- Joined
- Aug 18, 2002
- Messages
- 19,407
Its an interesting idea that I have been pondering for a bit:
pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html
Link is dead. No archived version available.
Its based on these studies (they link to an online article about Dunbar's research):
Aiello, L.C. & Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993) Neocortex size, group size and the evolution of language. Current Anthropology. 34. 184 - 93.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1992) Neocortex size as a constraint on group size. Journal of Human Evolution. 22 (6). 469 - 93.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993) Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 16. 681 - 735.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1995) Neocortex size and group size in primates: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution. 28 (3). 287 - 96.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1996) Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Faber, London.
PB:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571173977/
HB:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571173969/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674363345/
Its been a while since I read those but basically the idea is that language has evolved to overcome the constraints of mental architecture on effective 'group size' and we developed art and other symbolism to cope with larger groups across greater distances (even when we aren't there) until we get books, radio, TV and the Internet which allows you to communicate with thousands even millions of people. However evenif we can communicate wth so many more people it is still tricky to give more than a theoretical rat's ass about them.
I suppose the root of the Monkeysphere then is that if you understand this and understand why we are wired that way then we can actually overcome it. But read the link as it puts it all much better than I can.
Link is dead. No archived version available.
Its based on these studies (they link to an online article about Dunbar's research):
Aiello, L.C. & Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993) Neocortex size, group size and the evolution of language. Current Anthropology. 34. 184 - 93.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1992) Neocortex size as a constraint on group size. Journal of Human Evolution. 22 (6). 469 - 93.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993) Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 16. 681 - 735.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1995) Neocortex size and group size in primates: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Human Evolution. 28 (3). 287 - 96.
Dunbar, R.I.M. (1996) Grooming, Gossip and the Evolution of Language. Faber, London.
PB:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571173977/
HB:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571173969/
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0674363345/
Its been a while since I read those but basically the idea is that language has evolved to overcome the constraints of mental architecture on effective 'group size' and we developed art and other symbolism to cope with larger groups across greater distances (even when we aren't there) until we get books, radio, TV and the Internet which allows you to communicate with thousands even millions of people. However evenif we can communicate wth so many more people it is still tricky to give more than a theoretical rat's ass about them.
I suppose the root of the Monkeysphere then is that if you understand this and understand why we are wired that way then we can actually overcome it. But read the link as it puts it all much better than I can.
Last edited by a moderator:
