This number was first proposed in the 1990s by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who found a correlation between primate brain size and average
social group size. By using the average human brain size and extrapolating from the results of primates, he proposed that humans can onlycomfortably maintain 150 stable relationships. Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and
enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 250, with a commonly used value of 150.
Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally
with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher
and likely depends on long-term memory size.
Location: Riverton, South Australia
Theme: Windows XP Silver
Member Is Offline
Mood: Gone crazy, Back soo
Post 501163 posted on 24-1-2016 at 09:52
Could be correct. We know hundreds of people but are only in "regular" contact with around a hundred or so. Of that hundred only twenty could be
called "close". Of the "Hundreds" there would be about 30 or 40 who would "take up where we left off" if we were to live in close proximity
Member Is Offline
Mood: fact me
Post 501169 posted on 24-1-2016 at 14:08
Discounting my actual friends I have around 100 adult colleagues and 800+ pupils. We are going to be moving to a "super" school with around 1500
pupils and maybe 200 + staff. The Dunbar number suggests that this will be an inefficient, unworkable school unless each bit is broken up into units
of around 150. I find it hard to remember everything about everyone as it is and need to write things down much more than I used to.
You are a guest, as a guest you can only see a maximum of 3 posts per thread.