The M͛i͛l͛l͛e͛n͛n͛i͛a͛l Fallacy
& Our Biology, Technology, and Social Media
Homo Sapiens evolved to thrive in groups of 50–60 and of no more than 150.
While many will take issue with this, it has been observed in the lowlands of Africa, through the most transparent ancestors primatologists and evolutionary biologists can find. The heart of Africa is where our species began, and it makes sense to be the place where man would turn to investigate our most unabashed selves. Yes, baboons too have societies, social norms, and group mentality. Contrary to what many believe, “society” is something that is programmed into our biological makeup. Being able to cohesively interact and adapt in groups is how we survive; yet, those of our 99% biological siblings are significantly smaller than ours are — and so were our nomadic ancestors’.
So why shouldn’t ours be?
Evolutionary anthropologist Robert Sapolsky has spent almost 30 straight summers in the rugged forests of central Africa, studying the neurological underpinnings of the Great Apes — ourselves included. He is not the first to arrive at the conclusion raised in the first sentence, but his work certainly helps to solidify it.
It’s clear that gone are the days of tribal unity and solidarity. We will not be returning to the wilderness to live like so many indigenous cultures have gravitated to. (If this idea interests you, I highly recommend the book Tribe by Sebastian Junger or his podcast with Joe Rogan.)
And Where to next?
Ideologue Nassim Nicholas Taleb believes that effective technology doesn’t push us away from our ancestry, but actually catalyzes a return to it. Take, for example, the evolution of food production. For two centuries, we were focused on mass production of food and as a result developed some dangerously artificial practices. But now, we are trending back again in the direction of our forebears. Farm-to-table restaurants and organic food markets have grown tremendously in the last decade and appear to be on the menu for the future of food.
The most dangerous techno-evolutionary concept that I want to call attention to in this blogpost is the namesake of this article: the socialization fallacy preying upon my fellow millennials (and myself.)
What do you think of when you read the word Social Network?
In a paper on Social Network Size in humans, Robin Dunbar, of Liverpool University, analyzed social group data in western cultures and ultimately puts forth that: “ideal modern group size hovered around 125 and maxed out at 150,” with a fifth (~30) of that being family members. In a related investigation, Philip Lieberman criticizes Dunbar’s number, suggesting that nomadic groups were most suited for traveling in sizes of 50 or less. Of course, we have become more stable beings than our hunter-gatherer forebears (although less so of late;) however, when unified, these studies would indicate that smaller is better, not larger. This is called social grooming.
So how many social media connections do you have?
If you compare the social media habits of baby boomers to those of the youngest adult generation, there is a stark contrast not in usage time, but in usage style. Baby boomers interact with these technologies in a way that resonates with the findings of Dr. Sapolsky mentioned above. As a primatologist would expect, they take the 100 people from “real life” whom they most want to associate with, and restrict their social media interactions to them.
Millennials are quite different.
I am in group chats with people I have never met, nor even seen their faces. I follow people on picture sharing mediums whom I never have and never will be acquainted. My Facebook profile is littered with “friends” I met only once. This is not what a “friend” is. Often, I will never even see that person’s face again, unless I seek them out. A friendship’s lifecycle should not run its course over the span of 24 hours. We’re not flies. We live 80 years. That’s 29,200 days. A friendship doesn’t begin and end over the course of one day, it is cultivated by donating our most precious commodity to one another: time.
This Millennial Fallacy, that friendships do not necessary require time, is where our actions are at loggerheads with our biology. We were not designed and are incapable of being genuinely social with 250 people. If you were to imagine that our brains have 100 “tokens of social stamina” to give out, one per person, it’s impossible to maintain a real relationship with 250 individuals. That’s .4 of a token per person. Do vending machines accept pennies and nickels? No, they work in larger units. Our brains are no different. In this scenario, you would be devoting less than half of your social brain to every friend you have. This fallacy does us a tremendous disservice — it makes it so that our real friends are put on ice at the same level as our acquaintances. As innately social beings, that is dangerous territory.
As a result, we have arrived at a brand of social distortion which has never happened before in human history. It worries me, and many others, but seems to ride largely unnoticed through the tunnels of our collective conscience. As an aside, it’s fascinating to note that the baby boomers seem to have a more genuine relationship with social media itself than we do. They actually like it. Millennials are just on it. This is most likely due to the fact that older folks use it in a way that their brains can legitimately handle — in doses focused around a more natural <100 number of connections.
As I’ve written before, I believe we are headed for some kind of paradigm change in the nature of social media. I don’t necessarily think it will be as obvious as the shift from zero to Facebook, but I do however think that our subconscious brains will trend back in the direction of our ancestors. But for now we wait, unsustainably. Good luck brains, I wish you Godspeed.
*******
The Millennium Falcon, under siege from the Empire, won’t start.
Princess Leia: Would it help if I got out and pushed?
Han Solo: It might!
If you like this article, here are a few others I have written:
Surfing the Ocean Protocol on a Blockchain of New Paradigms
(AI meets the Blockchain)
Unscrewing the Lid on Surveillance Capital
A 3D Past, an IMAX present, and a Virtual Future
The Third of July and the Rich Cake Dilemma
