Enjoy.

[jhkim]

I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people.

No, you actually allegedly know an insane amount of people. You're quoting over DOUBLE Dunbar's Number as a guess for the average persons acquaintances.

Your use of 'know' is obviously so nebulous as to be useless. You're using 'know people' in the way most would say 'know of/have met in my life.'

As usual, your arguments are pure sophistry. "If you factor in every person you've ever spoken to in your life, you'll find you know tons of LGBT people!"

As I understand it, Dunbar's number of 150 is the number of contacts that a person can meaningfully maintain. But that's not the same as the number of people one has ever meaningfully known, because people wander in and out of that category. My transgender friend Heather, say, died six years ago. So she's not in the 150, but we used to meet for weekly gaming for six years or so, and would regularly chat (though mostly online since she was shy). On her recommendation, I interviewed at her company but I wasn't hired. She's not someone I just threw in there as a statistic.

My cousin Jordan and his husband John were never in that 150. We were never close, and I haven't seen him in person for over a decade at his grandfather's funeral, but he's still a first cousin. He invited me to come visit whenever I was in town, and I likewise with him. I don't think it's wrong to call him family and say that I care about him.

Of the people closest to me who are transgender, there's J whom I was roommate with for four years, and who will be officiating my wedding next year. There's Marie with whom I co-own the duplex I lived in for 18 years, which we are about to sell. And there's my niece who came out just a year ago, whose graduation I'm going to a few weeks from now.

I'm not making a claim about what this shows, but it's the truth. I tried to group people I know or have known into different categories to draw percentages, and maybe that clashed with your assumptions.

[Kyle Aaron]

As I understand it, Dunbar's number of 150 is the number of contacts that a person can meaningfully maintain. But that's not the same as the number of people one has ever meaningfully known, because people wander in and out of that category.

Yes. Maintaining a relationship with A means knowing how they feel about B, and how B feels about A. And then there's how C feels about A, and how A feels about C, and so on and so forth. And that's just one of the numbers. This BBC article talks about it. The 150 is "meaningful contacts", people who you know something about like their date of birth, how many children they have, where they went to uni, that sort of thing.

I've always felt it's confusingly-presented, because the 150 "meaningful contacts includes the 50 "friends" who you know several things about, shared some experiences with, etc; and they include the 15 "close friends", which includes the 5 "loved ones". Then there's the "intimate", which interestingly is an average of 1.5 - because men usually have just their wives there, and women have their husband plus a female best friend. So it's more like 1.5 + 5 + 10 + 40 + 100 etc.

Anyway, obviously we can have people move in and out of the levels. Thus the song, "Somebody That I Used To Know". "Let's stay friends" means the "intimate" of the 1.5 moves out to "loved ones" if you're lucky, but more likely to the 300 or so "acquaintances" - you recognise them but (after a few years) don't know anything about them apart from what you learned from stalking them on LameScroll.

Just today on the stream with Dungeon Delver I was asked what I'd done about "problem players". I said there were a few kinds of "problems." The primary is the individual just being personally annoying. Others are clashing playstyles etc. I said: most of these problems are self-correcting. Love can be unrequited and returned only with indifference, but hate is usually mutual. If you dislike them, they probably dislike you and will move on shortly without your having to ask them to do so. But with that, most people will actually adjust a bit to the group around them - whether work, family, gaming or any other hobby. Most people don't want to annoy others.

Given that, there are some people I'd like at my game table, if I could. Love being sometimes unrequited they might not want to come, but I'd have them, anyway. But on the flipside, there are very few people I'd outright refuse to have at my game table. Whether they stick around long-term is another matter, of course. But there are very few I'd just refuse. Looking over recent posts in this thread I think I've found one.

[Grognard GM]

Looking over recent posts in this thread I think I've found one.

No need to be coy, this is a safe space.

[jhkim]

I'd expect that an average person know at least 300+ people.

No, you actually allegedly know an insane amount of people. You're quoting over DOUBLE Dunbar's Number as a guess for the average persons acquaintances.

Your use of 'know' is obviously so nebulous as to be useless. You're using 'know people' in the way most would say 'know of/have met in my life.'

Of the people closest to me who are transgender, there's J whom I was roommate with for four years, and who will be officiating my wedding next year. There's Marie with whom I co-own the duplex I lived in for 18 years, which we are about to sell. And there's my niece who came out just a year ago, whose graduation I'm going to a few weeks from now.

I'm not making a claim about what this shows, but it's the truth. I tried to group people I know or have known into different categories to draw percentages, and maybe that clashed with your assumptions.

I think people may have very different numbers of connections. It's weird, because I don't feel I'm that social most of the time, but from being active in several communities, I think I do have a large number of acquaintances - though some people have much more.

To add in other transgender people I know. I mentioned Heather who died six years ago. We used to meet for weekly gaming for six years or so, and would regularly chat (though mostly online since she was shy). On her recommendation, I interviewed at her company but I wasn't hired.

Emma was in my gaming circle. We co-GMed a Cinematic Unisystem game for three years. She hadn't come out yet at the time, but I went to a party of hers years later after she had transitioned.

As for the differing numbers, here's one explanation.

Almost 20 years after Dunbar made his estimate, in 2010, a trio of researchers led by Tyler McCormick, then a PhD student in statistics at Columbia University, attempted to estimate the average size of an individual's network using surveys and statistical calculations in lieu of brain size.  They found that the average (mean) network size of those surveyed was 611 people. Taken by itself, this number is dramatically larger than Dunbar's estimate. But while the mean network size was 611 contacts, the median was 472 contacts. This difference might not seem like a big deal to you or me, but to a statistician it's a clear signal that the number of contacts in people's networks doesn't follow a normal distribution. Instead, network sizes may follow a power law.

https://qz.com/work/1351400/dunbars-number-doesnt-represent-the-average-number-of-social-connections

So there's a wide spread with many people knowing less than 100, and some people knowing 1000+.

[Kyle Aaron]

So there's a wide spread with many people knowing less than 100, and some people knowing 1000+.

Yes. And then there's the closeness: a rough proxy for closeness could be recent contact. Just look through your mobile phone, messenger service and email.

How many different people have you talked to,
1. in the last day?
2. week?
3. month?
4. 3 months?
5. 12 months?

Obviously, there are some you've not talked to for 12+ months who'd welcome you warmly if you showed up at their place today looking for somewhere to sleep, you're close despite lack of contact. But there'll also be some you talk to every day who'd be disturbed just at a lunch invite. So it evens out, thus my description of a "rough proxy."

Now compare these numbers with your LameScroll "friends" or WokedIn "connections".

[jhkim]

So there's a wide spread with many people knowing less than 100, and some people knowing 1000+.

Yes. And then there's the closeness: a rough proxy for closeness could be recent contact. Just look through your mobile phone, messenger service and email.

How many different people have you talked to,
1. in the last day?
2. week?
3. month?
4. 3 months?
5. 12 months?

Obviously, there are some you've not talked to for 12+ months who'd welcome you warmly if you showed up at their place today looking for somewhere to sleep, you're close despite lack of contact. But there'll also be some you talk to every day who'd be disturbed just at a lunch invite. So it evens out, thus my description of a "rough proxy."

Now compare these numbers with your LameScroll "friends" or WokedIn "connections".

Sure, there is a lot of ambiguity about closeness. But to the original topic, I don't think one has to know someone all that closely to care about them as a person and/or regard them as a decent human being.

For example, among transgender people I said I know is V. The main way I know her is that we serve on the same church committee. So we've had some discussions and swapped some stories, but she's an acquaintance at best. She's been helpful and clear in supporting our committee work. She is an older lady, and as she has put it, she doesn't even identify as a transgender woman. She just identifies as a woman.

Even though I don't know her much, I don't like the idea of her being called a freak or sexual predator simply for being transgender. I regularly see the sort of language tossed about, and I think it is completely misplaced based on my experience with people like her.

[Valatar]

I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned. I do not want to know who or what other people are attracted to. I am living a happier life in ignorance of what other posters last had an orgasm from.  So when someone rolls up and announces their various fetishes in public and how they're proud of them, I automatically dislike that person. The people who are just living their lives and doing their thing in private, more power to em as long as whatever floats their boat is involving consenting adults.

That is how I simultaneously hold the positions of "we should let gay people get married" and "we should not let gay people roll down the street on a rainbow float with twelve year old boys in dresses twerking on them".  I also would not want Quentin Tarantino to roll down the street on a giant foot shaped float while doing a song and dance about making actresses let him lick their feet. Keep that shit to yourself.

[rytrasmi]

I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned. I do not want to know who or what other people are attracted to. I am living a happier life in ignorance of what other posters last had an orgasm from.  So when someone rolls up and announces their various fetishes in public and how they're proud of them, I automatically dislike that person. The people who are just living their lives and doing their thing in private, more power to em as long as whatever floats their boat is involving consenting adults.

That is how I simultaneously hold the positions of "we should let gay people get married" and "we should not let gay people roll down the street on a rainbow float with twelve year old boys in dresses twerking on them".  I also would not want Quentin Tarantino to roll down the street on a giant foot shaped float while doing a song and dance about making actresses let him lick their feet. Keep that shit to yourself.

I totally agree. I have all kinds of friends, so tolerance with possible acceptance and friendship are not a problem. Mind you, for some reason, they keep this stuff to themselves. It's almost like they don't build their whole identity around their sexual preferences. Tolerance land is boring as it ought to be.

[jhkim]

I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned.

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

[GeekyBugle]

I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned.

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

Yeah, it's why you see straight men starting conversations like this: "As a straight man", and claiming that everything else revolves around their sex and sexuality.

No Jhkim, governments listing your sex in your documents is for legal reasons, to know who not to search if you commit a crime. Would you claim that since your identification has a photo that means you're a narcissist?

Stop being disingenuous, only the alphabet soup people (which doesn't include all the gays, lesbians, bisexuals or even trans) think their sexuality or "gender" identity (something exclusive to the group) is a central part of their personality, so much so they have to constantly speak about it and put pronouns in their bios.

You're intentionally conflating identity as in the legal concept with identity as with who someone is in their own mind.

You're a gamer, does that define your whole concept of self? I bet not.

But for the pronoun wearers their sexuality, "gender" does define their whole concept of self. Same for the racial identitarians.

Now try again but without the disingenuousness.

[rytrasmi]

No Jhkim, governments listing your sex in your documents is for legal reasons, to know who not to search if you commit a crime. Would you claim that since your identification has a photo that means you're a narcissist?

"Attention all units: Be on the lookout for a man, 5'-10", white and gay. Repeat: a white man, a gay man."

The alphabet people would lose their shit. LOL.

[rytrasmi]

I think the key element here is identity, because the people who I find particularly objectionable are the ones who have made their genitals and what they do with them their identity. You see a dozen flags on their account profile and they seem unable to hold any conversation without the current state of their genitals or their sex life being mentioned.

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

So what? This has nothing to do with sexual preference. Besides, the state has interest in knowing males and females. For identification purposes, as GeekyBugle says. Also for resource planning purposes. I.e., we need more OBGYNs because female population is increasing, maybe incentivize med students to become OBGYNs.

Male + Female = Baby is fundamental to the stability and prosperity of society. Sexual preference? Not really, aside from taking people out of said equation.

[Valatar]

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

That's a weakness of the word choice of "identity", when it could more accurately be stated as "lifestyle".  I think it was deliberate, too, because it implies that the speaker, when going on at length about their queer polycules, has no say in it, but it's simply an inherent part of themselves.  But if you go and buy a bunch of rainbow merch, the entire line of Bad Dragon dildos, and a custom license plate SO GHEY, at that point it's a lifestyle.

So yes, let us reframe things accurately as lifestyle.  My sex is obviously part of my overall identity, but it is not my lifestyle.  You don't see me coming in with a big sex symbol for my user avatar, I don't have my sexual preferences lined up in a post signature in convenient flag form, I have never mentioned my pronouns.  Nor have I driven up to the local middle school with a bus full of strippers so they can dance around in front of the kids to "teach and celebrate my identity".

The documentary Trekkies covered one woman who went around to her day job in Starfleet uniform, like every day.  I consider this to be the equivalent of that; somebody taking what should be a personal matter and mashing it in the faces of everyone who has the misfortune of encountering them.

[Brad]

Making gender a part of identity isn't a new idea from LGBT culture, though. It's a core part of traditional culture. It's encoded in the English language, making it hard to even talk about someone without knowing their gender. Gender is marked on one's ID card, and is required on many legal forms. Schools and companies will have different dress codes for male and female. Gender is usually encoded in name and title, and women change based on marital status. There was pushback against this by feminists in the 1960s, but that push largely failed.

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

You say all this crap but forget a key component: it's pretty obvious there are differences between boys and girls. When you see a man who claims he's a woman, THAT is where the root of all this stupidity arises. Claiming normal people are someone oppressing a man because they call him sir when he's CLEARLY a woman!!!! is called "mental illness". Are you too much of a dope to realize the only people causing all these issues are in fact the trannies? Labeling normal people "CIS" or whatever the fuck terms they say is a perfect example. Creating bullshit terms because they want to normalize something that is clearly abnormal.

[Ghostmaker]

This starts from birth. If a stranger or acquaintance sees a baby, the first question they have is whether it is a boy or girl. If they aren't told, they are instantly frustrated and have trouble saying anything about the baby, and will often get angry. People want to know even before a baby is born.

Does the MIB agency know you're from another planet? Who the fuck does this?