Reepstraat 8, 9660 Brakel, Belgium

Darwin on Networking - web 2.0

February 2009
 Web 2.0 and some already speak of 3.0. Facebook, LinkedIn,
MySpace, Tagged, Bebo and dozens of other social networks
demonstrate the huge success of these networks. The biggest
one, Facebook, has over 175.000.000 registered users
(http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics). That means that
17,5% of all internet users worldwide are registered to
Facebook. It also means that Facebook has more users than
the US have internet users. The mathematical model that you
are connected with every other person in the world through
a maximum of 6 contact levels, has been empirically proven
over the internet several times. So between you and Obama
as well as between you and Hu Jintao, the General Secretary
of the Communist Party of China, there are only 6 other
persons that know each other…

Facebook has always intrigued me as it speaks of ‘friends’

and not of ‘contacts’ or ‘connections’ as for instance
LinkedIn does. Everyone who uses these social networking
sites has undoubtedly experienced the connection model
most of the so-called ‘power-users’ apply: any contact
online is worth adding to the contact list. Answer to a
question of a person you don’t know on LinkedIn and 1
chance out of 2 he will invite you to his
Facebook has more contact list. Meet someone today and
users than the US
chances are high that tonight you get an
have internet users.
invitation to be added to his list.
Gathering connections online is a sport and lots of
people are aiming for the 5000+ medal, meaning that they
have more than 5000 contacts.

But let’s go back to the peculiar case of Facebook that

positions itself as the private social network where you
invite friends instead of business relations. There is a huge
difference between a ‘contact’ or ‘connection’ and a ‘friend’.
Contacts are almost technical and they don’t hide the sound
opportunism of being part of the list. Kind of ‘you never

p. 2/5
 know’. But ‘friends’, that is something else. You don’t call
everybody ‘a friend’. A friend connotes a more personal
relationship where values like knowing each other,
mutual esteem, respect and trust are important together
with a touch of affection.

Some of my contacts on Facebook have more than 800

friends in their list. Should I feel bad, unsocial or unloved
because I know I will never have 800 friends in my list?
Time to take a look at what science knows about this
phenomenon of social networking. Is the Facebook model a
hype or here to stay? Can people have 800 friends and more?
Human evolutionary psychology can help us better
understand what this is about.

Humans are above all, social animals. That sociality

represents part of our primate heritage, a heritage
characterized by a peculiarly intense form of sociality not
seen in any other group (Barrett, Dunbar and Lycett - 2002).
Over the centuries, families grew to groups, clans, villages
and cities to countries. The family members all knew each
other; in today’s cities this is strictly impossible. Where is
the limit of friendship management?

Humans are above

The evolutionary psychology speaks of
all, social animals.
different circles of social networking. The
closest circle is the so-called support clique (Dunbar and Spoors).
The support clique consists of these ‘friends’ a person
would turn to for advice and support in times of crisis. The
support clique has a size of 3 to 5 people (Marsden - 1987,
Sugawara - 1984). Support cliques are a subset of our
individual network and include relationships that are more
intense than those that create our network.

The second circle is the sympathy group. The size of this

sympathy group varies between 12 to 15 people. If you ask
someone how many people he or she knows whose decease

p. 3/5
would be experienced as devastating, the average number of
people listed would be around 12 (Buys and Larsen - 1979). If
the frequency of contact is used as reference point, the
network size tends to be similar (Hays and Oxley - 1986,
McCannell - 1988, Rands - 1988, Dunbar and Spoors - 1995).

The last circle is the larger grouping that forms our

individual network. For that level of contacts the number
of 150 consistently comes up. Meaning that number of 150
contacts can be equated with the number of individuals that
you know well enough to ask a favor of or feel enough
comfortable about joining uninvited if you would come
across them somewhere exotic.

Tests have proven this number to be very right. If people are

asked to make a list of names of contacts they could turn to,
to ask a favor for a specific task, they
tend to turn out of names after 125-150 A group of 150
individuals (Killworth - 1984). Similar individuals represents
the complete set of
results were found in the UK from an
living descendents
analysis of the network people send that originate from a
Christmas cards to (Hill and Dunbar - single ancestral pair.
2002). 150 is also the number of people
clans in traditional cultures can call for support during raids
or when under threat of attack (Meggitt - 1965, Hallpike -
1977). (Dunbar 1996). Meaning that all members of three
generations currently alive count up to 150 people in general.
150 contacts seems to be the limit of what we would call
‘friends’, although psychology would rather speak of
acquaintances.

So what with all these people that have more than 800
friends on Facebook? A quick check on the official
Facebook statistics prove that Darwin and the evolutionary
psychology he inspired is right.
The average Facebook user has 120 friends
(http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics.) The 500+ users are

p. 4/5
leveled out by those people who use Facebook for their real
friends and not just for any contact.

Conclusion: 800 ‘friends’ on Facebook is impossible. It is

mix of the support clique, the sympathy group and the
individual network, together with ‘contacts’ of people we
remember having worked with, having met sometime or
following the same training. But what should Facebook do
about it? Well, unless it wants to surf the hype and sell at its
top, Facebook will have to adapt (another Darwinist
concept) if it wants to survive long term. Even 500 friends is
an unmanageable amount for humans. Facebook should
take a look at bigger social groups -called societies- and
let itself be inspired by how networks in
Even 500 friends is
societies function. As soon as groups
an unmanageable
exceed the number of 150, visual codes amount for humans.
are installed to create ‘subgroups’ or
‘subcultures’. Some regulated (police, fire fighters…) some
spontaneous (punk, hard rock…). Facebook should give us,
users, the possibility to create the same kind of
‘subgroups’ in our contacts. Subgroups that have no
hierarchy amongst each other but that indicate the different
types of networks we have. For instance ‘creative network’,
‘people who can come over for lunch’, ‘we should meet
again sometime’ or ‘contacts I want to have sex with’. The
latter being an important Darwinist idea for evolution…

Geert Stox
geert@bizbuilders.be
mobile +32 497 583727
http://www.bizbuilders.eu

p. 5/5