Forget the battle of the sexes: New research shows primates have more complex power dynamics than we thought
'For a long time we have had a completely binary view of this issue: we thought that a species was either dominated by males or females — and that this was a fixed trait,' Elise Huchard, a primatologist at the University of Montpellier in France, told AFP.
'Recently, this idea has been challenged by studies showing that the truth is much more complicated,' said the lead author of a new study published in the journal PNAS.
The French-German team of researchers combed through scientific literature for interactions between male and female primates that revealed their hierarchical relationships.
These included aggression, threats and signs of dominant or submissive behaviour, such as when one primate spontaneously moved out of the way of another.
Over five years, the team gathered data from 253 populations across 121 primate species, including a range of monkeys, lemurs, tarsiers and lorises.
They found that confrontations between members of the opposite sex were much more frequent than had been previously thought. On average, more than half of these interactions within a group involved a male and a female.
Males clearly dominating females, which was defined as winning more than 90 per cent of these confrontations, was only observed in 17 per cent of the populations. Among this minority were baboons and chimpanzees, which are the closest living relatives to humans.
Clear female domination was recorded in 13 per cent of the primate populations, including lemurs and bonobos.
This meant that for 70 per cent of the primates, either males or females could be at the top of the pecking order.
Battle of the sexes
When male domination was particularly pronounced, it was usually in a species where males have a clear physical advantage, such as bigger bodies or teeth.
It was also more common among ground-bound species, in which females are less able to run and hide compared to their relatives living in the trees.
Females, meanwhile, tended to dominate over societies when they exerted control over reproduction.
For example, the genitals of female baboons swell when they are ovulating. Males jealously guard females during these few days of their menstrual cycle, making sure that other competitors cannot mate with them.
However in bonobos, this sexual swelling is less obvious.
'Males never know when they are ovulating or not. As a result, (the female bonobos) can mate with whoever they want, whenever they want, much more easily,' Huchard said.
Female dominance is also more common when females compete with each other, and when males provide more care for the young.
In these species, females are often solitary or only live in male-female pairs. This means that monogamy is closely linked to female dominance.
Can these results be extrapolated to our own species? There are a great many differences between humans and our fellow primates, Huchard emphasised.
But we would broadly fall into the middle category in which neither males nor females always have strict dominance over the other.
'These results corroborate quite well with what we know about male-female relationships among hunter-gatherers, which were more egalitarian than in the agricultural societies that emerged later' in human history, Huchard said. — AFP
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
Writing is thinking: do students using ChatGPT learn less?
Recent research suggests that students who use ChatGPT to write essays engage in less critical thinking. (Envato Elements pic) PARIS : When Jocelyn Leitzinger had her university students write about times in their lives they had witnessed discrimination, she noticed that a woman named Sally was the victim in many of the stories. 'It was very clear that ChatGPT had decided this is a common woman's name,' said Leitzinger, who teaches an undergraduate class on business and society at the University of Illinois in Chicago. 'They weren't even coming up with their own anecdotal stories about their own lives,' she told AFP. Leitzinger estimated that around half of her 180 students used ChatGPT inappropriately at some point last semester – including when writing about the ethics of artificial intelligence (AI), which she called both 'ironic' and 'mind-boggling'. So, she was not surprised by recent research which suggested that students who use ChatGPT to write essays engage in less critical thinking. The preprint study, which has not been peer-reviewed, was shared widely online and clearly struck a chord with some frustrated educators. The team of MIT researchers behind the paper have received more than 3,000 emails from teachers of all stripes since it was published online last month, lead author Nataliya Kosmyna told AFP. 'Soulless' AI essays For the small study, 54 adult students from the greater Boston area were split into three groups. One group used ChatGPT to write 20-minute essays, one used a search engine, and the final group had to make do with only their brains. The researchers used EEG devices to measure the brain activity of the students, and two teachers marked the essays. The ChatGPT users scored significantly worse than the brain-only group on all levels. The EEG showed that different areas of their brains connected to each other less often. And more than 80% of the ChatGPT group could not quote anything from the essay they had just written, compared to around 10% of the other two groups. By the third session, the ChatGPT group appeared to be mostly focused on copying and pasting. The teachers said they could easily spot the 'soulless' ChatGPT essays because they had good grammar and structure but lacked creativity, personality and insight. However, Kosmyna pushed back against media reports claiming the paper showed that using ChatGPT made people lazier or more stupid. She pointed to the fourth session, when the brain-only group used ChatGPT to write their essay and displayed even higher levels of neural connectivity. Kosmyna emphasised it was too early to draw conclusions from the study's small sample size but called for more research into how AI tools could be used more carefully to help learning. Ashley Juavinett, a neuroscientist at the University of California San Diego who was not involved in the research, criticised some 'offbase' headlines that wrongly extrapolated from the preprint. 'This paper does not contain enough evidence nor the methodological rigour to make any claims about the neural impact of using LLMs (large language models such as ChatGPT) on our brains,' she told AFP. Thinking outside the bot Leitzinger said the research reflected how she had seen student essays change since ChatGPT was released in 2022, as both spelling errors and authentic insight became less common. Sometimes students do not even change the font when they copy and paste from ChatGPT, she said. But Leitzinger called for empathy for students, saying they can get confused when the use of AI is being encouraged by universities in some classes but is banned in others. The usefulness of new AI tools is sometimes compared to the introduction of calculators, which required educators to change their ways. But Leitzinger worried that students do not need to know anything about a subject before pasting their essay question into ChatGPT, skipping several important steps in the process of learning. A student at a British university in his early 20s who wanted to remain anonymous told AFP he found ChatGPT was a useful tool for compiling lecture notes, searching the internet and generating ideas. 'I think that using ChatGPT to write your work for you is not right because it's not what you're supposed to be at university for,' he said. The problem goes beyond high school and university students. Academic journals are struggling to cope with a massive influx of AI-generated scientific papers. Book publishing is also not immune, with one startup planning to pump out 8,000 AI-written books a year. 'Writing is thinking, thinking is writing, and when we eliminate that process, what does that mean for thinking?' Leitzinger asked.
Malay Mail
2 days ago
- Malay Mail
The stories we tell about the stars — Nahrizul Adib Kadri
JULY 10 — Not long ago, I was in the dentist waiting room at the Faculty of Dentistry, flipping through an old issue of Reader's Digest — the kind where the pages feel like they've passed through many hands. Somewhere in the middle, I came across a short piece on Planet Vulcan. Not the Star Trek kind, mind you. This Vulcan was a theoretical planet once believed to orbit between Mercury and the Sun. In the 19th century, French astronomer Urbain Le Verrier noticed that Mercury's orbit didn't behave the way Newtonian physics said it should. The math didn't add up. So he hypothesised another planet — Vulcan — to explain the wobble. For decades, astronomers looked for it. They believed it was there. Until 1915, when Einstein's theory of general relativity offered a different explanation. Mercury wasn't being tugged by some hidden mass — spacetime itself was bending under the gravity of the Sun. Vulcan quietly vanished, not with drama, but with understanding. And that stayed with me. There are so many things around us that we do not know yet. — Unsplash pic Why? Because for almost fifty years, people searched the skies for something that wasn't there. Not because they were foolish, but because they were following the best story available at the time. And when a better one came along, they moved on. It's a reminder that science, for all its rigour, isn't about final truths. It's about our best attempt at understanding, for now. And when the understanding deepens, the story changes. That doesn't make the old story worthless — it means we're still learning. That shift matters. Especially for those of us who work in science. We like to think we're chasing certainty, but often, we're narrating the evolving shape of what we think we know. The formulas and theories, the charts and conclusions — they're chapters. Not endings. There was a time in my life when I saw science as a vault of fixed answers. But the story of Vulcan reminded me that knowledge moves — and that movement is not failure. It's growth. Even our most accepted ideas today might one day be reframed. Not discarded, but seen differently. Quantum mechanics, for example, was once viewed as too strange to be useful — yet it now forms the basis of the smartphones in our pockets (movement of electrons in semiconductors is based on quantum physics). Flight was long considered a fantasy, until the Wright brothers proved otherwise (flapping wings were thought the only possible way to fly). And in hospitals, something as basic as handwashing was once ridiculed, even as it quietly saved lives — until science caught up and proved Dr Semmelweis right (he suggested doctors to wash their hands when going to different parts of hospitals in 1840s, long before bacteria and viruses were discovered). We forget how many of our current realities were once seen as impossibilities. And that's why storytelling matters. Not the embellishment of fact, but the craft of carrying curiosity. The willingness to hold a narrative loosely, knowing it may shift. Scientists, teachers, students — we're not just collecting data. We're passing along a torch: here's what we've seen so far. Now go ahead and explore more of the darkness ahead. I think often about the question my son once asked after watching Marvel's Avengers: Endgame: 'Is time travel real?' Part of me wanted to say no. But then I paused. Maybe not yet. And maybe that pause is the real answer. The door isn't closed — it's just not open yet. Rumi once wrote, 'Beyond ideas of rightdoing and wrongdoing, there is a field. I'll meet you there.' To me, that field is where science and wonder overlap. Where we speak not in absolutes, but in possibilities. So, if you've ever been told something is settled — that the facts are fixed, that the story is over — it's worth remembering Vulcan. Not because the planet was real, but because the pursuit of it led us somewhere better. It asked better questions. It kept us awake. And maybe that's the point. In a world that moves fast, that begs for certainty, maybe it's not our job to provide conclusions. Maybe it's to keep asking. To stay alert. To keep telling the story, knowing the ending hasn't been written yet. The universe isn't done surprising us. * Ir Dr Nahrizul Adib Kadri is a professor of biomedical engineering at the Faculty of Engineering, and the Principal of Ibnu Sina Residential College, Universiti Malaya. He may be reached at [email protected] ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- Malay Mail
Forget the battle of the sexes: New research shows primates have more complex power dynamics than we thought
PARIS, July 9 — New research on Monday contradicted the commonly held idea that males dominate females among primates, revealing far more nuanced power dynamics in the relationships of our close relatives. 'For a long time we have had a completely binary view of this issue: we thought that a species was either dominated by males or females — and that this was a fixed trait,' Elise Huchard, a primatologist at the University of Montpellier in France, told AFP. 'Recently, this idea has been challenged by studies showing that the truth is much more complicated,' said the lead author of a new study published in the journal PNAS. The French-German team of researchers combed through scientific literature for interactions between male and female primates that revealed their hierarchical relationships. These included aggression, threats and signs of dominant or submissive behaviour, such as when one primate spontaneously moved out of the way of another. Over five years, the team gathered data from 253 populations across 121 primate species, including a range of monkeys, lemurs, tarsiers and lorises. They found that confrontations between members of the opposite sex were much more frequent than had been previously thought. On average, more than half of these interactions within a group involved a male and a female. Males clearly dominating females, which was defined as winning more than 90 per cent of these confrontations, was only observed in 17 per cent of the populations. Among this minority were baboons and chimpanzees, which are the closest living relatives to humans. Clear female domination was recorded in 13 per cent of the primate populations, including lemurs and bonobos. This meant that for 70 per cent of the primates, either males or females could be at the top of the pecking order. Battle of the sexes When male domination was particularly pronounced, it was usually in a species where males have a clear physical advantage, such as bigger bodies or teeth. It was also more common among ground-bound species, in which females are less able to run and hide compared to their relatives living in the trees. Females, meanwhile, tended to dominate over societies when they exerted control over reproduction. For example, the genitals of female baboons swell when they are ovulating. Males jealously guard females during these few days of their menstrual cycle, making sure that other competitors cannot mate with them. However in bonobos, this sexual swelling is less obvious. 'Males never know when they are ovulating or not. As a result, (the female bonobos) can mate with whoever they want, whenever they want, much more easily,' Huchard said. Female dominance is also more common when females compete with each other, and when males provide more care for the young. In these species, females are often solitary or only live in male-female pairs. This means that monogamy is closely linked to female dominance. Can these results be extrapolated to our own species? There are a great many differences between humans and our fellow primates, Huchard emphasised. But we would broadly fall into the middle category in which neither males nor females always have strict dominance over the other. 'These results corroborate quite well with what we know about male-female relationships among hunter-gatherers, which were more egalitarian than in the agricultural societies that emerged later' in human history, Huchard said. — AFP
