monkey splash experiment

Stack Exchange Network

Stack Exchange network consists of 183 Q&A communities including Stack Overflow , the largest, most trusted online community for developers to learn, share their knowledge, and build their careers.

Q&A for work

Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search.

Was the experiment with five monkeys, a ladder, a banana and a water spray conducted?

I've found the following picture online. It is about the moral/paradigm behind consistent behavior.

Click to enlarge.

The image text says

A group of scientists placed 5 monkeys in a cage and in the middle, a ladder with bananas on the top. Every time a monkey went up the ladder, the scientists soaked the rest of the monkeys with cold water. After a while, every time a monkey went up the ladder, the others beat up the one on the ladder. After some time, no monkey dare[d] to go up the ladder regardless of the temptation. Scientists then decided to substitute one of the monkeys. The 1 st thing this new monkey did was to go up the ladder. Immediately the other monkeys beat him up. After several beatings, the new member learned not to climb the ladder even though he never knew why. A 2 nd monkey was substituted and the same occurred. The 1 st monkey participated on [ sic ] the beating for [ sic ] the 2 nd monkey. A 3 rd monkey was changed and the same was repeated (beating). The 4 th was substituted and the beating was repeated and finally the 5 th monkey was replaced. What was left was a group of 5 monkeys that even though never received a cold shower, continued to beat up any monkey who attempted to climb the ladder. If it was possible to ask the monkeys why they would beat up all those who attempted to go up the ladder ... I bet you the answer would be ... "I don't know — that's how things are done around here" Does it sound familiar? Don't miss the opportunity to share this with others as they might be asking themselves why we continue to do what we are doing if there is a different way out there.

This seems like an experiment, but now I'm wondering... Was this experiment ever conducted? If not, was any similar experiment conducted that shows the same effect?

• 13 There were several positive negative reinforcement experiments performed but this sounds like an extrapolation of predicted results combined with humanized responses. This story makes it sound like negative reinforcement alone can trigger this powerful anti social group behavior. Its a myth –  Chad Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 18:31
• 16 You are probably anyway not allowed to do this kind of tests on monkeys any more. Nowadays you would need to use interns etc. –  Martin Scharrer Commented Apr 12, 2012 at 9:16
• 34 You need ten monkeys. . . –  Rory Alsop Commented Mar 28, 2013 at 13:27
• 33 Actually they seem to me like pretty darn smart monkeys. This effect is how humans avoid many dangers to astonishing levels of reliability, like traffic, poisonous berries, bad puns, and esoteric discussions. Oh wait. –  Bob Stein Commented Jul 26, 2013 at 10:53
• 23 What @BobStein-VisiBone said. This story is told to show how people follow traditions mindlessly. But the monkeys are helping each other avoid a bad outcome. The consequences may be capricious (the researchers could stop spraying water), but the monkeys don't know that. If the contraindicated activity were eating poisonous mushrooms, we wouldn't think the monkeys were clever for occasionally eating some to make sure they were still lethal. Perhaps the real message of this thought experiment is that a tradition can have a good reason behind it, even if we've forgotten what that reason is? –  Kyralessa Commented Jan 21, 2016 at 0:42

2 Answers 2

The earliest mention I could find of this experiment was in the popular business/self-help book, Competing for the future by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad (1996). Here is the quote from the book:

4 monkeys in a room. In the center of the room is a tall pole with a bunch of bananas suspended from the top. One of the four monkeys scampers up the pole and grabs the bananas. Just as he does, he is hit with a torrent of cold water from an overhead shower. He runs like hell back down the pole without the bananas. Eventually, the other three try it with the same outcome. Finally, they just sit and don’t even try again. To hell with the damn bananas. But then, they remove one of the four monkeys and replace him with a new one. The new monkey enters the room, spots the bananas and decides to go for it. Just as he is about to scamper up the pole, the other three reach out and drag him back down. After a while, he gets the message. There is something wrong, bad or evil that happens if you go after those bananas. So, they kept replacing an existing monkey with a new one and each time, none of the new monkeys ever made it to the top. They each got the same message. Don’t climb that pole. None of them knew exactly why they shouldn’t climb the pole, they just knew not to. They all respected the well established precedent. EVEN AFTER THE SHOWER WAS REMOVED! ( Source )

The authors did not provide a source for this claim. This story was later repeated in various other popular business/self-help books.

Every source online I could find erroneously attributed the experiment to one of the above authors. No one, anywhere , seems to have a reference to the actual experiment.

C. K. Prahalad is deceased, but Gary Hamel is still alive. I tried contacting him several times, but unfortunately both he and his secretary were very evasive. The best I could get was

Our apologies, but Professor Hamel does not have the original source information at hand in terms of your request.

Given that there seems to be no evidence anywhere of this experiment ever actually taking place, that all trails of references eventually lead to the claim in this book, and that this is the earliest available mention of the experiment, until further evidence becomes available the most reasonable conclusion is that C. K. Prahalad or Gary Hamel made up the experiment for their book.

Even if the above authors were not the creators of the myth, there is still reason to believe that, as @Chad puts it (comments above), this claim is an "extrapolation of predicted results combined with humanized responses."

Here is a quote from an "anthropology professor who's worked with hundreds of monkeys over the last 30 years." When asked what he thought of the experiment, he responded succinctly with:

If you have bananas on a pole, you'll lose your bananas.

• 27 That last quote is interesting, I'm still wondering what Gary Hamel has to say about that. –  Tamara Wijsman Commented Nov 4, 2011 at 21:06
• 5 @Tom: see edit. I've given up trying to contact him. Perhaps if more people ask , we can get a better response. –  BlueRaja - Danny Pflughoeft Commented Nov 28, 2011 at 18:47
• 226 Followup question: if 4 more people replied that it's not a real experiment, would the next person reply without even bothering to do the research? –  JeffSahol Commented Aug 5, 2013 at 17:58
• 17 The human version of this experiment: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments –  Pacerier Commented Jul 3, 2015 at 10:59
• 50 It's not a real experiment. Source: everyone else told me it wasn't real when I got here. –  Dan Henderson Commented Oct 11, 2015 at 16:47

TL;DR: It sounds like a similar monkey experiment did take place, and the results were similar to that presented in the picture, but if this is the same experiment, most of the details are wrong.

The first google result for monkeys ladder experiment contains to the following information:

Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as "threat facial expressions while in a fear posture" when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.

Sources: Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.

Mentioned in: Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976). Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates. In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88.

The above quote is found on page 88 of the 1976 document quoted above .

It is possible the claim is referring to this experiment, with diverging details, or that another experiment took place that was closer to the details in the claim.

• 14 @BlueRaja-DannyPflughoeft, after reading the paper link bellow, it does look like the beginning of the described experiment; learning passed on. It does fail to join all subjects that haven't interacted with the object and have them pass their knowledge to their fellow kin. I would say the folloing 'anecdote' uses the basis for this experiment and greatly builds upon it. The answer to the OP would be NO, it hasn't. scribd.com/doc/73492989/… –  Frankie Commented Apr 15, 2013 at 18:30
• 4 Stephenson's paper: erikbuys.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/… . –  amoeba Commented Sep 14, 2017 at 9:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for browse other questions tagged psychology behavior memory morality ..

• Featured on Meta
• We've made changes to our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy - July 2024
• Announcing a change to the data-dump process
• Upcoming initiatives on Stack Overflow and across the Stack Exchange network...

Hot Network Questions

• How to Reset a Plot Without Using a Click?
• Had there ever been a self-ejecting FDR/CDR?
• Estne aliquod erratum grammaticum hic?
• Log return on short selling when the loss exceeds 100%
• Applications take a few seconds to open, but only the first time I open them
• How to Respond to Directive: "Move Our Entire Website to a CMS Service"
• The difference between ii°7 and vii°7
• Outdoor Electrical Box With Broken Screws
• Use polars when-then-otherwise on multiple output columns at once
• A puzzle of parts
• Washed my passport by mistake, can that cause a problem?
• Question on implementation of PBL (problem or project-based learning) in Linear Algebra course
• What is the best way to close this small gap in the tile?
• Is it possible to use "sshd_config" to prevent root login only after a user has logged in via ssh?
• Why are there no 12V/5A USB PD chargers/batteries?
• Widow of a Cohen allowed to eat truma?
• In terms of Material Science, why do household garbage bag seal water and air, but allow odor to pass through?
• PCB Footprint Design of a Coin Cell Holder
• How long should I boil a liquid mixture containing vanilla extract to vaporize the alcohol, when making ice cream?
• "Man cannot live by bread alone." — Is there any logical explanation why this idiom doesn't have an article before "man"?
• Is it safe to keep an outdated credit card?
• Is a Fizban's dragonborn's breath weapon magical?
• How will a very short undergrad impact PhD applications?
• How do you get on the list to be notified of realtime LSST alerts (like supernovae)?

What Monkeys Can Teach Us About Human Behavior: From Facts to Fiction

When creativity crosses the line..

Posted March 20, 2012 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

In a 2011 Psychology Today post called "What Monkeys Can Teach Us About Human Behavior," Michael Michalko described an experiment involving five monkeys, a ladder, and a banana. Descriptions of this experiment can also be found online, as a result of this story being told many times in various blogs, books, and speeches. The experiment as described in the story, however, never happened.

This is how Michalko described the experiment in his blog post. "This human behavior of not challenging assumptions reminds me of an experiment psychologists performed years ago. They started with a cage containing five monkeys. Inside the cage, they hung a banana on a string with a set of stairs placed under it.

"Before long, a monkey went to the stairs and started to climb towards the banana. As soon as he started up the stairs, the psychologists sprayed all of the other monkeys with ice-cold water. After a while, another monkey made an attempt to obtain the banana. As soon as his foot touched the stairs, all of the other monkeys were sprayed with ice-cold water. It's wasn't long before all of the other monkeys would physically prevent any monkey from climbing the stairs.

"Now, the psychologists shut off the cold water, removed one monkey from the cage, and replaced it with a new one. The new monkey saw the banana and started to climb the stairs. To his surprise and horror, all of the other monkeys attacked him. After another attempt and attack, he discovered that if he tried to climb the stairs, he would be assaulted.

"Next, they removed another of the original five monkeys and replaced it with a new one. The newcomer went to the stairs and was attacked. The previous newcomer took part in the punishment with enthusiasm!

"Likewise, they replaced a third original monkey with a new one, then a fourth, then the fifth. Every time the newest monkey tried to climb the stairs, he was attacked. The monkeys had no idea why they were not permitted to climb the stairs or why they were beating any monkey that tried.

"After replacing all the original monkeys, none of the remaining monkeys had ever been sprayed with cold water. Nevertheless, no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana. Why not? Because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here."

Michalko then concludes: "People sometimes do the same in the workplace. How many times have you heard, "It has always been done this way. Don't mess with what works." Instead of challenging these assumptions, many of us, like the monkeys, simply keep reproducing what has been done before. It's the easiest thing to do."

In a comment on Michalko's blog post, primatologist Frans De Waal expressed some skepticism about the experiment and asked Michalko if he had a scientific reference for this study. In response to the comment from another reader, Michalko posted the following:

"FIVE MONKEYS. This story originated with the research of G.R. Stephenson. (Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.)


"Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question.

"In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as "threat facial expressions while in a fear posture" when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum.

"When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls.

"Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.
 His research inspired the story of five monkeys. Some believe the story is true, while others believed it's an exaggerated account of his research. True story or not, his published research with rhesus monkeys, in my opinion, makes the point."

So Michalko apparently knew that the Stephenson's study did not involve a ladder or a banana (this aspect of the story is inspired by experiments with chimpanzees conducted by Wolfgang Kohler in the 1920s), that the monkeys were not replaced in the group they way he described it in the story, that the monkeys did not attack the individual who tried to climb the ladder (let alone that they "..took part in the punishment with enthusiasm!"), and that in the end no monkey ever again approached the stairs to try for the banana "because as far as they know that's the way it's always been around here."

As for Michalko's last comment "true story or not, his published research with rhesus monkeys, in my opinion, makes the point," I couldn't disagree more. Whether or not the story of the experiment is true makes a big difference. When people report scientific experiments in books or blogs, the readers expect these reports to be true. If an author wants to make up a story to make a point, he should explicitly tell the reader that the story was invented. If the author is unsure as to whether a story is true, he should check his sources or at least warn the readers that the description of the experiment may be inaccurate.

In this case, it appears that Michalko had the original source of the study and knew that it didn't match his description. The real experiment didn't even make the point that Michalko wanted to make, that "monkeys simply keep reproducing what has been done before because it's the easiest thing to do."

Stephenson's experiment was a study of learned fear conditioning in which various objects (conditioned stimuli, CS) were paired with an airblast (the unconditioned stimulus, US). After the conditioning occurred, a male observer was placed in the same enclosure as the model, giving the observer the opportunity to watch the model behave fearfully in the presence of the object. During subsequent testing in isolation, three of the four observers exhibited fear of the object, suggesting that they had learned to fear the object from the behavior of the model.

In reviewing Stephenson's study, psychologist Susan Mineka noted that when female subjects were used, Stephenson found opposite results: Previously fearful models lost their fear as a result of watching the nonfearful behavior of their observers. Mineka noted that "...regardless of its cause, this [sex difference] raises serious questions about the robustness of the phenomenon." Studies conducted by Susan Mineka herself demonstrated that if a snake is used as the conditioned stimulus, fear can be learned from observing the behavior of a model, but this association does not occur if other objects such as kitchen utensils are used.

I asked Dr. Bennett (Jeff) Galef, a comparative psychologist who is an expert in animal social learning to comment on the experiment described by Michalko. He answered "...it strikes me as very unlikely that, in the 1960s, someone with Stephenson's limited ability as an experimentalist could have conceived of, adequately designed, or successfully completed an experiment of the sophistication of that in the story you describe. The story reflects a combination of Kohler's work with chimps, Jacob and Cambell's (1961) work with humans, and Curio and Mineka's work with respectively European blackbirds and monkeys. To my knowledge, no two of these elements were combined in a single experimental paradigm until 1995."

I don't know if the fictionalized version of the Stephenson study was created by a single person or whether every time the story was re-told by a different person, some aspect of it was changed, added, or removed, the way it happens with legends. But whatever the process was, there was a lot of Creative Thinkering involved!

If you like this post, read my book Games Primates Play , and follow me on Twitter .

Dario Maestripieri, Ph.D. , is a professor of comparative human development, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology at the University of Chicago.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

….@ the intersection of learning & performance

Thoughts on people and the workplace, the monkey experiment and edgar schein.

April 2, 2014.   A reader brought to my attention that the research cited in this post is suspect.  http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction ).  After a little digging, it appears that the story originated in a credible business book, “ Competing for the Future ” by Gary Hamel and C. K. Prahalad.  One writer went so far as to contact Hamel’s office to obtain the actual research cited in the book, and apparently received a brush off.  So while this makes a good story to support theories on organizational culture, perhaps it should merely be taken as that – a good story.  But…I have seen the behavior in 30-some years of corporate work and the message is sound.

One of many “funny” emails floating around the internet contained the story of the monkey, banana and water spray experiment.  I was pretty sure it was true ( because I’ve seen it happen – but not with monkeys ), but I wanted to source it anyway.

But let’s take it to the topic of organizational culture. Edgar Schein talks about the “ unconscious, taken-for-granted beliefs, perceptions, thoughts and feelings.  The ultimate source of values and action.” (Schein, 2004) This is the part that you see but it is difficult to understand “the why”.  Often, these assumptions conflict with the “artifacts” and “values” that are talked about and written on posters and intranets.

A practical example.  A healthcare organization is exceedingly proud of their strong culture of caring for patients.  Everything from their new employee orientation to their performance management program focus on caring, quality and speaking up when they saw something wrong.

But several years ago, a new nurse just out of orientation publicly corrected a physician and was publicly “flogged”.  That nurse became a mentor to several other nurses, and quickly explained that what they learned in orientation about speaking up was erroneous, and they would actually be subject to discipline if they challenged a physician or a more senior nurse.

Year after year, the unspoken rule is handed down, and the energy and excitement of hearing the values at orientation gives way to cynicism and silence.

Does this really happen?  You betcha!

What do to?  The answer isn’t really difficult, but it takes courage to execute.  The answer lies in asking good questions, observing behavior and understanding what those underlying assumptions are.  And here’s the key….once that is known, leadership has to make change to bring the artifacts and values in line with the assumptions.  Sounds easy, doesn’t it.  So why don’t more organizations do this?

“Did the monkey banana and water spray experiment ever take place? Answer:

The Monkey Banana and Water Spray Experiment The experiment is real (scientific study cited below). This experiment involved 5 monkeys (10 altogether, including replacements), a cage, a banana, a ladder and, an ice cold water hose. The Experiment- Part 1 5 monkeys are locked in a cage, a banana was hung from the ceiling and a ladder was placed right underneath it. As predicted, immediately, one of the monkeys would race towards the ladder, to grab the banana. However, as soon as he would start to climb, the researcher would spray the monkey with ice-cold water. but here’s the kicker- In addition, he would also spray the other four monkeys… When a second monkey tried to climb the ladder, the researcher would, again, spray the monkey with ice-cold water, As well as the other four watching monkeys; This was repeated again and again until they learned their lesson Climbing equals scary cold water for EVERYONE so No One Climbs the ladder. The Experiment- Part 2 Once the 5 monkeys knew the drill, the researcher replaced one of the monkeys with a new inexperienced one. As predicted, the new monkey spots the banana, and goes for the ladder. BUT, the other four monkeys, knowing the drill, jumped on the new monkey and beat him up. The beat up new guy thus Learns- NO going for the ladder and No Banana Period- without even knowing why! and also without ever being sprayed with water! These actions get repeated with 3 more times, with a new monkey each time and ASTONISHINGLY each new monkey- who had never received the cold-water Spray himself (and didn’t even know anything about it), would Join the beating up of the New guy. This is a classic example of Mob Mentality- bystanders and outsiders uninvolved with the fight- join in ‘just because’. When the researcher replaced a third monkey, the same thing happened; likewise for the fourth until, eventually, all the monkeys had been replaced and none of the original ones are left in the cage (that had been sprayed by water). The Experiment- Part 3 Again, a new monkey was introduced into the cage. It ran toward the ladder only to get beaten up by the others. The monkey turns with a curious face asking “why do you beat me up when I try to get the banana?” The other four monkeys stopped and looked at each other puzzled (None of them had been sprayed and so they really had no clue why the new guy can’t get the banana) but it didn’t matter, it was too late, the rules had been set. And So, although they didn’t know WHY, they beat up the monkey just because ” that’s the way we do things around here”… Well, it seems to be true; not in the exact shape that it took here, but close enough, Below is a quotation from the experiment, in scientific Jargon: (sources cited below) “Stephenson (1967) trained adult male and female rhesus monkeys to avoid manipulating an object and then placed individual naïve animals in a cage with a trained individual of the same age and sex and the object in question. In one case, a trained male actually pulled his naïve partner away from the previously punished manipulandum during their period of interaction, whereas the other two trained males exhibited what were described as “threat facial expressions while in a fear posture” when a naïve animal approached the manipulandum. When placed alone in the cage with the novel object, naïve males that had been paired with trained males showed greatly reduced manipulation of the training object in comparison with controls. Unfortunately, training and testing were not carried out using a discrimination procedure so the nature of the transmitted information cannot be determined, but the data are of considerable interest.” Sources: Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288. Mentioned in: Galef, B. G., Jr. (1976). Social Transmission of Acquired Behavior: A Discussion of Tradition and Social Learning in Vertebrates. In: Rosenblatt, J.S., Hinde, R.A., Shaw, E. and Beer, C. (eds.), Advances in the study of behavior, Vol. 6, New York: Academic Press, pp. 87-88:”

______________________________________________________

Schein, E. H. (2004). Organizational Culture and Leadership . San Francisco, Jossey Bass, pp. 26.

Animated monkey from http://www.animationfactory.com  

Share this:

13 thoughts on “ The Monkey Experiment and Edgar Schein ”

Carol, what a great illustration of how a “culture” gets built, for better or worse. As you have, I’ve seen it all too many times – the actions don’t match the words on the wall. Then leaders wonder ‘why aren’t people doing what we want them to do?’ It really is because they have literally learned not to. You recently used the word authenticity and I think that is what so much of it comes down to. Culture is all about what we do, not what we say. If we act inauthentically, it becomes like a parasitic vine, eventually weaving throughout the entire organization and hard to get rid of.

Thanks for your response, Peggy. I like the analogy of a parasitic vine….it grows fast and the host doesn’t even know it’s there!

With the new job, I’ve been thinking quite a bit about espoused values and the actual experience. I’m treated as a regular employee (and I will be one in June), but when it comes down to some cultural items, I’m absolutely a contractor and should stay quiet and out of the way.

Thanks for stopping by Erica. You know, the whole thing seems so simple, but the hidden and/or unspoken things can so quickly become habit.

Does the fact that Answers.com appears to be perpetuating a myth pose any difficulties for you? (Cf. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction )

Thanks for the correction, David. Your sarcasm is obvious, but I do appreciate the information.

David, I looked further, and it appears that this experiment may have been originated in “Competing for the Future” by Hamel and Prahalad. This link ( http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu )indicates an attempt to trace back the origins of the experiment without success.

Your point is a good one – to verify the sources of internet research. While it appears that this may have been urban legend perpetuated by “business writers,” the premise of learned culture is valid and has been researched by theoreticians in the world of business, such as Edgar Schein. The “follower” mentality that evolves from cultural norms is exhibited every day in the modern business world, making culture change extremely difficult.

Any chance you could provide some references for the research that has been conducted by theoreticians in the world of business as you note? I think “world of business” is key, not just freshmen Psy/Soc students or rhesus monkeys. Thanks.

I don’t have a copy of Hamel & Prahalad’s book, so I can’t look it up right now. Not sure what you are asking, but sometimes “research” and “world of business” are oxymorons. I did provide reference for Schein….

I commend you for a magnanimous & thoughtful response to a snarky comment, for which I must apologize. The Skeptics link you provided is as informative as any I’ve come across. At this point it would be helpful to view the 1967 paper from G. R. Stephenson to see more details of the original experiment. Because those details have not yet been brought to light, it seems apparent that subsequent authors have elaborated details to fit their rhetorical purposes.

There are many others transmitting this meme, I among them before I actually looked into it and discovered the lack of substantiation for it. I agree that the story is compelling & rings true; I think most of us have seen this type of behavior not only in corporate culture but in any social system maintained by fear. As a middle school teacher & erstwhile authority figure, I find abundant opportunities to question my decisions – was it the right thing to do, or was I simply playing the sixth monkey? – as I have questioned the use of sarcasm in commenting on your original blog entry.

The takeaway consideration for me is this: To what extent do I undermine my own credibility when using misinformation to support my argument? I think the answers go back to the author’s original intent and to the manner of the author’s response when confronted with more accurate information. Unlike some writers’ treatment of the anecdote, I feel that you have acquitted your position on both fronts.

Among the discrepancies between source and elaboration were air blasts instead of showers and novel objects instead of bananas. The experiment from Stephenson’s 1967 paper bears little resemblance to that described in the meme: http://www.scribd.com/doc/106891948/Stephenson-G-R-1967-Cultural-Acquisition-of-a-Specific-Learned-Response-Among-Rhesus-Monkeys-in-Starek-D-Schneider-R-And-Kuhn-H-J-Eds

Makes one wonder how many other authors try to dress their fiction up in the guise of science.

David, thanks for your recent comments. I also found the original Stephenson article, and skimmed it. One of my most fervid beliefs is that business practitioners of today are being bombarded with “research” and falling prey to trying this, and then that when this didn’t work. The confusion this presents to the workforce can literally tank an organization. I saw that with my own eyes.

Good lesson learned from all. Trust, but verify. With the wealth of information available in today’s internet, comes responsibility for verifying the content.

• Pingback: LEAVE MY REALITY ALONE! | | Fade To Blog

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar

• 613-230-6424
• [email protected]

News, Updates and Insights

Check back often to stay up to date with the latest news, updates, and insights from the Intersol team.

Organizational Culture and the 5 Monkeys Experiment

• May 26, 2020

Written by Intersol Group

Have you ever heard the story of the 5 Monkeys Experiment? It may sound familiar when you think of your organizational culture. It goes like this:

5 monkeys were placed in a cage as part of an experiment.  In the middle of the cage was a ladder with bananas on the top rung. Every time a monkey tried to climb the ladder, the experimenter sprayed all of the monkeys with icy water. Eventually, each time a monkey started to climb the ladder, the other ones pulled him off and beat him up so they could avoid the icy spray. Soon, no monkey dared go up the ladder.

The experimenter then substituted one of the monkeys in the cage with a new monkey.  The first thing the new monkey did was try to climb the ladder to reach the bananas. After several beatings, the new monkey learned the social norm. He never knew “why” the other monkeys wouldn’t let him go for the bananas because he had never been sprayed with ice water, but he quickly learned that this behaviour would not be tolerated by the other monkeys.

One by one, each of the monkeys in the cage was substituted for a new monkey until none of the original group remained.  Every time a new monkey went up the ladder, the rest of the group pulled him off, even those who had never been sprayed with the icy water.

By the end of the experiment, the 5 monkeys in the cage had learned to follow the rule (don’t go for the bananas), without any of them knowing the reason why (we’ll all get sprayed by icy water).  If we could have asked the monkeys for their rationale behind not letting their cage mates climb the ladder, their answer would probably be: “I don’t know, that’s just how its always been done.”

This story, whether real or a fable, captures a pervasive theme in many organizational cultures: We tend to do things the way we’re told they’ve always been done without questioning or revisiting the reason behind it, even long after that reason ceases to exist.

Do you feel like a caged monkey in your current work environment?  Here’s some advice as it relates to organizational culture: Next time someone tells you “that’s not how we do things”, ask them why. If they can’t tell you, tell them about the 5 monkeys!

• 613-567-1504

343 Preston St 11th Floor, Ottawa, ON K1S 1N4

Privacy Policy

JLB1568 | ‘Monkey Ladder Banana’ Experiment and Primary Sources

In this video I explain the importance of using primary sources to support ones claims, and focus on the example of the oft-cited ‘Monkey Ladder Banana’ experiment. This experiment involved five monkeys in a cage who were all sprayed with water if any of them climbed a ladder to get bananas; soon they learned to physically harm any fellow monkey who tried to climb the ladder, and this custom was passed on even to new monkeys entering the cage who had never been sprayed with water.

Backup video

Original youtube upload

LINKS: Cartoon: https://www.quora.com/Is-the-social-experiment-where-monkeys-were-punished-and-beat-all-other-monkeys-attempting-to-climb-a-ladder-a-real-experiment-or-just-clever-fiction Throwcase: http://www.throwcase.com/2014/12/21/that-five-monkeys-and-a-banana-story-is-rubbish/ PsychologyToday: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/games-primates-play/201203/what-monkeys-can-teach-us-about-human-behavior-facts-fiction StackExchange: http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-experiment-with-five-monkeys-a-ladder-a-banana-and-a-water-spray-condu

NOTE: If you websearch for ‘pdf Stephenson, G. R. (1967). Cultural acquisition of a specific learned response among rhesus monkeys. In: Starek, D., Schneider, R., and Kuhn, H. J. (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, pp. 279-288.’ you will be able to find a copy.

Post updated 3-Aug-2022 to add backup video.

• JLBE1567 | Fakeologist Audiochat Recap
• JLBE1569 | JLB Wins Golden Jeffrey at 2015 Sleeple’s Choice Awards

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail. You can also subscribe without commenting.

The Five Monkeys Experiment & Its Lessons for Your Organization

As executives and C-level officers of successful companies, we are all trained to think logically, make well-considered decisions, and take measured steps toward the success of our organizations. Yet despite our best efforts, sometimes it can seem like we’re looking at problems through a fogged mirror—until now!   

Many forward-thinking organizations have used the Five Monkeys Experiment as an eye-opener when examining organizational structures and taking that extra step towards increased business efficiency. At ProServeIT , we believe in the power of innovation and creativity. That's why we encourage our employees to think outside the box and come up with new and innovative solutions to help our clients achieve their goals. Through this experiment, let's discover what happens when you stop expecting routine obedience from employees but instead allow their ideas and creativity to thrive.  

In a hurry? Jump straight to your section of interest.  

🐒 What is the Five Monkeys Experiment?   💡 What can the Five Monkeys Experiment Teach Us?  😯 2 Questions to Help Avoid Five Monkeys Experiment “Syndrome” 🏁 Conclusion

What is the Five Monkeys Experiment?

If you haven’t heard about the Five Monkeys Experiment, it goes a little something like this:  

A researcher puts five monkeys in a cage. There’s a bunch of bananas hanging from a string, with a ladder leading to the bananas. When the first monkey goes for the bananas, the researcher sprays all five monkeys with freezing water for five minutes. Sometime later, when a second monkey inevitably tries to go for the bananas, the researcher once again sprays all five monkeys with the cold water for five minutes. The researcher then puts the hose away and never touches it again. But, when a third monkey tries to go for the bananas, the other four attack him to prevent him from climbing that ladder. They are afraid of the punishment that may come.  

Then, the researcher replaced one of the monkeys with a new monkey who wasn’t part of the original experiment and was never sprayed with water. And as soon as he touches the ladder to go for the bananas, the other four monkeys attack him to keep him from doing so.  If he tries again, they attack him again. Thus, the new monkey learns not to go after the bananas because he’ll get attacked if he does.  

The researcher replaces a second monkey with another new monkey. When this monkey goes for the bananas, the other four attack him, including the new monkey never sprayed with water . The researcher then continues to replace all the monkeys one at a time until all five original monkeys are removed from the cage. Each time the newcomer goes for the bananas, the others attack, even when they, as new monkeys, have never received punishment for going after the bananas. And thus, the new monkeys, who have never been sprayed with cold water, learn not to go after the temptation of the bananas.  

The researchers hypothesize that if they ask the monkeys why they don’t go for the bananas, they’d answer, “because that’s the way it’s always been done.” That’s what we call the Five Monkey Experiment “Syndrome.”   

What can the Five Monkeys Experiment Teach Us?

There’s controversy over whether the Five Monkeys experiment even happened. Still, as business owners and CEOs, there’s a lot to learn from this, even if it’s only viewed as an analogy. The five monkeys experiment says a lot about the pervasiveness of traditions within an organization.  

Traditions are a part of every organization, especially if the majority of the workforce has been around for some time. Those traditions can be detrimental to progress within your workplace, especially when new employees are stopped from pursuing new ideas. By focusing on doing something the way it’s always been done because it’s tradition to do it that way, organizations are often rendered blind to new ways that they can get the “banana” (the prize they’re going after).  

Quality technology strategies and digital transformation can help organizations place themselves on the path to future success. Similar to the Five Monkeys experiment, even when no restraints are applied, organizations still succumb to peer pressure or the status quo and refrain from thinking strategically about their technology. Complacency has hindered many companies from unlocking their digital future. The shock is often revealed during challenging economic times or the appearance of an industry disruptor that critically impacts an organization’s revenue stream.   

There are clear steps that you can take to ensure strategic thinking for your technology is part of your business success story and not your biggest downfall. By leveraging technology change as an accelerator of growth rather than a cost-cutting measure, you can create something truly transformative.   

Decide to invest time into digital transformation and technology strategy-building actively – find out what you need now and develop a roadmap for the future of your organization’s technology investments and design proactive initiatives based on your organization’s strategic objectives.  

The Five Monkeys experiment, therefore, teaches us that we need to be constantly challenging ourselves to look at things from a new light (technology or otherwise), to question things that don’t always feel right, and to avoid using the excuse of “we’ve always done it this way” to avoid trying new things and branching out in new directions. In other words, if we want that “banana,” there are times that we’re going to need to get creative or let those new employees try new things.  

So, how can you make sure that you’re building a culture that doesn’t douse creativity, ingenuity, or innovation and instead encourages experimental problem-solving? In the next section, we’ll look at two critical questions you should consider asking yourself about your work environment.  

2 Questions to Consider To Avoid Five Monkeys Experiment “Syndrome.”

There’s no denying the fact that digital and Cloud transformation is constantly and rapidly changing the way that employees communicate and work with each other. This means that an attitude of “we’ve always done it this way” will no longer be a viable way to run your organization.  

Here are two important questions you need to consider that will help you to avoid the Five Monkeys experiment “syndrome” in your organization:  

1. Does your organization’s culture encourage open dialogue and collaboration?

Giving your employees the chance to engage in open dialogue and collaborate with one another on various projects and initiatives is, in this day and age, necessary to maintain their interest in working for you. Today’s workforce is all about collaboration – when you look at the available technology, it’s clear that collaboration is not only encouraged, but employees are demanding it!

By using Cloud-based programs like Office 365 ,  Microsoft Teams , Workplace from Meta , Slack, and others, you can show your employees that you value their input and you’re open to exploring options that may challenge the status quo – the complete opposite of the results from the Five Monkeys experiment.  

The truth is that your employees are always looking for a better employee experience to help them genuinely feel engaged by their work, connected to the values of their company, and for their voices/thoughts/ideas to be acknowledged by upper management.  

Did you know that highly engaged employees are 12x less likely to leave their company than those not engaged? Creating a better work culture where employees (remote or in-person) can collaborate and voice their concerns should be more than just a “retention” strategy.

This should be woven into building a rich employee experience that provides employees with the healthy environment needed to give their best (or far more than that) to help an organization that invests in them.  

Reimagine your digital employee experience with the help of Microsoft Viva . This cutting-edge employee experience platform brings together communications, knowledge, and learning resources and then integrates them into a smooth flow of workflow for all employees.  

Want to “dip your toes” into the Viva experience? Check out one of our Microsoft Viva classes today!   

2. Does your organization reward and recognize innovative thinkers?

How do you recognize those employees who go above and beyond to develop innovative solutions? Do you recognize employees that take risks and try new and innovative ideas? To avoid the five monkeys syndrome in your organization, it’s essential to encourage your employees to seek out those new ways to get the “banana” and recognize the employees who do so, even if their ideas fail spectacularly.  

In this case, failure should not be condemned because it can be a great learning experience for the employee, the team, and the organization as a whole.

Is Your Organization Stuck in a Five Monkeys Experiment Pattern?

The lessons that we can get from the five monkeys experiment are clear – we need to stop dousing our creativity with cold water, allow all of our employees the chance to take risks (and to fail, if it comes to that), and really foster and promote a culture of innovation within our workplace.   

Easier said than done? The good news is that the right technology framework can help you with this! Why not talk to our experts to see how implementing the right technology can be a good first step in your journey? Let us help you get started in enhancing your corporate culture today!  

S tay up to date with ProServeIT!   📨

Our monthly newsletter has all that as well as  insightful information on relevant technology, webinars and workshops. Make sure to sign up now for your dose of tech knowledge delivered straight to your inbox!

Enquire Now! | Download Brochure!

MONKEYS, BANANAS, WATER & POLE

Written by: adam chan.

In an experiment, four monkeys were placed in an enclosure. In the enclosure, there is a pole. Atop the pole were some juiciest bananas waiting to be grabbed by the monkeys. Indeed, with no hesitation, the monkeys started scaling the pole for their pricy rewards. However during their climb, they were doused with a cold stream of water from the top thus preventing them from getting to the bananas. Monkey likes water slightly more than cats. That how much they would enjoy the splash. In the end, none climb the pole anymore.

In the next stage of the experiment, the scientists removed three monkeys from the enclosure and introduce another three new monkeys that were never splashed. The new monkeys responded to the bananas immediately in the same way which first batch had. The first monkey has seen and felt the cold water; with all his might he prevented the three new ones from climbing the pole. He shouted, growled, pulling legs, jumped up and down, etc. In the end, the three new monkeys even without experiencing the splash of cold water, they did not climb the pole again and they were not soaked.

In the final stage of the experiment, two monkeys were removed and three new ones were introduced. In the enclosure, there were two existing monkeys. One which has seen the water and the other has not. The three new ones responded to the bananas immediately, jumping onto the pole at the first instance. One of the existing monkey that was not splashed previously by water nor has seen the water, bared his teeth, shouted, jumped, growled at the three new monkeys, prevented them from climbing without knowing the reasons behind it. Eventually, no monkey gets to eat the bananas.

What is the connection between the monkeys, bananas, pole and water to corporate culture? Our beliefs are subterranean a.k.a. iceberg beliefs or more commonly known as assumptions. We think of assumptions are the by-products of iceberg beliefs. Most people are familiar with our assumptions but are not discerning about our iceberg beliefs. It takes some willingness and effort to discern its existence and its potent effect it has on our cognitive development. As stated by BF Skinner, humans can be conditioned both positively and negatively. Operant conditioning is the most popular behavioral phenomenon discovered by him in the 60s which set forth the school of behavioral science in the field of psychology.

The monkey story above has demonstrated the definite effects of conditioning coming from external stimulus that has reinforced, changed, altered, transformed, inculcated, influenced, etc the behaviors of the monkeys, to be precise, their beliefs. This can be true for humans too. The facts in the monkey experiment have such uncanny similarity to the works in any organization.

Senior staff members can easily influence the new comers in both the good and the bad manner; this is one parallel aspect between the story and reality.

New comers adapt and live the existing culture with no discernment, following suit for the sake of compliance, in a total blinded manner.

Conditioning is potent as the effect it exercises on us is unobtrusive and subliminal. Conditioning can be premeditated too. Both constructive and destructive results can be achieved by understanding the mechanics of conditioning. Like the movie Spiderman, with great power comes great responsibilities. Leaders, Head of departments, CEOs, Directors have the authority and opportunities to do so. With or without the knowledge of conditioning, they are exercising it daily in both verbal and non-verbal communication occasions. Let’s understand its power use it wisely both at work

Source: The Resilience Factor  by Karen Reivich and Andrew Shatte, Chapter 12.

Each team will be tasked to build a robot together. After which they will be going through the learning session on manual controls and how to control them. This will allow their robots to be unique as compared to the rest. Their final objective will be to pit the robot that they built against man-made obstacles such as to carry items and moving from point A to point B or to going through a maze or to dance! The possibilities is endless! They will then customise a message for the children using the robots built and have it delivered to the beneficiaries.

Learning Objectives

• To understand that it is not always the results that matter but also the process
• Engage participant’s imagination and problem solving skills
• Increase confidence and commitment levels Allows greater meaning to giving and helping those in need
• To tap on each other’s strengths and weaknesses

If you are looking for an exciting challenge with a meaningful element, The Supermarket Race Challenge! will be the program for you! Teams will get to earn cash by attempting a series of challenges along the race, in a bid to earn enough money to purchase essential items for the selected beneficiary. Given a limited time and facing multiple challenges, teams will have to plan carefully and make strategic decisions to optimize their resources, and purchase as many items as possible for a good cause.

Home → Research

How scientists taught monkeys the concept of money. Not long after, the first prostitute monkey appeared

Seriously, what the heck?

You may have thought things like currency or money are concepts known solely to humans. While it’s true some animals might have a sense of ownership, trading resources hasn’t been observed in any other species besides Homo sapiens . However, in 2005, an economist/psychologist duo from Yale University managed to teach seven capuchin monkeys how to use money. The study went into some unexpected territory not long after.

Monkey Business

“The capuchin has a small brain, and it’s pretty much focused on food and sex,” said Keith Chen, a Yale economist who along with Laurie Santos, a psychologist, are the two researchers who have had made the study. ”You should really think of a capuchin as a bottomless stomach of want,” Chen says. ”You can feed them marshmallows all day, they’ll throw up and then come back for more.”

It’s exactly these selfish desires that they tried to exploit and experiment with great success after teaching capuchins to buy grapes, apples, and Jell-O. The economist wanted to study the incentives that motivated specimens to behave in a way, while the psychologist analyzed the behavior itself.

Chen’s monkey correlations to human economics go from further back when he was a Harvard graduate, and additionally shows some more interesting facts. At Harvard, he worked with Marc Hauser, a psychologist, on a project that studied altruistic behaviors in cotton-top tamarin.

At first, they put two monkeys in different cages, each with a lever. When the lever was pulled, the neighboring monkey would receive food. If not altruism, it was still a form of cooperation that was put to the test — the typical tamarin pulled the lever about 40 percent of the time.

The most interesting part came after the researchers introduced new behaviors. Now, they trained a monkey to always pull the lever (mindless altruist), and another to never pull it (ego-monkey). The two were then inserted into the game with other monkeys.

At first, the mindless altruist was pulling the lever every time, never missing a chance to deliver food, while the other tamarins responded in the same way 50 percent of the time. The other monkeys soon understood, though, that the mindless altruist was just pulling the lever anyway, regardless of whether it was reciprocated or not – their response then dropped to 30 percent of the time.

The ego-monkey was exposed to the harshest treatment, as expected — very harshly. “ [The other tamarins] would just go nuts ,” Chen recalls when she was introduced to other monkeys. ” They’d throw their feces at the wall, walk into the corner and sit on their hands, kind of sulk. ”

When Chen and Santos first started their study, they didn’t have a particular goal in mind. It was just as simple as giving a monkey a dollar and seeing what would happen, which was exactly the case. Instead of the dollar, however, a silver disc with a hole in its center was employed as a means of currency for the capuchins.

It took several months of training for the capuchins to learn that they could exchange such a token for fruit. After they understood this, each monkey was given 12 tokens to decide on how to spend it on food valued at different prices.

Researchers observed that the monkeys could even budget. Researchers then changed the market and put Jell-O at a lower price, to see if monkeys would buy fewer grapes and more Jell-O. They acted exactly like the current laws of economics dictate for humans as well.

They then taught them how to gamble, and saw they made the same irrational decisions a human gambler would make as well. The data generated by the capuchin monkeys, Chen says, ”make them statistically indistinguishable from most stock-market investors.”

The capuchin monkeys understood money, not only used it

But did the capuchins truly understand the value of money or did they just behave mindlessly to receive food? One of the researchers cut circular slices of cucumber, similar to the discs that were handed out to the capuchin as money, and fed them to the monkeys instead of their usual cube-like shape.

One of the monkeys took a slice, chewed a bit on it, and then immediately went to one of the researchers to see if she could buy something tastier with it.

There was stealing too. Not a single monkey saved any of the tokens, but most of them tried to subtract a few more tokens when they were handed out.

The monkeys were given tokens one at a time, which were inserted in a separate chamber from that of their living quarters, but on one occasion everything sprung into chaos when a capuchin tried to make a run for it with a tray filled with tokens. The chaos was intense. That was a tough time for researchers.

Something else happened then too. Grasping the notion of currency simply means you understand that you can exchange money for goods and services. Well, one of the researchers, during the chaotic episode mentioned earlier, observed how one of the monkeys exchanged money with another for sex. After the act was over, the monkey which was paid immediately used it to buy a grape…

There you have it folks, sounds familiar? In almost all aspects, capuchins manage to understand money and use it in a manner not too different from plain old Homo Sapiens. The study, titled “ How Basic Are Behavioral Biases? Evidence From Capuchin Monkey Trading Behavior “, can be read here .

Was this helpful?

Related posts.

• Beautiful people earn $250,000 extra on average
• Poverty puts ‘tax’ on cognition — financial strain causes drop in IQ as large as 10 points
• Are some people pro-social because they don’t know how to selfishly help themselves?
• When Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution rapes and STDs dramatically fell

Recent news

Scientists brew Biblical beer using 5,000-year-old yeast salvaged from Israel

This fungus that turns caterpillars into zombies is more expensive than gold. And it might go extinct because of it

Is this quirky little rock the oldest known animal carving?

• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
• How we review products

© 2007-2023 ZME Science - Not exactly rocket science. All Rights Reserved.

• Science News
• Environment
• Natural Sciences
• Matter and Energy
• Quantum Mechanics
• Thermodynamics
• Periodic Table
• Applied Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Biochemistry
• Microbiology
• Plants and Fungi
• Planet Earth
• Earth Dynamics
• Rocks and Minerals
• Invertebrates
• Conservation
• Animal facts
• Climate change
• Weather and atmosphere
• Diseases and Conditions
• Mind and Brain
• Food and Nutrition
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• The Solar System
• Asteroids, meteors & comets
• Astrophysics
• Exoplanets & Alien Life
• Spaceflight and Exploration
• Computer Science & IT
• Engineering
• Sustainability
• Renewable Energy
• Green Living
• Editorial policy
• Privacy Policy

Get the Reddit app

A subreddit for those who enjoy learning about flags, their place in society past and present, and their design characteristics

The flag of Elektrostal, Moscow Oblast, Russia which I bought there during my last visit

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

The Unique Burial of a Child of Early Scythian Time at the Cemetery of Saryg-Bulun (Tuva)

<< Previous page

Pages:  379-406

In 1988, the Tuvan Archaeological Expedition (led by M. E. Kilunovskaya and V. A. Semenov) discovered a unique burial of the early Iron Age at Saryg-Bulun in Central Tuva. There are two burial mounds of the Aldy-Bel culture dated by 7th century BC. Within the barrows, which adjoined one another, forming a figure-of-eight, there were discovered 7 burials, from which a representative collection of artifacts was recovered. Burial 5 was the most unique, it was found in a coffin made of a larch trunk, with a tightly closed lid. Due to the preservative properties of larch and lack of air access, the coffin contained a well-preserved mummy of a child with an accompanying set of grave goods. The interred individual retained the skin on his face and had a leather headdress painted with red pigment and a coat, sewn from jerboa fur. The coat was belted with a leather belt with bronze ornaments and buckles. Besides that, a leather quiver with arrows with the shafts decorated with painted ornaments, fully preserved battle pick and a bow were buried in the coffin. Unexpectedly, the full-genomic analysis, showed that the individual was female. This fact opens a new aspect in the study of the social history of the Scythian society and perhaps brings us back to the myth of the Amazons, discussed by Herodotus. Of course, this discovery is unique in its preservation for the Scythian culture of Tuva and requires careful study and conservation.

Keywords: Tuva, Early Iron Age, early Scythian period, Aldy-Bel culture, barrow, burial in the coffin, mummy, full genome sequencing, aDNA

Information about authors: Marina Kilunovskaya (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Vladimir Semenov (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Candidate of Historical Sciences. Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail: [email protected] Varvara Busova  (Moscow, Russian Federation).  (Saint Petersburg, Russian Federation). Institute for the History of Material Culture of the Russian Academy of Sciences.  Dvortsovaya Emb., 18, Saint Petersburg, 191186, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Kharis Mustafin  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Technical Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Irina Alborova  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Candidate of Biological Sciences. Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected] Alina Matzvai  (Moscow, Russian Federation). Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology.  Institutsky Lane, 9, Dolgoprudny, 141701, Moscow Oblast, Russian Federation E-mail:  [email protected]

Shopping Cart Items: 0 Cart Total: 0,00 € place your order

Price pdf version

student - 2,75 € individual - 3,00 € institutional - 7,00 €

Copyright В© 1999-2022. Stratum Publishing House

THE BEST Elektrostal Art Museums

Art museums in elektrostal.

• Art Museums
• Specialty Museums
• History Museums

1. Electrostal History and Art Museum

Column: Opposing vaccine mandates, Trump exposes kids to disease

• Copy Link URL Copied!

As most of us have learned from experience, tracking the self-contradictions of political campaigns is usually a waste of time. Stump speeches are tailored to individual audiences, campaign promises are made to be broken or forgotten and candidates’ positions evolve over time.

But Donald Trump has been making one promise to his rally audiences that should make the parents of school-age children sit up and take notice. I first noticed it in February . Since then, it has apparently become a standard line in his performance.

Here’s how he put it at a rally over the weekend in St. Cloud, Minn.: “I will not give one penny to any school that has a vaccine mandate or a mask mandate.”

If you want to experiment on somebody’s kids, Kamala Harris, AOC, and so forth, have your own kids, lay off of mine....This is about doing what you want to do with your own family, with your own rights.

— JD Vance expresses an anti-vaccination mantra

Trump’s repetition of this line has been largely ignored by a press corps and political pundits focused on his apparent promise to make voting in elections a thing of the past. Yet it takes deadly aim — I use the term “deadly” advisedly — at public health in America, including our nearly 120-year tradition of enforcing vaccine mandates on adults and schoolchildren alike.

It’s also decidedly at odds with the comments by his running mate, J.D. Vance, about the nobility of raising children and the supposed irresponsibility and fecklessness of the childless.

Get the latest from Michael Hiltzik

Commentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize winner.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Vance, as has been widely reported, has carried on fatuously for years about how childless people have an insufficiently heartfelt interest in democracy and the republic. He has argued for higher tax rates on the childless , denigrated political and business leaders as “childless cat ladies,” etc., etc.

Yet when Vance was asked about vaccine mandates on Fox News during his Senate campaign in 2021, here’s what he said : “I am sick of these bureaucrats experimenting on my children because that’s what they’re doing.... If you want to experiment on somebody’s kids, Kamala Harris, AOC, and so forth, have your own kids, lay off of mine.”

As part of that same spiel, he put in a pitch for “bodily autonomy,” one of the catchphrases of anti-vaccine fanatics. “This is about doing what you want to do with your own family, with your own rights,” he said.

Column: After smearing Anthony Fauci, House Republicans proceed to defame a prominent vaccine scientist

Dr. Peter Hotez is a vaccination expert who has nothing to do with COVID. The GOP’s COVID committee just put him in its crosshairs -- but why?

June 6, 2024

Whether Trump is even aware of the implications of his anti-vaccine promise is uncertain; he doesn’t project any more awareness of the meaning of his own words than an AI chatbot. He seems to enjoy repeating the line because it elicits cheers from his audiences, who react as if in the grip of a Pavlovian reflex.

But let’s examine those implications.

To begin with, vaccines are among the most important and effective medical achievements in human history. They have proved their value for more than a century.

U.S. cases of smallpox averaged more than 29,000 a year during the 20th century, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention ; in 2023 there were none. Measles cases averaged 530,217 a year during that time span; in 2023 there were 47. Pertussis, an endemic child-killer known as whooping cough: 200,752 cases a year during the last century; in 2023, there were 5,611. Polio and rubella: virtually wiped out by vaccination.

What accounts for much of this success has been, yes, vaccine mandates, especially in our schools. Every state in the union requires that children entering their public school systems at any grade be vaccinated against a host of childhood diseases.

In Minnesota, where that rally crowd witlessly cheered Trump’s promise to end mandates, children entering kindergarten are required to have had at least four doses of the diphtheria/tetanus/pertussis (DTaP) vaccine, at least three polio shots, two doses of the measles/mumps/rubella (MMR) vaccine, three doses of the hepatitis B shot and two of the chickenpox vaccine.

To put it another way, advocating for an end to vaccine mandates is tantamount to calling for waves of life-threatening diseases to wash across our school-age population. We have already seen outbreaks of polio and measles attributable to the rise of the anti-vaccine movement. The U.S. is currently undergoing a surge in measles, with 188 cases recorded by the CDC so far this year — the highest number since 2019, when there were 1,274 cases, also attributable to anti-vaxxers.

Until very recently, the legality and constitutionality of vaccine mandates was never questioned by the courts. The tradition began in 1905, when the Supreme Court upheld compulsory smallpox vaccination in Boston, where the disease was raging.

Column: Mocking anti-vaxxers’ COVID deaths is ghoulish, yes — but may be necessary

How should we think about anti-vaccine activists who die from COVID?

Jan. 10, 2022

In that case, Justice John Marshall Harlan, writing for a 7-2 majority, set forth the principle that individual rights could be made subservient to the public interest: “Real liberty for all could not exist,” Harlan wrote, “under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own, whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”

The Supreme Court upheld that principle in a 1922 case, this time unanimously.

Over the intervening decades it became clear that school vaccination mandates were a highly effective tool for fighting diseases. Local measles outbreaks during the 1970s were consistently quelled when authorities enforced vaccination requirements.

A natural laboratory experiment occurred in 1970 in the twin cities of Texarkana, Texas, and Texarkana, Ark. As vaccine expert Paul Offit recalled in his recent book about vaccination during the COVID pandemic, “Tell Me When It’s Over,” Arkansas, but not Texas, required vaccines for schoolchildren: Of the 600 measles cases in the metropolitan area, 96% occurred on the Texas side.

It’s one thing for a patient to refuse a tetanus shot after they step on a rusty nail, Offit observed; tetanus is not a contagious disease. But refusing vaccination against measles or COVID exposes one’s entire community to infection. As Offit wrote, it’s tantamount to claiming, “It is my constitutional right to catch and transmit a potentially fatal infection.”

Over time, however, state and local authorities have turned complacent. Religious exemptions proliferated, and then exemptions for claimed philosophical or “moral” beliefs. (Only two states, Mississippi and West Virginia, reject any such exemptions, allowing them only on medical grounds in rare instances; as Offit reports, those states have consistently had the highest vaccination rates in the country.)

Column: COVID boosted anti-vaccine propaganda. Now measles and other childhood diseases are on the march

The anti-vaccination movement grew stronger during the COVID pandemic. The result is a surge in measles and other preventable diseases.

Nov. 30, 2022

Meanwhile the anti-vaccine movement expanded. It was spurred in part by a fraudulent study published in Britain in 1998 , claiming a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism. Although no such link has been found by scientifically validated studies since then, the claim continues to suppress MMR vaccination rates in Britain and parts of the U.S.

But it also reflects the extent to which vaccines became victims of their own success — measles became so rare in the U.S. that it was actually declared eradicated in the U.S. in 2000. So rejecting the MMR vaccine seemed to be no great danger. But measles is back.

The anti-vaccine camp has seized on the threadbare shibboleths of “medical freedom” and “health freedom” — or “bodily autonomy,” as Vance put it. This tied in with tea party anti-government orthodoxy, especially after the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, which for some unaccountable reason became the targets of heightened, partisan hostility.

Agitation against the COVID shots has gained particular purchase on the far right. Witness the presidential campaign of anti-vaccine crackpot Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and the dangerous attack on medical science by Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and his quack henchman, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo .

Right-wing federal judges, chiefly those appointed by Trump, have bought into the anti-vaccine mantras. In 2022, the Supreme Court blocked a Biden administration mandate that large employers require their workers to be vaccinated or be tested for COVID once a week. In June, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco allowed a lawsuit challenging a COVID vaccine mandate for Los Angeles Unified School District workers to go ahead. The ruling was 2 to 1; both judges in the majority are Trump appointees.

The consequences of opposition to vaccine mandates can’t be overestimated. They’re visible in Minnesota, where Trump’s attack on mandates was so lustily cheered in an outburst of what I’ve called “herd stupidity.”

From 2013 through 2023, the percentage of Minnesota kindergartners fully vaccinated against measles fell from more than 93% to less than 88%. The polio immunization rate declined from 93.7% to 88.7%. Rates of DTaP, hepatitis B and chickenpox vaccination have similarly declined. For some of these diseases, the vaccine levels have fallen below those necessary to protect the entire population from possible outbreaks.

So, sure. Call Trump and Vance “weirdos” if that suits your political outlook. But don’t forget that some policies they’re pushing are mortal threats to your health.

Latest from Michael Hiltzik

Column: most americans have a negative view of crypto. so why are political campaigns rushing to embrace it, column: what fdr could advise biden about reforming the supreme court — tread lightly, column: 99 years after the scopes ‘monkey trial,’ religious fundamentalism still infects our schools, more to read.

Letters to the Editor: Why we need to stop normalizing vaccine hesitancy in parents

March 16, 2024

Column: Trump and RFK Jr. want to make the world safe again for polio and measles. You should be terrified

March 5, 2024

Letters to the Editor: To protect scientists, vote snake oil salesmen out of office and improve education

Sept. 26, 2023

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Michael Hiltzik has written for the Los Angeles Times for more than 40 years. His business column appears in print every Sunday and Wednesday, and occasionally on other days. Hiltzik and colleague Chuck Philips shared the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for articles exposing corruption in the entertainment industry. His seventh book, “Iron Empires: Robber Barons, Railroads, and the Making of Modern America,” was published in 2020. His forthcoming book, “The Golden State,” is a history of California. Follow him on Twitter at twitter.com/hiltzikm and on Facebook at facebook.com/hiltzik.

More From the Los Angeles Times

Worries about the economy hit Wall Street, and the Dow drops nearly 500 points

Aug. 1, 2024

Hollywood Inc.

Striking video game actors hit picket lines over AI: ‘The human element is irreplaceable’

Don Lemon sues Elon Musk over canceled X show

As jobless claims hit highest level in a year, labor market remains healthy

Structured data

Items portrayed in this file, 2 february 2009, source of file, original creation by uploader, image/svg+xml, b500fec876333919f830241239a673e16d5cda7d, 19,372 byte.

• Coats of arms of Lobnya
• Globes in heraldry
• Seagulls in heraldry
• Aircraft in heraldry
• SVG coats of arms of cities and villages of Moscow Oblast
• PD-RU-exempt (coats of arms)

Navigation menu