The "Hundredth Monkey" Effect and the Modern Western "Agenda"

Hello ATC!

I have always been amazed at how the super conservative capitalist Western society in the 21st century is rapidly turning into something amorphous, middle-sex, middle-race, middle-indoctrinated beliefs, and so on. After all, until recently this society adhered to faith in God, conservative values, freedom of speech, endless personal freedom, freedom of business and property, which people under communist rule openly envied. And suddenly, almost instantly by historical standards, Western society is transformed into a communist "paradise". Yes, we all know what happened to boys in English educational institutions, when any person who graduated from college as a result of studying (I remember Pink Floyd, The Wall), already had homosexual experience. The same was imposed in the USA. But still, in the 21st century there was a qualitative leap in the consciousness of society, which according to all the laws of evolution, the same Darwin, could not have happened, especially in such a short period of time. And now, at any snap of the fingers of the mainstream media, people are ready to hate other nations and countries, have a sex change operation (Brrr) or kiss the dirty boot of anyone the mainstream media points to. But it happened. Why? And then I remembered the Hundredth Monkey effect. What is it? I will tell you about it in this thread.

So...

In 1984, the book "The Hundredth Monkey" was published in the USA, where its author, psychologist Ken Case, describes the principle of the spread of new norms in society, based on a large study of the behavior of Japanese macaques on the island of Kyushu.

Japanese macaques are small, long-haired monkeys, weighing 15-30 kg, 70-80 cm tall, famous for their cute pink muzzle and very warm, downright "human" relationships in the pack. For example, they share prey among themselves, give the tastiest to the babies, create pairs for life, and also have a special intra-group signal language that is incomprehensible to monkeys of the same species, but from another pack.

Scientists observing macaques fed them sweet potatoes, which the animals simply adored. But there was one problem.

Scientists threw pieces of sweet potatoes on the sand, which then crunched on their teeth.

Most put up with such inconvenience, but one of the females, named Imo, decided to dip her piece in the water of a small lake and only then eat it. She liked the result. The grains of sand no longer got into her mouth. Then Imo began to do the same with every piece of sweet potato that she got - before eating it, she washed it in water.

First, the young people noticed Imo's actions. Many wanted to imitate her and were pleased with the result.

Then the females tried the innovation.

The old males were the ones who hesitated the longest. They snorted skeptically, watching the "progress". (Very similar to most of the ATS men, isn't it?))))

However, with each passing day, more and more macaques in the pack washed the sweet potato before eating it.

The critical threshold was crossed when the hundredth monkey began washing the sweet potato. Then the spread of the idea accelerated many times and macaques on other islands also began to wash the sweet potato, although contacts between them for the transfer of experience were not recorded.

Zoo psychologist Layell Watson hypothesized that the spread of new ideas is like a wave and gains momentum when a sufficient number of individuals become its carriers. In human society, everything happens exactly the same way.

Some ideas gain popularity, while others - perhaps not the worst, but very smart, do not find a sufficient number of supporters.

By the way, today it is very easy to influence the spread of an idea - by liking or disliking the content. Thus, each of us forms the environment of the future. In my opinion, this matter should be approached responsibly: does the information bring good and positive? Does it generate a desire for knowledge? Does it make us better or dumber? In short, not all that glitters is gold!
Returning to Ken Case and his book "The Hundredth Monkey"

The author puts forward the following idea:

When the mental energy of many individuals crosses a certain quantitative threshold, an explosion and a change in consciousness occurs. Originality becomes the norm. And in a couple of generations, no one will think of eating sweet potatoes without first rinsing them in water.

If our ancestors had been told that marriage is a matter for two, they would have decided that the world had gone mad. But what about family values ​​- land, silver, etc.?

And then I remembered the theory of psychologist Dr. Kinsey, who claimed that the natural threshold of perversion in society is 5%. Then, upon reaching 10%, a qualitative leap occurs. And when the amount of degeneration in society reaches 2/3 (66% or 666 out of a thousand according to the Apocalypse in the Revelations of John the Theologian), then this society with a 100% probability dies out, self-destructs.
Is this happening now in the West? After all, if the Lord wants to destroy Society, he deprives its members of reason.
Is this my thinking.

Thank you. Any adequate opinion is welcome

It's called "The Diffusion Of Innovations" and nothing to do with revelation.
www.britannica.com...

diffusion of innovations, model that attempts to describe how novel products, practices, or ideas are adopted by members of a social system. The theory of diffusion of innovations originated in the first half of the 20th century and was later popularized by American sociologist Everett M. Rogers in his book Diffusion of Innovations, first published in 1962.

Communication channels and the agents of change affect the diffusion process as well. Communication channels include face-to-face communication and mass communication, while agents of change are those individuals who bring innovations to members of a social system. Agents of change may be members of the community or individuals outside the social structure of the community. Diffusion analysis must consider who talks to whom, who is considered influential and trustworthy, and who has easy access to or is barred from various communication channels. Characteristics of the potential adopters are of critical concern. Overall, factors such as socioeconomic status, culture, gender, race, age, cultural norms, religion, education, social support, and family ties all influence access to and perceptions of the innovation.

Read something other than Russian propaganda every now then....

ETA...
You may also want to look into the Bass diffusion model (1969) and The Kermack-McKendrick theory from Epidemiology.

a reply to: RussianTroll

"Yes , we all know what happened to boys in English educational institutions, when any person who graduated from college as a result of studying (I remember Pink Floyd, The Wall), already had homosexual experience. "

You know this, how?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: RussianTroll

"Yes , we all know what happened to boys in English educational institutions, when any person who graduated from college as a result of studying (I remember Pink Floyd, The Wall), already had homosexual experience. "

You know this, how?

We all know RT only posts what he claims he knows about, so he's obviously very experienced in the subject.....

Doesn't matter the thread, he can't help but try to take a swipe at British culture.

a reply to: Kurokage

I found most of the OP interesting. Not something I know much about and I very much doubt I could offer anything of merit to the thread. But its certainly something I would have viewed as an opportunity to learn and would have followed the thread.

The part about the monkeys was particularly interesting. How could groups that have no connection with the original group have picked up the practice of cleaning the sand from the fruit before eating?

Its obvious you too have quite a bit of knowledge on the subject and it would be great to follow a thread without the political bickering.

But how can we do that when everything RT posts nowadays seems to have some sort of anti-West - particularly the UK - undercurrent running through it? Its as if he just can't resist engaging in some sort of political baiting trying to wind people up to get some sort of aggressive response that transgresses site T&C's.

As for his references to homosexual experiences in the British education system?
Some sort of Freudian like slip?

a reply to: Freeborn

Interesting that the OP makes the leap of logic from monkeys washing sweet potatoes to the total demise of the West?

Well, more odd than interesting.

a reply to: Freeborn


I to find the subject matter interesting. These sort of subjects also tie into the spread of propaganda and social media use. Versions of The Bass diffusion model are still used today, heres an example applied to Nuclear weapons tests..

medium.com...@fatima05309/understanding-and-applying-the-bass-model-of-diffusion-82c3edd02818

Ideas, disease, and technology all spread. Some gain momentum faster than others and some die out after reaching a peak. Researchers and marketers often want to ‘time’ the adoption and diffusion of a new product or technology.

Developed by Frank Bass (1969), the Bass Model is a basic and widely used model of diffusion. The model is parsimonious with only three parameters and is popularly used in marketing for predicting future sales of a product, and in agriculture for estimating adoption of hybrid and genetically modified seeds.

The article will walk through the solution and calibration of the Bass Model and then apply it to the Nuclear Weapons test data in R to visualize the adoption of nuclear weapons over time.

Why Do Great Ideas Take So Long to Spread?

hbr.org...

Just because a new fact or idea seems right, doesn’t mean it will spread like wildfire. Evolution, hand washing in hospitals, the inevitability that personal computers were the future of technology — none of these ideas were accepted immediately, even though they seem obvious today. Change takes time. But why?

The short answer is we’re intellectually stubborn. We don’t always weigh all the evidence before we make a decision, and this is especially true if a change of opinion requires a wholesale overhaul of our worldview. Usually, we’re defensive in the face of change, spouting alternative theories and contradictory data. Although this type of resistance can help keep everyone honest, it can also produce very bad effects.

Just take Ignaz Semmelweis — a physician who recommended doctors clean their hands prior to delivering babies — who was ignored and essentially driven mad by his colleagues’ refusal to accept the truth. But eventually, in the face of overwhelming evidence, the majority will generally accept the new theory, before their recalcitrance becomes too counterproductive.

a reply to: RussianTroll
I read years ago that humans may have been doing a similar thing as the monkies at certain points in history-when certain ideas or inventions arise at different points on the planet but at around the same time.
Things like bows/arrows,the wheel,and even splitting the atom.

To me that suggests that some degree of our consciousness is external to our physical brain.


I am not sure this is the phenomena we see happening to western countries.
I think that is more akin to "Hyperstition."

Hyperstition is the theory that if an as yet uninvented "thing" is put into our culture through stories/films/books or other media-then that thing will slowly but surely manifest as reality.

A good example would be the touch screen tablets seen in star trek-those were science fiction-but have since become real.

But not only physical items can be made real by the hype-thoughts and ideas can be as well.
Just by constantly talking about an unrealized future can create the hype needed to make it reality.

It works for good ideas,but sadly also for bad ideas.

Things like newspaper headlines like "knife attacks increase" will actually see an increase in knife attacks in the days.weeks following the headline..


Which is kind of scary as the things our media are now hyping up could cause the end of our civilisation.

AI

Nuclear war

Climate catastrophy

Dystopia


These are pretty big themes these days-they are the early stages of hyperstition.



Like Buddha said "With our thoughts we MAKE the world."

The whole 100 monkey phenomenon is an interesting one, I've read about a study that isolated 2 groups.
they both had to fill out crossword puzzles while one group got them at the time they were printed in news paper while the other got them after the whole country did those crosswords in the news paper.
the group that got them after the public had significantly higher scores than the group that got them at the day of release, suggesting that the collective knowledge was somehow shared.

It really all boils down to mind over matter or matter over mind.

The most interesting about RTs threads are the few posters that come out like clockwork not missing any opportunity to bash the Poster...

Tell me you have a personal bias without tellimg me you have a personal bias...

a reply to: Terpene

Thank you, your post gave me food for thought))))

originally posted by: onestonemonkey
a reply to: RussianTroll


To me that suggests that some degree of our consciousness is external to our physical brain.

Quite recently in one of my threads I wrote that unlike animals, in a human being besides the Soul there is the Holy Spirit. And it does not belong to a human being. There is either more or less of it, depending on the righteousness of a human being. And it does not belong to a human being.

a reply to: RussianTroll

If you are looking for an interesting science/behavior experiment which may explain the changing sexual "norms" of western societies-and some other weird societal stuff like mass shootings/hikikomori/feminized men/willful gluttony-

Have a look at the "Mouse Utopia" experiment-the "universe 25" part shows very strange and ultimately fatal things occur in a society(of mice)which are given everything they need to survive without doing the work to get it...

Then think about the huge percentage of welfare dependent people in the west..

a reply to: onestonemonkey

Thank you. I'll look for it and read it)))

a reply to: Terpene

The most interesting about RTs threads are the few posters that come out like clockwork not missing any opportunity to bash the Poster...

Your edit is far more interesting than this bit which you originally posted on its own.

Perhaps if the OP hadn't contained the usual Brit bashing the usual posters wouldn't have commented in such a way.

It is a very interesting subject and one I'm not very familiar with hence my eagerness to learn free from any sort of ulterior motive or agenda.

It seems as if the OP and others more informed are suggesting some sort of collective consciousness that we are pretty much unaware of and certainly can't explain at present - now that is fascinating.

I'd hate to see this thread descend into yet another RT-Brit slanging match, we can but hope.

a reply to: Terpene

Tell me you have a personal bias without tellimg me you have a personal bias...

Maybe you should be asking that question to the OP?? In nearly every opening post in nearly every thread 'Alexander' finds a way to bash Britian, even when the thread and opening post has absolutely nothing to do with the UK.

It's very telling and does show personal bias so thanks for pointing it out.


a reply to: onestonemonkey

Though very interesting, opinions on the work have now changed.

www.smithsonianmag.com...

Now, interpretations of Calhoun’s work have changed. Inglis-Arkell explains that the main problem of the habitats he created wasn’t really a lack of space. Rather, it seems likely that Universe 25’s design enabled aggressive mice to stake out prime territory and guard the pens for a limited number of mice, leading to overcrowding in the rest of the world.

However we interpret Calhoun’s experiments, though, we can take comfort in the fact that humans are not rodents. Follow-up experiments by other researchers, which looked at human subjects, found that crowded conditions didn’t necessarily lead to negative outcomes like stress, aggression or discomfort.

There's a good article over at TheScientist about the experiment.

www.the-scientist.com...

Looking back on the Universe 25 experiment with present day scientific perspective, the limits of its interpretations are evident. The research was largely observational and subjective. Calhoun described his study as “not normal science,” referring to it instead as an “observation and reconstruction of a process.”2 Observational studies have a higher risk of bias and confusing correlation with causation.3 Scientists have suggested that Universe 25 suffers from inaccurate interpretation of experimental outcomes, methods, and potentially confounding variables,4 which reflect information bias.

a reply to: Freeborn

The English have not liked the Russians since the time of the Crimean temnik Mamai, who went to Rus', which ended in the famous Battle of Kulikovo, where Mamai was defeated, and Rus' stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Many bankers from Belgium, Holland, Lombardy, Genoa and Venice invested in Mamai's campaign in the hope of robbing Rus'. The Genoese even sent their warriors. The investments (enormous at that time) collapsed. Later, these same bankers from Lombardy and Belgium invested in Cromwell, won a victory and became the founders of the Bank of England. But they did not forget the loss of their investments in Russia. This is the origin of England's hatred of Russia, even despite the fact that the imperial courts of both countries were related.

I know world history quite well, and the history of Russia even better. If you want, I will publish a topic in which I will reveal all the genetic and migration origins of all the peoples who conquered the British Isles at one time. Their genetics, haplogroups, where they came from, who they defeated and where they went after being defeated by the next aliens. All the peoples of Britain. But this will be a huge article in terms of volume. I am not sure that it will suit the format of our forum.

In any case, thank you for your opinion, I appreciate it.

originally posted by: RussianTroll
a reply to: Freeborn

The English have not liked the Russians since the time of the Crimean temnik Mamai, who went to Rus', which ended in the famous Battle of Kulikovo, where Mamai was defeated, and Rus' stopped paying tribute to the Horde. Many bankers from Belgium, Holland, Lombardy, Genoa and Venice invested in Mamai's campaign in the hope of robbing Rus'. The Genoese even sent their warriors. The investments (enormous at that time) collapsed. Later, these same bankers from Lombardy and Belgium invested in Cromwell, won a victory and became the founders of the Bank of England. But they did not forget the loss of their investments in Russia. This is the origin of England's hatred of Russia, even despite the fact that the imperial courts of both countries were related.

I know world history quite well, and the history of Russia even better. If you want, I will publish a topic in which I will reveal all the genetic and migration origins of all the peoples who conquered the British Isles at one time. Their genetics, haplogroups, where they came from, who they defeated and where they went after being defeated by the next aliens. All the peoples of Britain. But this will be a huge article in terms of volume. I am not sure that it will suit the format of our forum.

In any case, thank you for your opinion, I appreciate it.

See what I mean with my comments to Terpene, can't stick to your thread subject and can't help but jump straight to bashing Britain.
It show your shear fear, hatred and anxiety, you'd actually make an interesting physiological subject to study, on how opinions are formed and driven by fear, we could easily use the Bass diffusion model as part of how that fear then spreads to your family and peers.

a reply to: RussianTroll

We don't hate Russia....sorry mate but you're pretty much irrelevant to us. ( I do dislike Putin and his administration).
The Russians I've met are actually quite likeable - even the one's I've conversed with on the ATS. They have a good sense of humour and like a drink - good attributes in my book.

Now instead of posting some revisionist history piece aimed at denigrating the British why couldn't you stay on topic - an interesting topic - and post something relevant to that.

Come on RT, I know you are much better than this.

All this anti-Brit rhetoric and propaganda has become incredibly boring and tedious.

a reply to: Freeborn

I did not write that the British hate Russia and Russians. The British elites and, accordingly, the entire agenda in Britain, which is formed by them, certainly influences the opinion of ordinary British people.

I have no anti-British rhetoric. It just so happened historically that behind every provocation against Russia there are British ears. This is reality, history, and I mention it. But unlike many British people with whom I do not communicate on the forum, I have never shouted slogans insulting England and the peoples of England.

Are you seriously considering any historical research on the history of England to be Kremlin propaganda? Our forum denies ignorance!

a reply to: RussianTroll

I know enough about British and English history to hold an informed discussion.

My point is, which you seem so intent on proving for me, is that you started this particular thread on a quite interesting subject. Included in the OP was the now customary anti-British rhetoric and undertones, for no apparent reason.

And instead of staying on topic you are pushing the anti-UK angle rather than the original topic.

Enter into reasoned debate and discussion with those members who are obviously informed and interested in the subject, let those of us who are keen to learn more continue reading, all free from any sort of politicised agenda.