Editing Tribalism (section)

== Concept evolution ==
Tribalism has a very adaptive effect in [[human evolution]]. Humans are social animals and ill-equipped to live on their own.<ref>{{cite book|last=Isaacs|first=Harold Robert|title=Idols of the Tribe: Group Identity and Political Change|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=0Kne87aU7D0C|year=1975|publisher=Harvard University Press|isbn=978-0-674-44315-0|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=0Kne87aU7D0C&pg=PA43 43]}}</ref> Tribalism and social bonding help to keep individuals committed to the group, even when personal relations may fray. That keeps individuals from wandering off or joining other groups. It also leads to [[bullying]] when a tribal member is unwilling to conform to the politics of the collective.<ref>{{cite book|last=Jenks|first=Chris|title=Core Sociological Dichotomies|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E8BPfIuAeSQC|year=1998|publisher=Sage Publications|isbn=978-1-4462-6463-8|page=[https://books.google.com/books?id=E8BPfIuAeSQC&dq=tribalism+bonding&pg=PA339 339]}}</ref>

Some scholars argue that [[inclusive fitness in humans]] involves [[kin selection]] and kin altruism, in which groups of an extended family with shared genes help others with similar genes, based on their [[coefficient of relationship]] (the amount of genes they have in common). Other scholars argue that [[fictive kinship]] is common in human organizations, allowing non-kin members to collaborate in groups like [[Fraternity|fraternities]].

Socially, divisions between groups fosters specialized interactions with others, based on association: altruism (positive interactions with unrelated members), kin-selectivity (positive interactions with related members) and violence (negative interactions). Thus, groups with a strong sense of unity and identity can benefit from [[kin selection]] behaviour such as common property and shared resources. The tendencies of members to unite against an outside tribe and the ability to act violently and prejudicially against that outside tribe likely boosted the chances of survival in genocidal conflicts.

Modern examples of tribal [[genocide]] rarely reflect the defining characteristics of tribes existing prior to the [[Neolithic Revolution]]; for example, small population and close-relatedness.

According to a study by [[Robin Dunbar]] at the [[University of Liverpool]], social group size is determined by primate brain size.<ref>{{cite book |author=Dunbar, Robin I. M. |title=How many friends does one person need?: Dunbar's number and other evolutionary quirks |publisher=Faber and Faber |location=London |year=2010 |isbn=978-0-571-25342-5 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/howmanyfriendsdo0000dunb |author-link=Robin Dunbar }}</ref> Dunbar's conclusion was that most human brains can really understand only an average of 150 individuals as fully developed, complex [[person|people]]. That is known as [[Dunbar's number]]. In contrast, anthropologist [[H. Russell Bernard]] and [[Peter Killworth]] have done a variety of field studies in the United States that came up with an estimated mean number of ties, 290, roughly double Dunbar's estimate. The Bernard–Killworth [[median]] of 231 is lower because of upward straggle in the distribution, but it is still appreciably larger than Dunbar's estimate.<ref name="TwoMethods">{{cite journal |last1=McCarty |first1=C. |last2=Killworth |first2=P. D. |last3=Bernard |first3=H. R. |last4=Johnsen |first4=E. |last5=Shelley |first5=G. |title=Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size |journal=Human Organization |volume=60 |issue=1 |pages=28–39 |year=2000 |doi= 10.17730/humo.60.1.efx5t9gjtgmga73y|url=https://www.bebr.ufl.edu/sites/default/files/Comparing%20Two%20Methods%20for%20Estimating%20Network%20Size_0.pdf}}</ref><ref>H. Russell Bernard. [http://nersp.osg.ufl.edu/~ufruss/ "Honoring Peter Killworth's contribution to social network theory."] Paper presented to the University of Southampton, 28 September 2006.</ref>

[[Malcolm Gladwell]] expanded on this conclusion sociologically in his book, ''[[The Tipping Point (book)|The Tipping Point]]'', where members of one of his types, ''Connectors'', were successful by their larger-than-average number of close friendships and capacity for maintaining them, which tie together otherwise-unconnected social groups. According to such studies, then, "tribalism" is a hard-to-escape fact of human neurology simply because many human brains are not adapted to working with large populations. Once a person's limit for connection is reached, the human brain resorts to some combination of hierarchical schemes, [[stereotype]]s and other simplified models to understand so many people.{{citation needed|date=September 2017}}