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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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....
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