In a forthcoming article, two American psychology professors shed light on what they call the “dinner party problem”, the dinner problem. According to them, we would be unable to conduct a discussion with 4 or more people at the same time.
Have you ever noticed that when you were at a table with more than four friends, it was very difficult for you to have a smooth conversation with all of them at the same time? There is an English term to speak of this phenomenon: the “dinner party problem”. Literally, the dinner problem.
To think that it is almost impossible to discuss head-on with more than 4 people is neither trivial nor superficial. Psychologists have even taken a close interest in this phenomenon.
In an article to be published in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior, marked by Quartz and Slate.fr, Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Oklahoma Jaimie Krems and evolutionary psychologist Robin Dunbar ask the question: why do we manage to discuss so clearly with two, three people when beyond four guests, the conversation splits into small groups of two or three?
A schema linked to cognitive constraints
The answer given by specialists is simple: our brains simply haven’t evolved to handle a conversation with more than four people. This “evolution of human cognitive constraints” would explain why a person “would only be able to manage three other minds at a time, hence the four-way conversations”.
These cognitive constraints, however, did not come badly: the researchers thus advance that being unable to converse with more than 4 interlocutors is the means which our brain found not to be “exceeded by the number” and to make heard its point. of view.
In social psychology, pairs (or “dyads” in research language) are indeed essential components of a society. Quartz gives the example of a conversation between four friends: you, Chris, Pat and Taylor. “In a four-person conversation, there are six pairs of people who can talk to each other at the same time: you and Chris, you and Pat, you and Taylor, Chris and Pat, Chris and Taylor, and Pat and Taylor. three pairs you’re in and three pairs you’re not. Essentially, so you have a role to play in half of the possible conversations that might take place in that group, “notes Quartz.
But if there are five people in the conversation, it gets complicated: there are ten possible pairs and the majority (six people) do not include you.
A question of survival
For the researchers, therefore, not being able to converse with more than three people at the same time is not a cognitive bias: on the contrary, it is the way our brain has found not to be excluded from social interactions.
Because not being excluded from the group and thus being able to make your point of view heard has long been a question of survival, say the two psychologists. Particularly at the beginning of human history, when it came to making important decisions related to the survival of the species: where to build a shelter, where to hunt … Your position has a better chance. to win if you are able to convince at least half of the group. You also have a better chance of being able to steer clear of any exclusions.
“Just as we could have avoided death by avoiding being individually outnumbered in the interactions between groups, we could perhaps have avoided social condemnation and / or exclusion by avoiding being numerically overwhelmed in the interactions interns “, conclude Pr Krems and Dunbar.
.
