Sat. Oct 16th, 2021

Dunbar first came up with this number by observing primates grooming.

Dunbar first came up with this number by observing primates grooming.
Pictures: Kochi Kamoshida / Getty Images (Getty Images)

In the early nineties, Robin Dunbar, a British anthropologist, argued that the size of the neocortex of the human brain and other primate groups could not handle more than 150 stable relationships based on the size of the socialization. Now, a group of researchers in Sweden say the number is crooked.

The group argues that Dunbar’s number – indeed the intimacy of a number and the various circles of their shapes, where the number 150 is most often mentioned by casual friends – is not a logical way to decrypt human sociality. They are studied Published Today in the Journal of Biology Letters.

The researchers conducted the same analysis as Dunbar, but with new methods and updated data from the current 30-year-old dataset. They found that the average maximum group size among primates was actually less than 150, but the number was in the throes of statistical uncertainty, which kept the actual maximum group size between two and 520 – which could hardly go in its favor.

Patrick Lindenfors, a zoologist at the Institute for Future Studies in Stockholm, said in an email that “all we had to do was make a copy of Dunbar’s original analysis but there was more data and updated statistics.” “Our main point is that, like Dunbar, the 95% confidence interval is too large to make it possible to speak any number.”

Dunbar’s 150 was really in the middle of a range; One can have about 100 to 200 of these stable relationships. However, this range does not fit into the new analysis. Dunbar had other groupings 1,500 (total) Number of people you can name), 500 (one person can get to know the most familiar people), 150 With social communication), 50 (friend, however Not your inner circle), 15 (Most Close friends) and then the elite five (or so – these are your best friends and loved ones). But Dunbar said the group has liquiditys; The calculation may vary slightly And people are calmd flows in and out of these Sphere.

According to Lindenfors, biology has more to do with achieving our social potential; In other words, it does not come down to our innate tendencies like neocrotax and mankind.

“Most people reading this article know more than 20,000 words.” “People learn different things. Why can’t we use this power in social relationships? ”

You will miss the crowd like crazy.  Maybe you never want to be around him again.

You will miss the crowd like crazy. Maybe you never want to be around him again.
Pictures: Images at Marco de Loro / Gate (Getty Images)

Dunbar came up with his number in the latest days on the World Wide Web. Since then we’ve developed social networks that have reshaped what it means to be “friends”. Previously, the right bar was wired with the number in mind Check in With some interesting (and mixed) results with 1000 Facebook friends, reminds us how to interact with so-called friends on any social network little

Johan Lind, a co-author at Stockholm University, said, “Culture can play chess on everything from the size of social networks to what we can play chess on or if we like hiking.” Release. “Just as one can learn to memorize the decimal number of numbers, our brain can take on more social communication training.

Of course, we have come a long way since the dawn of social media. Perhaps the epidemic reminded you of the relationship that helped set you apart from the most important thing in your life or the friends of convenience. You probably never want to see 150 people on the same video call again, much less in real life. Like many “rules,” Dunbar’s numbers may not have caught up with the vast diversity of humanity.

More: Is Dunbar’s friend-limited number still relevant in the age of Facebook?

Source link

By admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *