As without, so within
Image: iStock / Henrik Jonsson
-
The Wisdom of Psychopaths
In this engrossing journey into the lives of psychopaths and their infamously crafty behaviors, the renowned psychologist Kevin Dutton reveals that there is a...
Read More »
As humans, we aren't born with formidable armaments or defenses, nor are we the strongest, fastest, or biggest species, yet despite this we are amazingly successful. For a long time it was thought that this success was because our enlarged brains allows each of us to be smarter than our competitors: better at abstract thinking, better with tools and better at adapting our behavior to those of our prey and predators. But are these really the most significant skills our brains provide us with?
Another possibility is that we are successful because we can form long-lasting relationships with many others in diverse and flexible ways, and that this, combined with our native intelligence, explains why homo sapiens came to dominate the planet. In every way from teaching our young to the industrial division of labour we are a massively co-operative species that relies on larger and more diverse networks of relationships than any other species.
In 1992 British anthropologist Robin Dunbar published an article showing that, in primates, the ratio of the size of the neo-cortex to that of the rest of the brain consistently increases with increasing social group size. For example, the Tamarin monkey has a brain size ratio of about 2.3 and an average social group of size of about 5 members. On the other hand, a Macaque monkey has a brain size ratio of around 3.8 but a very large average group size of about 40 members. From this work Dunbar put forward what is now known as the “social brain hypothesis.” The relative size of the neo-cortex rose as social groups became larger in order to maintain the complex set of relationships necessary for stable co-existence. Most famously, Dunbar suggested that given the human brain ratio we have an expected social group size of around 150 people, about the size of what Dunbar called a “clan.”
Now, in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Dunbar and his colleagues have shown that the size of each individual’s social network is linearly related to the neural volume in a frontal region of each individual’s brain, the orbital prefrontal cortex. This provides strong support for Dunbar’s original conjecture at the individual level for what was previously proposed based on species-level data: Our brains are not as large as they are in order to provide each of us with the raw computational power to think our way out of a sticky situation, instead our brain size helps each of us to deal with the large and complex network of relationships we rely on to thrive.
What the authors have also been able to show is that it's more than just the availability of raw neural material in the right area of the brain that is needed. Within the same study they gave each subject a psychological test of their social skills and what they found was that even if a subject had a larger orbital prefrontal cortex this didn’t necessarily correlate with larger social networks, it also needed the subjects to have developed certain psychological skills, particularly an ability to understand another person’s state of mind. This cognitive skill is called a “theory of mind,” and it is the ability to recognize that others have their own mental states, such as factual knowledge, emotions or beliefs, and that these can be different from our own. It turns out that humans have the most highly developed “theory of mind” amongst the primates. Michael Tomasello and his colleagues have previously shown that while chimpanzees, one of our closest genetic relatives, posses a “theory of mind” it is not nearly as powerful, and this lack of social cognitive ability, combined with Dunbar’s work, suggests that it is this lack that results in their smaller social groups.
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
15 Comments
Add CommentThe hardly seems to be a consensus on how to physiologically determine intelligence - please see:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-intelligence-brain-connections-20120802,0,2842077.story
Correlation does not establish causation, but however it's measured, if it is correlated to social network size, perhaps that simply means that intelligent people tend to occupy themselves with other people when not otherwise not employing their intellectual capabilities.
I wonder if accomplishments and achievements might also be positively correlated to intelligence, and negatively correlated to the size of one's social network?
Alternatively in this modern world, many intelligent young people also seem to occupy themselves with video games. I wonder if intelligence can be correlated to social network size, accomplishments and achievements, and time spent playing video games, dependent variables which might all be negatively correlated with, detracting from, each other? Then there's watching TV...
Wait - perhaps one's intelligence cannot be accurately inferred by any one of many, many other factors.
The article discusses nothing about how the size of the brain or the social network is correlated to intelligence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have to agree that I was sloppy in generally referring to intelligence However, based on this report the study implies that some 'social intelligence' (my term), or ability to manage many complex social relationships, can be determined from social network size. Moreover, the study has determined that social network size is correlated to neural volume in the orbital prefrontal cortex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article does state:
"Now, in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, Dunbar and his colleagues have shown that the size of each individual’s social network is linearly related to the neural volume in a frontal region of each individual’s brain, the orbital prefrontal cortex."
It continues:
"This provides strong support for Dunbar’s original conjecture at the individual level for what was previously proposed based on species-level data: Our brains are not as large as they are in order to provide each of us with the raw computational power to think our way out of a sticky situation, instead our brain size helps each of us to deal with the large and complex network of relationships we rely on to thrive."
Their conclusions seem to presume that the only factor limiting social network size is some inherent ability to manage large numbers of complex social relationships, indicated by the neural volume in the orbital prefrontal cortex.
Ум развивается в информационном поле, под руководством разума.Сон разума рождает чудовищ.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisas the more people one come's in contact with over one's life increase's , learning how another's mind operate's or just how to operate in a functional way from enough experiance's , can happen , you can know how it work's , once there , how important is it to keep high number's of social group's active , as a cave guide in my home town i would socialise with people from all over the world , change my dialect to communicate how they do and generally it just come's down to having enough experiance , what im meaning by this is that keeping high number's of people in a network's good if one is to stay in that network , but i think it's more important to have the ability to walk into a place and have every thing go your way instantly , and maybe that only come from enough experiance
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDunbar's research suggests that we, and our many civilizations, are the products of social cognitive ability and the social stability, which it produces. The analysis dilutes the claim that each person is an island, and that success should be attributed predominantly to the individual. This aligns with the notion that man is a social animal and dependent on society for health, wealth and growth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am assuming that the reference to social networks is more grounded in the physical domain (ie people encountered through family, school, and profession) than the virtual or digital domain (ie Twitter, Linkedin, Facebook etc.) While Social Media networks can number in the tens of thousands, these are reflections of amplification (ie recipients of content copy) rather than sustainable complex relationships that help us to innovate and evolve. Dunbar suggests that our brains are capable of sustaining up to 150 complex relationships, and that resonates with my experience. It is close to the number of my first Linkedin community, which represented those I knew well enough to reach out when I needed help and advice. That number of first level mentors, counselors and friends has barely changed as my involvement with Social Media has increased. Some have moved to the periphery to make way for new contacts who exhibit the same or better value, but they are still only a fraction of my virtual communities.
As I recall, James Watson noted that individuals who are remarkably analytical and creative may have significant difficulty socializing in crowded rooms. They act out asocial patterns of behavour commonly associated with autistic individuals. Now, analytical minds are linked with greater social networking skills? Is the social butterfly actually the significant scientist in the room?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the aforementioned supposition were true it would mean that all celebrities who have a large following, ie: millions to mega-millions are the smartest and most intelligent persons on the planet with the largest pre-frontal cortex.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo does that mean persons such as Actor Tom Cruise, Entertainer Madonna or The Duchess of Cornwall might know it all and perhaps we should leave it them to make all of the important decisions about everything and anything?
It's true that we are more creative when we bounce ideas off of persons who spark our idea factory, but general "Network Friends" I don't believe fall into that category, nor do many regular friends either. Idealists are the the very thing that makes landing on Mars possible.
Maybe the papers author should get in touch with some of the NASA folks to cultivate that which produces something of substance.
@Petra - having many followers is not the same as having people in your social circle. For Tom Cruise, that would be the people he goes to parties with, directors and producers for movies he works on, etc. that he actually interacts with on a regular basis. Really famous people usually don't interact with their Facebook followers directly, they have an assistant for that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSomething not mentioned in the article above is time constraints. You only have a finite time per day to form and maintain active social contacts. Assuming a limit on multi-tasking, the more time you spend on that task, the less you have to do other things.
Another thing not mentioned is symmetry of social contacts. A charming person might convince you that you are part of their social circle, while from their standpoint you are just one of many contacts and not part of their "inner circle of friends". Thus social links do not have to be symmetric, they can be stronger in one direction than the other.
It is also quite possible that our ability to think creatively and innovate come from the safety and security we derive from having those social networks. So in a way, the social networks do impact our ability to think in abstract ways, just not necessarily in a direct fashion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because you understand other people doesn't mean you want to constantly be around other people. Perhaps the author should look at some of the studies on the brain chemistries of introverts vs extraverts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" Within the same study they gave each subject a psychological test of their social skills and what they found was that even if a subject had a larger orbital prefrontal cortex this didn’t necessarily correlate with larger social networks, it also needed the subjects to have developed certain psychological skills, particularly an ability to understand another person’s state of mind. This cognitive skill is called a “theory of mind,” and it is the ability to recognize that others have their own mental states, such as factual knowledge, emotions or beliefs, and that these can be different from our own."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this^This is the precipitous of the entire article, which is self-explanatory. Too much emphasis is being raised on an anti-theoretical harbinger level, then in truth, the simplicity of this main articles objective.
In theory, 1 person in my own social network can equal to 1000 of the same thing. It depends strictly on the nature of my ability to demonstrate myself thought, on a normative level of arousal.
The confusion arises, only because people are leading themselves to believe a quantitative approach to reasoning: that the size of ones social network somehow illustrates our brain element as fact. This of course is false. The qualitative aspect of our brains function is RELATIVE to the SIZE our brain IS to promote our own running medium to sociability as an end.
" Within the same study they gave each subject a psychological test of their social skills and what they found was that even if a subject had a larger orbital prefrontal cortex this didn’t necessarily correlate with larger social networks, it also needed the subjects to have developed certain psychological skills, particularly an ability to understand another person’s state of mind. This cognitive skill is called a “theory of mind,” and it is the ability to recognize that others have their own mental states, such as factual knowledge, emotions or beliefs, and that these can be different from our own."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this^This is the precipitous of the entire article, which is self-explanatory. Too much emphasis is being raised on an anti-theoretical harbinger level, then in truth, the simplicity of this main articles objective.
In theory, 1 person in my own social network can equal to 1000 of the same thing. It depends strictly on the nature of my ability to demonstrate myself thought, on a normative level of arousal.
The confusion arises, only because people are leading themselves to believe a quantitative approach to reasoning: that the size of ones social network somehow illustrates our brain element as fact. This of course is false. The qualitative aspect of our brains function is RELATIVE to the SIZE our brain IS to promote our own running medium to sociability as an end.
So my roommate was shoulder surfing and brought up an interesting question for this idea. How do you spose those outliers fit into this framework? By outliers I mean those people who just can't ever manage to remember having met you or those folk who can't seem to forget having met you-down to the date, activity, and weird details about you. So where do these folks fit? Are they just outliers? Are their prefrontal cortexes larger or more developed? What about their personal relationships? Do they form better/worse respectively bonds-are they better at Theory of Mind stuff?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am doing my science fair project over this topic. If you have a twitter and are age 14-22, please take the following survey:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.surveymonkey.com/s/b2hdchc
Thanks!