Dunbar’s Number
Let’s do a little math. (I know, math can be scary for us PR folks. It’s nothing but simple addition, I promise.) Take the number of your facebook friends and add on your Twitter followers. Now add your LinkedIn Connections, everyone in your Outlook contacts, and your cell phone address book. Now, presumably there’s some overlap, so cut that number by about half.
You’ve probably heard of Dunbar’s number – the maximum number of stable, social relationships a human can maintain. The number most often thrown around is 150—meaning humans can have 150 relationships in which he or she knows who each person is, and how that person fits in with their social circles. Chances are, that number you came up with from my not-so-scientific formula above is far beyond that. If you are close to 150, all I can say is, you’re either really, really picky about who you connect with online, or nobody likes you. If it’s the latter, I’m sorry for pointing out your unpopularity.
So how do your Facebook friends, Twitter followers and LinkedIn connections fit in with the concept of Dunbar’s number? Not very well, as far as I’m concerned. There comes a time when you reach maximum capacity as far as the ability to check every status update and tweet, let alone interact with each of those individuals. After all, I follow @ConansSquirrel on Twitter, but I can’t exactly brag to anyone that I’m BFF with the squirrel in Conan O’Brien’s backyard.
I use social media for a lot of reasons, but at the end of the day, Twitter doesn’t pour me a glass of wine and let me bitch about my day or drive me to work when I’m having car trouble. So here’s a bit of motherly advice: don’t forget your Dunbar number, and the people that actually fit within that realm.
I was thinking about this number the other day, and frankly I think 150 is way too high. When I think of the number of people I have somewhat meaningful relationships with, I’m startled by how low the number is compared with the number of Facebook “friends” and Twitter “followers” I’ve amassed. I think there’s been a mad rush to get numbers on social media sites, and no mad rush for meaningful relationships. It’s about time we start changing that. Great post.
When using your formula, I find a result that far exceeds Dunbar’s number. Now, in life, my true circle of connected people is much smaller than that (truth be told, I like it that way). But in the vast sea of online (not-so-anonymous) anonymity, it seems to raise you in the pecking order when you are linked in or followed by more people than your counterpart. A juvenile measure of online importance if you will. No offense to Dunbar, but just because you can balance 150 relationships doesn’t mean you should. Though my online self appears to be more popular than Dunbar himself, my true exisitence is one surrounded by the quiet quality of a few good people. Popular? Not even close. Fufilled? Every day.