strredwolf | Aug. 27th, 2006

leslie_r pointed to me an article called "Inside the Monkeysphere" by David Wong, which does some distillation and philosophical expansion of a research paper published from the University of Liverpool. I thought I'd dismiss it as unproven theory, but the article's author has pointed to the research, so it's now an unverified theory.

The theory goes is that brain size is related to how many of one's species a person or animal can know fairly well. A study of monkeys says the group is around 50, with two "grooming partners." Extrapolated to humans, the number goes to basiclly about 150 friends and family, with 12 of those intimate friends (or lovers).

Wong takes this theory, and tries to apply it to the real world. He names this group of 150 fairly-known-friends-of-a-person the person's "Monkeysphere." Wong then surmizes that we're more intrested in people in our Monkeysphere, and everyone else just stimies us and have to be described in simple terms.

Take

leslie_r ,

griffinwolf ,

prismo and others I've met over the years and kept in contact with. I know some details of them, like Leslie's and GW's real names, what type of mask GW and I have, what intrests me and Prismo. They're in my Monkeysphere. I'm comfortable with that, knowing some details that shape my attitude towards them.

Take someone outside that. Anyone in the local, state, or federal government. Anyone outside where I work. My next door neighbor at the begining of the street where I live. Osama Bin Laden. I don't know intimate details about them, and have to simply them to understand. Bin Laden's a terrorist that masterminded 9-11. President "Dubba" Bush is a terrible president and ruining the United States. Governor Erlich wants slots in Maryland, which I'm for. Simple stuff.

Wong then relates the theory to popular contriversial items such as terrorists, the economy, and racism... and does so in an "matter-of-factly" way that puts me off. Granted, he could of did a better job writing the relations, but instead refered to some fake people and fake inventions of historic items to get his point across.

Afterwards, he proposes a method to exploiting the theory for peaceful purposes -- recognizing that you're a moron since you can't handle anyone outside your Monkeysphere, and recognizing that everyone else is a moron, too; then not letting folks simply things for you. Instead, simplify it yourself.

It's an intresting method to try... but I'm a Perl programmer, following the values of Lazyness, Impatience, and Hubris. I'm to lazy to simply things manually, and too impatient to go and research the hell out of everything. It'll take alot of time I don't have and some areas I don't have access to (like Area 51, Iraq, Aftganistan, Iran, Dubba, or even that plane crash in Kentucky). Granted, I have intrest in them, but I have to let others simplify them for me.

Take the Emmy's. They present the best TV shows out there and award them for their excellence. What fun and joy! Am I watching them now? No. I have artwork to work on, comics to put online, two articles to write for the Metaverse Messenger, and a boss who's going through and testing out two items I've installed on his servers. I can't be bothered right now. I'll have to read about it in the local rag of a newspaper.

The article and the research report behind it is an intresting read onto itself, worth some time if you have it to spare.