Skip to content

What’s the ideal number of friends?

Dunbar’s number says we can maintain relationships with about 150 people. Which then prompts people to consider What’s the ideal number of friends? Questions like this – and Dunbar’s number – are vague and almost useless. First, what’s a friend? The article quotes Aristotle’s statement friends as people who’ve eaten salt together (what if you have high blood pressure?). Social technologies have changed, for me at least, what it means to be (or have) a friend. When I travel, it’s rare that I don’t meet people I’ve only known online. And yet, when we sit and chat, our shared interest in educational technology makes for a very fluid conversation. Add Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and other tools to the equation…and suddenly it appears that 150 is very small. Ultimately it comes down to how the word “friend” is defined. Is a friend someone who knows you well – i.e. your likes, dislikes, things that stress you out? If that’s the case, I’d suggest Twitter – with the daily life stream of inconsequential and consequential happenings – completely alters the notion of “friend as familiar”.

This was written by gsiemens. Posted on Wednesday, March 4, 2009, at 9:52 am. Filed under Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

3 Comments

  1. John Larkin wrote:

    I consider a friend to be those that would make the effort to attend your own funeral. That is the mark of a friend. I still feel uncomfortable seeing the term ‘friends’ applied to acquired contacts via tools such as MySpace, Facebook, etc. I feel that the use of the word friend in this context has lessened or demeaned the significance of the word itself. That list of names on a computer screen are not your friends.

    Sure, you may actually met people in person that have previously been Twitter or blogging contacts. I would consider them to be professional acquaintances and not actual friends. One or two may become a friend over time if contact is frequent, maintained and of a considerable longevity. I became good friends with a rare record dealer after many years of snail mail and then virtual correspondence. Our families holiday together, etc. He has become a friend.

    Yet it unsettles me to hear people refer to their virtually acquired contacts as ‘friends’. They are not friends. Would they bail you out of jail? Would they attend your funeral? Would you include them in your will? Would they adopt your children in the event of your untimely demise? Hardly.

    Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 12:35 am | Permalink
  2. Amit wrote:

    I read an interesting piece on Facebook and Dunbar number in the Economist this week. Facebook data reveals that average network size for individuals is 120, however the number of people with whom one frequently interacts (and this is what they consider as friend) is remarkably small – 7 for males and 10 for females. Probably that means one has 120 ‘familiar’ people on Facebook but only 7-10 ‘friends’.

    Thursday, March 5, 2009 at 7:39 am | Permalink
  3. Ann Brady wrote:

    I agree with John’s definition of a friend. I tend to think of my online relationships as connections, and mainly professional connections. That said, some of my “friends” are people I know so that does change the dynamic. I’m new to all of this social networking stuff and am spending a lot of time thinking and talking about it. So it will be interesting to look back in a few months and see what I think then!!

    Friday, March 6, 2009 at 6:17 pm | Permalink