Hostname: page-component-669899f699-8p65j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-26T02:20:44.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Understanding the jaggedness in social complexity is more important

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2025

Li Lei Open the ORCID record for Li Lei [Opens in a new window]  and
Tao Gong Open the ORCID record for Tao Gong [Opens in a new window]
Li Lei*
Affiliation:
Centre for Language Studies, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands [email protected] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=CwZUxOIAAAAJ&hl=en
Tao Gong
Affiliation:
Google, New York, NY, USA [email protected] https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=R3scOF4AAAAJ&hl=en
*
*Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A clear definition of society helps prevent conceptual misunderstanding. When making practical measurement of societies, it is worth noting that social complexity is actually a jagged concept that encompasses multiple weakly correlated dimensions. Understanding such jaggedness assists interpretation of the divergence between anonymous societies and the social brain hypothesis.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 48 , 2025 , e66
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bergman, T. J., & Beehner, J. C. (2015). Measuring social complexity. Animal Behaviour, 103, 203–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2015.02.018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, R. I. M. (1993). Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16(4), 681–694. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X00032325Google Scholar
Dunbar, R. I., & Shultz, S. (2023). Four errors and a fallacy: Pitfalls for the unwary in comparative brain analyses. Biological Reviews, 98(4), 1278–1309. https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12953Google Scholar
Dunlop, R. A. (2022). Humpback whales: A seemingly socially simple whale with communicative complexity. In Clark, C. W. & Garland, E. C. (Eds.), Ethology and behavioral ecology of mysticetes (pp. 223–246). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98449-6_10Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (2012). Three waves of variation study: The emergence of meaning in the study of sociolinguistic variation. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 87–100. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145828CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, N. J., Seed, A. M., Von Bayern, A. M., & Clayton, N. S. (2007). Cognitive adaptations of social bonding in birds. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 362(1480), 489–505. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2006.1991CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freeberg, T. M., Dunbar, R. I., & Ord, T. J. (2012). Social complexity as a proximate and ultimate factor in communicative complexity. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1597), 1785–1801. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0213Google ScholarPubMed
Hobson, E. A., Ferdinand, V., Kolchinsky, A., & Garland, J. (2019). Rethinking animal social complexity measures with the help of complex systems concepts. Animal Behaviour, 155, 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.05.016Google Scholar
Holekamp, K. E. (2007). Questioning the social intelligence hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 65–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.003CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kappeler, P. M. (2019). A framework for studying social complexity. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 73, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-018-2601-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marino, L. (2022). Cetacean brain, cognition, and social complexity. In Di Sciara, G. N. & Würsig, B. (Eds.), Marine mammals: The evolving human factor (pp. 113–148). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98100-6_4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffett, M. W. (2012). Supercolonies of billions in an invasive ant: What is a society? Behavioral Ecology, 23(5), 925–933. https://doi.org/10.1093/beheco/ars043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moffett, M. W. (2019). The human swarm: How our societies arise, thrive, and fall. Basic Books.Google Scholar
O'Donnell, S., Bulova, S. J., DeLeon, S., Khodak, P., Miller, S., & Sulger, E. (2015). Distributed cognition and social brains: Reductions in mushroom body investment accompanied the origins of sociality in wasps (Hymenoptera: Vespidae). Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 282(1810), 20150791. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2015.0791Google ScholarPubMed
Raviv, L., Peckre, L. R., & Boeckx, C. (2022). What is simple is actually quite complex: A critical note on terminology in the domain of language and communication. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 136(4), 215–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/com0000328Google ScholarPubMed
Rosati, A. G. (2017). Foraging cognition: Reviving the ecological intelligence hypothesis. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(9), 691–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2017.05.011Google ScholarPubMed
Rose, T. (2016). The end of average: How to succeed in a world that values sameness. HarperCollins Publishers.Google Scholar
Traniello, J. F., & Avarguès-Weber, A. (2023). Individual and collective cognition in social insects: What's in a name? Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology, 77(11), 119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-023-03392-wCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whiten, A., & van de Waal, E. (2017). Social learning, culture and the “socio-cultural brain” of human and non-human primates. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 82, 58–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.12.018Google ScholarPubMed