I think he needs a little substance to go with the supposition that the mere concept of Dunbar's number invalidates all economic leftist policies.

Universal healthcare seems to work fine for every other industrialized nation. Highways seem to work out fine, as well as police, fire departments, research subsidies, etc.

I think this is more of an explanation for why people can be good and decent people in a small community, while at the same time espousing beliefs like "I shouldn't have to pay taxes to help the poor/sick/old" that runs completely counter to their behavior at a small scale, where they might be very charitable.

This is why leftist economic policies aren't popular, and one of the reasons why extreme leftist economies fail, but it tells us nothing about the pragmatism of leftist economic theory.

If there was any conclusive proof for his assertion, there wouldn't be any economic left theories anymore.

I am a big believer in Dunbars number but I dont think it can be used so easily about left or right wing policies. For instance, what would Dunbar have to say about a small group (say a parliament) ruling a much larger group even though they cant conceptualize or care about them? You can make arguments against both extreme left and extreme right and everything in the middle that way.

Lets just say we havent found any political system yet that truly agrees with Dunbars number.

Some sort of micro-federalist, or syndicalist structure seems to fit better with dunbar's then either totalitarian socialism, or liaise fare capitalism. The assertion that since socialism does not fit dunbar's, markets somehow overcome this problem lacks any sort of coherent mechanism.

This is a pretty good example of propaganda where a fact is shoehorned into a predetermined ideology. An ideology which the author begins by defining as not an ideological unified theory, even though it is just as much an arbitrary unifying abstraction as marxist "history" whereby socialism is self defined as not an ideology, but a "fact".

needs more research to support the argument. But there's definitely a tipping point at which social cohesion breaks down. I recall reading that small teams maximize their productivity at around 11 individuals, after which productivity plateaus and begins to drop off.

Dunbar's number also has a few things to say about the mood on the sift as well, methinks.

>> ^rbar:
I am a big believer in Dunbars number but I dont think it can be used so easily about left or right wing policies.

I agree with that in part. Certainly the conclusion the guy in the vid states is taking it way too far. However, it's a psychological phenomenon that speaks to that classification we all make; dividing people into those we know, and everyone else.

I think one of the deep differences between people on the left, and people on the right centers around the interpretation of that concept to a large part.

People on the left say humans are humans whether I know them or not, and while it's harder to instinctively identify with and sympathize with people you've never met, it's something you should always strive to do.

People on the right say humans are humans, and nobody cares about anyone outside their group, and nothing's gonna change that, so we should construct society in such a way that our naturally selfish impulses serve the community.

I personally think both of those are true, and that moderate economic policies give you the best of both worlds.

This whole Democrat vs. Republican thing is just a fight over what "moderate" means.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by MarineGunrock.

Awarding fissionchips with one star point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

So... Shinji is right-wing?

He's *dead Jim.

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by doogle.