Chimpanzees have very strong preferences and aversions that are completely personality-linked. The people who are unsuccessful in working with chimpanzees are those who take this personally.
Interpretation
Chimpanzees have distinct personalities that influence their behaviors, and handling them requires understanding rather than personal feelings.
This quote by Frans De Waal emphasizes that chimpanzees, much like humans, exhibit strong individual personalities that affect their likes, dislikes, and behaviors. Successful interactions with them depend on a handler's ability to understand these personality traits without taking the animals' reactions personally, highlighting the importance of empathy and insight into individual differences in relationships.
In practice
In a workshop about animal behavior, this quote can illustrate the necessity of understanding personality in training techniques.
As in a Russian doll, however, the outer layers always contain an inner core. Instead of evolution having replaced simpler forms of empathy with more advanced ones, the latter are merely elaborations on the former and remain dependent on them. This also means that empathy comes naturally to us. It is not something we only learn later in life, or that is culturally constructed.
Sometimes I read about someone saying with great authority that animals have no intentions and no feelings, and I wonder, 'Doesn't this guy have a dog?'
Experiments with animals have long been handicapped by our anthropocentric attitude: We often test them in ways that work fine with humans but not so well with other species.
Being both more systematically brutal than chimps and more empathetic than _x000D_ bonobos, we are by far the most bipolar ape. Our societies are never completely peaceful, never completely competitive, never ruled by sheer selfishness, and never perfectly moral.
If you look at human society, it is very easy, of course, to compare our warfare and territoriality with the chimpanzee. But that's only one side of what we do. We also trade, we intermarry, we allow each other to travel through our territory. There's an enormous amount of cooperation.
Human morality is unthinkable without empathy.
If we can exit a relationship, pressure to reconcile lessens; if we must live with those who have wronged us, we are pushed to reconcile.
Building Union among people not cooperation between states
I sang with my father for over 50 years, and now all of a sudden he's gone, and I just dropped out.
We shall be judged more by what we do at home than what we preach abroad.
All of us have people in our lives who drive us crazy. We've spent hours reliving the unfair, unappreciative, inconsiderate treatment they have inflicted on us. But getting mad at this person makes just about as much sense as getting mad at a chair for being a chair.
Outside of the marriage context, can you think of any other rational basis, reason, for a state using sexual orientation as a factor in denying homosexuals benefits or imposing burdens on them? Is there any other rational decision-making that the government could make? Denying them a job, not granting them benefits of some sort, any other decision?
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.