Brain limitations: human meanings of social objects for up to 150 people-friends, social networking-IT information

This week, anguna·ahugu was published in the Financial Times article, explore the Dunbar number (Dunbar's number)--that our Primate brain limits our ability to keep the number of meaningful social objects, making it no more than about 150 people.

Oxford University (Oxford University), anthropologist Robin Dunbar (Robin Dunbar) Professor raised this with numbers of bears his name. Dunbar finds from Neolithic villages and the legions of the Roman Empire, to a list of common Christmas greeting cards to send, the size of the human population have striking similarities. He will propose a hypothesis, that is, our social attention is not divided equally between the 150 close friends but stratified like the Onion; 5 close contacts in the innermost of our social circle, the outer layer is 10 people, then to the outside is 35 and 100 people on two floors.

Now, a study phone calls trying to test Professor Dunbar's hypothesis--that our emotional intimacy is like Russia doll tiered distribution--which in turn helps to understand how we layer to their social relations. In Finland Aalto University Institute (Aalto University School of Science), cooperation with the colleagues, Professor Dunbar studies 2007 European cell phone data set, which contains 35 million users total 6 billion calls. Frequency of calls between two people is a reflection of their approximate indicators of emotional intimacy. Data excluded those who only do emergency calls or only people who make business calls only and at least 100 people multiple-entry call was included in.

Speak to comb through networking and clustering algorithms, researchers found that people tend to put their social circle is divided into four to five layers. On average, social circle is divided into four individual has 4 's closest confidant, often relatives, they most frequently speak with these people, and then to the outer layer of 11 people, the outer two layers of 129 people and 30 people respectively.

For those individual social circle is divided into five layers, each slightly different distribution of number of friends: 3 most close contacts in the innermost, out of each layer in turn is 7, 18, 43, and 134 people. The above analysis results appeared last month in the arXiv site, scientists to the site to upload their research results to the academic discussions (sometimes--but not always--this is the prelude to published by peer-reviewed journals).

According to this analysis, social "tiered" concept seems to be valid, but pointed out that the difference might mean in the analysis, hierarchical layers correspond to different social tendencies. From the study led to a view that social circle is divided into four levels of an individual may be introverts and social circle is composed of five layers of individuals likely to be export-oriented people.

The author believes that this paper has its limitations: it only examines the data within a year. Friendship can be fleeting, according to time and change, and reflect the particular stage of life. The frequency of contact is not always proportional to the depth of friendship; long-term relationships often do not require intensive care can thrive.

But it is equally possible is that the study captures a unique snapshot of friendship: 2007 data set represents a smart phone before the popularization of the social pattern, before people became used to on a mobile device via Facebook or other Web sites to maintain friendships. Researchers pointed out that the data also showed a convincing consistency. It directly reflects the real life: even if moving or changing jobs can cause changes in the environment in which we follow, old acquaintances will be replaced by a new friend. Social stratification composition may vary, but the layer itself remains the same.

It is worth noting that is, almost no one among us can have over 200 meaningful social relationships. This ceiling should lead to social networking in a digital sense relationships mixed age improve their services.

大脑限制：人类有意义的社交对象最多150人 - 朋友圈,社交 - IT资讯

本周，《金融时报》发表了安贾娜·阿胡贾的文章，探讨邓巴数字(Dunbar’s number)——即我们灵长类动物的大脑限制着我们有能力保持的有意义的社交对象人数，使其不超过约150人。

牛津大学(Oxford university)人类学家罗宾·邓巴(Robin Dunbar)教授提出了这个以他名字命名的数字。邓巴发现，从新石器时代的村落、罗马帝国的军团，到一份普通的圣诞节贺卡寄送名单，人类群体的规模具有惊人的相似性。他就此提出假说，即我们的社交注意力并不是在150个知心朋友之间平均分配的，而是像洋葱那样分层分布；5个最亲密的联系人位于我们社交圈的最里层，外一层是10个人，再向外的两层分别是35人和100人。

现在，一项针对手机通话的研究试图检验邓巴教授的假说——即我们的感情亲密度是像俄罗斯套娃那样分层分布的——进而帮助理解我们如何给自己的社交关系分层。在芬兰阿尔托大学理工学院(Aalto University School of Science)同事们的合作下，邓巴教授研究了2007年欧洲的手机通话数据集，这其中包含了3500万用户进行的总计60亿次通话。两个人之间通话的频率是反映他们感情亲密度的近似指标。数据中剔除了那些仅做紧急呼叫或仅拨打商务电话的人；只有那些和至少100个人多次往返呼叫的人被包括了进来。

通过梳理通话的人际网络和应用聚类算法，研究人员发现，人们倾向于将他们的社交圈划分为四至五层。平均而言，社交圈分为四层的个体拥有4个最亲近的知己，往往是亲戚，他们与这些人的通话最为频繁，再向外一层有11人，最外面的两层分别是30人和129人。

对于那些社交圈分为五层的个体来说，每一层分布的朋友人数略有不同：3个最亲密的联系人在最里层，往外的各层依次是7人、18人、43人、和134人。上述分析结果上月出现在了arXiv网站上，科学家们向这个网站上传自己的研究成果用于学术讨论（有些时候——当然并不总是如此——这是在由同行评议的正式期刊发表的前奏）。

尽管根据这项分析，社交“分层”的概念似乎是站得住脚的，但分析中指出的差异或许意味着，分层的层数对应于不同的社交倾向。从上述研究衍生出的一个观点是，社交圈分为四层的个体也许是内向型人，而社交圈分为五层的个体可能是外向型人。

作者认为，这篇论文有其局限性：它仅仅考察了一年时间内的数据。友谊可以是短暂的，因时因地而变，并反映我们在特定阶段的生活状态。联络的频率并不总是与友情的深浅成正比；长期关系常常不需要密集的看护也能茁壮发展。

但同样可能的是，这项研究捕捉到了友谊的独特快照：2007年的数据集代表了智能手机普及之前的社交格局，早于人们开始习惯性地在移动设备上通过Facebook或其他网站维持友谊。研究人员指出，这些数据还表现出了颇有说服力的一致性。它直观地映照出了真实生活：即便搬家或者换工作会导致我们所处的环境随之改变，老相识也会被新朋友所取代。社交分层的具体人员构成或许会发生变化，但分层本身保持不变。

值得指出的是，我们当中几乎没有人能拥有超过200个的有意义社交关系。这一上限应促使社交网站在一个数字意义上人际关系混杂的时代完善他们的服务。