Comments on: Why socializing doesn’t scale

By: Rosa

Rosa — Fri, 11 Nov 2011 05:09:05 +0000

Thanks for posting this insight Viil. The sheer number of people some Twitaholics are following makes me wonder what processing capability their brain is made up of . With sometimes in excess of 10,000 or even more people they follow, they sure do have an extended tribe – or perhaps even a bigger clan, band etc cascading downwards to a big family. You may also want to connect to @pat_zwitschert who’s researching the pyschological angle to 2.0
+1

By: Mr. Pony

Mr. Pony — Sun, 13 Jun 2010 10:26:48 +0000

What this doesn’t seem to take into account is the shifting of individuals from one group to another. Members of your clan may move (at least momentarily) to your band, or even “sympathy group”, because they are blood relations, or share a common background; and find themselves called upon. Further, it makes sense for a person to maintain their more distant relationships to increase the potential pool of individuals that can come to their aid, in times of trouble.

The expansion of social network awareness seems to me to be just that; an expansion. Social media enables individuals to expand their pool of social resources cheaply and efficiently. I see social media as a bonus, rather than an imperfect replacement.

By: Kåre Garnes

Kåre Garnes — Thu, 03 Jun 2010 06:48:00 +0000

Problem is…. this research is published in 2005.

= old in internet age

I do believe technology like the iphone combined with the simplicity of social media like twitter allows you to keep track of and build strong relations to many more people than you could back in the heady days of 2005.

I think the web is moving too fast for solid academic research. By the time one has gotten to the bottom of a hypothesis, all the data and surrounding factors have changed. Twice!

By: The art of being relevant #PRofWorld — Doktor Spinn

The art of being relevant #PRofWorld — Doktor Spinn — Fri, 28 May 2010 14:33:37 +0000

[...] Remember Dunbar’s number and the 90-9-1 rule? The social web might be a pluralistic revolution, but it is the passionate and remarkable few who actually rewires the web as they see fit. As spectators, we can not possibly take interest in everyone, so we choose carefully which individuals to include on our non-scalable circles. [...]

By: Nathan

Nathan — Fri, 14 May 2010 20:02:07 +0000

Viil, great meeting you last night at the ABCs of Networking mixer. I read about Dunbar’s number in one of Malcolm Gladwell’s books…Blink I believe…and have to say the social experience gets diluted when you have a ton of people in your clan/tribe/etc. I find this most to be the case with Twitter. It’s difficult to follow the “conversations” although the “lists” function makes it a bit easier. I guess time and more research will tell how this all plays out.

By: Viil Lid

Viil Lid — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 00:23:53 +0000

Feel free to use the image as long as you give me credit

By: Aimar

Aimar — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 22:51:39 +0000

Have you made your social group size image available under Creative Commons or is it not OK to distribute or use? Would love to include in a presentation. Like your thinking by the way:-)

By: Viil Lid

Viil Lid — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:54:14 +0000

I think this is a great question:

“Might these age-old maxims for memory and association actually change as a result of technology?”

Robin Dunbar, the originator of Dunbar’s number, is currently doing research on Facebook and MySpace data to see if his clan number of approximately 150 holds in technology mediated social networks as well. He claims that preliminary findings supports this. But we’ve only been using technology to support social networking for a few years, and these changes may take longer time.

So, will these group numbers grow as using technology becomes an integral part of maintaining social relationships, or will we just get larger groups added to the small ones we already have?

By: tkell

tkell — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 22:35:07 +0000

I was going to comment that maybe we use social network technology to compensate for natural limitations in how many people we can actively associate with. Then I read the previous comment about using technology “to aid some of the relationship processing.” That’s just what I was thinking, but is better stated

Now that makes me then wonder if too much computer aid will have a deleterious effect – like how I have such a hard time remembering phone numbers since my phone does that for me. Twice in the last week, I was able to recall someone’s twitter ID but not their real name!

Might these age-old maxims for memory and association actually change as a result of technology?

Related article: Is Google Making Us Stupid? – The Atlantic (July/August 2008)
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google

By: Viil Lid

Viil Lid — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 20:06:13 +0000

Thank you for your comments Paul. I think you are right that today’s technology allows larger social groups to exist. Maybe because the technology can be used to aid some of the relationship processing our brain has limited capabilities for, like remembering who people are and in which context we know them.

The Twitter accounts with 10,000 or more followers seem to me to be more for broadcasting than for networking, but I suspect that those who have twitter accounts with a large amount of followers still maintain smaller social groups within this mass whom they have more interaction with.

I will be following @pat_zwitschert