The way I see it: abstraction's pretty useful, but you need to stay aware of when you're doing it, and what particularities you're inevitably obscuring as you do it.
It seems like "nonlethal violence with no social stakes" tends to get termed "play" when it occurs in animals - like lion cubs practicing pouncing on each other.
The study Astrid is referencing found that the more violent males mated more often -- there absolutely are social stakes. Social stakes are different than lethal stakes. Chimps typically having more social stakes in a violent interaction does not mean that bonobos have no social stakes.
the fact that violence is a spectrum and not just of extent is also extremely politically relevant, it just doesn't tend to get discussed in politics in the same way that sex and gender are
It's not just biology -- almost nothing in nature exists as a binary. This is why people argue about whether Pluto is a planet or not, because actual "hunks of matter" come in a wide variety of sizes and compositions which don't fit neatly into human-made classifications of "planet" or "not-planet". In reality, "hunks of matter" exist on a spectrum, which includes everything to tiny rocks to massive stars and we just draw often arbitrary lines in an effort to make sense of everything.
@classicmax1 Lack the conviction of your beliefs? Can't bring yourself to spew your bullshit knowing you're wrong before ever putting finger to keyboard? LOL. Answer your question and then I will tell you what I said. You are making my point without even realizing it. I love it.
@classicmax1 You tell me what you think I was saying(what you were implying I was saying) and then I'll tell you what I was saying. How much simpler can I make it for you?
That's not a spectrum...whether pluto is a planet or not is a question of "fact", that is, the kind of facts which science constructs. They do, in fact, fit neatly into human-made classifications of "planet" and "not-planet" because we define the classifications that way. Pluto did not "become" a non-planet because we made some sort of discovery about the nature of planets, or discovered some sort of hidden "nuance". We literally just changed the definition, which is much of what science actually does. (Some would argue that all science is just constructing facts and has nothing to do with capital-R Reality, but that is a debate for someone else to have). Saying that objects exist on a spectrum of tiny rocks to stars is just nonsensical. Size isn't even a good quality of an object to consider, objects have qualities other than size which are far more relevant.
Jesus fucking Christ, this person has a more nuanced video, IN LESS THAN 2 FUCKING MINUTES, than most 4h video essays. Miss, or whatever, wish you the best, holy fucking shit I hope there is more content packed with info as this all around in the future
@@isaackellogg3493 Reminds me of the version of Egan's hair in the OG ghostbusters cartoon from the 80s (incidentally the first time we see Ecto1 having a swing out gunnery seat.)
Why aren't Bonobos concerned with social dominance? Could it be because they're not forced to compete for affection and intimacy? Could that also be why Bonobos are the only matriarchal great apes? Does this imply that it may be necessary to target gender norms that continue to encourage women to commodify intimacy and sex because that gatekeeping forces men into a social dominance hierarchy? That we not only need more sex- and body-positivity, but we need sex- and body-positivity specifically aimed at women's standards for men rather than solely society's standards for women?
Ok, the violence that results in death is objectively more undesirable than the one that doesn't. Doesn't matter how frequent or infrequent they are in their occurrence. I really hate how these nerds play eggshells around things just to sound smart.
Although not the focus of your video, it also disturbs me how bonobos are given this “lovers, not fighters” label because they use “sex” to de-escalate conflict. We humans have a word for that (which I won’t repeat here, so as not to trigger anyone and not to have my comment suppressed by the algorithm).
i mean... do we have a word for that though? i've never heard anyone describe That Particular Horrendous Act That Ironically Rhymes With "Ape" (assuming that's what you mean, sorry if i'm completely off) as "using sex to de-escalate a conflict", since that is never why that act is done. like it might end a conflict through forcefully overpowering someone, but that's an intrinsically different thing than de-escalation right? in all the stuff i've read at least about bonobos, there hasn't been anything that suggests this specific behavior of theirs is intended to dominant others, and it doesn't seem to cause any physical harm or psychological stress.
@@yoeyyoey8937 sorry, i'm not sure i understand what you mean? extortion, like Ape Word, suggests this is an act that's about force. at least from my understanding, zoologists don't believe this to be physically or psychologically forceful or harmful. it's actually helpful for them. i think these might just be animals doing something because somewhere along the ancestral line, they figured it was a good idea. so now they consciously or instinctively continue to do so for their benefit.
A primates analyzing two other groups of primates. Yet another reason different groups of primates should not be imported ( slavery ) onto another group of primates territory. Hundreds of years and Still not domesticated. Stress makes them revert back to basic nature. ☆
I actually just left my own comment about this right before I scrolled down and noticed yours. I think it’s just substituting one form of violence for another and the “lovers, not fighters” reputation that bonobos have is very reductive (and would be extraordinarily problematic if applied to humans).
They dont so much as "resolve differences through sex" so much as females will exchange sex to get a male to stop some kind of aggression. In human society ot would basically be considered a mix of physical and sexual abuse.
Yes, that part still appears to be true. Also, their leaders are generally female, and the male bonobos tend not to be violent towards the females (perhaps because, unlike the males, the female bonobos do tend to team up.)
I love this I love this I love this I love this. I believe primate studies is as to the humanities as astronomy is to the sciences. We can simply learn so much from this reduced, simplified case with principles the extend well into our own world.
Yes to nuance and assumptions being looked at carefully and re-examined regularly! also yes to what you're wearing, I'm gonna get a red undershirt instead of a sports bra and straight steal yo 'fit cuz can't tell if want or want to be so answer is yes
The real binary divide is life and death- did the genes get passed on or not? From a population genetics perspective the truth about behaviour will out.
why is there a swedish flag in the background? are you swedish? very nice accent if you are. also, i appreciate that you stuck to the science of the topic rather than involve other sorts of politics. it feels like people can't make videos without making unrelated topic somehow related to political ideals.
so what you're saying is that societies with strong hierarchical foundations are more dangerous than those without. Someone should point this out to Jordan Peterson.
Biology and sociology are inherently messy. That's why physics and chemistry with their repeatable experimental methods have made so much more progress.
So you’re saying bonobos aren’t pacifists (😂 thanks) and low stakes violence means more violence (like sports?). Also something about gender theory. Lmao wtf
half the internet: that sounds woke! probably... so therefore definitely! other half: uggh. again? could you just... like take the weekend off just once?
Bonobo males and females are all bisexual, female bonobos have more sex with other females than with males. "Same-sex sexual behavior exists in all great apes: it is common and varied among bonobos [6, 7], but rare or absent among chimpanzees [8, 9], and orang-utans [10, 11]." - _Homosexual Behavior in Female Mountain Gorillas: Reflection of Dominance, Affiliation, Reconciliation or Arousal?_ , Cyril C. Grueter and Tara S. Stoinski - which a very readable paper
The first question is do they even have enough complexity to have gender identity to begin with because to have gender you need extremely advanced social and cultural development which requires more brain than they probably have. The fact is it doesn't matter if you see the same thing in apes or not, because it undeniably exists in humans. You don't need something to exist across different species for it to be legitimate in humans, humans are unique in countless ways. Furthermore, the whole "is it natural" argument is a logical fallacy, just because something exists in other places in nature or not, does not mean it is right or wrong, we make freaking cars and atom bombs, we love and we hurt each other, something can be unnatural or natural and be good or be bad.
Gender is a human concept that is socially constructed. Bonobos and Chimpanzees do not have gender, so there is no transgender Bonobos or Chimpanzees. They do have biological sex, but just like humans their species is only minimally sexually dimorphic. Are there Bonobos and Chimpanzees that are born male, female, or intersex that wish that they had secondary sex characteristics, body shapes, or genitalia, maaaybeeeee... It is not like we can just ask them, and we do not know how they see themselves or if they recognize biological sex in the same way that we do. Though, it would not surprise if some individuals did. I am also sure that occasionally you get a male Bonobo or Chimpanzee that behaves more like the females of the species, and vice versa, or a combination of behaviors that are usually seen in males and females. Afterall sex itself is a bimodal spectrum, and therefore having hormonal differences or neurological differences that do not conform to their biological sex would make sense, and these are highly social and highly cognitive and intelligent animals, so socialization probably plays a role in their behaviors alongside instincts. Bonobos and Chimpanzees have been shown to have distinct cultures and customs depending on their tribe, and can pass knowledge and customs down generations (such as which leaves make for good medicine and which make you sick). As for documented cases of homosexual activity. We have indeed had documented cases of both male and female homosexual activity in certain Chimpanzee individuals. Homosexual activity appears to be very common in the animal kingdom (it is thought that the same neural-hormonal pathways that lead an animal to engage in heterosexual behavior will in a certain percentage of cases result in homosexual, bisexual, or asexual behavior - and that this is a benefit to social species because it results in a percentage of the population that is less likely to reproduce themselves and can basically serve as back-up parents for orphans, or can devote their energy to other things that benefit the group and better pass on the shared genes of the group even if the individual doesn't get to reproduce themselves). Bonobos are basically 100% bisexual, as they have sex with one another regardless of male or female, or age (elderly or young), or relatedness (with the possible exception of adult males with their mothers). They break into bisexual orgies to deescalate conflict, to engage in group bonding, when bored, and many other times. They usually have multiple orgies a day. If a Bonobo tribe meets another Bonobo tribe, they have been known to engage in a cross tribe orgy as a greeting and to avoid inter-tribe violence. Chimpanzees tend to be patriarchal, but Bonobos tend to be matriarchal. Female Bonobos tend to form little alliances and if a male Bonobos acts up too much, the females get together to punish him. Male Bonobos do not form alliances with one another (but male Chimpanzees do, as a form of social control, kind of like gangs within the tribe). Ironically, it has been found that male Bonobos that bully other males and act basically like jerks to the females (as long as they do not go too far) end up being more desirable mates and get to mate more often. Male Bonobos with mothers that are higher in the social hierarchy are also usually more desirable mates (with their mothers engaging in behavior that we could describe as setting their sons up with dates). Despite being so communal, male Bonobos rarely care for any of the young because they do not know which of the young are their offspring. Bonobos historically have been thought to be more peaceful than Chimpanzees due to evolving on a side of river that was rich in resources and had fewer predators, and because when fights broke out they would often be resolved with an orgy. Additionally, Bonobo fights are almost always non-lethal, though as this video mentioned, they fight far more often than Chimpanzees for that reason - Chimpanzees fight less often because it usually results in lethal violence with different alliances fighting with one another (we even have documentation of different Chimpanzee tribes going to war and even genociding one another).
@@plastictouch6796 The naturalistic fallacy is unfortunately very commonplace. A lot of people think that just because something is natural that is it good or acceptable, and that just because something is "unnatural" that it is bad or unacceptable. People will say that they prefer a natural treatment instead of a proven drug because natural is safer, but poison ivy is natural, there are many natural poisons. Natural is not automatically safer. Each compound, behavior, technology, custom, etc... should be judged on its own merits, not if it is natural or "unnatural."
Re: “Is it still accurate to say that male chimpanzees are more violent than male bonobos?” The accuracy of any statement (including that one) doesn’t depend on whether you’d concluded that the statement was accurate. It’s inaccurate to say, today, that male chimps are more violent than male bonobos (because today we know it’s inaccurate), and it was equally inaccurate yesterday, or last year, or ten years ago (before we knew it was inaccurate), or a hundred years ago (before we even knew that 5ere were any such animals as bonobos).
but "more violent" can mean different things that are both accurate uses of the word "more". like, if you mean "more" in reference to the number/frequency of something, then yes, bonobos are more violent since they fight more. if you mean "more" as in the intensity/degree of something, then no, chimpanzees are actually more violent since they kill more.
The way I see it: abstraction's pretty useful, but you need to stay aware of when you're doing it, and what particularities you're inevitably obscuring as you do it.
yes indeed, the map and the territory are not the same
It seems like "nonlethal violence with no social stakes" tends to get termed "play" when it occurs in animals - like lion cubs practicing pouncing on each other.
The study Astrid is referencing found that the more violent males mated more often -- there absolutely are social stakes. Social stakes are different than lethal stakes. Chimps typically having more social stakes in a violent interaction does not mean that bonobos have no social stakes.
I believe the problem is simply frequency vs magnitude
One is more frequent but lower magnitude
The other is less frequent but with a high magnitude
They're just Ken
the fact that violence is a spectrum and not just of extent is also extremely politically relevant, it just doesn't tend to get discussed in politics in the same way that sex and gender are
It's not just biology -- almost nothing in nature exists as a binary. This is why people argue about whether Pluto is a planet or not, because actual "hunks of matter" come in a wide variety of sizes and compositions which don't fit neatly into human-made classifications of "planet" or "not-planet". In reality, "hunks of matter" exist on a spectrum, which includes everything to tiny rocks to massive stars and we just draw often arbitrary lines in an effort to make sense of everything.
You just described an either or situation...that's a what now? Oh a binary state of being either one or the other.
See how that works.
@classicmax1 Why don't you give me your strawman, then I'll give you the real answer.
@classicmax1 Lack the conviction of your beliefs?
Can't bring yourself to spew your bullshit knowing you're wrong before ever putting finger to keyboard?
LOL.
Answer your question and then I will tell you what I said.
You are making my point without even realizing it. I love it.
@classicmax1 You tell me what you think I was saying(what you were implying I was saying) and then I'll tell you what I was saying.
How much simpler can I make it for you?
That's not a spectrum...whether pluto is a planet or not is a question of "fact", that is, the kind of facts which science constructs. They do, in fact, fit neatly into human-made classifications of "planet" and "not-planet" because we define the classifications that way. Pluto did not "become" a non-planet because we made some sort of discovery about the nature of planets, or discovered some sort of hidden "nuance". We literally just changed the definition, which is much of what science actually does. (Some would argue that all science is just constructing facts and has nothing to do with capital-R Reality, but that is a debate for someone else to have). Saying that objects exist on a spectrum of tiny rocks to stars is just nonsensical. Size isn't even a good quality of an object to consider, objects have qualities other than size which are far more relevant.
Jesus fucking Christ, this person has a more nuanced video, IN LESS THAN 2 FUCKING MINUTES, than most 4h video essays. Miss, or whatever, wish you the best, holy fucking shit I hope there is more content packed with info as this all around in the future
You put me in mind of the Gutsick Gibbon video about the word "species". It's fantastic. Maybe you should add your voice
I’d love to see a collab between Astrid and Erika.
@@GhostIntoTheFog I was just mostly thinking about Astrid putting her two cents in on the subject, but sure, that would be grand
the answer to a question says less about that question than the answer itself.
My great grandfather had that cut 😎 an OG biker cut.
Reminds me of the girl from Ghostbusters: Afterlife
@@isaackellogg3493 Reminds me of the version of Egan's hair in the OG ghostbusters cartoon from the 80s (incidentally the first time we see Ecto1 having a swing out gunnery seat.)
I clicked on this thinking it was some philosophical term-
Elvis?
Why aren't Bonobos concerned with social dominance?
Could it be because they're not forced to compete for affection and intimacy?
Could that also be why Bonobos are the only matriarchal great apes?
Does this imply that it may be necessary to target gender norms that continue to encourage women to commodify intimacy and sex because that gatekeeping forces men into a social dominance hierarchy? That we not only need more sex- and body-positivity, but we need sex- and body-positivity specifically aimed at women's standards for men rather than solely society's standards for women?
Ok, the violence that results in death is objectively more undesirable than the one that doesn't. Doesn't matter how frequent or infrequent they are in their occurrence. I really hate how these nerds play eggshells around things just to sound smart.
But what about the behavior of female chimps vs female bonobos? And what of the claim that bonobos favor bullies over helpers?
That doesn't fit into the cognitive bias inherent in the implied agenda.
Although not the focus of your video, it also disturbs me how bonobos are given this “lovers, not fighters” label because they use “sex” to de-escalate conflict. We humans have a word for that (which I won’t repeat here, so as not to trigger anyone and not to have my comment suppressed by the algorithm).
I think that's also violence
"Consent accident" is the word. And it's ok, it's never a problem when "Bonobos" are the ones doing it.
i mean... do we have a word for that though? i've never heard anyone describe That Particular Horrendous Act That Ironically Rhymes With "Ape" (assuming that's what you mean, sorry if i'm completely off) as "using sex to de-escalate a conflict", since that is never why that act is done. like it might end a conflict through forcefully overpowering someone, but that's an intrinsically different thing than de-escalation right? in all the stuff i've read at least about bonobos, there hasn't been anything that suggests this specific behavior of theirs is intended to dominant others, and it doesn't seem to cause any physical harm or psychological stress.
@@owlsweaters5870it’s actually kinda true because it’s a form of extortion
@@yoeyyoey8937 sorry, i'm not sure i understand what you mean? extortion, like Ape Word, suggests this is an act that's about force. at least from my understanding, zoologists don't believe this to be physically or psychologically forceful or harmful. it's actually helpful for them. i think these might just be animals doing something because somewhere along the ancestral line, they figured it was a good idea. so now they consciously or instinctively continue to do so for their benefit.
A primates analyzing two other groups of primates.
Yet another reason different groups of primates should not be imported ( slavery ) onto another group of primates territory. Hundreds of years and Still not domesticated. Stress makes them revert back to basic nature. ☆
Is the other stereotype about bonobos still believed to be true? Do they resolve their differences through boinking?
I actually just left my own comment about this right before I scrolled down and noticed yours. I think it’s just substituting one form of violence for another and the “lovers, not fighters” reputation that bonobos have is very reductive (and would be extraordinarily problematic if applied to humans).
Bonobos: the original enemies to lovers.
They dont so much as "resolve differences through sex" so much as females will exchange sex to get a male to stop some kind of aggression. In human society ot would basically be considered a mix of physical and sexual abuse.
Yes, that part still appears to be true. Also, their leaders are generally female, and the male bonobos tend not to be violent towards the females (perhaps because, unlike the males, the female bonobos do tend to team up.)
Not really. People are just pervs
I love this I love this I love this I love this. I believe primate studies is as to the humanities as astronomy is to the sciences. We can simply learn so much from this reduced, simplified case with principles the extend well into our own world.
Enjoyed the talk, thanks!
Yes to nuance and assumptions being looked at carefully and re-examined regularly!
also yes to what you're wearing, I'm gonna get a red undershirt instead of a sports bra and straight steal yo 'fit cuz can't tell if want or want to be so answer is yes
The real binary divide is life and death- did the genes get passed on or not? From a population genetics perspective the truth about behaviour will out.
why is there a swedish flag in the background? are you swedish? very nice accent if you are.
also, i appreciate that you stuck to the science of the topic rather than involve other sorts of politics. it feels like people can't make videos without making unrelated topic somehow related to political ideals.
Idk who you are. Idk why you're in my feed. But I like an educational nature video, and I like your hair. Subscribed.
some very good points, also cool fit today 😎
Thank you
That is some tall hair!
so what you're saying is that societies with strong hierarchical foundations are more dangerous than those without.
Someone should point this out to Jordan Peterson.
Love that last bit. Very true. For humans. For all consciousness.
You wear a tiny battle axe around your neck and that is fucking badass. Also, great video!
this is interesting
Weird, I always heard that Bonobos were more violent and dangerous.
great video, you explain well! also, and i SWEAR this is a compliment, you remind me of young sheldon a bit :)
Peak business casual with a pint of queer aesthetic 🏳️🌈
"Troglodytes" - literally "a cave dweller".
A "cave man" … all too similar to Andrew Tate then?
🥺
We should collab
Biology and sociology are inherently messy. That's why physics and chemistry with their repeatable experimental methods have made so much more progress.
Ah cool! So you've unified relativity and quantum mechanics then? 😅
your hair is getting more impressive by the day!
Sleazy P Martini is jealous of that pompadour.
Even the 12th Doctor would be jealous at this point!
No thank you
cool
So you’re saying bonobos aren’t pacifists (😂 thanks) and low stakes violence means more violence (like sports?).
Also something about gender theory. Lmao wtf
Violence is what you're doing to Jimmy Neutron's reputation in stealing his look.
half the internet: that sounds woke! probably... so therefore definitely!
other half: uggh. again? could you just... like take the weekend off just once?
Are there transgender chimpanzees and noboas? Also are there documented homosexuality within the groups?
Bonobo males and females are all bisexual, female bonobos have more sex with other females than with males.
"Same-sex sexual behavior exists in all great apes: it is common and varied among bonobos [6, 7], but rare or absent among chimpanzees [8, 9], and orang-utans [10, 11]." - _Homosexual Behavior in Female Mountain Gorillas: Reflection of Dominance, Affiliation, Reconciliation or Arousal?_ ,
Cyril C. Grueter and Tara S. Stoinski - which a very readable paper
they don’t have symbolic culture like humans. they can’t be transgender because they don’t have “gender” as a separate category from sex
The first question is do they even have enough complexity to have gender identity to begin with because to have gender you need extremely advanced social and cultural development which requires more brain than they probably have. The fact is it doesn't matter if you see the same thing in apes or not, because it undeniably exists in humans. You don't need something to exist across different species for it to be legitimate in humans, humans are unique in countless ways.
Furthermore, the whole "is it natural" argument is a logical fallacy, just because something exists in other places in nature or not, does not mean it is right or wrong, we make freaking cars and atom bombs, we love and we hurt each other, something can be unnatural or natural and be good or be bad.
Gender is a human concept that is socially constructed. Bonobos and Chimpanzees do not have gender, so there is no transgender Bonobos or Chimpanzees. They do have biological sex, but just like humans their species is only minimally sexually dimorphic. Are there Bonobos and Chimpanzees that are born male, female, or intersex that wish that they had secondary sex characteristics, body shapes, or genitalia, maaaybeeeee... It is not like we can just ask them, and we do not know how they see themselves or if they recognize biological sex in the same way that we do. Though, it would not surprise if some individuals did. I am also sure that occasionally you get a male Bonobo or Chimpanzee that behaves more like the females of the species, and vice versa, or a combination of behaviors that are usually seen in males and females. Afterall sex itself is a bimodal spectrum, and therefore having hormonal differences or neurological differences that do not conform to their biological sex would make sense, and these are highly social and highly cognitive and intelligent animals, so socialization probably plays a role in their behaviors alongside instincts. Bonobos and Chimpanzees have been shown to have distinct cultures and customs depending on their tribe, and can pass knowledge and customs down generations (such as which leaves make for good medicine and which make you sick).
As for documented cases of homosexual activity. We have indeed had documented cases of both male and female homosexual activity in certain Chimpanzee individuals. Homosexual activity appears to be very common in the animal kingdom (it is thought that the same neural-hormonal pathways that lead an animal to engage in heterosexual behavior will in a certain percentage of cases result in homosexual, bisexual, or asexual behavior - and that this is a benefit to social species because it results in a percentage of the population that is less likely to reproduce themselves and can basically serve as back-up parents for orphans, or can devote their energy to other things that benefit the group and better pass on the shared genes of the group even if the individual doesn't get to reproduce themselves). Bonobos are basically 100% bisexual, as they have sex with one another regardless of male or female, or age (elderly or young), or relatedness (with the possible exception of adult males with their mothers). They break into bisexual orgies to deescalate conflict, to engage in group bonding, when bored, and many other times. They usually have multiple orgies a day. If a Bonobo tribe meets another Bonobo tribe, they have been known to engage in a cross tribe orgy as a greeting and to avoid inter-tribe violence.
Chimpanzees tend to be patriarchal, but Bonobos tend to be matriarchal. Female Bonobos tend to form little alliances and if a male Bonobos acts up too much, the females get together to punish him. Male Bonobos do not form alliances with one another (but male Chimpanzees do, as a form of social control, kind of like gangs within the tribe). Ironically, it has been found that male Bonobos that bully other males and act basically like jerks to the females (as long as they do not go too far) end up being more desirable mates and get to mate more often. Male Bonobos with mothers that are higher in the social hierarchy are also usually more desirable mates (with their mothers engaging in behavior that we could describe as setting their sons up with dates). Despite being so communal, male Bonobos rarely care for any of the young because they do not know which of the young are their offspring. Bonobos historically have been thought to be more peaceful than Chimpanzees due to evolving on a side of river that was rich in resources and had fewer predators, and because when fights broke out they would often be resolved with an orgy. Additionally, Bonobo fights are almost always non-lethal, though as this video mentioned, they fight far more often than Chimpanzees for that reason - Chimpanzees fight less often because it usually results in lethal violence with different alliances fighting with one another (we even have documentation of different Chimpanzee tribes going to war and even genociding one another).
@@plastictouch6796 The naturalistic fallacy is unfortunately very commonplace. A lot of people think that just because something is natural that is it good or acceptable, and that just because something is "unnatural" that it is bad or unacceptable. People will say that they prefer a natural treatment instead of a proven drug because natural is safer, but poison ivy is natural, there are many natural poisons. Natural is not automatically safer. Each compound, behavior, technology, custom, etc... should be judged on its own merits, not if it is natural or "unnatural."
Re: “Is it still accurate to say that male chimpanzees are more violent than male bonobos?” The accuracy of any statement (including that one) doesn’t depend on whether you’d concluded that the statement was accurate. It’s inaccurate to say, today, that male chimps are more violent than male bonobos (because today we know it’s inaccurate), and it was equally inaccurate yesterday, or last year, or ten years ago (before we knew it was inaccurate), or a hundred years ago (before we even knew that 5ere were any such animals as bonobos).
but "more violent" can mean different things that are both accurate uses of the word "more". like, if you mean "more" in reference to the number/frequency of something, then yes, bonobos are more violent since they fight more. if you mean "more" as in the intensity/degree of something, then no, chimpanzees are actually more violent since they kill more.
Why is it wearing a dead animal on its head?
Female Sheldon
Or nonbinary Sheldon i can't assume