Talk:Dunbar's number
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Dunbar has theorized that 150 would be the mean group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together. For a group of this size to remain cohesive, Dunbar speculated that as much as 42% of the group's time would have to be devoted to social grooming."
The quote from the article which I've copied above is wrong if my interpretation of Dunbar's article "Neocortex Size, Group Size, and the Evolution of Language" is right. I believe it would be more accurate to say:
"Dunbar has theorized that 150 would be the mean group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together. For a group of this size to remain cohesive, Dunbar speculated that without developed verbal communication as much as 42% of the group's time would have to be devoted to social grooming."
It seems to me as though Dunbar uses the percent predicted grooming time as an argument for the reasons language evolved and when it evolved. If anyone else could check the article and confirm/deny this, please do. --Finog
I think this page needs to be deleted or renamed. It is clear that the word "monkeysphere" is not a technical term at all, and was in fact coined by David Wong for an internet humor article. Read this for details: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/wikiwoo.htm#Monkeysphere I'd do it myself but I'm tired.-gunbladezero
- I disagree. The monkeysphere, while primarily humorous, explains not only Dunbar's number but also some of the potential consequences of it (that is, why some people can be jerks, or why people can wholeheartedly "stick it to the man" or corporation or whatever. At the very least, it deserves a paragraph or two inside the article, if not its own article. I wouldn't want to spend the time re-reading and summarizing Monkeysphere only to have it deleted, however.--Mylon (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Should the term monkeysphere appear on the article itself as an unofficial term for Dunbar's Number? There's already a redirect from monkeysphere. I'm basing this on at least one additional humor article (this one on Cracked's website) discussing the "monkeysphere" rather then Dunbar's Number. (StarkeRealm (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC))
Beat me to this by three days. Good work. Heh. --Kizor 07:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- thanx! I thought I was feeling something breathing down my neck .... :)
- --Rck 13:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
does anyone know who first coined the term? I could not find anything on Google. --Rck 20:36, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I've been linked to this before, but that's the best I can do. The Monkeysphere is an intriguing construct from the available data, and I talk like this in real life too, though it raises a number of objections both due to unraised questions and my outdated religious beliefs. --Kizor 15:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, that's the one I cited as the "Humorous Introduction"; it's rather funny. Ok, so we dont know yet who came up with this, alright. I can live with that for the moment.
- --Rck 03:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
- The first Googled USENET use of the term is in July 2004, and it links to the humorous article. --Kizor 03:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Use in linguistics research
Hi there, I am currently studying Linguistics, and the number 150 turns up in research in this field also. It has been suggested as the maximum number of useful interviewees in a given study; more than this and work is increased with quickly diminishing returns. And so, since (socio)linguistics research is fundamentally sociological in nature, I'm wondering if this might be relevant to the concepts brought up in this article. Genedecanter 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Academics?
"200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialization"
Is this something that Dunbar actually pointed out or is it something someone's added to supplement the list? The reason I'm asking is it's out of character when compared to the rest of the examples and it doesn't quite make sense. Not only is the number significantly larger than 150, but I don't think that academics in a particular sub-specialization are required to not only know everyone else in the sub-specialization personally but maintain a close relationship with them. A sub-specialization does not equal a village. If Dunbar made this point, that's fine, but it would be nice if this was sourced. Jordansc 14:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Well: a) I don't know and b) it would seem to refer to history. So maybe the specializations were knit closer in ye oldetimes. 81.197.34.227 (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
