If you were to consult evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar, you’d find that friendships can be measured. Dunbar, who authored Friends: Understanding the Power of Our Most Important Relationships (set to release in the U.S. this January), is the creator of “Dunbar’s Number.” This concept suggests that, on average, a person can maintain around 150 relationships.
However, “Dunbar’s Number” is more intricate than just one figure. Dunbar describes relationships as a series of concentric circles, similar to a dartboard. At the center, you’ll find your most intimate connections, likely including your romantic partner. The next circle, encompassing about five individuals (including that closest person), consists of those you can rely on during tough times. As you move outward in increments of three, the intimacy decreases while the number of individuals increases. The outermost circle, which combines with the others to total 150, is your “weddings and funerals group,” where you expect people to attend significant life events.
It’s logical that the two innermost circles only represent a tiny fraction of that 150. Cultivating and sustaining close friendships demands time and dedication. At various stages in life, we have differing amounts of this valuable resource, and when it runs low, our closest friends may drift away, potentially landing in that larger group of acquaintances.
Naturally, relationships shift over time; we may lose some close friends while gaining new ones. For instance, a new coworker who shares your taste in shows may overshadow an old friend who doesn’t. Similarly, a friend with differing political views might be replaced by someone who aligns more closely with your beliefs.
But is it necessary to constantly adjust our social circles? According to Dunbar, if the inner circle accommodates only five (which is effectively four if you include that one special person), then that’s the limit. It’s akin to a tiny clown car; you can only fit a certain number inside, and trying to add more means someone has to go.
Dunbar’s research implies that while we can have a multitude of relationships, the number of truly meaningful ones is limited. This perspective is refreshing, especially for those who have never contemplated friendship in such quantitative terms.
What’s intriguing is that we’re not the only ones operating within the constraints of “Dunbar’s Number.” Everyone has their own circles. For example, in fourth grade, I had a rough day that led to being uninvited from a friend’s party. Fast forward to senior year, when I was ghosted by my best friend, and later, after a trip abroad, I returned to find my roommates preferred my subletter over me. These experiences illustrate that our closest connections must align with those of others; my circles didn’t mesh with those of my former friends.
This principle also works in reverse. I’ve often avoided deepening relationships with acquaintances who seemed overly eager. My guiding thought has always been, “I have enough friends.” Thanks to Dunbar, I realize this isn’t callousness but rather a way to safeguard my established friendships.
Dunbar’s Number serves as a reminder to be realistic about the changing dynamics of friendships. Our social circles may not always be full, and we may even seek to fit new people into our established friendships. Ultimately, it becomes evident that you can only welcome those who are willing to join your social circle, while some individuals may prefer to remain on the sidelines.
For more insights into parenting and relationships, check out our blog on booster seats at Home Insemination Kit. You might also find valuable advice on toddler manners at Intracervical Insemination, as well as excellent resources on pregnancy at Healthline.