Can a person have more than 150 friends?

Although Roberto Carlos’ song tells us that he wants to have “A million friendsThere is a widely recognized theory in which a British anthropologist specializing in animal behavior explains that We can only maintain 150 friendships or “connections” at a time.

Robin Dunbar, has maintained since 1993 that the “magic number” is 150, based on the fact that there was a relationship between brain size and brain size. of the group through their studies on monkeys. This proportion was plotted using neuroimaging and observation of time spent grooming, an important social behavior of primates. Dunbar concluded that the size, in relation to the body, the neocortex, the part of the brain associated with cognition and language, it is linked to the size of a cohesive social group. Thus, this proportion limits the complexity that a social system can manage.

The anthropologist and professor at the University of Oxford defines meaningful relationships as the people you know well enough to say hello without feeling uncomfortable if you meet them in an airport waiting room. That number typically ranges from 100 to 250, with an average of around 150, he said.

“At birth, it starts in one or two. Friendships peak in the late teens and early 20s. In their 30s, people tend to have around 150 connections, and that number remains stable until people reach their late 60s and 20s. the early 1920s. The 1970s, when the number of connections started to drop. If you live long enough, it goes back to one or two, ”Dunbar said.

In his book “How many friends does a person need? “, Dunbar cited historical and current examples to support his research. About 6000 a. VS., the size of Neolithic villages in the Middle East was 120-150 people, judging by the number of dwellings. In 1086, the average size of most English villages recorded in the Domesday Book was 160 people. In modern armies, combat units contain an average of 130 to 150 people, he said.

According to Dunbar’s theory, sketched in 1993 and influenced by many researchers, this rule of 150 is still true for early hunter-gatherer societies, as well as for a surprising variety of modern groupings: offices, townships, factories, residential camps, military organizations, 11th century English villages.

In his theory, a person’s tightest circle has only five members: his relatives. Next come the successive layers of 15 (good friends), 50 (friends), 150 (important contacts), 500 (acquaintances) and 1500 (people you can recognize). People come in and out of these layers, but the idea is to make room for new entrants. Dunbar doesn’t know why these number layers are multiples of five, but says, “This number five seems to be fundamental for apes and monkeys in general.”

Of course, all of these numbers actually represent the range. Extroverts tend to have a larger network and spread more among their friends, while introverts tend to focus on a smaller group of “thick” contacts. And women usually have a little more contact in the closest layers.

“What determines these layers in real life, in the world of face to face... is how often you see people. You have to make a decision every day on how to invest the time you have available for social interaction, and that is limited, ”said the atropologist who is taken into account by various organizations: the Swedish tax administration, for example, restructured its offices to stay within the threshold of 150 people, who complained about the monkeys.

Dunbar’s theory was recently challenged by researchers at Stockholm University who published an article last week questioning that number, and found that people could have a lot more friends if they did their best. “We can learn thousands of digits from pi, and if we interact with many people, we will improve our relationships with many people.Said Dr Johan Lind, study author and associate professor at Stockholm University. The article was published in the journal Biology Letters.

He added, “It is easy to observe that the human brain functions differently from that of other primates, as evidenced by the existence of cumulative cultural evolution resulting in wonders like symphonies and science. Dunbar’s hypothesis that the evolution of human brain physiology corresponds to a limit on our ability to maintain relationships ignores the cultural mechanisms, practices, and social structures that humans develop to address potential deficiencies.“.

“Ecological research on the sociability of primates, the uniqueness of human thought, and empirical observations indicate that there is no hard cognitive limit to human sociability. Our new analysis provides the final evidence needed to ignore the Dunbar number. In summary, extrapolation of human cognitive limits from regressions on non-human primate data is of limited value for both theoretical and empirical reasons. We hope, although perhaps futile, that this study will put an end to the use of the “Dunbar number” in science and in popular media. The “ Dunbar number ” is a concept with a limited theoretical basis which lacks empirical support», He concluded.

Against this, Dunbar defended his investigation. The new analysis, he said, “is crazy, absolutely crazyHe added that Stockholm University researchers performed a flawed statistical analysis and misinterpreted both the nuances of their analyzes and human relationships. “His apparent lack of understanding of relationships amazes me,” he said. he admonished.

Dunbar’s number theory holds that we can really only maintain about 150 connections at a time. But is the rule true in today’s world of social media? Dunbar argued that his theory remains viable even in today’s hyper-connected world, as the quality of social media connections is often low. “These are not personalized relationships,” he said.

What will the pandemic mean to rebuild meaningful bonds, whether at work or in our social life? It’s probably too early to tell, but Dunbar predicted that the biggest effects on networks would be on the elderly. “Their circles of friends were already shrinking and this will push them even further,” he concluded.

KEEP READING: