Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Laboratory >

The Monkeysphere: Confucianism, Compassion and Primate Psychology.

14:29 / 24.09.08

So, for a magazine that mostly revolves around boob jokes and celebrations of beer and bad movies, Cracked has been slipping some interesting information onto its site.

The most recent example is this thing called "What is the Monkeysphere?"

It seems to be, first of all, an excuse to post lots of pictures of funny monkeys. But once I started reading it, I found it fascinating.

It follows the implications of a neurological study of primate brains. Scientists found that they could predict the size of a primate's social group - how many individuals a monkey would consider "in the tribe" - by looking at the size of its brain. When they looked at a human brain using the same criteria, they found people are only equipped to care about 150 individuals.

And what struck me was that this mimicked Confucian ethics, the bonds are tighter the closer one is related, with compassion slowly filtering out from dearest loved ones to larger circles of looser acquaintances until the feeling of connection fades altogether. Compassion just becomes part of a mechanical, emotionless social system.

Our brains are made that way. I'm still thinking the article over.

You might get something out of it, too.

16:35 / 24.09.08

Is this not an ancient piece, very slightly recooked by cracked? I'm fairly sure I found a website with this exact text on it about a year ago, maybe even longer. In fact, it was via Stumbleupon, I think, which probably places it more like 2004-5.

I found it a fascinating idea. I've shared it with a lot of people, due to a love of anything monkey/human related(this being right up there with my other favourite).
I find it hilarious that occasionally the idea of us being as animals still gives folks pause, but I have found most people are pretty receptive.

I don't really know enough about related fields beyond the article you just posted and some cursory googling, but I would love to hear more. Do you know if the author has expanded it into a book, or if anyone else has discussed it in their own? Maybe somebody taking it a wee bit more seriously?

17:20 / 24.09.08

I have no idea about any of the article's prior versions or the author's subsequent scribblings.

I know I've read things about how many people we can feel connected to (a prof once told us Aristotle said we can only have 2,000 friends), but nothing basing this on brain size.

The Liverpool study that the essay sprang from is dated 2003, though.

17:38 / 24.09.08

There was a Twilight Zone episode called "The Button" or "The Box".

A couple is approached at home by a man who gives them a box with a button. He tells them that he will give them a million dollars if they push the button. They ask him what will happen if they do. He tells them that someone they do not know, someone far away, will be killed. He guarantees that it will be someone they have never met and who is in no way associated with them. All they need to do is push the button and then they will be given the money. He says that they have one week to decide and he'll leave the button with them for that time.

After a couple of days of soul-searching, a sudden financial setback, and the stress of not knowing if it's all a prank, the wife pushes the button.

Within a short time the doorbell rings. It's the man and he's holding a briefcase filled with money. Fear washes over the couple and the wife asks how he knew. He tells them that the box made a signal and someone they did not know was killed. The man says that they can keep the money and that the box will be re-set and given to someone that they have never met or who is in any way associated with them.

The monkeysphere theory reminded me of this story, which I had not thought about in *years*.

I wonder what the monkeysphere theory would say about online friends and acquaintences? Are they a part of the 150, or do they get pushed out of mind when the going gets tough. Does the monkeysphere take into account nationalism or group associations such as fraternity/sororitys?

Cracked has had a lot of well written, thought-provoking material posted online recently, it seems...

22:32 / 24.09.08

I believe that cracked must have absorbed the PWOT site, which is where I originally saw it a few years ago— I posted a link to it here a while ago.
I suppose that the study focused on individual caring as opposed to overall empathy for others. I think it would be overwhelming to care about everyone as much or the same way that we do about those close to us. I don't know that that makes us bad, though it's certainly limiting. I guess it's all our poor brains can handle.

11:54 / 25.09.08

Sometimes I read an article or study like this where they say, "It's physically/mentally/theoretically impossible..." and see it as a challenge.

To say that "Because of our physical brain size, we are emotionally capable of caring about X amount of people." starts to sound like a cop out to me. Primates are used as a control group and it's automatically assumed to apply to us. Why is it not possible to use other animals as examples? Birds have tiny brains, but take care of each other in massive flocks. Elephants have a similar brain-to-body ratio, but tend to stay in smaller flocks.

I really liked the article when I first read it, but now I feel like it comes off as a kind of excuse for the percieved lack of empathy in the world: It's not our fault, it's biological, we're hard-wired this way...

Kind of a pandora's box if reasoning like this becomes legitimate validations for behaviour.

13:07 / 25.09.08

Birds have tiny brains, but take care of each other in massive flocks.

It's important to note though that the theory, as presented in the article, only talks about primate societies. That said, where is the evidence that a single bird's "birdsphere" includes every single member of it's flock? If the average human monkeysphere is 150 and we still manage to maintain societies well above that level then it shouldn't be surprising that other animals are capable of it too.

Humans do take care of each other in numbers way above the supposed monkeysphere limit of 150. Sure it's "the government" or some other organisation that organises the aid shipments and hospitals and charity balls. But as the article points out, every organisation is composed of people, each of whom supposedly is working against the natural drag of the monkeysphere effect.

Having this monkeysphere tendency doesn't necessarily mean we are slaves to it. I'm reminded of Dawkins at the end of The Selfish Gene pointing out something similar, that our gene-driven behaviours shouldn't be our masters. Quite the reverse.

Closed for Business Time

14:01 / 25.09.08

A quick comment - the article (don't know about the original research) doesn't take into account that social loyalties and attachments are flexible. In essence, who is in and who is out of the Monkeysphere can change over time. In effect this means that we can have personal caring relations with a lot more than 150 people, just not at the same time.

08:58 / 26.09.08

So what happens if someone meets the 151st person? Are they unable to "conceptualise them as a person" whatever that means?

Or does someone else drop off the end of their list of "people who are people".

Another way of putting this - if you are 50 years old, and have a full "monkeysphere" (nice name, very descriptive of the theory). Then you have a lifestyle change, or you retire, or something happens that throws you into a whole different circle of 100 people, who then become your monkeysphere. If you met one of your former acquiantances would they get ignored? Depersonalised? What happens when all 250 people show up for your 60th birthday?

I'm hostile towards this article, I think it's well written lies and speculation and inappropriate extrapolation and since we're in Laboratory, I want to have a go at it.

However it is from cracked.com. Tagline: "America's Only Humor & Video Site, Since 1958".

09:48 / 26.09.08

I'm hostile towards this article, I think it's well written lies and speculation and inappropriate extrapolation and since we're in Laboratory, I want to have a go at it.

Most definitely. He's using the article to push his book too (which makes me chuckle given his comments about people who give "Get Rich" seminars being rich because they give "Get Rich" seminars).

I would guess that the Monkeysphere isn't as black and white as he makes it out to be. It might be that solid in less sapient primate species but I think that applying it over to humans has a number of flaws. The Homo sapiens monkeysphere (make that "apesphere" to be more correct), assuming it exists, is going to be more liquid.

Whilst the author might think that it's impossible to "give a shit" about the 6 million people caught in an earthquake it patently isn't the case. Some people probably do have an apesphere that can encompass a figure much larger than 150 (assuming there is even an upper limit).

Of course some people have an apesphere of one and we call those people sociopaths.

I think the article does have some beneficial qualities though (especially as this cracked site appears to be some form of ladmag online yes?) in that it does recommend the reader trying to conciously empathise with other people.

jentacular dreams

17:41 / 26.09.08

[Short post as I *really* *need* to finish work and go home.]

I remember the PWOT article tsuga linked to, it stimulated some discussion amongst some of the PhD students (we had a word of the week thing going on and I stuck monkeysphere on the wall). Now none of us are psychologists or social scientists, but it did lead to a lot of speculation about how it linked to things like segregation and othering, and also to what extent fictional characters might take up monkey-slots that might otherwise be reserved for real people (though we also doubted that it was a black and white cutoff, and there was probably a huge grey border region*).

I also wonder if it's something to do with sustainable population sizes. Traditionally most flock/herd/troop sizes have been thought to be regulated by available foodstuffs. But humans have a (mid-term) sustainable social population of thousands and so may have adapted to this differently.

Oh, grant, in a 'traditional' clannish society I suppose the confusian system of ethics would also be quite comparable to kin selection. But then I doubt I'm the first to make this observation.

* an example one person gave was that if you're walking along the street, other people are just obstacles to be avoided, unless you see one of them in pain, and then they become 'real'. So perhaps there's mo

17:47 / 26.09.08

...this cracked site appears to be some form of ladmag online yes?

Sort of. Cracked actually used to be published by Globe publications, the same tabloid company I was hired by 11 years ago. It was a rip-off of Mad magazine, only not as funny. Whoever bought the title from the guy (a former Weekly World News editor) who bought it from Globe has turned it into something else online.

Lots of lists. Lots of trivia/betcha-didn't-know stuff. And, yes, a heavy reliance on mammary humor.

trouble at bill

18:22 / 29.09.08

Doesn't The Tipping Point also mention something along these lines, along with a claim that Gore-Tex (the waterproof clothing company) refuses to get much beyond 150 people?

I don't know the original study in detail but am concerned that it doesn't allow for introversion/extroversion differences between people, or for the amount of time a person has on their hands (I'm sure the amount of time you have to deal with the people is as important as the number of people).

That said, I am in emotional sympathy with this line of argument because when at certain times in my life I was dealing with more than 150 people I found it draining and exhausting and that I never seemed to have quality time with anyone.

19:53 / 29.09.08

I think it's well written lies and speculation and inappropriate extrapolation and since we're in Laboratory, I want to have a go at it.

Do you fancy going into a bit more detail?