Author Topic: How many active DC member are there? 150? (Dunbar number) (Read 44,901 times)

qwibbles · « **Reply #25 on:** February 22, 2008, 08:14 PM »

150 stable relationships! Counting the computer and my wife I can only count one stable relationship.

(Just in case my wife reads this ... yes dear of course it's the computer)

Darwin · « **Reply #26 on:** February 22, 2008, 08:26 PM »

Huh? I was the first one to join!

[attachthumb=#]

I'm guessing that I have to unhide myself or something... before I deactivated the account, I got paranoid and hid a bunch of stuff - will correct it now.

Darwin · « **Reply #27 on:** February 22, 2008, 08:31 PM »

I changed my privacy settings - see if you can see me now!

Darwin · « **Reply #28 on:** February 22, 2008, 08:42 PM »

Quote from: qwibbles on February 22, 2008, 08:14 PM

150 stable relationships! Counting the computer and my wife I can only count one stable relationship.

(Just in case my wife reads this ... yes dear of course it's the computer)

Curt · « **Reply #29 on:** February 22, 2008, 09:33 PM »

Quote from: Darwin on February 22, 2008, 08:31 PM

- see if you can see me now!

You are here and here but not there or there, or is it the other way around? I guess the system merely is waiting for your re-activated profile to be accepted / updated /uploaded / whatever.

Other than that, I think most of facebook is a really weird vaste of time.

Darwin · « **Reply #30 on:** February 22, 2008, 09:43 PM »

Quote from: Curt on February 22, 2008, 09:33 PM

[/url])[/i]
You are here and here but not there or there, or is it the other way around?

People often describe me this way...

Anyway, I suspect you are correct and Facebook system is just processing the update to my profile.

Darwin · « **Reply #31 on:** February 22, 2008, 09:49 PM »

Quote from: Curt on February 22, 2008, 09:33 PM

Other than that, I think most of facebook is a really weird vaste of time.

Agreed - hence my earlier decision to deactivate my account!

J-Mac · « **Reply #32 on:** February 23, 2008, 09:05 AM »

I'm in now. Long way to get to 150!

Jim

urlwolf · « **Reply #33 on:** February 23, 2008, 09:56 AM »

Here's the beauty of social networks theory.
4 members now. Any of those 4 has a network himself, so his friends would be notified (sooner or later). And the entire thing grows. We will have the first-mover advantage, our users will probably be more connected (since new members will connect to those few existing ones too...

Let's see what happens. I'm sure many new people will see DC thanks to FB.

Curt · « **Reply #34 on:** February 23, 2008, 04:07 PM »

Quote from: Darwin on February 22, 2008, 09:43 PM

Quote from: Curt on February 22, 2008, 09:33 PM
You are here and here but not there or there, or is it the other way around?
... I suspect you are correct and Facebook system is just processing the update to my profile.

Hmm... still here but not there, Darwin. Your name is not linkified - are your settings maybe still extraordinary cautious?

Darwin · « **Reply #35 on:** February 23, 2008, 04:59 PM »

I don't know what's going on now, Curt... I'm pretty much performing without a net on Facebook, now, so *should* be very exposed!

Darwin · « **Reply #36 on:** February 23, 2008, 05:01 PM »

Actually, looking at my profile, I don't see my groups listed and I can't find a way to "reveal" them... anyone care to enlighten me?

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #37 on:** February 23, 2008, 07:17 PM »

I wonder if there is a "type (depth?)/quantity" correlation between the relationships and certain mathematical iterations? Each sequence below has the nearest total to 150 as possible for the sequence.

Fibonacci Sequence

1
2
3
5
8
13
21
44
65

{Can't Remember } Sequence
(1x1=1, 1x2=2, 2x3=6, 6x4=24, etc.)

1
2
6
24
120

In looking at these sequences although, the Fibonacci numbers are well represented in our world and beyond, I am persuaded the latter iteration above is more indicative of human "quantity~quality" correlations, at least in my experience. Even on DC this bears out, in my case.

Any thoughts?

Darwin · « **Reply #38 on:** February 23, 2008, 08:34 PM »

Shouldn't Fibonacci go up to 109 or even 174? I know nothing about the sequence but it looks like 65 and 44 should be added together to get to the next number...

Anyway, interesting idea but I haven't got a clue how to respond as I have never given these types of sequences much (any) though before!

jgpaiva · « **Reply #39 on:** February 23, 2008, 08:47 PM »

Darwin, here's the sequence: (from wikipedia)
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #40 on:** February 23, 2008, 08:56 PM »

Quote from: Darwin on February 23, 2008, 08:34 PM

Shouldn't Fibonacci go up to 109 or even 174? I know nothing about the sequence but it looks like 65 and 44 should be added together to get to the next number...

Anyway, interesting idea but I haven't got a clue how to respond as I have never given these types of sequences much (any) though before!

Yes, Fibonacci (or any other) sequence/iteration could go on ad infinitum, but I only presented the sequence until the "total" was as close to 150 as the sequence would allow to correlate with this thread. I have often been impressed how much order as opposed to chaos exists. Think about this... there is no way in mathematics to create chaos. Even in Poson's(sp?) Therory of Random Distribution there is an order and not a chaos. I was attempting to explore the application of the mathematical "orders" to human interactions.

tinjaw · « **Reply #41 on:** February 23, 2008, 09:05 PM »

urlwolf, you're backwards. You are asking how many people are in DC, not anybody's specific network. The size of a network is not limited to 150. It is the number of outbound links from a single node. So there could be 15,000 active members and Dunbar would say that you only have relationships with on 150 out of those 15K.

CodeTRUCKER · « **Reply #42 on:** February 23, 2008, 09:07 PM »

Quote from: jgpaiva on February 23, 2008, 08:47 PM

Darwin, here's the sequence: (from wikipedia)
0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, 1597, 2584, 4181, 6765, 10946, 17711, 28657, 46368, 75025, 121393

Oops! you left out a few Googol^Googol numerals.

FYI - 10l to the Googol power is the quantity monikered as "Googolplex." Try to imagine how vast Googol to the Googol power really is? Then go do something a lot less useless! <vbg> (Read: a lot more useful than trying to imagine the incomprehensible)

tinjaw · « **Reply #43 on:** February 24, 2008, 01:09 AM »

It would be interesting to do some statistical analysis on the raw database of this forum. We could look to see how many members have posted in at least one other thread with a different member. We would remove the introduction thread and such. Then if I have 900 threads, see how many members have participated in those threads. That wouldn't show my dunbar number, but just how many people I have directly interacted with.

And I know you know all this urlwolf, I'm just thinking out loud for the others in this thread.

J-Mac · « **Reply #44 on:** February 24, 2008, 05:36 AM »

Quote from: tinjaw on February 24, 2008, 01:09 AM

…Then if I have 900 threads, see how many members have participated in those threads. That wouldn't show my dunbar number, but just how many people I have directly interacted with...

Yes, but some threads have very large numbers of posts/replies; are you really interacting with all of them? Or are you only interacting verifiably with those to whom you are directly replying, or who are directly replying to you?

Hard to say how the forum data corresponds to number sequences. Are there any set protocols for such studies? We are probably getting way off the track statistically. Any statisticians here?

Jim

Curt · « **Reply #45 on:** February 24, 2008, 08:44 AM »

Facebook finally updated the software connoisseurs's member list.

- now someone needs to upload an image... BTW: Did you ever see this fine cap before? No brands!

If this new facebook group is to make any good, I am thinking it would need something more to tell about DC, and maybe also some kind of gadget. Maybe we could sort of edit+copy&paste our profile presentations from DC? And maybe someone could autor a test-for-fun, in the same style as these public tests? I mean, if we do something, then software connoisseurs at least for a periode will make sense and consist of active DC members, tempting even more new people to join DC. But if we don't take some action software connoisseurs will be just another nothing from facebook...