Lev Vygotsky, an early 20^th-century Russian psychologist, theorised that early childhood development is a function of culture [1], that a child’s ability to learn (and intellectualise) benefits from social interactions. In support of Vygotsky’s social development theory.¹

1) It has relevance to early childhood education today [2], even in US, as inferred from the overview of the theories, practices, and policies used in early childhood education in “The Wiley Handbook of Early Childhood Care and Education” [3].

2) Nations with the highest student scores on the Programme for International Student Assessment aptitude test (the PISA)² historically have had cultural freedom from having a high level of social consciousness (and for many, from a high level of political social consciousness). For Asian nations, Taoist philosophy provides a high level of social consciousness (see the next section). US has a low level of social consciousness, Taoist philosophy is minimally influential, teachers do not have high social status, and US ranks low on PISA aptitude scores. Seeing as though nations with the highest PISA scores historically have a high level of social consciousness, inclusive Finland, while Finland does not have memorisation and exam-oriented learning (high school students in Finland have only one exam at the end of their senior year of high school [4]), suggests that cultural-intellectual freedom from a high level of social consciousness was most important for improved student learning, and intellectualising, resulting in higher PISA scores (as explained,³ and in Subsection 1.1.1, #5 (concerning the effectiveness of the social-friendly teaching method)).^3,4

Taoism Confers a High Level of Social Consciousness Though It Is not Fully Understood

From logical deductions from a literal translation of the first four chapters of the book “Tao Te Ching” [8] (written 2600 years ago) the following meaning of Taoism is inferred (from deductive reasoning in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution): The revelation that “humans are loving, non-competitive and non-aggressive” is of value to society and the individual. For a review of the proof of the theorem that humans are admittedly as such, in part from my two new theories of evolution, see Subsection 1.1.1.^5,6 This theorem is of much importance to society for example from the evidence for the greater effectiveness of gquic psychology and the social-friendly teaching method. Initially, Taoism did not entail superstition nor religion. I believe Lao Tzu, the presumed author deduced humans to have a peaceful composure from his observations of what made people compassionate, aggressive, and competitive (at a time when capitalism did not exist). Capitalism, from being an exploitive system of government, causes people to not be compassionate, and to tend to be competitive, and aggressive (to succeed in society). I believe the Tao Te Ching was written in riddle-like verse to protect Lao Tzu, his colleagues, and students from the wrath of the monarchy and plutocracy which (as inferred) did not value compassion from their exploitation of peasant labour (for profit). A passage from this book states that “the soft and supple will prevail”, which as inferred is a reference to the idealization of gquic psychology values (described in Subsections 1.1.1 and 1.2.2) which exists today in people and nations with a high level of social consciousness, but is not the idealization of submissiveness.

3) Supporting evidence for Vygotsky’s “social development theory” also comes from the proof for the theorem that humans are loving, non-competitive, and non-aggressive, see Subsection 1.1.1.

The more effective “Social-Friendly, Teaching-Learning Theory” and a more effective psychology termed “Gquic Psychology” are based on the theorem that humans are loving, non-competitive, and non-aggressive, previewed in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution. In brief, this theorem’s evidence, comes from: 1) The theory of (cultural and) evolutionary freedom which shows that evolution is a function of culture and evolutionary freedom, not selection, i.e., selection is not needed for evolution to proceed. 2) The freedom to intellectualize theory which shows that higher cognitive ability evolves as a function of evolutionary freedom and species culture, not selection, see Subsection 3.6, the section entitled “the freedom to intellectualize theory”. In accordance with this theory “an ability to reason” initially does not evolve as a function of selection nor social competition, see Subsections 3.7 - 3.8, but instead as a function of sexual preferences, reduced conflict between conspecifics, a friendship favourable group composition, and evolutionary freedom in other ways, e.g., from reduced predatory impact, a high energy food source, and in social species, from more frequent Mebir behavioural responses, from their having more frequent social interactions. Evidence in part comes from the study of comparative behavioral ecology between highly intelligent animal species. Highly intelligent species which have not evolved an ability to reason (as inferred from their artwork, including both species of chimpanzee, the gorilla, and elephant) have restricted evolutionary freedom to evolve an ability to reason, (see Subsections 3.7, the section titled “how an ability to reason evolved in humans following the freedom to intellectualize theory”), though an ability to reason would eventually improve fitness. The evidence for humans having a peaceful composure comes from 3) Hunter and gatherer societies with the greatest cultural freedom being more egalitarian. 4) There is convincing evidence that the common bottlenose dolphin has a peaceful composure between conspecifics⁷, and that they have an ability to reason, as per the freedom to intellectualize theory (for a review of the evidence for this theory, see Subsection 3.7, the section titled “how an ability to reason evolved in humans per the freedom to intellectualize theory”) from 1) Their unique, exceptional evolutionary freedom (amongst vertebrates, mammals, cetaceans and, odontocetes). They even have greater (cultural and) evolutionary freedom than our ancient hominid ancestors and primates (in part, from their having reductions in intrusions of personal space when feeding, the Atlantic coastal population having an apex friendship-favourable group composition and low predatory impact as a species), as reviewed in the video I have made [9] [10]. 2) Following the freedom to intellectualise theory, they have a peaceful composure between conspecifics. 3) The female engages in (pronounced) sexual preferences. 4) The kind of interspecies close friends the common bottlenose dolphin has (with three other cetaceans) is in harmony with their species’ personality of being convivial (between conspecifics), creative, and is consistent with their long-term associations (between males). 5) Their song is seemingly improvised and used in social creativity, I suspect it is the most complex interactive song of animal species⁸ (for convincing evidence for their complex and interactive song see the video I made [9] [10]). Preliminary results of Ly Fredrick (his pen name) suggest that the Atlantic common bottlenose dolphin sings in major keys, however, more research is needed to confirm this.

As inferred, the common bottlenose dolphin’s documented (primarily male) displaced aggressiveness against other species of smaller odontocete is a function of their imperfect society, i.e., females and males not pairing up in long term associations and exceptionally close, (loving) bonds which are formed from their 1) (likely) Having anability to love. 2) Interactive creativity in song (an effective means to alleviate boredom and to provide a heightened since of identity (for both the singer and listener dolphin)). 3) A song revealing a singer’s capacity to love.

With conclusive evidence for their having an ability to reason, there is convincing evidence that their “ability to reason” would not be crucial to their survival, as presented in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution, which provides supporting evidence they evolved their “ability to reason” following the freedom to intellectualize theory (the mechanisms of this theory are described in Subsection 3.7, and evidence that common bottlenose dolphin evolved an ability to reason per this theory see 1.1.1, #4).

Supporting evidence for Vygotsky’s “social development theory” also comes from:

4) The convincing evidence for the social-friendly teaching method being more effective, in part from nations with a high level of social consciousness having higher PISA scores, see Subsection 1.1, # (2) and in part from the evidence for the Mebir in humans, see Section 2, (including from the evidence for the Mebir in dogs, inclusive of the stimulation of creative, assertive, explorative, and play behaviour. The kinds of Mebir behavioural responses of dogs are listed in the ethogram of Subsection 3.3 and are summarised in Table 1 and Table 2. There is convincing evidence from past research, that when humans are social with dogs, dogs have the Mebir of becoming better at problem-solving [11]).

5) The proof that gquic psychology is more effective and speedier than Darwinian psychology, see Subsection 1.2.2, and as inferred, is safer, and tends to be less disruptive, and more desirable (if allowed).

A Second Possible Explanation for High PISA Aptitude Scores in Nations with a High Level of Social Consciousness

There is possibly another reason for nations with a high level of social consciousness having the highest PISA aptitude scores other than from improved learning as a Mebir, (which occurs in dogs [11]). Students (in a nation with a high level of social consciousness) are possibly having an association of the joy of the Mebir 1) from having a high level of social consciousness and/or 2) from the social-friendly teaching method⁹, to the joy of intellectualising to help others (these are enjoyable social experiences). The evidence that this student cognitive association likely occurs in nations with a high level of social consciousness comes from the evidence that the act of giving (in kindness) elicits the Mebir in the giver, (not only in the receiver),⁹ that sociability and the Mebir are enjoyable, see Section 3, the section titled the evidence for the Mebir being associated with a feeling of well-being, and three convincing lines of evidence that animals can make a non-conscious association of two enjoyable behaviours so that two otherwise unrelated behaviours can co-occur, including: 1) The displaced innate responses of dogs to a friendly greeting, see Subsection 3.2, the Section titled “three kinds of dog Mebirs of a displaced innate response”. 2) The complex mating ritual of the great crested grebe (Podiceps cristatus), see Section 3, the Section titled “two kinds of joyful associations likely occurred in the evolution of elaborateness of the great crested grebe”. 3. Nuptial gift-giving behaviour of various animal species.¹⁰

The social-friendly learning-instructional theory was formulated from the theorem that humans are loving, non-competitive, and non-aggressive (the conclusive evidence for this theorem is presented in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution, for a review of the evidence see Subsection 1.1.1), and from my experiences of being a teacher at universities and colleges in China PR. To make class enjoyable and to better facilitate learning and stimulate higher-order thinking, social-friendly teaching methods include 1) Nurturing a high level of social consciousness in students and the teacher. 2) Introducing topics of human interest, for examples see Subsection 1.2.1, the Section titled “topics of human interest in the natural science”. 3) Introducing creative works of human interest that relate to a topic. 4) Individualised attention¹¹. 5) Collaborative. 6) Cooperative activities. 7) Social creativity. 8) The act of giving.

I discovered that dogs manifest an improvement in effectiveness of behaviour from a friendly greeting (i.e., the Mebir) from being curious about what dog behavioural responses are like to a friendly greeting. Years later I realized I made an important discovery from the theorem I formulated, that human are loving, non-competitive and non-aggressive, see Subsection 1.1.1 derived from two new theories of evolution (I am publishing a book about), and my realization that I had not been introduced to this (intriguing) dog innate behaviour in my graduate ethology class. Consequently, I set about finding evidence for the dog Mebir and had many setbacks from lack of funding for the experimental approach, requiring two helpers and a dog. One assistant to walk a dog past me, and the other to record dog behaviour with a video camera (before, during and after my greeting a dog). I instead made an ethogram, which fortuitously yielded far more useful information about the nature of the dog Mebir. After realizing the importance of the discovery of the dog Mebir I began looking for evidence for the Mebir in humans and other animals which I found convincing evidence for, see Section 2. The discovery of the Mebiris of particular importance to the natural sciences, from 1) helping bring about the scientific community’s acceptance of two new theories of evolution I formulated and found conclusive evidence for, as the result of it being of importance to how social species evolve, i.e., it provides social species with cultural and evolutionary freedom to evolve more complex behaviours, see Subsection 3.6 and from 2) the Mebir’s importance to society, and political ideology (as inferred from the theorem that humans are loving non-competitive and non-aggressive, see Subsection 1.1.1), see Section 3, the section titled “the importance of the Mebir, social consciousness and four dog Mebirs to society” and Subsection 3.4. In general, the Mebir is important to society a) It in part explains why a high level of social consciousness is important to societal (including to cultural) development; b) Shows why, in part, the social-friendly teaching method (if allowed) is more effective (see Subsections 1.2. # (2), and 1.2.1); c) Why gquic psychology (introduced in Subsections 1.1.1) (if allowed), is more effective (see Subsection 1.2.2).

The discovery of the dog Mebir is in part in virtue of 1) My being a research scientist of ethology, ecology, and evolution such that I am keen on studying behaviour. 2) My living in a city where there are many dog owners. 3) My often cycling or walking when venturing from my place of residence, providing many opportunities to study dog behaviour. 4) My having played music to birds and having observed likely Mebir responses in their song, including, that my music incited birds to sing. 5) My playing improvised music to workers and having observed a likely Mebir response of their being more effective in working. 6) My having observed improvements in my improvisations from a friendly audience.

From having no other means to gather data I set about making an ethogram of dog responses to a friendly greeting. The following provides much credence to the evidence I provide for the existence of the Mebir (statistically). Convincing evidence that dogs are better at problem-solving when humans are social with them [11], that a dog owner’s gaze at their dog increases the durations of whining and whimpering and looking at the owner’s face [13],²⁰ and decades of my interacting with dogs and songbirds at a distance and noting a Mebir response. My greetings to and my observations of the behaviours of animal social species suggest that the Mebir is widespread in fauna, including 1) The domesticated social fish, the Japanese Nishikigoi fish (i.e., I suspect in early morning, Cyprinus rubrofusus, an ornamental, east-Asian carp). 2) Horses (Equus ferus caballus). 3) Species of parrots, and free-ranging animals, including a) various species of songbird which respond to my bird calls (in their being incited to sing and to partially mimic my song). b) The solitary vireo songbird (Vireo solitarius) is known to exchange songs between males. It is perhaps more creative in song as a Mebir innate response to my improvised “bird song”. From creativity being rare in birds, their seemingly creative song as inferred, is in part a kind of songbird culture not crucial to survival. Their song is not only for designating territories and attracting a mate. 4) Possibly these species also exhibit a Mebir, the west coast spring field cricket (Gryllus veletisoides) a) the blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata); b) the common raven (Corvus corax); c) the crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos); d) the great white heron (Ardea alba); e) sea gulls (suborder Lari) (more data are needed); while f) humans likely become more effective in behaviour from being in a friendly milieu, inferred from the beneficial effect of a social-friendly audience on my ability to improvise more interesting music. When outside with a social-friendly audience I can improvise more interesting Chinese traditional music and the renaissance genre of classical music on the (alto, soprano, and sopranino) blockflöte but have difficulty improvising when there is a disturbance or without an audience in the darkness of night, (outdoors).²¹ My improvising to workers seems to bring them to work more in earnest and it is common knowledge that certain sports events in certain nations have cheer leaders.

The Mebir is Possibly an Oxytocin Hormonal Mediated Response

From a friendly greeting a dog can become more explorative, playful, creative, social, and can become more interactive (in a friendly way) with its’ owner, and with pedestrians and dogs (it has not met before). Improved assertiveness is a common dog Mebir. Occasionally a kind of “hunting instinct” is released as a displaced innate response (which, as inferred, improves fitness in wolves (Canus lupus)). A dog can become more aggressive (when being territorial), and past researchers have shown that human social interactions with dogs improve a dogs’ ability to learn [11]. The research on human-dog gazing interactions suggests that the hormone responsible for mediating the Mebir may be oxytocin [14], which is known to render a feeling of well-being in both dogs and humans.

People tend to relate to domestic dogs in petting them, feeding them and with verbal praise but not in greeting them from a distance, nor in playing music to them (despite that dogs like greetings from a distance and can be interested in human music, personal observation). In part, this is because 1) The evidence for the existence of heritable and learned animal culture (not crucial to survival), that is manifested in animals out of enjoyment has yet to gain acceptance amongst the scientific community. 2) Acts of kindness are discriminated against in capitalist nations (personal observation). 3) Humans are considered to be more intelligent than dogs, and because people who witness the Mebir (behavioural responses of dogs to a friendly greeting or gesture) (i.e., prior to this article’s publication) mistakenly attributed it as being only the result of social conditioning. From the concept of natural selection, people idealize social conditioning (as the way people ought to relate to animals) [15], consider an animal’s experiences of pleasure to be but only a mechanism to improve fitness [16] and feel that they should be dominant over dogs, which are less intelligent than humans (I have refuted from the concept of natural selection in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution). Insomuch the scientific community has yet to concur that animal culture (not crucial to survival) exists, people have no clue that dogs might enjoy a friendly greeting for its own sake. For these reasons, the act of greeting a dog from a distance, as though dogs enjoy social interactions with humans (in the way Doctor Doolittle the main character of a British fictional children’s story talked to animals [17] and, in the way people greet each other at a social gathering), is unacceptable, in most circles (i.e., except for researchers of ethology).

Animal Culture not Crucial to Survival

The following is a definition of animal culture from the literature: “a behavioural pattern of a group, derived from learning and/or mimicry with overall fitness benefits” [18]. However, a more comprehensive definition is used in this article and in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution from being central to an understanding of how species evolve in accordance with the theory of (cultural and) evolutionary freedom.⁵ Animal culture (for both plants and animals) is any: 1) Non-heritable behavioural pattern or 2) Heritable characteristic not crucial to survival.

There is some convincing evidence that a complex learned behaviour as a kind of animal culture can become heritable, see Section 3, the section titled “two kinds of joyful associations likely occurred in the evolution of elaborateness of courtship behaviour in the great crested grebe”. Insomuch the concept of animal culture is important to an understanding 1) Of why the Mebir has previously not been discovered. 2) How the Mebir provides evolutionary freedom (to social species). 3) As to how species (actually) evolve, (including higher intelligence), the evidence for animal culture (not crucial to survival) is reviewed hereunder (presented in depth in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution).

Evidence for Species Culture (as Defined in This Article), not Crucial to Survival²²

The evidence for species culture in part comes from 1) Characteristics more elaborate than necessary for survival. 2) Elaborate characteristics (not crucial to survival), identified from comparative ecology between species with a comparable ecology, (including evidence for safety characteristics, which improve fitness but are not crucial to survival). 3) An inference as to how certain complex characteristics composed of many parts evolve, which to function, must act synergistically. As inferred, they first evolve randomly and independently as a kind of animal culture. 4) That species with exceptional evolutionary freedom tend to evolve elaborate characteristics. 5) Evidence for speciation unfolding as a function of species culture, reproductive isolation, and evolutionary freedom. 6) Evidence for how higher intelligence evolves in vertebrates, as a function of species culture, and evolutionary freedom, per accordance with the freedom to intellectualize theory. There are three mechanisms for animals manifesting heritable animal culture, not crucial to survival. As a function of 1) Sexual preferences, a displaced innate response and evolutionary freedom. 2) The evolution of simple and complex safety characteristics (which improve fitness high enough to not go vestigial). 3) From species compensating for difficulties that have become an intrinsic part of its’ life history, causing higher stress levels, which in certain species can result in a) an aggressive temperament, b) and the resulting evolution of defensive mechanisms and/or c) the resulting evolution of improvements in fitness (the evolution of safety characteristics) not crucial to survival (a kind of defensive mechanism).

Examples of Various Kinds of Heritable Animal Culture and How they Evolve

Examples of heritable animal culture not crucial to survival, and the likely mechanisms that brought them about (as presented in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution), include 1) From a study of comparative ecology between pheasant species, pheasants provide convincing evidence that defensive mechanisms can evolve to be pronounced (the evolution of enlarged spurs, not crucial to survival) as a function of intrusion of personal space (heightened stress levels) (mechanism 3), a) The unique to an orca pod feeding behaviour, of a specialized diet, which might be a heritable (and not a learned) behaviour, as inferred, is the result of an association of the joy of feeding on a certain kind of food with the pleasure of being in the group [19]. b) The unique (to a group) call behaviour manifested in orca and the sperm whale, which might be a heritable behaviour, as inferred, is the result of an association of the joy of communicating with a particular call, with the pleasure of being with a familiar group [19] (mechanism 1). 2) The evidence for elaborate characteristics not crucial to survival, (see (1), (2), and (4) above, (presented in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution). Elaborate characteristics evolve, as inferred, as a displaced innate response, out of enjoyment (mechanism 1). 3) The aggressive interactions between male humpback whales during the mating season. It is inferred that it experiences much stress from migrating great distances while fasting for months (mechanism 3). 4) Convincing evidence for close inter-species friendships between the common bottlenose dolphin and three other cetaceans (mechanism 1) (there is convincing evidence that common bottlenose dolphin interspecies close friendships are a function of a compatible personality). 5) There is convincing evidence that species with a matriarchal or matrilineal society and which have exceptional cultural and evolutionary freedom tend to have a less aggressive temperament, for example the bonobo chimpanzee has a matriarchal society, lives in an environment favourable to chimpanzee life, culture and evolution and has manifested a less aggressive temperament (mechanism 1). 6) Flightlessness and near flightlessness in various bird species in New Zealand, where over the course of evolution, there were no terrestrial predators (mechanism 1). 7) The extreme sexual dimorphism of many pinniped species, as inferred, evolved from intrusions of personal space, from a harem mating system which brings males to have restricted evolutionary freedom to maintain a small size (due to sparring during the mating season between male rivals) (mechanism 3). 8) Interestingly, for the elephant seal, which has exceptionally aggressive interactions between males due to intrusions of personal space in rookeries (as indicated from a chest shield of calloused skin), this likely brought about a highly evolved physiology compared to other marine mammals (mechanism 3). The book entitled “Elephant Seals. Pushing the Limits on Land and Sea” [20] describes their highly evolved physiology. 9) There is evidence that an ability to reason evolves via sexual preferences (mechanism 1) and evolutionary freedom, including from reduced conflict between conspecifics, see Subsection 3.7. 10) Poisonous species can evolve to be more lethal than necessary for their survival (mechanism 2). 11) The short-finned pilot whale, harbor porpose, harbor seal, and bonobo chimpanzee have reduced stress and reduced aggressive interactions. (mechanism 1). 12) The exceptional complexity of the song of certain bird species, such as the nightingale, and of the common bottlenose dolphin (mechanism 1). 13) There is evidence for role playing when hunting in the wolf see Subsection 3.7 and common bottlenose dolphin, see Section 5, the section titled “evidence for common bottlenose dolphin culture”. This hunting behaviour as inferred, is a function of higher intelligence; higher intelligence in vertebrates is shown to evolve following the freedom to intellectualize theory (mechanism 1), see Subsection 3.7, the section titled “the freedom to intellectualize theory”.

A Test-Run of an Experiment for Evidence for the Mebir

My data come from chance encounters with dogs taken for a walk on a sidewalk in a naturalistic setting, including various breeds, mixed breeds, both sexes and dogs of different ages. The first null hypothesis tested: A friendly greeting does not cause a dog to be more effective in behaviour. This hypothesis was proven invalid suggesting that warm greetings tend to cause dogs to undergo a Mebir. Only exaggerated and unusual (displaced innate hunting behaviours) observed within a minute after a friendly greeting (and that were not seen a minute before a friendly greeting) were counted as a Mebir (improved effectiveness of behaviour). If I saw an exaggerated behaviour or a displaced innate hunting response before giving the dog a greeting, this voided my being able to use the dog in the data set.

The second null hypothesis tested: From a warm greeting, a dog does not walk faster or pull on the leash. When a dog did not walk faster and engage in other kinds of Mebir innate responses this data was voided from the data set. See Chart 1 for the behavioural outcome not used from the other Mebir responses possibly making a dog preoccupied so that it neglected to walk faster. The second hypothesis was proven invalid, suggesting dogs tend to undergo the Mebir innate response of walking faster.

Chart 1. The kinds of Behavioural outcomes used, for the second hypothesis.

The first null hypothesis, that dogs do not undergo a Mebir innate response from a friendly greeting, was rejected with chai-square statistics [22], N = 50, X² = 2269, P = 10.83 with 0.1% significance and 1 d.f.²³ The second null hypothesis, that dogs do not walk faster from a warm greeting, was rejected N = 29, X² = 647, P = 10.83 with 0.1% significance and 1 d.f. In general, there were four kinds of responses to a friendly greeting. The stimulation of 1) Higher cognition, including of greater creativity, curiosity, exploring, learning, play behaviour, and/or perhaps heightened concentration. 2) Of increased sociality. 3) Of increases in the effectiveness of physical (motor) behaviour, and of 4) Displaced innate behaviours.

Behavioural responses include pulling hard on a leash, walking much faster, a heightened interest in exploring, curiosity about objects, perhaps heightened concentration and an interest in being creative, affectionate or playful with dogs, people, and the owner. For a table of frequency of Mebir responses and exaggerated responses see Table 1 and Table 2. A dog’s levels of enthusiasm in response to a friendly greeting included: Level 1 Indifference (which was infrequent). Level 2 A mild, timid response. Level 3 A behavioural response without enthusiasm, Level 4 With enthusiasm, and Level 5 With much enthusiasm. I observed all five levels of enthusiasm. However, levels 4 and 5 were so common and intense (see Table 2), this suggests that the Mebir is of much importance to social species and society. For the evidence the Mebir is of importance to society, see Section 3, the section titled “the importance of the Mebir, social consciousness and four dog Mebirs to society”. Seemingly perceptions of the environment and innate behaviours which are enjoyable become more enjoyable with a friendly greeting.

Researchers have shown that domesticated dogs and wolves are similar genetically [28], suggesting that wolves are the ancestors of dogs. One kind of behavioural response that dogs elicit from a friendly greeting is displaced innate hunting responses that helps wolves to locate prey items more easily, which improves wolf fitness. Despite convincing evidence that wolves have complex innate hunting behaviours (inferred from the invoked displaced innate hunting responses of dogs as a Mebir, (from friendly greetings)) (see next section), there is convincing evidence that wolves are a highly intelligent species of social carnivore, from their ways of hunting: 1) With likely role-playing in hunting and 2) They seemingly manifest wolf culture (between regions of wolf packs) in how they hunt. Evidence for role-playing includes that the individuals of a pack can flank a prey item when in pursuit. This behaviour seemingly prevents the prey from escaping [29] (statistical evidence is needed to show that flanking is not but a random event). For one population, speedy, lightly built females are taking on herding roles, darting back and forth in front of prey, causing confusion, and preventing the prey from escaping [30]. There are other cited observations of possible wolf cooperative behaviour [31] however, again, without statistics, it is impossible to distinguish between cooperative behaviour versus chance associations that improves fitness. Evidence for wolf culture includes that the adult, breeding male of a pack (a pack consists of closely related wolves), can initiate a hunt (but does not always do so) [32], which perhaps at times are selecting the prey item the pack pursues [30]. The female of the Yellowstone wolf pack does most of the decision-making including where to travel and when to rest and hunt (according to Doug Smith, a natural scientist, project leader for the Yellowstone Gray Wolf Restoration Project (reference available upon request)). Research on the ecology of the gray wolf in Scandinavia [33] suggests that the choice of the kind of prey item when hunting is male influenced; the male prefers larger prey, moose (Alcesalces) (over roe deer (Capreolus capreolus)), which as inferred, improves wolf fitness. The female’s preference for roe deer is a function of wolf culture either from her preferring less stress or is due to the limitations of her hunting ability. Accounts for wolf intelligence from the literature, but which does not indicate their relative intelligence, come from scattered reports of their behaviours [27], suggesting that they have a good memory, associate events, and learn.

Three Kinds of Displaced Innate Hunting Responses as a Dog Mebir

From a friendly greeting, I observed three kinds of dog innate hunting behaviours, as a Mebir response, which are the result of an innate wolf behaviour which aids wolves to more easily locate prey items, i.e., improves wolf fitness. I hypothesize that these three displaced innate hunting behaviours were elicited from a non-conscious association of the joy of performing the innate hunting behaviour (a kind of exploration behaviour) (A) with the joy of receiving a friendly greeting (B). (For the evidence for the Mebirbeingin part a function of enjoyment, see Section 3, the Section titled “the evidence for the Mebir being associated with a feeling of well-being”). The three displaced innate responses included: 1) A zigzag wandering walk while sniffing the ground. 2) Sniffing the air for the scent of something while waving the head back and forth. 3) Veering off to the side suddenly with much force. The following dog Mebirs from a friendly greeting may also be a function of a displaced innate hormonal response, the stimulation of curiosity, sociality, and creative, playful, assertive, and explorative behaviours. With respect to the Mebir response of improved learning, this is possibly the result of a dog’s association of the enjoyment associated with a social experience and the Mebir with the enjoyment of perceiving something innately attractive to them, in the environment, which incidentally improves learning from improved observation, rather than being the result of an innate response of improved learning from a friendly greeting. With respect to a dog’s veering (suddenly) off to the side innate response (or down a side path or street, and through an open door) observed on ten of fifty trials, see Table 2, which happened with a level of 4 or 5 enthusiasm (for a description of the various levels of enthusiasm of a dog’s Mebir see Section 3.1), this innate behaviour in wolves may improve wolf fitness in the following way. From better helping the wolf pack to surround and capture prey, i.e., from improved cooperative hunting success of large, fast prey (so that all the wolves in a pack increase efficiency of capturing a prey item from more effectively surrounding it). Convincing evidence for this hypothesis comes from a study of the hunting strategies of wolves. One of the rules wolves follow when hunting is that when they are close enough to a prey item in pursuit, the wolves of the pack move away from each other [30], suggesting that keeping a distance between individuals of a pack is of importance to hunting (foraging) success. The veering off to the side innate behaviour may have in part also evolved from helping wolves to escape predators.³⁰

The Mebir dog responses from a friendly greeting include multiple Mebir responses in (quick) succession, (intriguing to witness), including:

1) Sniffing (curiously) at an object on the ground, then walking faster while exploring the vicinity.

2) Sniffing around the sidewalk for a long time and then pulling hard on the leash.

3) Being more social with its’ owner, then seeking to be social with unacquainted pedestrians while walking at a faster pace and becoming curious about the environment.

A dog can have the Mebir of seeking social affiliation (see Table 2). In wolves this Mebir response improves fitness from strengthening social bonds.

On six of fifty trials the Mebir innate response was observed of creative or playful behaviour.

Dogs tend to walk faster from a friendly greeting.

A Mebir response included a dog pulling on the leash with great effort to go forward at times to go in a different direction than where it was headed, or to cease going forward (this later response I observed on many occasions outside of gathering data). On one occasion a dog pulled on the leash to be with me. On another occasion I not unlikely observed dog motor mimicry of my movement.

A friendly greeting can make a dog curious, explorative, affectionate (e.g., it can be affectionate in gently nudging its’ owner with its nose), and possibly can at times make a dog concentrate more (i.e., after giving a dog a greeting I observed that perhaps it focused its’ attention on gazing, (without distraction) at the front gate of their owner’s residence, for the gate to be opened). From observing dog Mebirs, including their creative, affectionate, and playful behaviours, and that they may be at time concentrate intensely on what they are doing, may cause some people to mistakenly anthropomorphize dog intelligence. For the convincing evidence that wolves (and dogs) do not have an ability to reason, see Subsections 3.5 and 3.8.

The evidence that the Mebir is of importance to society is presented in Section 3, (the section titled “the importance of the Mebir, social consciousness and four dog Mebirs to society”) and Section 5 (the section titled “considerations from the discovery of the Mebir…”). In part, the evidence that the Mebir (i.e., that improved effectiveness of behaviour from a friendly greeting)is of importance to society, comes from the theorem that humans are loving, non-competitive and non-aggressive (see Subsection 1.1.1) and the greater effectiveness of gquic psychology, suggesting that these following political goals are of importance (from being in harmony with human nature and eliciting the Mebir): 1) Communism and socialism (they are in harmony with human nature from not being an exploitive system of government). 2) A high level of social consciousness. 3) The social-friendly teaching method. 4) Gquic psychology³¹ both elicit the Mebir and both are based on the theorem that humans are loving, non-competitive and non-aggressive, both are more effective, which are presently used in part, in nations with a high level of social consciousness. 5) A comprehensive social welfare system. 6) A new United Nations based upon gquic psychology (forwhy a new kind of United Nations is crucial to there being a sustainable world peace and to solving global (health and safety) problems see the video I made [9] [10]. Insomuch I have shown the Mebirto be of importance to society, this will bring the scientific community to more readily accept the two new theories of evolution I formulated and found conclusive evidence for, from their 1) Providing an essential line of evidence for humans being loving, non-competitive and non-aggressive, and 2) Proof that evolution is a function of species culture and evolutionary freedom, not selection.

Wolves have exceptional evolutionary freedom to evolve higher intelligence from 1) Reduced predatory impact. 2) Cooperative hunting (evidence for cooperative behaviour reducing aggressive interactions in mammals is included in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution). 3) Wolves are a highly social species, such that their Mebir provides them with exceptional cultural-evolutionary freedom. However, wolves have restricted evolutionary freedom to evolve an ability to reason due to conflict between conspecifics, for example from intrusions of personal space when feeding, as explained in Section 3.8 and Figure 10, in part indicated from reduced eye contact between conspecifics.

There is convincing evidence that wolves are highly intelligent, see Subsection 3.2 and have exceptional evolutionary freedom, see Subsection 3.5. The photographs of wolves in Figure 8 and Figure 9 are of wolves interacting in an affectionate, creative, playful, and tactile manner, i.e., depict 1) their social-friendly behaviours that elicit the Mebir and/or 2) possibly depict the Mebir (from a friendly wolf gesture). In so much sociality provides cultural and evolutionary freedom from improving fitness more than necessary for survival (the evidence for this is presented in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution and is reviewed below), the Mebir which improves the effectiveness of behaviour (including sociality) also provides cultural and evolutionary freedom.

The Freedom to Intellectualize Theory. Evidence for the Freedom to Intellectualize Theory in Part Comes from Sociality Providing Exceptional Evolutionary Freedom

In accordance with the freedom to intellectualize theory species need evolutionary

freedom to evolve higher intelligence, because for one reason, behaviours that are the result of higher cognitive ability attract predators (similarly, play behaviours in the adult are known to attract predators), or distract a species from being on the lookout for predators. The evidence that sociality provides species with cultural and evolutionary freedom i.e., improves fitness more than necessary includes 1) The evidence that improved sociality likely evolves in a positive feedback loop, (within the confines of a species’ evolutionary freedom) from convincing evidence that it is possible for improvements in sociality to evolve as a function of sexual preferences, in part a) coming from evidence for existence of social rewards, such that it is possible that increases in sociality could be sexually preferred (as a displaced innate response) and, b) the evidence that a displaced innate responses can affect evolution (as a function of sexual preferences): i) including the evidence for the existence of elaborate characteristics (see Subsection 1.3, the section titled “evidence for species culture…”) and ii) the evidence that the evolution of an ability to reason (initially) evolves as a function of sexual preferences (i.e., as a function of a displaced innate response, see Subsection 3.7) and exceptional evolutionary freedom. Another line of evidence that sociality provides social species with cultural and evolutionary freedom includes 2) The evidence for the social brain hypothesis [35] which states that a larger brain evolves in social species, for example in social primates. Carnivores are an exception [36], as inferred, due to non-social carnivores having exceptional evolutionary freedom from heavy predatory impact as the result of being a predator, to evolve greater encephalization, from sociability providing carnivores with no substantial additional protection from predation to evolve higher intelligence. The accepted mechanism of the social brain hypothesis as stated in the literature, “that computational demands of living in highly complex social groups selected for overall increases in brain volume” [35] is refuted by the robust evidence for (the evolution of) greater encephalization as a function of evolutionary freedom and species culture, rather than as a function of social competition, i.e., from the study of comparative ecology and the more robust evidence for the freedom to intellectualize theory than for the social competition theory. Additional evidence that sociality provides social species with cultural and evolutionary freedom includes 3) The freedom to intellectualize theory being more robust than the social competition theory in explaining how higher intelligence evolves, i.e., there is a tendency for vertebrate species with exceptional evolutionary freedom evolving higher intelligence, while there is scanty evidence for the social competition theory, for example, there are intelligent cetaceans with a low intra and inter specific aggression (between conspecifics when mating),³² and certain highly intelligent animals do not have heavy predatory impact, intense inter-specific competition over food items nor intense intra-specific competition over food items, such as manatees, elephants and gorillas which the social competition theory does not explain. 4) The evolution of curiosity, play behaviour and, creative behaviour (in the adult), (like the evolution of higher cognitive ability) require exceptional evolutionary freedom from heavy predatory impact to evolve (as reviewed in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution). Social species commonly have manifested these behaviours suggesting that sociality provides exceptional evolutionary freedom.

The Mebir Provides Exceptional Cultural and Evolutionary Freedom

Insomuch sociality provides exceptional cultural and evolutionary freedom, the Mebir which improves the effectiveness of sociality, does so as well. In addition, there is convincing evidence that the Mebir is a hormonal mediated response, see Subsection 1.3, the section titled “the Mebir is possibly an oxytocin hormonal mediated response”, that improves the effectiveness of many kinds of behaviours (improves fitness), commonly in dramatic ways. Thus it is not unlikely that the Mebir is not crucial to survival in many of the ways it improvers fitness, (commonly in dramatic ways), i.e., it’s likely that the Mebir provides cultural and evolutionary freedom.

In Subsections 3.7 - 3.8 I introduce 1) How “an ability to reason” evolves (in accordance with the freedom to intellectualize theory); as a function of evolutionary freedom, (including from improved sociality from reduced conflict between conspecifics and a friendship-favourable group composition), sexual preferences, and a displaced innate response; rather than as a function of selection or social competition). 2) Evidence for the wolf not having an ability to reason, see Subsection 3.8, so the reader does not mistakenly idealize self-initiated unkindness as the result of a) The evidence for dogs becoming aggressive from a warm greeting when territorial, b) Wolves exhibiting acts of aggression,(despite displays of affection resembling human affection (see Figure 8 and Figure 9), and despite that dogs exhibit the Mebir), (improvements in effectiveness of behaviour from a friendly greeting) which seems human-like. 3) The misconception from the (refuted) concept of natural selection that humans are unloving, aggressive, and competitive. For the evidence that humans have a peaceful composure see Subsection 1.1.1. The evidence that wolves likely do not have an ability to reason, per the freedom to intellectualize theory, (this theory shows that reduced conflict is needed for an ability to reason to evolve), comes in part from, their aggressive temperament, and the non-symbolic artwork of more highly intelligent animals with a higher encephalization quotient than wolves. Wolf aggressive interactions occur when feeding, and conspecifics commonly use various kinds of body language to communicate aggression and fear, including starring to communicate aggression and looking away to communicate fear [37]. Though staring non-aggressively is found in the great apes, it is not known to frequently occur in wolves [38]. That primate species which are more tolerant of gazes are more egalitarian [39] suggests that the the low frequency of wolf non-aggressive staring is due to underlying tensions between wolf conspecifics.

How an Ability to Reason Evolved in Humans Per the Freedom to Intellectualize Theory

As a review, the evidence that the ability to reason evolves following the freedom to intellectualize theory, as a function of sexual preferences, and exceptional evolutionary freedom, includes: 1) The more robust evidence for “the freedom to intellectualize theory” than for the social competition theory, as explained previously in Subsection 3.6. 2) The evidence for the social brain hypothesis [35]. 3) And that the ability to reason has not evolved in four highly intelligent species, (i.e., as inferred from their artwork, which as inferred is not symbolic of anything, including the artwork of two species of chimpanzee, the gorilla and the elephant), and their having restricted evolutionary freedom (as in accordance with freedom to intellectualize theory) from having aggressive interactions between conspecifics or, from a lack of the pronounced friendship-favourable group composition, for sexual preferences to come into play (e.g., the harbour porpoise and short-finned pilot wale have a peaceful composure but do not have a pronounced friendship-favourable group composition of the Atlantic, coastal common bottlenose dolphin).

Detailed Mechanisms of the Evolution of an Ability to Reason

The following behaviours are shown to be of importance to the evolution of an ability to reason (as a function of sexual preferences) 1) A distinctive personality, and/or behavioural patterns not crucial to survival (i.e., animal culture). 2) Acts of compassion and therapy, if only that relieves boredom. 3) Possibly, a higher frequency of a) affectionate, b) creative, and c) playful behaviour. 4) A friendship-favourable group composition. 5) Reduced intra-specific aggressive interactions. 6) A high degree of sociality and the Mebir, they provide cultural and evolutionary freedom, in part from improving the effectiveness of behaviour. 7) Cooperative behaviour, if present. 8) Reduced stress from a favourable ecology. 9) Eye contact as a friendly gesture (which humans, chimpanzees and the gorilla engage in [38] [39] and I suspect the common bottlenose dolphin engages in from their having a flexible neck), however, prolonged eye contact can communicate a threat [37].

Considering which behaviours our ancient hominid ancestors were attracted to in the evolution of an ability to reason per the freedom to intellectualize theory (as a function of sexual preferences, and evolutionary freedom, including from reduced conflict between conspecifics). It was not simply the presence of 1) Affectionate; 2) Creative; 3) Tactile; 4) Playful; 5) Non-aggressive behaviour (depicted in Figure 8 and Figure 9); which wolves (and other mammals without an ability to reason) manifest, but likely in addition were acts of therapy, if only but to relieve boredom in another individual,³³ compassion, and/or a higher frequency of 1 - 5, for example, in the creative song and dance of our hominid ancestors. (An ability to reason likely evolved in Homo erectus as inferred from their having evolved much encephalization and their use of fire, and having made complex tool and body adornments), there is convincing evidence that they had egalitarian tendencies and a friendship favourable group composition.³⁴ For how the common bottlenose dolphin has exceptional evolutionary freedom, including from a friendship-favourable group composition, and the evidence that they likely have evolved an ability to reason, see the video I made [9] [10], Subsection 1.1.1, # (4) and Section 5, #5.

Acts of Compassion and Therapy Are Desirable to Animals without an Ability to Reason

In the evolution of an ability to reason there is evidence that acts of compassion and therapy of an individual which inherits an ability to reasonare attractive to those (intra- and inter-specific individuals) without it. Evidence includes: 1) That it is relatively easy to make songbirds and dogs have a dramatic Mebir, for birds, from inciting them to sing from my improvised music, and to bring workers to be better motivated to work (from an act of compassion and therapy (personal observation)). Sometimes songbirds follow me in flight through the foliage of trees, chirping as they go, after I sing to them, suggesting that they are curious about me. Convincing evidence that acts of compassion and therapy are attractive to individuals and animal species without an ability to reason also comes from 2) Convincing evidence for common bottlenose dolphin interspecies close friendships, as presented in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution. I provide compelling evidence the common bottlenose dolphin has an ability to reason, (from their unique exceptional cultural and evolutionary freedom, their kinds of interspecies close friendships, their complex song, and peaceful composure between conspecifics, see the video I made [9] [10]), which likely has determined their kinds of close interspecies friendships. Despite that the species of cetacean they have a close interspecies friendship with likely cannot reason (inferred from their aggressive temperament and/or less friendship-favourable group composition), nevertheless, the personality of the cetacean species which the common bottlenose dolphin has an interspecies friendship with is compatible with the common bottlenose dolphin’s personality. This suggests that in the evolution of an ability to reason, acts of compassion and therapy of an individual which happens to inherit an ability to reason can be desirable to the members of the species which have not yet inheritedit. 3) Even after discounting the vast number of species that are not competitive in nature from having a high density of populations, overt aggression is lacking among most species that compete. Animals prefer pacifism and bluff³⁴ over escalated fighting [40]. I provide evidence that animals prefer reduced stress in my forthcoming book on two new theories of evolution, for example. 4) The bonobo (chimpanzee) lives in an environment favourable to chimpanzee life, culture and evolution and has reduced aggressive interactions, suggesting species prefer less conflict, that stress causes aggression and, that acts of compassion and therapy would be attractive to species that acquires an ecology that provides a reduction in stress (and a reduction in aggressive interactions). For example, in a species with the advent of cooperative foraging, no intrusions of personal space when feeding and/or a friendship-favourable group composition. 5) There are bird species of New Zealand which are flightless, and some are nearly so, where they have had cultural freedom from heavy terrestrial predatory impact, suggesting that animals prefer less stress, that animals with cultural freedom would not unlikely be attracted to acts of compassion and therapy.

For convincing evidence that wolves are highly intelligent, see Subsection 3.2. For the evidence that dogs and humans have a Mebir see Section 2. Thus, the Mebirlikely evolved in species without an ability to reason (in wolves) and with (in Homo sapiens). The evidence that the wolves have restricted cultural and evolutionary freedom to evolve an ability to reason comes from 1) Evidence that species with a higher encephalization quotient than the wolf’s do not have an ability to reason, from their artwork, including from the chimpanzee, the gorilla, and elephant. The encephalization quotient of the wolf (Canus lupus) 1.08, is significantly less than the chimpanzee (Pan sp.) 2, the common bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncates 4.52), and elephant (Elephus sp.) 2.22 [41].³⁵ 2) Wolves do not have the friendship favourable group composition of the Atlantic, coastal common bottlenose dolphins which provided this delphinid with unique, exceptional evolutionary freedom. 3) Per the freedom to intellectualize theory, an ability to reason evolves as a function of reduced conflict between conspecifics, which nomadic hunters and gathers and the common bottlenose dolphin have, yet wolves have an aggressive temperament when feeding, restricting its’ cultural and evolutionary freedom. Most highly intelligent species have restricted evolutionary freedom to evolve an ability to reason from an aggressive temperament, for example during courtship, or when feeding, including (Subfamily Otariinae (seals and sealions), the African grey parrot (Psittacus erithacus), primates, elephants and genus Corvus (crows and ravens).

In nature, wolves hunt cooperatively, which likely, as my book provides evidence for, reduces conflict between conspecifics; adult wolves surprisingly are known to have a somewhat good-natured temperament [27], and wolves engage in affectionate, creative, tactile, and playful social interactions (see Figure 8 and Figure 9). Despite this, they also engage in aggressive interactions see Figure 10, (and certain individuals are known for being bolder than others [42]). In Figure 10 the adult captive wolf on the left is eating a carcass the zoo provided while the wolf on the right is baring its teeth and is perhaps snarling (it has a wrinkle on its’ muzzle). Though the two wolves in Figure 10 live at a zoo so their behaviours are not, as inferred, the same as in nature; I have found evidence that aggressive interactions occur between conspecific wolves in nature when they feed near each other on the same carcass, as sourced from three Internet videos. That acts of aggression occur when wolves feed together though there be much food present suggests they experience intrusion of personal space when eating. Wolves likely undergo some degree of stress (due to conflict between conspecifics) even when not feeding together. Staring non-aggressively occurs in the great apes, it is not known to often occur in wolves [38]. Primate species which are more tolerant of gazes are more egalitarian [39]. Thus, the low frequency of wolf non-aggressive staring suggests underlying tensions between wolf conspecifics.

The social brain hypothesis is substantiated from evidence for {1} the Mebir, {2} two new theories of evolution, {3} that the Mebir provides social species with cultural and evolutionary freedom, and from primate species having a comparable ecology, while those which are social have evolved a large brain. A larger brain in social primates, as inferred, from being a kind of animal culture, not crucial to survival, i.e., from being a function of the Mebir and evolutionary freedom, is likely in part a safety characteristic (that improves fitness more than necessary). As inferred from the two new theories of evolution (as stated previously), non-social carnivores are the exception to the rule, do not seem to follow the social brain hypothesis from their having exceptional evolutionary freedom from heavy predatory impact to evolve a larger brain.

I hypothesize that some if not all solitary vertebrate species undergo a Mebir and that in nature, solitary vertebrate species do so less frequently than social species from having significantly fewer social interactions (restricting their evolutionary freedom). This best explains why social species (i.e., except non-social carnivores, from their having exceptional evolutionary freedom from heavy predatory impact) have a larger brain (see Subsection 3.6). For the evidence that the Mebir provides cultural and evolutionary freedom, see Section 3, the Section titled two ways the Mebir provides cultural and evolutionary freedom for social species to evolve higher intelligence…, Subsection 3.6 and Section 5. Cats, family Felidare are solitary hunters. Domestic cats perhaps undergo a Mebir; they not uncommonly scratch against something when first greeted (personal observation). Two shorebird species, the black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) and the great white heron (Ardea alba) are social, but often feed as solitary individuals (personal observation) seemingly undergo a Mebir (personal observation).

How the Mebir Evolved into Existence

That I maybe observed the Mebir in field crickets, frogs, a species of fish, shorebirds, ravens, crows and cats and with more certainty in songbirds, and humans, and that there is evidence for the dog Mebir, suggests the Mebir evolved in some ancestral fish that gave rise to terrestrial vertebrates, and in a marine arthropod that gave rise to insects, or evolved in an ancestral taxon (perhaps in acoelomates (e.g., in flatworms) or cnidarians (e.g., in jellyfish) that perceived an approach of a member of the species as a kind of greeting, and elicited a heritable more effective behaviour(from this improving fitness and/or as a function of sexual preferences), that gave rise to the Mebir in chordates and arthropods.