I think I have heard of it in passing? I’d love to see the data that led to him landing on the number. Personality, attachment style, environment - to me, there is room for a lot of variability that it would almost make no sense in creating an average? (I say all this with the caveat I’ve not read the work, either.)
Also are there even 150 people where you live? (I KID. There are at least double that 😃)
I'm pretty sure his original research in the early 1990s must be documented out there somewhere and it was originally based on non-human primates. Indeed, I too believe that there's a pretty wide range on these numbers but a rounded up number like 150 makes it easier to communicate the concept, I guess.
I used to live in communities around 150 or less. I'm currently surrounded by 12,000 other people at the moment... so there. :)
Interesting reminder of our brain’s social capacity. I wonder how these numbers would transfer over to remembering novel characters. I’ve heard more than one author admit that they don’t remember what happens in all their books and most keep cheat sheets handy with character descriptions. Even in one novel it can be a lot to accurately keep track of.
Indeed. George RR Martin is noted for having someone maintain a Wiki for him about all of his Westeros characters - I believe there's over 1000 named characters in the series. I totally believe it, especially people who write series of books in a shared universe.
Fascinating stuff. I wonder if different cognitive capacities kick in with various contexts. For example, I consider myself generally an introvert and have a hard time remembering names. But in my professional capacity, I switch into extrovert mode and can remember the names of my students. The brain is a mysterious organ.
Hi John, I believe that context can certainly be a factor in memory and but also in maintaining relationships, including the kinds of relationships that you keep. I'm better at remembering the names of co-workers or people that I connect with on social media than my neighbours, who I generally don't interact with a lot.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense. In certain contexts, we tend to be more cognitively “locked in.” Which may be why it sometimes takes me a second to recognize someone at the the grocery store; I’m not in the social head space when I’m grocery shopping.
Are you aware of anyone who has personally listed out all of these relationships for themselves to see if Dunbar's idea has any relevance for their own situation? It would be an interesting experiment, but it might have to be done over the course of a few days—most likely, especially in the higher circles, it would be hard to recall names at will.
Hi William. I don't know anyone who has put these to the test but I'm tempted to try to myself, although I don't think I'd try to go farther than the acquaintances level and even that would be a stretch.
It is tempting to dismiss Dunbar as just another cognitive science reductionist who fears both history and humanity alike. Inevitably, the majesty of an attempted quantitative analytic starts to bleed hither and thither with talk of 'environmental' factors and the diversity of 'individual' traits which somehow are then cobbled back up together in personality 'types', wending the discussion back and forth from, 'oh, but I'm unique after all' to 'I guess I'm more of a category' than a human being. In so doing, the cognitive 'sciences' pander to all those who hang their hats on 'identity' variables; no better than astrology. I suppose the challenge of living a mortal yet fully conscious existence compels all febrile minds to grasp at such straws in order to manufacture some meaning for their sorry selves.
I'm a little confused by your comment. Are you suggesting that each people has exactly the same quality and depth of relationship with every person they know or meet? Labels and numbers aside (which are somewhat arbitrary and subject to some calculations with wide error ranges, as I understand it) I think the general concept of showing that there are varying degrees of relationship strength and intensity is useful.
Thank you for going deeper into Dunbar's number. I find most concepts like this have a general usefulness that falls apart when people try to be too specific about it, while the public generalizes it too much. Usually just pointing something simple, like the rest of the concentric circles' numbers, helps qualify it so it's not too generalized ("150 is the max size of any organization of people!") while reminding that the numbers are more averages helps qualify it so that it's not too specific ("Nobody is able to have more than 5 close friends")
Yes, that was one thing that I wanted to communicate: no fixed numbers, it's an approximation at best, a soundbite at worst. I want to dig into the groupings a bit more into the next post and try to extrapolate some practical approaches with them.
Hey Mark, sounds like an interesting study. I am always curious about personality types, which then tend to foster connections. When people talk about emotional memories, they say the mind tends to remember emotional content a little better; I suppose that can go either way!
My limited reading to date suggests that emotion can play a key role in remembering things, which certainly seems to be borne out in my own experiences. As far as personality types I was only looking at the extra-intro continuum but who knows what else could be a factor.
Yes, I did get off track there! I was introverted when younger but circumstances and choices as I became an adult pushed me well into the people realm. Keeping up with the who and names is surely a thing! It feels like the circles are fairly fluid personally.
Oh I was suggesting that the source of our diversities lies not in cognitive capability but rather in social interaction which indeed gives relationships their differing quanta. I would proffer Schutz's contour line diagram as a more nuanced illustration of how 'ego' is related to others. It provides a sense of landscape against which one places others at varying distances. Of course others can move in and out of these spaces pending our relationship with them; sometimes growing closer or farther apart. But even this is dependent upon what we value in the relationship. I wonder if one was able to take into account of everything we deem we share or do not share with others if in fact it would launder out to the 'same' quality and depth? But I am not suggesting that up front, however. Only that I am skeptical of arguments that take agency away from the individual, as cognitive science and astrology both do.
Hadn't heard of Dunbar's number but I'd say the figures are mostly valid. I have a strong memory and rarely forget a face. I bet I could recognize up to 10,000 faces. I'm an extrovert, but I keep a tight circle. I'd say I have no more than 20 friends in my tightest circle, but have amassed several thousand in my outer circles. Interesting read. Nice work.
Pretty good, but that was an intentional effort to get better. I've always been good with faces but horrible with names. In my professional and writing career I've worked hard at retaining names. The best tip: right after you meet someone new, say, "Your name was X, right?" It relieves the pressure on the other person too because they already forgot. Especially an unusual name like mine.
I'm an introvert, and maintaining relationships with friends has always felt very difficult. I envy my extrovert friends for their sociability, but at the same time I imagine that they must be constantly exhausted!
I'd never heard of Dunbar's number, and I wonder if I've ever even MET 500 people? 🤣 Okay, well I have, but I'm sure I don't know anything LIKE the numbers shown on his concentric circles.
I wonder if extroverts have the benefit of equal measures of quantity and quality in their relationships with people?
Thanks Rebecca. I think we need to keep in mind that there's a continuum of experience or tendencies in play. I believe that there are people who thrive being around other people and they will naturally have friendships of varying depth and intensity and it doesn't drain their energy. I think the same can be true for those of us who are very comfortable in our own company. There's no good or bad, it's just how people work.
I think I have heard of it in passing? I’d love to see the data that led to him landing on the number. Personality, attachment style, environment - to me, there is room for a lot of variability that it would almost make no sense in creating an average? (I say all this with the caveat I’ve not read the work, either.)
Also are there even 150 people where you live? (I KID. There are at least double that 😃)
I'm pretty sure his original research in the early 1990s must be documented out there somewhere and it was originally based on non-human primates. Indeed, I too believe that there's a pretty wide range on these numbers but a rounded up number like 150 makes it easier to communicate the concept, I guess.
I used to live in communities around 150 or less. I'm currently surrounded by 12,000 other people at the moment... so there. :)
Interesting reminder of our brain’s social capacity. I wonder how these numbers would transfer over to remembering novel characters. I’ve heard more than one author admit that they don’t remember what happens in all their books and most keep cheat sheets handy with character descriptions. Even in one novel it can be a lot to accurately keep track of.
Indeed. George RR Martin is noted for having someone maintain a Wiki for him about all of his Westeros characters - I believe there's over 1000 named characters in the series. I totally believe it, especially people who write series of books in a shared universe.
Yes! Brandon Sanderson also has wikis.
Fascinating stuff. I wonder if different cognitive capacities kick in with various contexts. For example, I consider myself generally an introvert and have a hard time remembering names. But in my professional capacity, I switch into extrovert mode and can remember the names of my students. The brain is a mysterious organ.
Hi John, I believe that context can certainly be a factor in memory and but also in maintaining relationships, including the kinds of relationships that you keep. I'm better at remembering the names of co-workers or people that I connect with on social media than my neighbours, who I generally don't interact with a lot.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense. In certain contexts, we tend to be more cognitively “locked in.” Which may be why it sometimes takes me a second to recognize someone at the the grocery store; I’m not in the social head space when I’m grocery shopping.
Are you aware of anyone who has personally listed out all of these relationships for themselves to see if Dunbar's idea has any relevance for their own situation? It would be an interesting experiment, but it might have to be done over the course of a few days—most likely, especially in the higher circles, it would be hard to recall names at will.
Hi William. I don't know anyone who has put these to the test but I'm tempted to try to myself, although I don't think I'd try to go farther than the acquaintances level and even that would be a stretch.
It is tempting to dismiss Dunbar as just another cognitive science reductionist who fears both history and humanity alike. Inevitably, the majesty of an attempted quantitative analytic starts to bleed hither and thither with talk of 'environmental' factors and the diversity of 'individual' traits which somehow are then cobbled back up together in personality 'types', wending the discussion back and forth from, 'oh, but I'm unique after all' to 'I guess I'm more of a category' than a human being. In so doing, the cognitive 'sciences' pander to all those who hang their hats on 'identity' variables; no better than astrology. I suppose the challenge of living a mortal yet fully conscious existence compels all febrile minds to grasp at such straws in order to manufacture some meaning for their sorry selves.
I'm a little confused by your comment. Are you suggesting that each people has exactly the same quality and depth of relationship with every person they know or meet? Labels and numbers aside (which are somewhat arbitrary and subject to some calculations with wide error ranges, as I understand it) I think the general concept of showing that there are varying degrees of relationship strength and intensity is useful.
Thank you for going deeper into Dunbar's number. I find most concepts like this have a general usefulness that falls apart when people try to be too specific about it, while the public generalizes it too much. Usually just pointing something simple, like the rest of the concentric circles' numbers, helps qualify it so it's not too generalized ("150 is the max size of any organization of people!") while reminding that the numbers are more averages helps qualify it so that it's not too specific ("Nobody is able to have more than 5 close friends")
Yes, that was one thing that I wanted to communicate: no fixed numbers, it's an approximation at best, a soundbite at worst. I want to dig into the groupings a bit more into the next post and try to extrapolate some practical approaches with them.
Hey Mark, sounds like an interesting study. I am always curious about personality types, which then tend to foster connections. When people talk about emotional memories, they say the mind tends to remember emotional content a little better; I suppose that can go either way!
My limited reading to date suggests that emotion can play a key role in remembering things, which certainly seems to be borne out in my own experiences. As far as personality types I was only looking at the extra-intro continuum but who knows what else could be a factor.
Yes, I did get off track there! I was introverted when younger but circumstances and choices as I became an adult pushed me well into the people realm. Keeping up with the who and names is surely a thing! It feels like the circles are fairly fluid personally.
Oh I was suggesting that the source of our diversities lies not in cognitive capability but rather in social interaction which indeed gives relationships their differing quanta. I would proffer Schutz's contour line diagram as a more nuanced illustration of how 'ego' is related to others. It provides a sense of landscape against which one places others at varying distances. Of course others can move in and out of these spaces pending our relationship with them; sometimes growing closer or farther apart. But even this is dependent upon what we value in the relationship. I wonder if one was able to take into account of everything we deem we share or do not share with others if in fact it would launder out to the 'same' quality and depth? But I am not suggesting that up front, however. Only that I am skeptical of arguments that take agency away from the individual, as cognitive science and astrology both do.
I'm not familiar with Schutz's contour, something I'll check out, thanks.
This was fascinating! Thanks, Mark!
Hadn't heard of Dunbar's number but I'd say the figures are mostly valid. I have a strong memory and rarely forget a face. I bet I could recognize up to 10,000 faces. I'm an extrovert, but I keep a tight circle. I'd say I have no more than 20 friends in my tightest circle, but have amassed several thousand in my outer circles. Interesting read. Nice work.
How are you with names?
Pretty good, but that was an intentional effort to get better. I've always been good with faces but horrible with names. In my professional and writing career I've worked hard at retaining names. The best tip: right after you meet someone new, say, "Your name was X, right?" It relieves the pressure on the other person too because they already forgot. Especially an unusual name like mine.
An absolutely fascinating post, Mark - thank you!
I'm an introvert, and maintaining relationships with friends has always felt very difficult. I envy my extrovert friends for their sociability, but at the same time I imagine that they must be constantly exhausted!
I'd never heard of Dunbar's number, and I wonder if I've ever even MET 500 people? 🤣 Okay, well I have, but I'm sure I don't know anything LIKE the numbers shown on his concentric circles.
I wonder if extroverts have the benefit of equal measures of quantity and quality in their relationships with people?
Thanks Rebecca. I think we need to keep in mind that there's a continuum of experience or tendencies in play. I believe that there are people who thrive being around other people and they will naturally have friendships of varying depth and intensity and it doesn't drain their energy. I think the same can be true for those of us who are very comfortable in our own company. There's no good or bad, it's just how people work.
YES! It's just how people work. Such a great point - thanks, Mark. 🙌
Thank you, H.A.T.T.E.R. :)
🙌