Abstract:The social brain hypothesis, and its use to predict a natural grouping size for humans (Dunbar's Number), was established empirically thirty years ago (Dunbar Citation 1992 , Citation 1993 , Citation 1998 ). Over the decades since, we have established that: (1) there exists an extremely robust statistical relationship between the typical size of a species' social group and the size of its neocortex, derivative of selection for specialised cognition required for group-living in primates, ungulates, carnivores, bats, cetaceans, and birds (Pérez-Barbería et al. Citation 2007 ; Shultz and Dunbar Citation 2007 , Citation 2010a , Citation 2010b , Citation 2022 ; Dunbar and Shultz Citation 2017 , Citation 2021 ; Fox et al. Citation 2017 ), (2) this relationship actually consists of a set of four grades arranged in a fractal series that explains the multilevel structure of primate (and human) social systems (Zhou et al. Citation 2005 ; Hill et al. Citation 2008 ; Sutcliffe et al. Citation 2012 ; Dunbar and Shultz Citation 2021 ), (3) the grades differ in group size, brain size, social complexity, cognitive competences, and ecological context (Dunbar and Shultz Citation 2021 ; Dunbar Citation 2024 ), (4) the core group size of ∼150 for modern humans predicted by the regression equation for the social brain relationship (Dunbar and Shultz Citation 2023 ) has been confirmed by 23 studies of personal social networks and ethnographic communities (median sample size 5457 individuals, largest sample 61 million) from a wide range of cultures and historical periods over the last 2000 years (Dunbar Citation 2020 ), (5) this grouping is nested within a fractal series of network layers (a Dunbar Graph) with very specific values (1.5, 5, 15, 50, 150, 500, 1500, 5000) that we find in the face-to-face world (Bird et al. Citation 2019 ; Dunbar Citation 2020 ; Wang et al. Citation 2020 ), on digital social media (telephone calling, texting, Facebook and twitter) (Arnaboldi et al. Citation 2015 ; Dunbar et al. Citation 2015 ; MacCarron et al. Citation 2016 ) and even online multiplayer game environments (Fuchs et al. Citation 2014 ), (6) this fractal series forms a set of 'attractors' in the form of criticalities (or optima) in the efficiency of information flow in networks (though we don't understand why) (West et al. Citation 2020 , Citation 2023 ), (7) these same numbers reappear in both the distribution and their internal structure of primate, carnivore and cetacean social groups (Hill et al. Citation 2008 ; Dunbar and Shultz Citation 2021 ; Dunbar Citation 2024 ), (8) at least in humans, the fractal structure is the product of a trade-off between the time cost -Abstract Truncated-

A Quantitative Model Of Social Group Sizes From The Dynamics of Trust

Intelligence of small groups

A Promise Theory Perspective on the Role of Intent in Group Dynamics

The social brain hypothesis – thirty years on

Trust levels in social networks

Stability in social networks

Trust in society: A stochastic compartmental model

Discrete Hierarchical Organization of Social Group Sizes

Causal evidence for social group sizes from Wikipedia editing data

Validation of Dunbar's number in Twitter conversations

When Do People Trust Their Social Groups?

Emergence of Scale-Free Close-Knit Friendship Structure in Online Social Networks

Stochastic Evolutionary Dynamics of Trust Games with Asymmetric Parameters

Trust based attachment

Cognitive resource allocation determines the organization of personal networks

Structural and Cognitive Mechanisms of Group Cohesion in Primates

Measuring Trust in Online Social Networks.

Massive Case Study of Opinion Distribution in a Relationship with Mixed Trust and Distrust

Social cognition on the Internet: testing constraints on social network size