Imagine scrolling through your social media feed,
skimming updates from hundreds of "friends,"
yet realizing you feel close to only a handful of them.
In a world where we’re more connected than ever, why do our most meaningful relationships seem to cap at a certain number? Enter Dunbar's Number, a fascinating theory that suggests the human brain can only maintain a limited number of close, meaningful connections - roughly 150, to be exact.
Are you curious why your social circle has a natural limit
and what it means for your relationships?
Understanding Dunbar's Number
In our hyper-connected world, it’s easy to assume we can maintain endless relationships. Social media offers the illusion of hundreds, if not thousands, of friends at our fingertips. But psychology and anthropology offer a more grounded reality check: our brains may only allow us to maintain meaningful connections with a relatively small number of people. This limit is encapsulated by “Dunbar’s Number.”
What Is Dunbar's Number?
Dunbar’s Number is a theoretical cognitive limit on the number
of stable social relationships a person can maintain
Named after British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, whose research, rooted in primate brain studies, suggested that the size of a primate’s brain is closely linked to the size of its social group. Extrapolating this to humans, Dunbar proposed that the average person can manage a social network of around 150 individuals. Beyond this threshold, relationships begin to lose the depth and stability needed to truly count as meaningful connections.
The Structure of Dunbar’s Number
Interestingly, Dunbar’s research doesn't end with the number 150. Instead, it posits that human social connections are layered in "circles" of relationships:
Inner Circle (5 close friends or family): This is your innermost circle of intimacy – those with whom you share your closest emotional connections and would turn to in times of crisis.
Sympathetic Circle (15 good friends): Outside of the core five are the people with whom you have strong but slightly less intense relationships - close friends you trust and regularly see.
Affinity Circle (50 friends): In this circle are good friends and extended family members. You may not see them often, but you share a strong sense of rapport.
Stable Social Network (150 meaningful connections): This is the maximum group of people you can maintain stable relationships with. These are individuals you know well enough to invite to a big event, like a wedding, and genuinely care about.
Larger Networks (500 acquaintances and beyond): Beyond 150, we find acquaintances and people we recognize but don’t share a personal connection with, numbering around 500 or more.
Why Does Dunbar’s Number Matter?
While it’s tempting to think we can have a vast number of friends,
Dunbar’s Number reminds us of the cognitive
and emotional limits our brains impose.
Maintaining meaningful relationships demands time, attention, and energy - all finite resources. Once we stretch beyond our cognitive limit, relationships begin to dilute, and the depth of connection wanes.
Social Media Illusion: While social media platforms encourage large networks, Dunbar’s Number reminds us that having 1,000 friends on Facebook doesn’t mean we have 1,000 true friends. We may recognize these individuals, but the depth of our relationships is limited.
Community Building: Organizations, military units, and communities have long benefited from understanding group dynamics. Historically, communities and social units often reflect Dunbar’s Number, with organizations splitting or reorganizing once they surpass 150 members, creating groups where members feel connected and accountable to one another.
Personal Well-being: Studies show that the quality, rather than the quantity, of relationships significantly impacts our well-being. Focusing on nurturing a smaller, more meaningful network of close connections aligns well with Dunbar's research.
Navigating Modern Relationships considering Dunbar’s Number
Knowing we’re wired to handle around 150 relationships
can influence how we prioritize our social interactions.
Quality over Quantity: Cultivating a handful of close relationships is more rewarding than maintaining weak connections with hundreds of acquaintances. Consider who’s in your circles and focus on strengthening those ties.
Time and Attention Allocation: Be mindful of where you invest your emotional energy. A few moments spent with a close friend or family member can be more fulfilling than scrolling through endless updates from distant acquaintances.
Recognize Relationship Depths: Not every relationship needs to be close. Accepting the roles of different types of connections can make us more intentional about where we invest our energy.
Set Social Boundaries: Social obligations can be draining. By understanding that we only have so much bandwidth, we can better decide when to say “yes” and when to decline, fostering a balanced social life.
Criticisms and Limitations of Dunbar’s Number
Like any theory, Dunbar's Number has its critics. Some researchers argue that human relationships are too complex to be boiled down to a specific number. They suggest that modern communication technologies may alter our ability to maintain a larger social network, although the depth of these digital connections remains debatable.
Embracing the Power of Connection
Dunbar’s Number offers us a fascinating insight into human relationships.
It helps us recognize the limits of our social capacity and prioritize our closest connections. Instead of striving to have hundreds of shallow connections, embracing the concept of Dunbar’s Number encourages us to deepen the relationships that truly matter - something that, in our often-distracted world, feels more important than ever.
Does Dunbar’s number apply in the age of social media?
A widespread and popular belief posits that humans possess a cognitive capacity that is limited to keeping track of and maintaining stable relationships with approximately 150 people. This influential number, ‘Dunbar’s number’, originates from an extrapolation of a regression line describing the relationship between relative neocortex size and group size in primates. However, enormous 95% confidence intervals (4–520 and 2–336, respectively) imply that specifying any one number is futile. A cognitive limit on human group size cannot be derived in this manner
References
R.I.M. Dunbar (1992). Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates. Journal of Human Evolution 22(6):469-493, 1992
Lindenfors P, Wartel A, Lind J. ‘Dunbar’s number’ deconstructed. Biol. Lett. 17: 20210158, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2021.0158
Collins H. The end of Dunbar’s number: Have our social networks changed for good? The Oxford Scientist’s Print edition, Networks, in Trinity Term 2022. https://oxsci.org/end-of-dunbars-number/
Comments