Dunbar's circles > Dubar's numbers

Books are great. Most books stand on their own. However, in my time of reading, I have found that similar books add value to each other. I can manufacture lots of examples, the first one that always sticks is Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People + Ryan Holiday Trust Me I’m Lying + Robert Cialdini’s Persuasion. All three are excellent. When you add the themes and lessons together, they are even better.

This happened again with David Burkus’ Friend of a Friend + Ryan Paugh and Scott Gerber Super Connector + Robin Dunbar Friends. The bonus here is MVP Machine, which comes on the heels of Money Ball, Astroball, and Football Hackers. The underlying theme being; the world is all connected. Period. You can connect everything if you look.

Why read (listen to) Friends? There was a teaser piece in the Atlantic but Dunbar’s Number was already on my list of things to dive deeper on. The reality is, it could have been two books; the first 5-6 chapters then the next 10-11. Both can sort of stand on their own but enhance one another. It’s really the circle structure breaking down Dunbar’s 150 that caught my attention. But, really the friends, acquaintances, and known names part. 

Some facts; We have an immeasurable amount of time on this planet. Sure, a day has 24 hours and a week has 7 days but beyond that, we are all different. All dictated by different patterns and more specifically, intentions. Your goals, plans, and commitments can get you more or less out of this time. And, you also have to factor in that not all time needs to have maximum productivity.

But, those circles. Really in the context of your “network,” but also in the context of your occupation. Essentially, I’m confident most businesses and the people within them, specifically in a call center type setting regardless of in a large or small corporation would be better off doing fewer transactions in a day. Why? Well, you can do 10 transactions in a day and do them well. But, what did you miss? What if you did 7 or 8 and got more out of them? What if you reallocated the time given to those other 2 or 3 transactions among the 7 or 8? Not necessarily evenly, because some don’t need them. But some will benefit. “Going the extra mile,” is a clever cliché, but a useless idea without intention. 

Everyone in your world is unique. The reality is, their value shifts based on situations. What I think is, like any commodity, we can and should try and get more and do more and out of the humans we know but also deliver more to them. Essentially, although we have a fixed, unknown, amount of time, when we are in a transaction maybe that constraint should have us trying to do more with it?

Can those employees who interact with those customers instead take the known names and push them closer to acquaintances? Then, they find something else to bind them whether it be another transaction, a personal note, or a connection on this or another platform. This then becomes potentially nothing. But it also has the potential to be serendipity fuel. We can also use the online tools that exist to potentially enhance future business opportunities. But, even if that doesn’t happen, those two humans have had a moment that slightly enhanced their finite existence.

What’s the punchline? I really don’t know. Trying to get “the most,” out of every transaction is a novel but ultimately unattainable goal. It also has the potential to detract from other opportunities. At least this has been my experience. Like all things, keeping your ratios in check is important and of course, moderation isn’t bad. This will vary per person.

Your circles have pockets of value that isn’t being “used,” to their potential or yours. It’s not “more” for more’s sake. The opportunities to connect currently separate circles *the research calls these nodes, I think of them like a spider web* creates near-immediate value for the two parties involved but it also creates the opportunity for previously unknown opportunities to happen. 

Related but different; We all only have so much capacity, and we’ll never know exactly what it is. Just like physical limits the body has. You think you find them, then you push further. In my estimation, it is critically important to eliminate people from your various circles. Whether this is online or off. Professor Dunbar and others have proven something I find a bit scary. In those outer rings, you have deceased friends and relatives taking up space. You also have folks you follow on the various platforms that you have mostly one-way interactions with taking up space. Like me, you may also have living and dead authors who have added to your knowledge to the point that they feel “real,” and therefore are now part of your known faces or even acquaintances. If we all do have an estimated but unknown capacity for relationships, this is a big deal. Filter your follows/likes/comments accordingly. I think the cliché is “inputs create outputs,” also said as “garbage in garbage out,” and probably ten other ways. Having good outputs and acquaintances/known names allows you the fuel to share this knowledge and therefore enhance your individual interactions/events. But it also creates the opportunity to positively influence another person. Either of these can and should strengthen the circle that person inhabits and maybe even move someone up or down yours/theirs. 

Like many words, we use “networking,” as a classifier. It is a common word that helps our brains know what we are talking about. Good intentions within that activity are a big key to “success.” I put that in quotes since like your circles there is a lot of room for personal interpretation. 

I have zero disagreements with the tremendous research in a book like Friends. These numbers and various points of proof go back hundreds of years and to a degree define the life structure we are in now. Purely maximizing for maximizing sake isn’t something I think makes sense to strive for. But, at the same time, being more intentional and thoughtful with interactions will lead to better interactions and results that, in theory, will make both your and another person's “circles,” that much better. Better beats larger. Your 1500 known names can be more valuable than my 1500 known names and this will apply to every level.

EXAMPLES;

1.      We have two children. Both had an activity for my wife and me to attend this week. The last year of Covid notwithstanding, I recognized lots of faces but knew very few names. My wife knew as many faces but also knew names and what kids the adults were connected to. Her knowledge makes my “known faces,” more valuable even if they don’t move to acquaintances.

2.      An online friend/acquaintance introduced me to a friend/business associate of his a year ago. We kept in touch, but are certainly still in the acquaintance zone. A question came up that I could be helpful with IF I asked an intimate/close friend of mine for information. Having that interaction adds value to me/the close friend by giving a reason to speak. Taking that information and bringing it to an acquaintance makes that relationship better. Further, we can argue that by me doing that, I enhance the relationship my acquaintance has with his friend who introduced us. 

a.      I think that is where we say the node between two things is improved but the nodes on either side are improved

3.      By tagging people in a post that shares this article, what actually happens? In theory, I use my known names to help promote a post. In theory, they don’t mind since this is part of our current social construct and is an acceptable activity *if not abused.* But, I’m also using those known names to validate my own existence. While, simultaneously, creating the opportunities for my known names/acquaintances a better opportunity to see this. 

a.      Of course, nothing may happen but as I told myself, and why I often write, I need to get the information out of my brain to be better with my core tasks. 

b.      But, this is also an example as I wrote above, of doing fewer activities but trying to politely make those activities more valuable.

4.      Think about tracing how you ended up on a topic or in a meeting; My own ideas from 2010-2015 had me exploring new insurance models and ideas > then Insurtech starts >then I use online contacts and ideas to end up in a room in Chicago in 2015 > there I learn about Shefi Ben Hutta > millions of things happen but one is choosing to keep on my path while engaging with Shefi/Coverager > I attend a few events at one I meet Brett Ender > we engage and have some things in common > He suggests Friend of a Friend book which I listen to and it expands my own ideas > Writing a brief review on that leads another acquaintance to suggest I try Super Connector > this keeps ideas alive in my head and likely promotes unknown filters/algorithms which leads to reading an Atlantic article whose graphic creates more questions and a suggestion from Professor Dunbar to try the book > I listen to the book and my brain goes all sorts of places

a.      Basically, Professor Dunbar was already a “known face” *per the books research* but allowing my own experiences and ideas to blend with that and then send him a couple of emails may not move him to an acquaintance, but he is certainly a more valuable known face then the parent I recognized at an event. Not because any human is worth more than another, but because additional connection points were added and intentional effort was applied.