4 ms·

At the extreme opposite of this, I started writing down all the people I knew something about, and I realized I knew something about at least 12,000 people, and

At the extreme opposite of this, I started writing down all the people I knew something about, and I realized I knew something about at least 12,000 people, and probably many more than that: http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/i-know-more-than-12000-people-so-do-you http://www.smashcompany.com/philosophy/i-know-more-than-1200... And you also know some facts about at least 12,000 people, and probably many more. Just think of your favorite music bands. You can probably list 100 bands easily. And if they average 3 people per band, that's 300 people that you know something of. Knowing the upper limit on how many people we know is crucial for understanding the complexity of human society.

Retric 9y ago
This is not about people, but knowing about the connections between people. I have no idea if say Bill Gates likes or dislikes David Letterman. If I am going to go and say kill a Water Buffalo or tile a bathroom, then I want some people with the skills who can also work together well. That's a lot more than knowing their name and hobbies.
- lkrubner 9y ago
  It's good to know the Dunbar number, but if you want to understand why human societies are so complex, you have to also know the limit. You can think of it as almost the opposite of the Dunbar number. What is the outer limit of how many people we can know something about? Ultra weak ties have importance in practical ways. If I were hiring a high level software architect, I would expect them to have opinions about some of the big names in the history of software, maybe John McCarthy or Allan Kay or Guido von Russom or Rich Hickley. Neither of us would necessarily have any personal connections to those people, but they operate like the stars in the sky, the give us points by which we can navigate the whole entirety of the human social universe.
  - Retric 9y ago
    There is great diversity in how people think. I have tried very hard to internalize appeal to authority as meaningless so I have mostly divorced ideas from those who had them. As such, I have never looked into big names in any field because I feel it's not just worthless but actually harmful. I know many reasonably competent people who take the opposite approach and still get stuff done.
    - lkrubner 9y ago
      At no point did I invoke "appeal to authority." Rather, we navigate a social space via shared points. If we are discussing literature in the English language, it is useful to know who Shakespeare, Jane Austen and Ernest Hemmingway are. Or if we are talking about Bollywood, it is useful to know who Aishwarya Rai or Akshay Kumar are. Or we discuss basketball, it is useful to know who Lebron James is. None of that involves an appeal to authority.
      - Retric 9y ago
        Every one of those examples come from Culture not research. If you want to talk about people that's different from getting things done. Lebron James is for example irrelevant when talking about Collage basketball so he does not impact the sport directly.

Retric 9y ago

This is not about people, but knowing about the connections between people. I have no idea if say Bill Gates likes or dislikes David Letterman. If I am going to go and say kill a Water Buffalo or tile a bathroom, then I want some people with the skills who can also work together well. That's a lot more than knowing their name and hobbies.

lkrubner 9y ago
It's good to know the Dunbar number, but if you want to understand why human societies are so complex, you have to also know the limit. You can think of it as almost the opposite of the Dunbar number. What is the outer limit of how many people we can know something about? Ultra weak ties have importance in practical ways. If I were hiring a high level software architect, I would expect them to have opinions about some of the big names in the history of software, maybe John McCarthy or Allan Kay or Guido von Russom or Rich Hickley. Neither of us would necessarily have any personal connections to those people, but they operate like the stars in the sky, the give us points by which we can navigate the whole entirety of the human social universe.
- Retric 9y ago
  There is great diversity in how people think. I have tried very hard to internalize appeal to authority as meaningless so I have mostly divorced ideas from those who had them. As such, I have never looked into big names in any field because I feel it's not just worthless but actually harmful. I know many reasonably competent people who take the opposite approach and still get stuff done.
  - lkrubner 9y ago
    At no point did I invoke "appeal to authority." Rather, we navigate a social space via shared points. If we are discussing literature in the English language, it is useful to know who Shakespeare, Jane Austen and Ernest Hemmingway are. Or if we are talking about Bollywood, it is useful to know who Aishwarya Rai or Akshay Kumar are. Or we discuss basketball, it is useful to know who Lebron James is. None of that involves an appeal to authority.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Every one of those examples come from Culture not research. If you want to talk about people that's different from getting things done. Lebron James is for example irrelevant when talking about Collage basketball so he does not impact the sport directly.