Blog Post 4 - Liam Barwell
For my blog post #4, in light of our midterm, I will be discussing Dunbar’s number and his social brain hypothesis. To begin, Dunbar’s social brain hypothesis looks at the comparison between primates’ brains to body ratio. “Compared to other animals, they have strikingly large brains relative to their bodies” (Standage, pg 8). Dunbar believed that the evolved brain of the primates was used to manage their complex social system. What does that have to do with us? Well Dunbar had a number that linked the size of a human social network system that was made up of 150 people. This was called Dunbar’s number. Of the 150 people (Dunbar’s number) there could be multiple categories comprised. One of them was called close friends, this was made up of 5 people. Next was good friends. This category was made up of 15 people. Thirdly, there was friends, a category that consisted of 50 people. Lastly, there was acquaintances, a category made up of 150 people which included all above categories. These 150 people could be tied to your social circle. Whether you were super close or casual friends, if you knew them on some sort of personal level, they would be a part of Dunbar’s number.
As this is more of a historical concept and social media is now more relevant the ever, people are starting to think this theory may be outdated. One reason people believe this is because people are now able to follow and be friend hundreds if not thousands of people across the world. This done via social media apps like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and BeReal. The accessibility to the internet and therefore social media apps has made it possible and now more likely than not to have more than just 150 people connected to you via online in one way shape or form. Although you could argue that some of these people you follow could still meet a category such as acquittances, there is no doubt in my mind that everyone in this class has followed or befriended someone online that they have never met or had any sort of face-to-face connection with. With this being the case, it is hard to say that Dunbar’s number is still relevant in today’s technologically driven society.
How do you feel about categories under Dunbar’s number? is it way too easy to consider someone your “friend” with social media having such a significant presence in our society?
Hey Liam, great post. You did a great job explaining Dunbar's theory about the human mind being being able to handle 150 people in their social circle. Obviously, due to social media, our social network and the people we associate with has gotten bigger. Even though our social networks are larger, I think that dunbar's number is very reasonable and still valid. To answer your question, I think that a lot of our social media friends, really aren't even acquaintances. For example, a lot of my followers and people I follow, I barely know. I follow all my close friends, but it is overwhelming to think that everyone on my social media are acquaintances. I think 150 people for our social circle on average is very reasonable. I love to meet more people but anything over 150 is too many to keep up with. I think it is very easy to consider people on social media our friends, but in terms of real life, I think Dunbar's theory is accurate.
ReplyDeleteGreat post!
ReplyDeleteI think that Dunbar's number is a little outdated in the sense that like you said, people are able to follow and befriend people on social media without having met them, especially if they interact with these people that they've never met through things like comments and direct messages. That being said, I still think that the framework is able to be applied to people today, however, could just be expanded and more tailored to society in light of social media.