http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/ In search of a better way to live and make a living, and a better understanding of how the world really works. Wed, 16 May 2012 01:47:04 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-743 Evelyn Mitchell Fri, 20 Mar 2009 04:24:57 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/#comment-743 <a></a><a href="http://springwise.com/weekly/2009-03-12.htm#wannastartacommune" rel="nofollow">http://springwise.com/weekly/2009-03-12.htm#wannastartacommune</a><a href="http://www.wannastartacommune.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wannastartacommune.com/</a>Looks good but why $3 for the pamphlet? Seems like just asking for donations would have a better result. http://springwise.com/weekly/2009-03-12.htm#wannastartacommunehttp://www.wannastartacommune.com/Looks good but why $3 for the pamphlet? Seems like just asking for donations would have a better result.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-742 beth Fri, 20 Mar 2009 01:47:29 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/#comment-742 <a></a>Very interesting. The numbers (especially for effective working groups) do seem a bit big to me, but the general premise seems really sound. I agree with what you say in point (3) of your final list. Very interesting. The numbers (especially for effective working groups) do seem a bit big to me, but the general premise seems really sound. I agree with what you say in point (3) of your final list.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-741 vera Thu, 19 Mar 2009 21:18:54 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/#comment-741 <a></a>Right on, Dave. There is a great deal of misinformation out there about Dunbar's number. Dunbar's number is the upper limit of what works, and by the time you get close, you are spending all your time in social grooming just to keep things together. What works best is 45-65 adults for a community or enterprise.The ancient communities that work, for example Anabaptists, keep things down to 25-30 families and hive off a new church district when things get past that. (The Amish have a cute way of getting a felt sense of that... they meet in each other's houses, and when things get just too crowded, time to make a new group.)I think one mistake Earthaven made was to shoot for Dunbar's number, and then, trying to extend it to 180 (more money for the community, more stuff going on). It did not feel very cohesive there at all. Better to make an alliance of three villages of 60. Right on, Dave. There is a great deal of misinformation out there about Dunbar’s number. Dunbar’s number is the upper limit of what works, and by the time you get close, you are spending all your time in social grooming just to keep things together. What works best is 45-65 adults for a community or enterprise.The ancient communities that work, for example Anabaptists, keep things down to 25-30 families and hive off a new church district when things get past that. (The Amish have a cute way of getting a felt sense of that… they meet in each other’s houses, and when things get just too crowded, time to make a new group.)I think one mistake Earthaven made was to shoot for Dunbar’s number, and then, trying to extend it to 180 (more money for the community, more stuff going on). It did not feel very cohesive there at all. Better to make an alliance of three villages of 60.

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-740 EJ Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:13:10 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/#comment-740 <a></a>Interesting that an article like this doesn't include words like "friends" or "family".And that "people you really care about" is used instead of "people you love"... Interesting that an article like this doesn’t include words like “friends” or “family”.And that “people you really care about” is used instead of “people you love”…

]]> http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/comment-page-1/#comment-739 Stephen Downes Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:25:49 +0000 http://howtosavetheworld.ca/2009/03/18/the-optimal-size-of-groups/#comment-739 <a></a>Except that - averages don't apply to individuals, and can be harmful when prescribed.My own circles, for example, are much smaller than these averages. More than a very small number of people, and I get agitated.All of which means that membership is as important as group size. The number of participants is only one variable - and probably not a particularly important one. It may be easiest to quantify, but it would be a mistake to build organizational structure based on it. Except that – averages don’t apply to individuals, and can be harmful when prescribed.My own circles, for example, are much smaller than these averages. More than a very small number of people, and I get agitated.All of which means that membership is as important as group size. The number of participants is only one variable – and probably not a particularly important one. It may be easiest to quantify, but it would be a mistake to build organizational structure based on it.

]]>