Nice theory, Anders, but I think Dumbledore's Number doesn't take into account high-IQ individuals like myself who can remember every person they've ever met with crystal clarity. So, sorry, Anton, but I don't buy this whole Dunkirk's Number concept.
Still, I enjoy your writing. Keep up the good work, Adan!
I've never felt a need to put a specific number on it. My goal is to be able to invest the time to make the relationship meaningful. The number of people with whom I can do that may be different than someone else's. It also anticipate my number will change over time.
I remember voices better than faces or names. Given that names are the last thing I remember I often don't recall names except for those in my daily weekly monthly orbit.
I wonder how his number applies where multiple groups are concerned. If a person is a member of two 400-people communities (like a student, who also goes to large group fitness) how many faces can that person (roughly) remember? 75 per group? 150 per?
I think that's right- the number will be split among the groups. Being a part of 2 big groups like that probably adds another layer of complexity to the whole mix!
In my case, I can remember quite a few faces but names very few. I have an excellent memory for numbers like remembering Credit card numbers and library card numbers. It is not like I can remember in one attempt, but if i try, I can keep 16-digit numbers in my head after 6-7 tries. We all are different in some ways from each other.
I also believe in what I call the theory of a few good men/persons(I am sure you have already figured the name came from the movie “few good men”), and I have seen it working well at my work. And do not take when I say a few literally. I am talking about 5-7 people. My work involves projects that require 200-300 people to get it done, and I have seen 5-7 playing an outsized role in its success or failure. That’s where the theory of a few good men/persons came from; if you look from the outside, you will see 200-300 people working, but if you look closely, you will see an outsized difference a few people are making. That’s why I say in my work, you need a few good men/persons to make anything significant happen (even though you still need an army around them), and when I start the work, I look for those 5-7 people first.
I asked GPT-4 to provide a few examples where Dunbar law does nor work (a few I agree)
However, there are various contexts and circumstances where Dunbar's law may not accurately predict social group sizes or the nature of relationships:
1. **Online Social Networks:** On platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, individuals can have hundreds or even thousands of "friends" or "followers." While these connections may not all reflect meaningful relationships, they do challenge the traditional constraints on social group size.
2. **Professional Networks:** In many professional settings, individuals may need to interact with a large number of colleagues, clients, and other contacts. Effective networking in such environments may require maintaining more relationships than Dunbar's Number would suggest.
3. **Cultural Differences:** Different cultures have different social structures, and some may emphasize larger extended-family networks or community relationships that exceed the number proposed by Dunbar.
4. **Religious Communities:** Members of certain religious communities often engage with a large number of fellow congregants, forming bonds within a context that can exceed the typical scope of Dunbar's Number.
5. **Historical Contexts:** In certain historical periods, particularly in times of crisis or war, individuals were often part of larger cohesive groups such as armies or movements that required maintaining relationships with many individuals.
6. **Large-Scale Collaboration:** Projects that involve large-scale collaboration, such as open-source software development or Wikipedia editing, often involve many contributors who may not know each other personally but still maintain a form of a functional relationship.
7. **Cities and Metropolises:** Residents of large cities may encounter and interact with hundreds of people daily, including neighbors, shopkeepers, and service providers, forming a complex web of social interactions that may not be deep but are numerous.
8. **Transient Populations:** In highly mobile and transient populations, such as those of international expatriates or students, the turnover in social groups can be high, which means that individuals may associate with many more than 150 people over a short period as their social circle refreshes with new arrivals.
It's important to note that Dunbar's Number refers to stable, ongoing relationships where each individual has a sense of each relationship's personal significance. Many of the examples above may involve superficial or transient interactions that do not necessarily equate to the stable social relationships Dunbar described. Nonetheless, these examples illustrate the complexity and variability of human social structures, which can sometimes extend beyond the limits suggested by Dunbar's theory.
Nice theory, Anders, but I think Dumbledore's Number doesn't take into account high-IQ individuals like myself who can remember every person they've ever met with crystal clarity. So, sorry, Anton, but I don't buy this whole Dunkirk's Number concept.
Still, I enjoy your writing. Keep up the good work, Adan!
You're a regular Sullivan Shrewmevsky.
https://goatfury.substack.com/p/solomon-shereshevsky
Please. Simon Scorcese has nothing on me. Photographic memory? Pffft, I've got videographic memory. Sonny Silverstein can take a seat.
Sorry, what were we talking about?
More urgently: Who exactly is "we"?!
I've never felt a need to put a specific number on it. My goal is to be able to invest the time to make the relationship meaningful. The number of people with whom I can do that may be different than someone else's. It also anticipate my number will change over time.
Same here, but I'm cognizant that there is a sensible, hard upper limit for me. I need to be mindful of this line and keep my distance a bit.
I remember voices better than faces or names. Given that names are the last thing I remember I often don't recall names except for those in my daily weekly monthly orbit.
I'm not sure if I remember voices or faces better, but I'm pretty sure I remember both far better than names!
Based on the pic provided in this article, yours is a face I don't think I'd forget Andrew. 😏
What can I say? I clean up real nice!
I wonder how his number applies where multiple groups are concerned. If a person is a member of two 400-people communities (like a student, who also goes to large group fitness) how many faces can that person (roughly) remember? 75 per group? 150 per?
I think that's right- the number will be split among the groups. Being a part of 2 big groups like that probably adds another layer of complexity to the whole mix!
In my case, I can remember quite a few faces but names very few. I have an excellent memory for numbers like remembering Credit card numbers and library card numbers. It is not like I can remember in one attempt, but if i try, I can keep 16-digit numbers in my head after 6-7 tries. We all are different in some ways from each other.
I also believe in what I call the theory of a few good men/persons(I am sure you have already figured the name came from the movie “few good men”), and I have seen it working well at my work. And do not take when I say a few literally. I am talking about 5-7 people. My work involves projects that require 200-300 people to get it done, and I have seen 5-7 playing an outsized role in its success or failure. That’s where the theory of a few good men/persons came from; if you look from the outside, you will see 200-300 people working, but if you look closely, you will see an outsized difference a few people are making. That’s why I say in my work, you need a few good men/persons to make anything significant happen (even though you still need an army around them), and when I start the work, I look for those 5-7 people first.
I asked GPT-4 to provide a few examples where Dunbar law does nor work (a few I agree)
However, there are various contexts and circumstances where Dunbar's law may not accurately predict social group sizes or the nature of relationships:
1. **Online Social Networks:** On platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, individuals can have hundreds or even thousands of "friends" or "followers." While these connections may not all reflect meaningful relationships, they do challenge the traditional constraints on social group size.
2. **Professional Networks:** In many professional settings, individuals may need to interact with a large number of colleagues, clients, and other contacts. Effective networking in such environments may require maintaining more relationships than Dunbar's Number would suggest.
3. **Cultural Differences:** Different cultures have different social structures, and some may emphasize larger extended-family networks or community relationships that exceed the number proposed by Dunbar.
4. **Religious Communities:** Members of certain religious communities often engage with a large number of fellow congregants, forming bonds within a context that can exceed the typical scope of Dunbar's Number.
5. **Historical Contexts:** In certain historical periods, particularly in times of crisis or war, individuals were often part of larger cohesive groups such as armies or movements that required maintaining relationships with many individuals.
6. **Large-Scale Collaboration:** Projects that involve large-scale collaboration, such as open-source software development or Wikipedia editing, often involve many contributors who may not know each other personally but still maintain a form of a functional relationship.
7. **Cities and Metropolises:** Residents of large cities may encounter and interact with hundreds of people daily, including neighbors, shopkeepers, and service providers, forming a complex web of social interactions that may not be deep but are numerous.
8. **Transient Populations:** In highly mobile and transient populations, such as those of international expatriates or students, the turnover in social groups can be high, which means that individuals may associate with many more than 150 people over a short period as their social circle refreshes with new arrivals.
It's important to note that Dunbar's Number refers to stable, ongoing relationships where each individual has a sense of each relationship's personal significance. Many of the examples above may involve superficial or transient interactions that do not necessarily equate to the stable social relationships Dunbar described. Nonetheless, these examples illustrate the complexity and variability of human social structures, which can sometimes extend beyond the limits suggested by Dunbar's theory.