Abstract:Empirical evidence suggests that social structure may have changed from hierarchical to egalitarian and back along the evolutionary line of humans. We model a society subject to competing cognitive and social navigation constraints. The theory predicts that the degree of hierarchy decreases with encephalization and increases with group size. Hence hominin groups may have been driven from a phase with hierarchical order to a phase with egalitarian structures by the encephalization during the last two million years, and back to hierarchical due to fast demographical changes during the Neolithic. The dynamics in the perceived social network shows evidence in the egalitarian phase of the observed phenomenon of Reverse Dominance. The theory also predicts for modern hunter-gatherers in mild climates a trend towards an intermediate hierarchy degree and a phase transition for harder ecological conditions. In harsher climates societies would tend to bemore egalitarian if organized in small groups but more hierarchical if in large groups. The theoretical model permits organizing the available data in the cross-cultural record (Ethnographic Atlas, N=248 cultures) where the symmetry breaking transition can be clearly seen.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is how the human social structure has changed from hierarchical to egalitarian and then back to hierarchical during the evolutionary process. Specifically, the authors explored how the competition between cognitive and social - navigation constraints drives this transformation. The following are the core issues and research objectives of the paper:
### Research Background
1. **Evolution of Social Structure**: There is evidence that the human social structure has changed from hierarchical to egalitarian and then back to hierarchical during the evolutionary process. For example, ancient humans may have initially had a hierarchical social structure, but during the Paleolithic era, as brain capacity increased, society gradually became more egalitarian. By the Neolithic era, due to population growth and the development of agriculture, society became hierarchical again.
2. **Challenges in Theoretical Explanation**: Although there are various anthropological explanations attempting to explain this non - monotonic change in social structure (U - shaped trajectory), these explanations have not yet formed a unified theoretical framework.
### Research Objectives
The authors constructed a theoretical model to explain this phenomenon by introducing methods from information theory and statistical mechanics. Specific objectives include:
- **Modeling the Competition between Cognitive and Social - Navigation Constraints**: By considering the influence of individual cognitive abilities and group size, the model predicts changes in social structure.
- **Interpreting Historical Data**: Use this model to explain the evolution of human social structure in different historical periods.
- **Predicting Modern Human Social Structure**: Based on ecological pressure and group size, predict the changing trends of modern social structure.
### Key Assumptions of the Model
- **Cognitive Costs and Social Costs**: Each individual's cognition of their social network is limited by cognitive ability, and a certain cognitive cost is required to remember social relationships. At the same time, the lack of direct knowledge brings social costs.
- **Combination of Cognitive Resources and Group Size**: A specific cognitive capacity parameter \(z=\frac{2\alpha}{n(n - 1)}\) is defined, where \(\alpha\) represents cognitive ability and \(n\) represents group size.
- **Environmental Pressure**: A Lagrange multiplier \(\beta\) is introduced, representing environmental pressure, which affects an individual's tolerance for changes in social structure.
### Main Conclusions
- **Phase - Transition Phenomenon**: The model predicts that as cognitive ability increases and group size changes, the social structure will undergo a phase transition, changing from hierarchical to egalitarian and then back to hierarchical.
- **Prediction of Modern Human Social Structure**: For small groups in a mild climate, society is more likely to be egalitarian; for large groups in a harsh climate, society is more likely to be hierarchical.
- **Support from Cross - Cultural Data**: Through the analysis of 248 cultures in the "Ethnographic Atlas", it was found that the theoretical predictions are highly consistent with the actual data.
### Formula Summary
1. **Cognitive Costs and Social Costs**:
\[
C_0(S_i)=N_i^{\text{cog}}+\alpha\bar{L}_i
\]
where \(N_i^{\text{cog}}=\frac{1}{2}\sum_{j,k = 1}^n s_{jk}^i\) represents cognitive cost and \(\bar{L}_i=\frac{2}{n(n - 1)}\sum_{j,k = 1}^n l_{jk}^i\) represents social cost.
2. **Cognitive Capacity Parameter**:
\[
z=\frac{2\alpha}{n(n - 1)}
\]
3. **Entropy Distribution**:
\[
P(S_i|I)=\frac{1}{Z}e^{-\beta C_0(S_i)}
\]
where \(Z\) is a normalization factor, depending on \(n,\alpha,\beta\).
4. **Hierarchy Parameter**:
\[
H = 2-2\frac{\mathbb{E}[d_{\text{avg}}]}{\mathbb{E}[d_{\text{max}}]}
\]
Through these formulas and the model, the authors successfully explained the complex changes in human social structure during the evolutionary process and provided a basis for understanding modern society.