What I learned about communication from a chimp pooping on a bungalow floor

Some years ago I was watching the British TV show “QI” when its host, Stephen Fry, relayed Dr Jane Goodall’s story from the time she had been working with chimpanzees in Africa. Dr Goodall apparently caught one of the chimps pooping on the floor of her bungalow, so in an effort to house train the ape Goodall made it confront its poop, slapped its bottom and threw it out of the bungalow window. This situation happened again with same result, and on the third occasion, without waiting for Goodall’s reaction the offending chimp pooped, slapped its own bottom and swiftly jumped out of the window by itself.

This story stayed with me for a couple of reasons. Firstly, and obviously, I find it quite hilarious. I also think of it whenever I try to deconstruct my dog’s surprising routines or behaviors which seemingly “came out of nowhere”. But most importantly: it is an all around great example of how easily our communication fails, not only with other species but also with other human beings. In the show Fry explained the situation by commenting that primates’ intelligence was “something of a different order” than ours, but I beg to differ. The crucial problem in communication between Dr Goodall and the chimp was not the difference in intelligence (or at least not only that), but the fact that their realities, world experience and expectations had been so vastly different.

For humans it is fairly obvious that the bungalow was for Dr Goodall something that we would call a “home” and that it is generally frowned upon to poop on the floor of homes, especially those of other people. Moreover, we are well aware that the smell of feces is not exactly among humans favorite of scents - whether culturally, evolutionally, or both. For the chimp, on the other hand, we could assume that the bungalow may just as well be one of many places in the jungle and that the chimpanzees’ cultural (and sensual) associations with feces may not be half as bad. So why would we expect that out of all the possible explanations of Goodall’s “bizarre” behavior each time after it pooped, the chimp would know what she meant?

Based on the above one could argue that human to human communication should be much easier. After all the culture, reality and context in which we exist are much more similar. But are they? We might think we can relate better to another human being than a chimp, but human realities are much more complex which means the apparent nuances in our experience can in fact translate into canyons of misunderstandings. Our worlds both inside and outside our minds can vastly vary from person to person and the superficial similarities only make it easier for us to forget that we are not talking to our reflection in a mirror but a being with a world of their own.

In order to communicate effectively, it is not enough to share your point of view or even listen to points of views of others. You actually have to understand what they are saying and make yourself understood. In turn, to be able to do that you have to stay open to the possibility that the other party is coming from a place which is foreign and unexplored for you and that for this reason you, on the one hand, may have to be ready to rephrase your message to be understood correctly and on the other, you have to stay curious about what the other party has to say and what they really mean.

Perhaps, you do not really feel like trusting the opinion of someone who bases their insights about communication on pooping apes. Well, in that case (or in fact in any other case, too!) I would really recommend you read two awesome books: "Non-violent Communication" by Marshall B. Rosenberg and "Never Split the Difference" by Chris Voss. Although both are about communication, each of them tackles the issue from a somewhat different angle: the former is closer to a self-help book, focused more on avoiding and resolving everyday conflicts and communicating effectively in everyday lives; the latter was written by a former hostage negotiator for the FBI so, well, I do not think I need to say more, but you cannot really doubt his expertise. What I found fascinating after reading both some years ago, was how much the key to success was not really rooted in the context of a given communication exchange but rather the willingness of the participants to try to get beyond the simple messages or actions and actually making the other party heard. So instead of assuming ill will from the other party (whether a chimp, or human), the trick seemed to try grasp the gist of their world and circumstances of their existence.

Although in our daily activities we, at least for the most part, do not have to negotiate with terrorists, the above communication tips, still apply. So perhaps, next time you are on the verge of losing it after someone does something that you find malicious or stupid, just maybe, it is worth checking both of your realities, intentions and meanings - both in terms of what the author meant and what the recipient understood and why.