Why anarchy doesn't scale

[andrewducker]

The magic number 150 "seems to represent the maximum number of individuals with whom we can have a genuinely social relationship" -- perhaps (for example) it's the tipping point between a band and a tribe (one having formal leadership, the other tending not) in Jared Diamond's Types of Societies. Anyway, this number could arise from the cost of maintaining the network versus its complexity. An interesting thought.

I couldn't say it any better than the original, so that's a direct cut/paste from here.

Comments

[autodidactic.livejournal.com]

Maybe that's why I can only handle around 150 friends on my LJ before I start going crazy.

Maybe that's why there are only 150 interests. Maybe the math gets stupid and/or complicated after that number.

A.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Fascinating:

First off, I'm curious where the 150 number comes from, I've never seen it before and didn't see any references. Not that I'm denying there is some similar number. To be honest, I'm surprised that it's as high as 150.

I also have a couple of corrections/comments/ clarifications:

Most nomadic societies are tribal and interesting enough, I've never heard of a band-level society with more than approximately 50 members. Also, tribal societies are often highly non-egalitarian, especially wrt sexism - in contrast to band level societies, which are highly egalitarian.

However, the above is just me being a nit-picking anthropologist :) I'm fascinated by this data because it means there may be a technological solution to the problem of anarchy.

I was just watching a show about wearable computers and amazing progress is being made. Currently, the only cue that someone is wearing one is a small gadget in the corner of a pair of glasses, a slightly bulky jacket, and a thin cable connecting the two. Such systems can already do a fairly good job of mediated reality, with name prompts when one first meets someone and almost instantaneous repeat name prompts when you see them again. Combine this with the ability to access on-line info about someone and improved data management software and it seems far from impossible that mediated reality could be used to effectively increase this number well above 150. In fact, it this is possible, I expect the appropriate systems to exist in under 10 years. I'm very much a techno-anarchist/socialist.

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

it seems far from impossible that mediated reality could be used to effectively increase this number well above 150.

I'm not entirely sure this is so.... Because the pressures associated with living in a truly "wired" society would, I think, mitigate the factors of improved sociality. I'm not sure I'm wording this as clearly as I wish.... Okay. If I'm living in a world where I know people can, through the use of wearable information technology, access my name and pertinent data whether or not they really remember who I am, it will make me more inclined to mistrust their apparent friendliness. I will reserve my true moments of social connectedness for people for people with whom I am not just a momententary use of bandwidth. Which would then, despite my own wired ability to "know" more than a hundred and fifty people, effectively decrease my community back into the one fifty range. Checks and balances. Or something like unto that.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

Possibly, it's difficult to tell w/o actually having a wide range of fairly typical people using such gadgets. I definitely think such gadgets will change social interactions fairly dramatically, I'm just not at all certain how. When combined with wireless connections, it will obviously further enable virtual communities, but the other results seem far less obvious.

Re:

[onceupon.livejournal.com]

I don't know.... I think in some ways humans are very basic animals and no matter what contraptions you strap onto us providing us with information and stimuli, we are going to choose from the same basic response-set. I don't think technology is ever going to be able to get past the reptile bit at the back of our brains that distrusts it. Sure, we'll use it until it takes over and kills us all (not that I watched Terminator over the weekend or anything), but there is always going to be the realization that it is artificial.

The day I'm really interested in seeing is the introduction of A.I that will fool people both intellectually and tactile/physically. I mean, think about our movies -- our androids are always humanoid but never human. We always need to mark them as being artificial, as apart from us. Otherwise it would be too challenging to our perceptions of reality and our place in it.

Virtual communities are an interesting develop and livejournal is, for me, one of the most interesting there is. Watching a completely new social dynamic emerge, with etiquette and rules of social engagement all its own is just fascinating.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

I don't know.... I think in some ways humans are very basic animals and no matter what contraptions you strap onto us providing us with information and stimuli, we are going to choose from the same basic response-set. I don't think technology is ever going to be able to get past the reptile bit at the back of our brains that distrusts it.

I agree completely, except that I'm firmly convinced that technology can be used to fool us into thinking something is real and present which is not (and may not even exist). Learn to fool the pitiful old reptile brain and many new things are possible. One simple example is charisma enhancing software (that I expect to see in use by politicians in 5 years or so), many more are also possible. Heck, a movie on a screen that produces a strong adrenaline response is fooling the reptile brain.

[kpollock.livejournal.com]

Heck, a movie on a screen that produces a strong adrenaline response is fooling the reptile brain.

:-) I knew there was some good to my non-involvement with films etc! I guess I'm fully in touch with my inner reptile :-)