social brain theory

Social brain theory is providing interesting insights about the basic drives and tensions that shape our social behavior. To get along in society, we must relate and work with others, while at the same time competing against them or we may get left behind. To keep our place in the group we must exhibit charm but also demonstrate that we can contribute to other’s success. This requires a finely tuned display of intelligence, savvy, toughness, and energy. Acceptance in the group requires us to balance appearing up to the groups standards with trust-worthiness. Otherwise we may be rejected as worthless or as a threat.

Brain size and social group size are correlated in many primate species. The bigger the group size, the larger the relative size of the neo-cortex that accounts for most of cognitive ability. Neo-cortex size is not correlated with tasks like hunting, navigating or building shelter. Understanding one another is our greatest cognitive challenge. Learning to talk may have been the only way to manage large groups.

Social brain theory defines gossip as conversation about social relationships. Defined this way, gossip accounts for two thirds of conversation. Gossip yields data about changing alliances, opportunities, dangerous rivals and potential friends. Gossip informs us what our peers think about others and a bout us. This info is crucial to maintaining our alliances.

We are all gossiped about and evaluated according to what we can contribute and if we can be trusted. Groups provide better security from predators, bettor mate choice and better food. But mates and food are also available to competitors in the group. Group members want our skills and competitive spirit up to a point. But they don’t want too much competition or cheating. So even if they like you, they constantly evaluate you trustworthiness. They know you must compete, and they are concerned lest you disadvantage them through stealth.

I finally have a simple frame to explain why women are smarter.

Now as long as those smarts are employed more in academics rather than gossip . . .

So our ability to prevent treachery and assess everyone helped us develop our intelligence. Today our ability to design and define things is being corrupted (or stagnated) by our paranoia towards treachery and prodding assessment of everyone.

What a superb analysis. The possibility that larger groups and competition actually cause us to be smarter and have larger brain size. The larger group dynamic makes sense, because that equates to more thoughts, opinions, and ways of thinking. Competition, though, I really never thought of it as resulting in increased capacity, but I suppose it makes sense, we constantly must strive to be slightly better than the next person to keep our place on the food chain.

Never teach an apprentice everything you know, and don’t train an assistant manager to be the head manager unless you are ready to leave. The only true competitive advantage is to be just one iota better than the next guy, but not so much better that they feel threatened, an interesting balance.

That was immensely interesting and informative, (Particularly for me because my former major and current career field is business) and I thank you for your thoughts on the matter.

Yes. As Fukuyama has argued, without social trust, economies cannot operate.

Your welcome. What Robin Dunbar calls “the social brain hypothesis” has also been dubbed the “Machiavellian intelligence hypothesis.” In an NYT article dated 7/08/07, “The Gregarious Brain”, David Dobbs relates social brain theory to Williams Syndrome, a genetic disorder that results in a person who is driven to affiliate with others but has impaired social intelligence. Williams folks can become relatively verbally fluent but have trouble with skills such as reading facial expressions. The resulting difficulties Williams people have functioning socially, illuminate the social skill set that it takes for successful interaction in human society.