更改

跳到导航 跳到搜索
删除43字节 、 2020年8月3日 (一) 02:27
第47行: 第47行:  
Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans.  Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed about 250,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, Dunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various hunter–gatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories—small, medium and large, equivalent to bands, cultural lineage groups and tribes—with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each.
 
Dunbar then compared this prediction with observable group sizes for humans.  Beginning with the assumption that the current mean size of the human neocortex had developed about 250,000 years ago, during the Pleistocene, Dunbar searched the anthropological and ethnographical literature for census-like group size information for various hunter–gatherer societies, the closest existing approximations to how anthropology reconstructs the Pleistocene societies. Dunbar noted that the groups fell into three categories—small, medium and large, equivalent to bands, cultural lineage groups and tribes—with respective size ranges of 30–50, 100–200 and 500–2500 members each.
   −
邓巴随后将这一预测与可观察到的人类群体大小进行了比较。首先假设人类新大脑皮层的平均大小是在大约25万年前的更新世时期形成的,邓巴在人类学和人种学文献中搜索了各种与狩猎采集社会类似的人口普查的群体规模信息,这是现存最接近人类学如何重建更新世社会的方式。邓巴指出,这些族群分为三类,即小型、中型和大型,相当于族群、文化宗族和部落,各自的人数范围分别为30-50人、100-200人和500-2500人。
+
邓巴随后将这一预测与可观察到的人类群体规模进行了比较。首先假设人类大脑新皮层的平均大小是在大约25万年前的更新世时期形成的,邓巴在人类学和人种学文献中搜索了各种狩猎采集社会的类似人口普查的群体规模信息,这是现存最接近人类学如何重建更新世社会的方式。邓巴指出,这些族群分为三类,即小型、中型和大型,相当于族群、文化宗族和部落,各自的规模分别为30-50人、100-200人和500-2500人。
      第54行: 第54行:  
Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements; 200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialisation; 150 as the basic unit size of professional armies in Roman antiquity and in modern times since the 16th century; and notions of appropriate company size.
 
Dunbar's surveys of village and tribe sizes also appeared to approximate this predicted value, including 150 as the estimated size of a Neolithic farming village; 150 as the splitting point of Hutterite settlements; 200 as the upper bound on the number of academics in a discipline's sub-specialisation; 150 as the basic unit size of professional armies in Roman antiquity and in modern times since the 16th century; and notions of appropriate company size.
   −
邓巴对村庄和部落规模的调查似乎也接近于这个预测值,其中包括新石器时代农庄的估计规模150人;哈特人定居点的分裂点150人;作为一个学科的亚专业学者人数的上限200人;自16世纪以来,在罗马古代和现代,专业部队的基本部队人数也均为150;同时这个数字差不多也是一个得体公司的规模。
+
邓巴对村庄和部落规模的调查似乎也接近于这个预测值,其中包括新石器时代农庄的估计规模150人;哈特教派信徒定居地的分裂点150人;学科亚专业学者的人数上限200人;古罗马和16世纪之后的现代专业部队的基本单位规模150人;以及一个恰当的公司人数规模。
      第61行: 第61行:  
Dunbar has argued that 150 would be the mean group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together. For a group of this size to remain cohesive, Dunbar speculated that as much as 42% of the group's time would have to be devoted to social grooming. Correspondingly, only groups under intense survival pressure, such as subsistence villages, nomadic tribes, and historical military groupings, have, on average, achieved the 150-member mark. Moreover, Dunbar noted that such groups are almost always physically close: "[...] we might expect the upper limit on group size to depend on the degree of social dispersal. In dispersed societies, individuals will meet less often and will thus be less familiar with each other, so group sizes should be smaller in consequence." Thus, the 150-member group would occur only because of absolute necessity—due to intense environmental and economic pressures.
 
Dunbar has argued that 150 would be the mean group size only for communities with a very high incentive to remain together. For a group of this size to remain cohesive, Dunbar speculated that as much as 42% of the group's time would have to be devoted to social grooming. Correspondingly, only groups under intense survival pressure, such as subsistence villages, nomadic tribes, and historical military groupings, have, on average, achieved the 150-member mark. Moreover, Dunbar noted that such groups are almost always physically close: "[...] we might expect the upper limit on group size to depend on the degree of social dispersal. In dispersed societies, individuals will meet less often and will thus be less familiar with each other, so group sizes should be smaller in consequence." Thus, the 150-member group would occur only because of absolute necessity—due to intense environmental and economic pressures.
   −
邓巴认为,只有在机动性特别高以维持团结的社区中,平均群体规模为150人。为了使如此规模的团队保持凝聚力,邓巴推测,该团队多达42%的时间必须用于社交梳理。相应地,只有生存压力很大的团体,例如自给自足的村庄,游牧部落和历史军事团体,平均才能达到150人的标准。此外,邓巴指出,这样的群体几乎总是物理上接近:“我们可能期望群体规模的上限取决于社会分散程度。在分散的社会中,个人见面的频率会降低,因此彼此之间的熟悉程度也会降低,因此群体规模也应该缩小。”因此,由150名成员组成的团体之所以会出现,是因为绝对的必要性-由于强烈的环境和经济压力。
+
邓巴认为,只有对那些有很高动机保持团结的社群来说,平均群体规模才会是150人。邓巴推测,为了使这种规模的团队保持凝聚力,他们用于社交梳理的时间要高达42%。相应地,只有生存压力很大的团体,例如勉强糊口的村庄,游牧部落和历史军事团体,平均才能达到150人的标准。此外,邓巴指出,这类群体几乎总是物理上接近:“[...]我们可能认为群体规模的上限取决于社会分散的程度。在分散的社会中,个人见面的频率会降低,彼此间因而变得生疏,因此群体规模也应该相应缩小。”因此,由150名成员组成的团体之所以会出现,是由于环境和经济的巨大压力造成的绝对必要性。
      第68行: 第68行:  
Dunbar, in Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, proposes furthermore that language may have arisen as a "cheap" means of social grooming, allowing early humans to maintain social cohesion efficiently. Without language, Dunbar speculates, humans would have to expend nearly half their time on social grooming, which would have made productive, cooperative effort nearly impossible. Language may have allowed societies to remain cohesive, while reducing the need for physical and social intimacy. This result is confirmed by the mathematical formulation of the social brain hypothesis, that showed that it is unlikely that increased brain size would have led to large groups without the kind of complex communication that only language allows.
 
Dunbar, in Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language, proposes furthermore that language may have arisen as a "cheap" means of social grooming, allowing early humans to maintain social cohesion efficiently. Without language, Dunbar speculates, humans would have to expend nearly half their time on social grooming, which would have made productive, cooperative effort nearly impossible. Language may have allowed societies to remain cohesive, while reducing the need for physical and social intimacy. This result is confirmed by the mathematical formulation of the social brain hypothesis, that showed that it is unlikely that increased brain size would have led to large groups without the kind of complex communication that only language allows.
   −
邓巴在《梳毛、八卦及语言的进化 Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language》一书中进一步提出,语言可能作为社交梳理的“廉价”手段而出现,从而使早期人类能够有效地保持社交凝聚力。邓巴推测,如果没有语言,人类将不得不花费近一半的时间进行社交梳理,这将使富有成效的合作努力几乎成为不可能。语言可以使社会保持凝聚力,同时减少对身体和社会亲密感的需求。社会大脑假说的数学表述证实了这一结果,该理论表明,如果没有语言所允许的那种复杂交流,仅增加大脑的尺寸是不可能导致庞大的群体的形成。
+
邓巴在《梳毛、八卦及语言的进化 Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language》一书中进一步提出,语言可能是作为社会化理毛的“廉价”替代方式而出现的,使得早期人类能够有效地保持社交凝聚力。邓巴推测,如果没有语言,人类将不得不花费近一半的时间用于社会化理毛,这将使富有成效的合作努力几乎成为不可能。语言可以使社会保持凝聚力,同时减少对身体和社会亲密关系的需求。社会大脑假说的数学表述证实了这一结果,该理论表明,如果没有语言所允许的那种复杂交流,仅增加大脑的尺寸不可能导致大型群体的形成。
    
== Applications 应用 ==
 
== Applications 应用 ==
78

个编辑

导航菜单