Pranam DUNBAR’S NUMBER THEORY
Theory extracted*: “The group size identified by this relationship appears to refer to the maximum number of individuals with whom an animal can maintain social relationships by personal contact*. It is not necessary that all these individuals live in the same physical group: chimpanzees (among a number of other species) have a fission/fusion form of social system in which at any one time the community (the group in the sense defined above) is divided into a number temporary foraging parties whose composition changes repeatedly (see for example Wrangham 1986). Nor does it follow that a species' social system consists only of a single type of group: it is now clear that most primate species live in complex multi-tiered social systems in which different layers are functional responses to different environmental problems (e.g. the gelada and hamadryas baboons: see Dunbar 1988, 1989a). Rather, the neocortical constraint seems to be on the number of relationships that an animal can keep track of in a complex, continuously changing social world: the function subserved by that level of grouping will depend on the individual species' ecological and social context. It is important to appreciate that the causal relationship between group size and neocortex size depends on the explanatory perspective (or level) adopted. In evolutionary terms, the size of a species' neocortex is set by the range of group size required by the habitat(s) in which it typically lives. However, seen in proximate terms from an individual animal's point of view, current neocortex size sets a limit on the number of relationships that it can maintain through time, and hence limits the maximum size of its group. This means that although the evolution of neocortex size is driven by the ecological factors that select for group size, we can use the relationship in reverse to predict group sizes for living species (Dunbar 1992a). It is generally accepted that the cohesion of primate groups is maintained through time by social grooming (see Dunbar 1988). Social grooming is used both to establish and to service those friendships and coalitions that give primate groups their unique structure. As might be anticipated, the amount of time devoted to social grooming correlates well with group size, notably among the catarrhine primates (Old World monkeys and apes) (Dunbar 1991). However, the relationship between group size and time devoted to grooming appears to be a consequence of the intensity with which a small number of key "friendships" (the primary network) is serviced rather than to the total number of individuals in the group (Dunbar 1991; Kudo et al, in preparation). These primary networks function as coalitions whose primary purpose is to buffer their Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size and language in humans members against harassment by the other members of the group. The larger the group, the more harassment and stress an individual faces (see for example Dunbar 1988) and the more important those coalitions are. It seems that a coalition's effectiveness (in the sense of its members' willingness to come to each other's aid) is directly related to the amount of time its members spend grooming each other (see Cheney & Seyfarth 1984, Dunbar 1984). Hence, the larger the group, the more time individuals devote to grooming with the members of their coalitionary clique. The mean size of the primary network is, however, related to the mean group size for the species. This suggests that groups are built up by welding together sets of smaller primary networks (see also Cheney 1992) and that the total size of the group is ultimately limited not by the number of networks that can be welded together but rather by the size of the networks themselves.” 2 Now this theory was proved to be wrong by another rezsearch as nimbers were chosen on the convenients data helping the conclusions. The research oppiosite said Dunbar was wrong,” A team of researchers recalculated Dunbar's number using his original methods and better data. Their estimates were as high as 520 and were stretched over a wide enough range as to be nearly useless. The authors suggest that the method used to calculate the number of friends a person can have is also theoretically unsound.”. It’s also probably wrong. Despite its fame, Dunbar’s number has always been controversial. A newstudy <https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0158> out of Sweden and published in the journal *Biology Letters* <https://royalsocietypublishing.org/journal/rsbl> suggests it might be both theoretically and empirically unsound <https://su.se/ce/about-us/news/dunbar-s-number-deconstructed-you-can-have-more-than-150-friends-1.554176>. The point of this study isn’t to replace Dunbar’s number but to dismiss the notion that such a number can be determined in the first place. “Dunbar’s assumption that the evolution of human brain physiology corresponds with a limit in our capacity to maintain relationships ignores the cultural mechanisms, practices, and social structures that humans develop to counter potential deficiencies” “It is our hope, though perhaps futile, that this study will put an end to the use of ‘Dunbar’s number’ within science and in popular media. ‘Dunbar’s number’ is a concept with limited theoretical foundation lacking empirical support.” 3 In the Rig Veda, every *deva* (deity) is praised and worshiped as a friend. Deities are mutual friends of one another. In turn, the worshiper is also referred to as a friend of the deity. Every person following the *vaidika dharma* is a friend. 1. RV 1.4.10: *Indra* praised as a friend (*sakhA*) of the worshiper, easy of access and giver of prosperity: “यो रायोऽवनिर्महान्त्सुपारः सुन्वतः सखा । तस्मा इन्द्राय गायत ॥” 2. RV 1.22.19: *Vishnu* is called the inseparable friend of Indra: “विष्णोः कर्माणि पश्यत यतो व्रतानि पस्पशे । इन्द्रस्य युज्यः सखा ॥” 3. RV 1.26.3: *Agni* is praised as the best father, best relative, best friend who never holds back from doing what is in our best interest: “आ हि ष्मा सूनवे पितापिर्यजत्यापये । सखा सख्ये वरेण्यः ॥” 4. RV 1.91.8: *Soma* is praised as a friend under whose protection the worshiper never comes to harm: “त्वं नः सोम विश्वतो रक्षा राजन्नघायतः । न रिष्येत् त्वावतः सखा ॥” 5. RV 1.164.20: The famous philosophical verse describes two birds of beautiful plumage who are inseparable friends sitting on the same branch of a tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, while the other gazes at its friend without eating. This verse has been interpreted in different ways by different philosophers to teach the relationship of the individual self with the universal self: “द्वा सुपर्णा सयुजा सखाया समानं वृक्षं परिषस्वजाते । तयोरन्यः पिप्पलं स्वाद्वत्त्यनश्नन्नन्यो अभिचाकशीति ॥” 6. RV 1.170.3: *Indra* says jokingly to the sage *Agastya* that the latter being a friend is still not acting like a friend by making generous oblations. Indra feels slighted by Agastya, who later responds that he does give generously: “किं नो भ्रातरगस्त्य सखा सन्नति मन्यसे । विद्मा हि ते तथा मनोऽस्मभ्यमिन्न दित्ससि ॥” In the Bhagavad Gita chapter 11, after Arjuna is overwhelmed by the universal divine form, mesmerizing and terrifying at the same time, he begs Krishna to return to his calm, gently human form. And then still realizing that Krishna is no ordinary human, Arjuna begs forgiveness for the casual way in which he behaved with Krishna. He says (11.41): “सखेति मत्वा प्रसभं यदुक्तं हे कृष्ण हे यादव हे सखेति । अजानता महिमानं तवेदं मया प्रमादात्प्रणयेन वापि ॥” “Anything I may have said to you casually or rudely thinking you were only my friend, calling you ‘hey Krishna’, ‘hey Yadava’, ‘hey buddy’. These things I only said not knowing your this greatness, out of carelessness or affection for you.” Further he says (11.42): “यच्चावहासार्थमसत्कृतोऽसि विहारशय्यासनभोजनेषु । एकोऽथ वाप्यच्युत तत्समक्षं तत्क्षामये त्वामहमप्रमेयम् ॥” “Whatever disrespect I may have unknowingly done to you as a joke, during parties (or picnics), sleep, while sitting or during meals, you ought to please forgive and bear with me.” Then he says (11.44): “तस्मात्प्रणम्य प्रणिधाय कायं प्रसादये त्वामहमीशमीड्यं । पितेव पुत्रस्य सखेव सख्युः प्रियः प्रियायार्हसि देव सोढुम् ॥” “Hence, I bow down with bent body, and beseech your favor. As a father bears with his son, as a friend is kind to his friend, as a lover is forgiving of his lover, you too ought to bear with me!” These verses show the deep and intimate nature of friendship in ancient India. 4 The Panchatantra and Jataka tales mention several stories about friendship and wisdom. While there are many characters mentioned in the scriptures - Ramayana and Mahabharata exemplify friendship setting the highest standards and examples. As per our scriptures friendship has been something beyond connecting with other persons, it has always been stories of sacrifice, love and unselfishness. Particularly can be viewed widely the friendship of Rama and Sugreeva, Krishna Arjuna, Krishna-Sudhama and Karna- Duryodhana. 5 So what is friendship in our scriptures? *na kaścit kasyacin mitraṃ na kaścit kasyacid ripuḥ | kāraṇād eva jāyante mitrāṇi ripavastathā *|| [*vyavahāreṇa jāyante mitrāṇi ripavastathā *] || No one is a natural friend or a natural enemy, it is through some cause alone that one becomes a friend and another an enemy. [it is through behaviour alone that enmity and friendship are formed] Next the definition of the term for friend “mitra” — *śoka trāṇaṃ bhaya trāṇaṃ prīti viśvāsa bhājanam | kena ratnam idam mitram jātyakṣara dvayam *|| The two syllable mi-tram signify solace in sorrow, freedom from fear, and it is the vessel of love and confidence, by whom was this precious jewel of friendship created? Then the characteristics of friendship:– *ahitāt pratiṣedhaśca hite ca anu-pravartanam | vyasane ca aparityāgaḥ trividhaṃ mitra lakṣaṇam* || The threefold character of friendship is (1) to restrain one from what is unprofitable, (2) to encourage one in what is profitable and (3) to stand by one in adversity. The Mahabharata Udyoga Parva chapter 45 verse 12 gives the six indication of friendship:– *sauhṛde vai ṣaḍ guṇā veditavyāḥ priye hṛṣyantya priye ca vyathante | syād ātmanaḥ suciraṃ yācate yo dadātyayācyamapi deyaṃ khalu syāt | iṣṭān putrān vibhavān svāṃśca dārānabhyarthitaścārhati śuddha-bhāvaḥ || tyakta dravyaḥ saṃvasenneha kāmād bhuṅkte karma svāśiṣaṃ bādhate ca* || Friendship is said to possess six indications; 1. firstly friends delight in the prosperity of friends, and 2. secondly, are distressed at their adversity. 3. If any one asks for anything which is dear to his heart, but which should not be asked for, a true friend surely gives away even that. 4. Fourthly, a true friend who is of a righteous disposition, when asked, can give away his very prosperity, his beloved children, and even his own spouse. (Figuratively not literally !!!) 5. Fifthly, a friend should not dwell in the house of a friend, on whom he may have bestowed everything, but should enjoy what he earns himself. 6. Sixth a friend does not hesitate to sacrifice his own good for his friend. *āture vyasane prāpte, dur-bhikṣe śatru-saṅkaṭe rājā-dvāre śmaśāne ca yas tiṣṭhati sa bāndhavaḥ* || A true friend is one who stands by, in sickness, in misfortune, in famine and when threatened by enemies, at the gate of the King, and in the cremation ground. 6 What tiruvalluvar said” *உடுக்கை* *இழந்தவன்* *கைபோல* *ஆங்கே* *இடுக்கண்* *களைவதாம்* *நட்பு**.* *பொருள் *அணிந்திருக்கும் உடை உடலைவிட்டு நழுவும்போது எப்படிக் கைகள் உடனடியாகச் செயல்பட்டு அதனைச் சரிசெய்ய உதவுகின்றனவோ அதைப்போல நண்பனுக்கு வரும் துன்பத்தைப் போக்கத் துடித்து செல்வதே நப்புக்கு இலக்கணமாகும். Utukkai Izhandhavan Kaipola Aange Itukkan Kalaivadhaam Natpu. *பரிமேலழகர் <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parimelalhagar>* உடுக்கை இழந்தவன் கைபோல - அவையிடை ஆடை குலைந்தவனுக்கு அப்பொழுதே கை சென்று உதவி அவ்விளிவரல் களையுமாறு போல; ஆங்கே இடுக்கண் களைவது நட்பாம் - நட்டவனுக்கு இடுக்கண் வந்துழி அப்பொழுதே சென்று உதவி அதனைக் களைவதே நட்பாவது. (அற்றம் காத்தற்கண் கை தன் மனத்தினும் முற்படுதலின், அவ்விரைவு இடுக்கண் களைவுழியும் அதற்கு ஒத்த தொழில் உவமையினும் வருவிக்க. உடையவன் தொழில் நட்பின்மேல் ஏற்பட்டது .) 7 Hence friendship is mutual; and hence only 2 in numbers; but there can be many mutuality ; any numbers paired; mutuality may coexist within the mutuality too. Quality of friendship is defined. A group of operation or a platoon may be restricted to promote the leadership. Effective communication entails the transmission of the idea into their brains which Hitler could do with large evening meetings when workers were returniing back after a hard days work. (Mein Kamph). Even twosome is not taught well by a lecturer in the college. Hence conditional theory may not be effective for the manifestations of the purposeful injections. Rest my case My Lord. K R IRS 28422 On Thu, 28 Apr 2022 at 09:04, Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]> wrote: > https://interconnected.org/home/2022/04/05/dunbar?ref=refind > > The interesting bit, for me, is about the “natural” size of a conversation > group. > > Dunbar’s prediction, based on the estimated efficiency gain versus chimps: > human > conversation group sizes should be limited to about 3.8 in size (one > speaker plus 2.8 listeners). > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Thatha_Patty" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoo7cST%2B4Ed%3DBMJa_sXSNC5UER8AxngZBnwEk8uAajwsog%40mail.gmail.com.
