Nature vs. Nurture: the case of the African wild dog

Ilias Karasavvidis (karasavvidis who-is-at edte.utwente.nl)
Fri, 29 May 1998 15:17:24 mez-2

Hello everyone...

I saw a documentary on discovery channel last week which made me
rethink the differences between man and other primates regarding the
transmission of experience from one generation to another...the
documentary was produced by John McNut in 1992 and is copyrighted by
Marathon TV for Discovery Channel... I hope you'd find this
information interesting (in case you don't know all about this
already)...

**caution! long posting**

I usually watch the nature documentaries on discovery cause I happen
to be at home at that time in the evenings... this one was a wild life
one (weekdays at 7.00 cet on discovery)... I still regret not taking
notes from the very beginning - don't have a vtr :-( - so some of the
information I'd report is mostly a recollection of main points...
anyhow, it was about the introduction of a dog species (african
painted wolfs I think - they were referred to as the african wild dog)
into the wild; there was this group of dogs which were raised in a zoo
and the authorities of Namibia decided to run an experiment and
introduce these dogs to the wild, into the Namibia National park; as
put by the commentator, the main question of the experiment was:

"Can they survive on the basis of instinct?"

the researchers (it was not clear whose idea the experiment was;
I guess the local authorities were also involved but some other
institution could have been coordinating the whole thing; there was no
professor - as is usually the case - to discuss the issue, describe
the procedure and present the findings) compared the behavior of these
dogs with a pack of wild dogs (same species); regreftully enough I
don't remember any other details about the experimental procedure; I'd
turn to the results of the experiment:

initial reaction when the dogs were released: they didn't go away!
they were used to people and felt comfortable with them!

Behavior of the FREE WILD DOGS

social organization of the group:
there is some sort of social hierarchy in the pack; there is a
male leader; all members however have equal rights;
the socialization of the pups starts early on in their lives: social
bonding starts immediately; the mother stays with the pups for the
first couple of months and the rest of the pack bring back meat from
the hunt for the mother (and the pups when they grow a bit); if the
mother is participating in the hunt, another female is watching over
the pups;

preparation for hunting
before and after each hunt, the dogs get together
and exhibit what was described as a congratulation ceremony; I
understood this as an expression/indication of solidarity...
as it was put: "The individuals become one" shortly before hunting;

the process of hunting
during the hunt, cooperation is absolutely
essential; success is heavily dependent upon teamwork and they've been
practicing it for all their lives; teamwork is the key to their
success and they choose their prey intelligently: they pick either
young zebras and they plan the attack in such a way as to isolate the
prey; they usually hunt early in the morning or late in the afternoon,
when it's still cool that is; they rest during the day because it's
extremely hot and unproductive to hunt during these hours;

Behavior of the INTRODUCED WILD DOGS

social organization:
none; they stick together but that's about it;

preparation for hunting:
no ceremony whatsoever; there is no greeting or any other preparation
among the pack members;

the process of hunting:
they usually hunt during the day during the intense heat; as a
consequence, they are easily exhausted and thirsty;
they typically pick Zebras, which is a rather big prey for the
size and skill of those wild dogs;
coordination is very difficult; the dog in
the front is careless and thus the pack cannot trap the zebra; they
feed only when accidents happen during the hunt: e.g. one zebra broke
its leg and could not escape; what is particularly interesting is how
the dogs ate the animal: they knew it was eatable but did not exactly
know how to eat it; instead of suffocating the animal with a bite to
the nose, they started eating it alive! the zebra was resisting of
course and the pack had trouble; the dogs simply don't know that they
have to attack the nose and how to kill quickly; there was no proper
teamwork and there was some fighting over the meat: the dogs did not
want to share the food; there was no team spirit; in an attempt to
teach them how to hunt, the researchers led them to zebras;

OUTCOMES of the experiment

starvation was teh biggest threat; 8 months after the
introduction only 6 out of the 12 inital dogs survived;
the free wild dogs succeed in 3/4 attempted hunts while the
introduced dogs, despite hunting, typically feed off accidents or prey
killed by other preditors; the introduced wild dogs simply did not
seem to have the knowledge and skill that the free wild ones
possessed; instinct alone was not enough for survival;

the free wild dogs were presented as having a social organization
comparable to that of man: each member had an assigned role; their
ingenuity was also compared to that of humans in terms of having a
goal, planning a solution, socially coordinating the solution and
eventually achieving the goal; In the end, the free wild dogs were
portrayed not as savage animals but as a truly intelligent
species....

I feel that there are a lot of methodological questions that can be
raised about the procedure, the ethics, etc... Leaving all that aside
for the moment, what do you think?

Could this be used as a classical example of nature vs nurture in an
introductory psychology course?

What does this experiment tell us concerning the ongoing individual
vs. social debate?

How can findings of such studies help us
understand the extent to which individual
cultural/cognitive development is depenendnt upon others?

Given that these dogs do not use language as a form of
storing the previous experience of the species, but still do a
great job in terms of transmitting this experience, what can be said
about the role of language (and signs/symbols) in the process of
acquiring one's culture?

To conclude, is anyone aware of this experiment published anywhere?
Any suggestions on how to obtain the tape? (I emailed them but did not
receive a response)

Hope you found this interesting,

Regards,
Ilias

_______________________________________________

Ilias Karasavvidis
Department of Curriculum Technology
Faculty of Educational Science and Technology
University of Twente, P.O. Box 217
7500 AE Enschede, The Netherlands
Voice: +31534894473
Fax: +31534892895
Email: Karasavvidis who-is-at edte.utwente.nl
http://130.89.40.26/www
http://130.89.40.26/ilias

"The ancient Greeks did not know the main thing
about themselves, that they were ancient Greeks"
Mikhail Mikhailovich Bakhtin
_______________________________________________