What do you think?
Rate this book
Roots of Human Behavior
While human history is usually studied from the perspective of a few hundred years, anthropologists consider deeper causes for the ways we act. In this course, anthropologist Barbara J. King uses her wealth of research experience to open a window of understanding for you into the legacy left by our primate past.
These lectures look for the roots of human behavior in the behavior of other primates: monkeys, apes, and human ancestors. In these lectures, you explore such questions as: Are language and technology unique to humans? Have human love and loyalty developed from emotions of our primate cousins? Do the ways in which human males and females relate to each other come from our primate past? Have we inherited a biological tendency for aggression? How much of our behavioral, cognitive, and cultural identity have we inherited from our closest living relatives? How can the study of monkeys and apes lead us to a fuller picture of who we are?
As human beings who value our advanced technologies and complex cultures, we are accustomed to viewing ourselves as unique. Since the 1960s, however, when dramatic new findings about monkeys and apes burst onto the scene, it has become increasingly clear that many of the behaviors that we have taken as distinctly human were present before human evolution began. Thus we look back to a forest in Africa, millions of years ago, when a generalized great ape ancestor split into distinct lineages, then evolved and divided further to create our closest living relatives, and human beings. Elsewhere, in Asia and the New World, other anthropoid primates followed their own evolutionary course, separate from the human lineage, yet still connected in important ways. From this vantage point, we can see the vast and vibrant range of species to which we are related, not just anatomically, but behaviorally.
An Expert as Your Guide
Dr. King has spent 22 years on the cutting-edge of biological anthropology, not just in the academy but on the plains of Kenya at Amboseli National Park, where she studied baboons, and as a researcher of lowland gorillas at the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park. She has taught at The College of William and Mary since 1988 and has won teaching awards, including William and Mary's Thomas Jefferson Teaching Award and the Virginia State Council of Higher Education's Outstanding Faculty Award. The recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, Professor King has published three books on anthropology and is writing a fourth. Her perspective is scientific, and the lessons she shares in this course are drawn from an analysis of scores of case studies, the researcher's stock in trade. She is careful to offer persuasive arguments, but avoids definitive conclusions unless they are solidly warranted. Her belief is that, for the scientist, ideas are to be tested, evaluated, sometimes discarded, sometimes revised, and always to be refined by the latest data. "Dr. King explores commonalities shared by nonhuman anthropoid primates and humans without overlooking the great degree of behavioral diversity within and across species.
"Each of the half-hour lectures builds upon the knowledge base of the previous lectures," reports The American Journal of Primatology. Biocultural Beings One main tool of the biological anthropologist is the biocultural approach. Using this perspective, humans are analyzed both as products of their evolutionary past and as architects of their own current cultural contexts. "Further," states Dr. King, "humans are seen as one type of anthropoid, a grouping of organisms that includes monkeys, apes, humans, and human ancestors. In this comparative approach, the behavior of anthropoids is broadly assessed to identify possible 'roots of human behavior.'" As anyone familiar with the "nature vs. nurture" debate knows, we have long considered what aspects of human behavior are innate and which are produced by our cultural environment.
This concept is a central theme of this course: that all anthropoid primates, including humans, are indeed biocultural beings. We are neither biologically determined, nor tabulae rasae, upon which culture is imposed. Rather, identity emerges out of a jointly active and dynamic process. Applying this model to apes and monkeys has revolutionized our appreciation of their complex and evolving natures. For example, we now know that: Infant baboons are active in finding out what foods to eat and how to prepare them. Recent observation of an African chimpanzee youngster suggests that it invented a "doll" to keep itself company. Gorillas that do not use tools in the wild have, in captivity, invented tools to increase their access to food. These are only a few of the striking examples of how great apes and monkeys spontaneously adapt in new and different ways to prove that biology isn't necessarily destiny. The Anthropomorphic Debate An enigmatic question lingers: Just how alike are we to our anthropoid relatives? Some critics have argued that we are too quick to project human qualities onto animals, especially the great apes. Dr. King tackles this debate head-on and examines many challenging questions and issues: Male orangutans have been known to engage in forced copulation with unwilling female partners, and male gorillas sometimes commit infanticide to acquire a new, fertile mate. Can we properly understand these acts as rape and murder? What does this tell us about a biological basis for male aggression in humans? Well-known primate researcher Jane Goodall observed that when Flo, a female chimpanzee, died from old age, Flo's youngest child wasted away and eventually died. Is her claim that the infant died of "grief" viable? We know that on rare occasions chimpanzees slowly demonstrate feeding and tool-using techniques when infants are present. Is this teaching?
The Human Equation: Our Place in Today's World
Professor King's thorough and critical examination of our diverse primate roots allows you to see our human family in an entirely new light.
These lectures look for the roots of human behavior in the behavior of other primates: monkeys, apes, and human ancestors. In these lectures, you explore such questions as: Are language and technology unique to humans? Have human love and loyalty developed from emotions of our primate cousins? Do the ways in which human males and females relate to each other come from our primate past? Have we inherited a biological tendency for aggression? How much of our behavioral, cognitive, and cultural identity have we inherited from our closest living relatives? How can the study of monkeys and apes lead us to a fuller picture of who we are?
As human beings who value our advanced technologies and complex cultures, we are accustomed to viewing ourselves as unique. Since the 1960s, however, when dramatic new findings about monkeys and apes burst onto the scene, it has become increasingly clear that many of the behaviors that we have taken as distinctly human were present before human evolution began. Thus we look back to a forest in Africa, millions of years ago, when a generalized great ape ancestor split into distinct lineages, then evolved and divided further to create our closest living relatives, and human beings. Elsewhere, in Asia and the New World, other anthropoid primates followed their own evolutionary course, separate from the human lineage, yet still connected in important ways. From this vantage point, we can see the vast and vibrant range of species to which we are related, not just anatomically, but behaviorally.
An Expert as Your Guide
Dr. King has spent 22 years on the cutting-edge of biological anthropology, not just in the academy but on the plains of Kenya at Amboseli National Park, where she studied baboons, and as a researcher of lowland gorillas at the Smithsonian's National Zoological Park. She has taught at The College of William and Mary since 1988 and has won teaching awards, including William and Mary's Thomas Jefferson Teaching Award and the Virginia State Council of Higher Education's Outstanding Faculty Award. The recipient of a Guggenheim Fellowship, Professor King has published three books on anthropology and is writing a fourth. Her perspective is scientific, and the lessons she shares in this course are drawn from an analysis of scores of case studies, the researcher's stock in trade. She is careful to offer persuasive arguments, but avoids definitive conclusions unless they are solidly warranted. Her belief is that, for the scientist, ideas are to be tested, evaluated, sometimes discarded, sometimes revised, and always to be refined by the latest data. "Dr. King explores commonalities shared by nonhuman anthropoid primates and humans without overlooking the great degree of behavioral diversity within and across species.
"Each of the half-hour lectures builds upon the knowledge base of the previous lectures," reports The American Journal of Primatology. Biocultural Beings One main tool of the biological anthropologist is the biocultural approach. Using this perspective, humans are analyzed both as products of their evolutionary past and as architects of their own current cultural contexts. "Further," states Dr. King, "humans are seen as one type of anthropoid, a grouping of organisms that includes monkeys, apes, humans, and human ancestors. In this comparative approach, the behavior of anthropoids is broadly assessed to identify possible 'roots of human behavior.'" As anyone familiar with the "nature vs. nurture" debate knows, we have long considered what aspects of human behavior are innate and which are produced by our cultural environment.
This concept is a central theme of this course: that all anthropoid primates, including humans, are indeed biocultural beings. We are neither biologically determined, nor tabulae rasae, upon which culture is imposed. Rather, identity emerges out of a jointly active and dynamic process. Applying this model to apes and monkeys has revolutionized our appreciation of their complex and evolving natures. For example, we now know that: Infant baboons are active in finding out what foods to eat and how to prepare them. Recent observation of an African chimpanzee youngster suggests that it invented a "doll" to keep itself company. Gorillas that do not use tools in the wild have, in captivity, invented tools to increase their access to food. These are only a few of the striking examples of how great apes and monkeys spontaneously adapt in new and different ways to prove that biology isn't necessarily destiny. The Anthropomorphic Debate An enigmatic question lingers: Just how alike are we to our anthropoid relatives? Some critics have argued that we are too quick to project human qualities onto animals, especially the great apes. Dr. King tackles this debate head-on and examines many challenging questions and issues: Male orangutans have been known to engage in forced copulation with unwilling female partners, and male gorillas sometimes commit infanticide to acquire a new, fertile mate. Can we properly understand these acts as rape and murder? What does this tell us about a biological basis for male aggression in humans? Well-known primate researcher Jane Goodall observed that when Flo, a female chimpanzee, died from old age, Flo's youngest child wasted away and eventually died. Is her claim that the infant died of "grief" viable? We know that on rare occasions chimpanzees slowly demonstrate feeding and tool-using techniques when infants are present. Is this teaching?
The Human Equation: Our Place in Today's World
Professor King's thorough and critical examination of our diverse primate roots allows you to see our human family in an entirely new light.
Audio CD
First published January 1, 2001
4 people are currently reading
69 people want to read
About the author
Barbara J. King
14 books66 followersBarbara J. King
The College of William and Mary
Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Barbara J. King is a biological anthropologist and Professor of Anthropology at The College of William and Mary. Professor King received her B.A. in anthropology from Douglass College, Rutgers University, and earned her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma.
Professor King’s research interests concern the social communication of the great apes, the closest living relatives to humans. She has studied ape and monkey behavior in Gabon, Kenya, and at the Language Research Center at Georgia State University. The recipient of a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, she has published three books on anthropology, including The Information Continuum: Social Information Transfer in Monkeys, Apes, and Hominids.
At William and Mary, Professor King has won four teaching awards: The William and Mary Alumni Association Teaching Award, the College’s Thomas Jefferson Teaching Award, the Virginia State Council of Higher Education’s Outstanding Faculty Award, and the designation of University Professor for Teaching Excellence, 1999–2002.
The College of William and Mary
Ph.D., University of Oklahoma
Barbara J. King is a biological anthropologist and Professor of Anthropology at The College of William and Mary. Professor King received her B.A. in anthropology from Douglass College, Rutgers University, and earned her M.A. and Ph.D. from the University of Oklahoma.
Professor King’s research interests concern the social communication of the great apes, the closest living relatives to humans. She has studied ape and monkey behavior in Gabon, Kenya, and at the Language Research Center at Georgia State University. The recipient of a Guggenheim Foundation Fellowship, she has published three books on anthropology, including The Information Continuum: Social Information Transfer in Monkeys, Apes, and Hominids.
At William and Mary, Professor King has won four teaching awards: The William and Mary Alumni Association Teaching Award, the College’s Thomas Jefferson Teaching Award, the Virginia State Council of Higher Education’s Outstanding Faculty Award, and the designation of University Professor for Teaching Excellence, 1999–2002.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
August 31, 2017
Not quite what I expected. The title really suggests that it will be about human behavior, possibly exploring underlying psychological patterns or evolutionary origins. Instead it is all about monkey and ape behavior, though especially focusing on behaviors that one might assume are, if not uniquely human, then at least central to the human experience. The thesis is only directly addressed on occasion in the lectures, but the underlying point is that much of what people think of as human behavior has its roots in primate/anthropoid behavior, the defining characteristics of humans turning out to be more quantitative than qualitative. This is actually a concept that I have been contemplating for some time, though more generalized to traits that we may have inherited from animals or mammals more generally; the anthropoid connections are even closer.
The information and ideas examined here are a good starting point for really contemplating human nature and assumptions about intelligence, and the potential impact of biological constraints and opportunities on culture. As such, there is a lot of fodder for working on speculative fiction, developing fantasy races or alien species that might be quite different from human models of intelligence and behavior.
I do wish there was a newer version of this lecture series. It is already 16 years old and I know that quite a lot has changed in our understanding of ancient/extinct hominids, even if they aren't a major focus here, and I am sure that there are new developments in studies of modern apes and monkeys. Also, the lectures end on a rather depressing note about threats to conservation of these organisms; I am sure that things have only gotten worse, but it would be nice to know more (though perhaps also more depressing).
The information and ideas examined here are a good starting point for really contemplating human nature and assumptions about intelligence, and the potential impact of biological constraints and opportunities on culture. As such, there is a lot of fodder for working on speculative fiction, developing fantasy races or alien species that might be quite different from human models of intelligence and behavior.
I do wish there was a newer version of this lecture series. It is already 16 years old and I know that quite a lot has changed in our understanding of ancient/extinct hominids, even if they aren't a major focus here, and I am sure that there are new developments in studies of modern apes and monkeys. Also, the lectures end on a rather depressing note about threats to conservation of these organisms; I am sure that things have only gotten worse, but it would be nice to know more (though perhaps also more depressing).
November 10, 2022
This is an excellent series of lectures by Barbara King who is an expert of primate behavior and anthropology. These lectures marry the two subjects which is fascinating as humans are simply another primate and it is interesting to compare human behavior to the behavior of gorillas and chimpanzees.
July 12, 2017
Like many people have pointed out, the title of the book does not match the content. This is about the behaviour of apes, whereas I was expecting a book about evolutionary psychology.
I would have given this only two stars, but someone in the comments said that the lecturer is not a credible source because she has taught "SJW courses like womens studies". So I am going to give this one extra star, because that is how we roll in feminist illuminati.
(And also because I think the author had very valid points about the subject, but that doesn't make the MRA-people whine so where's the fun in that.)
I would have given this only two stars, but someone in the comments said that the lecturer is not a credible source because she has taught "SJW courses like womens studies". So I am going to give this one extra star, because that is how we roll in feminist illuminati.
(And also because I think the author had very valid points about the subject, but that doesn't make the MRA-people whine so where's the fun in that.)
February 15, 2025
These lectures on biological anthropology seek to understand human behavior by studying other anthropoid primates, including monkeys and apes. Based on first-hand knowledge as a primatologist, the author presents fascinating and up-to-date findings about primates' behaviors, particularly their social and cultural aspects. However, while these insights are valuable, the link between primate behaviors and the "roots of human behavior" remains unconvincing.
The lectures begin by examining biologically determined group behaviors. The author explores genetically driven behaviors such as parenting, gender roles, and sexual interactions, demonstrating how many primate behaviors resemble those of humans. However, she also emphasizes the diversity of behavior among primate species and even among different populations within the same species. This variation serves as a cautionary reminder that broad generalizations about primates should be avoided.
One particularly intriguing discussion involves tool-making, a behavior often thought to be uniquely human. The author challenges this assumption by surveying the tool-making activities of various primate species, which exhibit differing levels of sophistication. This topic serves as a natural transition into the exploration of behaviors shaped by social and cultural environments.
Building upon this foundation, the author then shifts focus to socially rooted primate behaviors. Through observations of how infants learn from elders, how group norms are established and maintained, and how members communicate within a group, she demonstrates that many behaviors emerge from the social environment rather than genetic predisposition. The discussion on language among apes is particularly compelling. While apes naturally use gestures and symbols to communicate in the wild, their language skills become significantly more advanced when they interact with humans. This observation suggests that apes possess a latent capacity for complex communication that is not fully expressed in their natural habitats.
The final section of the lectures retraces the evolution of Homo sapiens. The author explains that hominins emerged between eight and four million years ago before diverging into two main evolutionary branches: Pan (including chimpanzees and bonobos) and Homo (including modern humans). While both subfamilies exhibit bipedalism (walking with two feet), only Homo does so consistently. Over time, various Homo species engaged in global migration and competition, with Homo sapiens ultimately becoming the dominant species.
Throughout the course, the author provides an engaging introduction to primatology, enriched by her personal experiences observing primates. She conveys her enthusiasm for the subject and presents the latest research findings, illustrating how our understanding of primates has evolved over time. Additionally, she is careful to acknowledge the limitations and uncertainties inherent in this field of study. Given the constraints of observing primates in natural settings, she advises caution in interpreting data. Moreover, she urges readers to recognize the diversity among primate species and to avoid anthropocentric interpretations that impose human-like intentions on primate behavior.
A key argument advanced in the lectures is that shared behaviors between humans and other primates indicate that these behaviors predate the evolutionary split between the two groups. However, the author does not fully consider an alternative explanation: that many primate species may have developed these behaviors independently after their evolutionary divergence. The author's perspective faces two critical challenges. First, not all primate species exhibit the same behaviors, making it equally plausible that some acquired these traits post-split rather than others lost them. Second, similar behaviors, such as social roles and in-group communication, are observed in non-primate social animals. This suggests that these behaviors could arise from social practices rather than stemming from a common evolutionary root.
Overall, the lectures combine compelling scientific inquiry, a passion for research, and rigorous analysis. The course is both informative and engaging, making it accessible even to those without a specific interest in primatology. Nevertheless, readers should exercise caution when drawing broader conclusions about human behavior based on these findings.
The lectures begin by examining biologically determined group behaviors. The author explores genetically driven behaviors such as parenting, gender roles, and sexual interactions, demonstrating how many primate behaviors resemble those of humans. However, she also emphasizes the diversity of behavior among primate species and even among different populations within the same species. This variation serves as a cautionary reminder that broad generalizations about primates should be avoided.
One particularly intriguing discussion involves tool-making, a behavior often thought to be uniquely human. The author challenges this assumption by surveying the tool-making activities of various primate species, which exhibit differing levels of sophistication. This topic serves as a natural transition into the exploration of behaviors shaped by social and cultural environments.
Building upon this foundation, the author then shifts focus to socially rooted primate behaviors. Through observations of how infants learn from elders, how group norms are established and maintained, and how members communicate within a group, she demonstrates that many behaviors emerge from the social environment rather than genetic predisposition. The discussion on language among apes is particularly compelling. While apes naturally use gestures and symbols to communicate in the wild, their language skills become significantly more advanced when they interact with humans. This observation suggests that apes possess a latent capacity for complex communication that is not fully expressed in their natural habitats.
The final section of the lectures retraces the evolution of Homo sapiens. The author explains that hominins emerged between eight and four million years ago before diverging into two main evolutionary branches: Pan (including chimpanzees and bonobos) and Homo (including modern humans). While both subfamilies exhibit bipedalism (walking with two feet), only Homo does so consistently. Over time, various Homo species engaged in global migration and competition, with Homo sapiens ultimately becoming the dominant species.
Throughout the course, the author provides an engaging introduction to primatology, enriched by her personal experiences observing primates. She conveys her enthusiasm for the subject and presents the latest research findings, illustrating how our understanding of primates has evolved over time. Additionally, she is careful to acknowledge the limitations and uncertainties inherent in this field of study. Given the constraints of observing primates in natural settings, she advises caution in interpreting data. Moreover, she urges readers to recognize the diversity among primate species and to avoid anthropocentric interpretations that impose human-like intentions on primate behavior.
A key argument advanced in the lectures is that shared behaviors between humans and other primates indicate that these behaviors predate the evolutionary split between the two groups. However, the author does not fully consider an alternative explanation: that many primate species may have developed these behaviors independently after their evolutionary divergence. The author's perspective faces two critical challenges. First, not all primate species exhibit the same behaviors, making it equally plausible that some acquired these traits post-split rather than others lost them. Second, similar behaviors, such as social roles and in-group communication, are observed in non-primate social animals. This suggests that these behaviors could arise from social practices rather than stemming from a common evolutionary root.
Overall, the lectures combine compelling scientific inquiry, a passion for research, and rigorous analysis. The course is both informative and engaging, making it accessible even to those without a specific interest in primatology. Nevertheless, readers should exercise caution when drawing broader conclusions about human behavior based on these findings.
March 27, 2021
King is a good speaker, self-depreciating, not prone to making bombastic claims, but laying out the evidence and the arguments for and against her positions on the relationship of Great Apes to humans.
Since her positions accord with what I believe, I think she is very smart and other people should also like the book and be impressed with her scholarship. As an example, her section on co-sleeping accords with how I raised my children so King must be very smart.
Since her positions accord with what I believe, I think she is very smart and other people should also like the book and be impressed with her scholarship. As an example, her section on co-sleeping accords with how I raised my children so King must be very smart.
February 19, 2020
Very interesting if not exactly what I expected. This is a review of behavioral studies of non-human great apes. The connection to human behavior is stated but for me, it faded into the background of just how fascinating these animals are..
September 9, 2017
I liked it. But honestly... I learned more about potentially inherited human traits from "Sex at Dawn". That kind of says something.
December 21, 2017
Full of fascinating information, given context and implications.
October 7, 2019
Great Courses, a
July 7, 2020
This is about the behaviour of apes, dissapointing
December 10, 2022
I think this course was well done and would likely be really interesting to others who don't know as much about anthropology and human evolution as I already did before listening.
January 12, 2010
This series of taped lectures concerns biological anthropology, which studies human nature in the context of monkeys, apes and the anthropoid ancestors of human beings. The lecture tapes were given to me and recommended by an old friend who argues that we do well to think of ourselves as apes on the African savannah.
Though I’m inclined to agree with my friend, I was on the lookout for areas in which conclusions drawn from our ape ancestry might disagree with my current opinions. I was extremely gratified to learn that “Biological anthropologists conclude that arguing for ‘a female nature’ or ‘a male nature’ is inaccurate based on the behavior of our closest anthropoid relatives.”
The lecturer is not always consistent, however. She devotes considerable energy to discussing mother-infant bonds, even though she goes on to say that, “In certain cases, grandparent-grandchild and father-infant relationships exist too.”
I wonder why one has to distinguish between “mother” and “father” when discussing the parenting or care-giving function. In human society, feminist opinion urges that we no longer distinguish gender when the function is the same. For example, the term “actress” has been replaced by “actor” because gender is irrelevant when talking about acting. But biological anthropology does indicate some asymmetry in gender roles among our anthropoid relatives. At this point in the discussion, I have to fall back on saying that human beings can do what they please (and there is probably an anthropoid basis for that too)!
The game of finding anthropoid antecedents is fun. There is a phenomenon called “same sex repulsion” among apes. If a stranger approaches a male-female couple, the female partner will repulse the female stranger and a male partner will repulse a male stranger. This makes sense in terms of sexual rivalry, but it occurs to me that this could also explain all sorts of things, such as xenophobia, homophobia, and racial prejudice, as well as intolerance of infidelity. Responses based upon our anthropoid ancestry are not necessarily functional in today’s world, and may be completely distinct from the rational merits of the case.
I frequently find myself wrestling with the consequences of my anthropoid ancestry. The one area that I would like to see investigated more fully, and which the lecturer does not discuss much, is the topic of emotions. We share emotions with our ape relatives, for example fight-or-flight, anger and fear. Humans often offer very detailed, reasoned accounts of their emotions, and yet the same emotions exist in non-verbal, strictly biological forms in our anthropoid ancestors. That is an area in which I especially agree with my old friend that our ape relatives have a lot to teach us.
Though I’m inclined to agree with my friend, I was on the lookout for areas in which conclusions drawn from our ape ancestry might disagree with my current opinions. I was extremely gratified to learn that “Biological anthropologists conclude that arguing for ‘a female nature’ or ‘a male nature’ is inaccurate based on the behavior of our closest anthropoid relatives.”
The lecturer is not always consistent, however. She devotes considerable energy to discussing mother-infant bonds, even though she goes on to say that, “In certain cases, grandparent-grandchild and father-infant relationships exist too.”
I wonder why one has to distinguish between “mother” and “father” when discussing the parenting or care-giving function. In human society, feminist opinion urges that we no longer distinguish gender when the function is the same. For example, the term “actress” has been replaced by “actor” because gender is irrelevant when talking about acting. But biological anthropology does indicate some asymmetry in gender roles among our anthropoid relatives. At this point in the discussion, I have to fall back on saying that human beings can do what they please (and there is probably an anthropoid basis for that too)!
The game of finding anthropoid antecedents is fun. There is a phenomenon called “same sex repulsion” among apes. If a stranger approaches a male-female couple, the female partner will repulse the female stranger and a male partner will repulse a male stranger. This makes sense in terms of sexual rivalry, but it occurs to me that this could also explain all sorts of things, such as xenophobia, homophobia, and racial prejudice, as well as intolerance of infidelity. Responses based upon our anthropoid ancestry are not necessarily functional in today’s world, and may be completely distinct from the rational merits of the case.
I frequently find myself wrestling with the consequences of my anthropoid ancestry. The one area that I would like to see investigated more fully, and which the lecturer does not discuss much, is the topic of emotions. We share emotions with our ape relatives, for example fight-or-flight, anger and fear. Humans often offer very detailed, reasoned accounts of their emotions, and yet the same emotions exist in non-verbal, strictly biological forms in our anthropoid ancestors. That is an area in which I especially agree with my old friend that our ape relatives have a lot to teach us.
March 14, 2016
I came into this lecture series with optimistic hopes but I was very disappointed to not find anything very conclusive in this course. I was hoping to glean some insights on human early behavior. This lecture series attempts to explain the evolution and behavior of early hominids around the time we are supposed to have a common ancestor, around 4-6 million years ago, by examining our closest living (evolutionary) relatives, the great apes. The hope is that by a synthesis of taking what we know about early hominids and the behavior of apes and monkeys we can better understand our early hominid ancestors.
According to the Modern evolutionary synthesis, humans and apes have both been evolving since that common ancestry. Humans have, at best, 95% of our DNA in common with apes but we might as well have 50%. The more I learn about DNA the more skeptical I am about any real similarities we can find in apes and monkeys. It seems like an oversimplification to draw any real definitive information form a life form that has similarities in DNA with humans. Maybe DNA is better likened unto chemistry. For example: hydrogen, carbon and all the other elements are made up of neutrons, protons, and electrons but all these elements have fundamentally different properties. We can learn a lot about the elementary particles by studying each but we cannot learn much about, say gold, by studying hydrogen and it's properties.
In short, the lecturer Barbara J. King, is good at what she does and presents the information well, nevertheless, I found a lot of information here about apes and monkeys but there seems to be very little definitive evidence to suggest that we could learn anything about early hominids or ourselves. I think people who come to specific conclusions are reading too much out of the data. This is a science that is still very open to interpretation. I wouldn't recommend it to someone who genuinely wants to understand humanity better and I would caution those who want to understand early hominids better to keep in mind that the information is far from conclusive.
According to the Modern evolutionary synthesis, humans and apes have both been evolving since that common ancestry. Humans have, at best, 95% of our DNA in common with apes but we might as well have 50%. The more I learn about DNA the more skeptical I am about any real similarities we can find in apes and monkeys. It seems like an oversimplification to draw any real definitive information form a life form that has similarities in DNA with humans. Maybe DNA is better likened unto chemistry. For example: hydrogen, carbon and all the other elements are made up of neutrons, protons, and electrons but all these elements have fundamentally different properties. We can learn a lot about the elementary particles by studying each but we cannot learn much about, say gold, by studying hydrogen and it's properties.
In short, the lecturer Barbara J. King, is good at what she does and presents the information well, nevertheless, I found a lot of information here about apes and monkeys but there seems to be very little definitive evidence to suggest that we could learn anything about early hominids or ourselves. I think people who come to specific conclusions are reading too much out of the data. This is a science that is still very open to interpretation. I wouldn't recommend it to someone who genuinely wants to understand humanity better and I would caution those who want to understand early hominids better to keep in mind that the information is far from conclusive.
October 19, 2014
As other reviewers have noted, this course's title may be a bit misleading. To me, the lectures attempt to explain the evolution of early hominids (4-6 million years ago) by examining our closest living (evolutionary) relatives, the great apes. Baselines are established by the great apes community, mating preferences, intelligence (tool use/making) and, finally, communication and the ability to learn new things.
Dr King's presentation is clear (perhaps a bit flat-toned) and concise, much like what you would hear in an actual college lecture hall. Her material is basic, but to the point, and makes her point...even though it took a while to figure that out.
My rating is 4 stars, but it really should be a 3.5. It is a good companion to the good professor's other course, "Biological Anthropology: An Evolutionary Perspective", and many of the comments I made in that review can well apply here.
I recommend these lectures, especially when on sale, with a coupon."
Dr King's presentation is clear (perhaps a bit flat-toned) and concise, much like what you would hear in an actual college lecture hall. Her material is basic, but to the point, and makes her point...even though it took a while to figure that out.
My rating is 4 stars, but it really should be a 3.5. It is a good companion to the good professor's other course, "Biological Anthropology: An Evolutionary Perspective", and many of the comments I made in that review can well apply here.
I recommend these lectures, especially when on sale, with a coupon."
January 1, 2008
I love the Great Courses. They are available through the library system, and cover every topic imaginable. This one looks at our closest relatives from an evolutionary perspective. One of my favorite parts was the reminder that we did NOT evolve from apes. Apes and humans evolved from a common human ancestor. I know this, but I don't always think of it that way, and her explaination and reminder about this common misconception (hopefully) left it stuck in my head.
July 30, 2016
The sex differences one ruined it for me. Skipped he lecture after that because there was nonsensical appropriation of delegitimizing language at the start. Some other silliness throughout. The professor apparently teaches SJW courses (women's studies), so keep that in mind when deciding whether or not this is for you.
Aside from that it's of varying quality.. The negatives are awful, though.
Aside from that it's of varying quality.. The negatives are awful, though.
June 23, 2011
this really about monkeys and apes behavior and not human and even as course in apes and monkeys it still ok
February 27, 2016
It is a course about monkeys and great apes.
Interesting, good as an introduction but there is few information about humans. (you have to relate them).
Interesting, good as an introduction but there is few information about humans. (you have to relate them).
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews