Increasing the Dunbar Number

Monday, January 25. 2010

Increasing the Dunbar Number

You are probably aware of the Dunbar number - Prof Robin Dunbar calculates that we find it very hard to handle more than about 150 functioning relationships with other people. I recall discussing this with J P Rangaswami, whether the lowering of transaction costs on Social Networks, and the ability to electronically manage a social network could increase it. We both though it probably could.

However, Prof Dunbar has done some research on social networks and found the 150 number still holds:

Dunbar is now studying social networking websites to see if the “Facebook effect” has stretched the size of social groupings. Preliminary results suggest it has not.

“The interesting thing is that you can have 1,500 friends but when you actually look at traffic on sites, you see people maintain the same inner circle of around 150 people that we observe in the real world,” said Dunbar.

“People obviously like the kudos of having hundreds of friends but the reality is that they’re unlikely to be bigger than anyone else’s.

“There is a big sex difference though ... girls are much better at maintaining relationships just by talking to each other. Boys need to do physical stuff together.”
I was initially scratching my head - how can you not have an increase in a Dunbar number with reduced transaction costs? Then I worked out what was happening (I think). Reduced transaction costs allow you to recruit new friends very rapidly, but the social networking software on its own does not help manage them, the brain needs algorithms that augment it in automating management of a larger social circle - for example by say flagging when you haven't spoken to someone in say 2 months so send a message, etc etc. I am sure it will be a fairly fruitful area of research going forward.

All we have to do is work out how the girls do it and build an expert system to automate that

Posted by Alan Patrick in Social Networks at 23:52 | Comments (2) | Trackbacks (0)

1478 hits

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

I'm skeptical about the way this has been reported, especially since the university seems to have pushed out a press release in the middle of the research.

Dunbar's thesis has always been that social grooming groups stabilise at a number that's proportional to the size of the neocortex. So an interesting question (for me) would be "*what* stabilises at 150 in online social networking?"

In answer to your point on transaction costs, I'd say that following 150 blogs is a huge step up from having 150 people that I nod and smile at when I pass them in the street. My gut feel, because I respect Dunbar as a scientist, is that the whole thing has been garbled as it passed through the university press office.

#1 Gordon Rae (Homepage) on 2010-01-26 09:53 (Reply)

wrt "the social networking software on its own does not help manage them, the brain needs algorithms that augment it in automating management"

I think this is most probably true however I still maintain that the SocNet(s) can provide context and help to "jog" the mind into interacting within that context.

For example: I maintain active Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook profiles (amongst a couple of others). All told I probably have something like 500 odd people with whom I maintain some contact in a reciprocal manner.

The intersect of across those SocNets (contexts) is probably more akin to Dunbar's research, in the order of 150 or so.

However I definately have very active contacts who are only on a single SocNet (Facebook for family & school friends), and these would push my 150 to something more like 180-200.

And then of course there are those with whom I have no real online interaction, yet maintain ongoing relationships with - prob another 20 or so.

#2 barneyc (Homepage) on 2010-01-27 12:18 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry