My father always used to say that when you die, if you’ve got five real friends, then you’ve had a great life.
LEE IACOCCA
MANY SOCIAL BEHAVIORS WE BELIEVE are culturally learned are in fact hardwired, established over several million years of survival. Indeed, those who formed strong social bonds were more likely to survive over the antisocial outliers, who, without the support of the clan, stood a higher risk of succumbing to a similar fate as the slow and the weak. Through tight social bonds, our ancestors relayed critical information to benefit the individual and the clan: where to get food, water, and shelter; what dangers to avoid; how to navigate vast territory on extended hunts or journeys; best techniques for hunting, gathering, or caring for children.
Research suggests that the social organization of hunter-gatherer bands supported a larger networking and member exchange with neighboring bands.1 This arrangement both decreased violence (compared to other primates) and enhanced learning between groups. It most certainly kept the gene pool vital as well.
Bands generally ranged between twenty-five to fifty people in size, with looser ties on the periphery to perhaps some one hundred fifty or so (Typically a group of this size would form to increase the odds of survival, for example, hunkering down for the winter.)2 Despite the extended contact, life revolved mainly around the intimacy of the inner circle, those few dozen adults and children who formed a kinship. Within the group there were typically enough hands to make hunting and foraging more productive, but not so many that disorganization took over.
Our ancestors’ sense of self was pretty much wrapped up in how they supported the clan, and how they were accepted and supported by it. However, anthropologists point out that hunter-gatherer affiliation didn’t absorb individuals into a subsumed “school of fish” identity, either.3 They formed individual personalities that did not prove themselves by detachment but unfolded within supportive relationships.
The intimacy of the tribe would ultimately take shape not just in how well members collaborated in a day’s work, but how they participated together in a night’s cultural life, the emblem of which was the fire circle. With ample leisure time and the obvious motivation to stay with the group in the dark hours of night, tribe members shared stories and song. They danced and celebrated. They shared in and passed on cosmologies that reflected a mystical narrative of life in their region as well as accounts of ancestors who came before them.
The fire circle, suggests Paul Shepard, author of Coming Home to the Pleistocene, is a vivid metaphor for the intimacy of hunter-gatherer socialization and small-scale human affairs. Not only does the fire circle reflect the basic social structure with which we evolved, but also the sustaining social and cultural activities—everything from story to ceremony, feast to music—that nurtured human ties. The fire circle encompassed communal participation, shared ritual, and kinship investment. It’s a poignant Primal metaphor for reconnecting with a deeper, more fulfilling social experience of the world.
What comes to mind when you think of your friends? The reading club, Tuesday card games, progressive dinners, Saturday morning golf, and summer barbecues? The talks over coffee, cocktails, racquetball, quilting, dog walking, or maybe just over the phone? Friends, new and old, close and far-flung, hold a special place in our sentiments. We value the history we have with them, the perspective they bring, the support they offer, the stories they tell, the interests we share. Without a doubt, they play an essential part in our lives. We’re better, happier people as a result of our friendships, but can it be possible that we’re healthier, too?
The answer is a resounding yes. Studies have linked strong social connectedness with positive measures in areas as varied as motor skill retention, cancer survival, general immune function, memory preservation, and overall longevity.4 That a healthy social life holds sway over our physical and mental wellbeing should come as no big surprise. We are social animals, after all.
So what happens to us then when we detach ourselves socially? To be sure, modern life encourages us to be antisocial. Individual homes and garages ensure that we need not meet our neighbors. Online ordering permits us to avoid public shopping. Television and streaming Internet mean we can conveniently enjoy entertainment in the seclusion of our own homes. Add to this picture the fact that we’re increasingly a nation of movers and uprooters, finding ourselves far from the families and social networks of our youth.
As for the science, research shows that isolation has been linked to higher risk for Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease.5 One ambitious meta-analysis of 148 studies6 showed a relationship between isolation and a higher risk of mortality. In one of those studies, researchers surveyed 4,775 adults in Alameda County, near San Francisco.7 The subjects completed a survey that asked about social ties such as marriage, contacts with extended family and friends, and group affiliation. Each individual’s answers were translated into a number on a “social network index,” with a high number meaning the person had many regular and close social contacts, and a low number representing relative social isolation. The researchers then tracked the health of the subjects over the next nine years.
Since the participants had varying backgrounds, the scientists employed mathematical techniques to isolate the effects of risk factors such as smoking, socioeconomic status, and reported levels of life satisfaction. The results were striking. Over the nine-year period, those who placed low on the social network index were twice as likely to die as individuals who had placed high on the index, but had otherwise similar risk factors. The researchers found that low social connectedness appears to carry the same increased risk as smoking and alcohol consumption.
Even group exercise appears to offer a significant boost in endorphin production over solitary exercise. In a study of rowers at Oxford University, those who performed rowing exercises in a group showed double the pain threshold than the solo rowers. The researchers attribute the extra endorphin rush to the social bonding, similar to that found in other collective physical endeavors, like hunting and dancing.
Our basic sleep quality is also influenced by strong social connections. In one study, those who described themselves as lonely experienced “increased nighttime vigilance.”8 There’s plenty of evolutionary sense to explain this link between sleeping well and feeling secure in our social environment. Without the protection of a group, sound sleep must have been much more elusive.
The truth is, we need each other. As the adage goes, there’s power—and evidently good health—in numbers. But is it possible to have too much of a good thing?
Primatologists have often noted that nonhuman primates live in small, tight-knit social groups of varying sizes. It’s an extraordinary fact that the number of members within a group is not random but dependent on the size of a primate’s prefrontal cortex. That is to say, the larger a primate’s frontal lobe, the more social interactions the primate can manage.9
In 1992, British anthropologist Robin Dunbar figured the same principle ought to apply to human primates as well. Using the predictive value of neocortex size, he came up with a maximum “mean group size” of onehundred fifty and an “intimate circle size” of twelve.10 Hypothesis in hand, he then compared his prediction with anthropological literature and reports from current-day hunter-gatherer societies to best approximate the social behaviors of our Paleolithic ancestors.
For the most part, Dunbar’s predictions held true. Turns out the upper limit for human social cohesiveness is groups of about one hundred fifty, a number that has been validated throughout history when grouping size was critical for survival. History provides several examples involving intense environmental or economic pressure—like war (Roman maniples contained around one hundred sixty men) or early agriculture (Neolithic farming villages ran about one hundred fifty deep).
While Dunbar’s Number has received some widespread recognition in the mainstream media, a group of one hundred fifty still can be overwhelming for a social circle. As previously mentioned, the hunter-gatherer existence self-regulated on groups made up of twenty-five to fifty members. Too few members made hunting unfeasible (as fit as he was, Grok wasn’t taking down a buffalo by himself, let alone lugging it back to camp), and foraging became more effective the more hands committed to the task. A hunter-gatherer group had to be mobile and lean, able to follow the game when it moved. It had to be socially cohesive; people had to coordinate hunts, forage outings, and divvy up food. A large, ranging, sloppy group would mean more weak links, and in a social framework where every member was integral to the success of the whole, it simply wouldn’t work out. A hunter-gatherer group that grew too big would simply become two hunter-gatherer tribes rather than languish and fail.
Overstepping our natural bounds is essentially what makes us human. But what about overstepping Dunbar’s Number? Can it increase stress? We see it in farm animals, whose increasing group size past optimal levels increases damaging behavior such as feather pecking in hens and tail biting in pigs. Granted, we are neither chickens nor pigs, but we, like other animals, are still sensitive to our environments.
Agriculture no doubt pushed our social limits by forcing us into crowded villages, but it’s only recently that our social networks have undergone another, even more drastic shift in size and composition. We’re reconnecting online with childhood friends from years ago. We’re getting text messages from twenty different acquaintances on a single day. Are we equipped to handle this sort of thing? Are we negatively impacting the quality of our social interactions? Are we spreading ourselves too thin? Or do social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter allow us to transcend, or tinker with, previously immutable biological limitations? Perhaps.
“The researchers found that low social connectedness appears to carry the same increased risk as smoking and alcohol consumption.”
I’m reminded of how working memory describes the temporary engagement of information for immediate cognitive tasks like learning, reasoning, and calculating. Although theories on capacity vary, most people are limited to retaining four to seven “chunks” of working data. A chunk might be a single digit, a single word, or even a concept, but a few people can use advanced encoding techniques to expand the scope of each chunk. For instance, most people are able to repeat a seven-digit telephone number. But with memory techniques, a person might retain up to seven sequences of four or five numbers. This allows a person to remember thirty-five numbers instead of seven. The neurological bandwidth hasn’t increased—the brain hasn’t physically grown larger—it just utilizes the available bandwidth with greater efficiency.
Maybe Facebook and other social media offer the chance to make greater use of the available “socializing chunks” in our brain. Those seven chunks of available bandwidth are always going to be there, but it’s what you put inside that matters. Perhaps tools like Facebook allow us to “store” information on friends and family without taking up valuable mental real estate. I don’t think that’s either good or bad. Shoot, the reason we developed the written word was to avoid having to remember minutiae.
But I contend that we still on some level adhere to the spirit of Dunbar’s Number. Sure, we are capable of following thousands of people. It’s done every day on Facebook and Twitter and other social media platforms. But few, if any, of us possess the emotional wherewithal to be involved with more than perhaps fifty people in any meaningful way. Go ahead, jot down a list of your current relationships—the ones you can quantify as meaningful and reciprocative—and see how many you come up with. Your number will likely be in the single or double digits. A 2009 study for the Economist found that even Facebook users with five hundred or more friends typically only interacted (commented on or “liked” postings, etc.) with seventeen people (males) or twenty-six people (females); and in two-way direct communication, interacted with only ten friends (male) or sixteen friends (female).
Now you may say social media has its merits. I agree. We don’t always have time to reach out to our friends individually. Sharing a bit of ourselves “en masse” makes people feel they know what’s going on in your life (and vice versa). Sometimes staying connected informally with status updates and messages is enough to get through a busy time or to get the ball rolling after a long hiatus and spur a real get-together. If you have a far-flung group of loved ones, it’s nice to have creative ways to stay in touch and in each other’s lives. I can personally testify to the power of an online community with Mark’s Daily Apple. It’s gratifying to see members meet in person at our annual PrimalCon weekends. But that’s the thing: you need to balance cyber time with in-person time. Chatting online or through email differs wildly from face-to-face interaction. Everything is calm and measured. There’s little room for incidentals, mistakes, or purposeful, reflective pauses. You lose the physical contact and the body language cues, potentially running the risk of distorted and disoriented communication. Simply put, emoticons just don’t stack up to the real thing.
Other more serious problems arise when virtual relationships displace or disrupt actual, real-life relationships. A poll taken by The New York Times found that electronic media influenced one out of seven spouses to spend less time with their partners, and one of ten parents to shortchange time with their kids.11 What do we miss when we step away from dinner to check how many “likes” our last Facebook update received, take yet another phone call, or check email? What do we give up when family members retreat to their respective devices each night? What do we forgo when we spend a road trip immersed in a DVD player or an iPod? What impact is there when people can’t stand in line, sit at the airport, or even walk the dog without staring at or talking into an electronic device?
“Agriculture no doubt pushed our social limits by forcing us into crowded villages, but it’s only recently that our social networks have undergone another, even more drastic shift in size and composition.”
There’s more, actually, than the immediate missed opportunities, neglected obligations, and disappointed loved ones. We aren’t only giving up what’s in the moment, but also the capacity to later attend to people and events with the same mental energy and focus when we finally disengage ourselves from our technological distractions. After all, a taxed brain peters out more quickly. How much energy do we give to our gadgets, and how little is left for the real priorities in our lives?
The fact is, we’re still the same social creatures our ancestors were, with the same hunger for visceral connection. Culture and innovation, in service of human wellbeing, are amazing forces. But their effects must be checked by our natural needs. Innovation should serve us and give us a better life. It’s time to return to a more original gauge of social wellbeing. It’s time to recalibrate our lives toward genuine connections. We can then foster the relationships that really matter and the primal conditions that help them thrive.
What we intuitively know, research indeed confirms: our “best” experiences in life are those we share with others.12 It isn’t the awards and accolades but the birth of our children, the day we met or married our partner, or the amazing friendship that has grown over the years. However, does our calendar and mental focus reflect this truism?
In recalibrating your priorities, it’s important to look at where your time goes, but don’t forget about your energy and focus as well. Is the weekend really family time if you are simultaneously worrying about work or texting for long stretches? Time matters, but you have to have your head and heart in the game if it’s really going to count. In our multitasking culture, it can be a hard impulse to tame. Nonetheless, your relationships will be better for it.
Ultimately, giving our relationships complete attention means upping our game entirely. What would our relationships look like if we brought the full force of our creativity and humor, the whole range of our curiosity and adventure to them? What if we left work at work and limited technology use to certain hours of the evening and weekend? Have you been stuck in a rut too long to even imagine this? Your family and friends are infinitely more interesting and would love to have you back.
Start now by distributing your energy wisely. Invest in the people closest to you and the relationships that serve your wellbeing the most. It’s so easy to spread ourselves thin these days. There’s a sense we should be expanding our social networks exponentially every year to be successful. As many amazing people as there are in the world, it just isn’t feasible. We’ll have great encounters with any number of people in our lives, but we need to make a conscious choice about who (and what) is most deserving of our energy. If you have five hundred Facebook friends but can’t make it to your child’s piano recital without updating your wall, it’s time to reassess your priorities.
In Grok’s time, there was a scarcity of human contact. There was limited potential for relationships, and hence experiences were more concentrated. Now we have the potential to “friend” thousands—every person you ever came in contact with, from the guy who sat behind you in third grade to your dry cleaner—not to mention the random stranger who for some reason wants to be your friend. It becomes yet another abundance-scarcity mismatch with our genetic expectations.
The challenge for the new hunter-gatherer in the Primal Connection (that’s you!) is to identify those people with whom you resonate, with whom you have a connection, and to foster those relationships, and to be willing to de-emphasize extraneous relationships. We’re talking about Habit #1, Take Responsibility, which includes the people you allow access into your life. That goes for virtual friends, real-world friends, and acquaintances alike. It becomes critical not only to your wellbeing but in some cases to your success to surround yourself with good people—people who are supportive, uplifting, and from whom you can learn and feel great about their contributions.
For example, I had one friend who, over time, just did not resonate well with me. Little things that he would say in a lighthearted, joking manner often left me feeling violated—accused of something or scolded for doing something better than he could. (As the saying goes, many a truth is spoken in jest.)
When we finally had a climactic altercation, I realized the energy differences between us and could no longer justify our friendship. I had to sever the ties. In doing so, I realized then that not only is it appropriate to surround ourselves with people who are supportive, upbeat, and positive, it’s also appropriate to release those people who bring you down.
“Ultimately, giving our relationships complete attention means upping our game entirely.”
You don’t have to have a finite, tangible, identifiable reason. In some cases it can be just a feeling (Habit #6, Trust your gut). The relationship may have just run its course and that’s it. Or it might be that you no longer feel that you are getting from the relationship what you should be getting. Of course, there is give and take in any relationship, but when the giving greatly outweighs the receiving, you know there’s a problem. So, to reiterate, it isn’t just a matter of surrounding yourself with good people, but also recognizing who represents dead weight, the ones who drag on your happiness, your success, your wellbeing, and your health. You may know them as drama kings and queens, the energy drainers, the crazy makers, those who take, take, take, and never give back. Bottom line: love and friendship should be energizing, not draining.
Your challenge is to identify the top dozen or so people in your life whom you love and want to keep near and dear to you, and upon whom you would gladly lavish the majority of your social time and energy. These are the people for whom you would do just about anything—your spouse and children, for instance. They are the people you would want surrounding you on your deathbed. This is serious stuff—let’s call it your inner circle. There is no obligation to include family members in this group “just because” they are blood. If you don’t like them and wouldn’t choose them otherwise, don’t include them. Likewise, you may want to include certain close friends. These are the people you are happy for when they succeed, you will stick with during times of failure, and with whom you feel comfortable listening to and to whom you may speak your mind freely. These are the people who respond in kind to you, and who you know you can truly depend upon should the going get tough.
After establishing your inner circle, consider the people you would like to place in your social circle. This circle will number a maximum of two dozen and will consist of those with whom you would like to nurture a meaningful, reciprocative relationship. These are the people with whom you might invite to a movie, hike a trail, or go out to dinner and enjoy some conversation.
Outside of your strong friendships, it feels great to build relationships with the people and places you do business with, too. There’s something to be said for having a good rapport with your plumber. Likewise, it’s helpful to have a doctor who’s seen you through the stages and changes of your life. Sometimes we are so focused on finding a bargain that we often cheat ourselves out of better, more personal service. Ditto for buying locally. It might cost a bit more than the bigbox offerings, but the convenience, the sense of connection, the personal service, and the support of your local economy counts for a great deal too.
Get to know your neighbors and coworkers. You’d think it’s a given, but I increasingly find it’s a stretch in our culture. We’re absorbed in our own responsibilities. We’re new to the job or area. We don’t want to seem pushy. That nosy neighbor lady you try to avoid might be mildly annoying for surface encounters, but she’s also the one who would go out of her way to keep an eye on your house or watch out for your kids. Injecting some authentic social enjoyment into work relationships can have a profound effect on not only team productivity, but also overall job satisfaction.
And, finally, the optimal size of your social circle is not an absolute number, but an estimate. We each operate with a different barometer when it comes to personal happiness and fulfillment. Some people thrive just fine in smaller social circles and experiences. They are often the same people who adapt better to increasing social isolation as they age. You’ll know you’re in the right ballpark if your social life promotes creativity, efficient collaboration, reciprocation, and happiness.