4 ms·

I wonder if this number varies per person. 150 seems a lot to me personally. For me it's probably closer to 5 than to 150.

• majewsky 9y ago
  I think you're misunderstanding the definition. > Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships—relationships in which an individual knows who each person is and how each person relates to every other person. When you're hearing "stable social relationship", you might think of the relationship to your parents, brothers, sisters, children or partner. However, the definition of "stable social relationship" also applies to your doctor, your boss, your coworkers, the lady next door who waters your flowers when you're on vacation, etc. Putting that number around 100-150 average sounds reasonable to me.
  • strictnein 9y ago
    Doesn't Dunbar's explanation preclude a lot of those people? > Dunbar explained it informally as "the number of people you would not feel embarrassed about joining uninvited for a drink if you happened to bump into them in a bar"
    • majewsky 9y ago
      Interesting. With this definition, I can see why many people would set it at 5 or even 0. :)
      • bpicolo 9y ago
        It's a limit rather than a factor of preference is I think the takeaway
• ronilan 9y ago
  While the “number” itself may be similar among people, how it is utilized may differ widely. In other words - while your brain may have the potential ability to maintain numerous connections, your life circumstances have limited the number of actual connections to only a few. I’m in the “5” camp, btw.
• psyc 9y ago
  I'm very introverted, and have less than 5 close friends. This is a commonly cited feature of introversion. However, I have a rather detailed rapport, of one kind or another, with more than 100 people.