Human Nature Harlow, so out of touch with normal human nature himself, shed so much light on the subject. Being an odd boy infused with drama went into so much detail in explaining our human nature using monkeys, an animal that is not human. Answers born from a paradox. Testing on the monkeys to see what their level of love was held to, as it turns out, not much. They could attach emotionally to just about anything, but the lack of connection with something living limited their social level. Monkeys still needed to be taught within their instincts and they need to be comfortable with living connections. Love is a very difficult subject because it is not concrete. To test something you cannot see you have to come at it from every angle to try and build something you metaphorically can see, so with love comes cruelty. To start with his early conceptions that the monkeys needed something soft to bond with was true but they were not socially acceptable, which is understandable. As a baby, it is common to latch onto something that is there, i.e. a blanket but that blanket cannot raise us. Even with something else providing nutrients, a blanket cannot teach up what is acceptable and how to go about living a daily life. I assumed that would be common sense, but …show more content…
The body had no face but still the baby monkeys bonded with it and lived with it as if it was their mother. Lifeless and faceless the manmade mother raised better moneys then just the rags did. Trying to add faces to the mothers only angered and frightened the baby monkeys. Raising the monkeys to understand the presents of other monkeys but still not able to function in a society. It would be a whole new concept to go from having a presence that is lifeless but is there to the presence of another like yourself but moving and playing and going about their monkey business while you have never seen that in anyone else