https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
ABSTRACT
Compared to most other mammals and birds, anthropoid primates have unusually complex societies characterised by bonded social groups. Among primates, this effect is encapsulated in the social brain hypothesis: the robust
correlation between
various indices of social complexity (social group size, grooming clique size, tactical behaviour, coalition formation) and brain size. Hitherto,
this has always been
interpreted as a simple, unitary relationship. Using data for five
different indices of
brain volume from four independent brain databases, we show that the distribution
of group size plotted against brain size is best described as a set of
four distinct, very narrowly defined grades which are unrelated to
phylogeny. The allocation of genera
to these grades is highly consistent across the different data sets and
brain indices.
We show that these grades correspond to the progressive evolution of
bonded social groups. In addition, we show, for those species that live in multilevel social systems,
that the typical sizes of the different grouping levels in each case
coincide with different grades. This suggests that the grades correspond
to demographic attractors that are especially stable. Using five different cognitive indices, we show that the grades correlate with increasing
social cognitive skills, suggesting that the cognitive demands of managing group cohesion increase progressively across grades. We argue that the
grades themselves represent glass ceilings on animals' capacity to
maintain social and spatial coherence
during foraging and that, in order to evolve more highly bonded groups, species have to
be able to invest in costly forms of cognition.
"The fact that large unstable groups occur mainly in grades I and II
perhaps suggests
that, during their evolution, primates initially counteracted external threats (such as increased predation risk or conflict with neighbouring groups) by opting for larger
groups at the expense of coherence, much as herding mammals do. "
On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:29:42 AM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
ABSTRACT
Compared to most other mammals and birds, anthropoid primates have unusually
complex societies characterised by bonded social groups. Among primates, this
effect is encapsulated in the social brain hypothesis: the robust correlation between
various indices of social complexity (social group size, grooming clique size, tactical behaviour, coalition formation) and brain size. Hitherto, this has always been
interpreted as a simple, unitary relationship. Using data for five different indices of
brain volume from four independent brain databases, we show that the distribution
of group size plotted against brain size is best described as a set of four distinct, very narrowly defined grades which are unrelated to phylogeny. The allocation of genera
to these grades is highly consistent across the different data sets and brain indices.
We show that these grades correspond to the progressive evolution of bonded social groups. In addition, we show, for those species that live in multilevel social systems,
that the typical sizes of the different grouping levels in each case coincide with different grades. This suggests that the grades correspond to demographic attractors that are especially stable. Using five different cognitive indices, we show that the grades correlate with increasing social cognitive skills, suggesting that the cognitive demands of managing group cohesion increase progressively across grades. We argue that the grades themselves represent glass ceilings on animals' capacity to maintain social and spatial coherence
during foraging and that, in order to evolve more highly bonded groups, species have to
be able to invest in costly forms of cognition.
"The fact that large unstable groups occur mainly in grades I and II perhaps suggestsMy point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
that, during their evolution, primates initially counteracted external threats (such as increased predation risk or conflict with neighbouring groups) by opting for larger
groups at the expense of coherence, much as herding mammals do. "
onsdag den 1. september 2021 kl. 08.38.54 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
On Wednesday, September 1, 2021 at 2:29:42 AM UTC-4, Primum Sapienti wrote:
DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves wrote:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/brv.12730
ABSTRACT
Compared to most other mammals and birds, anthropoid primates have unusually
complex societies characterised by bonded social groups. Among primates, this
effect is encapsulated in the social brain hypothesis: the robust correlation between
various indices of social complexity (social group size, grooming clique size, tactical behaviour, coalition formation) and brain size. Hitherto, this has always been
interpreted as a simple, unitary relationship. Using data for five different indices of
brain volume from four independent brain databases, we show that the distribution
of group size plotted against brain size is best described as a set of four distinct, very narrowly defined grades which are unrelated to phylogeny. The allocation of genera
to these grades is highly consistent across the different data sets and brain indices.
We show that these grades correspond to the progressive evolution of bonded social groups. In addition, we show, for those species that live in
multilevel social systems,
that the typical sizes of the different grouping levels in each case coincide with different grades. This suggests that the grades correspond to demographic attractors that are especially stable. Using five different
cognitive indices, we show that the grades correlate with increasing social cognitive skills, suggesting that the cognitive demands of managing
group cohesion increase progressively across grades. We argue that the grades themselves represent glass ceilings on animals' capacity to maintain social and spatial coherence
during foraging and that, in order to evolve more highly bonded groups, species have to
be able to invest in costly forms of cognition.
One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one."The fact that large unstable groups occur mainly in grades I and II perhaps suggestsMy point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.
that, during their evolution, primates initially counteracted external threats (such as increased predation risk or conflict with neighbouring groups) by opting for larger
groups at the expense of coherence, much as herding mammals do. "
Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural construct
Swidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural constructMonogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with thenext generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we've
Gorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.
torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genesSwidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we'veNo. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural constructMonogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with the
becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since the dawnGorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male chimp
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_Males
On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we'
torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:That is the norm in nature.
They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genesSwidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time.
Serial monogamy. Short-term partnerships, seasonal switches, deaths, etc. This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.
No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural constructMonogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with
chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since theGorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_MalesYour using Goodall's chimp war story as evidence proves to me your ignorance. They were due to banana gifting.
Use the term hypersocial or go away. Humans are hypersocial, priority 1.
torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 12.19.15 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape we'
On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:That is the norm in nature.
They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genesSwidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time.
Serial monogamy. Short-term partnerships, seasonal switches, deaths, etc. This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.
No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural constructMonogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated with
chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since theGorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male
infrastructure to win. It wasn't enough anymore for Napoleon and Wellington to amass deca thousands of firm young men and have them hack each other to death in fields of eternal glory, so Josephine would hand over her virtues to the boss man. By the 20th,Only one female was a casualty in three years of Gombe war. Can we agree that war is very much a man's game? Isn't it weird how unpopular war suddenly became in the 20th? 'Cause now war had become total war, meaning you also had to destroy the enemy'shttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_MalesYour using Goodall's chimp war story as evidence proves to me your ignorance. They were due to banana gifting.
Use the term hypersocial or go away. Humans are hypersocial, priority 1.
There's no primal difference between these two apes: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/defines humanity. 'Cause war gets you the mating rights.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi
The endgame is exactly the same. Taking his women! All war is about sex. It has never been about anything else, from Helen of Troy to Eva Braun and ten million years leading up to them. Any summary of world history is the history of war, it is war that
Gorillas' polygyny is so much easier, 'cause they aren't born 50/50 male and female. Humans and chimps are, making violence the only way to allow for polygyny, as it removes the competition for the fertile females. Functionally and genetically, we areboth polygynous too. Nothing embarasses you like a relative.
On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 11:47:56 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:with the next generation with the one male that dominates all the other males. How he dominates the other males doesn't really matter to her egg. Which is why Charles Manson left behind one child more to the gene pool than Albert Einstein. That's the ape
torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 12.19.15 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:
On Thursday, September 2, 2021 at 2:51:04 AM UTC-4, C. H. Engelbrecht wrote:
torsdag den 2. september 2021 kl. 08.21.52 UTC+2 skrev DD'eDeN aka note/nickname/alas_my_loves:That is the norm in nature.
They would've had to, 'cause the genetic spread shows it. Through the eons a certain percentage of males would've had to have been born and die without furthering their genesSwidden agriculture results in polygyny. Archaic Homo wasn't practising that.My point: humans are hypersocially hierarchical, yet tend towards some form of monogamy, this is unusual.One problem: The genetic spread on the male half of the gene pool is less than the female half. Meaning we have fewer forefathers than foremothers. Biologically, we're a polygynous ape, not a monogamous one.
., ie. they didn't have kids. Meaning that some males for deca millenia would've had to have kids with more than one woman in his life time.
Serial monogamy. Short-term partnerships, seasonal switches, deaths, etc.
This long, long before any recent civilisation defining any cultural standards of either monogamy or polygyny.
No. That is genetically impossible. Otherwise there wouldn't be this observed difference in the spread on male and female gene halves.Current observed monogamy is a few centuries old cultural constructMonogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
and still far from absolute. Which is why som many dads around have sons that don't look like them. Momma has a silly tendency to screw up those exact two days she's ovulating. 'Cause she's still ethologically prone to seek to be impregnated
chimp becomes a violent psychopath as soon as they reach maturity, splitting the skull of other males is the primal fight for the mating rights. That's why wars exist, both for human and chimp. Warfare is how the mating rights have been divided since theGorillas not Homo do that. Humans are hypersocial yet tend to monogamy. Bastards are not uncommon but tend to get less resources.No, all of that is cultural, and of very recent date. It cannot have been the primal tendency for archaic sapiens or its descendants.
Our primal mating ethology is exactly that of the common chimpanzee, our closest genetic cousin: Both man and chimp is born 50/50 males and females, but only few dominant males end up impregnating the fertile females. That's why both man and male
s infrastructure to win. It wasn't enough anymore for Napoleon and Wellington to amass deca thousands of firm young men and have them hack each other to death in fields of eternal glory, so Josephine would hand over her virtues to the boss man. By theOnly one female was a casualty in three years of Gombe war. Can we agree that war is very much a man's game? Isn't it weird how unpopular war suddenly became in the 20th? 'Cause now war had become total war, meaning you also had to destroy the enemy'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonic_MalesYour using Goodall's chimp war story as evidence proves to me your ignorance. They were due to banana gifting.
Use the term hypersocial or go away. Humans are hypersocial, priority 1.
that defines humanity. 'Cause war gets you the mating rights.There's no primal difference between these two apes: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2119677-chimps-beat-up-murder-and-then-cannibalise-their-former-tyrant/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Muammar_Gaddafi
The endgame is exactly the same. Taking his women! All war is about sex. It has never been about anything else, from Helen of Troy to Eva Braun and ten million years leading up to them. Any summary of world history is the history of war, it is war
are both polygynous too. Nothing embarasses you like a relative.Gorillas' polygyny is so much easier, 'cause they aren't born 50/50 male and female. Humans and chimps are, making violence the only way to allow for polygyny, as it removes the competition for the fertile females. Functionally and genetically, we
You failed to use the term hypersocial, so the rest is irrelevant to me. I need no preacher. Gigo.
Monogamy is archaic preceding sapiens.
we show that the distribution
Primum Sapienti wrote:
we show that the distribution
Given the context, what the hell is "Grades" supposed to mean?
I am not asking what it means, I am asking what it means WITHIN
THE CONTEXT of the cite. There is a difference. Because the way
they are using the word doesn't seem to correspond with anything.
It honestly looks like one of those machine-authored "Papers." That,
or some gibbering idiots had nothing better to do while waiting for
their fries at McDonalds so they wrote it.
Neither author listed has anything to do with biology let alone paleo anthropology. One is apparently a psychologist and the other is
labelled an environmental scientist.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 223:33:07 |
| Calls: | 6,623 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 12,171 |
| Messages: | 5,318,368 |