4 Comments
User's avatar
alistair's avatar

In Robin Dunbar's book "How Religions Evolved" he discusses studies of various group sizes and there was a section where he mentions that the ideal conversation size for humans is in groups of 3. So, there is some substantial support for your observations and insights that are out there as well. Thanks for this newsletter!

Expand full comment
Maria D. - Natural Math's avatar

I just happened to read this as I was reading this (academic) article and it rhymed so well. https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bjdp.12398

Expand full comment
Marta Brzosko's avatar

Thank you for sharing this link Maria! I just looked at an abstract and it looks fascinating - bokmarking for future read! :)

Expand full comment
Matthew Lucas's avatar

In many ways, triads are the simplest creative structure. Diads have value, but are relative stagnant in comparison. Western thought is overly reliant on dualistic interpretations of life and phenomenon, which leads to all of the absurd redux problems within philosophy and science. When viewed from the prism of trilogies, the cyclicality of the universe begins to take formative shape.

It’s cool to see that this same pattern is expressed thought interpersonal groups, which is something that hadn’t dawned on me until I read your piece here. I wonder if a group of 6 will tend to naturally divide itself into triads during active conversion. This is something I will be attuned to going forward!

Expand full comment