Robin Dunbar - How Many Friends Does One Person Need?

[ozafter1]

During the 2nd half, why people bond, it becomes painfully clear this guy is unfamiliar with Dawkins and the gene-based theory of evolution.

[simmythegreat]

Very, very interesting! So useful to my dissertation. If i were to reference this, does anybody know what it would be? Cuz i can't really say youtube!

[theRSAorg]

@simmythegreat Do a google of 'Dunbar's number' and loads of articles and references will appear - including wikipedia...

[simmythegreat]

@theRSAorg Thankyou, i did do that shortly after posting the comment, i found this

18 February 2010 ‘How many friends does one person need?’, Lunchtime Lecture: Royal Society of Arts, London

Is this correct? :)

[theRSAorg]

@simmythegreat yes, that's the when the lecture was. :)

[FrogmortonHotchkiss]

Robin, around 15:30 you make the claim that religion evolved to foster social cohesion - isn't this a case of someone with a particular specialism making a reductive hypothesis that aspires to completely sum up a complex phenomenon within the bounds of that specialism? I feel sure that religion serves other, equally deep-seated purposes (existential angst), as well as multiple incidental purposes (top-down power & control).

What about contemplative hermits?

[funnystarchild]

@FrogmortonHotchkiss Cool english you got mate. :) Advanced.

[mattpmuller]

@FrogmortonHotchkiss I have to say i think you are saying the same thing as he is, but evolutionary concepts are far to complicated to make understandable without simplifying a little

[aberration1022]

@FrogmortonHotchkiss yea your right but he kind of answered ur point by saying that in original local shamanistic groups religion was more simple and after politcs( and he doesnt delve much further into that) much less into meta physics (or what i assumed he was aludiung to which is explanation of the world science and origins) got involved things changed and loose social groups came into being. and sorry this is youtube so i dont care about spelling and grammar but i hope quelled your query

[FrogmortonHotchkiss]

@aberration1022 hee maks a categoreecal statemunt about whut relijun evolved for, which hee cannot justifie - hee shoold hav been moar modest with his rathur dissmisiv clames and sed meerly that hee thinks soshal co-hee-shun wus a *majur factur* in relijuns adopshun and popularity.

I'm sure that was painful to read and perhaps even incomprehensible... but hey, it's Youtube!! :-D

I couldn't resist the jibe, but seriously, I did not understand your point at all - I did take a moment to try.

[aberration1022]

@FrogmortonHotchkiss than you, sir or madam, are a zealot and clearly missed the speakers point as well pervaded your arguement to sound as if the speaker was inconsiderate of religion towards your aim of engaging the thinking veiwers that somehow your religion is great and is so mysterious and wonderful which it is not, yet it is as the speaker points out something simple and if veiwed without bias explainable by anthroplogical theories and practice. Btw zealot I'm not an atheist bastard jsyk

[FrogmortonHotchkiss]

@aberration1022 Hahaha are you drunk!?

[DunbarConfederalist]

haha <3