However the point of the 100th monkey myth is that once a certain number of monkeys-in-particular learn something then that knowledge mysteriously becomes part of monkey-in-general knowledge ie monkeys who have never been shown, and have no contact with those who show the learned behaviour somehow know how to wash potatoes or separate sand from grain.

It's more to do with the idea of collective consciousness than the passing and teaching of skills and I don't think the study you reference actually shows anything more mysterious than the latter. Although if you have any links I'd be interested in reading up on it :)

Of course the evidence for collective consciousness is that we all speak fricking American these days :P :wink:

Sou

[Soubrette]

Oh and I meant to ask but forgot :blush:
What do you mean by cellular communication?

Cheers
Sou

[Desert Dweller]

and have no contact with those who show the learned behaviour somehow know I won't swear to it but I 've got the vague memory that this was the case...ie monkeys on nearby islands picked up on the newly learned skills.
As for reference...I menitoned above the text by Maturana and Virella...check this through Oikos.org or put either name into SE. Full names are Humberto Maturana and Francisco Virella (maybe Varella, not sure of spelling and can't get to my books...)

Cellular communication is communication between cells...haven't searched but sure there's something on the www about this as there have been lots of experiments. It may be related to Morphogenisis...the theory of Rupert Sheldrake the British biologist. eg one experiment I recall involved the London Times cryptic crossword. When it had been done in London then viewers in other countries got more out. When it was a premier exposure they got less out. Also done with images briefly exposed on tv...when the images had been exposed in one place the retention rates in a second place were significantly higher...pretty fascinating stuff...good luck in your searches.

[xouper]

and have no contact with those who show the learned behaviour somehow know I won't swear to it but I 've got the vague memory that this was the case...
Before you continue putting your foot in your mouth, please go read the original papers, or at the very least, Amundson's commentary about them. They are cited in both Watson's book and Amundson's articles. It is quite obvious that you have NOT checked this out thoroughly, despite having (erroneously) chastised me to do so.

The technique of washing potatoes was transfered the normal way, monkeys learning through direct observation of other monkeys, one at a time. No "cellular communications" were involved. There was no magic number of monkeys washing potatoes such that suddenly they were all doing it. In 1958, the year Watson claims some paranormal group consciousness event occurred, only two monkeys learned to wash potatoes (named Zabon and Nogi by the researchers). Many of the monkeys never did learn to wash their potatoes.

Another point of fact, which you would have known had you actually checked this out thoroughly, is that very few of the monkeys on other islands learned to wash their potatoes. It was not the case that whole colonies on other islands suddenly started washing potatoes.

Also keep in mind that prior to 1952, the monkeys did not have any potatoes to wash. That's when the researchers began supplying them with potatoes (on the beach) to make it easier to observe them and also to keep the monkeys from raiding the local farms. The point being, this potato washing was a response to a totally new food source, and it is reasonable that if 18-month-old Imo could figure out potato washing, so could other monkeys on other islands.

There is no evidence of anything paranormal going on here.

... It may be related to Morphogenisis...the theory of Rupert Sheldrake the British biologist.
Sorry, but Sheldrake is a known quack.
http://skepdic.com/morphicres.html

[ceptimus]

But did they ever learn to dick their potatoes?

(Sorry. Insider joke for Pillory fans only.)

[Skep]

But did they ever learn to dick their potatoes?

(Sorry. Insider joke for Pillory fans only.)
:D

Surprisingly, that thread (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23452) still exists.



:edit:

pillory's current avatar at SC:

http://img195.exs.cx/img195/6408/mrpillooty0de.jpg

[xouper]

ceptimus: But did they ever learn to dick their potatoes?

(Sorry. Insider joke for Pillory fans only.)
:hysteric: :hysteric:

Every forum should have a Pillory. Does this one?

[Desert Dweller]

There is no evidence of anything paranormal going on here. Never suggested there was Xouper; never imaged there was either. We seem to be working from different sources....
As far as sheldrake being a quack I think we need to suspend judgement else we're not going to discover anything new and interesting. As stated elsewhere it is easy to be a skpetic...I'll take a look at the link you provided and see how open minded the site it.

[livius drusus]

:hysteric: :hysteric:

Every forum should have a Pillory. Does this one?
Sadly, no. Not that we know of, at any rate. There's a pillory at IIDB I've been thinking of inviting, but he's a bit of a one trick pony and he doesn't have pillory's way with one-liners. His creative punctuation almost makes it up for it, though.
Mitosis,, (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=82573)
God are obvious,in the superlative (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79530)


:giggle:

[xouper]

xouper: There is no evidence of anything paranormal going on here.

onthedole: Never suggested there was Xouper;
OK, I accept that. I'm curious then, why did you criticize my opening post? Why did you (erroneously) chastise me for being too quick to knock Watson's paranormal nonsense if you felt all along that there isn't anything to knock?


onthedole: As far as sheldrake being a quack I think we need to suspend judgement ...
What do you mean "we"? I have already investigated and have gathered sufficient information to make such a judgment. So have many other people. I am on solid ground calling Sheldrake a quack.

[xorbie]

:hysteric: :hysteric:

Every forum should have a Pillory. Does this one?
Sadly, no. Not that we know of, at any rate. There's a pillory at IIDB I've been thinking of inviting, but he's a bit of a one trick pony and he doesn't have pillory's way with one-liners. His creative punctuation almost makes it up for it, though.
Mitosis,, (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=82573)
God are obvious,in the superlative (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=79530)


:giggle:

I can't help but smile when I read his posts. What a world he must live in. pfcgreene was somewhat the same, although he was fucking around I think.

[livius drusus]

He makes me smile too, xorbie. I have a lot of appreciation for his unique perspective and offbeat phrasing. I wish people wouldn't be so mean to him.

[Desert Dweller]

why did you criticize my opening post?
Xouper, first I was in a lousy mood and second I maintain a difficult position
(defending a new paradigm in social science) against traditionalists and over the years I grown weary of the 'superiority' of the hard scientists and the noise many make about debunking new ideas.
I read the article you linked to and wasn't that impressed...it made several statements with no evidence whatsoever.

What do you mean "we"? Fair cop...could have been devious and been impassive, "judgement needs to be suspended..."
I know Sheldrake comes out with some pretty weird sounding ideas but progress often emerges from what sounds at first bizarre; als he provokes thought and most importantly some of his ideas actually do explain certain phenomenon; so I think it's worth permitting some slack to those who seek to broaden our thinking.

I mean, aside from a few pills, what has science actually given mankind in recent years? Didn't solve SARS, or bird flu; can't help with conflict in many regions of the world; can't help remove poverty in the third world...contemporary science sometimes seems like the production of toys and pills for the wealthy. A pill to get a hard on (of your lifestyle makes one impotent) but nothing for AIDS in subSaharan Africa.

[The Lone Ranger]

I read the article you linked to and wasn't that impressed...it made several statements with no evidence whatsoever.

If I may, that's exactly the problem with Sheldrake's ideas. He's provided exactly zero evidence that his claims are true, and his ideas don't actually explain anything whatsoever. The "morphogenic field" is a perfect example of pseudoscience -- it sounds quite impressive to the layman, but has zero predictive and explanatory power.


I know Sheldrake comes out with some pretty weird sounding ideas but progress often emerges from what sounds at first bizarre; als he provokes thought and most importantly some of his ideas actually do explain certain phenomenon; so I think it's worth permitting some slack to those who seek to broaden our thinking.

It's not being close-minded to point out that Sheldrake's claims have failed the replication test, and completely fly in the face of virtually everything we think we know about how the natural world works.

As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." Sheldrake's claims are very extraordinary, so he's going to have to provide some pretty darnded convincing evidence before he can expect anyone to take him seriously.

I mean, anyone can claim that they have a "new and revolutionary theory" to explain the functioning of the Universe. Life is far too short to consider all of them. So, before we throw all of our painfully-accumulated knowledge of how the natural world functions out the window, Sheldrake owes all of us some pretty dang convincing proof that he's something other than a crackpot.

They laughed at Galileo and they laughed at Darwin. They also laughed at Bozo. The fact that one's ideas are not taken seriously by the scientific community is not evidence that they have the slightest shred of legitimacy.


I mean, aside from a few pills, what has science actually given mankind in recent years? Didn't solve SARS, or bird flu; can't help with conflict in many regions of the world; can't help remove poverty in the third world...contemporary science sometimes seems like the production of toys and pills for the wealthy. A pill to get a hard on (of your lifestyle makes one impotent) but nothing for AIDS in subSaharan Africa.

I take exception.

Science has shown us exactly how we can prevent the transmission of AIDS, and how to keep alive those who are infected.

It's not the fault of science that people are unwilling to implement the necessary steps to prevent its transmission and that the political will doesn't exist to provide treatment for those who are infected.

Cheers,

Michael

[Desert Dweller]

It's not the fault of science that people are unwilling to implement the necessary steps Here I disagree Michael. Science (read hard science) has resisted the reasonable develoments in social science which (to me) constitute another paradigm. Had these new developments been given the same exposure and credibility of the Lab Jocks then our capacity to bring social change might well be more advanced and people could indeed be more effective in influencing populations to, say, implement the necessary steps.

[xouper]

onthedole: I read the article you linked to and wasn't that impressed...it made several statements with no evidence whatsoever.
If you are referring to the skepdic article, the supporting evidence is in the cited sources. It would behoove you to check them out before passing judgment.

onthedole: I mean, aside from a few pills, what has science actually given mankind in recent years?
You have got to be joking. :eek: :eek: :eek:

OK, assuming yer actually that ignorant, I'll play along.

How about electricity??

How about GPS?

Computers.

Plastics.

Radar.

Not to mention all the significant medical advances beyond a few pills.

Ever heard of x-rays or MRIs or bone marrow transplants?

Sheesh, I could fill several books listing all the significant things science has given mankind in just the past two hundred years.

You say science hasn't solved SARS. Here's a clue, neither has any other epistomelogical method. Here's another clue - science is in a better position than any other epistemelogical method for actually solving that problem.

[Desert Dweller]

I think you missed the word "recent" Xouper...the technologies you mention have been around for some time now. I'm in the third millennium here (lol)!

[xouper]

onthedole: I think you missed the word "recent" Xouper...the technologies you mention have been around for some time now. I'm in the third millennium here (lol)!
:rolleye1: :rolleye1: :rolleye1: :rolleye1:

[The Lone Ranger]

Here I disagree Michael. Science (read hard science) has resisted the reasonable develoments in social science which (to me) constitute another paradigm. Had these new developments been given the same exposure and credibility of the Lab Jocks then our capacity to bring social change might well be more advanced and people could indeed be more effective in influencing populations to, say, implement the necessary steps.

I'm afraid I don't understand.

To take the example of HIV infection, it was (and is) "hard" research that showed how AIDS is caused, how it destroys the body's immune system, how it is transmitted -- and most crucial in this instance, how we can avoid transmitting it from person to person. Such research also led to the development of treatments that will allow an infected person to live out his or her normal lifespan -- if only they can get such treatments.

All of this in the past 20 years or so, by the way. Were it not for the efforts of such researchers, there'd be a great many more AIDS victims than there are, and HIV-positive people would still have a life-expectancy of less than 2 years.


I'm unaware of any "reasonable developments" in the social sciences that have been in any way resisted by the hard sciences. Please enlighten me. (No, I'm not being sarcastic.)

While it's true that the "hard" sciences enjoy more prestige in certain circles than do the social sciences, that may be because of the fact that they've been spectacularly more successful. That's not a criticism; it's simply a brute fact. The behaviors of subatomic particles, viruses, planets, and galaxies are vastly more regular and thus amenable to study than are the behaviors of human beings.

Even so, I know of no concerted effort by physicists, chemists, geologists, or biologists to prevent social scientists from doing their work, or to suppress their legitimate findings. I would be quite interested to learn of any examples.

It's not as if this is a zero-sum game, after all. There's no reason whatsoever that the "hard" sciences and the social sciences cannot coexist amicably.


[By the way, regarding the "arrogance" of the "hard" sciences, I must point out that I've never encountered a physicist or chemist who thinks that physics or chemistry is the proper way to describe social interactions. I've encountered far more social scientists who display outright hostility toward the "hard" sciences than "hard" scientists who display antipathy toward the social sciences. Maybe it's just the people I hang out with, though.]


Cheers,

Michael

[Desert Dweller]

I'm unaware of any "reasonable developments" in the social sciences that have been in any way resisted ... Please enlighten me Michael this is a complex and challenging question. I know your question asked about resistance from the hard sciences as also stated by me; however I have to answer more generally.
Wish I was confident with the answer BTW...
First there is misappropriation. Take for instance conflict resolution (a field which has grown considerably not that you'd notice in society). This has been taken over by lawyers using societies prejudice to perceive conflict and dispute as a legal issue. Of course it's a human issue.
Then there is the power of the ruling males...they have the rank and power to ignore what they don't like. This occurs a lot in politics and corporations where the males concerned over-ride say understandings about inter-personal communication and about human behaviour. (this becomes clear in this country with the Govt's treatment of the unemployed).
Another factor is the resistance of people themselves. People resist change and with social knowledge resistance can be effective in a way it can't be in say chemistry (there they'd be questioning established facts). This is largely unconscious and examples emerge with the treatment of the environment.
Social knowledge is pushing for a new paradigm and this aspect is resisted by the established sciences; not on a personal basis but again on an unconscious basis. The existing paradigm has been so effective in the physical realm that there is a prejudice that it is the only way - in fact this is one of the assumptions, that this method is the best way to investigate nature. So there is a strong unconscious resistance aided by the fact that social knowledge cannot be demonstrated in the clear way of hard science.

Finally, there are many aspects of the emergent social sciences which require personal skill to carry out. People often confuse an intellectual understanding of these skills with the ability to carry them out. For instance in Action Research there are leves of awareness which require training and practice...the researcher requires (a) awareness of self (b) awareness of environment (c) awareness of the thinking and feeling of those present and (d) awareness of the number of issues that are present at any one time.
It takes a sensibility and training to aquire these skills.

This is not a complete answer...that is beyond my ability alone...but perhaps it suggests parts of the answer.
Thank you for your question Michael it is a good one.

[The Lone Ranger]

[QUOTE]I'm unaware of any "reasonable developments" in the social sciences that have been in any way resisted ... Please enlighten me

If I may be so bold, you left out an important part of what I said . . . "by the hard sciences."

This is an important point.

I'm the first to argue that a great many powerful societal elements have a vested interest in the status quo and will ignore or even suppress conflicting viewpoints if they can. And while scientists are certainly human, with all the foibles and frailties that implies, I've yet to see any evidence whatsoever that the "hard" sciences are engaged in any sort of scheme to discredit or destroy the social sciences.

Indeed, it's "hard" scientists who have sounded the warnings on the dangers of ozone depletion, the dangers of increased "greenhouse gas" levels in the atmosphere, the global loss of biodiversity, and so forth -- and been repeatedly frustrated by the indifference or outright hostility of those in power when confronted with these facts.

I don't think it's fair to blame "hard" scientists when they've consistently been the ones to identify and call attention to problems in the first place. They're just as frustrated by the unwillingness of those in power to do anything as anyone else.



Social knowledge is pushing for a new paradigm and this aspect is resisted by the established sciences; not on a personal basis but again on an unconscious basis. The existing paradigm has been so effective in the physical realm that there is a prejudice that it is the only way - in fact this is one of the assumptions, that this method is the best way to investigate nature. So there is a strong unconscious resistance aided by the fact that social knowledge cannot be demonstrated in the clear way of hard science.

No sane person argues that one should use physics, chemistry, or even biology to explain social dynamics. (Though there are certainly contributions each of these fields can make to a better understanding of human social dynamics -- especially biology; anyone who thinks that humans aren't animals with evolved behavior patterns is living in a fantasy world.) Different approaches are appropriate for different kinds of investigations.

No offense, but I've yet to see any clear evidence that the social sciences have articulated any sort of "new paradigm," and I've certainly seen no evidence that it's in any way more effective in describing the world around us than is the "existing paradigm."

After all, physicists, chemistist, geologists and biologists aren't trying to explain human societies, because they know very well that social dynamics can't be explained in the same way that atomic interactions or evolution through natural selection can be.

Assuming that social scientists don't think that their "new paradigm" is in any way "superior" to the "existing paradigm" in explaining things within the realms of physics, biology, etc., I don't see why there needs to be any conflict. "Hard" scientists have demonstrated that their methodologies work very well indeed for explaining the physical world, but they aren't foolish enough to think that social interactions are so easy to explain. (And if anyone can demonstrate a methodology that works even more reliably, we'll happily embrace it.) If social scientists can come up with a useful way to produce and explain "social knowledge" -- and it can be demonstrated to work -- then bully for them.


Finally, there are many aspects of the emergent social sciences which require personal skill to carry out. People often confuse an intellectual understanding of these skills with the ability to carry them out. ... It takes a sensibility and training to aquire these skills.

I'm not sure I understand the point. After all, I'm a "hard" scientist, and what I do takes a considerable degree of training and skill. Not everyone is cut out to do it.

For instance in Action Research there are leves of awareness which require training and practice...the researcher requires (a) awareness of self (b) awareness of environment (c) awareness of the thinking and feeling of those present and (d) awareness of the number of issues that are present at any one time.

Everyone working in the "hard" sciences is trained to recognize that personal biases can influence your interpretation of data, and even the method(s) you choose in order to acquire it. That's why peer review is considered so important, and why no one takes a new "discovery" very seriously until it has been confirmed by independent researchers, and why double-blind testing is considered the best approach.

Similarly, every "hard" scientist is painfully aware that environmental factors can influence outcomes, often in unpredictable ways. That's why one attempts to control for this when conducting experiments, and why statistical analyses include an estimate of the "error" introduced into the model from uncontrollable environmental factors.

Fortunately, those of us in the "hard" sciences (except biologists) rarely have to worry that individual electrons or planets might have personalities or feelings or desires. This greatly simplifies our tasks. To some degree, we have to take that into account in the biological sciences, which is why we can often do no more than explain things in a statistical sense. That's why we have the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior: "Under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, an animal will behave as it damned well pleases."


Cheers,

Michael

[JoeP]

anyone who thinks that humans aren't animals with evolved behavior patterns is living in a fantasy world.) amen!

the Harvard Law of Animal Behavior: "Under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, an animal will behave as it damned well pleases." love it :D

[Desert Dweller]

""Under carefully controlled experimental circumstances, an animal will behave as it damned well pleases."

How succinctly this sums up the difficulties of studying people! (:-)

Can't take issue with your post Michael....

[ceptimus]

What's wrong with the forum summary display?

It's about 17:33 here now, and the summary is still showing, 'Last new post by JoeP at 10:34' even though the last post (before this one) was by onthedole at 11:33.

:chin:

Edit: Yes I refreshed all the pages in my browser, and double checked before I posted this.

[livius drusus]

You're showing correctly as the last poster now for me, cep. Are you still seeing Joe?

[ceptimus]

No. It showed me after I posted, then you, when you replied. If I don't come back and edit this inside a minute, then it means it showed me again after I posted this.

[viscousmemories]

I noticed it too, cep. I have no idea what happened. :chin:

[JoeP]

What's wrong with the forum summary display?

It's about 17:33 here now, and the summary is still showing, 'Last new post by JoeP at 10:34' even though the last post (before this one) was by onthedole at 11:33.

:chin:

Edit: Yes I refreshed all the pages in my browser, and double checked before I posted this.
Hey, the software likes me. Can't help that.

[xouper]

xouper: ... the Hundredth Monkey Myth ...

onthedole: Skepticism is easy. finding new information or new ways of looking at existing problems is hard.

In fact the basis of the hundredth monkey is not spurious at all. I refer you to the text and photographs in " The Tree of Knowledge" Maturana & Virella (c1983) The pictures and text refer to study of monkeys on Islands off the coast of Japan. Indeed it was found that information (about washing potatoes, about floating grain on water to separate it from sand) was transferred. Young monkeys learned more quickly and older ones were slower.

If you are going to knock something then I think you ought to check it out thorougly. As I said it's easy to knock, anyone can do it.
It took a while, but in the interests of being even more thorough than I've been, I have finally gotten my hands on a copy of Maturana's book, The Tree of Knowledge (revised edition ©1987). It does not contradict anything I have said in this thread. It only briefly mentions the Japanese macaque study (two paragraphs) and makes no mention of any "Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon."

There is nothing at all "thorough" about the treatment of this story in Maturana's book. By comparison, Amundson's chapter in Frazier's book -- eleven pages of detailed analysis of Watson's claim -- is encyclopedic.

Your criticism of my opening post is totally unfounded, and quite frankly, insulting.

Now that I have the book, I may read the rest of it. I am, however, disappointed to discover that it is published not by a reputable science publisher but by a publisher in the metaphysics market, including authors such as Ken Wilbur, Fritjof Capra, and Charles Tart.

see: http://shambhala.com