2 ms·
That's a possibility too. I was thinking it would be more difficult, since he might have run into the whole new rich/old rich thing. He would have been perfec
by tsotha 14y ago
That's a possibility too. I was thinking it would be more difficult, since he might have run into the whole new rich/old rich thing. He would have been perfectly happy living in a suburban tract home, and that's the type of person he grew up with, so I was thinking that would be the easiest.
Besides, you have fewer choices if your pool of potential friends is rich people.
- larrys 14y ago"you have fewer choices if your pool of potential friends is rich people" How many friends does someone need? I don't see any evidence that wealthy people or upper middle class have any problems friend wise. Not only that but nothing prevents them from mingling with anyone even a lower "status" if you want to call it that.
- zerostar07 14y agoHow many friends does someone need? About 150: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbars_number But they don't all have to be real friends. The interesting thing about Dunbar's number is that it also suggests that people strive to make these 150 relationships even when there are not enough people around (i.e. that's why some people care for celebrities and forge online relationships when real life friends are not enough)
- gcr 14y agoDunbar's number is an upper limit. What's the lower limit?
- theorique 14y agoFrom zero to one is a quantum leap - you go from "alone, no one to talk to" to "can talk honestly and frankly with someone". That's the biggest step. Beyond that, of course it enriches your life, but the first friend is the most important.
- saraid216 14y agoDunbar's number isn't that simple. It's more like you have an upper limit of 150 person-sized points. You can allocate 50 to one person and only have 100 leftover for more casual acquaintances, for instance. Dunbar's number refers to group sizes, not friend counts.