I’d like to take Dunbar’s number(~150) as the number of active parallel connections you have have over a given(and small) period of time. So while by the definition of 2 @ for a friend definition I might have a couple of hundreds or even more friends, over a given period of time I would be actively interacting with about 150 people only. Without realizing I might be talking to newer people and loosing touch with some older one’s(not all of them obviously), who also similarly would be making connections with new people, forgetting old one’s like me.

One needs to be careful of mean averages in studying social networks. Figure 4 is slightly misleading if taken at face value, in that it hides the bifurcation of twitter user types. There are many following 1,000′s followed by very few (‘spammers’ for want of a better word), and many followed by 1,000′s who follow 1000′. That is obscured by the average.

Figure 6 (the first graph) should roll off if the second graph were to represent the median, but it doesn’t, so there is an anomaly in the study there. Figure 6 is the one which really tells you if the ‘Dunbar Number’ is growing or not. It is still thought provoking though!

With regards to Dunbar’s number more generally, it is worth remembering that it isn’t a hard limit (Dunbar drew his stats from averages, not maximums) – see more in my post here: Dunbar’s number = groups language and social media. It seems, rather than moving the number, social media might actually be shifting what we mean by ‘friend’. I’m not sure if that is a good thing, but increased communication generally is, so hopefully it will all work out!

This is the kind of post that makes one think, analyze and wonder.

First off, the analysis between # of followers, followees (for lack of a better word) and ‘friends’ is excellent. However, I think the definition of a ‘friend’ could be revised upwards.

Regardless of how one defines a ‘friend’ on twitter, the trend remains true that as Internet makes terribly easy conversation/communication across boundaries, one’s friend-number would rise. It is indeed interesting that you think that a Dunbar limit (~150) becomes apparent.
I think it is because *social norms* evolve much more slowly than *technological tools*. Twitter and such tools are largely the domain of the digirati today; these are the early adopters. The mass public still hasn’t adopted these. The norms for usage, communication with social internet tools, etc. will continue to evolve slowly.
It perhaps won’t be until a few years (5? 10?) before we will see any significant increase (10%? more?) in the Dunbar limit.

My 2 naya paisa :-)

Great post.
-a

Like many things I look at my own experience for guidance in doing a gut check on this type of thing and I agree with you. These numbers do not reflect my experience with Twitter. I did a quick review my my @ messages and DMs over the last couple of weeks and it is over 70+ people out of a network of around 1400. I feel like I’ve been able to maintain more relationships with more people than I ever could before. Are they different types of relationships? Absolutely but they also provide much more value then the huge Rolodex that sites, mostly unused in Outlook.

Maybe I’m an outlier but I think it’s just a matter of learning how to effectively use the new tools.