One of the most simplest things ever made was the scaffold. Thinking about its consequences however has recently opened up a world of possibilities for scientists that might lead to new ways of thinking about culture, the human mind, and their development.
Whenever you take a walk in a large city, you are bound to hear the noise that comes with a growing city. The sound of iron beating on iron, the sight of massive cranes, and the whistling of the workmen when you are a woman and its a hot summer. One of the other structures that is used to build or repair buildings, is the terror of most tourists: a collection of platforms, often made of thick tubes that are frequently completely encasing the building you, as a tourist, wanted to take a picture of. The scaffold however, as such a metal skeleton is called, is really a wonder when you think about it. It is basically a temporary wall that is used to build a structure larger than itself. In addition, such a scaffold can serve as protection when a building is being repaired. Remove the scaffold before the building is finished, and the building will collapse like a house of cards. But once the building is finished, the skeleton is removed and all that is left, is a single beautiful building, which no longer needs any support from any outside source. Often, not a trace is left of the scaffold that aided in the construction of the building.
In science the idea of scaffolds that aid development is quite common. In biology it is assumed that the evolution of certain complex organs was greatly aided by effects of certain genes that originally had a supportive function, but later ended up as obsolete. Thus, the working of such genes would resemble the way a scaffold works. In the research fields that focus on the development of the human mind, the idea of scaffolds is slowly appearing as well, supported by the ideas of the philosopher Vygotsky. This Vygotsky observed that young children often repeated to themselves what they should do when doing difficult tasks. He concluded that language could act as a scaffold for children, serving as an aid during complex tasks and guiding their behaviour and concentration.
Others went even further, and suggest that our present level of thinking is only possible due to the supportive functions of language. The idea of scaffolds could however also be used to explain cultural changes. The invention of a tool of sorts could lead to changes in people’s life styles and even change the way we think about the world. An example of this would be the clock, a device that inspired the philosopher Descartes into thinking that animals are nothing but complex clocks or robots, and human bodies were no exception. Although Descartes gave humans the added extras of a spirit that resides in the brain and makes us fully human – an idea that remains hotly disputed by philosophers, psychologists and animal rights activists – it is clear that the idea of the body as a machine has been with us ever since.
The problem with all these ideas however, is that they are just that: ideas. Often it is hard to test whether something is really a scaffold, or that scaffolds even exist. If they did, they could greatly enhance scientific theories about biology, psychology, philosophy and sociology. All in all would proof of how small changes in behaviour can lead to stable, self-sustaining collections of behaviours be a serious help.
Interesting enough, such a proof is actually already available, but often gruesomely overlooked. This evidence on scaffolding comes from the rise of a cultural habit among an unlikely group: the Japanese macaques on the small island of Koshima. The research done there is often mentioned by scientists as an example of culture among animals, though usually these same scientists only focus on the first small discovery. As the story is so amusing, yet fascinating when one looks at the bigger picture, I will give a full account here.
Monkey business
Starting in 1952, a group of Japanese researchers led by Masao Kawai started to observe the macaques of Koshima. They had a minor problem though: the macaques preferred to stay in the woods, which didn’t make observing them any easier. So, at some point the researchers decided to lure the macaques to the more open beaches. This was done with the aid of sweet potatoes, which they scattered around the beach to attract the hungry monkeys with.
The monkeys came, and indeed ate the potatoes. Unfortunately did the new food come with the problem of sand between the monkeys teeth. As most parents know when they put their small child in the sand box with some sweets, do sweets often end up covered with sand, with the children crying because their candy suddenly has a dirt flavour. Macaques show more initiative than small children though and started to clean their potatoes by rubbing it back and forth between their hands. Still, it remained a poor solution for getting rid of the sand.
Some years later however, a young female named Imo suddenly had an idea. Instead of rubbing the sand from the potatoes, she walked up to a nearby stream and started to wash her potatoes. This simple act became the macaque version of the discovery of fire. Many of her group watched her, and started to wash their potatoes as well. With this, an appearance of the potato washing macaques was a fact.
This is a relatively well-known story, backed up by scientific evidence and observations for over 50 years. It is therefore a shame that only this single habit is highlighted, as much more has been discovered …by the macaques, that is.
For example did the same Imo mentioned above discover how to wash a different type of food: wheat. The Japanese researchers had scattered this food, but had by doing so created a new dilemma for the macaques: how can you get fine wheat separated from sand? Imo found a simple, yet effective solution: she made a huge ball of the sand and wheat, walked up to the water and dumped the ball in the water. As sand is heavier than wheat, the sand sank to the bottom, whereas the wheat stayed afloat and became easy to collect.
Their next major discovery was that the macaques started to flavour their potatoes. Apparently sweet potato does not have such a great taste, as macaques changed again in their washing habits. Instead of washing their potatoes in sweet water, the macaques moved to the sea to wash their food. There, they bit holes in the potatoes and washed them. The result of this washing was that the potatoes got a nice salty taste.
What most people should know is how revolutionary this was in other ways as well: the Koshima macaques were originally afraid of the sea and extremely reluctant to even put a single toe in the water. Through the habit of salting their potatoes however, the macaques started to venture deeper and deeper into the water to flavour their foods. And they even brought their young with them while washing. The result of this behaviour was that the young became better and better acquainted with the water and very soon started to play and swim in the sea.
During this change from an animal that lived exclusively in the forests to an animal that spent lots of time around and in the water, the macaques made various new discoveries. Some of the elderly males found out that fish aren’t just strange animals with shiny skins, but are also highly edible, not to mention quite tasty. Fish eating soon became a new habit among the macaques, along with catching limpets and octopus from pools. Quite a change, especially when you consider that macaques prefer life as a vegetarian, with only occasional insects to add to their meal.
Finally, the researchers also discovered that, due to the fact that the macaques had to carry their balls of wheat and heavy potatoes with two hands, the animals started more and more to walk on their hind legs when carrying their food.
All of these changes took place in a time span of around 30 years.
What is the most interesting about these findings? It is simple: by feeding the macaques, the scientists had been responsible for a birth of a completely new life style among the animals. The original potato washing habit had triggered a new habit – the separating of wheat and sand – and these two had helped to trigger the playing and swimming in the water. In the end, these two pairs of behaviours stimulated each other: the washing of food encouraged to stay and play in the water, whereas the playing in the water encouraged the animals to stay near the sea and wash their food.
One single change in behaviour can therefore lead not only to new behaviours in the same domain – that of food washing in general – but can also switch to other domains of behaviour. In the end, such changes can have such profound effects or become such a complex network of habits that support each other, that the original habit is no longer required to keep the entire life style existent. Or, simply said: even if you remove the potatoes the animals will continue to show their new sea based life style. The washing of potatoes is therefore more than an example of animal culture: it is also a prime example of a scaffold.
Implications of scaffolds
So what is the value of the appearance of scaffolds in animal culture? As mentioned above, scaffolds are rarely found, as the scaffold is often destroyed after the structure is finished. That such a scaffold was found and so well documented is a rarity. It also demonstrates that a scaffold can be basically anything that causes some change. It does not by necessity have to be a phenomenon of any great importance at all – washing sweet potatoes isn’t the most amazing thing in the world – to have an effect. And not just any effect. This report also shows that the changes that can be caused by scaffolds are profound. The washing of potatoes was not the end result, but was actually the seed from which completely new sorts of behaviour sprang forth. Scaffolds can be important.
Other fascinating phenomena appear when linked to other types of culture, especially human culture. Culture can support itself and grow due to other cultural discoveries. A culture is therefore not something as unchangeable as some hold it to be. Most people when they think about culture, have ideas about certain types of music or having dinner with your pinkie finger in the air. The idea of culture as a building or network of thoughts and habits that can alter due to new inventions, and is therefore extremely dynamic, is usually not the idea most have of culture. To continue in this line of thought does the present knowledge on scaffolds add new insights to the battle of ‘nature’ versus ‘nurture’. This fight between what is more significant for the development of the human psyche might be more complex than expected. The macaques demonstrate that a change in culture leads to a change that might affect nature: from washing potatoes to living near the sea and collect food from the shore and the sea itself. That such an effect can go vice versa (a natural change leading to a change in culture) is not unlikely. In other words would the process not be shaped as a matter of conflict, but as a matter of cooperation and interaction.
All in all, scaffolds show how extremely flexible the development of behaviour can be, whether this behaviour is that of an animal, the layout and functioning of a cell or the collection of behaviours and thoughts known as culture. It is possible that only through the interaction between these different fields and the associated scientific areas that study them that we might one day answer one of the main questions: what are we and how do we function? From a scientific point of view this provides us with various interesting challenges. What, however, does it offer anyone without a need for scientific answers or a scientific background? Well, first of all should the realization that things are more complex than expected serve as a warning that some articles in newspapers or on television should be handled with care. These days, a lot of articles are published not only in scientific journals, but when the coverage is good enough they might even end up in newspapers. Journalists are people though and people make mistakes. Newspaper articles sometimes offer a picture that the scientist did not originally intend. So be sceptical. When a newspaper article claims that a gene was discovered that promotes thrill seeking, then please do not think that that means that if you have that gene, you are bound to be a thrill seeker. If nature and nurture go hand in hand and can influence each others respective area, then genes are rarely the sole determinant of behaviour. In the case of this article, which was actually printed in a newspaper, this is especially true: the scientists themselves stated that the influence of this gene, with all other factors held constant, was 4%. In other words: when background, education, other possible genes that affect any other thrill seeking related trait and all those other things were held constant, then the gene was for 4% responsible for thrill seeking. It does not take a statistician to understand that effect is actually pretty minimal. Strangely enough, some people feared that insurance companies would cancel people’s policies if they happened to have that gene!
My message is therefore to think for yourself. Many features on the news where scientific results are presented, are often inaccurate and suggest things that the scientist never even intended. Such things unfortunately lead to miscommunication between the scientists and the public, even though science is first of all meant to aid the public and to answer the public’s questions! It is certain that these questions will be answered, however it is the duty of science to make sure that by then, the public will also be able to understand that same answer.