The Monkeysphere

[Aurielius]

I find the easy acceptance of this thesis very droll, though I have spent a good deal of my life intentionally compartmentalizing my empathy out of professional necessity for dealing with the task at hand. Now that I am free to choose, in most but not all cases I think compassion is the nobler virtue. That does not mean that I refute the concept that some people are beyond the pale and deserve no mercy, for them it is a waste of empathy.

[grannywils]

I find the easy acceptance of this thesis very droll, though I have spent a good deal of my life intentionally compartmentalizing my empathy out of professional necessity for dealing with the task at hand. Now that I am free to choose, in most but not all cases I think compassion is the nobler virtue. That does not mean that I refute the concept that some people are beyond the pale and deserve no mercy, for them it is a waste of empathy.

 

 

Gosh, Aurielius, almost sounds as if we agree on this one....

[Marxist ßastard]

The “monkeysphere” concept isn't something that the author of that article thought up. It's known as Dunbar's number among anthropologists, for whom it is totally a thing. The eponymous Robin Dunbar discovered the bit about neocortex size in 1993. But Julian Edney made a more-or-less complete statement of it as early as 1981: “the upper limit for a simple, self-contained, sustaining, well-functioning commons may be as low as 150 people.” Just last year, it was covered on You Are Not So Smart, and it was discussed in Dunbar's newest book, in which he states the following upper limits:

• 3–5 people you speak with regularly
• 13–20 people whose deaths you'd notice
• 100–230 people you would recognize on a city street

Note that the ranges are 95% confidence intervals – indicating that he used science.

 

The point is that there is a limit to the number of people with whom you can maintain a given level of intimacy. And at the most trivial level of intimacy, you can only manage around 150 people. People beyond that group are not full-fledged humans. They are stereotypes. One-dimensional. Platonic ideals. That's the only way you can be around thousands of people without stressing your brain.

 

You can see this happening within this thread. Take the Comic Sans–user, for instance, who imagines soldiers “risking their lives every day for people they will never know”: Is this engaging with the soldiers as individuals, with complex motivations? No, it's just stuffing them into some propagandistic, one-dimensional ideal of a soldier. And doing that isn't inherently right or wrong – it's just a necessary, reflexive action. But you should know how it biases your judgment.

Edited July 28, 2011 by Marxist ßastard

[grannywils]

Marxist Bastard said: "You can see this happening within this thread. Take the Comic Sans–user, for instance, who imagines soldiers “risking their lives every day for people they will never know”: Is this engaging with the soldiers as individuals, with complex motivations? No, it's just stuffing them into some propagandistic, one-dimensional ideal of a soldier. And doing that isn't inherently right or wrong – it's just a necessary, reflexive action. But you should know how it biases your judgment. "

 

Since you illustrated your own point so perfectly in the above excerpt from your own post, I am copying it here. In your effort however, I believe you are further illustrating my point. You have referred to a total stranger (i.e. me) by what I can only assume you meant as a derogogatory term (i.e. Comic Sans-user) in attempting to show how people do not know anything about people they do not know.

 

Well you have proved that you do not know anything about me and yet by calling me a foolish name instead of the name which was posted right there for you to see, you show that somehow "feelings" were elicited by my post. It would seem that you did not read the rest of the very paragraph you were quoting, however; wherein I did elucidate that the soldiers did not necessarily require complex motivations. I engaged in no propraganda, but in fact feel that you might be doing so now.

 

I do not feel all that strongly about this whole Monkeysphere philosophy, but I do feel very strongly about people using flawed logic in their debates in order to prove a point.

[marharth]

The “monkeysphere” concept isn't something that the author of that article thought up. It's known as Dunbar's number among anthropologists, for whom it is totally a thing. The eponymous Robin Dunbar discovered the bit about neocortex size in 1993. But Julian Edney made a more-or-less complete statement of it as early as 1981: “the upper limit for a simple, self-contained, sustaining, well-functioning commons may be as low as 150 people.” Just last year, it was covered on You Are Not So Smart, and it was discussed in Dunbar's newest book, in which he states the following upper limits:

• 3–5 people you speak with regularly
• 13–20 people whose deaths you'd notice
• 100–230 people you would recognize on a city street

Note that the ranges are 95% confidence intervals – indicating that he used science.

 

The point is that there is a limit to the number of people with whom you can maintain a given level of intimacy. And at the most trivial level of intimacy, you can only manage around 150 people. People beyond that group are not full-fledged humans. They are stereotypes. One-dimensional. Platonic ideals. That's the only way you can be around thousands of people without stressing your brain.

 

You can see this happening within this thread. Take the Comic Sans–user, for instance, who imagines soldiers “risking their lives every day for people they will never know”: Is this engaging with the soldiers as individuals, with complex motivations? No, it's just stuffing them into some propagandistic, one-dimensional ideal of a soldier. And doing that isn't inherently right or wrong – it's just a necessary, reflexive action. But you should know how it biases your judgment.

I expect you to get a lot of hate from that post, even though I agree.

[Marxist ßastard]

wherein I did elucidate

So, um, is there some sort of a mood-ring effect going on here? Like it's teal when you're in a good mood, but then goes to a darker blue once you're aggravated?

[grannywils]

LOL. I don't always see that well, and pick the colors by which one shows up best for me that day. Only one I use when aggravated is RED. Otherwise, everyone is safe. But I do happen to like blues and greens...:tongue:

[Marxist ßastard]

Okay, well, I totally acknowledge that I'm not giving you the same level of respect that I give my friends. I never denied that I'm limited by my neocortex just as you are by yours. And I'm not here to make grand pronouncements that we should all “destroy our monkeyspheres” or something – which wouldn't be possible in any case. I just wanted to explain the effect more and suggest better awareness.

 

Anyway, what I was getting at with the soldiers was that most don't fit into the ideal at all. Of my friends who were overseas within the past few years, many went in for the GI Bill, or were stop-lossed and didn't want to be there in the first place. And since they are my friends, I understand all that. But I don't want to get into a big discussion about this because (1) neither of us are soldiers, (2) it would be off-topic, and (3) a serious discussion like that demands Helvetica 11/13 – Comic Sans disrespects our troops.

[grannywils]

Okay, well, I totally acknowledge that I'm not giving you the same level of respect that I give my friends. I never denied that I'm limited by my neocortex just as you are by yours. And I'm not here to make grand pronouncements that we should all "destroy our monkeyspheres" or something – which wouldn't be possible in any case. I just wanted to explain the effect more and suggest better awareness.

 

Anyway, what I was getting at with the soldiers was that most don't fit into the ideal at all. Of my friends who were overseas within the past few years, many went in for the GI Bill, or were stop-lossed and didn't want to be there in the first place. And since they are my friends, I understand all that. But I don't want to get into a big discussion about this because (1) neither of us are soldiers, (2) it would be off-topic, and (3) a serious discussion like that demands Helvetica 11/13 – Comic Sans disrespects our troops.

 

 

 

Sent you a PM....

[SilverDNA]

@Marxist ßastard

"destroy our monkey spheres" ?

 

( I see no need either in repeating your complete post)

Classical case of "Sophisma ex homonymia" (Sophism from the homonym) If somebody nowadays is fooled by this then it is ultimate droll.

Because i said never written destroy the monkey spheres but breaking witch would be also be interpreted as overcoming so your argumentation is in terms most others understand "puting words in my mouth I Did not said".

"Do you really are so alone and afraid of the others that you seek to destroy them?" Could be an answer that Freud or C.G. Jung would have used in a debate with you. I personally refer more to the point out to you good old Horaz "quam temere in nosmet legem sancimus iniquam." (How thoughtless it is to sanction a law unjust to himself.) and did i appeal to all "In dubio pro libertate." (If in doubt favor liberty)

And since somebody has lost the appeal to humanity that was hidden within parody /comedy view on humanity in the original link from nyxalinth I state it here again: "Show civil courage and don't look away if someone needs help because next time it could be you that needs help!"

Edited July 29, 2011 by SilverDNA