Neocortical size and language

1995 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 388-389 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. I. M. Dunbar
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Time Constraints ◽  
Evolution Of Language ◽  
Target Article ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractIn my target article, I argued (1) that the relationship between neocortical size and group size in primates implies that there is a cognitive limit on the size of human groups, and (2) that time constraints forced the evolution of language as a more efficient means of bonding the large groups that humans evolved. The doubts about these claims raised by these additional commentaries largely reflect misinterpretation of my original claims.

The relationship of social vocalizations to surface behavior and aggression in the Hawaiian humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

1986 ◽  
Vol 64 (10) ◽  
pp. 2075-2080 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory K. Silber
Keyword(s):  
Surface Activity ◽  
Group Size ◽  
Social Dominance ◽  
Humpback Whale ◽  
Megaptera Novaeangliae ◽  
Adult Males ◽  
Surface Behavior ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) social vocalizations (nonsong sounds) were clearly related to whale group size and surface activity. Social sounds occurred almost exclusively in groups containing three or more whales and were rarely heard near single whales, pairs, or cow–calf groups. Large groups (3 to 20 individuals) vocalized at an overall mean rate of 43.1 ± 55.52 sounds per whale/h. Group size changed frequently and a dramatic increase in vocalization rate resulted when a new whale entered a group. Large groups engaged in flurries of surface activity, such as breaching, flipper- and tail-slapping, and underwater bubbling. Aggressive encounters resulted from male–male interaction. Social sounds probably acted to demonstrate aggression or agitation as adult males competed for temporary social dominance within the group and for proximity to the female. Likewise, visual displays may have been used as threats in close quarters and were apparently produced in conjunction with sounds to convey levels of aggression. Although other studies suggested that surface activity increased with group size, I found a negative correlation between activity and group size, both in the group as a whole and per individual. In contrast, social vocalizations per group increased with group size while the vocalization rate per individual did not vary significantly with increasing group size.

scholarly journals Research groups: how big should they be?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Cook ◽  
Sam Grange ◽  
Adam Eyre-Walker
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Group Size ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Average Group ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

We have investigated the relationship between research group size and productivity in the life sciences in the United Kingdom using data from 398 principle investigators (PIs). We show that the number of publications increases linearly with group size, but that the slope is modest relative to the intercept, and that the relationship explains little of the variance in productivity. A comparison of the slope and intercept suggests that PIs contribute on average 5-times more productivity than an average group member and using multiple regression we estimate that post-doctoral researchers are approximately 3–times more productive than PhD students. We also find that the impact factor and the number of citations are both non-linearly related to group size such that there is a maximum. However, the relationships explain little of the variance and the curvatures are shallow so the impact factor and the number of citations do not greatly depend upon group size. The intercept is large relative to curvature suggesting that the PI is largely responsible for the impact factor and the number of citations from their group. Surprisingly we find this non-linear relationship for post-docs, but for PhD students we observe a slight but significant decrease in the impact factor. The results have important implications for the funding of research. Given a set number of Pis there is no evidence of diminishing returns in terms of the number of papers published and only a very weak cost to very large groups in terms of where those papers are published and the number of citations they receive. However, the results do suggest that it might be more productive to invest in new permanent members of faculty rather than additional post-docs and PhD students.

Production, behaviour and welfare of growing pigs as influenced by drinker allocation and group size

1998 ◽  
Vol 1998 ◽  
pp. 114-114
Author(s):  
S. P. Turner ◽  
S. A. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Empirical Investigation ◽  
Growing Pigs ◽  
Production Performance ◽  
Light Weight ◽  
Large White ◽  
Commercial Grower ◽  
Heavy Medium ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

The requirement for water of growing pigs in large groups has been neglected. Current MAFF recommendations suggest one nipple drinker per 10 pigs, while farmers have often used a ratio of 1 per 20 animals. Neither approach is based on empirical investigation. The relationship between group size and the number of drinking points can not be assumed to be linear. The aim was to assess group size and the two conflicting ratios of drinkers for their effect on welfare, as measured by production performance, drinking and social behaviour.A total of 640 Large White x Landrace growing pigs (start weight 36kg) were housed in a fully slatted commercial grower house for five weeks. Four replicates were used and each animal was assigned to 1 of 4 treatments in a 2 x 2 factorial design of two group sizes (20 vs 60) and two ratios of nipple drinkers to pigs (1:10 vs 1:20). The groups of 20 comprised of pigs from 3 different pens, while 9 pens contributed to the groups of 60. The floor space per pig was maintained constant across treatments. Nine focal pigs (three each of heavy, medium and light weight) were selected from each pen.

scholarly journals Brains, genes, and language evolution: A new synthesis

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (5) ◽  
pp. 537-558 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten H. Christiansen ◽  
Nick Chater
Keyword(s):  
Language Learners ◽  
Cultural Transmission ◽  
Language Evolution ◽  
Universal Grammar ◽  
Evolution Of Language ◽  
New Synthesis ◽  
Target Article ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Brain ◽  
Close Fit

AbstractOur target article argued that a genetically specified Universal Grammar (UG), capturing arbitrary properties of languages, is not tenable on evolutionary grounds, and that the close fit between language and language learners arises because language is shaped by the brain, rather than the reverse. Few commentaries defend a genetically specified UG. Some commentators argue that we underestimate the importance of processes of cultural transmission; some propose additional cognitive and brain mechanisms that may constrain language and perhaps differentiate humans from nonhuman primates; and others argue that we overstate or understate the case against co-evolution of language genes. In engaging with these issues, we suggest that a new synthesis concerning the relationship between brains, genes, and language may be emerging.

scholarly journals Fisheries-induced selection against schooling behaviour in marine fishes

2020 ◽  
Vol 287 (1935) ◽  
pp. 20201752
Author(s):  
Ana Sofia Guerra ◽  
Albert B. Kao ◽  
Douglas J. McCauley ◽  
Andrew M. Berdahl
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Group Living ◽  
Natural Environments ◽  
Fishing Pressure ◽  
Target Groups ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Common Strategy ◽  
Schooling Behaviour ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

Group living is a common strategy used by fishes to improve their fitness. While sociality is associated with many benefits in natural environments, including predator avoidance, this behaviour may be maladaptive in the Anthropocene. Humans have become the dominant predator in many marine systems, with modern fishing gear developed to specifically target groups of schooling species. Therefore, ironically, behavioural strategies which evolved to avoid non-human predators may now actually make certain fish more vulnerable to predation by humans. Here, we use an individual-based model to explore the evolution of fish schooling behaviour in a range of environments, including natural and human-dominated predation conditions. In our model, individual fish may leave or join groups depending on their group-size preferences, but their experienced group size is also a function of the preferences of others in the population. Our model predicts that industrial fishing selects against individual-level behaviours that produce large groups. However, the relationship between fishing pressure and sociality is nonlinear, and we observe discontinuities and hysteresis as fishing pressure is increased or decreased. Our results suggest that industrial fishing practices could be altering fishes’ tendency to school, and that social behaviour should be added to the list of traits subject to fishery-induced evolution.

Production, behaviour and welfare of growing pigs as influenced by drinker allocation and group size

1998 ◽  
Vol 1998 ◽  
pp. 114-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. P. Turner ◽  
S. A. Edwards
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Empirical Investigation ◽  
Growing Pigs ◽  
Production Performance ◽  
Light Weight ◽  
Large White ◽  
Commercial Grower ◽  
Heavy Medium ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

The requirement for water of growing pigs in large groups has been neglected. Current MAFF recommendations suggest one nipple drinker per 10 pigs, while farmers have often used a ratio of 1 per 20 animals. Neither approach is based on empirical investigation. The relationship between group size and the number of drinking points can not be assumed to be linear. The aim was to assess group size and the two conflicting ratios of drinkers for their effect on welfare, as measured by production performance, drinking and social behaviour.A total of 640 Large White x Landrace growing pigs (start weight 36kg) were housed in a fully slatted commercial grower house for five weeks. Four replicates were used and each animal was assigned to 1 of 4 treatments in a 2 x 2 factorial design of two group sizes (20 vs 60) and two ratios of nipple drinkers to pigs (1:10 vs 1:20). The groups of 20 comprised of pigs from 3 different pens, while 9 pens contributed to the groups of 60. The floor space per pig was maintained constant across treatments. Nine focal pigs (three each of heavy, medium and light weight) were selected from each pen.

scholarly journals Research groups: how big should they be?

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Cook ◽  
Sam Grange ◽  
Adam Eyre-Walker
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Group Size ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Average Group ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Number Of Publications ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship

We have investigated the relationship between research group size and productivity in the life sciences in the United Kingdom using data from 398 principle investigators (PIs). We show that the number of publications increases linearly with group size, but that the slope is modest relative to the intercept, and that the relationship explains little of the variance in productivity. A comparison of the slope and intercept suggests that PIs contribute on average 5-times more productivity than an average group member and using multiple regression we estimate that post-doctoral researchers are approximately 3–times more productive than PhD students. We also find that the impact factor and the number of citations are both non-linearly related to group size such that there is a maximum. However, the relationships explain little of the variance and the curvatures are shallow so the impact factor and the number of citations do not greatly depend upon group size. The intercept is large relative to curvature suggesting that the PI is largely responsible for the impact factor and the number of citations from their group. Surprisingly we find this non-linear relationship for post-docs, but for PhD students we observe a slight but significant decrease in the impact factor. The results have important implications for the funding of research. Given a set number of Pis there is no evidence of diminishing returns in terms of the number of papers published and only a very weak cost to very large groups in terms of where those papers are published and the number of citations they receive. However, the results do suggest that it might be more productive to invest in new permanent members of faculty rather than additional post-docs and PhD students.

scholarly journals The Impact of Group Size on Decision Effectiveness

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 108
Author(s):  
Juliana Osmani
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Quantitative Research ◽  
Banking Institutions ◽  
High Level ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Individual Commitment

The relationship between organization and environment, based on the need to gather information and find resources, is increasingly characterized by a high level of uncertainty. Uncertainty means that managers do not have enough information and time to anticipate changes and make good decisions. More and more managers make decisions about new problems or situations. The level of risk increases, as well as the degree of complexity that the decision maker has to face. Under these conditions, organizations are moving towards the use of groups. The main purpose of the current research is to identify what are the most important benefits and limits of the group referring to its size, taking into analysis the banking institutions. For the current study is adopted the quantitative research and for the data collection is used the questionnaire. A total of 344 questionnaire are distributed. 80 percent of the participants agree that group size affects the quality of the decisions made and most of them prefer small groups. Also, most of them believe that within large groups are more conflicts, the relationships between members are more formal, the attention and individual commitment are lower than in small groups, the consensus is difficult, decisions can be made only through a voting process and there are no delays in decision-making, but coordination problems are not necessarily higher than within small groups.

scholarly journals The Goldilocks Effect: Female geladas in mid-sized groups have higher fitness

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Tinsley Johnson ◽  
Noah Snyder-Mackler ◽  
Amy Lu ◽  
Thore J. Bergman ◽  
Jacinta C. Beehner
Keyword(s):  
Group Size ◽  
Size Variation ◽  
Group Living ◽  
Mortality Rates ◽  
Female Mortality ◽  
Individual Fitness ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Insight Into

AbstractThe cost-to-benefit ratio of group-living is thought to vary with group size: individuals in “optimal” groups should have higher fitness than individuals in groups that are too large or small. However, the relationship between group size and individual fitness has been difficult to establish, a gap we address here in the gelada. We demonstrate group size effects on the production of surviving offspring and on female mortality rates, which are largely explained by group-size variation in infanticide risk and foraging competition. We also identify a mechanism by which females may alter group size: in large groups, females groomed with less than half of their group, increasing the likelihood of fissions. Our findings provide insight into how and why group size shapes fitness in long-lived species.

scholarly journals Pareto meets Olson – A Note on Pareto-optimality and Group Size in Linear Public Goods Games

ORDO ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Pickhardt
Keyword(s):  
Public Goods ◽  
Group Size ◽  
Small Groups ◽  
Pareto Optimality ◽  
Pareto Optimal ◽  
Public Goods Games ◽  
Optimal Allocations ◽  
Large Groups ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Pareto Optimal Allocations

SummaryIn this paper I examine the relationship between Pareto-optimality and group size in linear public goods games or experiments. In particular, I use the standard setting of homogeneous linear public goods experiments and apply a recently developed tool to identify all Pareto-optimal allocations in such settings. It turns out that under any conceivable circumstances, ceteris paribus, small groups have a higher Pareto-ratio (Pareto-optimal allocations over total allocations) than large groups. Hence, if Pareto-optimality of an allocation is a property that makes such allocations acceptable and maintainable, small groups will find is easier to provide Pareto-optimal amounts of a public good than large groups. This is a novel reasoning for Mancur Olson′s claim, in particular, with respect to what he has termed inclusive goods and inclusive groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document