Hacker News Reader

Comment by lambertsimnel | Hacker News Reader

The article quotes Dunbar as saying "In the normal run of things, when a fifth person joins a group, it’ll become two conversations within about 20 seconds." I've noticed something similar. The article suggests this might be because of the difficulty we have imagining what multiple other people are thinking, but I suspect other causes also play a part.

If I'm in a group of five or more, and I think too long about what somebody said, or about how to respond, I find there are two conversations going on without me. In a group of four, the only way it can split into two conversations is if I participate. If I don't, the other three have no choice but to maintain (at most) a single conversation, making it easier for me to rejoin.

View on HN

in my experience it is more dynamic than that. based on tech meetings that i have been to, it depends on the topic currently being discussed. larger groups will break apart if not everyone is interested. it also depends on the arrangement. if a few people stand in a circle and more join the circle, the conversation won't split, because for that to happen they would actually have to leave the circle and create a new one.

This is a really interesting observation, because I'm in an adult discussion class in Sunday school that is arranged like a circle, and I've been trying to figure out why it seems that structure works so well at limiting conversational divergence.

It seems that when everyone is forced to look at each other, it's harder to divest from the main conversation without drawing your attention away from the remainder of the group. It seems better for fostering discussion with a single speaker at a time since everyone can look at that person all at once.

It's not perfect but for larger groups the "circle strategy" definitely seems to work well.

Thanks for sharing!

This is the social upside of something like a “blunt rotation” forcing every person to periodically break from carrying the conversation.

I'm going to shamelessly borrow your phrasing, because what you've described is exactly what happens: It's a rotation through other participants so neither the study leader nor other individuals have to "[carry] the conversation." It's really interesting, because it fosters conversation that can lead to interesting questions, observations, or other information that might not otherwise come to light. There are some significant deficiencies, of course, but I think works fairly well depending on the group.

Where it breaks down is if one person starts to dominate the conversation for the duration of the class and carries it off-topic, or if someone becomes combative. So, the group composition and personalities can influence the relative success.

The circle shape makes you feel engaged and able to converse with everyone so it feels cohesive. It's also pretty obvious you were arranged in that shape to emphasis a group conversation activity is taking place.

Kind of the opposite as when you get seated at a restaurant in a long rectangle table. You immediately know it will be difficult to talk to the whole table and will have multiple conversations taking place. If you're at one end, you'll likely only talk to 3-4 people. If you're at the center, you might talk to 3-4 to the left and right but they'll be different conversations. Not that this is a strict law of table talk, just kind of what usually takes place. Sometimes there's something that comes up that gets everyone's attention and the whole table is shouting. An even more extreme example, is a bar top seating, where you are just a line facing the same direction. You might only talk to your neighbors and possibly their neighbor but it's not great at facilitating larger group discussion.

If you ever go to a banquet or wedding where they have round tables but a very tall floral decor piece thing in the middle, it completely breaks the circle advantage. I think eye contact and your ability to convey body language is a major component.

I really hate trying to carry conversation in restaurants for that reason, and because the background noise levels can often get to a point where you can only hear the person sitting right next to you.

You're absolutely right that 1) group composition, 2) room structure, and 3) motive(s) are all important factors. As someone else observed, having a "discussion leader" is also important in that sort of setting.

It's interesting that you see a large group of people having one conversation as a success. Personally I really dislike those situations and would much rather it splinter into smaller groups.

I think it depends. In the context of a discussion class, it makes sense, because you don't want to deviate too far from the purpose of the study. As someone else pointed out, it doesn't work as well for unstructured conversation.

Is there a clear leader/facilitator in that discussion class? Someone who keeps the discussion "on track" and prevents it from wandering from the chosen topic?

That would be different from the spontaneous, unstructured conversations the article is talking about.

Yup, and that's another reason it works so well.

Now, it does break down somewhat when the core discussion is over or if someone is a bit disruptive (which has happened recently).

As a sibling comment to yours wrote, it DOES help that the topic is understood among everyone present, there is a clear intent to the gathering, and everyone has approximately the same motives.

Your case is relatively unusual and unlike general conversations, since you have:

  - a topic that everybody knows will be the focus, and
  - an audience that actively values your conversation.

Outside your core discussion time is when you'll see general discussion tropes. If people are (generally) neither leaving nor arriving, in my experience we see transient circles of 6-8 that split (if more than 8 people, or if multiple topics persist) and merge (if fewer than 6 people). The article's limit of 4 doesn't apply if movement between different groups is considered a feature rather than a bug.

That's exactly it, and I really like your observation that the "limit of 4" doesn't apply in some cases. Before/after class, we have the exact experience you mentioned here where people will transiently go around talking to different groups (often 2 or 3 individuals, sometimes more where there are more listeners than speakers).

What's really interesting about your observation is how the rule-of-thumb breaks down when the conversation is limited to more confined topics or: If the individuals see each other with some regularity outside the group setting (no need to engage in extended conversation about who's doing what) or some of the conversations involve topics brought up in the course of the class.

That's a really interesting observation too. I've always preferred round dining tables for six people at home and hadn't really made the connection with the idea that it does allow for a single conversation rather than a rectangle with two rows of three people facing each other when it easily breaks into separate conversations.

That's not so much because it's five people as it's a new person.

Probably because people can focus on 3 - 4 things at a time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com