The Primate Myth

Why the Latest Science Leads Us to a New Theory of Human Nature

De: Jonathan Leaf

Narrado por: Mike Chamberlain

Challenging everything we thought we knew, this book takes a revolutionary look at how humans are far less like other primates than we've been led to believe—and uncovers what truly sets us apart.

Humans are primates, much like chimps—or so we've been continually told. Yet recent discoveries show that our species has a different brain design, function, and chemistry; different eating, sleeping, mating, and rearing patterns; a different metabolism; and a different physiology than apes. Nor is our behavior much like theirs, and we don't even have the feet made for climbing trees that define the primate order.

Could it be that conceiving of ourselves as primates isn't helping us understand what it is to be human? By examining the latest research in neuroscience and genetics, we are propelled toward a radically different conception of our nature. In this way, we can begin to grasp the distinctively human dimensions of war, murder, suicide, and homosexuality, along with our fascinations with subjects like sports, politics, and fashion. Here is the path by which to understand our species' essential problems and uncover the answers for how we should live our lives.

©2025 Jonathan Leaf (P)2025 Tantor Media

Primates or Pigs? A Story of Human Evolution

Jonathan Leaf is a remarkable writer with an astonishingly broad range of interests. He is a playwright known for a brilliant prize-winning play in verse on Pushkin, and plays on sex researchers Masters and Johnson, and Marx and Heine in Paris. He’s also published a biographically focused Substack series on many of the world’s most renowned philosophers. Then there’s his right wing political screed on the 1960’s, a humorous and well-reviewed Hollywood murder mystery, and a drama on second wave feminism. Leaf has also written various conservative political pieces on a diverse array of right wing concerns, including polygamy (which he opposes).

In “The Primate Myth,” Leaf strikes out in another direction entirely. In it, he argues that “humans are not primates” and that behaviorally “we’re not that much like chimps.” The book contains a great deal of interesting anthropological information, much of it true. But there’s a question that needs to be asked about this project. And that is why Leaf cares so much about this subject, Because he clearly does. What is his real concern here and why doesn’t het he share it?

Leaf spends much of his book arguing that humans are “very different” from Chimpanzees. This isn’t a surprising conclusion given that chimpanzees live in the trees, are covered with hair and have limited culture and language communications skills. Further chimps are unsuitable as pets, can be very violent, don’t believe in god and don’t give much money to charity. In fact, it’s fair to say that no self-respecting chimpanzees would ever confuse themselves with a human being and few humans would think of themselves as chimpanzees. After all, chimps are a completely different species of animal. While there are anatomical similarities, chimps look nothing like most of us, especially if you eliminate professional wrestlers and politicians from New Jersey. So there is not much controversial here. Chimps and humans are very different. But why is this important? Leaf spends a lot of time saying that humans are “not very much like chimps” or seem “very different from chimps” wheres he says that anthropologists say that chimps are similar in various ways to humans. But “not very much like” or “not that similar to”
are not scientific distinctions. They are vague and essentially meaningless generalized gestalt impressions. So it isn’t clear why we should care about them.

To put Leaf’s argument is an anthropological context, there is no serious debate among anthropologists on the classification of humans or on whether humans are apes. Humans are classified in the Order of orimates, the family of Hominids (great apes), the Genus, Homo, and the species, sapiens, Apes are in the genus Pan. The scientific community settled on this classification long ago. There is one very out on a limb anthropologist who claimed that humans aren’t apes. Coincidently the errant anthropologist’s name is Marks. So this may be the first time that the conservative Leaf has been called a “Marksist.”
But, in any case, Marks was soundly thrashed for his trouble by the late prominent evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne. See https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2015/11/02/wrongheaded-anthropologist-claims-that-humans-arent-apes/

Of course, Leaf doesn’t dispute that chimpanzees are our closest biological relative or that we descended from a common ancestor. What Leaf seems to object to is the way that anthropologists like Franz de Waal and Jane Goodall have pointed out the similarities between human and chimp behavior. Instead, Leaf would prefer to emphasize the differences in temperament and diet rather than the physical and anatomical similarities we share. Yet animals typically aren’t classified by anthropologists according to temperament. And, in fact, chimps and bonobos have quite different temperaments, although no one would suggest that bonobos aren’t primates.

But humans, unlike chimps, argues Leaf, “are herd animals.” He points out that we are highly cooperative, have evolving cultures and our temperament tends to be “obedient” to our leaders. Humans are relatively easily manipulated, particularly by authoritarian rulers who trick them into fighting wars that result in much violence and death. It is this “obedience” and social conformity, and not the human propensity for violence, that Leaf blames for the 75 million homo sapiens killed in World War II, a figure that vastly exceeds the global chimp population probably from the beginning of time.

Leaf’s solution to the “human as primate” anthropological classification is to call for removing humans from the primate order and/or the family of hominids and reclassifying them as an order or family called “Homo.” But there is in fact the Genus Homo that humans are already classified in. So, where’s the beef? Nevertheless, Leaf feels that his proposed but somewhat unclear classification change might have a positive effect on human behavior if we could get away from thinking of ourselves as selfish apes. He presumably isn’t classifying us with pigs and dolphins but wants us to think of ourselves more as altruistic, empathic herd animals of a different order or family called homos. But even so, he acknowledges that we do have certain superficial physical and skeletal resemblance to chimps. The ones anthropologists point out are that we share grasping hands, flat nails, voluble sociability, relatively large brains (at least in some cases) and forward facing eyes.

Leaf though would prefer to think of us as herd animals like gazelles or dolphins. But such herd animals on the other hand have hooves and are mostly herbivores. An exception is pigs which like humans, are omnivorous and incessantly social. And certainly many people do act like pigs. Leaf also finds Cetacean sea-faring mammals similar. Dolphins and whales are indeed large brained, travel in groups and have complex languages and social interactions. However, unlike chimps, we aren’t able to spend too much time getting to know them, as they spend most of their time under water.

But yes, Leaf is correct in pointing out that humans share many characteristics with animals other than apes. Ants for example tend to follow Marxist-like collectivist social structures. Ants are indeed remarkably obedient. In fact, they make Lindsey Graham and Mike Johnson look like rebellious youths.

In summary, Leaf’s book is interesting, and as well researched as it is contrarian. The problem is that it is very unclear in its intention and motivation.. Humans and chimps are definitely not the same. But who is arguing that they are. Chimps certainly have some qualities that are similar to humans and others that are not at all similar. But we already knew that, didn’t we?

One can’t help suspecting that there must be some more fundamental issue at stake here. But it’s hard to tell what it is and Leaf doesn’t seem anxious to reveal it. In his final chapters, Leaf starts talking about religion, marriage, and monogamy versus polygamy. So does he intend some kind of religious or political message here? Is Leaf trying to re-litigate the Scopes trial? It’s difficult to tell what the point is. Chimps obviously don't participate in our cultural institutions.

Leaf does go pretty far out of his way to criticize renowned evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins for being an atheist, accusing him of having a faith-based belief that there is no god without evidence of god’s non existence. This gratuitous and out of place attack has no relevance to Leaf’s thesis on the anthropological classification of humans as primates. And it’s the last refuge of a religious ideologue to accuse an atheist of having “faith” that there is no god. Faith in the religious context is all about a belief in the supernatural. Not believing in any god is not faith. It’s just a position that whatever religious superstition or divinity is being asserted has not met its burden of proof.

More importantly, dragging a possibly religious agenda into a book on anthropology leads me to wonder whether the book’s real purpose could be to provide closet support to evangelical anti-evolutionists who think that mentioning the fact that we have a common ancestor with chimps is somehow blasphemous or irreligious. I certainly hope not. Leaf is much too smart and philosophically knowledgable for that. But he has written positively about religion in his serialized capsule history of philosophers. Nevertheless, religions have nothing to do with anthropological classification, and Leaf should know enough not to argue with anthropologists and biologists about the existence of god.

That’s a no win position if ever there was one.

Important Book For understanding Human Behavior

Excellent presentation of evidence that humans diverged from common ancestor with apes long ago and are drastically different except in the realm of superficial physical appearance. Humans more resemble herd animals in many ways. The savagery of chimps cannot be used to imply anything about human behavior. Considering all the speculation to the contrary by primatologists, book is very important.,