Why We Enjoy Gossiping?
“Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
~ Theodosius Dobzhansky
Discussing gossip is like diving headfirst into a whirlpool of intrigue. For eons, people have looked down upon the art of gossip, branding it as a sinful pastime unfit for decent folk. They claim gossip has the uncanny ability to turn even the most pristine information into a tangled web of deceit, wreaking havoc in its wake. But let’s get real, folks! It’s not the gossip itself that sends shivers down our spines; it’s the nightmare of a tarnished reputation!
Here’s the kicker: folks can shout from the rooftops in protest when anyone dares to gossip about their less-than-shining deeds, even when the rumors are colder than yesterday’s coffee. Imagine this — someone, clear as day, commits unspeakable acts of child exploitation. But, oh boy, do they raise a ruckus! They threaten legal action against anyone who dares to label them a sexual predator. Talk about audacity.
On the flip side, people typically zip their lips when they’re gossiped about in a positive light, even if it’s pure fiction. Have you ever seen a politician throw a tantrum when their supporters paint them as the next messiah? Nope, it’s rarer than a unicorn sighting. Even if the real facts are doing the cha-cha far from the tales spun by their devoted fans, you won’t catch a headline screaming “Politician X Calls Press Conference to Admit They’re Not as Angelic as Advertised.” Instead, you might just see a headline about them getting a little too cozy with the anti-corruption agency.
Now, let’s dissect this phenomenon for a hot minute. Gossip isn’t just about passing along tidbits of information; it’s a full-blown reputation management extravaganza.
Drawing inspiration from the wacky world of evolutionary biology, one of the most fundamental functions of language is, believe it or not, good old gossip. Surveys reveal that at least two-thirds of our everyday banter revolves around the latest scoop. Who’s doing what? Why? How? How to handle a cranky spouse, unruly kids, or a neighbor who fancies themselves a boxing champ? What’s the deal with good old Jane — who are they dating now, and why did they break up with their ex? Why’s John dragging his feet on paying back a few bucks, and so on?
Next time you’re sipping your latte at the local café, eavesdrop on the conversations around you. Wanna bet that what you hear is all about other people? Neighbors, buddies, parents, in-laws, or public figures — it’s a gossip bonanza! Politics, scientific theories, technical job woes, mathematical conundrums, and other non-personal topics? Well, they’re lucky to snag a quarter of the spotlight.
Now, brace yourselves because this next nugget is a real eye-opener: our world runs on gossip!
Consider the news flashing across your screens, from TV to newspapers, and the never-ending internet. It’s all drenched in gossip. Surveys spill the beans — the hottest selling books are often sizzling romance novels, complete with emotional rollercoasters of human connections. As for non-fiction, biographies of the rich and famous are the talk of the town. Presidents, entrepreneurs, religious leaders — you name it, they’ve been in the gossip spotlight. It’s a never-ending parade of other people’s stories. Even the mighty Time magazine dedicates a whopping 45% of its pages to dissecting various public figures and their escapades. Meanwhile, more than 70% of newspaper content is all about who’s doing what and where. Yup, it’s all gossip, all day, every day!
But why are we so gosh-darn addicted to gossip? Why do we crave the juiciest scoop on who’s fighting with whom? It’s like our brains have a secret radar for other people’s drama.
To answer questions like these, let’s take a little flashback and delve into what our ancestors did to survive in their natural habitats. Unfortunately, we can’t study their behavior through fossil evidence — fossils don’t exactly record behavior. So, we turn to the observations of primatology experts who study the behaviors of our primate cousins, those clever monkeys and apes.
On average, monkeys and apes are omnivorous creatures, though some species lean towards herbivores, while others prefer fruits or insects. But one thing’s for sure, they aren’t sitting pretty at the top of the food chain. In their natural habitats, they’re often the prey of other animals. Roughly 20% of wild baboons meet their end as a predator’s meal, be it a leopard, snake, or eagle, while they’re out foraging or taking a breather.
Like most mammals when facing predator threats, they have two strategies to avoid becoming someone’s lunch. First, they grow bigger with each generation. Those with larger bodies face a smaller risk of getting snatched up. Bigger bodies are a tougher nut to crack for predators. Second, they live in large groups. Living in a group enhances an organism’s chances of survival when facing danger. They can help each other out when one of their own is under predator attack. There’s plenty of real-life evidence of how herds of bison or wildebeest band together to fend off lions preying on their members. Monkeys and apes living in open savannas usually live in larger groups compared to those dwelling deep in the forest.
Take the Gelada baboon, for example, living on the open savanna. They typically have pretty large groups, averaging around 50 individuals. That’s quite the posse! In contrast, species of monkeys inhabiting the deep forest tend to have smaller groups, usually ranging from 20–30 members, sometimes even as few as 10–15 individuals, as is the case with prosimians like lemurs. This size disparity is mainly due to the high predation risk in open savanna environments, where trees are sparse compared to the lush forest. In dense forests, escaping predators by climbing trees is a piece of cake. However, in savannas with fewer climbable trees, it’s relatively more challenging to find a suitable tree for a quick escape.
By living in groups and foraging together, the risk of becoming someone’s dinner diminishes. There are more eyes to keep watch as a monkey or ape picks and chooses fruit or digs for tubers in the forest. In fact, it’s not unheard of for a leopard attempting to nab a baboon to end up as the main course when the baboon gang joins forces. Living in groups also increases their probability of finding food for survival. If every individual that finds food is willing to share it with the group, then those monkeys who come up empty-handed get compensated by others who score a feast. Thus, group living and building a social community enhance the survival abilities of each individual within it and allow them to pass on their genes to the next generation.
But remember, there’s no such thing as a free lunch in evolution. The benefits of living in a group come with their own set of challenges. Friction often occurs between individuals within the group, whether it’s for access to reproduction, competing for food, or simply vying for the best sleeping spot on a tree branch. These tiffs can lead to psychological stress, which can ultimately result in infertility. Studies have shown that baboons occupying lower social hierarchies within their groups typically have fewer offspring. The lower they rank, the rougher treatment they receive from their peers, and the more stressed they become, resulting in fewer offspring. Those at the very bottom of the social ladder may even become infertile altogether. Imagine being the baboon ranked number 50 in a group of 50; you’d be bullied by the other 49 baboons around the clock. Bullying can take various forms, from food theft and exclusion to eviction from your sleeping spot, where you end up perched at the highest and riskiest spot, ready for an eagle to swoop in, or even physical violence.
The question at hand is, what’s the point of socializing in life if it all ends in infertility? Baboon populations would quickly dwindle within a few generations. If the looming threats of predators and the specter of starvation out there act like a centripetal force, pushing each baboon to live together, then the friction and competition among individuals within the group are like a centrifugal force that tends to tear the baboon community apart. The balance between these centripetal and centrifugal forces determines the final number of baboons in a troop. The evolutionary solution to this problem is to form coalitions within the troop.
Coalitions provide mutual defense among baboons against other baboons within their group, reducing the frequency and intensity of psychological and physical violence within the troop without the need to expel the perpetrators. Thus, coalitions within the group function as a buffer against the centrifugal force that could break the group apart. These coalitions allow a baboon to avoid the stress of social friction while still maintaining overall social cohesion within the group.
The next question on our primate journey is how creatures like baboons form coalitions within their groups. How do they decide who’s a buddy and who’s a foe, who’s trustworthy and who’s not to be trusted, who to defend and who to tease mercilessly within their ranks?
Well, that’s where the magic of social interaction comes into play. Baboons form coalitions through social interactions in the form of grooming or, as we humans might call it, having a little spa day together. Now, calling it a “spa day” might be a bit of a stretch because, in reality, when they’re grooming, they’re not just searching for lice and ticks. They’re also picking off dead skin, plucking out dirty fur, or simply tidying up bits of leaves stuck in their buddies’ coats from their jungle adventures. Those who actively help their fellow group members by engaging in grooming activities earn trust within the troop. Baboons have a way of distinguishing who’s loyal based on how often they engage in grooming sessions together. This grooming activity is reciprocal. If an individual receives grooming services today and doesn’t return the favor to someone else in the future, they’re considered untrustworthy and may find themselves isolated from the coalition. The issue of free-riders is an unavoidable one. The larger the group, the greater the likelihood of these free-riders emerging. According to studies by some primatologists, when a baboon cries out for help, it’s more likely to be answered promptly by those who’ve recently been grooming buddies.
Grooming among baboons isn’t just about hygiene; it has far more profound social value. On average, baboons spend about 20% of their daily time, roughly 4–5 hours, engaged in grooming activities. The time they invest in grooming surely has evolutionary benefits. Giving and receiving grooming services are expressions of friendship and loyalty within the coalition. Baboons use grooming to convey apologies, regrets, and to shower attention on their coalition buddies. The gentle touch, little pinches, and caresses on the skin provide comfort to a baboon. The cohesion among individuals in a baboon coalition is built through grooming activities. A baboon can accept and trust another baboon within its group and form a coalition with them if they’ve interacted directly through grooming activities. It’s like their way of saying, “I’ve got your back, buddy, and I’ve got the lice to prove it!”
Now, moving on, to recognize who’s a friend and who’s a foe, which close friend deserves priority, and who’s expendable in a coalition, primates require some serious brainpower. The brain isn’t just a sensory data processing unit or in charge of bodily functions; it’s also a data processor for social interactions. In what’s known as the Social Brain Hypothesis, Professor Robin Dunbar, an anthropology expert, has shown that if we were to plot the correlation between brain size and overall body size, brain size indeed increases as body size does. This happens because more muscle fibers need to be controlled by nerve cells, and there are more sensory inputs to process. However, here’s the problem: when it comes to primates, their brain volume always lies above that correlation line. This means that for their equivalent body size, primates have larger brains than what’s strictly needed to control their bodies or interpret their sensory input. So, what’s with the oversized brain?
Professor Dunbar attempted to correlate the brain volume of primates with the size of their social groups, and the results were quite impressive. Brain volume as a whole shows a strong correlation with the size of social groups. If we narrow down the correlation even further, specifically between the ratio of neocortex volume (the most evolved part of the primate brain) to the overall brain volume and the size of primate troops, the correlation coefficient is almost one! This means we can almost certainly predict the size of primate troops just by knowing their neocortex volume. According to this formula, Dunbar’s predictions align with the average troop sizes of macaques, rhesus monkeys, baboons, gorillas, or chimpanzees. So, if you’re ever in a jungle and come across a primate with a particularly large brain, you can bet they’re the head of the party-planning committee!
The next question is, how can brain volume correlate with group size?
To explain this, we need a model to show that the larger a group, the more complex the social interactions within it, requiring greater brain computational power. Imagine you’re friends with four different people, let’s call them A, B, C, and D. You not only remember their names but also the relationships between you and A, B, C, and D. Additionally, you must recall the relationships between A and B, A and C, A and D, B and C, B and D, and C and D. Among five individuals in your group, including yourself, there are ten permutations stored in the memory of each individual. This number increases exponentially with the size of the group. Imagine those living in a group of 20 individuals needing to know information about the relationships between members to the tune of 171 possibilities. This is what’s known as the Social Map. Organisms living in social groups must constantly update their social map about who’s befriending or feuding with whom and how it affects them. The ability to update this social map is crucial if they want to survive within it and pass on their genes to the next generation.
Information about the social map of a group can only be useful or exploited for an advantage if the organisms within it can determine the interests of each individual. This is where the ability to mentalize comes in. Mentalizing is the capacity to attribute mental attributes such as will, intent, and thoughts to other living beings outside oneself. The mentalizing process requires even more brain computational power. The larger their brains, the smarter they are at exploiting the will of other individuals within the group for their own benefit. This is what’s referred to as Machiavellian intelligence. So, up to this point, it seems clear that a larger brain volume is indeed necessary in increasingly larger social lives.
As time passed, primate groups grew larger. Because those living in larger groups faced a lower risk of predation, they also avoided aggression from other primate groups. However, remember that with larger groups, the cohesion of individual members within them decreases. More time needs to be allocated for grooming each other. The social map needs to be constantly updated through the frequency and intensity of grooming processes. Based on brain volume predictions and the neocortex volume ratio of our ancestors, the genus Australopithecus had group sizes equivalent to chimpanzees, about 60 individuals. With that many members, they had to spend 20% of their daily time grooming. Homo habilis, with slightly larger brain volumes, had group sizes of about 80 individuals, requiring 25% of their time for grooming.
Homo erectus, with even larger brain volumes and group sizes of nearly 120 individuals, needed more than 30% of their time for grooming. According to Dunbar’s formula, with the neocortex volume of modern humans, Homo sapiens, at 1400cc, the predicted group size falls around 150. This is an average number. Survey results indeed prove that the number of acquaintances people can remember well is around 130–160. Similarly, military units capable of following verbal commands, such as a company, have around 180 members, close to Dunbar’s prediction. With a group size that large, primates should require about 40% of their daily time for grooming. This is impractical to achieve. Imagine, one primate can only groom another primate at a time. If each grooming session lasts 15 minutes per individual, and they can only do it for a maximum of 10 hours a day, roughly 40 individuals can be groomed by one primate in a day. Reducing the duration of each grooming session would lower the quality of relationships. Yet, the same amount of time should ideally be used for foraging, resting, and reproduction.
Therefore, the range of 30–35% is believed by scientists to be critical, as primates generally cannot allocate more time than that in a day just for grooming while neglecting other activities like foraging, resting, and reproduction unless they’re ready to go extinct.
The 35% threshold is also the critical point for the emergence of new abilities to update the social map beyond grooming — verbal language. This is where gossip becomes a solution in complex social lives.
With verbal language, humans can replace the function of grooming in updating the social map. Speaking verbally is far more efficient than grooming. Unlike grooming, which can only be done one-on-one, the ability to gossip is not constrained by space and time. With the power of language, we can instantly learn about someone’s reputation without that person being present. We can know if someone is a fraud or a free-rider without having to experience it firsthand after direct interaction.
To prove the hypothesis that gossip is a more effective replacement for grooming, there is a survey result stating that humans spend an average of 20% of their daily time hanging out with others and talking about other people. That’s roughly the same amount of time baboons spend grooming away. The number of individuals frequently involved in this gossiping activity is about 3–4 individuals at a time, clearly more than the grooming activity, which involves an exchange of information between only 2 individuals. Seventy percent of human conversations are about other people, who’s doing what, and how. Verbal communication also expands the dimensions of social interaction that can be packaged into information and exchanged during gossip. We not only learn that person A is with person B but also why and how person A is doing something to person B.
Physical grooming has shifted to vocal grooming, also known as gossiping. Gossiping is an upgrade from grooming, like going from a 2G communication network to 5G. In a shorter amount of time, much more information flows through gossiping than physical grooming. We’re addicted to it because gossiping is as natural as our ancestors’ grooming behavior, which they used to form coalitions to survive in their social groups. Endorphins, the endogenous morphine released from the brain when primates groom, are the same endorphins that flow in our brains when we gossip about others. Moreover, verbal communication allows us to synchronize our thoughts with the thoughts of others in the group, creating a more effective working unit. While mouth-to-mouth gossiping allows us to know limited information about each individual’s reputation, watching the drama on social media instantly informs us about the reputation of everyone in the village all at once.
According to Dunbar’s Social Brain Hypothesis, verbal language evolved throughout evolutionary history to serve these fundamental functions. So far, his hypothesis aligns with archaeological evidence stating that archaic Homo sapiens, the first Homo sapiens to appear around 250,000 years ago, had large brain volumes, indicating a large group size and showing asymmetry. Their left brains were slightly larger than the right ones. This fits with the fact that the area of the brain responsible for speech capabilities is in our left brains. The areas for speaking and interpreting sounds from conversations are in our left brains, known as the Broca and Wernicke areas. Why in the left brain and not the right? Well, that’s another question for another topic.
Other archaeological evidence shows that diverse tools emerged around 50,000 years ago. The need for varied tools, especially in rituals, suggests they had cultural traditions. The existence of culture hints at the development of complex language.
Conclusion
So there you have it, folks! Gossip, the upgraded 5G version of grooming, is the secret sauce of human evolution. We spend our days talking about who’s doing what and why, just like our primate ancestors spent their time picking bugs and chatting about each other’s business. But instead of satisfying our itch for cleanliness, gossip tickles our brains with endorphins, making us gossip-holics.
Our brains grew bigger not just to control our bodies or process sensory input, but to become supercomputers for social data. We’ve all got our Social Maps filled with intricate connections, rivalries, and alliances, and our brains are the ultimate social networking hubs.
And remember, while baboons might be stuck in a 2G world of physical grooming, we’ve evolved to a 5G world of vocal grooming. We’re the kings and queens of gossip, and our complex language lets us tune into the juiciest dramas and reputations, all while updating our Social Maps in real-time.
So the next time someone calls you a gossip, just tell them you’re an evolutionary trailblazer, a social superstar, and a master of the 5G brain. And always keep your ears peeled for the latest chimp chat because, in the end, we’re all just a bunch of social animals with some seriously upgraded software.
