4 ms·

The article quotes Dunbar as saying "In the normal run of things, when a fifth person joins a group, it’ll become two conversations within about 20 seconds." I'

The article quotes Dunbar as saying "In the normal run of things, when a fifth person joins a group, it’ll become two conversations within about 20 seconds." I've noticed something similar. The article suggests this might be because of the difficulty we have imagining what multiple other people are thinking, but I suspect other causes also play a part. If I'm in a group of five or more, and I think too long about what somebody said, or about how to respond, I find there are two conversations going on without me. In a group of four, the only way it can split into two conversations is if I participate. If I don't, the other three have no choice but to maintain (at most) a single conversation, making it easier for me to rejoin.

eschneider 2y ago
That's not so much because it's five people as it's a new person.
em-bee 2y ago
in my experience it is more dynamic than that. based on tech meetings that i have been to, it depends on the topic currently being discussed. larger groups will break apart if not everyone is interested. it also depends on the arrangement. if a few people stand in a circle and more join the circle, the conversation won't split, because for that to happen they would actually have to leave the circle and create a new one.
- Zancarius 2y ago
  This is a really interesting observation, because I'm in an adult discussion class in Sunday school that is arranged like a circle, and I've been trying to figure out why it seems that structure works so well at limiting conversational divergence. It seems that when everyone is forced to look at each other, it's harder to divest from the main conversation without drawing your attention away from the remainder of the group. It seems better for fostering discussion with a single speaker at a time since everyone can look at that person all at once. It's not perfect but for larger groups the "circle strategy" definitely seems to work well. Thanks for sharing!
  - Lammy 2y ago
    This is the social upside of something like a “blunt rotation” forcing every person to periodically break from carrying the conversation.
    - Zancarius 2y ago
      I'm going to shamelessly borrow your phrasing, because what you've described is exactly what happens: It's a rotation through other participants so neither the study leader nor other individuals have to "[carry] the conversation." It's really interesting, because it fosters conversation that can lead to interesting questions, observations, or other information that might not otherwise come to light. There are some significant deficiencies, of course, but I think works fairly well depending on the group. Where it breaks down is if one person starts to dominate the conversation for the duration of the class and carries it off-topic, or if someone becomes combative. So, the group composition and personalities can influence the relative success.
  - conductr 2y ago
    The circle shape makes you feel engaged and able to converse with everyone so it feels cohesive. It's also pretty obvious you were arranged in that shape to emphasis a group conversation activity is taking place. Kind of the opposite as when you get seated at a restaurant in a long rectangle table. You immediately know it will be difficult to talk to the whole table and will have multiple conversations taking place. If you're at one end, you'll likely only talk to 3-4 people. If you're at the center, you might talk to 3-4 to the left and right but they'll be different conversations. Not that this is a strict law of table talk, just kind of what usually takes place. Sometimes there's something that comes up that gets everyone's attention and the whole table is shouting. An even more extreme example, is a bar top seating, where you are just a line facing the same direction. You might only talk to your neighbors and possibly their neighbor but it's not great at facilitating larger group discussion. If you ever go to a banquet or wedding where they have round tables but a very tall floral decor piece thing in the middle, it completely breaks the circle advantage. I think eye contact and your ability to convey body language is a major component.
mirekrusin 2y ago
Probably because people can focus on 3 - 4 things at a time.

eschneider 2y ago

That's not so much because it's five people as it's a new person.

em-bee 2y ago

in my experience it is more dynamic than that. based on tech meetings that i have been to, it depends on the topic currently being discussed. larger groups will break apart if not everyone is interested. it also depends on the arrangement. if a few people stand in a circle and more join the circle, the conversation won't split, because for that to happen they would actually have to leave the circle and create a new one.

Zancarius 2y ago
This is a really interesting observation, because I'm in an adult discussion class in Sunday school that is arranged like a circle, and I've been trying to figure out why it seems that structure works so well at limiting conversational divergence. It seems that when everyone is forced to look at each other, it's harder to divest from the main conversation without drawing your attention away from the remainder of the group. It seems better for fostering discussion with a single speaker at a time since everyone can look at that person all at once. It's not perfect but for larger groups the "circle strategy" definitely seems to work well. Thanks for sharing!
- Lammy 2y ago
  This is the social upside of something like a “blunt rotation” forcing every person to periodically break from carrying the conversation.
  - Zancarius 2y ago
    I'm going to shamelessly borrow your phrasing, because what you've described is exactly what happens: It's a rotation through other participants so neither the study leader nor other individuals have to "[carry] the conversation." It's really interesting, because it fosters conversation that can lead to interesting questions, observations, or other information that might not otherwise come to light. There are some significant deficiencies, of course, but I think works fairly well depending on the group. Where it breaks down is if one person starts to dominate the conversation for the duration of the class and carries it off-topic, or if someone becomes combative. So, the group composition and personalities can influence the relative success.
- conductr 2y ago
  The circle shape makes you feel engaged and able to converse with everyone so it feels cohesive. It's also pretty obvious you were arranged in that shape to emphasis a group conversation activity is taking place. Kind of the opposite as when you get seated at a restaurant in a long rectangle table. You immediately know it will be difficult to talk to the whole table and will have multiple conversations taking place. If you're at one end, you'll likely only talk to 3-4 people. If you're at the center, you might talk to 3-4 to the left and right but they'll be different conversations. Not that this is a strict law of table talk, just kind of what usually takes place. Sometimes there's something that comes up that gets everyone's attention and the whole table is shouting. An even more extreme example, is a bar top seating, where you are just a line facing the same direction. You might only talk to your neighbors and possibly their neighbor but it's not great at facilitating larger group discussion. If you ever go to a banquet or wedding where they have round tables but a very tall floral decor piece thing in the middle, it completely breaks the circle advantage. I think eye contact and your ability to convey body language is a major component.

mirekrusin 2y ago

Probably because people can focus on 3 - 4 things at a time.