@SleepySteve
Every time people boast of this stuff, I keep asking myself, “can’t the human brain only manage 150 relationships at one time?”
No, Dunbar’s Number is simply put a “suggestion” without any firm evidence, only weak correlation. Further research has greatly damaged the veracity of it as a superior subject. But writing a pulp psychology or business self help book saying, “humans have the cognitive ability to have as many as 6-789 relationships” is incredibly poor stylistic form and already takes incredibly weak premises for junk books and just makes them as useless as pulp marketing guide.
Human “network” sizes have only in the last been limited on food availability really. Hunter-gatherers only stick with a relatively small handful of people because that’s as many humans as can exist in a single space without making it super difficult for any single one of them to survive. But the size of that group can change if the human group switches to farming and the ability of the human group to grow larger becomes dependent on their ability to scale agricultural production or develop agricultural production (so less and less humans need to do it, or statistically none of them can do it as is practically the case today).
Dunbar’s Number thus ends up being a useless and statistically invalid description of a handful of specific apes across three species living in particularly special circumstances.
Also putting aside the wild ape brain handles information a lot different than the human brain. Which with writing we can augment our ability to remember making it even more moot.