How to understand people better: three psychological theories

Dunbar's number

Researcher Robin Dunbar has linked the activity of the neocortex, the main part of the cerebral cortex, to the level of social activity.

He looked at the size of community groups in different animals and the number of grooming partners (an important part of grooming, for example, hair picking in primates).

It turned out that the size of the neocortex is directly related to the number of individuals in the community and the number of those who cleaned each other (analogous to communication).

When Dunbar began researching people, he found that there were about 150 people in social groups. This means that each has about 150 acquaintances whom he can ask for help or provide them with something.

The close group is 12 people, but 150 social connections is a more significant number. This is the maximum number of people with whom we keep in touch. If the number of your acquaintances becomes more than 150, some of the past connections go away.

You can put it another way:

These are the people with whom you will not mind having a drink at the bar if you happen to meet them there.

Writer Rick Lacks tried to challenge Dunbar's theory. He wrote about trying to do this:

This experience allowed Lax to draw attention to close ties:

Dunbar's number is especially useful for marketers and people in the social media and branding industries. If you know that each person can only interact with 150 friends and acquaintances, it will be easier to respond to rejection.

Instead of getting angry and upset when people don't want to connect with you and support your brand, think about the fact that they only have 150 contacts. If they choose you, they have to give up someone they know. On the other hand, if people make contact, you will appreciate it more.

But what about social networks, where many have more than a thousand friends? But how many of them do you keep in touch with? Most likely, the number of such people is close to 150. As soon as new contacts appear, old ones are forgotten and just hang in your friends.

Many periodically clean their list and remove those with whom they will not communicate, leaving only close people. This is not entirely correct. The fact is that it is not only strong connections that are important, that is, your immediate environment. Morten Hansen's book "Collaboration" describes how important weak social contacts (in particular, those that are made through social networks) are important for a person. They are the key to new opportunities.

The study showed that it is not so much the number of connections that is important for human development, but their diversity. Among your acquaintances there should be people who hold opposite points of view, with different experiences and knowledge. And such a contingent can be found on a social network.

Weak bonds are useful because they lead us into unfamiliar areas, while strong ones exist in areas we have already studied.

Hanlon's Razor

This is what Robert Hanlon, a Pennsylvania joke writer, said:

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.

In Hanlon's razor, instead of the word "stupidity", you can put "ignorance", that is, lack of information before making a decision or any action. And here's how it works: when it seems to you that someone treats you badly or does something in spite, first dig deeper and find out if this is due to a banal misunderstanding.

For example, if you receive an email from an employee in which he sharply speaks out against your idea, perhaps he simply did not understand its essence. And his indignation was not directed at you, he only spoke out against a proposal that seemed stupid or dangerous to him.

In addition, it often happens that acquaintances try to help a person with their own methods, and he perceives this as vile intrigues. Human beings are not by nature evil creatures, so beneath any perceived harm there may be good intentions, simply absurdly expressed.

Herzberg's motivating factors

The latter theory can help in communicating with colleagues or even friends and spouses. The concept was put forward in 1959 by Frederick Herzberg. Its essence lies in the fact that job satisfaction and dissatisfaction are measured in different ways, not being the two ends of the same straight line.

In theory, it is assumed that dissatisfaction depends on hygienic factors: working conditions, salary, relationships with superiors and colleagues. If they are not satisfied, dissatisfaction arises.

But I like the job not because of good hygienic factors. Satisfaction depends on a group of reasons (motivation), which include: pleasure from the work process, recognition and opportunities for growth.

The following statement can be deduced: while working in a high-paying position with comfortable conditions, you can still feel lousy if, for example, serious projects do not trust you and do not notice your efforts.

And the fact that you receive recognition and realize the benefits of your actions will not compensate for the fact that you are paid pennies for it, forcing you to work in a terrible environment.

Motivation-Hygiene-Software-Advanced-91405

This theory will be especially useful for those who are responsible for the personnel in the company. Now you will understand why people, despite good conditions, still quit.

For those who themselves are dissatisfied with the work, this theory will help to find out the cause of dissatisfaction and overcome it. And also, if your friends, family or acquaintances complain about the place of employment, you will never tell them: “But you are paid so well there! You are mad with fat, stay. This step can be very important for their future.