It talks about some of the interesting characteristics of groups (in particular online communities), such as how essentially groups need some kind of government, otherwise they’ll spend all of their time talking about “enemies” or sex or how awesome their values/heroes/etc. are, and virtually no time actually pursuing whatever the group was created for. The article was written in 2003 in reference to online communities, but the points are timeless and extend beyond online groups.

It also got me thinking about online social networks and different ideas to build better-quality conversations intrinsically into a network.

For example, you can go with two numbers that seem to come up a lot: 2, 8 and 150.

Two is an obvious number: the best, most intimate conversations happen one-on-one. When you want to get to know someone, you have an intimate dinner, just the two of you. And most online social media reflects this, from Facebook “friends” to text messaging and the way people use email most of the time. The Extreme Programming methology advocated the use of paired programming to take advantage of the power of “dyads.” Two is the ideal number for getting things done.

Eight is the number that In Search of Excellence quotes as being the ideal size of an ad hoc, task force or skunkworks style group–or essentially any productive group.  Five to ten people is a good range–beyond that, you start having to manage people so much that the quality of work and communication drastically decreases. An eight-person group is big enough to combine different skill sets and ideas without getting bogged down. (Interestingly, I’ve noticed that most swing and salsa dance troupes are composed of 5-8 couples, combining both the number 2 and the number 8). Eight is the ideal number for a group project.

Finally, the tribal number: 150. This number has been quoted in numerous places. The Tipping Point refers to it as the “Magic Number” and quotes religious groups, business leaders and evolutionary biologists all coming to the same conclusion: our brains aren’t designed to understand the interactions of groups larger than 150 people. And 150 is bigger than you might think, because it’s not just about remember 150 names and faces (we can handle much more than that). The hard part is keeping track of the relationships between all of those people, from the fact that Johnny likes Lisa but won’t acknowledge it because she’s a Republican, to the differences in how two sub-groups of friends feel about Myspace vs. Facebook.

We see the stress-tests of many social networks right now. Facebook users often have hundreds of “friends” that they barely know, which means being inundated with party invitations from halfway around the world and annoying “which of your friends is the hottest pirate?” applications. Many Twitter users “follow” vastly more people than they can actually read, which means that the conversational nature of Twitter disappears (something that Twitter clients all try to fix).

The problem? When our social networks spiral into uncontrollable hugeness, the whole two-way interactivity of social media is stifled, and in time the network itself will die if the technology doesn’t adapt to fix it. Facebook has been trying to tweak its interface to reflect this need for users to see exactly enough information to keep them interacting with their friends, but not so much that the site is useless.

One of the keys to social groups is that they need structure. Ad hoc groups aren’t really unstructured, they’re just free to evolve a new structure that fits their needs. All groups either evolve structure or die, and the best social media networks are the ones that evolved the best structures for interactions.

Why not take the three magic numbers and put them to good use?

Two (1:1) – Actually Facebook does a great job of this. You have 1:1 friendships, Facebook messages (which don’t have to be 1:1 but usually are), and even the Wall-to-Wall feature that helps to isolate two sets of broadcasted messages into one conversation. Brilliant.

Eight – This is the first number that is under-exploited. What about a social network where certain types of groups were limited to just 8 people? It seems like an annoying restriction, but then look at Twitter’s success in limiting posts to 140 chars.

150 – Here’s a radical thought: what if you were limited to a maximum of 150 “friends” in your social network? Or what if certain groups or networks were limited to 150 people?

We love to hate restrictions, but from Haiku to Delta blues, sometimes there’s great beauty in simplicity.

There’s no doubt that great conversationalists are usually born with the gift of the gab, but there’s a lot you can learn from great talkers.

Start with a smile. Learning how to look at someone warmly is the most important part of schmoozing. We’re not talking about fake smiles, either. It’s about letting warmth and happiness radiate from you so that people naturally just want to bask in your glow. You can learn to smile warmly at will.

When I had my first serious job interviews, I trained myself to react to pressure by smiling. I’d imagine myself feeling nervous in front of an interviewer and I forced myself to smile broadly and warmly. By the time I got to the interviews, sure enough, it worked. The more nervous I got, the bigger my smile got, and by smiling I relaxed. Many of the interviewers commented on how easy-going and friendly I seemed. If only they knew why!

Schmoozing is about learning who people really are. Ultimately you’re trying to learn about the person behind the face, name and job title. That’s how you build a connection with a person.

So how do you do it? First, don’t let common myths about schmoozing stop you from being a great conversationalist.

THE MYTHS

1. You need a great opening. The only opening you ever need is “hi!” with a big smile. Your attitude says much more to a stranger than the specific words.
2. You have to remember everyone’s name. Some of the best conversationalists I know are lousy at remembering names. It’s good to keep track of people, but more important is the way you treat them. A warm smile and “hey, I can’t believe I’ve forgotten your name!” can be just fine. More important than their name is who they are.
3. I have nothing to say. This might be true. If you’re not a great schmoozer, you probably don’t know what to say. The best idea is to learn more about the people you’re talking with. So prepare a list of things that you should seek to find out, such as:
   • Name – Obviously.
   • Job – What do they do? Do they love or hate their job? What would they rather be doing?
   • Hobbies – Eg. “Harry, I imagine you don’t get a lot of time away from your law practice, but what do you do to relax?”
   • Opinions – What systems or languages does the programmer like? How does the investor feel about technical analysis versus value investing? What does the Yoga instructor think of Pilates or the Alexander Method?
   • Advice – Often people love to give advice related to their area of expertise.
4. Never discuss politics or religion. Simply wrong. You won’t get people talking if you stick to the weather, and you won’t learn who they are until they reveal what they care about.
5. Let them do all the talking. It depends. The key is being truly interested in the people around you and in what they say. One on one, you can often learn a lot by just listening. At the same time, by talking and opening up to the other person, you make them more comfortable opening up to you. And at larger gatherings, the key is to connect with what people are saying. Don’t compete for air time. The best way to enter the conversation is to reference what someone else has said, since by recognizing their contribution to the conversation you make them interested in what you have to say and demonstrate that you’re not just barging in.
6. Don’t prepare, just act naturally. That works for experienced schmoozers whose lifetime of schmoozing serves as preparation, but if schmoozing came naturally you wouldn’t need this list, right? You give yourself an advantage if you prepare for situations in advance. Find out who’s coming to a party or event and Google them or ask around. Going to a gardening conference? Pick up a horticultural magazine. Prepare a list of people you’d like to meet and things you’d like to ask them.

How do I break into a group of people talking?

Sometimes it can work to simply stand or sit down beside the others and start listening. However I’ve found it even more effective to create segues. You’re walking by a group and overhear something. “Hey, did you just say that Windows Vista had a better interface than MacOS X?” “Did you say you’d seen the new Tom Hanks movie? Is it good?” As I’ve said before, more important than the words is the way you say them. If your smile is good enough, you can use just about any segue, even a fake one:

You: “Hey, did you just say you’d installed Linux on your kid’s computer?”

Guy: “Uh, no…”

You: “Oh really? I could have sworn I heard ‘Linux’!”

Guy: “Haha, actually I said I was reading limericks to my daughter before bedtime.”

You: “That’s great that you’re reading to your daughter. They say that reading to your children greatly increases their interest in reading later on. Have you ever read her The Giving Tree?”

Guy: “Yeah, that’s a great one!”

You can try your segue, and see how the group reacts. If you seem to have interrupted a private conversation, just move on and harass someone else at the party. Eventually you’ll find someone desperate enough to talk to you.

Just kidding.

Speaking of which, that’s the other most important thing. Along with your non-fake smile, try to take it easy and laugh a lot. Either people will like talking to you because you’re fun, or at least you’ll be able to laugh at their lack of interest in what you have to say. (Cretins.)