Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans
Dunbar sets out the social brain hypothesis in its fullest form. Group size covaries with relative neocortical volume in non-human primates, and the regression predicts a group size for modern humans similar to that found in hunter-gatherer and traditional horticulturalist societies, with comparable figures in other contemporary and historical societies. Non-human primates maintain group cohesion through social grooming, and among Old World monkeys and apes grooming time is linearly related to group size, so maintaining human-sized groups by grooming alone would make intolerable time demands. Dunbar therefore proposes that large human groups depended on a more efficient way of time-sharing social bonding, and that language uniquely fulfils that requirement. Data on the size of conversational groups accord with the predicted relative efficiency of conversation over grooming, and he notes that about sixty per cent of human conversation time is spent on relationships and personal experiences. This vault cites the paper for the argument, and records separately that the extrapolated number cannot be derived this way.
Dunbar sets out the social brain hypothesis in its fullest form. Group size covaries with relative neocortical volume in non-human primates, and the regression predicts a group size for modern humans similar to that found in hunter-gatherer and traditional horticulturalist societies, with comparable figures in other contemporary and historical societies. Non-human primates maintain group cohesion through social grooming, and among Old World monkeys and apes grooming time is linearly related to group size, so maintaining human-sized groups by grooming alone would make intolerable time demands. Dunbar therefore proposes that large human groups depended on a more efficient way of time-sharing social bonding, and that language uniquely fulfils that requirement. Data on the size of conversational groups accord with the predicted relative efficiency of conversation over grooming, and he notes that about sixty per cent of human conversation time is spent on relationships and personal experiences. This vault cites the paper for the argument, and records separately that the extrapolated number cannot be derived this way.
Written from the abstract, OpenAlex.
What our sources record
Reproduced as it was written when this source was checked, figures and all.
Group size covaries with relative neocortical volume in nonhuman primates; the regression predicts a human group size similar to hunter-gatherer and traditional horticulturalist societies; grooming time is linearly related to group size and maintaining human-sized groups by grooming alone would make intolerable time demands; language proposed as the more efficient bonding mechanism; about 60 per cent of human conversation time spent on relationships and personal experiences. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00032325
Where we use it
- How Many Friends You Can Actually Keep, Why We Gather
Reliability of this reference
The link below was matched against the publisher's record on title, first author and year, and all three agree.
The source
https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00032325
DOI: 10.1017/s0140525x00032325