The analysis reveals multiple assumptions on social cohesion and group size, suggesting a reevaluation of glass ceilings imposed by social stressors.
Dunbar suggests that social stressors set “glass ceilings” on the evolution of mammalian group size and cohesion. We argue that this glass ceiling narrative conceals three contentious anthropocentric assumptions. First, large stable groups would always be beneficial. Second, grooming is an indicator for maintaining group cohesion. Third, group size is primarily limited by cognitive or behavioral incapacity. We challenge all three assumptions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Papadopoulos et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: