James Griffin

The Similarities between Social Dynamics and Cell Formation

Probably one of my more abnormal habits, ever since high school Ive
been actively observing the social dynamics of groups of different people.
After reading more about biology (mainly Driesch and Virchow), Ive noticed
a few trends and similarities that I at least think are moderately puzzling.
Cliques, and different circles of friends when they fracture or divide, appear
to behave in a similar fashion to dividing micro-organisms after theyve been
damaged in some manner.
Ill begin by noting some of the aspects of social circles that Ive
observed over the years, in their normal states. I should note that I tend to
call social groups comprising of four or more people cliques, primarily
because I havent come across any terms that I feel are accurate, and clique
is a rather shorthand way getting my point across. In my opinion, the best
place to examine cliques in their natural state, is in your average high school
cafeteria, and any adjacent gathering places. In this environment, hundreds
of people tend to cluster in their various social groups, with only a few
individuals periodically moving about. As far as Ive observed, the basic
clique tends to comprise of various dyads and triads of people, bound
together by the various individuals in each dyad/triad. These amalgamations
never seem to have more than a dozen people, Im not totally sure why this
is, but any explanation would be beyond the scope of this essay. Generally,

cliques tend to have one or two people around which the whole group
revolves, akin to the nucleus of the cell. The whole clique tends to meander
or move in the same direction as the so called nuclei, and they tend to
bend to the whims of this apex individual or individuals. This can be seen in
even the most rudimentary of social environments, such as the classroom.
Upon examination the students who tend to talk the most, or rather, socially
dominate their peers, also appear to be the de facto group leader or nuclei
in their social circles; and as far as Ive seen, no one officially votes them into
their role of group leader, they just are by tacit consensus.
Now how might this relate to experimental biology might you ask?
Well, curious enough, if you were to examine the cafeteria from an aerial
perspective, you might notice shocking similarities between the cells visible
through a microscope, and the various meandering cliques. The first and
most obvious would be the shape of the various groups. They tend to be
roundish, with the occasional bulge forming around the nuclei individuals,
just as in cells. When examined for some length of time, enough so that
more individuals are allowed to file into the mass of students, a curious
pattern can be observed. Once the cliques reach the approximate threshold,
(one or two nuclei individuals, and/or 10-12 total people) they divide into
other smaller cliques, much like Drieschs cells. But if any of the cliques lacks
a nuclei, they tends towards disintegration.
In a handful of experiments reminiscent of Roux, during a few lunches,
I picked out those whom I thought to be the nuclei, and I observed them

and what I believe to be their cliques. I noted that whenever they were there,
theyd be surrounded by friends (much like the matter comprising a cell),
and the groups would function normally (well, by the standards of the
average high school class), and when they werent, the cliques never fully
formed. So begun trying to attempt to replicate these results artificially, to
some degree of success. Much akin to Roux, I noted that certain factors are
vital in the development of the clique, much like in the case of the cell.
Ive also noted that in some cliques, where two nuclei are typically
present, one missing nucleus may drive down the maximum number of
people functioning in the clique. Akin to Drieschs sea urchin experiment on
page 89 of the lab workbook, when he separated the Blastomeres of the
Echinus and smaller but visually similar versions formed.
Another similarity (which personally I find to be rather hilarious), is that
cliques tend to act like cells when they are pressed under special constraints.
In a rather silly fashion, rather than moving to more open areas, cliques often
just bend and form based off of the contours of the environment, much like
Drieschs Echinus eggs spacing out because of the exterior pressure placed
upon them.
One experiment that I will have to try in the future, is subtly mashing
together multiple cliques by drawing the nuclei together and forming them
into one giant clique, like Drieschs giant Echinus (page 90), although I highly
doubt the feasibility of this endeavor. Like I mentioned before, there is

probably a reason why they rarely if ever go above a dozen people. Id

hypothesize that because the nuclei tend to be dominant personalities, the
large clique wouldnt last as long as Mangolds large Newt.
I should end by noting that the clique to micro-organism analogy isnt
the most accurate (in part because cliques tend to grow simply by people
being added to them, whereas micro-organisms tend to grow on their own),
but I believe this is fairly accurate for modeling the splitting of different
cliques and micro-organisms.