Slashdot Mirror
Why Can't More Than Four People Have a Conversation at Once? (qz.com)
Apparently, there exists something called the 'dinner party problem' which states that it is difficult to sustain a casual conversation that includes more than four speakers. If a fifth person were to join that conversation, so goes the theory, the conversation would quickly fission into smaller groups. Somebody looked into it, of course. From a story: The question bothered Jaimie Krems, an assistant professor of psychology at Oklahoma State University. Krems had previously studied under Robin Dunbar, the Oxford University evolutionary psychologist who theorized that cohesion in any human social group falls apart once the group reaches 150 -- a figure now known as Dunbar's number. But just as the dynamics of large groups start changing around 150, something also happens to the casual conversations of small groups once they surpass four members.
Social psychologists have noted the pattern in group conversations in research stretching back decades. There's evidence that this four-person limit on conversations has been in place for about as long as humans have been having chatting with one another. Shakespeare rarely allowed more than four speaking characters in any scene; ensemble films rarely have more than four actors interacting at once. But why do we max out at four? In a forthcoming paper in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, Krems and Jason Wilkes offer one theory rooted in evolutionary psychology. Pairs (or "dyads," in psychology research parlance) are the essential building blocks of a society. Let's imagine a conversation between four hypothetical humans: you, Chris, Pat, and Taylor. In a four-person conversation, there are six possible pairs of people who can be talking to one another at once. you and Chris, you and Pat, you and Taylor, Chris and Pat, Chris and Taylor, and Pat and Taylor. That's three pairs you're part of, and three pairs you're not. Essentially, you have a role in influencing half of the possible conversations that could be happening in that group. If there are three people in the conversation, there are three possible pairs, only one of which excludes you. If there are five people, there are 10 possible pairs, and the majority -- six -- don't include you, which makes it harder to get your point across.
Social psychologists have noted the pattern in group conversations in research stretching back decades. There's evidence that this four-person limit on conversations has been in place for about as long as humans have been having chatting with one another. Shakespeare rarely allowed more than four speaking characters in any scene; ensemble films rarely have more than four actors interacting at once. But why do we max out at four? In a forthcoming paper in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, Krems and Jason Wilkes offer one theory rooted in evolutionary psychology. Pairs (or "dyads," in psychology research parlance) are the essential building blocks of a society. Let's imagine a conversation between four hypothetical humans: you, Chris, Pat, and Taylor. In a four-person conversation, there are six possible pairs of people who can be talking to one another at once. you and Chris, you and Pat, you and Taylor, Chris and Pat, Chris and Taylor, and Pat and Taylor. That's three pairs you're part of, and three pairs you're not. Essentially, you have a role in influencing half of the possible conversations that could be happening in that group. If there are three people in the conversation, there are three possible pairs, only one of which excludes you. If there are five people, there are 10 possible pairs, and the majority -- six -- don't include you, which makes it harder to get your point across.
With more than 4 people, it takes too long for people to get their turn to talk and they forget what they were going to say.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
There might be limitation in our neural physiology, but this math model might explain while paying for "better hardware" is not worth much.
There is a rule of thumb in movie sound editing that there is a hard limit in the number of tracks of distinct sound that should be in the film at any point in time. IIRC, the number is four. (Maybe 5?) . If you go further, the sound is perceived as muddy.
Either the majority of you will forget what you wanted to say, or the conversation gets so involved in one thing that you just set aside what you wanted to say because the topic suddenly got that much more interesting on that particular point.
Half of my employees are high 24/7. I start a meeting, we can focus during Q&A because suddenly everyone is on the same wavelength, and asks the questions others have in their minds. That's a meeting room packed with over 40 people.
Perhaps you should try slowing your brain down. That might actually be your issue.
With more than 4 people, it takes too long for people to get their turn to talk and they forget what they were going to say.
Close. With more than 4 people, it takes too long for people to get their turn to talk, and their egos require more frequent opportunities to be stroked.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
I think it depends entirely on the context. If it's akin to a lecture where there's someone who's recognized as being the expert, leader, etc. who will facilitate the discussion and occasionally ask for input or participation, you can get almost any number of people. Maybe it falls down eventually, but it's not around sizes of four. Get a group of people who are peers together with no clear person in charge of the group, and it will devolve into these fragments, especially if the conversation tends to be informal or impromptu.
My extensive research using Dungeons & Dragons more than 4 people can hold a conversation just fine if everybody agrees on the topic.
... shut up while I'm talking.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
The folks on those morning "news" programs all talk at once, no matter how many "hosts" are on set.
(The roving cameras make me dizzy too, but that's an entirely different subject.)
Have gnu, will travel.
As the article sort of hints at, the real limit is two. Two people can have a conversation. Four people can have a couple of two person conversations that are somewhat related. More than that and it's just sets of two people having conversations. More than 4 and the number of conversations rapidly becomes unmanageable (unless you have a charismatic leader who can pontificate and entertain the rest).
I can talk to my 2 neighbors, and maybe the person across the table, but after that I flat out can't make out what the 6th person is saying. If the other 5 would STFU I could hear, but they won't. There is also the problem of 2-3 threads going on at once, and I can only focus on 1 at a time.
Yeah, but as soon as someone speaking to a group is recognised as an expert, next thing you know they'll be asking for a lectern and AV support.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
It's the Julia Sweeney Effect. (It's Pat!). No mention of gender, Chris, Pat, and Taylor can be the name of a male or female and can there be a difference in how the situation is different between sexes? Also one person who wants attention will try to take over a conversation, A co-worker Jim did this many times. In casual conversations I usually just listen 'cause there's usually one who dominates or two who argue too much.
Also you're too far away in larger groups to listen or be heard, unless people are speaking more loudly one at a time. In a restaurant for example, any more than 4 people means I'm not joining in on the conversation on the other side of the table.
For a normal conversation you are within a meter or two from the person you're speaking too. As the group gets larger they have to be further apart.
For group discussion in a conference room and such, there are generally a few key people who manage the conversation (the boss for example). And there's always someone who never listens anyway, and one guy who insists on being heard every two minutes who will raise his voice until he gets his way or is kicked out.
Reminds me of the TV show My Hero where the super hero's wife says (paraphrasing) "You can fly around the world in seconds and lift up tanks, so why are you envious of me?", and he answers, "you can multitask!"
I have a friendly, very ordered conversation with about 30 people every Thursday night on WW4L repeater (147.360 MHz FM +). We seem to be able to do that just fine. Everyone waits their turn to speak.
That's nothing compared to the Saturday night "6600" net on N2GE up on Mount Mitchell. They might have 150 check in on a Saturday.
Hams overcome our conversational quantity limits by having clear customs for who should speak when.
Real nerds get FCC licenses.
73's,
K9MJM
I just came back from a visit to a friend's house. Her mother, father and husband were there. This fragmentation thingie did not occur. Our conversation was about standard family stuff, mostly kids. So my supposition is that topics generally important enough can override this fission as long as it remains the main topic. It also helps to have people who are interested in hearing what all the others have to say.
If everyone doesn't know the topic, shift to one where everyone does. It's called being polite. Any two who start having a private conversation in front of the others are just being dicks.
And to allow everyone a chance to say something, we had a "token" that was passed around the table to allow everyone a chance to speak. And considering we had 6-10 people to show up, this worked out surprisingly well.
Ruby Neural Evolution of Augmenting Topologies
That's not casual conversation, you're not waiting your turn to speak in order to address the guy sitting next to you; you're waiting to ask the lecturer a question, which makes said lecturer a part of 99% of conversation.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
It is already known that most people can't handle more than 8 things at once.
Having a discussion with 4 people at once calls for tracking 8 interactions (self with the others) and maintaining such a context for each person becomes 8 (since each conversion is two contexts exchanging information).
Close. With more than 4 people, it takes too long for people to get their turn to talk, and their egos require more frequent opportunities to be stroked.
There is something to that. In my circle, we have lunches with maybe 6-8 people. One guy tends to dominate, and yes, he has the biggest ego. Others tend to blurt out to get a word in. As for me, I tend to sit back and listen. I never learned a thing while I was talking. So I'm not certain if I count towards the four person law.
I don't think that any more than 2 people can have an actual conversation.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Crows can only count to 4. If one hunter goes into the woods and comes out the crows will signal the exit. The same for two, three, or four hunters. If five hunters go into the woods the crows will signal all clear when the fourth hunter exits, indicating they cannot count past 4. I am surprized that most people are even as smart as crows....
I can't even handle one due to my disabilities. :(
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
More importantly, tangents start developing. Not everyone gets their turn to talk about the topic 1, because topic 2 and then 3 take off.
This leaves people frustrated.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
I'm from the Southern US, and was Amazed as a child that the women could, as a group, keep at leads 3 or 4 different conversations going, in this moving flow.
The men all congregated outside; our brains don't work that way. :)
Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
Since it basically implies only 4 people in the meeting get anything out of it.
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
I think IRC was probably the best way for large numbers of people to have real-time conversations.
But just as the dynamics of large groups start changing around 150
That's bullshit. It's way before that, between 15 and 30. Source: I've done winterovers in Antarctica with groups of between 13 and 32 people for a year each time. Above a certain number, the group splits in two, but that depends on a lot of factors, like overall stress (higher number) and whether or not there are several charismatic individuals who don't get along (and hence bring their little clique around them and split away from the others). It's been studied extensively in Antarctic research.
Also about the more than 4 people conversation I have something to add. My wife is rather shy. She'll be talkative with friends if the total number is 4. If there are 5 or more people around the table, she'll just clam up and won't utter a word. I never understood why but this article provides a tentative explanation.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
As a somewhat introverted person I notice that four is about the number of participants whereby a conversation starts to turn into a queue of people waiting to chip in an anecdote rather than having a genuine back-and-forth discussion. I'd go with three as the ideal, for anything!
I've heard it said that we should all take more time to listen, instead of just waiting for our turn to talk... you definitely learn more.
Speaking in the group is more geared towards edifying your colleagues; or at the very least, sharing what you believe you know.
Posting in a good /. discussion is the same... I learn considerably more reading and/or moderating than I do when my keyboard goes to blathering.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
At a table, which is typically rectangular, it's hard to hear people who aren't right next to you. This makes larger groups splinter into subgroups, as the article suggests.
If the group is standing around a room, like in someone's kitchen, the group can be larger. I've experienced groups of up to 10 that can carry on a single conversation in this type of setting.
Even with people spread further apart, as in the kitchen, it quickly becomes impossible to have a single conversation with 12 or more people.