The demographics of my LJ friends is rapidly evolving. It started as a way of keeping tabs on some people I like from the SPF when I stopped going there. Recently, I've been running into people from Igormud, which is another online community I've been part of for just over a decade now. As is the nature of such things, people come and go, just as in our real life circles. We mean to stay in continuing contact with those whose lives we take an interest in, but often fail to maintain it.

I'm delighted to have "rediscovered" an old friend from Igor, Leah / Catspaw / catwithclaws, even if her effusious memories - "He's got a very unique sense of wit as well as observations on life (and sex! his speciality! in a way I bet no one knew possible...hehe) that I always found refreshing and highly intelligent" - of me will be difficult to live up to. I dug out some letters, postcards and Xmas cards (she always sent these lovely dragon-themed Xmas cards) which she sent between '96-'98, after which we got busy RLs and resorted to the occasional email. More and more occasional as time went on (the latest gap in communication was entirely my fault for putting her email from 13 months ago aside for later response, and forgetting to do so).

In common with many of us, I suspect, she's been lamenting (insofar as a feisty redhead with an evil sense of humour can lament anything, at least >:D ) the number of people on her "missing / need to contact more" list. However, we should actually be aware of how well we're doing...

A few years ago, I attended a talk given by primatologist Robin Dunbar on the evolution of the social brain. I've previously written on several occasions to express my increasing disdain with much of the sociobiology / evolutionary psychology field, but the two shakers and movers in the field who stand out for me are Robin Dunbar and Geoffrey Miller (Stephen Jones isn't included as he's a pure geneticist).

A little human anthropology is in order here. Human encephalisation quotient, or brain-mass-to-body-size ratio, has undergone two sudden and significant jumps in the course of our evolutionary history. Our brains are much bigger, relative to our bodies, than those of our closest relatives. Previously this was thought to be because we needed better cognitive processing to deal with our changing environment, when our ancestors moved from a predominantly wooded habitat to colonise the savannah. However, as Dunbar has pointed out, this doesn't explain the continual increase in EQ, when other primates cope perfectly well with what they have. Evolution is an efficient tool, and natural selection wouldn't favour such superfluous waste of resources.

Dunbar's genius was to suggest that it wasn't the environment that drove our brains to evolve, but increased social complexity. Here I would inject Miller's work on the mating mind, which would further suggest that this drive was not for reasons of natural selection (survival) but for sexual selection (reproduction), and my own argument that (in)fidelity is the key issue... but I digress. Maybe another time.

From his data on primates, Dunbar showed that primates spend something like 20% of their waking time interacting with other members of the troop. In primates this is achieved by grooming, which helps to form and maintain bonds, placating those more dominant in the pecking order. Mammalian society is hierarchal, and every individual in a group needs to know where they are. This, naturally, limits the maximum size of the troop.

Humans have evolved a more efficient means of social interaction. Instead of grooming, we use conversation. While many psychologists and anthropologists think language evolved to enable information to be passed more effectively regarding environmental factors (food sources, danger, habitats), it remains the case that this kind of information can, and is, transmitted using less complex means in the animal kingdom (although some are possibly more complex, such as bees' wiggle-dance)... which brings up the question of why we are so good at language (Miller's work, Theory of Mind, and issues of [in]fidelity spring to mind) but once again, I'm digressing here.

Anyway, Dunbar did some research and concluded that our brains have enough cognitive processing power to keep tabs on a maximum about 150 individuals. That's everyone, from your family, to neighbours, work/school colleagues, friends, friends of friends, family of friends, your postman, local shopkeepers... it also explains why people in big cities are so impersonal. You could run into 150 people on your way to work - very possibly on a tube train carriage (the way they're crowded during rush hour, it wouldn't surprise me).

Quite aside from the reaction one would receive should an attempt be made to groom your postman for lice (although this is pretty much a social convention), we simply wouldn't have the time to form and maintain social bonds by means of grooming everyone - I think Dunbar suggested 40% of our waking time, which would be untenable in our ancestral environment. Thus, we converse*.

However, we still retain touch as a bonding mechanism for our nearest and dearest. This is most evident in parents and children, especially mothers with their babies, and between lovers. Although we no longer groom, a massage serves much the same bonding function, which is one reason why it's deemed an intimate experience (indeed, Caroline and I got together in part due to massages, and it played a part on subsequent occasions when we briefly rekindled the flame).

I've been mindful of Dunbar's Social Brain hypothesis ever since, and recommend his book on the Evolution of the Social Brain.

While I was going through the contents of a shoebox in which I keep my old letters, looking for those from Leah, I saw some from people with whom I have long lost touch - in several cases, I wrote to their last known address but never received a reply; in others, we just drifted apart until I can barely remember the person at all. A quick check of my email address book reveals that I have over 300 email addresses (with more than one entry for some, so probably ~250 individuals)... plus all the people I never email (mostly family, and many friends and acquaintances I chat with when I wander onto Igor), and those with whom I have a RL friendly familiarity, whether through regular and brief interactions (e.g. the reception desk officer at the place where I train kung fu twice a week) or due to shared interests / involvement (e.g. catching up with people from other centres at our quarterly gradings).

Most of us are probably in a similar boat, attempting to keep track of a couple of hundred people, when our brains can't really cope with that figure (nor our time, which is one reason why people drop out of sight when they enter couplehood; also one reason why people tend to date within current work/activity social circles, despite it being a bad idea). Hence tools like LJ are handy... let 'em look up what you're up to if they want, rather than your having to brief each person individually.

* Amusingly, he also had his researchers listen in on university students to find out what they were conversing about. Female students talked about academic work 10% of the time, whether they were with males or other female students. Male students only discussed work with other male students 5% of the time, but this jumped to 20% when there were female students present. As Dunbar pointed out by way of explanation: in an academic environment, your brain is your biggest asset :D

Tags: human mate selection / sociobiology
Current Mood: Woot!
Current Music: Rooster - "Staring at the Sun"