<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Writers’ Tricks and Anthropology</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/</link>
	<description>A mutual support group for SF/F Novelists</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 21:39:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Weinberger</title>
		<link>http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6414</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Weinberger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 May 2009 04:35:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6414</guid>
		<description>Interesting rule of thumb. I think I&#039;ll have to file that away with the one I learned about remembering and recognizing items in lists. It said that the optimum number is 7 (plus or minus 2). The particular context is for computer menus and such, but it seems to fit with the other rules listed here. Thanks for the tip!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Interesting rule of thumb. I think I&#8217;ll have to file that away with the one I learned about remembering and recognizing items in lists. It said that the optimum number is 7 (plus or minus 2). The particular context is for computer menus and such, but it seems to fit with the other rules listed here. Thanks for the tip!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S.C. Butler</title>
		<link>http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6413</link>
		<dc:creator>S.C. Butler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 18:47:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6413</guid>
		<description>Daemon - Interesting.  I&#039;ve never heard of there being a limit on the number of other people we can recognize as individuals.  Though lately I am losing my memory for faces.

Lydia - And I have trouble remembering even seven digits.  Cool way to make up a password system, though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Daemon &#8211; Interesting.  I&#8217;ve never heard of there being a limit on the number of other people we can recognize as individuals.  Though lately I am losing my memory for faces.</p>
<p>Lydia &#8211; And I have trouble remembering even seven digits.  Cool way to make up a password system, though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lydia Sharp</title>
		<link>http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6410</link>
		<dc:creator>Lydia Sharp</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 10:54:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6410</guid>
		<description>There are situations that require more, but as a general rule, I try not to include more than three to four people in any single conversation (in writing, that is) or else it gets confusing and frustrating. And usually, it&#039;s only two.

The largest group conversation I&#039;ve written had seven people seated at a dinner table. Only three people were fully engaged in the conversation, while the other four just popped in from time to time, or displayed an action worth noting. And even that was difficult...especially when someone said or did something that everyone else had to react to.

Something I learned in a high school psychology course was that people can only remember a sequence of ten things before their brain kicks out the first thing to replace it with another.  If you look at any of the ID codes that we use today, nothing is more than ten digits.  Phone # (10), SS# (9), DL# (8), birthday (4-6), street address (3-5).  And if you can relate it to something personal, it&#039;s even more memorable.  I used this theory to create believable passwords in my first novel.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are situations that require more, but as a general rule, I try not to include more than three to four people in any single conversation (in writing, that is) or else it gets confusing and frustrating. And usually, it&#8217;s only two.</p>
<p>The largest group conversation I&#8217;ve written had seven people seated at a dinner table. Only three people were fully engaged in the conversation, while the other four just popped in from time to time, or displayed an action worth noting. And even that was difficult&#8230;especially when someone said or did something that everyone else had to react to.</p>
<p>Something I learned in a high school psychology course was that people can only remember a sequence of ten things before their brain kicks out the first thing to replace it with another.  If you look at any of the ID codes that we use today, nothing is more than ten digits.  Phone # (10), SS# (9), DL# (8), birthday (4-6), street address (3-5).  And if you can relate it to something personal, it&#8217;s even more memorable.  I used this theory to create believable passwords in my first novel.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Daemon</title>
		<link>http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6406</link>
		<dc:creator>Daemon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 May 2009 07:49:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.sfnovelists.com/2009/05/15/writers%e2%80%99-tricks-and-anthropology/#comment-6406</guid>
		<description>I recall a very similar study that correlated brain size to the total number of individuals a given primate would recognize individually, and treat as &quot;us&quot;... that is to say the maximum size of their social group. 

As I recall it was suggested that this may be the reason that we don&#039;t even try to really interact with the vast majority of the people we meet, and deal with them as sort of abstractions, rather than dealing with every single person as an individual.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I recall a very similar study that correlated brain size to the total number of individuals a given primate would recognize individually, and treat as &#8220;us&#8221;&#8230; that is to say the maximum size of their social group. </p>
<p>As I recall it was suggested that this may be the reason that we don&#8217;t even try to really interact with the vast majority of the people we meet, and deal with them as sort of abstractions, rather than dealing with every single person as an individual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

