Sometimes in my research for other things I am doing with my
time and life, I run across ideas for these inspirational musings. Occasionally, it even feels like a eureka
moment---I found it! And in these
moments, I am not always sure what I think or where it is going to take
me. But I know the process of thinking
about it and letting it ferment in my brain and heart will bring me to some
knowledge, insight and maybe some wisdom.
The process is significant.
I am working on another book. At least the ones I write require some wide
reading and research. I have opinions,
but my books need to be more than something I thought about over breakfast and
then shared. And so I found myself
reading a piece about primates! Don’t
ask how that relates to anything else I am doing. I came across a fascinating account of a
British anthropologist and psychologist person named Robin Dunbar. I had never heard of him.
Dunbar’s research “was trying to solve the problem of why
primates devote so much time and effort to grooming.” This is surely an interesting question, but I
never thought about it until I read about Robin Dunbar. As usual, what he found out not only began to
answer this question, but also was suggestive for other areas of
knowledge.
I read on to discover that the Machiavellian
Intelligence Hypothesis (now known as the Social Brain
Hypothesis) had just been introduced into anthropological and primatology
discourse.” This hypothesis “held that
primates have large brains because they live in socially complex societies: the
larger the group, the larger the brain.”
As a human being, I was beginning to feel implicated! My mind began to race ahead and I’m sure I
was making similar guesses about what I expected that Dunbar had been guessing
at the time.
I could not have put the best answer in his terms, but I
understood it. Dunbar concluded: “Thus,
from the size of an animal’s neocortex, the frontal lobe in particular, you
could theoretically predict the group size for that animal.” Naturally, Dunbar jumped to see if this
information worked for humans, too.
Apparently there is some good correlation.
One conclusive hypothesis Dunbar asserts is “judging from
the size of an average human brain, the number of people the average
person could have in her social group was a hundred and fifty.” That number---which has become known as the
Dunbar 150---is basically the optimal size group of folks we can call casual
friends. If our group is bigger than
this, we can’t manage it very well. When
I thought about myself, this made some sense.
It fits.
I realized I had “learned” years ago. In my work with churches, I found that
churches could grow to about 150 or maybe 200 maximum and maintain a nice sense
of community. Often churches try to grow
bigger than that and it simply does not work.
I figured out the church has to change its model of membership and sense
of community if it grows beyond these numbers.
It can, but it demands a different way of thinking. And I knew it was not easy.
That is the first place I saw the relevancy of his research
for my own interests in religion. The
second place I was intrigued has to do with where our technological revolution
will take it. Essentially, the question
is: will the stuff of today change who humans are? Dunbar also is interested in this same
question. For eons the humanization of
humans happened in real, live groups---homes, schools, friends and
acquaintances. Will our technology
develop humans differently?
Dunbar knows that “We aren’t born with full social
awareness,” and Dunbar fears, “too much virtual interaction may subvert that
education.” He illustrates this when he
says, “In the sandpit of life, when somebody kicks sand in your face, you can’t
get out of the sandpit. You have to deal with it, learn, compromise.” I really liked that phrase, “sandpit of
life.” My sandpit of life has been a
particular family, specific schools and wonderful, but not perfect,
churches. My sandpit got much bigger
with travel. I found folks from England,
Germany, Brazil, India and other places in my sandpit. I am sure going online to those places is not
the same.
Dunbar puts it effectively when he says, “On the internet,
you can pull the plug and walk away. There’s no forcing mechanism that makes us
have to learn.” That is a powerful
observation. He is concerned that too
many virtual friends might replace our real, social friends. It is something to think much more about and
exercise care how we proceed.
For the moment, however, I become even more thankful for all
my friends in my sandpit of life. I
resolve to spend more time telling them I appreciate them and ask them to help
me even more to form the spiritual life in community that I desire.
Comments
Post a Comment