3 ms·

> a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a hundred at th

> a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social of us.) And I thought I was doing well with 4 casual friends and one close friend.

existencebox 12y ago
I haven't socialized outside of work with someone who I don't work directly with in... decades? (aside from the person I'm married to :) ) I also see lots of other comments in this thread echoing similar sentiment. I have a feeling we may be in a community that is an outlier to "typical" social behaviors.
- DigitalJack 12y ago
  I have worked remotely for years. I have no close friends anymore (aside from my wife) and I would not have any casual friends if I didn't go to church every now and then. But I'm a genuine introvert and don't mind.
  - tjradcliffe 12y ago
    I work remotely, recently moved to a new city, don't belong to a church, and have about a dozen causal friends locally (most of them gay men, via a random work-connection of my girlfriend's and the fact that the gay community is ridiculously welcoming and outgoing.) I'd say "Introverts of the world, unite!" but that would kind of defeat the purpose. I've speculated that the 150-person limit on pre-political human group sizes is due to the limits on our attention: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1203 http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1203 That speculation was based on the idea that men form groups to support each other in mate competition, but it could well also be a primary phenomenon, with 12 or 13 being the absolute upper limit of our attentional resources. That would give 150 people as the typical group size. Either way, it would be very interesting if we could tie those two magic numbers--7 and 150--together somehow.
- musername 12y ago
  No kidding, with all the jokes about the extroverted $scientist being the one looking at your shoes during a conversation. Then again, one can simply be friendly to everyone, without becoming close friends or assuming any liabilities. Friendship is a rather abstract, not to say imprecise, word.
heyheyhey 12y ago
> And I thought I was doing well with 4 casual friends and one close friend. On the contrary, I have many casual friends but 0 close friends. I'd say I'm pretty extroverted and like having a wide social circle but the lack of close friends does bother me sometimes.

existencebox 12y ago

I haven't socialized outside of work with someone who I don't work directly with in... decades? (aside from the person I'm married to :) ) I also see lots of other comments in this thread echoing similar sentiment. I have a feeling we may be in a community that is an outlier to "typical" social behaviors.

DigitalJack 12y ago
I have worked remotely for years. I have no close friends anymore (aside from my wife) and I would not have any casual friends if I didn't go to church every now and then. But I'm a genuine introvert and don't mind.
- tjradcliffe 12y ago
  I work remotely, recently moved to a new city, don't belong to a church, and have about a dozen causal friends locally (most of them gay men, via a random work-connection of my girlfriend's and the fact that the gay community is ridiculously welcoming and outgoing.) I'd say "Introverts of the world, unite!" but that would kind of defeat the purpose. I've speculated that the 150-person limit on pre-political human group sizes is due to the limits on our attention: http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1203 http://www.tjradcliffe.com/?p=1203 That speculation was based on the idea that men form groups to support each other in mate competition, but it could well also be a primary phenomenon, with 12 or 13 being the absolute upper limit of our attentional resources. That would give 150 people as the typical group size. Either way, it would be very interesting if we could tie those two magic numbers--7 and 150--together somehow.
musername 12y ago
No kidding, with all the jokes about the extroverted $scientist being the one looking at your shoes during a conversation. Then again, one can simply be friendly to everyone, without becoming close friends or assuming any liabilities. Friendship is a rather abstract, not to say imprecise, word.

heyheyhey 12y ago

> And I thought I was doing well with 4 casual friends and one close friend. On the contrary, I have many casual friends but 0 close friends. I'd say I'm pretty extroverted and like having a wide social circle but the lack of close friends does bother me sometimes.