

The Limits of Friendship - applecore
http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-media-affect-math-dunbar-number-friendships

======
brd
Reading the comments, I'd say many members of HN should probably invest more
time fostering friendships. Its not that difficult to maintain relationships
but it is shockingly easy to let them dissipate.

Every so often I set out to "make the rounds" and see my friends who are
spread across the country. I'm a bit of a nomad and yet its often my return
that triggers close friends to see each other when they live minutes away.
Just pick up the phone and call someone from time to time, let them know you
give a shit. It's amazing what a phone call once a month and a visit once a
year can do to sustain a meaningful relationship with someone.

People are, on average, terrible at staying in touch with one another. Be the
outlier, you'll make the world a better place.

~~~
jmhain
I wish I would have. Sad thing is, the ease of developing new friendships
seems to be a function of the number of existing ones. Once you reach zero,
like I have, you're pretty much stuck there.

~~~
brd
New relationships are a combination of luck and hard work, regardless of your
current state. I think having additional friendships just increases the luck
side of the equation slightly.

If you want to develop new friendships I'd say find hobbies where you might
find interesting people. Some hobbies tend to have more welcoming communities
than others, climbing gyms being one of the better environments I've come
across for meeting new people.

~~~
SomeCallMeTim
Totally agree. And some sports are just friendlier than others.

I play badminton, and I've occasionally played ultimate frisbee, and both have
a great inclusiveness culture, at least in Colorado, Washington, Texas, and
California, the places I've variously played. Much of my current group of
friends that I haven't met through geek-oriented meetups I met playing
badminton.

I also used to play volleyball, but ... well, too many jerks turned me off.
Now I only play with friends at parties.

It's worth emphasizing that making new friends _takes time._ It was a year
before I felt I had good local friends after moving to Colorado, and 2-4 years
before I was doing things with them outside of our original meeting group. It
probably could be done faster -- I suck at the whole social thing -- but for
the poster above who claimed to be stuck at zero: Put in the time, do the
work, _take a chance_ by reaching out, and you _can_ build friendships.

ALSO: Watch this TED talk:

[http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability](http://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_on_vulnerability)

------
shostack
What I'd love to know is how people carve out time and energy for
learning/self-driven education, hobbies and such in addition to friends,
particularly if introverted.

My wife seems to be quite good at making friends, because she invests a large
% of her time and energy in socializing, and I feel like it is slightly less
awkward for a female to invite female coworkers out to do something than it is
for male coworkers (feel free to rebut me here). Fortunately, many of her
friends have SO's that I've become friendly with, and we have a variety of
"couple friends" we do group activities with where she also frequently hangs
out with the female half of that equation 1:1.

I on the other hand have multiple hobbies, am working on teaching myself to
code, and am constantly teaching myself new things (for example, I was
brushing up on multivariable regression analysis at 1am in bed). I barely have
time for this as it is without adding socialization to the mix, but I feel
like I get more fulfillment out of my current approach. I've certainly learned
more as a result.

I'm also an introvert. I can be very social and likable in the moment, but
making new friends and the simple act of socializing is _draining_ vs. my
other solo activities which replenish my reserves.

Seriously, I'd love to know how people strike that balance and how they make
new friends/maintain existing ones without constantly running on empty from
the time and energy it takes to do so.

~~~
debaserab2
I used to use words like "introvert" and "extrovert" to explain why someone
eases into social graces so much better than myself. At some point in my life
I realized that socializing, while maybe more intuitive to some, is a _skill_
you get better at with time and energy. Just like any other skill, it's
extremely draining and takes a while to reach your goals. You can chock it to
being an introvert, or you can invest the time it takes to become skilled at
socializing so that discomfort is removed.

~~~
A_COMPUTER
I don't believe that introversion is like sedentary lifestyle, which can be
cured through exercise. I have taught myself to socialize, and people tell me
I am good at it. But it has never stopped being draining. I just do it because
I know it helps me socially and professionally. Discomfort hasn't really been
a factor since my mid-thirtiesbut it is still as exhausting. Unlike in my
teens I get invited to parties, but I still go home early.

~~~
wastedhours
Exactly, it's not that there's an initial hump of energy loss that you get
over and it gets easier, it's the same even with those you've known a long
time. However, I've come to realise I spend a lot of time complaining about
social interaction draining me, but almost none allowing myself the time to
have social interaction and recover afterward.

------
random28345
> a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the
> people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a
> hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social of us.)

And I thought I was doing well with 4 casual friends and one close friend.

~~~
existencebox
I haven't socialized outside of work with someone who I don't work directly
with in... decades? (aside from the person I'm married to :) ) I also see lots
of other comments in this thread echoing similar sentiment.

I have a feeling we may be in a community that is an outlier to "typical"
social behaviors.

~~~
DigitalJack
I have worked remotely for years. I have no close friends anymore (aside from
my wife) and I would not have any casual friends if I didn't go to church
every now and then.

But I'm a genuine introvert and don't mind.

~~~
tjradcliffe
I work remotely, recently moved to a new city, don't belong to a church, and
have about a dozen causal friends locally (most of them gay men, via a random
work-connection of my girlfriend's and the fact that the gay community is
ridiculously welcoming and outgoing.)

I'd say "Introverts of the world, unite!" but that would kind of defeat the
purpose.

I've speculated that the 150-person limit on pre-political human group sizes
is due to the limits on our attention:
[http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1203](http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1203)

That speculation was based on the idea that men form groups to support each
other in mate competition, but it could well also be a primary phenomenon,
with 12 or 13 being the absolute upper limit of our attentional resources.
That would give 150 people as the typical group size. Either way, it would be
very interesting if we could tie those two magic numbers--7 and 150--together
somehow.

------
mortenjorck

      Unlike other touch receptors, which operate on a loop—you touch a hot stove, 
      the nerves fire a signal to the brain, the brain registers pain and fires a signal 
      back for you to withdraw your hand—these receptors are one-way. They talk to 
      the brain, but the brain doesn’t communicate back. “We think that’s what they 
      exist for, to trigger endorphin responses as a consequence of grooming,” 
      Dunbar said. Until social media can replicate that touch, it can’t fully replicate 
      social bonding.
    

Crazy thought: Could the haptic-messaging features of the Apple Watch make it
the first mainstream product to tap into this principle?

------
goalieca
Have you ever lived somewhere, perhaps a city, where all your close friends
change every few years because everyone keeps moving? That was my case living
in Vancouver. I have since moved and have had to start over myself. I find
that it takes a while to build close friends especially once you are in the
job market and everyone has families. It also takes a lot of effort to keep
close friends because i'm so busy with non-social things and sporting
activities that I'm rarely free just to hang as I did in University. This is
doubly true for those in relationships as we also have to spend time with our
partners friends and families too.

Not complaining, but it's difficult to adjust to compared to grad school.

------
tokenadult
I'm glad that this article points out that the Dunbar number is a RANGE.
(That's what you should expect about most numerical statements about typical
human beings. The number you hear in a news story is just the central tendency
of a number that varies among different individuals.)

The article reports, "On the flipside, groups can extend to five hundred, the
acquaintance level," and that would suggest that my group of Facebook friends
(a bit more than 700, the great majority of whom I have actually, factually
met in person) is a group of acquaintances. And I'm okay with that, as they
are FRIENDLY acquaintances, and they interact with one another (in many
combinations of individuals who have never face-met even once) in delightful
and thought-provoking ways.

I feel a lot of empathy for the younger people commenting in this thread that
they feel they have few friends and few channels for meeting any new friends.
That may change over time. There have been times in my life when I was much
more isolated than I am now, when it would have been unbelievable that I would
ever have an online network of 700-some "friends." Of course like a lot of
married men, I've invested most in my relationship with my wife, and she is by
far my best friend, and also a connection to other friends. I do think the
article makes a good point that it's wise for each of us to enjoy some of the
in-person aspects of friendship (hearing someone's voice, maybe tapping
someone on the shoulder or hugging or whatever as is appropriate for the
friendship) to build a connection with people that just can't be built by
keystrokes sent over the Internet.

------
pacofvf
In high school I had 30 casual friends and 15 close friends, at University I
had 20 casual friends and 10 close friends, now I have 10 casual friends and 5
close friends, I predict them to reduce to zero when I get married. :(

~~~
trentmb
It's unfortunate you don't consider your spouse a close friend.

~~~
pacofvf
I hope my girlfriend doesn't read this.

~~~
reinhardt
I hope your wife doesn't read about your girlfriend.

------
AndrewKemendo
Path was basically founded on the idea of Dunbar's number and that didn't work
out so well. I think they assumed people wanted deeper connections with their
friends online than folks really did. This article backs that up pretty well.

It is interesting the conclusion about the thinning of relationships and what
the impacts of that are. I agree that you can likely form very strong bonds
over the web but I don't think at this point they can replace actual physical
interaction for the majority of people.

------
2510c39011c5
The article says, "Thus, from the size of an animal’s neocortex, the frontal
lobe in particular, you could theoretically predict the group size for that
animal". So I did a bit googling and found another article, here

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626378/](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1626378/)

This one has another interesting point: "These analyses show that while
relative neocortex size is positively correlated with female group size, it is
negatively, or not at all correlated with male group size. This indicates that
the social intelligence hypothesis only applies to female sociality."

Perhaps after a man gets married with a woman, he could shift much of his
social function of the neocrotex to his female partener, and free up that part
of the brain for some other interesting stuff...

~~~
2510c39011c5
Assuming in a typical courting relationship network, a female is being courted
by 8 males at the same time, and assuming all those men would devote much of
their resources to their courtship and hence would have few resources to spare
for other inter-personal relationships, it looks like the neocrotex of the
female would need to take on more burden (e.g. more developed) as to take care
of those 8 links, than the neocrotex of each man needs to maintain a single
link.

This may explain why most of the time woman is more adept at dealing with
those sociality issues.

    
    
                                        male_0
                             male_7    o
                                 o     |     o male_1
                                  \    |    /
                                   \   |   /
                                    \  |  /
                                     \ | /
                          male_6      \|/ female
                             o---------o---------o male_2
                                      /|\
                                     / | \
                                    /  |  \
                            male_5 /   |   \
                                  o    |    o male_3
                                       o male_4

------
dnautics
"On the flipside, groups can extend to five hundred, the acquaintance level,
and to fifteen hundred, the absolute limit—the people for whom you can put a
name to a face."

This is spot on. I was able to reliably recall passengers I'd had driving for
lyft up to about 1000 rides, which is 1500 minus the "number of facebook
friends I have".

------
ZenoArrow
The article makes sense to me, but one point I'd make is that we didn't start
becoming more socially distant from each other in the Internet age, from what
I see it's an extension of what we experienced in the TV age... Yes, you might
be in the same room as other people watching the same TV show, but the level
of interaction is minimal, and the content you get from TV is often far
removed from your reality so it doesn't really offer much in the way of
insight in navigating your current world.

I'll put it like this... I watched a lot of TV growing up, and it has clearly
shaped my imagination. If we ever had some catastrophic event after which
civilised society broke down, I would have a better idea of how to navigate
that world than the one we have now, which I find it easy to be disconnected
from. Of course I don't want to live in a dystopia, but it's a reflection on
how we connect to what we consume.

------
ufmace
I read a more basic article on this a while back on Cracked[0], that you might
find interesting if you liked this.

I find there to be a lot of truth to the basic idea of this. But I think there
is also a lot of individual variation. As I have gotten older and developed
better social skills, I recognize that I am an Introvert at my core, and only
care to maintain a small number of close relationships. Despite this, I am
capable of being social, chatty, and sometimes even charming during social
events, when I'm at my best, but I usually have no desire to maintain most of
those relationships.

At the core, you have to figure out what is right for you, not what other
people or society think you should want, and work towards maintaining that.

[0] [http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-
monkeysphere.html](http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-
monkeysphere.html)

------
BigChiefSmokem
There are also many positive ways to manage an extended network of friends -
ie. the people you don't see on a day-to-day basis.

For example, I definitely don't abuse my social network and groom it on a
regular basis, both public and private feeds and profiles. My LinkedIn account
has "only" 83 connections and my Facebook has 143. Yes, I know every single
one of them. Facebook in particular has allowed me to connect with my extended
family overseas so I put a lot of value into each of my posts on there, even
if others choose not to. Sometimes I even translate my own posts for the sake
of my non-English speaking family so as to guarantee the furthest reach of my
social broadcasts.

Everyone is always happy when I reach out to them, even if it's only once a
year on Facebook. I also try not to do it on the day of their birthday, on
holidays, or on any special day per say as it amplifies the gesture.

------
alchemism
Anecdotal evidence as part of a Burner-esque 'tribe' of party people: 120-150
is about right.

Same holds true for client relationships in IT.

After that they are just faces in the crowd, not people.

------
msandford
So we know that Dunbar's number is really, REALLY important when it comes to
human interaction.

But nearly everything in the near past has to do with flouting it, creating
huge institutions which absolutely, positively make Dunbar's number look like
a joke.

Perhaps that is why there's a lot of trust eroding in the big institutions.
When size >> Dunbar's number people have the anonymity they need to start
doing less great things and get away with it.

------
Handwash
> One concern, though, is that some social skills may not develop as
> effectively when so many interactions exist online.

Maybe we're just adapting ourselves to the new social environment. We forget
what we don't need to survive, and we learn skills in a different form from
what is considered as a "normal" in this present time.

------
emrehan
Many of us complain about not keeping in contact with your friends regularly.

What would you think about an application that notifies us to communicate with
friends frequently?

~~~
jamesdelaneyie
I would dismiss any and all notifications with a curt 'oh piss off!' unless
they were impeccably timed and had something sentimental like a large photo of
me with that friend.

------
placebo
Seems like either Dunbar's number is from some alternate reality or many of
the commenters (including myself) are the alternate reality...

~~~
ufmace
I think it's an average over a large number of people. Online communities,
like HN, tend to fill with Introverts, which I think are on the lower side.
There are also lots of extroverts out there who genuinely enjoy maintaining
huge numbers of friendships, but I don't think they spend much time posting on
message boards. Especially ones that tend to be a bit on the pedantic and
humorless side, like HN.

Don't get me wrong, HN, I love you the way that you are, even if every now and
then I think you could stand to lighten up a bit. But I will confess to a need
to visit Reddit for some jokes and pun chains sometimes.

------
kirualex
I'm doubtful about both the data and the results of this article.

------
hyp0
interesting point about touch (light stroke) at the end, which online can't
replicate, and the apple watch idea of communicating your heartbeat

------
amathstudent
That was a well written article up until the links to sites behind Harvard
University's paywall accessing service.

