Hundredth Monkey Effect - The Effect Discredited

The Effect Discredited

An analysis of the appropriate literature by Ron Amundson, published by the Skeptics Society, revealed several key points that demystified the supposed effect.

Unsubstantiated claims that there was a sudden and remarkable increase in the proportion of washers in the first population were exaggerations of a much slower, more mundane effect. Rather than all monkeys mysteriously learning the skill it was noted that it was predominantly younger monkeys that learned the skill from the older monkeys through observational learning, which is widespread in the animal kingdom; older monkeys who did not know how to wash tended not to learn. As the older monkeys died and younger monkeys were born the proportion of washers naturally increased. The time span between observations was in the order of years.

Claims that the practice spread suddenly to other isolated populations of monkeys may be called into question given the fact that at least one washing monkey swam to another population and spent about four years there. It is also to be noted that the sweet potato was not available to the monkeys prior to human intervention.

This same phenomenon may be applied to the birth of the European Renaissance. It is historically known that, within a half century (1400–1450) artists, sculptors and artisans of every stripe appeared in all the major countries of Europe. This rapid acceleration of consciousness, perfectly analogous to the learned behavior of the 'hundredth monkey' may also be connected to Carl Jung's concept of 'synchronicity' that is, very similar and related things occurring simultaneously. Considering physical behaviors being manifested suddenly, these 'behaviors' of 'ideas and meanings' are consistent with Jung's concepts of simultaneous 'coincidences' in the consciousness of peoples separated by vast distances. That the concepts Rupert Sheldrake proposes of 'morphic resonance' have as their base even Jesus' comment of 'reaping the harvest of what was sown.' Because the concepts are not primarily materialistically referenced, but expressed as mental concepts sympathetic to the precursors these ideas represent, they are consistently rejected as pseudoscience by the scientific establishment.