5 ms·

Instead of viewing Dunbar's number as a law, I view it as a sometimes useful, mental model. This article is about how Dunbar's number, as a mental model, breaks

by cek 2y ago

Instead of viewing Dunbar's number as a law, I view it as a sometimes useful, mental model. This article is about how Dunbar's number, as a mental model, breaks down when applied to social media. It makes a strong case for that. Like all mental models, Dunbar's number is not perfect. However, readers who stop after the introduction of this article may be left thinking it's not useful at all. I find it very useful in helping leaders in early-stage organizations that are growing fast recognize why the tools & techniques they've used to get to 30-80 people are breaking down as they approach 100-150 people. It helps frame why new tools & techniques for organization and communication are required.

ghaff 2y ago
There are very clearly differences in how organizations have to be operated as they grow. And one byproduct of that is a person who may be a fantastic fit for an organization of size x may no longer be a good fit for an organization of size 5x or 10x.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  > a person who may be a fantastic fit for an organization of size x may no longer be a good fit for an organization of size 5x or 10x. Interesting, in that you might even have to "backpedal" (rehire) as growth happens.-
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Of course, people leave organizations for many reasons. But a ton of people who like being in a small (however you care to define) growing organization don't have as good a place in a larger, more process-heavy one with more narrowly-defined roles and responsibilities.
Bluestein 2y ago
> It helps frame why new tools & techniques for organization and communication are required. Quite useful in that context, as you say, like a mental model.- PS. Interesting that the "threshold" seems to be somewhere between 80 transitioning to 100 (ballparking, of course).-
- marcosdumay 2y ago
  Well, there is a transition at something around 20, and another transition at larger numbers too (no idea where exactly, but 500 is above the transition). I find it interesting that everybody focus on the transition at 100. (Except for educators, that are completely aware of the 20 one.)
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    20 is totally a "thing".- PS. Manywhere, average classroom size is 30ish ...
  - mistermann 2y ago
    Would be interesting to know what people in the strategy department of the US military know about this topic.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Certainly you can look at the sizes of various units in the US Army. https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Military-Units/Army/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Military-Units... Of course, they have various considerations that may not apply more generally.
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      Group size as a variable must have been studied to death from the military, HR and OR angles ...
ds_opseeker 2y ago
Dunbar told me it grows by approximately tripling. And yes, when you cross a Dunbar bound the old tools and techniques fail in surprising ways. 15 45-50 150 450/500 1500 5000
- ghaff 2y ago
  That feels at least directionally correct. And it even goes up from there. An organization with a few thousand people is quite different from a 20-30K one. I'm not sure about the math and exact numbers (which probably vary depending upon the situation anyway) but it's pretty clear that things are quite different at different scale points.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    (And, should it hold, we get to cities: 100K people, 300K people, 1M people, are different cities to live in - qua size ... ... and different organizations, of course.- Leaves me wondering - among many things - what the "largest qua payroll" organization worldwide might be.- US Dept. of Defense, Chinese PLA, Indian railways. Walmart, Saudi Aramco come to mind.-
    - marcosdumay 2y ago
      Voting for a position at the government of my ~3M people city is completely different from voting for a position at the government of my ~300M people country. Logically, it makes sense that the situation keeps changing. But it still feels weird. How many different kinds of relationship are we capable of?
      - Bluestein 2y ago
        > How many different kinds of relationship are we capable of? Kinds? (qualitative) ... ... I think you very much upped the ante there :) I'd posit a (cheap, easy) guess: Infinite.- PS. Of course, taking the "cheap" way out in thinking about this of assuming each one-on-one relationship (not to mention one-to-many, and many-to-one and many-to-many, like mentioned upthread) to be a unique "kind", is an easy way out: As many types of relationships as people, because no two people are alike, and so is their relationship. Heck, considering each of the individuals (themselves) involved, might subjectively experience a different relationship, there's even a "two to each pair" pairing of relationship types to participants, to be considered ... Now, when, IMHO it gets interesting is if we - a bit more rigoroulsy - attempt a "taxonomy" of relationship "types".- (And, then, again, I am sure anthropology has studied and catalogued those to death ...)
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> I view it as a sometimes useful, mental model. It's very nearly always useful. Many of the worst problems we have in the world around us arise because, it turns out, people just don't scale.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  > people just don't scale. Which, if I may, applies both in the sense that groups of people "handle" differently, and differently vis-a-vis group size, and in the sense that we seem to have an innate inability as humans to deal with exponential, non-linear, "network" phenomena.-

by cek 2y ago

ghaff 2y ago

There are very clearly differences in how organizations have to be operated as they grow. And one byproduct of that is a person who may be a fantastic fit for an organization of size x may no longer be a good fit for an organization of size 5x or 10x.

Bluestein 2y ago
> a person who may be a fantastic fit for an organization of size x may no longer be a good fit for an organization of size 5x or 10x. Interesting, in that you might even have to "backpedal" (rehire) as growth happens.-
- ghaff 2y ago
  Of course, people leave organizations for many reasons. But a ton of people who like being in a small (however you care to define) growing organization don't have as good a place in a larger, more process-heavy one with more narrowly-defined roles and responsibilities.

Bluestein 2y ago

> It helps frame why new tools & techniques for organization and communication are required. Quite useful in that context, as you say, like a mental model.- PS. Interesting that the "threshold" seems to be somewhere between 80 transitioning to 100 (ballparking, of course).-

marcosdumay 2y ago
Well, there is a transition at something around 20, and another transition at larger numbers too (no idea where exactly, but 500 is above the transition). I find it interesting that everybody focus on the transition at 100. (Except for educators, that are completely aware of the 20 one.)
- Bluestein 2y ago
  20 is totally a "thing".- PS. Manywhere, average classroom size is 30ish ...
- mistermann 2y ago
  Would be interesting to know what people in the strategy department of the US military know about this topic.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Certainly you can look at the sizes of various units in the US Army. https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Military-Units/Army/ https://www.defense.gov/Multimedia/Experience/Military-Units... Of course, they have various considerations that may not apply more generally.
  - Bluestein 2y ago
    Group size as a variable must have been studied to death from the military, HR and OR angles ...

ds_opseeker 2y ago

Dunbar told me it grows by approximately tripling. And yes, when you cross a Dunbar bound the old tools and techniques fail in surprising ways. 15 45-50 150 450/500 1500 5000

ghaff 2y ago
That feels at least directionally correct. And it even goes up from there. An organization with a few thousand people is quite different from a 20-30K one. I'm not sure about the math and exact numbers (which probably vary depending upon the situation anyway) but it's pretty clear that things are quite different at different scale points.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  (And, should it hold, we get to cities: 100K people, 300K people, 1M people, are different cities to live in - qua size ... ... and different organizations, of course.- Leaves me wondering - among many things - what the "largest qua payroll" organization worldwide might be.- US Dept. of Defense, Chinese PLA, Indian railways. Walmart, Saudi Aramco come to mind.-
  - marcosdumay 2y ago
    Voting for a position at the government of my ~3M people city is completely different from voting for a position at the government of my ~300M people country. Logically, it makes sense that the situation keeps changing. But it still feels weird. How many different kinds of relationship are we capable of?
    - Bluestein 2y ago
      > How many different kinds of relationship are we capable of? Kinds? (qualitative) ... ... I think you very much upped the ante there :) I'd posit a (cheap, easy) guess: Infinite.- PS. Of course, taking the "cheap" way out in thinking about this of assuming each one-on-one relationship (not to mention one-to-many, and many-to-one and many-to-many, like mentioned upthread) to be a unique "kind", is an easy way out: As many types of relationships as people, because no two people are alike, and so is their relationship. Heck, considering each of the individuals (themselves) involved, might subjectively experience a different relationship, there's even a "two to each pair" pairing of relationship types to participants, to be considered ... Now, when, IMHO it gets interesting is if we - a bit more rigoroulsy - attempt a "taxonomy" of relationship "types".- (And, then, again, I am sure anthropology has studied and catalogued those to death ...)

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago

> I view it as a sometimes useful, mental model. It's very nearly always useful. Many of the worst problems we have in the world around us arise because, it turns out, people just don't scale.

Bluestein 2y ago
> people just don't scale. Which, if I may, applies both in the sense that groups of people "handle" differently, and differently vis-a-vis group size, and in the sense that we seem to have an innate inability as humans to deal with exponential, non-linear, "network" phenomena.-