Dunbar's number: Group size and brain physiology in humans reexamined
Authors: de Ruiter, J., Weston, G. and Lyon, S.M.
Journal: American Anthropologist
Volume: 113
Issue: 4
Pages: 557-568
eISSN: 1548-1433
ISSN: 0002-7294
DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01369.x
Abstract:Popular academic ideas linking physiological adaptations to social behaviors are spreading disconcertingly into wider societal contexts. In this article, we note our skepticism with one particularly popular-in our view, problematic-supposed causal correlation between neocortex size and social group size. The resulting Dunbar's Number, as it has come to be called, has been statistically tested against observed group size in different primate species. Although there may be reason to doubt the Dunbar's Number hypothesis among nonhuman primate species, we restrict ourselves here to the application of such an explanatory hypothesis to human, culture-manipulating populations. Human information process management, we argue, cannot be understood as a simple product of brain physiology. Cross-cultural comparison of not only group size but also relationship-reckoning systems like kinship terminologies suggests that although neocortices are undoubtedly crucial to human behavior, they cannot be given such primacy in explaining complex group composition, formation, or management. © 2011 by the American Anthropological Association.
Source: Scopus
Dunbar's number: group size and brain physiology in humans reexamined.
Authors: de Ruiter, J., Weston, G. and Lyon, S.M.
Journal: Am Anthropol
Volume: 113
Issue: 4
Pages: 557-568
ISSN: 0002-7294
DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01369.x
Abstract:Popular academic ideas linking physiological adaptations to social behaviors are spreading disconcertingly into wider societal contexts. In this article, we note our skepticism with one particularly popular—in our view, problematic—supposed causal correlation between neocortex size and social group size. The resulting Dunbar's Number, as it has come to be called, has been statistically tested against observed group size in different primate species. Although there may be reason to doubt the Dunbar's Number hypothesis among nonhuman primate species, we restrict ourselves here to the application of such an explanatory hypothesis to human, culture-manipulating populations. Human information process management, we argue, cannot be understood as a simple product of brain physiology. Cross-cultural comparison of not only group size but also relationship-reckoning systems like kinship terminologies suggests that although neocortices are undoubtedly crucial to human behavior, they cannot be given such primacy in explaining complex group composition, formation, or management.
Source: PubMed
Dunbar's Number: Group Size and Brain Physiology in Humans Reexamined
Authors: de Ruiter, J., Weston, G. and Lyon, S.M.
Journal: AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGIST
Volume: 113
Issue: 4
Pages: 557-568
eISSN: 1548-1433
ISSN: 0002-7294
DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01369.x
Source: Web of Science (Lite)
Dunbar's Number: Group Size and Brain Physiology in Humans Reexamined
Authors: Weston, G., De Ruiter, J. and Lyon, S.
Journal: American Anthropologist
Volume: 113
Issue: 4
Pages: 557-568
Publisher: Wiley-Blackwell
ISSN: 0002-7294
DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01369.x
Abstract:Popular academic ideas linking physiological adaptations to social behaviors are spreading disconcertingly into wider societal contexts. In this article, we note our skepticism with one particularly popular—in our view, problematic—supposed causal correlation between neocortex size and social group size. The resulting Dunbar's Number, as it has come to be called, has been statistically tested against observed group size in different primate species. Although there may be reason to doubt the Dunbar's Number hypothesis among nonhuman primate species, we restrict ourselves here to the application of such an explanatory hypothesis to human, culture-manipulating populations. Human information process management, we argue, cannot be understood as a simple product of brain physiology. Cross-cultural comparison of not only group size but also relationship-reckoning systems like kinship terminologies suggests that although neocortices are undoubtedly crucial to human behavior, they cannot be given such primacy in explaining complex group composition, formation, or management.
https://anthrosource.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01369.x
Source: Manual
Dunbar's number: group size and brain physiology in humans reexamined.
Authors: de Ruiter, J., Weston, G. and Lyon, S.M.
Journal: American anthropologist
Volume: 113
Issue: 4
Pages: 557-568
ISSN: 0002-7294
DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2011.01369.x
Abstract:Popular academic ideas linking physiological adaptations to social behaviors are spreading disconcertingly into wider societal contexts. In this article, we note our skepticism with one particularly popular—in our view, problematic—supposed causal correlation between neocortex size and social group size. The resulting Dunbar's Number, as it has come to be called, has been statistically tested against observed group size in different primate species. Although there may be reason to doubt the Dunbar's Number hypothesis among nonhuman primate species, we restrict ourselves here to the application of such an explanatory hypothesis to human, culture-manipulating populations. Human information process management, we argue, cannot be understood as a simple product of brain physiology. Cross-cultural comparison of not only group size but also relationship-reckoning systems like kinship terminologies suggests that although neocortices are undoubtedly crucial to human behavior, they cannot be given such primacy in explaining complex group composition, formation, or management.
Source: Europe PubMed Central