Dunbar’s Number

The complexity of relationships

29 Days Ago

So why did we evolve a large brain if it wasn’t essential for toolmaking? One reason is that existing in a large social group is very mentally taxing. Those who are better at playing the social game will have more access to mates and resources and will be more likely to reproduce. As the groups get larger, so the computational power needed to keep up with the interconnections grows exponentially, as does the stress.

~ Mark Maslin, from Why Humans Are So Smart—And So Stressed Out

I’m too often stressed out (ever / at all is too often!) It helps to get really clear on what exactly is stressing me out. Because the complexity of relationships is a feature—not a problem—of our expansive, beautiful, wonderful, modern world.

ɕ

Relationships that don’t scale

July 6, 2018

These people are, effectively, hiding behind a wall. They are passing up more difficult work for the easy work — sharing or “liking” photos, retweeting, commenting on someone’s wall. These are activities which can serve a purpose, but they are poor substitutes for the real thing. It’s like saying Splenda is the same thing as sugar, tofu is the same thing as real meat, or Red Lobster is a good place for…a red lobster. It’s not the same thing. Not even close.

~ Brett McKay from, How to Build Meaningful Relationships | The Art of Manliness

slip:4uaoai2.

There is a fine line between using social media (and other technology conveniences) to increase the number of people I can keep up with. Dunbar’s Number is often pegged at about 100 or a bit more. I definitely agree that there’s a trade off between how many people I can maintain relationships with and the quality of each relationship. I find the hardest part is when a relationship gets asymetric — when the other person isn’t able to commit as much time — eventually it’s time for me to stop putting in the effort; Eventually it’s time for me to stop trying, and instead to let another person settle into the social space in my universe.

ɕ