邓巴数

来自集智百科 - 复杂系统|人工智能|复杂科学|复杂网络|自组织
Jie（讨论 | 贡献）2020年7月30日 (四) 09:42的版本
跳到导航 跳到搜索

此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person.[1][2] This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size.[3] By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships.[4] Dunbar explained it informally as "the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar".[5]

Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person. This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average social group size. （加了一句话By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can comfortably maintain 150 stable relationships.[4]。）Dunbar explained it informally as "the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar".

邓巴数是一个建议的认知极限，用来限制与之保持稳定社会关系的人数，即一个人知道每个人是谁，以及每个人与其他每个人之间的关系。这个数字最早是在20世纪90年代由英国人类学家 Robin Dunbar 提出的，他发现了灵长类动物大脑尺寸和平均社会群体大小之间存在相关性。通过人类大脑的平均大小并从灵长类动物的结果推断，他提出人类可以舒适地保持150种稳定的关系。邓巴通俗地解释它为“如果您碰巧来到一个酒吧，里面的人数刚好不会让你为不请自来地喝酒而感到尴尬。”


Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150.[6][7] Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150. Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.

支持者声称，拥有比邓巴数更多的社会关系的人通常需要更多限制性的规则，法律和强制性的规范来维持一个稳定的，具有凝聚力的群体。有人建议它位于100到250之间，通常使用的值为150。邓巴数表示的是一个人认识并持续保持社会关系的人数，它不包括已知但是与其社会关系实为中断的人数，也不包括一般认为缺乏持久社会关系的人数。因为如果将其也算进来，这个数字可能要高出很多，同时这也很可能取决于长期记忆的跨度。


Dunbar theorised that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size [...] the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained". On the periphery, the number also includes past colleagues, such as high school friends, with whom a person would want to reacquaint himself or herself if they met again.[8]

Dunbar theorised that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size [...] the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained". On the periphery, the number also includes past colleagues, such as high school friends, with whom a person would want to reacquaint himself or herself if they met again.

邓巴推论说: “这个极限是相对新大脑皮层大小的直接函数，反过来它又限制了群体的大小。新大脑皮层处理能力的极限仅仅是与之保持稳定人际关系的个体的数量。“从定义的边缘看，这个数字还包括过去的同事，比如高中时期的朋友，如果他们再次见面，他们会想要重新认识自己。


Research background

Primatologists have noted that, due to their highly social nature, primates must maintain personal contact with the other members of their social group, usually through social grooming. Such social groups function as protective cliques within the physical groups in which the primates live. The number of social group members a primate can track appears to be limited by the volume of the neocortex. This suggests that there is a species-specific index of the social group size, computable from the species' mean neocortical volume.[citation needed]

Primatologists have noted that, due to their highly social nature, primates must maintain personal contact with the other members of their social group, usually through social grooming. Such social groups function as protective cliques within the physical groups in which the primates live. The number of social group members a primate can track appears to be limited by the volume of the neocortex. This suggests that there is a species-specific index of the social group size, computable from the species' mean neocortical volume.

灵长类动物学家已经注意到，由于灵长类动物具有高度的社会性，它们必须与其社会群体的其他成员保持个人联系，通常是通过社会梳理。这种社会群体在灵长类动物生活的物理群体中起着保护性小团体的作用。灵长类动物可以追踪的社会群体成员的数量似乎受到大脑新皮层体积的限制。这表明社会群体大小有一个物种特有的指数，可以从物种的平均新皮质体积计算出来。


In 1992,[1] Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory due to the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230).[1]

In 1992, Dunbar used the correlation observed for non-human primates to predict a social group size for humans. Using a regression equation on data for 38 primate genera, Dunbar predicted a human "mean group size" of 148 (casually rounded to 150), a result he considered exploratory due to the large error measure (a 95% confidence interval of 100 to 230).

1992年，邓巴利用观察到的非人灵长类动物的相关性来预测人类的社会群体大小。利用38个灵长类动物属的数据回归方程，邓巴预测人类的“平均群体大小”为148(随意舍入到150) ，由于误差很大(95% 的置信区间为100到230) ，他认为这个结果是可探索的。


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.[citation needed]

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。从假设人类新大脑皮层目前的平均大小大约在25万年前更新世时期发展起来开始，邓巴在人类学和民族志文献中搜索各种狩猎采集社会的类似人口普查的群体大小信息，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。


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.[citation needed]

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这一预测值，包括150作为一个新石器时代农村的估计规模; 150作为哈特人定居点的分裂点; 200作为一个学科的亚专业化学者人数的上限; 150作为罗马古代和16世纪以来现代职业军队的基本单位规模; 以及适当的连队规模的概念。


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,[citation needed] 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，150人只是那些有很高动机团结在一起的社区的平均群体规模。邓巴推测，为了让这么大的一群人保持凝聚力，这个群体需要花费多达42% 的时间在社交仪容上。相应地，只有生存压力很大的群体，如自给村、游牧部落和历史军事集团，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的程度。在分散的社会中，个人见面的次数会减少，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，只有在绝对必要的情况下，才会出现150个成员国的集团，这是由于强大的环境和经济压力。


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.[9][10] 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.[11]

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.

在 Grooming 的《闲话与语言的进化》一书中，邓巴进一步提出，语言可能已经作为一种“廉价”的社会梳理手段兴起，使早期人类能够有效地维持社会凝聚力。邓巴推测，如果没有语言，人类将不得不花费将近一半的时间在社交梳理上，这将使富有成效的合作努力几乎成为不可能。语言可能使社会保持凝聚力，同时减少身体和社会亲密度的需要。这个结果被社会性大脑假说的数学公式所证实，这表明，如果没有语言所允许的那种复杂的交流，大脑体积的增加不太可能导致大型群体的形成。


Applications

Dunbar's number has become of interest in anthropology, evolutionary psychology,[12] statistics, and business management. For example, developers of social software are interested in it, as they need to know the size of social networks their software needs to take into account; and in the modern military, operational psychologists seek such data to support or refute policies related to maintaining or improving unit cohesion and morale. A recent study has suggested that Dunbar's number is applicable to online social networks引用错误：没有找到与</ref>对应的<ref>标签 and communication networks (mobile phone).[13] Participants of the European career-oriented online social network XING who have about 157 contacts reported the highest level of job offer success, which also supports Dunbar’s number of about 150.[14]

</ref> and communication networks (mobile phone). Participants of the European career-oriented online social network XING who have about 157 contacts reported the highest level of job offer success, which also supports Dunbar’s number of about 150.

</ref > 及通讯网络(流动电话)。欧洲以职业为导向的在线社交网络 XING 的参与者约有157个联系人，他们报告的工作成功率最高，这也支持了邓巴的约150个联系人。


There are discussions in articles and books, of the possible application of using Dunbar's number for analyzing distributed, dynamic - terrorist networks, cybercrime networks, or networks preaching criminal ideology.[15][16]

There are discussions in articles and books, of the possible application of using Dunbar's number for analyzing distributed, dynamic - terrorist networks, cybercrime networks, or networks preaching criminal ideology.

在文章和书籍中讨论了使用邓巴数字分析分布式的、动态的恐怖主义网络、网络犯罪网络或宣扬犯罪意识形态的网络的可能应用。


Reactions

Alternative numbers

Anthropologist H. Russell Bernard, Peter Killworth and associates have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, which is roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth median of 231 is lower, due to an upward skew in the distribution, but still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth estimate of the maximum likelihood of the size of a person's social network is based on a number of field studies using different methods in various populations. It is not an average of study averages but a repeated finding.[17][18][19] Nevertheless, the Bernard–Killworth number has not been popularized as widely as Dunbar's.

Anthropologist H. Russell Bernard, Peter Killworth and associates have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, which is roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth median of 231 is lower, due to an upward skew in the distribution, but still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth estimate of the maximum likelihood of the size of a person's social network is based on a number of field studies using different methods in various populations. It is not an average of study averages but a repeated finding. Nevertheless, the Bernard–Killworth number has not been popularized as widely as Dunbar's.

人类学家 h · 拉塞尔 · 伯纳德、彼得 · 基尔沃思和他的同事们在美国进行了各种各样的实地研究，得出了关系平均数的估计数---- 290，大致是邓巴估计数的两倍。伯纳德-基尔沃思中位数231较低，这是由于分布的向上倾斜，但仍然明显大于邓巴的估计。伯纳德-基尔沃斯对一个人的社交网络规模的最大可能性的估计是基于一系列在不同人群中使用不同方法的实地研究。这不是研究平均值的平均值，而是一个重复的发现。然而，伯纳德-基尔沃斯数并没有像邓巴数那样被广泛推广。


Criticism

Philip Lieberman argues that since band societies of approximately 30–50 people are bounded by nutritional limitations to what group sizes can be fed without at least rudimentary agriculture, big human brains consuming more nutrients than ape brains, group sizes of approximately 150 cannot have been selected for in paleolithic humans.[20] 模板:Dubious Brains much smaller than human or even mammalian brains are also known to be able to support social relationships, including social insects with hierarchies where each individual "knows" its place (such as the paper wasp with its societies of approximately 80 individuals [21]) and computer-simulated virtual autonomous agents with simple reaction programming emulating what is referred to in primatology as "ape politics".[22]

Philip Lieberman argues that since band societies of approximately 30–50 people are bounded by nutritional limitations to what group sizes can be fed without at least rudimentary agriculture, big human brains consuming more nutrients than ape brains, group sizes of approximately 150 cannot have been selected for in paleolithic humans. Brains much smaller than human or even mammalian brains are also known to be able to support social relationships, including social insects with hierarchies where each individual "knows" its place (such as the paper wasp with its societies of approximately 80 individuals ) and computer-simulated virtual autonomous agents with simple reaction programming emulating what is referred to in primatology as "ape politics".

菲利普•利伯曼(Philip Lieberman)认为，由于大约30至50人的群体社会受到营养限制，即使没有最基本的农业，群体规模也不能满足要求，大型人类大脑比猿类大脑消耗更多的营养，因此，大约150人的群体规模在旧石器时代的人类中是不可能被选中的。比人类甚至是哺乳动物大脑小得多的大脑也被认为能够支持社会关系，包括具有等级制度的社会昆虫，在这种制度下，每个个体都“知道”自己的位置(例如纸黄蜂和大约80个个体组成的社会) ，以及计算机模拟的虚拟自治代理程序，它们具有简单的反应编程，仿效灵长类学中所称的“猿政治”。


Comparisons of primate species show that what appears to be a link between group size and brain size, and also what species do not fit such a correlation, is explainable by diet. Many primates that eat specialized diets that rely on scarce food have evolved small brains to conserve nutrients and are limited to living in small groups or even alone, and they lower average brain size for solitary or small group primates. Small-brained species of primate that are living in large groups are successfully predicted by diet theory to be the species that eat food that is abundant but not very nutritious. Along with the existence of complex deception in small-brained primates in large groups with the opportunity (both abundant food eaters in their natural environments and originally solitary species that adopted social lifestyles under artificial food abundances), this is cited as evidence against the model of social groups selecting for large brains and/or intelligence.[23]

Comparisons of primate species show that what appears to be a link between group size and brain size, and also what species do not fit such a correlation, is explainable by diet. Many primates that eat specialized diets that rely on scarce food have evolved small brains to conserve nutrients and are limited to living in small groups or even alone, and they lower average brain size for solitary or small group primates. Small-brained species of primate that are living in large groups are successfully predicted by diet theory to be the species that eat food that is abundant but not very nutritious. Along with the existence of complex deception in small-brained primates in large groups with the opportunity (both abundant food eaters in their natural environments and originally solitary species that adopted social lifestyles under artificial food abundances), this is cited as evidence against the model of social groups selecting for large brains and/or intelligence.

对灵长类物种的比较表明，群体大小和大脑大小之间的联系，以及哪些物种不符合这种联系，可以通过饮食来解释。许多以稀缺食物为食的灵长类动物进化出了小脑来保存营养，它们只能以小群体甚至单独生活，而且它们的平均大脑尺寸比独居或小群体灵长类动物要小。根据饮食理论，生活在大群体中的脑容量较小的灵长类动物被成功地预测为食物丰富但营养不足的物种。伴随着大群体中小脑灵长类动物复杂的欺骗行为的存在(自然环境中食物丰富，原始的独居物种在人工食物丰富的情况下采取社会生活方式) ，这被认为是反对社会群体选择大脑和/或智力模型的证据。


Popularisation

  • Malcolm Gladwell discusses the Dunbar number in his popular 2000 book The Tipping Point. Gladwell describes the company W. L. Gore and Associates, now known for the Gore-Tex brand. By trial and error, the leadership in the company discovered that if more than 150 employees were working together in one building, different social problems could occur. The company started building company buildings with a limit of 150 employees and only 150 parking spaces. When the parking spaces were filled, the company would build another 150-employee building. Sometimes these buildings would be placed only short distances apart. The company is also known for the open allocation company structure.
  • The Swedish tax authority planned to reorganise its functions in 2007 with a maximum 150 employees per office, referring to Dunbar's research.[26]
  • In 2007, Cracked.com editor David Wong wrote a humour piece titled "What is the Monkeysphere?" explaining Dunbar's number.[27]
  • In the 2012 novel This Book Is Full of Spiders, also by David Wong, the character Marconi explains to David the impact Dunbar's number has on human society. In Marconi's explanation, the limit Dunbar's number imposes on the individual explains phenomena such as racism and xenophobia, as well as apathy towards the suffering of peoples outside of an individual's community.[28]
  • In a piece for the Financial Times (10 Aug 2018), titled 'Why drink is the secret to humanity’s success' Dunbar mentioned two more numbers: an inner core of about 5 people to whom we devote about 40 percent of our available social time and 10 more people to whom we devote another 20 percent. All in all, we devote about two-thirds of our time to just 15 people.[29]
  • In episode 103 of the podcast Hello Internet (31 May 2018) Brady Haran and CGP Grey discuss the reasons the number may be limited to 150 including the ability to keep track of political relationships in large groups of people and the amount of time that people have to devote towards developing and maintaining friendships.[30]


References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 Dunbar, R. I. M. (1992). "Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates". Journal of Human Evolution. 22 (6): 469–493. doi:10.1016/0047-2484(92)90081-J.
  2. ↑ Gladwell, Malcolm (2000). The Tipping Point – How Little Things Make a Big Difference. Little, Brown and Company. pp. 177–181, 185–186. ISBN 978-0-316-34662-7. https://archive.org/details/tippingpointhowl00glad. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Reisinger, Don (25 January 2010). "Sorry, Facebook friends: Our brains can't keep up". CNET. Retrieved 9 April 2018. Dunbar has now decided to shift focus to see whether Facebook has changed the number.
  4. ↑ Purves, Dale (2008). Principles of Cognitive Neuroscience. Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates. ISBN 9780878936946. 
  5. ↑ Dunbar, Robin (1998). Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language (1st Harvard University Press paperback ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 77. ISBN 978-0674363366. https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780674363366. Retrieved 17 December 2016. 
  6. ↑ Hernando, A.; Villuendas, D.; Vesperinas, C.; Abad, M.; Plastino, A. (2009). "Unravelling the size distribution of social groups with information theory on complex networks". Preprint. arXiv:0905.3704. Bibcode:2009arXiv0905.3704H.
  7. ↑ "Don't Believe Facebook; You Only Have 150 Friends". NPR. 4 June 2011.
  8. ↑ Carl Bialik (16 November 2007). "Sorry, You May Have Gone Over Your Limit Of Network Friends". The Wall Street Journal Online. Retrieved 2 December 2007.
  9. ↑ Dunbar, Robin (1998). Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-36336-6. https://archive.org/details/isbn_9780674363366. 
  10. ↑ Dunbar, Robin (2004), "Gossip in Evolutionary Perspective" (PDF), Review of General Psychology, 8 (2): 100–110, CiteSeerX 10.1.1.530.9865, doi:10.1037/1089-2680.8.2.100, retrieved 24 January 2013
  11. ↑ Dávid-Barrett, T.; Dunbar, R. I. M. (22 August 2013). "Processing power limits social group size: computational evidence for the cognitive costs of sociality". Proc. R. Soc. B (in English). 280 (1765): 20131151. doi:10.1098/rspb.2013.1151. ISSN 0962-8452. PMC 3712454. PMID 23804623.
  12. ↑ Nuno Themudo (23 March 2007). "Virtual Resistance: Internet-mediated Networks (Dotcauses) and Collective Action Against Neoliberalism" (PDF). University of Pittsburgh, University Center for International Studies. Archived from the original (pg. 36) on 9 July 2009. Retrieved 2 December 2007.
  13. ↑ Giovanna Miritello; Esteban Moro; Rubén Lara; Rocío Martínez-López; John Belchamber; Sam G.B. Roberts; Robin I.M. Dunbar (2013). "Time as a limited resource: Communication strategy in mobile phone networks". Social Networks. 35: 89–95. arXiv:1301.2464. Bibcode:2013arXiv1301.2464M. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.01.003.
  14. ↑ Buettner, Ricardo (2017). "Getting a job via career-oriented social networking markets: The weakness of too many ties". Electronic Markets. 27 (4): 371–385. doi:10.1007/s12525-017-0248-3.
  15. ↑ Norwitz, Jeffrey (July 2009). Pirates, Terrorists, and Warlords: The History, Influence, and Future of Armed Groups Around the World. Skyhorse. ISBN 9781602397088. https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=LZcp7qgzgzAC&pg=PA148. 
  16. ↑ "The optimal size of a terrorist network". March 2004.
  17. ↑ McCarty, C.; Killworth, P. D.; Bernard, H. R.; Johnsen, E.; Shelley, G. (2000). "Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size" (PDF). Human Organization. 60 (1): 28–39. doi:10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y.
  18. ↑ Bernard, H. R.; Shelley, G. A.; Killworth, P. (1987). "How much of a network does the GSS and RSW dredge up?". Social Networks. 9: 49–61. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(87)90017-7.
  19. ↑ H. Russell Bernard. "Honoring Peter Killworth's contribution to social network theory." Paper presented to the University of Southampton, 28 September 2006. http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/~ufruss/
  20. ↑ Lieberman, Philip (2013). The Unpredictable Species: What Makes Humans Unique. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 9780691148588. https://archive.org/details/unpredictablespe0000lieb. 
  21. ↑ 模板:Cite episode
  22. ↑ Pfeifer, Rolf; Bongard, Josh (October 2006). How the Body Shapes the Way We Think: A New View of Intelligence. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. ISBN 9780262162395. 
  23. ↑ Alex R. DeCasien, Scott A. Williams & James P. Higham (2017). "Primate brain size is predicted by diet but not sociality"
  24. ↑ "Primates on Facebook". The Economist. 26 February 2009.
  25. ↑ One example is Christopher Allen, "Dunbar, Altruistic Punishment, and Meta-Moderation".
  26. ↑ "Swedish tax collectors organized by apes". The Local – Sweden's news in English. 23 July 2007. Archived from the original on 16 August 2007.
  27. ↑ "What is the Monkeysphere?". 30 September 2007. Retrieved 23 November 2015.
  28. ↑ Wong, David (2012). This Book is Full of Spiders. NY: St. Martin's Press. pp. 295–296. ISBN 978-0312546342. 
  29. ↑ Dunbar, Robin (10 August 2018). "Why drink is the secret to humanity's success". Financial Times.
  30. ↑ "H.I. 103: Don't Read The Comments". Hello Internet (in English). Retrieved 23 December 2018.


Further reading

  • Dunbar, R.I.M. (1993). "Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 16 (4): 681–735. doi:10.1017/s0140525x00032325.
  • Sawaguchi, T.; Kudo, H. (1990). "Neocortical development and social structure in primates". Primates. 31 (2): 283–290. doi:10.1007/bf02380949.


External links


模板:Sociobiology

Category:Evolutionary psychology

类别: 进化心理学

Category:Interpersonal relationships

类别: 人际关系

Category:Human evolution

分类: 人类进化

Category:Primatology

类别: 灵长类动物学

Category:Sociological theories

范畴: 社会学理论


This page was moved from wikipedia:en:Dunbar's number. Its edit history can be viewed at 邓巴数/edithistory

取自“https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=邓巴数&oldid=11395”