The effect of perceived inequality on monkeys

originally posted by: loveguy
Super good OP!

I didn't pay well enough attention...but would like to ask if the baboons were fed by an outside the troop entity; a human?
I guess so, one a cucumber- the other grapes were given?

...I'm thinking that if the food was provided by an outside the troop entity, all the baboons will have a certain amount of reverence toward whomever fed them during the study...that reverence will then extend to all the troop members in the group because they equally are cared for by this entity?

...if none of them are winning food for the whole troop, none of them gain a 'license' to pick and choose who will eat what?

I guess what I'm asking is;
Are humans in any way interacting with them during the study?
I think the reverence they have for each other stems from the reverence they all share for the guy feeding them...

There are 2 different observations/experiments, I think you have them mixed. There is the one with capuchin monkeys with is an experiment taking place in a lab with controlled conditions in which there is a human standing there and giving cucumber or grapes, and there is this other situation with a troop of baboons which is more an observation rather than an experiment.

Here is a video about the baboons

a reply to: gosseyn

Interesting. Could the lab studies be anthropomorphism the monkeys? How do we know they're reacting with jealousy or indignation? They could be thinking: Oh! We can get grapes for this! Hey, wait! I want the grape! How do I get the grape? Have they done studies showing they don't react the same way if say, they're given grapes one day, and the next their prize is reduced to cucumbers?

Capuchin monkeys appear to do better than humans in this experiment.
Human investors don't stop gambling even when it is revealed that insider traders get all the grapes..

a reply to: gosseyn

Did we actually need scientific studies to tell us this?? I mean, I know I'm not the most empathetic of people on ATS, but even I innately knew what would happen just by reading the first few lines of the experiment.

And the conclusions drawn - it just seems... common sense that mental illness and distrust would be higher in societies where inequality was more commonplace.

What am I missing here...? I'm not trying to be critical, but it just seems so obvious.

I was wondering if there is data on the rest of the countries? The chart is western Countries+japan & Singapore.
I for the life of me cannot figure out how they came out with measure they did. I cannot find the methodology for deciding what is inequality, I want to know how they weighted it. Usually the GINI coefficient is used.

Using the GINI index, which is the most popular equality index here are some countries that are excluded but have equal or better to many of the countries listed.
Slovenia & Ukraine Best the first in the data Denmark. Now continued: moldova, Kazakhstan, Albania, Malta, Pakistan, Kosovo, South Korea, Armenia, Egypt, Timor-Leste, Croatia, Bangladesh, Poland, Tajikstsan, Nepal, Ethiopia, Kyrgystan, you get the point.


I would also like to see data post-refugee crisis. Most data is pre-great recession

Interesting data nonetheless.

Remember in some of these countries in the graph their incomes would be at the US poverty level.

My hypothesis for income equality and yet have high median incomes would be this.

Private property rights*Cultural Homogeneity=best outcomes

Links to data for my hypothesis:
Diversity Data 2003

Private property rights index

(private property rights index is different than the free market index)

Thanks for the topic.

P.S. sorry to pick the data but I strive for truth.