{"id":806,"date":"2003-09-05T18:19:05","date_gmt":"2003-09-05T18:19:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/ubuntu.my\/wp30\/archives\/2003\/09\/05\/the_150_limit_and_social_upkeep.html"},"modified":"2003-09-05T18:19:05","modified_gmt":"2003-09-05T18:19:05","slug":"the_150_limit_and_social_upkeep","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/archives\/2003\/09\/05\/the_150_limit_and_social_upkeep.html","title":{"rendered":"the 150 limit and social upkeep"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>When anthropologist Robin Dunbar wrote about a 150-person cap in one&#8217;s social network, he was not referring to 150 people in one&#8217;s lifetime.  He was saying that people can maintain up to 150 weak ties at any given point in time.  [And that tie maintenance is directly related to gossip upkeep and brain size, just as monkey tie maintenance is directly related to grooming and brain size.]<\/p>\n<p>When i have 200+ friends on a site like Friendster, i&#8217;m not a social networks anomaly.  What is actually being revealed is that my articulated network goes beyond the relationships that i currently maintain.  While a high percentage of my friends and associates are on Friendster, not all of them are.  There are quite a few relationships that i currently maintain that are not represented there.  Additionally, many of the relations represented are outdated or on hiatus, not because i don&#8217;t love or appreciate those people, but because we are not geographically colocated or our personal situations have created a situation where time to connect is limited.  This doesn&#8217;t mean that i don&#8217;t love and appreciate those people, just that they&#8217;re not part of my current situation.<\/p>\n<p>I say all of this because it&#8217;s another factor of why an articulated representation is not equivalent to the network that one is actually maintaining.  By suggesting that those ties are valid and relevant, we&#8217;re suggesting that we can call on those, regardless of our upkeep.  This is a bit problematic.<\/p>\n<p>For example, last nite, i needed to call someone who i could guarantee would be online in order to ask them to look something up for me.  This is not a heavy favor, but in choosing who to call, i made certain conscious choices.  My cell phone represents one form of an articulated network.  As i browsed through the people, i chose not to call certain people for various reasons.<\/p>\n<p>I eliminated some people because i doubted they would be online.  I eliminated others from the potential pool because i felt as though the favor would be too inappropriate given our relationship.  (For example, i didn&#8217;t call my advisor because it would seem an odd request.)  But the most cringeful reason that i failed to call a group of people who would likely be online was because i owed them a conversational call (social upkeep) and to call to ask a menial favor when i didn&#8217;t have time to do the upkeep was totally out of line.<\/p>\n<p>Now, the limiting factor was, of course, that the task was menial.  Had i been in a desperate situation that truly felt magnificent in nature, i would&#8217;ve called any one of the people in my cell phone.  I knew them all.  I loved them all.  But the support i requested was contextualized because of the value and whether or not i&#8217;d been good about social upkeep.<\/p>\n<p>This is important to realize in the realm of an articulated network.  When people go through me to connect with other friends of mine, there can be quite a bit of social awkwardness when i failed to maintain that relationship.  When i, as the bridge, have the ability to control when those connections are to be made, i have the opportunity to repair the upkeep gap before asking a favor.  For example, when i get a phone call from an old colleague asking to write a recommendation, the conversation inevitably starts with a lot of social upkeep before the favor is requested.  Otherwise, it would seem odd.<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><br \/>\nR.I.M Dunbar, &#8220;Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates,&#8221; Journal of Human Evolution (1992), vol. 20, pp. 469-493.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>When anthropologist Robin Dunbar wrote about a 150-person cap in one&#8217;s social network, he was not referring to 150 people in one&#8217;s lifetime. He was saying that people can maintain up to 150 weak ties at any given point in time. [And that tie maintenance is directly related to gossip upkeep and brain size, just [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/806\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}