Storify by Kristin Alford

#futrchat: Future of Relationships

Monthly chat from the Association of Professional Futurists. April's theme: The Future of Relationships.

April futrchat - The Future of Relationships
Share
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Pinterest
Share on Google+
Share on Linkedin
Share by email
profuturists.posterous.com
·
Thu, Apr 21 2011 17:50:51
[future shock] The Future of Relationships « Justin Pickard
Speculations [future shock] [reading list] by leave a comment Tonight, from 2100 GMT, and I will be co-chairing an hour-long Twitter discussion on the . Hosted by the Association of Professional Futurists on Twitter, the ‘Futrchat’ format is a monthly, open, multi-party conversation on a specific topic: usually, ‘the future of X’. Guy has already posted our list of questions for this month, but I wanted to supplement this with a couple of clips and links to get you thinking. First, a clip fr...
Share
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+
Share on Linkedin
Share by email
justinpickard.net
Question 1:
Will our personal relationships be bounded by the limits of Dunbar’s number (< 150 friends)? Can we/our brains evolve?
Dunbar's number was first proposed by British anthropologist Robin Dunbar, who theorized that "this limit is a direct function of relative neocortex size, and that this in turn limits group size ... the limit imposed by neocortical processing capacity is simply on the number of individuals with whom a stable inter-personal relationship can be maintained." On the periphery, the number also includes past colleagues such as high school friends with whom a person would want to reacquaint oneself if they met again.^[3]

Dunbar's number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Share
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Share on Google+
Share on Linkedin
Share by email
en.wikipedia.org
macengr @macengr
Q1 I think for the forseeable future 150 is the number since we will need new ways to interact with more - new soical systems #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:04:27
Reply Retweet Favorite
ebonstorm @ebonstorm
Re: Dunbar's Number - Yes, I suspect we will be limited by our biology and supplement that with technology over time. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:04:08
Reply Retweet Favorite
kristinalford @kristinalford
@ebonstorm or we already supplement it w/ technology, using CRM-like systems in our phones, keeping track of data on friends #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:06:36
Reply Retweet Favorite
Marc_Meyer @Marc_Meyer
@guyyeomans A1: The evolution and ease of social platforms has incrementally increased dunbar's number #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:04:51
Reply Retweet Favorite
futuramb @futuramb
A1 Since we are psychological cyborgs already the brain will not be the hard limit. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:06:50
Reply Retweet Favorite
ebonstorm @ebonstorm
Our brains will still be our hard limit. It will simply be augmented and supported by levels of intelligent technology over time. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:07:35
Reply Retweet Favorite
MargieClayman @MargieClayman
@guyyeomans A1: I think the definition of "friend" is rapidly evolving. Not sure Dunbar's # is still relevant today. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:05:03
Reply Retweet Favorite
jimmath @jimmath
once we're 'borged up, our memory prostheses will remind us of their names and recent/past encounters w others as they/we approach #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:10:02
Reply Retweet Favorite
justinpickard @justinpickard
@mlrhea - I think I agree, but can you unpack 'loosely'? More flexible? More weak ties? #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:06:42
Reply Retweet Favorite
ebonstorm @ebonstorm
This will likely create relationship matrices we use to organize our relationships into manageable chunks. Strong vs weak #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:05:08
Reply Retweet Favorite
jimmath @jimmath
considering Dunbar's Number, how are "friends" defined? Lots of people call acquaintances friends... #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:07:07
Reply Retweet Favorite
aussiefuturist @aussiefuturist
Q1 150 is too many for strong relationships, even with an evolved brain, but people will come and go over a lifetime #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:06:38
Reply Retweet Favorite
jenjarratt @jenjarratt
(Q1) Dunbar depends a bit on stage of life, as do all relationships #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:07:08
Reply Retweet Favorite
heathervescent @heathervescent
Q1. A: Our attention has evolved as well: able to intake & sift more. Better pattern recognition. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:08:19
Reply Retweet Favorite
ebonstorm @ebonstorm
Technologically we are evolving but nature evolves much slower. We will supplement our need with tech as we have always done. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:08:37
Reply Retweet Favorite
CASUDI @CASUDI
@ebonstorm maybe we already compartmentalize groups of relationship to increase scope of managing more #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:09:24
Reply Retweet Favorite
kristinalford @kristinalford
@justinpickard @mlrhea A1 more flexible I think, but we are wrong to assume connections made through technology are somehow weak. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:08:50
Reply Retweet Favorite
ebonstorm @ebonstorm
Even with better pattern recognition, it does not increase our ability to discern or decide how to USE that data effectively. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:09:16
Reply Retweet Favorite
Urbanverse @Urbanverse
A1 I think that time and attention, motivation is the limit to relationships, not the brain. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:08:51
Reply Retweet Favorite
ebonstorm @ebonstorm
@mlrhea Indeed it does. That is my point exactly, organizing "friends" into layers of interaction is the next step. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:15:24
Reply Retweet Favorite
heathervescent @heathervescent
@ebonstorm Agree, but we will learn to use the data. just as we evolved discerned attention. #futrchat
Thu, Apr 21 2011 13:11:39
Reply Retweet Favorite