Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.1 Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.2 Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.
Edward Lear's Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets invites us to "Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times." Some regresses do reach a natural terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why shouldn't you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgin of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly 79 protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, surrounded by a swarm of 79 electrons. If you "cut" gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas. -Richard Dawkins
Comments by addendumb
addendumb commented on the word Dunbar's number
Dunbar's number is suggested to be a theoretical cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships. These are relationships in which an individual knows who each person is, and how each person relates to every other person.1 Proponents assert that numbers larger than this generally require more restrictive rules, laws, and enforced norms to maintain a stable, cohesive group. No precise value has been proposed for Dunbar's number. It has been proposed to lie between 100 and 230, with a commonly used value of 150.2 Dunbar's number states the number of people one knows and keeps social contact with, and it does not include the number of people known personally with a ceased social relationship, nor people just generally known with a lack of persistent social relationship, a number which might be much higher and likely depends on long-term memory size.
August 15, 2011
addendumb commented on the word toddi defense
the other dude did it
also soddi, some other dude did it
January 2, 2008
addendumb commented on the word nonplussed
Origin: 1575–85; (n.) < L n�?n plūs lit., not more, no further, i.e., a state in which nothing more can be done
November 5, 2007
addendumb commented on the word quench
rapid cooling of a solid to lock it into a metastable crystal structure by preventing low-temperature processes, e.g. phase transformations
September 8, 2007
addendumb commented on the word omnium-gatherum
a miscellaneous collection
probably a “jocular imitation of law Latin�?
September 1, 2007
addendumb commented on the word née
Denotes maiden name, e.g. Margaret Hilda Thatcher née Roberts.
Pronounced "nay."
August 24, 2007
addendumb commented on the word wrt
with respect to
August 22, 2007
addendumb commented on the word pissed off faithless
POF
August 13, 2007
addendumb commented on the word auftreffpunkt
Point of impact (German)
August 13, 2007
addendumb commented on the word la bonne foi
In good faith
August 13, 2007
addendumb commented on the word nota bene
It is often written in the abbreviated form: N.B.
July 25, 2007
addendumb commented on the word laurels
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9114%28196207%2966%3A3%3C259%3ATIVC%3E2.0.CO%3B2-K&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage
July 20, 2007
addendumb commented on the word crumboblious
Edward Lear's Nonsense Recipe for Crumboblious Cutlets invites us to "Procure some strips of beef, and having cut them into the smallest possible pieces, proceed to cut them still smaller, eight or perhaps nine times." Some regresses do reach a natural terminator. Scientists used to wonder what would happen if you could dissect, say, gold into the smallest possible pieces. Why shouldn't you cut one of those pieces in half and produce an even smaller smidgin of gold? The regress in this case is decisively terminated by the atom. The smallest possible piece of gold is a nucleus consisting of exactly 79 protons and a slightly larger number of neutrons, surrounded by a swarm of 79 electrons. If you "cut" gold any further than the level of the single atom, whatever else you get it is not gold. The atom provides a natural terminator to the Crumboblious Cutlets type of regress. It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas. -Richard Dawkins
July 13, 2007
addendumb commented on the word quel dommage
Ironic; said when a person doesn't have what he wants and we are happy for that.
July 13, 2007
addendumb commented on the word apostate
Very few former believers call themselves apostates and they generally consider this term to be a pejorative.
July 2, 2007