Contributors to the Smart Data Collective forum frequently offer useful insights about analytics and other topics. I liked a recent piece by Jacob Morgan about Dunbar's number: According to Wikipedia, this is a "theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships." Dunbar's is typically believed to be about 150. Makes sense to me - especially when I think about the circle of people I stay in regular contact with, invite to parties, interact with on Facebook, etc.
I'm intrigued by social network research: The structural holes stuff, etc. Lots of folks are exploring how people make connections, and what difference these connections (or lack thereof) can make. Of course, I'm most interested in understanding the role of social networks in spreading useful evidence as quickly as possible.
Strong vs. weak. Dunbar's number describes what many folks call "strong ties". Is a strong connection required to get people to consider new evidence, especially when that evidence challenges their current beliefs? Or are weak ties enough?
Morten T. Hansen, in his book Collaboration: How Leaders Avoid the Traps, Create Unity, and Reap Big Results, talks about the importance of weak ties. "[R]esearch shows that weak ties can prove much more helpful in networking, because they form bridges to worlds we do not walk within. Strong ties, on the other hand, tend to be worlds we already know; a good friends often knows many of the same people and things we know." And he offers a pragmatic explanation of why your weak-tie number can go much higher than 150: "It’s less time consuming to talk to someone once a month (weak tie) than twice a week (a strong tie). People can keep up quite a few weak ties without them being a burden."
Authority matters, too. When we consider new evidence, the authority of the source is important - this is a key component of making something persuasive. Technology has made it much easier to learn about new evidence and locate new authorities, even when we have weak - or possibly nonexistent - ties to those sources. (Consider Twitter. Evidence often comes from people you're following, or people who are re-Tweeted, even if you don't know them.)
Beating the number. For those who do want to be strongly connected to as many people as possible, Chris Brogan writes about "beating Dunbar's number" - for instance, by establishing yourself in multiple groups based on specific geography, a specific industry vertical, etc. Some of his points are a different way of saying "it's not who you know, it's who knows you" - and I agree with him on that. Brogan writes: "[M]ake it work in reverse. By that, I mean this: if people think of you as part of their 150, then they come to you, and they seek you out. This comes from having some value to offer. If, for instance, you’re helpful in finding others business, those people will seek you out the next time they have an opportunity, or the next time they need your help. In either case, you’re in the network."The bottom line? I think Dunbar's number is useful for evaluating a certain type of connection: The ones characterized by strong ties. But for spreading evidence to a wider audience, it's not important. You can successfully communicate evidence to folks with whom you have only weak ties.
By the way, Dunbar has a book called Grooming, Gossip, and the Evolution of Language. I've not read it, but the reviews are quite positive, and I've heard it's a worthwhile read.
Comments