Ape languages

Apes communicate in grunts, screeches, howls, heavy breathing, changes in body language, and gestures of aggression or submission. Different vocalizations carry subtle shifts in tone, volume and repetition leading to near-infinite possible combinations of sounds. Each different combination of sound used represents a unique orientation to certain of the ape’s experiences. When vocalized sounds used by one ape highlight the experiences of another ape, discourse will proceed toward psychological minimum-energy interactions that simulate the effects of atavistic responses such as stroking, petting, holding and other manners of affection. When vocalized sounds used by one ape do not highlight the experiences of another ape, discourse will proceed toward psychological maximum-energy interactions that simulate the effects of atavistic responses such as jumping, hitting, biting and other manners of disaffection.

Ape brains construct models of the ape’s experiences and these models are the content to which ape languages refer. A relatively unchanging, fragile and simple environment lead ape brain models toward representing experiences in ways adequate to the ape’s primary means of altering these experiences. Exceptions to this involve the larger ape social environment, which due to its relative impermeability will act as a conditioning factor for the ape’s behaviors, potentiating or retarding the ape’s success in altering his environment given the parameters of his brain’s experience models.

During interactions of language apes must feel their concerns being validated or language use will break down. Ape are unable to give attention to concerns which they do not share and will exhibit hostile behaviors when such concerns are enforced within discourse. Examples of behaviors of this type include raising voice in both pitch and volume, employing increased use of sarcasm, cynicism or ironic expressions, becoming physically or emotionally agitated, reducing the amounts of eye contact, fleeing the situation, forming accusations and threats, or inflicting emotional, mental or physical pain upon others.

Language interactions must appease ape egos. This will involve appeasement techniques such as placating gestures, validation, praise, and lying about one’s intentions in order to match those of another person. If such techniques are being employed disproportionately among apes then language use will break down along the lines mentioned above regarding a lack of adequate concern validation.

Ape languages involve complex displays of social status. Deference to individuals who display or are seen to possess status will occur. Individuals who display or are given status markers by the social milieu will receive deference from other apes of lesser status, and will give deference to apes who possess or are seen to possess greater status. A significant component of all ape language communications involves the assessment of status differences among apes. Violations of status deference behaviors will be punished by a demotion of status, social isolation, withdrawal of affection, isolation or by inflicting emotional, mental or physical pain.

MM, do you have a overall thesis here? What’s your point?

Is there a question we should try to answer?

The only distinction between what apes do and what humans do is merely one of resolution (in most cases).

It is very much like the difference in an older CRT TV and a HDTV. The HDTV with higher resolution is more effective, manipulative, insidious, and alluring. But inside, it is still merely a remote controlled boob-tube.

I believe the point is that MM is talking about the human ape. I’m also unsure as to the thesis, though.

I think that is what I said (but didn’t presume to speak for him). :sunglasses:

One of the ways certain apes try to transcend the patterns of maximum energy interactions is to feign indifference to the body language and sounds of the other ape. This can be taken as a dominance signal, a kind of signal deafness - and hence the other ape increases volume and expressiveness - or a lie. It can be any of these, though generally it is a mixture of the first and the third. A smaller subset of this Group of apes become addicted to the increased expressiveness of other apes. What is performed first as a tactic can indicate to the USER that the implicit hierarchy is in fact the case. Given the implications about dominance seemingly implicit in not reacting vs. reacting these apes find the need to repeat the dynamic. They are happiest when at least some of those they encounter make expressive displays which they can perform indifference in relation to. Several primatologists have noted the odd phenomenon when two such apes meet. Once their Communication leads to a invalidation of some kind, both apes exhibit indifference in increasingly subtle displays. A mini-drama that could be translated:
I’m not bothered by that., given who you are.
I am even less bothered by your lack of being bothered, given who you are.

Only a primate could Think that superiority is gained through not being.
Some even develop proto-religions around this confusion. Or proto-nonreligions, some even with proto non-priests and proto-non-gurus, whose apparant indifference is well honed.
Their troops tend to make a lot of deference displays and this leads to proto-non-gurus to seek out interactions elsewhere, where they can trigger not just deference, but expressiveness. An ape who picks cling-ons from your ass, is very unlikely to make a maximum energy display, which can be frustrating.

Actually, I think you summed up his thesis quite well (in the post of yours that I’m not quoting here).

I think I get what you’re saying James, but is a high definition TV really “insidious”. I can see alluring, but “manipulative”? I can guess what you mean by this, but it seems such an odd choice of words for a hunk of machinery that I’m second guessing myself.

Yes, I got that, but I think he’s also pointing out that human apes aren’t that different from other primates.

Are you inventing hypothetical examples, or do studies actually confirm this–the second order not-being-bothered?

I am describing phenomena I have witnessed many times in certain Groups of primates.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=184521&start=25&hilit=lyssa&p=2438942&view=show#p2438942
Though these are devotees not the proto-guru.