Why Can't More Than Four People Have a Conversation at Once? (qz.com) 75
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.
Nobody listens, they just wait their turn to talk. (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
You can maintain a conversation by yourself drinkypoo.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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 conversatio
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Known in cinema sound editing (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And by track you mean sound source?
Protagonist talking 1
Music 2
Protagonist Footsteps 3
Ambient bird chirping 4
now if you want to have a car drive past in the background the bird should stop chirping for a little while?
Already known that people can't handle more than 8 (Score:1)
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).
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Crane truck chase scene in T3 used an estimated 1,000 sound segments...and the results were perceived as crashy.
Get high, then your problems almost disappear (Score:1)
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 yo
Rolls a nat 20 on sociology (Score:1)
My extensive research using Dungeons & Dragons more than 4 people can hold a conversation just fine if everybody agrees on the topic.
Because I tell them to ... (Score:2)
... shut up while I'm talking.
Re: (Score:2)
I lose patience a bit more now that I'm a manager. I shouldn't do that, but human nature. So the guys that refuse to shut up and insist on being the center of group discussion I have to say "Shut Up Bob, Alice is trying to make her point!" at which point they look surprised and become well behaved for the next ten minutes. Seriously, I know one guy who just can't stop talking and butting in, and when leaving the meeting he will confide in me "I don't know why they keep ignoring me." And another guy, mis
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was uncomfortable for me, as well.
I got to where I'd establish ground rules: No backstories. In 15 seconds, tell me the fucking punch line.
I may already know enough of the story to make a call.
If not, I'll ask for details, working in reverse order, until I get what I need.
I didn't say, "Shut up," (but I don't have a problem with that). I said, "Stop!"
Re: (Score:2)
That's because I'm the only one you know.
The Today Show, et al (Score:2)
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.)
So, how do you explain ... (Score:2)
Re: So, how do you explain ... (Score:2, Insightful)
You can't. The existence of that show is incomprehensible.
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
This, exactly... (Score:2)
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. :)
So the limit is really 2 (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
After 4 I can't hear the far away folks (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As long as you're sitting along a square table that seems the most trivial and obvious reason, you end up with three in a row. It's tough to hear, tough to make eye contact and a bit rude if you're talking past the person in the middle. If you're seated around a small round table I'd say a casual conversation of up to six works well.
Can You Hear Me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Amateur radio nets? (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I have a friendly, very ordered conversation with about 30 people
Being able to say 3 words every other hour cannot be considered as having a conversation.
That is a radio station that you occasionally call into.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"People trained and vetted in how to behave politely" use to just be called "adults".... It still takes on the order of 15-20 years to be certified as one, which seems like ample time. Maybe the average quality of instructors has declined, though.
Re: (Score:2)
There is very little in the FCC tests about cordiality. I wouldn't say we are "vetted in polite behavior". We are vetted in our knowledge of electromagnetic physics and in our knowledge of the rules (FCC part 97).
The hobby attracts an eclectic group of people, admittedly mostly men. My local club has PhD's in mathematics, infosec professionals, landscapers, veterans, people from all walks of life. It's a fantastic way to get out of your everyday social bubble.
Regarding training real adults, I am heavily inv
How appropriate. (Score:2)
If everyone doesn't know the topic, shift to one where everyone does. It's called being p
I ran a weekly discussion group once... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
That only works until someone stops respecting the shell and decides to play "kill the pig" with the fattest person present.
Ha! (Score:2)
I can't even handle one due to my disabilities. :(
That tells me why most meetings are useless (Score:2)
IRC (Score:2)
Dynamic of large groups ? Bullshit (Score:2)
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 ab
Four is a lot! (Score:2)
Depends partly on how people are arranged (Score:2)
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.