4 ms·
Interestingly, 30-50 people is the standard range given for 'band societies', the most basic pre-agricultural group. That's been cited as a problem with Dunbar'
by Bartweiss 8y ago
Interestingly, 30-50 people is the standard range given for 'band societies', the most basic pre-agricultural group. That's been cited as a problem with Dunbar's number, but most people seem to think it's just another major "natural group size" among many. Dunbar has also cited 5 and 15 people as rough 'rings' to which we devote disproportionate amounts of our socialization time.
I have a bit of trouble judging how Fibonacci compares, since the distinctions I've seen are gradual rather than nonlinear. But it does look like moving from ~15 to ~35 might match a switch from close-association to band structure, and exceeding ~55 would match another restructuring away from that.
- cimmanom 8y agoYou might have 30 people who live together; but even just to avoid inbreeding, their social milieu would likely include a handful of other bands with nearby territory. Thus any given persons social ties could very reasonably number in the low 3 figures.
- Bartweiss 8y agoYep, exactly. Lieberman ought to more than I do, but his argument that "150 connections" can't be selected for because pre-agricultural bands were smaller seems ridiculous. Most fundamentally, because 150 doesn't have to be directly selected for; it's a consequence of working memory that might be valued for unrelated reasons. But more directly, because "bands of 30-50" is not "only knowing 30-50 people". Bands were usually extended family groups, so the value of maintaining personal relationships outside of those groups is obvious. Honestly, the best I can work out is that Lieberman is a few decades out of date on his understanding of how pre-agricultural groups interacted.