What do you think?
Rate this book
Amici: Comprendere il potere delle nostre relazioni più importanti
Una bella amicizia salva la vita, letteralmente. Dopo il fumo, la scelta delle amicizie è il fattore che piú incide sulla mortalità umana e il numero di amici che abbiamo interviene non solo sulla nostra felicità ma anche sul modo in cui noi e i nostri figli ci ammaleremo e moriremo. Robin Dunbar, dopo decenni di ricerche, può dirsi un’autorità in materia d’amicizia; è suo il «numero di Dunbar», cioè una misura del «limite cognitivo del numero di individui con cui ogni persona può mantenere una relazione stabile». Con questo libro, scritto con una penna felice e non accademica, Dunbar svela i meccanismi che costituiscono quel marchingegno così essenziale e infallibile che è l’amicizia, di cui diamo per scontata l’esistenza ma che non conosciamo fino in fondo e su cui si basa la nostra vita.
440 pages, Paperback
Published February 1, 2022
273 people are currently reading
3274 people want to read
About the author
Robin I.M. Dunbar
36 books264 followersRobin Ian MacDonald Dunbar FBA FRAI is a British anthropologist and evolutionary psychologist and a specialist in primate behaviour.
Dunbar's academic and research career includes the University of Bristol, University of Cambridge from 1977 until 1982, and University College London from 1987 until 1994. In 1994, Dunbar became Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at University of Liverpool, but he left Liverpool in 2007 to take up the post of Director of the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford.
Dunbar's academic and research career includes the University of Bristol, University of Cambridge from 1977 until 1982, and University College London from 1987 until 1994. In 1994, Dunbar became Professor of Evolutionary Psychology at University of Liverpool, but he left Liverpool in 2007 to take up the post of Director of the Institute of Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, University of Oxford.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews
November 29, 2021
As someone who completely agrees with the premise of Dunbar’s theories (‘friends are important’) and who was excited to read his work, I was pretty devastated by the shoddiness and fraudulence of this book.
Now, I’d treat any scientific paper he had a hand in with skepticism. In the book he first goes through the importance of friendships to a healthy mind and a healthy life - conflating correlation and causation a few too many times, which was annoying and disappointing, but I did actually accept his overall argument, so took it all with a pinch of salt and moved on.
The next section though is criminal. He takes the magic number he became famous for (150, our supposed maximum number of friendships) and then cherry picks study after study where a number near 150 appears, and then waves it around as a win for his theory - and then explains to the reader that although yes *technically* this study also mentions a lot of numbers that are not 150, but you can actually ignore all of those for reasons he’s making up as he goes along. E.g. we can ignore the data stating that young people actually report having 250 friends, because they must just be exaggerating. At another point he’s completely unsure whether to say a hunter gatherer society’s ‘real’ group is their community (smallest), their band, their mega band, or their tribe (largest). He checks the data, and it shows that communities are the closest to 150. So of course he proclaims that one the ‘real’ group. The others can be ignored.
Confirmation bias after confirmation bias - and this is roughly where I stopped reading.
If you’ve ever been taught how to spot scientific fraud - or perhaps negligence, to be generous - looks like in the real world (and I recommend Science Fictions by Stuart Ritchie for this), it’s everywhere in this book, coming from one of the most widely-cited anthropologists of all time. Alarm bells.
His obsession with this number is understandable: it made him very very famous, and if he’s forced to admit it’s based on not very much (which I only began to think *after* I started reading this book) then he’ll have to admit science has moved past his work. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how science works. But by bending all the facts into a nice little bow around his number, he’s just holding everyone back.
Considered giving this 2 stars because when he’s not accidentally or deliberately misleading the reader a lot of the content is still interesting, but I honestly just can’t recommend this to anyone in good faith. The worst kind of pop science book - one that takes something the reader actually already knew, and then manages to say it fraudulently anyway.
Now, I’d treat any scientific paper he had a hand in with skepticism. In the book he first goes through the importance of friendships to a healthy mind and a healthy life - conflating correlation and causation a few too many times, which was annoying and disappointing, but I did actually accept his overall argument, so took it all with a pinch of salt and moved on.
The next section though is criminal. He takes the magic number he became famous for (150, our supposed maximum number of friendships) and then cherry picks study after study where a number near 150 appears, and then waves it around as a win for his theory - and then explains to the reader that although yes *technically* this study also mentions a lot of numbers that are not 150, but you can actually ignore all of those for reasons he’s making up as he goes along. E.g. we can ignore the data stating that young people actually report having 250 friends, because they must just be exaggerating. At another point he’s completely unsure whether to say a hunter gatherer society’s ‘real’ group is their community (smallest), their band, their mega band, or their tribe (largest). He checks the data, and it shows that communities are the closest to 150. So of course he proclaims that one the ‘real’ group. The others can be ignored.
Confirmation bias after confirmation bias - and this is roughly where I stopped reading.
If you’ve ever been taught how to spot scientific fraud - or perhaps negligence, to be generous - looks like in the real world (and I recommend Science Fictions by Stuart Ritchie for this), it’s everywhere in this book, coming from one of the most widely-cited anthropologists of all time. Alarm bells.
His obsession with this number is understandable: it made him very very famous, and if he’s forced to admit it’s based on not very much (which I only began to think *after* I started reading this book) then he’ll have to admit science has moved past his work. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how science works. But by bending all the facts into a nice little bow around his number, he’s just holding everyone back.
Considered giving this 2 stars because when he’s not accidentally or deliberately misleading the reader a lot of the content is still interesting, but I honestly just can’t recommend this to anyone in good faith. The worst kind of pop science book - one that takes something the reader actually already knew, and then manages to say it fraudulently anyway.
November 8, 2023
Dunbar's claim to fame is "Dunbar's Number", which states that we can only maintain 150 stable relationships at any time. These are defined as people with whom we can sustain a long conversation without any introductions if we met them at an airport. This number is actually one of a number of concentric circles of people we consider "friends". Of the 150, 50 can be considered part of a group of close friends - people for whom we would feel genuine sadness if we learnt of their passing. Of the 50, 15 are considered part of a support group that offers emotional sustenance. Of the 15, five are considered to be our best friends. Moving outwards from 150, we have 500 acquaintances. There are then 1,500 people for whom we can match names to faces, and a terra incognita of 5,000 faces which we can recognise but may not necessarily match.
The methodology for these numbers is based on the somewhat outdated practice of Christmas card mailing lists in the UK. It is also confirmed by other independent numbers - for instance, the size of communes in California and of villages in 11th century England peak at around 150, with secondary peaks at around 15, 50, and 500, showing that humans naturally organise themselves into communities revolving around the different levels of intensity in their bonds. Another interesting study measured the sizes of prehistoric communal spaces (e.g., Stonehenge) and assessed the number of people they could accommodate. The resultant numbers tended to cluster around 15, 50, 150, and 500 too.
One key trend to highlight is that the scaling factor between each concentric circle is around 3. This could be evidence that friendships are triadic rather than dyadic. For instance, X and Y may be friends because 0f another friend, Z; or X and Y may bond over their mutual dislike of Z. Because of this, for every friend X at any given level of friendship, Y and Z are likely to appear in the next concentric circle of friends. This explains the expansive nature of friendships up to the mental limit on the number of faces we can recall.
The distribution of friends across the concentric circles can also be explained by evolutionary game theory. Because of the time and effort needed to invest in a relationship, we can only have a handful of friends in an inner circle (we spend about 40% of time with friends with just these 5 people), but to hedge against potential loss of friendship, we spend small amounts of time to maintain relationships of varying closeness that can readily substitute for losses in the worst-case scenarios. Because the motive for having friends in the outer layers is ostensibly quite mercenary, the friends at the 150-layer have a higher turnover rate year-on-year, while the core group remains largely the same. The number of friends in the 150-layer peaks around age 30 then declines gradually till we reach old age, possibly because we have sufficient confidence that our present relationships have become secure. Another theory is that we can only have five people in our inner circle because this is the optimal number at which conflict between any two members of that group is unlikely.
The logical extension of the theory of concentric circles is that there is another circle closer to the core beyond our group of five - a group with 1.5 people, reserved for our most intimate friends. This is apparently consistent with Dunbar's theory - women tend to disproportionately have two best friends (typically one romantic partner and one platonic female best friend), and men tend to have only one (either a romantic partner or a platonic male friend). This is possibly why men tend to have a higher rate of depression and suicide following divorce compared to women, and why men tend to remarry much quicker in the hopes of companionship.
There is supposedly also a difference in the friendship modes of the sexes (was a bit disorganised). My main takeaway is that men and women tend to engage with friends differently for ostensibly biological reasons. Females tend to quantify friendship based on the amount of emotional counsel they receive from someone, while males tend to quantify it based on the duration of their acquaintance, especially with regard to the time they spend doing activities together. A study of Facebook profile pictures shows that women's profiles predominantly skew towards pictures of two people, reflecting the desire for personal connection in an intimate setting, while men's profile pictures tend to be group photos depicting some activity like drinking, sports, or travel. In general, men were more likely to list down people they had a shared history and experiences with as friends, even if they were no longer in regular contact, while women were more likely to list down friends they had regular contact with, even if the duration of their friendship was low. This could be because female monkeys generally held the responsibility of upholding cohesive bonds within bands. They did this largely through developing friendships by grooming the hair of other females, a practice which ceased when humans stopped developing large coats of hair but which continues in mores subtle forms.
I feel that this book is only the tip of the iceberg with regard to the sociology/psychology/biology of friendships. These relationships are generally underexplored and will almost certainly remain somewhat ineffable and complex.
The methodology for these numbers is based on the somewhat outdated practice of Christmas card mailing lists in the UK. It is also confirmed by other independent numbers - for instance, the size of communes in California and of villages in 11th century England peak at around 150, with secondary peaks at around 15, 50, and 500, showing that humans naturally organise themselves into communities revolving around the different levels of intensity in their bonds. Another interesting study measured the sizes of prehistoric communal spaces (e.g., Stonehenge) and assessed the number of people they could accommodate. The resultant numbers tended to cluster around 15, 50, 150, and 500 too.
One key trend to highlight is that the scaling factor between each concentric circle is around 3. This could be evidence that friendships are triadic rather than dyadic. For instance, X and Y may be friends because 0f another friend, Z; or X and Y may bond over their mutual dislike of Z. Because of this, for every friend X at any given level of friendship, Y and Z are likely to appear in the next concentric circle of friends. This explains the expansive nature of friendships up to the mental limit on the number of faces we can recall.
The distribution of friends across the concentric circles can also be explained by evolutionary game theory. Because of the time and effort needed to invest in a relationship, we can only have a handful of friends in an inner circle (we spend about 40% of time with friends with just these 5 people), but to hedge against potential loss of friendship, we spend small amounts of time to maintain relationships of varying closeness that can readily substitute for losses in the worst-case scenarios. Because the motive for having friends in the outer layers is ostensibly quite mercenary, the friends at the 150-layer have a higher turnover rate year-on-year, while the core group remains largely the same. The number of friends in the 150-layer peaks around age 30 then declines gradually till we reach old age, possibly because we have sufficient confidence that our present relationships have become secure. Another theory is that we can only have five people in our inner circle because this is the optimal number at which conflict between any two members of that group is unlikely.
The logical extension of the theory of concentric circles is that there is another circle closer to the core beyond our group of five - a group with 1.5 people, reserved for our most intimate friends. This is apparently consistent with Dunbar's theory - women tend to disproportionately have two best friends (typically one romantic partner and one platonic female best friend), and men tend to have only one (either a romantic partner or a platonic male friend). This is possibly why men tend to have a higher rate of depression and suicide following divorce compared to women, and why men tend to remarry much quicker in the hopes of companionship.
There is supposedly also a difference in the friendship modes of the sexes (was a bit disorganised). My main takeaway is that men and women tend to engage with friends differently for ostensibly biological reasons. Females tend to quantify friendship based on the amount of emotional counsel they receive from someone, while males tend to quantify it based on the duration of their acquaintance, especially with regard to the time they spend doing activities together. A study of Facebook profile pictures shows that women's profiles predominantly skew towards pictures of two people, reflecting the desire for personal connection in an intimate setting, while men's profile pictures tend to be group photos depicting some activity like drinking, sports, or travel. In general, men were more likely to list down people they had a shared history and experiences with as friends, even if they were no longer in regular contact, while women were more likely to list down friends they had regular contact with, even if the duration of their friendship was low. This could be because female monkeys generally held the responsibility of upholding cohesive bonds within bands. They did this largely through developing friendships by grooming the hair of other females, a practice which ceased when humans stopped developing large coats of hair but which continues in mores subtle forms.
I feel that this book is only the tip of the iceberg with regard to the sociology/psychology/biology of friendships. These relationships are generally underexplored and will almost certainly remain somewhat ineffable and complex.
May 2, 2021
Definitely some insightful things here. However, I think there's also a lot of conjecture and the author seems to have some very ... interesting.... ideas about women - at one point he suggests that women talk less in mixed-sex large groups because the pitch of their voices makes it difficult for them to be heard..... Worth reading but definitely with a critical lens.
April 12, 2021
In this book, eminent Professor Robin Dunbar discusses friendships. His treatise covers the evolutionary origin of friendship, the brain mechanisms of individual differences in social skills, differences in friendship style between men and women, changing friendships across the lifespan, differences in friendship between the online and real-world, among many other topics. The thorough look into friendship is both illuminating and refreshing. There are many books on the psychology of other relationships, e.g. between romantic partners, siblings, or parents and children, but friendships are a neglected topic. The great importance of friendship should be quite clear to everyone now that we had to spend a long time either relatively isolated from our friends or cooped up with a few of them. The book uncovers many of the behaviours that highlight why we may be friends with certain people, how we maintain friendships, and why some friendships break down. I found these discussions intellectually stimulating and practically important. The book is also very readable. There are many anecdotes and funny observations sprinkled in that make the more technical discussions more approachable. My only slight criticism is that there are some extrapolations, especially around gender differences and evolutionary psychology, that veer a bit too far from the supporting evidence for my taste. In sum, I think this book is great for anyone interested in psychology, human evolution, or behavioural economics.
May 19, 2022
Read as though it was written over 10 years ago...not much on Covid, dating apps, social media, how friendship has changed. There's research, but the research seems scant in many places. Liked all the examples from the animal kingdom. Also would have liked to read more about people who are happy being alone, rather than all loners being social miscreants.
November 15, 2021
Maybe I had the wrong expectations, I expected something more practical than a review of all the science experiments the author was involved in. Some of the insights are interesting (e.g. the 7 pillars of friendship), though very much spread out through the book. The last chapter feels rushed to put COVID into context last minute, and I'd loved a bit more analysis of the role of diversity for both the resilience and the innovation of community/circles of friends.
That said, if you want to get insights into all kinds of research in the area of friendship and relationship, this is the book for you.
That said, if you want to get insights into all kinds of research in the area of friendship and relationship, this is the book for you.
August 2, 2021
A very thorough read with interesting insights, covering all social relationships, not just friends. The description of each study got a little tiring towards the end, but still learned a lot from their insights. 3.5/5
Want to read
March 27, 2022Hmm, maybe read?
Glowing review at David Brooks’ The Secrets of Lasting Friendships .
Glowing review at David Brooks’ The Secrets of Lasting Friendships .
June 18, 2021
A fascinating and thorough review of the literature (much of it Dunbar's own work) on friends and friendship, an alarming amount of which confirms gender stereotypes. It is confronting to read that boys choose trucks and girls choose dolls because they really are wired that way, that it isn't an entirely social construct (even if corporations mine it to death for sales). More alarming still, as many of my friendships dwindle away, and the points of connection that brought us together recede into the past, is the book's key message: the only thing that will kill you as swiftly as loneliness is smoking. Having active friendships improves pretty much all aspects of your health, including your higher brain functions. It isn't a scintillating read but it does clarify the need to figure out who your real friends are and call them / message them / hang out.
May 15, 2022
This book, although it's not bad, was a bit of a letdown for me. In many sections, the author presents you with information that you already know intuitively or find unsurprising, then tells you about some research that confirms the idea or explains the scientific background to the phenomenon, such as biochemistry or active brain regions. It is interesting, but it may not rock your world.
September 24, 2025
Robin Dunbar, psicologo e antropologo, ha elaborato la teoria del cosiddetto "numero di Dunbar", secondo cui gli esseri umani sono in grado di mantenere relazioni stabili solo con un massimo di circa 150 persone. All'interno di questa soglia, però, le connessioni non hanno tutte lo stesso peso, e Dunbar descrive cerchi concentrici, che vanno dal nucleo più ristretto (tre o quattro persone che rappresentano la nostra base affettiva, i legami senza i quali ci sentiremmo privi di radici) fino a cerchie più ampie. In altre parole, non è segno di freddezza o asocialità avere pochi amici, perché ogni relazione richiede tempo, energia e attenzione, e dunque comporta inevitabilmente una sorta di investimento emotivo che non può essere distribuito all'infinito.
Quando queste dinamiche degenerano, si può scivolare in ciò che viene definito "amicizia simbiotica", un legame in cui la paura dell'abbandono e il bisogno di fusione prendono il sopravvento sul rispetto dei confini individuali. In questo senso, le reti di "amicizie" online o le bolle di appartenenza funzionano più come strumenti per alimentare una narrazione di sé, che come veri spazi di sostegno e intimità.
Il rapporto con i veri amici, invece, ha tutt'altra sostanza, perché è costruito su una fiducia sedimentata nel tempo, su una continuità emotiva che resiste agli urti e alle assenze, e non su un gioco di specchi in cui prevalgono i principi dell’autonarrazione o della costruzione di un mito personale. È proprio in quella piccola cerchia ristretta che si misura la differenza tra legami che sostengono e legami che consumano. Per fortuna non è mai troppo tardi per capirlo.
Quando queste dinamiche degenerano, si può scivolare in ciò che viene definito "amicizia simbiotica", un legame in cui la paura dell'abbandono e il bisogno di fusione prendono il sopravvento sul rispetto dei confini individuali. In questo senso, le reti di "amicizie" online o le bolle di appartenenza funzionano più come strumenti per alimentare una narrazione di sé, che come veri spazi di sostegno e intimità.
Il rapporto con i veri amici, invece, ha tutt'altra sostanza, perché è costruito su una fiducia sedimentata nel tempo, su una continuità emotiva che resiste agli urti e alle assenze, e non su un gioco di specchi in cui prevalgono i principi dell’autonarrazione o della costruzione di un mito personale. È proprio in quella piccola cerchia ristretta che si misura la differenza tra legami che sostengono e legami che consumano. Per fortuna non è mai troppo tardi per capirlo.
October 11, 2024
The impact of this book was a solid 5 out of 5 for me. I learned a lot about friendships, including different types like weak ties, strong ties, and dormant ties. Each type of friendship helps in different situations, and the book explains how to maintain them. The "layer of friends" theory with numbers was especially interesting. I'd love to do an exercise based on that to understand who I value the most and how much time I want to spend with them.
The idea of "degrees of separation" also stood out. also, how friendships can impact your longevity and health. The book challenges the idea that opposites attract, explaining that we are more drawn to people who are similar to us—this is called homophily. It even suggests we might be attracted to people similar to us at a genetic level. I’ve seen this in my life, especially among immigrants who become friends in new countries, and now it makes sense.
The book also highlights the "magic" of socializing in the evening, which feels different from daytime interactions. This is a challenge for me because I sleep early. I realized the importance of endorphins, not just oxytocin, in building connections. Endorphins can be boosted even by sharing a meal, one of my favorite ways to meet people. This insight resonated with me, and I appreciate it more now.
The idea of "degrees of separation" also stood out. also, how friendships can impact your longevity and health. The book challenges the idea that opposites attract, explaining that we are more drawn to people who are similar to us—this is called homophily. It even suggests we might be attracted to people similar to us at a genetic level. I’ve seen this in my life, especially among immigrants who become friends in new countries, and now it makes sense.
The book also highlights the "magic" of socializing in the evening, which feels different from daytime interactions. This is a challenge for me because I sleep early. I realized the importance of endorphins, not just oxytocin, in building connections. Endorphins can be boosted even by sharing a meal, one of my favorite ways to meet people. This insight resonated with me, and I appreciate it more now.
September 12, 2022
I’ve heard of “Dunbar’s number” a million times, but I’ve never actually read any of Robin Dunbar’s work, so this was my introduction to him. This book was surprisingly good, and I only say that because some books on relationships only cover the good side. As someone who was an addict until I was 27 and group up in a toxic household, I respect when someone researches and writes about at least some of the dark side of relationships.
Dunbar is an evolutionary psychologist who studies relationships, and this book has so much awesome research. In this book, you’ll learn why your friends are your friends and why you lose touch with certain people. The book also discusses why we trust people, why relationships go south, and so much more. I think my favorite chapter by far was the last chapter on social media. You’d think this book would demonize social media like so many others, but it has a balanced, nuanced take and a solid interpretation of the research.
There were a couple of portions of the book that lost my interest, but it was rare, so I definitely recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about the importance of relationships.
Dunbar is an evolutionary psychologist who studies relationships, and this book has so much awesome research. In this book, you’ll learn why your friends are your friends and why you lose touch with certain people. The book also discusses why we trust people, why relationships go south, and so much more. I think my favorite chapter by far was the last chapter on social media. You’d think this book would demonize social media like so many others, but it has a balanced, nuanced take and a solid interpretation of the research.
There were a couple of portions of the book that lost my interest, but it was rare, so I definitely recommend it for anyone who wants to learn more about the importance of relationships.
January 29, 2022
Well researched and filled with so many interesting insights. Who would’ve thought our relationship patterns are so standard and predictable?!
Unfortunately the author did not give sufficient ‘next steps’ to explain what the information means for future relationships and how to improve relationships post-COVID.
It’s not a light read (references many academic studies) but definitely worth the time and focus!
Unfortunately the author did not give sufficient ‘next steps’ to explain what the information means for future relationships and how to improve relationships post-COVID.
It’s not a light read (references many academic studies) but definitely worth the time and focus!
March 17, 2023
This book started out really interesting and then read more and more like a review of research papers the further along I got. It never became unreadable, but my eyes did glaze over a few times. There were definitely some gems and the information about how different areas of the brain are activated in response to different situations was intriguing. The chapter on gender differences was also unexpected and fascinating. This book was incredibly dense to read, but some good information overall.
October 30, 2022
This book accompanied me through a summer of thinking about friendship and the reflections were of such nature that I found myself constantly sharing and discussing them with others around me. My only regret is that the ending did not offer a summary of some sort and that the expressed views on gender were rather traditional.
June 29, 2022
Insightful, useful knowledge for life, relationships and the work environment.
February 23, 2025
Good insights and interesting views which are worth taking with a pinch of salt at times.
September 18, 2024
So out of the three books I read on friendship, the one that stood out to me was: Friends: Understanding the Power of Our Most Important Relationships by R.I.M. Dunbar. It's partially about his legendary theory about Dunbar's Number and how 150 people is the optimal group size. You get to have around 5 intimate friends who are close to your heart, and you get to have a maximum of 150 friends who will greet you in public if you are alone. That's around the size of an ideal community. Once you breach the 200 person mark, the group becomes unwieldy. Kids have no standards for friends and are not picky. When you become an adult, it becomes harder since you have to find people who fit you. When you are a student, have a career, and go out, you have plenty of time and energy to push against the 150 friend limit. However, once you settle down, get married, and have kids, your time is constrained and you start shedding casual relationships to get down to the 150 friend limit. One you get old, you start losing friends to death that you have a hard time replacing due to limited mobility, time and energy. Introverts, like me, tend to invest more heavily in a few friends that they know really well and can rely on. Extraverts have a lot more friends, but the relationships tend to be weaker relationships that are less likely to support them. Here's a picture of his Circles of Friendship
image.png
With weaker friendships that you spend time partying with, they may naturally die as time marches on and distance increases. According to one study that used mobile phone data, one way of telling whether a relationship is special or weak is measuring how long the phone call lasted for after a pause in the relationship. Special friendships rebound in terms of time investment depending on frequency of contact. For example, if a phone call with one friend usually lasts 5 minutes, but even after a year apart, you have the standard 5 minutes, it's likely to be a weak friendship. For special friendships, you might end up talking several hours after a long pause of a year. Based on how long this email is turning out and how I end up communicating more ever since I stopped using the more frequent text messages, it seems that I may see our friendship as a special friendship.
According to Dunbar, there are 7 pillars of friendship.
Having the same language or dialect
Growing up in the same location
Having had the same educational and career experiences
Having the same hobbies and interests
Having the same world view (an amalgam of moral views, religious views, and political views)
Having the same sense of humor (I'm not too sure if other regular people find me funny)
Having the same musical tastes (Uhh.. I can explain... the music I listen to is kind of weird and sometimes I listen to mainstream music like you but other times, it tends to be kind of weird or tell a story)
The more boxes you can tick with someone, the more time will be prepared to invest time in them, the more emotionally close you will feel towards them, the closer they will lie to you in the layers of your social network, and the more willing you two will be to help each other out when someone needs assistance. By my count, we are working our way to fulfilling at least five or four of the first five boxes, which means that if we focus on fundamentals and shared factors, we should have a strong relationship. That last sentence was a bit embarrassing to write since it forces me to see just how wrong I was in the "Rethinking Our Friendship" Email. According to Dunbar, to a certain extent, friendships are born not made. You still have to put effort into your relationships, but certain people, once you find them, will snap into place and you will end up becoming fast friends with them.
Weak friendships die by fizzling out. Close friendships and close family relationships behave a lot like romantic relationships. You will always be kept up to date of close relationships, usually through mutual friends who can update you. There is no escape, unless you make the decision to cut yourself off completely. Most relationship breakdowns happen in the first three years when you are still figuring things out or with people you've known all your life (family members). Breakdowns happen either early (within 3 years) or late (after 7 years) and rarely in between. Family is more likely to be forgiving and will put up with errant ways, right up until the patience wears out and everything explodes. Family breakdowns happen usually after the death of the last surviving parent dies and the one person keeping the peace in the family is removed. Sometimes siblings and relatives never speak again after that event. Oftentimes, the issues were simmering for years and the relatives were never allowed to talk about it and did not have the skills to resolve it on their own.
Six key rules for maintaining a stable relationship:
Standing up for the friend in their absence
Sharing important news with the friends
Providing emotional support when it is needed
Trusting and confiding in each other
Volunteering help when it is required
Making an effort to make the other person happy
Breaking these rules weakens the relationship. Breaking many rules could lead to a relationship breakdown.
Some big reasons that account for why 50% of relationships fail:
Lack of caring
Poor communication
Jealousy
One likely reason is that we are inclined to take close relationships for granted. Our expectations become too high. Close relationships that end catastrophically are deeply painful, so painful that sometimes it leads to tears. It is basically the broken heart phenomenon. Reconciliation is possible. Time is a necessary factor for reconciliation to occur. A large percentage of break-ups fix themselves within a week or a few weeks. If it goes on longer than that, it becomes semi-permanent with the two sides not even willing to initiate the process of reconciliation.
Ways to reconcile in order of frequency:
Simple apology (45% frequency in sample)
Frank discussion of differences, financial reparations for loss or simple time out (40% frequency)
Gift giving or physical or social activity that used for bonding (15% frequency)
Women's relationships tend to be a lot more intense with each other so it may be toughest for their relationships to heal and reconcile. Spouses tend to bounce back pretty quickly. Though, this may be due to a shared interest in the kids that transcend the marital disputes and make problems look more distant in comparison to the goal of raising successful kids.
Summary of friendships through life:
Kids make friends easily but have trouble actually recognizing when someone is a true friend
Teens and people in their early twenties are practicing how to make and keep friends with plenty of mistakes along the way
Adults have mastered the skills and consciously remember them only in tricky cases
Even though we lose friends as we age, you retain a core of very close family and friends that you bring with you through life.
image.png
With weaker friendships that you spend time partying with, they may naturally die as time marches on and distance increases. According to one study that used mobile phone data, one way of telling whether a relationship is special or weak is measuring how long the phone call lasted for after a pause in the relationship. Special friendships rebound in terms of time investment depending on frequency of contact. For example, if a phone call with one friend usually lasts 5 minutes, but even after a year apart, you have the standard 5 minutes, it's likely to be a weak friendship. For special friendships, you might end up talking several hours after a long pause of a year. Based on how long this email is turning out and how I end up communicating more ever since I stopped using the more frequent text messages, it seems that I may see our friendship as a special friendship.
According to Dunbar, there are 7 pillars of friendship.
Having the same language or dialect
Growing up in the same location
Having had the same educational and career experiences
Having the same hobbies and interests
Having the same world view (an amalgam of moral views, religious views, and political views)
Having the same sense of humor (I'm not too sure if other regular people find me funny)
Having the same musical tastes (Uhh.. I can explain... the music I listen to is kind of weird and sometimes I listen to mainstream music like you but other times, it tends to be kind of weird or tell a story)
The more boxes you can tick with someone, the more time will be prepared to invest time in them, the more emotionally close you will feel towards them, the closer they will lie to you in the layers of your social network, and the more willing you two will be to help each other out when someone needs assistance. By my count, we are working our way to fulfilling at least five or four of the first five boxes, which means that if we focus on fundamentals and shared factors, we should have a strong relationship. That last sentence was a bit embarrassing to write since it forces me to see just how wrong I was in the "Rethinking Our Friendship" Email. According to Dunbar, to a certain extent, friendships are born not made. You still have to put effort into your relationships, but certain people, once you find them, will snap into place and you will end up becoming fast friends with them.
Weak friendships die by fizzling out. Close friendships and close family relationships behave a lot like romantic relationships. You will always be kept up to date of close relationships, usually through mutual friends who can update you. There is no escape, unless you make the decision to cut yourself off completely. Most relationship breakdowns happen in the first three years when you are still figuring things out or with people you've known all your life (family members). Breakdowns happen either early (within 3 years) or late (after 7 years) and rarely in between. Family is more likely to be forgiving and will put up with errant ways, right up until the patience wears out and everything explodes. Family breakdowns happen usually after the death of the last surviving parent dies and the one person keeping the peace in the family is removed. Sometimes siblings and relatives never speak again after that event. Oftentimes, the issues were simmering for years and the relatives were never allowed to talk about it and did not have the skills to resolve it on their own.
Six key rules for maintaining a stable relationship:
Standing up for the friend in their absence
Sharing important news with the friends
Providing emotional support when it is needed
Trusting and confiding in each other
Volunteering help when it is required
Making an effort to make the other person happy
Breaking these rules weakens the relationship. Breaking many rules could lead to a relationship breakdown.
Some big reasons that account for why 50% of relationships fail:
Lack of caring
Poor communication
Jealousy
One likely reason is that we are inclined to take close relationships for granted. Our expectations become too high. Close relationships that end catastrophically are deeply painful, so painful that sometimes it leads to tears. It is basically the broken heart phenomenon. Reconciliation is possible. Time is a necessary factor for reconciliation to occur. A large percentage of break-ups fix themselves within a week or a few weeks. If it goes on longer than that, it becomes semi-permanent with the two sides not even willing to initiate the process of reconciliation.
Ways to reconcile in order of frequency:
Simple apology (45% frequency in sample)
Frank discussion of differences, financial reparations for loss or simple time out (40% frequency)
Gift giving or physical or social activity that used for bonding (15% frequency)
Women's relationships tend to be a lot more intense with each other so it may be toughest for their relationships to heal and reconcile. Spouses tend to bounce back pretty quickly. Though, this may be due to a shared interest in the kids that transcend the marital disputes and make problems look more distant in comparison to the goal of raising successful kids.
Summary of friendships through life:
Kids make friends easily but have trouble actually recognizing when someone is a true friend
Teens and people in their early twenties are practicing how to make and keep friends with plenty of mistakes along the way
Adults have mastered the skills and consciously remember them only in tricky cases
Even though we lose friends as we age, you retain a core of very close family and friends that you bring with you through life.
August 3, 2022
I bought this book when I was randomly strolling in a bookstore, contemplating an issue I had with a friend. However, since then the book was left unopened on my bookshelf — until one day, another friend introduced 'Dunbar's number' to me. Dunbar's number is named after Robin Dunbar, who contended that each person can only maintain 150 meaningful relationship at a time. Our discussion motivated me to read the book (finally).
This book explores different aspects of friendships. It seeks to explain, for example, what binds the bonds of friendship, what role trust plays in friendship, and how men and women treat friends differently. Overall, it is a very informative book. I learnt more about my social self and friendships from a scientific perspective. A commendable read!
This book explores different aspects of friendships. It seeks to explain, for example, what binds the bonds of friendship, what role trust plays in friendship, and how men and women treat friends differently. Overall, it is a very informative book. I learnt more about my social self and friendships from a scientific perspective. A commendable read!
December 25, 2021
2.5 stars // Interesting content, fleshed out my recent musings regarding friendships more. The writing is nothing remarkable; very straight forward and readable.
I wish Dunbar had elaborated more on the seven pillars of friendship, though, but I guess they haven't done any specific follow-ups on it (yet).
I wish Dunbar had elaborated more on the seven pillars of friendship, though, but I guess they haven't done any specific follow-ups on it (yet).
February 12, 2022
Thoroughly enjoyed this book. Lots of interesting insights and aha moments as the science backs up some familiar scenarios and situations.
I would recommend to anyone who is also interested in sociology and psychology. Though if not you might get a bit bogged down in the usually quite detailed descriptions of some of the research the book is based on.
I would recommend to anyone who is also interested in sociology and psychology. Though if not you might get a bit bogged down in the usually quite detailed descriptions of some of the research the book is based on.
Read
December 8, 2024I couldn't really relate to the Dunbar Number theory at the very beginning of the book, but I wanted to keep reading anyway. Unfortunately, the author lost me on p. 46, where he claims that you can include "your favorite soap opera star to your social network, if you are especially hooked on these."
August 15, 2021
Very time consuming but no conclusion
The book is full of research and different kind of studies but no conclusion and no summery which one can put into practice. It would have been better to write a short book with conclusion from all the data which has been put forward.
The book is full of research and different kind of studies but no conclusion and no summery which one can put into practice. It would have been better to write a short book with conclusion from all the data which has been put forward.
February 15, 2023
I was very disappointed by this book. I stopped reading it at about 50% because it was neither informative nor entertaining.
It tries to appear scientific but I wasn’t impressed at all. I found the argumentations pretty chaotic and the main findings obvious.
It tries to appear scientific but I wasn’t impressed at all. I found the argumentations pretty chaotic and the main findings obvious.
June 4, 2021
The first few chapters were boring and almost put me off the book. However, persistence paid off, and there are plenty of gems in this book, well worth the read.
December 17, 2023
Really great information but some of it is obvious
November 2, 2023
First off, I was very confused by this book's cover. What are all these blue-black words? It took me a moment to realize the title and subtitle are down there at the bottom. But forget the cover! I'm sorry I brought it up. Let's move inside. Where there be gold! Solid gold. Robin Dunbar is such a cheery brain to hang out with. He starts off quickly: "Perhaps the most surprising finding to emerge from the medical literature over the past two decades has been the evidence that the more friends we have, the less likely we are to fall prey to diseases, and the longer we will live." Sound bunk? He thought you might say that so he casually dips you into the research covering, no big deal, 300,000 people across 148 studies. And it's not "fill out your mood on a scale of one to five" that these studies measure, either. It's lifespan. "Hard-nosed", Robin calls it. And so, okay, when you look at this giant body of research what does it ultimately all boil down to? In maybe the most powerful point in the book he writes "… it is not too much of an exaggeration to say that you can eat as much as you like, drink as much alcohol as you want, slob about as much as you fancy, fail to do your exercises and live in as polluted an atmosphere as you can find, and you will barely notice the difference. But having no friends or not being involved in community activities will dramatically affect how long you live." Heeeeeeeeeeeeads up. Time to reinvest in your connections with those close to you. Call your parents. Call your siblings. Be active and generous in your fantasy football group text. And sidenote: What is a 'friend'? They are relationships "all about a sense of obligation and the exchange of favors—the people you wouldn't feel embarrassed about asking for a favor and whom you wouldn't think twice about helping out." To color the definition in he also says "being on a Christmas card list is a marker." Is your list smaller than it used to be? Mine too. And it doesn't help that we spend more and more time alone as we get older. So what do we do? Unplug. Get offline. Meet in person. Sign up for live events. Plan holiday dinners. Laugh together. Cook together. Walk together. Exercise together. Go to concerts together. Be aware of the rising disconnection in our increasingly connected world and invest in two-way friendships that will pay massive dividends as we age.
February 1, 2024
Rendkívül vegyesek az érzéseim.
A szerző igyekszik az emberi kapcsoaltok terén elvégzett számos kutatásának eredményeit érthető és izgalmas formában átadni az olvasónak.
A kötet egyértelműen érdekesebb és értékelhetőb oldala amikor ezeknek a kutatásoknak a kontextusát és eredményeit közli, számos olyan statisztikával és meglepő ténnyel találkozik az olvasó, melyek jó gondolatébesztők.
A kevésbé problematikus, de helyenként annál unalmasabb részei, ahol olyan eredmények messze menő magyarázatát olvashatjuk, melyek minden napi társas tapasztalataink révén cseppet sem meglepőek, tudományos értelemben azonban ezek is eredmények.
Nagyon dícséretes, hogy tetemes menyiségű publikációt sorol fel a könyv végén, azonban már-már érthetetlen és rendkívül bosszantó hogy ezek a szövegben miért nincsenek meghivatkozva. Számomra ez is inkább csak a tudománytalanság látszatát keltik.
Az igazi probléma azonban azoknál a szekcióknál kezdődik, ahol a szerző messzemenő következtetéseket tesz és ezek a következtetések vagy nem kellően megalapozottak, vagy teljesen tudománytalanok, tehát inkább vélemény, theória vagy értékítélet kategóriákba soroná az ember.
A vonzalom a 3-s, 5-s és 150-s(nevesített Dunbar szám) számok irányt helyenként olyan méreteket ölt, hogy a szerző az adatok jóhiszemű szelektálása/torzítása és totális fogalomzavar eszközétől sem riad vissza.
Ami még említésre méltó és ez szigoróan a magyar kiadás kritikája csupán, általánosságban nincs nagy probléma, de helyenként botrányos a fordítás. Magyartalan kifejezések, szlengek, mondat közepén hagyott értelmetlen írásjelek csúfítják a szöveget.
A szerző igyekszik az emberi kapcsoaltok terén elvégzett számos kutatásának eredményeit érthető és izgalmas formában átadni az olvasónak.
A kötet egyértelműen érdekesebb és értékelhetőb oldala amikor ezeknek a kutatásoknak a kontextusát és eredményeit közli, számos olyan statisztikával és meglepő ténnyel találkozik az olvasó, melyek jó gondolatébesztők.
A kevésbé problematikus, de helyenként annál unalmasabb részei, ahol olyan eredmények messze menő magyarázatát olvashatjuk, melyek minden napi társas tapasztalataink révén cseppet sem meglepőek, tudományos értelemben azonban ezek is eredmények.
Nagyon dícséretes, hogy tetemes menyiségű publikációt sorol fel a könyv végén, azonban már-már érthetetlen és rendkívül bosszantó hogy ezek a szövegben miért nincsenek meghivatkozva. Számomra ez is inkább csak a tudománytalanság látszatát keltik.
Az igazi probléma azonban azoknál a szekcióknál kezdődik, ahol a szerző messzemenő következtetéseket tesz és ezek a következtetések vagy nem kellően megalapozottak, vagy teljesen tudománytalanok, tehát inkább vélemény, theória vagy értékítélet kategóriákba soroná az ember.
A vonzalom a 3-s, 5-s és 150-s(nevesített Dunbar szám) számok irányt helyenként olyan méreteket ölt, hogy a szerző az adatok jóhiszemű szelektálása/torzítása és totális fogalomzavar eszközétől sem riad vissza.
Ami még említésre méltó és ez szigoróan a magyar kiadás kritikája csupán, általánosságban nincs nagy probléma, de helyenként botrányos a fordítás. Magyartalan kifejezések, szlengek, mondat közepén hagyott értelmetlen írásjelek csúfítják a szöveget.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 93 reviews