Humans, Reasoning, Philosophy, Politics, Evolutionary Quirks and more.

How many friends does one person need?

Dunbars number and other evolutionary quirks.

by Robin Dunbar.

Amazon review: 4 stars.

We are the product of our evolutionary history, according to professor (of evolutionary anthropology at Oxford University) Robin Dunbar. According to Dunbar, the evidence is everywhere: From the way we socially interact (Grooming, laughter, music and language), to the way our minds are actually build and onwards to the way our minds are capable of reflecting about the world. There is an evolutionary hand in it everywhere. The book is a delightful and fascinating read, sharing insights from many fields, but always with a focus on evolutionary biology.

E.g.

Grooming comes in many forms, it is not just about removing fleas. It is about intimacy, it creates a sense of wellbeing and relaxed connectedness. It has to do with endorphins. Indeed, mental stress and low-level pain is dealt with by the endorphin system. Physical stimulation of the skin triggers the release of endorphins in the brain. Endorphins are part of the body's pain control system. Where pain thresholds are much higher if endorphins are released in the brain. It turns out that laughter is also an extremely effective releaser of endorphins. If you have just laughed a lot, then you have an elevated pain threshold afterwards [p. 69]. Laughter really is a medicine. Music also triggers the release of endorphins. And, music also gives us a sense of wellbeing, contentednes, belonging and groupishness that is so important in the process of social bonding [p. 72] (Producing music - obviously - also has a sexual selection component, but this doesn't take away from other functions). And there is more grooming.... Language is obviously also a sort of grooming: ''I find you interesting enough to waste time talking to'' (and then of course you can even exchange information with language).
Grooming is important, because it helps us build the protective cliques that are so important in an uncertain world. And sure, evolution might have engineered various mechanisms that rewards building good social relationships. Still, maintaining relationships is costly in cognitive terms. And Dunbars number tells us that there is a cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.

Grooming helps us survive both as individuals and as groups. And sex selects the desirable traits. Even though sex is a highly complex process... and, indeed, sex can be pretty confusing (...True, it is all about X and Y chromosomes. XX gives a girl. XY gives a boy. But accidents of genetics can give many other combinations: XXY, XXYY, XXXYY, XYY - and sure, most of these chromosome types are associated with serious disabilities and abnormalities, and most are rare. But they are out there. And it gets weirder. In turtles and crocodiles your sex depends on the temperature of the nest in which you were incubated as an egg. In some coral reef fish - everyone begins life as females, but if there is no male, the dominant female undergoes a metamorphosis and turns into a male [p. 98] ...).

But, somehow, traits are passed down to the next generation. According to Dunbar, not in the simple ways you might expect. Indeed, we are not a random mosaic of bits inherited from our parents: It is not as random as we might think. It is not just: Half the population would inherit a particular trait from their fathers, and the rest would inherit from their mothers. According to Dunbar, it is a bit more complex. Instead, some bits are always inherited from the father, others always from the mother. And things gets very interesting in the brain. Dunbar quotes Barry Keverne and Rob Barton for a theory, where females have won the battle over control over (inheritance of) the neocortex, because social skills (which the neocortex controls) are more valuable to them, whereas males have won the battle over who controls the limbic system (manage fight or flight circuitry), because it pays not to think too much about what you are doing, if you get into a fight (The risk of injury or death is something the neocortex might come up with, but in games where second best means death, such cautious considerations are not helpful). The evolutionary battle of the sexes ends up being about control over the bits of the brain, though it is still something of a mystery as to how this is brought about [p. 15 - 17].

Still, the process is evolutionary and it works rather fast. Think about polar bears! Now, they might be snow white. But, remember that evolution changes things fast. According to Dunbar, it has taken only ten thousand years to produce the snow white bear from its common ancestor with other brown bears (Well, Wikipedia says the polar bear diverged from the brown bear, Ursus arctos, roughly 150,000 years [1] ago). Indeed, everything is quite new. Just consider humans. Some 100.000 years ago we lived in a world with many other species from the homo family. The last Neanderthals died out some 28.000 years ago, The last Homo Erectus hominids died out some 60.000 years ago [2]. And on Flores, Indonesia, a dimunitive member of the Homo Erectus family survived until as recently as 12.000 years ago. In Africa we were all black and as we travelled north we became white (It is not possible to travel so far south that it will make you white, but the Sand Bushmen of the Kalahari are certainly not as black as people from further north, like the Zulus, who arrived in souther Africa only a few hundred years ago).

In humans the game is all about giving us these spectacular minds that can do all of these amazing things, like reflecting on someone else's mind. Intentionality is Robin Dunbars word for our capacity to reflect on the contents of minds. As reflected in the use of verbs like suppose, think, believe etc. This is first-order intentionality. And most mammels probably falls into this category.If you are capable of reflecting on someone else's mind state (I suppose that you believe) this is a second order intentionality. The stage children arrive at age 5, when they first acquire a theory of mind. Adult humans can aspire to fifth-order intentionality, but this represents an upper boundary for most people: I suppose [1] that you believe [2] that I want [3] you to think [4] that I intend [5] . Intentionality provides us with a way for scaling cognitive abilities. And it turns out that these capacities are a linear function of the relative size of the frontal lobe of the brain.

Shakespeare was really good at this mind stuff. In Othello: Iago intends that Othello should believe that Desdemona loves Cassio and Cassio loves her. I.e. Shakespeare intends that the audience believe that Iago wants Othello to suppose that Desdemona loves Cassio and he in turn loves her. Which adds up to a six-order intentionality. Not only must Shakespeare handle this, but he is also pushing the audience to their limits forcing them to work at fifth-order intentionality. Obviously, a chimpanzee with cognitive limits set at second order intentionality could not have written Othello. And chimpanzees don't play ps3 games like Drakes Deception ! :-)

According to Dunbar, a lot comes from our spectacular minds. Take religion: Religion is also a complex cognitive structure. The system can only work if I believe that you suppose that there is a higher being who understands that you and I wish something will happen (intervention of some sort?). Thats a fourth order system just for starters, and to understand the system you quickly need fifth-order abilities. Indeed, religion is dependent on social cognitive abilities at the very limits of human capabilities. The benefits of religions are nevertheless obvious: Religion a) Gives us a system (flawed, as sometimes it doesnt work) to predict the future b) Make us feel better about life c) Help us set up a moral code to keep social order. And d) Gives individuals a sense of belonging (to group and community), which creates stronger groups and communities.

We have come a long way: Homo Erectus had a skull size (two million years ago) so he could work out third order intentionality (E.g. : ''I believe that God wants us to act with righteous intent'', i.e. personal religion). But social religion with its fourth-order intentionality comes later (some 500.000 years ago), according to Robin Dunbar. And fifth order intentionality religion only with modern humans some 200.000 years ago. And who knows what the future will bring!?

-Simon

Simon Laub
www.simonlaub.net

Do they think you're stupid?

100 ways of spotting spin and nonsense from the media, pundits and politicians.

by Julian Baggini.

Amazon review: 3 stars.

Faulty reasoning, spin and tricksy arguments are used around us all the time. Listing some 100 examples, Julian Bagginis book gives us some much needed tools to cut through some of the rhetorical tricks used to influence our thoughts.

Mood music. If you can't win the argument then ask (silly) questions, where noone can disagree. You might not have argued anything, but you might win votes by setting a mood. In Julian Bagginis words: ''Whats wrong with a little discipline in Schools?'' Why, nothing of course. ''Why can't politicians be more accountable?' Good question!

Flatter people. Flatter works! Flatter your audience and you win the argument!? Politicians say that they trust your wise judgement (while their opponents thinks you are too dumb to make important life-choices for yourself). Pop singers are always happy to come to the middle of nowhere, because ''they love people there'' - which always gets a huge cheer.

Appeal to loyalty. Is obviously a problem. As Julian Baggini points out: The main problem with appeals to loyalty - whether national, familial, tribal or other - is that they bypass any serious discussion of the merits of the case.

Freedom. Is something everybody likes. Surely, no one ever stood on a platform of reduced freedom for all. Still most people want governments to provide health and education services, redistribute wealth in some degree and regulate many areas of public life. So, when something can't be done, because ''it is a free country'' - then well, it isn't a completely free country....

Cui bono? Who benefits? The belief that cui bono is a question that leads directly to truth gives some bizarre conclusions. Julian Baggini gives us the following wonderful example: Over the past twenty years, the average circle of close friends has shrunk by a third. Which made one Carol Sarler reach the conclusion: The monstrously expanding counselling trade benefits for encouraging us to talk to shrinks rather than our friends, and ...

Framing a debate. The classic question ''When did you stop beating your wife'' lets us ask one thing, and assume another. By assuming something that has not been established the debate is framed. We should look out for such statements: Why is the government destroying the BBC? How much freedom should we be prepared to sacrifice for our freedom?

People don't want to believe terrible things: We cannot bear very much reality. And we dont want to believe terrible things. Which leads us into all sorts of selfdeceptions. Which is why there is never any shortage of people willing to tell us that someone charged with a crime could never have done it. Again, flatter wins the argument - nothing bad here!

Psychology over logic. We are motivated more by psychology than logic. If you don't vote in an election, you are calculating that the benefit the result will bring multiplied by the probability that your vote will change the outcome - is smaller than the effort to go to the polling station. Thats actually very rational! But as a society we prefer the story that every little bit of effort really makes all the difference. Don't be to logical if you want to win an argument....

Quality, not quantity counts. Dozens of pieces of evidence with low probability pointing to some outcome doesn't add up to make it a certainty..... Yet, people try to persuade us by lining up lists of very unlikely bits of evidence that they think should make us reach some faulty conclusion ....

What's it all about?

Philosophy and the meaning of life.

by Julian Baggini.

Amazon review: 4 stars.