The Limits of Friendship
newyorker.com
The Limits of Friendship
1–10 of 59 posts
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#2> a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social of us.)
And I thought I was doing well with 4 casual friends and one close friend.
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#3In high school I had 30 casual friends and 15 close friends, at University I had 20 casual friends and 10 close friends, now I have 10 casual friends and 5 close friends, I predict them to reduce to zero when I get married. :(
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#4In high school I had 30 casual friends and 15 close friends, at University I had 20 casual friends and 10 close friends, now I have 10 casual friends and 5 close friends, I predict them to reduce to zero when I get married. :(
It's unfortunate you don't consider your spouse a close friend.
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#5 Unlike other touch receptors, which operate on a loop—you touch a hot stove,
the nerves fire a signal to the brain, the brain registers pain and fires a signal
back for you to withdraw your hand—these receptors are one-way. They talk to
the brain, but the brain doesn’t communicate back. “We think that’s what they
exist for, to trigger endorphin responses as a consequence of grooming,”
Dunbar said. Until social media can replicate that touch, it can’t fully replicate
social bonding.
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#6In high school I had 30 casual friends and 15 close friends, at University I had 20 casual friends and 10 close friends, now I have 10 casual friends and 5 close friends, I predict them to reduce to zero when I get married. :(
In high school I had four casual friends, in college I had one, five years after college I have zero. Poor you.
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#7Path was basically founded on the idea of Dunbar's number and that didn't work out so well. I think they assumed people wanted deeper connections with their friends online than folks really did. This article backs that up pretty well.
It is interesting the conclusion about the thinning of relationships and what the impacts of that are. I agree that you can likely form very strong bonds over the web but I don't think at this point they can replace actual physical interaction for the majority of people.
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#8> a hundred and fifty, is the number of people we call casual friends—the people, say, you’d invite to a large party. (In reality, it’s a range: a hundred at the low end and two hundred for the more social of us.) And I thought I was doing well with 4 casual friends and one close friend.
I haven't socialized outside of work with someone who I don't work directly with in... decades? (aside from the person I'm married to :) ) I also see lots of other comments in this thread echoing similar sentiment.
I have a feeling we may be in a community that is an outlier to "typical" social behaviors.
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#9In high school I had 30 casual friends and 15 close friends, at University I had 20 casual friends and 10 close friends, now I have 10 casual friends and 5 close friends, I predict them to reduce to zero when I get married. :(
Married for 6 years. Can confirm. I have 1 close friend now (my spouse), and the rest of my friendships are casual.
Re: The Limits of Friendship
#10In high school I had 30 casual friends and 15 close friends, at University I had 20 casual friends and 10 close friends, now I have 10 casual friends and 5 close friends, I predict them to reduce to zero when I get married. :(
In high school I had four casual friends, in college I had one, five years after college I have zero. Poor you.
I was at a huge high school, there were 55 alumnus per classroom, and 15 classrooms per generation, my friends at the University were a subset of the ones at high school.