#dunbar's number | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

resourcefulsatan · 4 months ago

Text

This article is too good to be lost in the destroyed formatting of the Cracked archive, so I'm reposting it here. source: https://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

The Monkeysphere

September 30, 2007 Jason Pargin

"One death is a tragedy. One million deaths is a statistic."

-Kevin Federline

What do monkeys have to do with war, oppression, crime, racism and even e-mail spam? You'll see that all of the random ass-headed cruelty of the world will suddenly make perfect sense once we go Inside the Monkeysphere.

"What the Hell is the Monkeysphere?"

First, picture a monkey. A monkey dressed like a little pirate, if that helps you. We'll call him Slappy.

Imagine you have Slappy as a pet. Imagine a personality for him. Maybe you and he have little pirate monkey adventures and maybe even join up to fight crime. Think how sad you'd be if Slappy died.

Now, imagine you get four more monkeys. We'll call them Tito, Bubbles, Marcel and ShitTosser. Imagine personalities for each of them now. Maybe one is aggressive, one is affectionate, one is quiet, the other just throws shit all the time. But they're all your personal monkey friends.

Now imagine a hundred monkeys.

Not so easy now, is it? So how many monkeys would you have to own before you couldn't remember their names? At what point, in your mind, do your beloved pets become just a faceless sea of monkey? Even though each one is every bit the monkey Slappy was, there's a certain point where you will no longer really care if one of them dies.

So how many monkeys would it take before you stopped caring?

That's not a rhetorical question. We actually know the number.

"So this whole thing is your crusade against monkey overpopulation? I'll have my monkey castrated this very day!"

Uh, no. It'll become clear in a moment.

You see, monkey experts performed a monkey study a while back, and discovered that the size of the monkey's monkey brain determined the size of the monkey groups the monkeys formed. The bigger the brain, the bigger the little societies they built.

They cut up so many monkey brains, in fact, that they found they could actually take a brain they had never seen before and from it they could accurately predict what size tribes that species of creature formed.

Most monkeys operate in troupes of 50 or so. But somebody slipped them a slightly larger brain and they estimated the ideal group or society for this particular animal was about 150.

That brain, of course, was human. Probably from a homeless man they snatched off the streets.

"So that's the big news? That humans are God's big-budget sequel to the monkey? Who didn't know that?"

It goes much, much deeper than that. Let's try an example.

Famous news talking guy Tim Russert tells a charming story about his father, in his book Big Russ and Me (the title referring to his on-and-off romance with actor Russell Crowe). Russert's dad used to take half an hour to carefully box up any broken glass before taking it to the trash. Why? Because "The trash guy might cut his hands."

That this was such an unusual thing to do illustrates my monkey point. None of us spend much time worrying about the garbage man's welfare even though he performs a crucial role in not forcing us to live in a cave carved from a mountain of our own filth. We don't usually consider his safety or comfort at all and if we do, it's not in the same way we would worry over our best friend or wife or girlfriend or even our dog.

People toss half-full bottles of drain cleaner right into the barrel, without a second thought of what would happen if the trash man got it splattered into his eyes. Why? Because the trash guy exists outside the Monkeysphere.

"There's that word again..."

The Monkeysphere is the group of people who each of us, using our monkeyish brains, are able to conceptualize as people. If the monkey scientists are monkey right, it's physically impossible for this to be a number much larger than 150.

Most of us do not have room in our Monkeysphere for our friendly neighborhood sanitation worker. So, we don't think of him as a person. We think of him as The Thing That Makes The Trash Go Away.

And even if you happen to know and like your particular garbage man, at one point or another we all have limits to our sphere of monkey concern. It's the way our brains are built. We each have a certain circle of people who we think of as people, usually our own friends and family and neighbors, and then maybe some classmates or coworkers or church or suicide cult.

Those who exist outside that core group of a few dozen people are not people to us. They're sort of one-dimensional bit characters.

Remember the first time, as a kid, you met one of your school teachers outside the classroom? Maybe you saw old Miss Puckerson at Taco Bell eating refried beans through a straw, or saw your principal walking out of a dildo shop. Do you remember that surreal feeling you had when you saw these people actually had lives outside the classroom?

I mean, they're not people. They're teachers.

"So? What difference does all this make?"

Oh, not much. It's just the one single reason society doesn't work.

It's like this: which would upset you more, your best friend dying, or a dozen kids across town getting killed because their bus collided with a truck hauling killer bees? Which would hit you harder, your Mom dying, or seeing on the news that 15,000 people died in an earthquake in Iran?

They're all humans and they are all equally dead. But the closer to our Monkeysphere they are, the more it means to us. Just as your death won't mean anything to the Chinese or, for that matter, hardly anyone else more than 100 feet or so from where you're sitting right now.

"Why should I feel bad for them? I don't even know those people!"

Exactly. This is so ingrained that to even suggest you should feel their deaths as deeply as that of your best friend sounds a little ridiculous. We are hard-wired to have a drastic double standard for the people inside our Monkeysphere versus the 99.999% of the world's population who are on the outside.

Think about this the next time you get really pissed off in traffic, when you start throwing finger gestures and wedging your head out of the window to scream, "LEARN TO FUCKING DRIVE, FUCKER!!" Try to imagine acting like that in a smaller group. Like if you're standing in an elevator with two friends and a coworker, and the friend goes to hit a button and accidentally punches the wrong one. Would you lean over, your mouth two inches from her ear, and scream "LEARN TO OPERATE THE FUCKING ELEVATOR BUTTONS, SHITCAMEL!!"

They'd think you'd gone insane. We all go a little insane, though, when we get in a group larger than the Monkeysphere. That's why you get that weird feeling of anonymous invincibility when you're sitting in a large crowd, screaming curses at a football player you'd never dare say to his face.

"Well, I'm nice to strangers. Have you considered that maybe you're just an asshole?"

Sure, you probably don't go out of your way to be mean to strangers. You don't go out of your way to be mean to stray dogs, either.

The problem is that eventually, the needs of you or those within your Monkeysphere will require screwing someone outside it (even if that need is just venting some tension and anger via exaggerated insults). This is why most of us wouldn't dream of stealing money from the pocket of the old lady next door, but don't mind stealing cable, adding a shady exemption on our tax return, or quietly celebrating when they forget to charge us for something at the restaurant.

You may have a list of rationalizations long enough to circle the Earth, but the truth is that in our monkey brains the old woman next door is a human being while the cable company is a big, cold, faceless machine. That the company is, in reality, nothing but a group of people every bit as human as the old lady, or that some kind old ladies actually work there and would lose their jobs if enough cable were stolen, rarely occurs to us.

That's one of the ingenious things about the big-time religions, by the way. The old religious writers knew it was easier to put the screws to a stranger, so they taught us to get a personal idea of a God in our heads who says, "No matter who you hurt, you're really hurting me. Also, I can crush you like a grape." You must admit that if they weren't writing words inspired by the Almighty, they at least understood the Monkeysphere.

It's everywhere. Once you grasp the concept, you can see examples all around you. You'll walk the streets in a daze, like Roddy Piper after putting on his X-ray sunglasses in They Live.

But wait, because this gets much bigger and much, much stranger...

"So you're going to tell us that this Monkeysphere thing runs the whole world? Also, They Live sucked."

Go flip on the radio. Listen to the conservative talk about "The Government" as if it were some huge, lurking dragon ready to eat you and your paycheck whole. Never mind that the government is made up of people and that all of that money they take goes into the pockets of human beings. Talk radio's Rush Limbaugh is known to tip 50% at restaurants, but flies into a broadcast tirade if even half that dollar amount is deducted from his paycheck by "The Government." That's despite the fact that the money helps that very same single mom he had no problem tipping in her capacity as a waitress.

Now click over to a liberal show now, listen to them describe "Multinational Corporations" in the same diabolical terms, an evil black force that belches smoke and poisons water and enslaves humanity. Isn't it strange how, say, a lone man who carves and sells children's toys in his basement is a sweetheart who just loves bringing joy at Christmas, but a big-time toy corporation (which brings toys to millions of kids at Christmas) is an inhuman soul-grinding greed machine? Strangely enough, if the kindly lone toy making guy made enough toys and hired enough people and expanded to enough shops, we'd eventually stop seeing it as a toy-making shop and start seeing it as the fiery Orc factories of Mordor.

And if you've just thought, "Well, those talk show hosts are just a bunch of egomaniacal blowhards anyway," you've just done it again, turned real humans into two-word cartoon characters. It's no surprise, you do it with pretty much all six billion human beings outside the Monkeysphere.

"So I'm supposed to suddenly start worrying about six billion strangers? That's not even possible!"

That's right, it isn't possible. That's the point.

What is hard to understand is that it's also impossible for them to care about you.

That's why they don't mind stealing your stereo or vandalizing your house or cutting your wages or raising your taxes or bombing your office building or choking your computer with spam advertising diet and penis drugs they know don't work. You're outside their Monkeysphere. In their mind, you're just a vague shape with a pocket full of money for the taking.

Think of Osama Bin Laden. Did you just picture a camouflaged man hiding in a cave, drawing up suicide missions? Or are you thinking of a man who gets hungry and has a favorite food and who had a childhood crush on a girl and who has athlete's foot and chronic headaches and wakes up in the morning with a boner and loves volleyball?

Something in you, just now, probably was offended by that. You think there's an effort to build sympathy for the murderous fuck. Isn't it strange how simply knowing random human facts about him immediately tugs at your sympathy strings? He comes closer to your Monkeysphere, he takes on dimension.

Now, the cold truth is this Bin Laden is just as desperately in need of a bullet to the skull as the raving four-color caricature on some redneck's T-shirt. The key to understanding people like him, though, is realizing that we are the caricature on his T-shirt.

"So you're using monkeys to claim that we're all a bunch of Osama Bin Ladens?"

Sort of.

Listen to any 16 year-old kid with his first job, going on and on about how the boss is screwing him and the government is screwing him even more ("What's FICA?!?!" he screams as he looks at his first paycheck).

Then watch that same kid at work, as he drops a hamburger patty on the floor, picks it up, and slaps in on a bun and serves it to a customer.

In that one dropped burger he has everything he needs to understand those black-hearted politicians and corporate bosses. They see him in the exact same way he sees the customers lined up at the burger counter. Which is, just barely.

In both cases, for the guy making the burger and the guy running Exxon, getting through the workweek and collecting the paycheck are all that matters. No thought is given to the real human unhappiness being spread by doing it shittily (ever gotten so sick from food poisoning you thought your stomach lining was going to fly out of your mouth?) That many customers or employees just can't fit inside the Monkeysphere.

The kid will protest that he shouldn't have to care for the customers for minimum wage, but the truth is if a man doesn't feel sympathy for his fellow man at $6.00 an hour, he won't feel anything more at $600,000 a year.

Or, to look at it the other way, if we're allowed to be indifferent and even resentful to the masses for $6.00 an hour, just think of how angry some Pakistani man is allowed to be when he's making the equivalent of six dollars a week.

"You've used the word 'monkey' more than 50 times, but the same principle hardly applies. Humans have been to the moon. Let's see the monkeys do that."

It doesn't matter. It's just an issue of degree.

There's a reason why legendary monkeytician Charles Darwin and his assistant, Jeje (pronounced "heyhey") Santiago deduced that humans and chimps were evolutionary cousins. As sophisticated as we are (compare our advanced sewage treatment plants to the chimps' primitive technique of hurling the feces with their bare hands), the inescapable truth is we are just as limited by our mental hardware.

The primary difference is that monkeys are happy to stay in small groups and rarely interact with others outside their monkey gang. This is why they rarely go to war, though when they do it is widely thought to be hilarious. Humans, however, require cars and oil and quality manufactured goods by the fine folks at 3M and Japanese video games and worldwide internets and, most importantly, governments. All of these things take groups larger than 150 people to maintain effectively. Thus, we routinely find ourselves functioning in bunches larger than our primate brains are able to cope with.

This is where the problems begin. Like a fragile naked human pyramid, we are simultaneously supporting and resenting each other. We bitch out loud about our soul-sucking job as an anonymous face on an assembly line, while at the exact same time riding in a car that only an assembly line could have produced. It's a constant contradiction that has left us pissed off and joining informal wrestling clubs in basements.

This is why I think it was with a great burden of sadness that Darwin turned to his assistant and lamented, "Jeje, we're the monkeys."

"Oh, no you didn't."

If you think about it, our entire society has evolved around the limitations of the Monkeysphere. There is a reason why all of the really phat-ass nations with the biggest SUV's with the shiniest 22-inch rims all have some kind of representative democracy (where you vote for people to do the governing for you) and all of them are, to some degree, capitalist (where people actually get to buy property and keep some of what they earn).

A representative democracy allows a small group of people to make all of the decisions, while letting us common people feel like we're doing something by going to a polling place every couple of years and pulling a lever that, in reality, has about the same effect as the darkness knob on your toaster. We can simultaneously feel like we're in charge while being contained enough that we can't cause any real monkey mayhem once we fly into one of our screeching, arm-flapping monkey frenzies ("A woman showed her boob at the Super Bowl! We want a boob and football ban immediately!")

Conversely, some people in the distant past naively thought they could sit all of the millions of monkeys down and say, "Okay, everybody go pick the bananas, then bring them here, and we'll distribute them with a complex formula determining banana need! Now go gather bananas for the good of society!" For the monkeys it was a confused, comical, tree-humping disaster.

Later, a far more realistic man sat the monkeys down and said, "You want bananas? Each of you go get your own. I'm taking a nap." That man, of course, was German philosopher Hans Capitalism.

As long as everybody gets their own bananas and shares with the few in their Monkeysphere, the system will thrive even though nobody is even trying to make the system thrive. This is perhaps how Ayn Rand would have put it, had she not been such a hateful bitch.

Then, some time in the Third Century, French philosopher Pierre "Frenchy" LaFrench invented racism.

This was a way of simplifying the too-complex-for-monkeys world by imagining all people of a certain race as being the same person, thinking they all have the same attitudes and mannerisms and tastes in food and clothes and music. It sort of works, as long as we think of that person as being a good person ("Those Asians are so hard-working and precise and well-mannered!") but when we start seeing them as being one, giant, gaping asshole (the French, ironically) our monkey happiness again breaks down.

It's not all the French's fault. The truth is, all of these monkey management schemes only go so far. For instance, today one in four Americans has some kind of mental illness, usually depression. One in four. Watch a basketball game. The odds are at least two of those people on the floor are mentally ill. Look around your house; if everybody else there seems okay, it's you.

Is it any surprise? You turn on the news and see a whole special on the Obesity Epidemic. You've had this worry laid on your shoulders about millions of other people eating too much. What exactly are you supposed to do about the eating habits of 80 million people you don't even know? You've taken on the pork-laden burden of all these people outside the Monkeysphere and you now carry that useless weight of worry like, you know, some kind of animal on your back.

"So what exactly are we supposed to do about all this?"

First, train yourself to get suspicious every time you see simplicity. Any claim that the root of a problem is simple should be treated the same as a claim that the root of a problem is Bigfoot. Simplicity and Bigfoot are found in the real world with about the same frequency.

So reject binary thinking of "good vs. bad" or "us vs. them." Know problems cannot be solved with clever slogans and over-simplified step-by-step programs.

You can do that by following these simple steps. We like to call this plan the T.R.Y. plan:

First, TOTAL MORON. That is, accept the fact THAT YOU ARE ONE. We all are.

That really annoying person you know, the one who's always spouting bullshit, the person who always thinks they're right? Well, the odds are that for somebody else, you're that person. So take the amount you think you know, reduce it by 99.999%, and then you'll have an idea of how much you actually know regarding things outside your Monkeysphere.

Second, UNDERSTAND that there are no Supermonkeys. Just monkeys. Those guys on TV you see, giving the inspirational seminars, teaching you how to reach your potential and become rich and successful like them? You know how they made their money? By giving seminars. For the most part, the only thing they do well is convince others they do everything well.

No, the universal moron principal established in No. 1 above applies here, too. Don't pretend politicians are somehow supposed to be immune to all the backhanded fuckery we all do in our daily lives and don't laugh and point when the preacher gets caught on video snorting cocaine off a prostitute's ass. A good exercise is to picture your hero--whoever it is--passed out on his lawn, naked from the waist down. The odds are it's happened at some point. Even Gandhi may have had hotel rooms and dead hookers in his past.

And don't even think about ignoring advice from a moral teacher just because the source enjoys the ol' Colombian Nose Candy from time to time. We're all members of varying species of hypocrite (or did you tell them at the job interview that you once called in sick to spend a day leveling up on World of Warcraft?) Don't use your heroes' vices as an excuse to let yours run wild.

And finally, DON'T LET ANYBODY simplify it for you. The world cannot be made simple. Anyone who tries to paint a picture of the world in basic comic book colors is most likely trying to use you as a pawn.

So just remember: T-R-Y. Go forth and do likewise, gents. Copies of our book are available in the lobby.

David Wong is the editor of Cracked.com and the author of the dong-filled horror novel John Dies at the End.

#monkeysphere #david wong #jason pargin #dunbar's number #empathy #division #propaganda #cracked #cracked.com #monkey

0 notes

zarohk · 1 month ago

Text

And once again, conservatives telling on themselves when they reveal that without external imperatives to be good to the people around them, they would “act like a psychopath towards your neighbors.”

As Sir Terry Pratchett said (in the text it was the cause of his knighting), put into the mouth of a character who is explicitly supposed to be morally correct on as close to an objective level as possible, “personal isn’t the same as important.”

Of course, we are responsible to be decent to the people around us, but not acting decently or morally to those outside your daily interactions is a childlike sense of object impermanence. It is much easier to be reasonable and decent to those around you, because you only have to regulate your direct actions, while it takes more care to realize that you were affecting people who you don’t necessarily see or talk to, and should also be aware of how your life will affect theirs and act morally accordingly.

I would very directly say that assigning weight merely on proximity is in fact antithetical to the general concept of modern civilization, and indeed the organizing of large-scale human civilizations in general. It is only by using social technologies to advance beyond tribalism and surpass the limits of Dunbar's number that we manage to create the modern interconnected world that we live in.

And lest conservatives take issue with the very concept of bypassing Dunbar's number to care about people beyond your metaphorical line of sight, I would say that monarchy and Christianity are in fact an excellent examples of this social technology, using a single individual as an object of metonomy take care about all followers of a religion, or all members of estate by caring about the individual dictating its rules.

The reason I can tell that on some bone-deep and fundamental level I am temperamentally a liberal is that, like -

Even if all the wonky neo-trad arguments about the declining marriage rate and the collapse in church attendance/thick inherited community obligations and etc etc were entirely correct on the object level and (to the first approximation) everyone really would be happier and more fulfilled if we ended no-fault divorce and brought back shotgun weddings and arranged marriages -

My incredibly powerful visceral reaction is no, not worth it. The dissolution of all unchosen bonds is a terminal value to be pursued for its own sake. You are a citizen of a the world and a cousin to every living soul, all else is (should be) as fleeting and contingent as your passions and whims. Concessions to reality on this are purely temporary and pragmatic.

#social science #social technologies #social technology #Dunbar's number #moral weight #personal isn’t the same as important #captain carrot #discworld #gnu sir terry pratchett #terry pratchett

436 notes · View notes

kentjohnson91 · 6 days ago

Text

memes i made a few days ago:

24 notes · View notes

outcastpack · 2 years ago

Text

#teen wolf #theo raeken #thiam #liam dunbar #he killed people #but hes so cute with kitty #BABY NUMBERS COREY BABY NUMBERS #tw characters on twt #teen wolf incorrect quotes

225 notes · View notes

strahable · 1 year ago

Text

I loveeee LOVE loveeee how I got back into Teen Wolf for the sole purpose of being able to write Thiam fanfiction, because I was obsessively reading it.

Like it was Thiam for me. It was always Thiam. It was Thiam Thiam THIAM THIAM THIAM.

I ALSO love how Jeff Davis essentially crackshipped Malia and Scott into existence. I hate to admit I love him for it because I love Scalia, but I also hate him for it because Scalia... SCALIA was the crackship he made canon.

SCALIA.

Ohhhhh, but, ohhhhh, noooooo, THIAM was the line he SHAN'T cross. 💀

That man is not going up to the good place.

LOOK

AT THIS CHEMISTRY.

They weren't even a crackship, it's where the characters WANTED to go.

#teen wolf #theo raeken #thiam #liam dunbar #theo x liam #scalia #scott mccall #malia tate #that man is my number one enemy

154 notes · View notes

meteorologears · 2 months ago

Text

Okay so something I think about a lot but never talk about is Yossarian as an anti-Achilles figure. Either I read somewhere that this allusion was intentional (or I've just been obsessing over it in my own head throughout the last 4 years), but one of the main themes in the Iliad was the dichotomy between kleos and nostos. For context:

Kleos - the glory of a death in battle; fame and glory; maintaining immortality through the vestiges of success

Nostos - homecoming, the return home from a journey/event. Specifically: an epic return home, usually by sea, usually with lots of trials and tribulations.

With this established, I'd also like to note that in the Iliad (sorry, spoilers), Achilles has the choice between nostos or kleos. He's already swaying towards nostos, until Patroclus, his lover, is killed in battle. After this, Achilles gives up nostos completely and leads his men into battle, knowing he'll die.

In Yossarian's case, he's constantly forced towards kleos, and he's trying to get the hell away from it (thematically opposing Achilles, who is offered nostos and gives it up willingly). If you compare the chaplain to Patroclus, you see a similar anti-Patroclus perspective. The chaplain is never brave enough to go against his and Yossarian's superiors, never able to get Yossarian away from death in battle. This, of course, juxtaposes Patroclus' decision to lead men into battle, causing his death. Additionally, if you view Yossarian through the 'beloved' lens (this was a whole thing in Ancient Greek perspectives; I can elaborate on how the beloved/lover is discussed in Plato's Symposium in the comments if anyone's interested), he would be doing the least honorable imaginable thing (as contrasted to Achilles, also a 'beloved', who goes into battle for the sake of Patroclus). Whether intentional or not, Heller's subversion of both modern day and ancient war narratives does put Yossarian into an anti-Achilles position. In fact, part of it likely was conscious, especially given this particular line--although it's a baffling comparison, because it's completely inaccurate. Yossarian's behavior is the polar opposite to Achilles. Korn's reference is wrong.

In this way, where Achilles and Patroclus both received kleos, Yossarian and the chaplain are some of the only people in Catch-22 capable of nostos, although there would be no glory in their homecoming.

And!!!! To make another such comparison (actually this one I only thought of this week; kleos/nostos Yossarian has been on my mind for four years), Clevinger as an anti-Odysseus. Odysseus has the same cleverness as Clevinger, but Odysseus is significantly more adept at situational relations and understanding his place amongst others. They both have overconfidence; Clevinger's is misplaced and Odysseus's is not. But this is not about that. Thematically, Odysseus is the one who is capable of returning home, although it of course takes him copious amounts of time. He survives the Trojan War by his wits. Clevinger, meanwhile, lacks the wits and common sense to escape the war. While he doesn't dream for kleos, he's also not focused on his own survival in the way Odysseus is (comically, he's the complete opposite). His disappearance/death ensures that not only is he not capable of homecoming, but he also won't be lauded for success in battle.

Yossarian isn't particularly helped by him when he's alive, but the concept of Clevinger is omnipresent in Yossarian's life after his death. Where in the Trojan War, Odysseus would have advised Achilles, it's the lack of Clevinger which influences Yossarian (during Clevinger's life, he didn't particularly galvanize Yossarian into doing anything; he was unwise).

In conclusion, they all serve as anti-Homeric heroes, in what may have been intentional or unintentional parallels by Heller. I also do know that Heller was incredibly well-read (obviously, given the number of literary references), and I wouldn't be surprised if he did this on purpose. Yossarian as an anti-Achilles, the chaplain as an anti-Patroclus, and Clevinger as a would-be anti-Odysseus (this one is more debatable than the other two tbh). This of course means that the obvious Catch-22 sequel would be about nost--[gets nerfed by a sniper]

#catch 22 #actually the kleos/nostos thing has bothered me for a long time; i'm never not thinking about it #in fact a good number of my fics are directly about nostos (that's my favorite one of the two)#and what the characters would have to do to actually achieve their homecoming. since home is more than a physical place it's emotional also #i could go into the dunbar/anti-diomedes parallel too but this is getting long and that one is definitely more of a conjecture than these

11 notes · View notes

dentpx · 9 months ago

Text

im always literally so shocked when people are like "yeah i follow 200 people" "i follow 90...." i follow 2,433 accounts bc i will just slam the button over nothing. one piece of art i like? follow. good username? follow. nice icon + header + pinned post layout? follow. posted about zero escape once in the past 10 years? it could happen again. follow.

#like yknow i give everyone a cursory sniff. a little vibecheck. but besides that #my bar is sooooo low. my philosophy is “well i can always unfollow later”#this is why i have nooooooo social tolerance irl btw. my dunbar number is entirely fulfilled by tumblr mutuals #no way to live if we're gonna be honest #zoeposting

11 notes · View notes

yikeshereiam · 1 year ago

Text

Liam Dunbar in The McCall Way by yikeshereiam

“Y’know, as Captain, I don’t think you’re supposed to play favourites,” It’s Liam again. Jogging in circles around Theo like the un-injured, agile, cocky, young arsehole he is. Theo rolls his neck and tries to focus on anything but Liam's moving form. “Can’t handle not being in the spotlight?” Theo tries to shake him off, slipping back into formation to continue the drill. The attempt is futile, because Liam sticks to him like glue. That infuriating smirk fixed on his face. “I’m just saying I think you should be nicer to your star player, is all.” “You’re right,” Theo nods, and is pleasantly surprised when it makes Liam’s steps falter ever so slightly. Like he didn’t expect Theo to even really be listening. It gives Theo an opportunity to put some room between them, though Liam quickly begins to catch up. Theo decides to turn his attention back to the drill at hand and watches as Vernon gains possession of the ball, skillfully passing it off to Corey with just once glance in his direction. “I’ll make sure to apologise to Boyd later.” Liam huffs. “Prick.”

#thiam #teen wolf #theo raeken #liam dunbar #thiam fic #thiam fanfic #theo x liam #ted lasso au #imagine my surprise when it finally clicked in my brain that Liam even plays in the same number as jamie #tartt no.9 vs dunbar no.9 #no new chapter but a little mood board/character aesthetic for your troubles <3

27 notes · View notes

the-busy-ghost · 1 year ago

Text

I don't know why but my brain just constantly wants to conflate the most famous works of John Knox and Robert Kirk (two very different Church of Scotland ministers) and lately I've had to stop myself accidentally referring to 'The Monstrous Regiment of Elves, Fauns, and Fairies' which is a pain because I'm pretty sure that's also a mish-mash of at least two fantasy novels that I haven't read, and at the end of the day how the hell did we get here

#Of course the elves fauns and fairies bit is really Andrew Lang #And I would be able to avoid this mistake if I added the 'First Blast of the Trumpet' bit to the other title as that would remind me #But one of these days I'm going to fuck up and refer to one or both books publicly like that #And look like an absolute fool #It just rolls off the tongue before you can stop it #It was bad enough when we had two Gavin Dunbars and a Gavin Douglas and a William Dunbar knocking around #The number of times I've called Gavin Douglas Gavin Dunbar by mistake I swear to god

14 notes · View notes

planetabio · 11 months ago

Text

Até 150 relações significativas!

Você já ouviu falar no "número de Dunbar"? Bem, nem todos conhecem! Mas provavelmente muitos conhecem a anedota "quantidade é inversamente proporcional à qualidade", não é?

O número de Dunbar é a hipótese proposta pelo antropólogo e psicólogo evolutivo britânico Robin Dunbar, que defende que o cérebro humano, selecionado ao longo da evolução, consegue estabelecer um número limite de relacionamentos significativos com outras pessoas. Esse número gira em torno de 150.

Até 150 relações significativas! Até 150 pessoas realmente importantes!

Passou desse número, nosso cérebro tem dificuldade de "processar" respostas emocionais e vínculos afetivos realmente significativos. Será?

De onde Dunbar tirou o número "150"?

Bem, da ciência!

A hipótese formulada por Dunbar sobre o tal "número de Dunbar" baseou-se em uma possível relação entre o tamanho do neocórtex humano e dos primatas em geral (região cerebral ligada à cognição e linguagem) com o tamanho médio dos grupos sociais em que vivem os primatas. O cerne central dessa relação parece ser bem lógica e direta: "primatas com neocórtex maior tendem a viver em grupos sociais maiores".

Ao extrapolar essas observações para os seres humanos, Dunbar sugeriu que, com base no tamanho médio do neocórtex humano, o número máximo de relacionamentos sociais estáveis que uma pessoa pode manter é de cerca de 150.

Dunbar também levou em consideração vários outros fatores, entre eles o comportamento social de 38 gêneros diferentes de primatas e as organizações sociais humanas desde de o período Neolítico. Considerou evidências antropológicas e históricas sobre as diversas estruturas de grupos sociais em comunidades humanas e observou padrões em relação ao tamanho médio desses grupos.

Robin Dunbar é Atualmente é chefe do Grupo de Pesquisa em Neurociência Social e Evolutiva do Departamento de Psicologia Experimental da Universidade de Oxford.

Segundo o cientista britânico, em muitas sociedades humanas, as comunidades costumavam se organizar em grupos de até aproximadamente 150 pessoas para realizar trabalhos importantes. Ele encontrou evidências históricas de tais estruturas sociais em tribos, clãs, comunidades religiosas e outros grupos humanos. Essas observações históricas e antropológicas forneceram suporte adicional a sua hipótese de que há um limite cognitivo para o número de relacionamentos sociais significativos que um indivíduo pode manter.

Bem, mas talvez você esteja se perguntando: "e se uma pessoa vive em comunidades constituídas por mais de 150 pessoas"?

Então! Segundo Dunbar, há implicações significativas para as pessoas que convivem em grupos maiores que 150 pessoas. Ele sugeriu que, à medida que os grupos sociais crescem além desse limite, poderão surgir desafios no gerenciamento de relacionamentos significativos, entre eles:

1-Dificuldade de Manter Relacionamentos Próximos: à medida que os grupos sociais se tornam muito grandes, as interações e relações pessoais tendem a se tornar mais superficiais. Manter relacionamentos profundos e significativos com um grande número de pessoas torna-se cada vez mais desafiador.

2-Complexidade na Comunicação e Coordenação: grupos muito grandes podem enfrentar dificuldades na comunicação eficaz e na coordenação de atividades. Dunbar sugere que a capacidade de manter um consenso e uma coesão eficientes torna-se mais difícil à medida que o grupo cresce.

3-Dificuldade em Manter a Cooperação Social: a cooperação social eficaz pode ser mais difícil em grupos muito grandes. Dunbar aponta que a confiança e a cooperação são fundamentais para o funcionamento harmonioso de grupos sociais, e esses aspectos podem ser comprometidos em comunidades muito extensas.

4-Desafios na Manutenção de uma Identidade de Grupo Forte: grupos sociais menores podem ser mais eficientes na promoção de uma identidade coletiva e de um sentido de pertencimento. Em grupos muito grandes, a coesão e a identidade compartilhada podem ser mais difíceis de manter.

Dunbar idealizou "círculos hierárquicos" para as relações humanas. O círculo mais restrito tem apenas 5 pessoas, geralmente entes queridos. Depois, seguem as outras camadas circulares sucessivas de relacionamento na seguinte ordem hierárquica de significância: "15 bons amigos", "50 amigos", "150 contatos significativos", "500 conhecidos" e "1.500 pessoas com algum reconhecimento". As pessoas podem migrar para dentro e para fora destas camadas, mas a ideia é que seja necessário criar espaço para quaisquer novos participantes.

Mas muita calma nessa hora!

Embora a hipótese de Dunbar forneça uma perspectiva interessante sobre a dinâmica dos grupos sociais e de suas limitações cognitivas baseadas em evidências científicas, a maioria dos especialistas diz que o número "150" é uma generalização, pois a capacidade de gerenciar grupos sociais varia de pessoa para pessoa e de cultura para cultura.

As Redes Sociais

Dunbar, assim como outros cientistas, chamaram a atenção para as implicações da hipótese de Dumbar não só para as relações humanas do mundo físico, mas também no "universo virtual", aquele das redes sociais.

Em plataformas de redes sociais online, tais como Facebook, Twitter e outras, as pessoas muitas vezes têm uma quantidade muito maior de "amigos" ou "seguidores" do que seria possível manter como relacionamentos significativos na vida offline, na vida real. Muitas dessas conexões online tendem a ser mais superficiais.

Ora, claro que as redes socias fizeram uma verdadeira revolução nas comunicação, mas não necessariamente na "qualidade" dos relacionamentos humanos. Na verdade, segundo muitos especialistas em comportamento humano, na prática as redes sociais transformaram a comunicação e a interações humanas mais superficiais.

Embora a hipótese de Dunbar não tenha sido desenvolvida especificamente para explicar as dinâmicas das redes sociais online, muitos pesquisadores e observadores exploraram sua aplicação a esses contextos, fornecendo insights sobre como as pessoas interagem e mantêm relacionamentos em ambientes digitais.

Segundo Dunbar, as redes sociais trazem novos seguidores localizados em novos círculos hierárquicos de relacionamento mais distantes daquelas primeiras camadas mais essenciais que contemplam os 150 relacionamentos. Maior parte dos seguidores não representa um relacionamento próximo e significativo.

No universo online, as "relações cara a cara", as informações sensoriais não verbais, tais como o olhar, o cheiro, o calor, a expressão facial e a linguagem corporal inexistem. O cérebro primata foi concebido evolutivamente para estabelecer algum vínculo afetivo significativamente importante por meio dessa aparelhagem sensorial. " Quando precisamos de um amigo, é extremamente difícil chorar em um ombro virtual", disse Dunbar.

A Superpopulação Mundial e a Hipótese de Dunbar

Vivemos um "boom" populacional humano; 8 bilhões de pessoas vivendo na Terra. Estima-se que cerca de 5 bilhões têm acesso à internet. Falar sobre como toda essa gente impacta os recursos naturais do planeta geraria uma outra longa postagem aqui no tumblr, mas vamos focar apenas nas relações humanas desse "mundaréu de gente". Afinal, existem muitos estudos científicos que relacionam diversos distúrbios de saúde física e mental com a elevada densidade populacional, dependendo do contexto cultural e das condições socioeconômicas.

Alguns estudos sugerem que a superpopulação em áreas urbanas densamente povoadas pode estar associada aos níveis elevados de estresse, ansiedade e transtornos do humor. A falta de espaço, privacidade e uma maior exposição a estímulos urbanos podem contribuir para esses efeitos. Vale ressaltar que em ambientes densamente povoados, a disseminação de doenças infecciosas é muito maior também

Quando aplicamos a hipótese de Dunbar a ambientes altamente povoados, como grandes cidades ou áreas urbanas densamente habitadas, surgem reflexões importantes sobre como as pessoas gerenciam seus relacionamentos em meio a uma grande variedade de rostos e interações diárias.

Em São Paulo, em Nova York, na Cidade do México, em Tóquio, assim como outros grande centros urbanos, temos milhões de pessoas compartilhando os mesmos espaços , e as interações diárias podem envolver uma diversidade de faces desconhecidas. Nesse contexto, a hipótese de Dunbar nos leva a refletir sobre as possíveis consequências desse excesso de estímulos sociais.

Ora, sejamos honestos! Em ambientes altamente povoados, maior parte dos relacionamentos tende a se tornar superficial. À medida que o número de interações aumenta, a profundidade emocional de cada conexão pode diminuir, tornando desafiador cultivar relações verdadeiramente íntimas. A abundância de rostos e interações em ambientes urbanos pode levar à fadiga social. O cérebro humano pode enfrentar dificuldades em processar e assimilar um grande volume de informações sociais, levando a uma sensação de sobrecarga e exaustão social.

A coesão social em ambientes altamente povoados é muito mais difícil. Manter um senso de comunidade e identidade coletiva nesse contexto pode ser prejudicado quando o número de interações ultrapassa a capacidade do cérebro humano em gerenciar relações profundas e significativas. Isso ai é "dois palitos" para que as cidades densamente povoadas se tornem uma "bomba relógio" de cidadãos que sofrem de depressão, ansiedade ou outros transtornos.

Talvez um dos grande desafios dos novos tempos, principalmente nas comunidades densamente povoadas, seja construir tanto no mundo offline como no mundo online relações humanas realmente significativas, para que nós não percamos a essência que nos torna realmente felizes e dotados de saúde física e mental.