N※N

The science behind how many friends we can handle

  //science-technology.news-articles.net/content/2 .. ience-behind-how-many-friends-we-can-handle.html
  Published in Science and Technology on Wednesday, October 8th 2025 at 14:19 GMT by deseret
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

How Many Friends Can the Human Brain Actually Handle?
A Deep Dive into Robin Dunbar’s Social‑Network Theory

By [Your Name], Research Journalist
October 8, 2025 – Deseret News

When the Facebook “Friends” button became a cultural touchstone, most of us began to count our “friends” in the same way we count the number of likes or followers on a post. But the number that truly matters to the human brain is not the thousands of contacts on a social‑media platform. It is the one rooted in the work of anthropologist and evolutionary biologist Robin Dunbar—a theory that has reshaped how we think about social connection for more than two decades.

The Origin of Dunbar’s Number

In 1992, Dunbar first proposed that the size of an animal’s social group is limited by the capacity of its neocortex, the part of the brain responsible for social cognition. Subsequent research on primates suggested a ratio of roughly 7,000 cortical neurons per 100,000 social neurons—a figure that, when applied to humans, yields a limit of about 150. Over the past 30 years, Dunbar has refined this concept into a hierarchical model: the “core” circle of 5–15 people who are truly close, surrounded by 50, 150, 500, and up to 2,000 people with whom we interact at varying levels of intimacy.

The Deseret article highlights how Dunbar’s theory emerged from comparative anatomy, a blend of ethnographic fieldwork, and modern neuroscience. The piece draws on the original 1998 paper in Evolutionary Anthropology and references a 2013 meta‑analysis that confirmed the 150‑person ceiling in both hunter‑gatherer societies and contemporary Western populations.

Cognitive Limits and Social Layers

According to the article, the 5‑person core includes those we “would sacrifice for” or consider “true friends.” The next 15 people are “good friends” who we can rely on in a crisis. Up to 50 people fit the “close friends” category—those with whom we share personal details, but who are not necessarily the people we would sacrifice for. The 150‑person group—Dunbar’s famous number—represents the wider social network that includes acquaintances, coworkers, and extended family. Above that, the 500‑person layer comprises “acquaintances,” while the 2,000‑person limit (often referred to as the “Dunbar range”) is the maximum number of people we can name and recall.

The article emphasizes that these layers are not static. They can shift in response to life events. For instance, after a major career move, the 150‑person circle may shrink as we lose touch with former colleagues, whereas a move to a new city might expand the 500‑person layer as we meet new people.

New Research in the Digital Age

A major section of the Deseret piece focuses on recent studies that have tested Dunbar’s hypothesis in an online context. A 2024 paper published in Nature Human Behaviour used Facebook data to map the distribution of “friend” counts among 2.3 million users. While the raw counts ranged from 0 to 5,000, the researchers found a natural cut‑off around 150 friends, consistent with Dunbar’s number, when they restricted the sample to users who had interacted with at least 10 of their friends in the past year. The article notes that this suggests a cognitive ceiling remains in place even when people are connected to thousands of people digitally.

Another study, featured in the article and linked to a publication in PNAS, examined brain scans of participants who kept a social network of 150 close contacts. Functional MRI revealed heightened activity in the medial prefrontal cortex when participants thought about those closest to them, underscoring the neural importance of the core circle.

Implications for Well‑Being and Work

The article’s final section turns to practical applications. Psychologist Dr. Emily Kramer, whose work on social networks is cited in the piece, argues that “quality trumps quantity.” She explains that the mental effort required to maintain even a small network can be significant, and that the stress of keeping up with a massive number of acquaintances can contribute to burnout. The article quotes Kramer's 2025 book, Connected, but Not Overloaded, which recommends a “friend‑budget” of no more than 70 active contacts for most people.

For workplaces, the article points to research indicating that teams larger than 15 people are less cohesive and have lower trust levels. The piece cites a 2023 report from the Harvard Business Review that recommends structuring teams around the 5–15 person sweet spot to maximize collaboration and innovation.

A Nuanced Take on Friendship

In conclusion, the Deseret article offers a nuanced look at Dunbar’s theory—one that blends evolutionary biology, cognitive neuroscience, and contemporary digital‑culture research. While the classic 150‑person limit remains a robust predictor of social capacity, new data suggest that the real test lies in the depth of those relationships, not the sheer number of names on a contact list.

For those who feel overwhelmed by the endless stream of friend requests and notifications, the piece is a reminder that our brains are wired for a finite set of social connections. By focusing on the core circles that matter most, we can foster deeper, more fulfilling relationships—and maybe even find a little more peace in our hyper‑connected world.