Conversation

Alternate interpretation of Dunbar’s number (150). It is the minimum number of people required to make a subjective world. Ie create a mental world with sufficiently entangled social cognition to fully satisfy a human mind. Cf: Kurt Vonnegut “you’re not enough people” argument.
Quote Tweet
Sometimes I think Vonnegut’s “you are not enough people” theory applies at species scale. All of humanity is not enough people for anyone. That’s why we like aliens in our sci-fi. And tolerate twitter despite everything. goodreads.com/quotes/300997-
Image
Replying to
It is the minimum complexity required to sustain a subjective “time”. Similar in spirit to Von Neumann lower limit for self-reproducing automata, except this is for self-perpetuating egregores. Cc
1
4
Necessary but not sufficient. Random assemblage of 150 will not form a world. But below 150 you will always have a sense of degeneracy/incompleteness/alienation and an urge to exit towards richer/bigger groups. Unless you have a non-neurotypical mind of a certain sort.
1
4
Not that this is not about personality (introversion/extroversion) or sociability. It is about lower limit of group size that can create activity sufficient to fill a social brain. Even if your connection is via magazines delivered to a solitary log cabin.
1
3
Possibly, below 150, you will have to make raw survival harder in proportion to social world deficit. The material world is an imperfect substitute but presumably Robinson Crusoe could take his mind off solitude with fishing and coconut carving etc.
1
3
Replying to
Chinese intra-personal (subjective) taste is 口 “one mouth”; and inter-personal taste is 品 “three mouths”, I interpret as talking and tasting simultaneously. 3 maybe interpret as 3 or more and obviously a character evolution has its spatial limitations.
5