What is the Hundredth Monkey Effect?
The Hundredth Monkey Effect is a hypothetical phenomenon that explains how ideas or behaviors spread to a much larger population than just a few individuals. Essentially, the Hundredth Monkey Effect suggests that when a critical number of individuals in an isolated community is reached, the popularity of ideas becomes inevitable and spreads rapidly.
This idea originated from a small study conducted on Japanese monkeys in the 1950s, where researchers observed the unexpected spread of the behavior of washing sweet potatoes among a larger group. This finding was entirely accidental, as the study was focused on something else entirely.
It’s worth noting that the Japanese scientists involved in the monkey study did not publish any research on this topic. It was someone else who wrote about the findings. It was South African biologist Lyall Watson who analyzed and published the findings of the Japanese primatologists. Watson arbitrarily determined this number as a hundred. His claim was that the washing behavior of sweet potatoes spread to a larger group of monkeys when it reached a critical number.
Watson described his 30-year research project focusing on Macaca fuscata monkeys in his best-selling book “Lifetide: a Biology of the Unknown.” In this book, he suggested the existence of a morphogenetic structure or field that surrounds the islands and allows communication among the monkeys. However, scientists expressed doubts about the quality of this research and labeled the conclusions as unscientific. Consequently, Watson’s work received more support from the mysticism community than from the scientific community.
In the 1980s, the term “Hundredth Monkey” was further popularized by Ken Keyes, Jr. in his book “The Hundredth Monkey,” which warned against the dangers of nuclear energy. Again, the author failed to provide substantial verification of the original study and could not support the additional claims he made about the behavior spreading to the islands near the alleged location of the original study.
Is the Hundredth Monkey Effect Real?
So, are any of the stories true? Was the Hundredth Monkey Effect observed in the study conducted on monkeys in the 1950s?
Yes (part of the story is true) and no (the Hundredth Monkey Effect was not observed).
In the study conducted by Japanese researchers on monkeys in the 1950s, they initially observed a solitary monkey washing its sweet potatoes, and then other monkeys started doing the same. However, the Hundredth Monkey Effect was not observed. The spread of the behavior did not seem to be related solely to a critical mass or number of monkeys that learned the behavior. Instead, the following observations were made:
Young monkeys taught the behavior to their peers and close family members. These monkeys, in turn, would teach the behavior to their own peers and close family members.
Elderly monkeys, even if their peers and environment attempted to teach them, did not adopt the behavior.
The children of monkeys already performing the behavior automatically imitated it without needing to be explicitly taught.
The first monkey to wash sweet potatoes tried washing wheat. Essentially, this single monkey embraced and continued its innovative role.
In any case, social relationships among the members and the factor of age appeared to be key indicators. However, there was no specific mathematical number responsible for the proliferation of the behavior.
Now, if you’d like, I can provide my own commentary:
I disagree that the “Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon” strengthens the concept of collective consciousness. As a self-actualization coach influenced by C.G. Jung, I definitely believe in the collective consciousness. Furthermore, I agree with Jung’s notion of the “collective unconscious,” which is a second psychic system present in all individuals, with a collective, universal, and non-personal nature, alongside individual consciousness inherited from ancestors. However, I find it difficult to believe that this study supports those ideas. In fact, I believe it betrays the entirety of the individual’s own power. In this assumption, the individual as a responsible entity disappears, and what is reinforced is not the moral power of one’s beliefs but the number of people sharing them. When the magical number is reached, curiosity, science, art, criticism, doubt, and all other activities that disrupt the whole become even stronger. Thus, this situation can be valid for both positive and negative outcomes. Consequently, individuals are no longer compelled to develop their own worldviews within such a collective; rather, these views are readily provided to them by those around them.
With this assumption, we are not encouraged to develop and express our thoughts because they will supposedly change when we reach the magical number. This is not a transformative myth that drives us towards the full development of our capacities but rather a hypothesis that reduces us to nothing more than a herd at the mercy of “Great Powers’ Neuromarketing” tricks.
In summary, the scientific foundation of this study has not been proven. However, it carries a hopeful and optimistic mindset in order to spread beauty and positive thinking. That’s why it has become a common phrase among all personal development enthusiasts. I wanted to take a closer look at the truth because this phenomenon, which we hear everywhere, was being shared without being truly investigated. (I have the original document of the study, and I’m happy to share it with those interested.)
In this age of information overflow, it is not enough to hear and read the right information. It is necessary to pursue it and, if necessary, follow its trail like Sherlock. And that’s exactly what I did in this article, for the benefit of all of us.
Love, Peace & Namaste
