作为一款国民级应用，微信体量庞大。
纽约时报科技专栏作家Li Yuan在谈到她的工作状态时撰文称：
It’s not an exaggeration to say I live in and work on WeChat, the messaging app that’s the equivalent of WhatsApp plus Facebook plus Paypal plus Uber plus many other things.
说我工作和生活都在微信上，一点也不为过。这款应用等同于WhatsApp加上Facebook加上Paypal再加上Uber，还有很多其他功能。
As my iPhone battery use record shows, I spend about one-third of my daily nine-hour phone time on WeChat. That doesn’t include the two to three hours I use WeChat’s web version.
从我手机电池的用量数据来看，每天使用手机的9小时里，有三分之一花在微信上。这还不包括我用微信网页版的2-3个小时。
And I’m not alone in my heavy WeChat use. There are 829 million internet users in China, but over one billion WeChat accounts. Just about every Chinese online has at least one account, and some more than one.
而且我这种重度用户还不少。中国有8.29亿网民，但微信注册账号有10多亿。几乎每个中国人都有至少一个账号，有些人还不止一个。
Over one-third of them spend four hours or more on the app each day. The prevalence has made WeChat an indispensable part of many people’s lives and work. Two years ago, I met two people who refused to use WeChat, and I thought about writing a story about how people like them navigated work and life. Before I got around to it, both became my WeChat friends.
他们当中有三分之一的人每天使用微信超过4个小时。微信的流行程度已经让它成为许多人生活和工作不可或缺的一部分。两年前，我认识了两个拒绝用微信的人，然后我就想围绕他们写篇文章，看看他们没有微信是怎么生活和工作的。但我还没开始写，他们俩就加了我微信。
工作重心在社交软件上的人通常都有超越常人的联系人数量，包括但不限于媒体从业者、公共关系、市场、销售、乃至微商以及被很多家长加了微信的班主任们。
微信好友上千，朋友圈数十个分组（虽然很多基本不用）都渐渐成为常态。
有人不仅会发问：
Obviously, it's not important and isn't really an accurate representation of either popularity or an outgoing personality, but seriously how do people reach these crazy levels? Do they simply add everyone they meet (or people who they've never met)? Do they travel a lot? How are they going to manage the bulk?
很明显，单纯用人缘好或者性格外向来解释微信好友多，既不准确也不重要。不过我就想问这么多好友是怎么加起来的？这些人就随便见到一个加一个吗（或者干脆没见过面的也加）？他们经常旅游吗？他们怎么管理这么多人呢？
While we may be able to count 5,000 friends on the online social networking site, scientists have shown that human brains are capable of managing a maximum of just 150 friendships.
或许我们在线上社交网络中可以有5000个好友，但是科学家们发现，人类大脑最多只能够管理150个朋友。
Oxford University Professor Robin Dunbar has conducted a study of social groupings throughout the centuries, from neo-lithic villages to modern office environments.
牛津大学教授罗宾·邓巴针对若干个世纪以来的社会群组进行了研究，研究对象从新石器时代的村落一直延伸到现代办公室。
His findings, based on his theory 'Dunbar's number', developed in the 1990s, asserts that size of the part of the brain used for conscious thought and language, the neocortex, limits us to managing 150 friends, no matter how sociable we are. And he defined 'maintained' friends as those you care about and contact at least once a year.
他的研究结果基于他1990年代的理论“邓巴数字”。该理论认为，大脑内负责有意识思想与语言的区域——新皮质（大脑皮层的背面）的大小限制了我们，就算我们再爱社交，也只能管理150个朋友。他将“能维持住的”朋友定义为那些你给予关心而且每年至少联系一次的朋友。
距离牛津大学罗宾·邓巴教授的研究结果问世已经过去了二十多年，有人怀疑，社交媒体的涌现，可能会改变Dunbar教授声称的“150人”上限。
For the past few years, there's been a lively conversation about whether the rise of Facebook, Twitter and other social networks is making staying in touch so easy that the Dunbar number ought to be recalibrated. In a world where gregarious people routinely have 1,000 or more friends on Facebook, shouldn't the Dunbar number climb accordingly?
过去几年里，有一类讨论很活跃，说Facebook，Twitter以及其他社交网络的兴起是否让社交变得很简单，以至于“邓巴数字”需要修改一下了。现在社交达人们通常都有超过1000个好友，这么看来，“邓巴数字”难道不应该相应提升一下吗？
Facebook's own data scientists stirred the pot when they analyzed how many friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend connections it takes to link any two random members of the social network. The old aphorism about six degrees of separation may not apply any more, Facebook researcher Lars Backstrom reported.
Facebook的数据科学家们也参与了进来。他们对任意两个人之间需要多少个“朋友的朋友的朋友”才能够联结上进行了分析。过往大家笃信的理论是“六度区隔”（你和任意一个陌生人之间只需要6步，也就是5个人就能联系上），但Facebook研究员Lars Backstrom表示这个理论可能不再适用了。
Start with two random members from the same country, Backstrom reported, and they are just an average of three hops from knowing each other, Backstrom found. Let the sampling be global -- so that one might be trying to link people in Australia and Norway -- and all that's required is an average of 4.74 hops.
Backstrom表示，他们先是从同一国家任意的两个人着手研究，结果显示两人之间平均只需要跳3步就能联系上对方。跳出国界——比方说从澳大利亚和挪威随机选两人——结果显示平均也只需要跳4.74步（不到4个人）。
Professor Dunbar, however, isn't budging. In a deliciously blunt interview with Technology Review this month, he declares that all those extra "friends" don't really count as true friends. "Facebook has muddied the waters by calling them all friends, but really they are not," Dunbar declares.
然而，邓巴教授却并未改变观点。在《科技评论》的一个采访中他直言，那些“好友”都不能真正算作“朋友”。他表示：“Facebook把这些人都称作‘朋友’，模糊了界限，但事实上，这些人不能算数”。
Instead, he says, when we claim more than 150 contacts, we're padding our list with people who fit into patchier levels of social contact. The first is people with whom we have a nodding social acquaintance, and the second is nothing more than faces we recognize. By his tally, most of us have 500 of the first and 1,500 of the second.
邓巴教授称，我们说自己有超过150个联系人的时候，我们其实是把一些杂七杂八的社会交往也算进去了。其中有一种就是点头之交，另一种就是只是能认出脸的交情。按照邓巴教授的标准来算，我们大多数人有着500个左右的点头之交，1500个左右的“认脸之交”。
Academic efforts to document Dunbar numbers in the age of social media are limited, although two Twitter studies suggest that 150 may still be a plausible estimate. One of the most entertaining tests was conducted by Wired writer Rick Lax, who contacted 1,000 of his Facebook friends to see how many of them he could engage with in a meaningful way.
社交媒体时代，记录“邓巴数字”的学术研究并不多。但是有两个Twitter上的研究显示，150这个数字可能仍然是一个可信的标准。有一个挺搞笑的测试是《连线》杂志作者Rick Lax做的，他联系了自己的1000个Facebook好友，看看有多少人能够和他进行有意义的交流。
As Lax ruefully recounted, many of his supposed friends either said they had no idea who he was, or had undergone major changes in their lives that he was left with the realization that he didn't really know them well at all. "In trying to disprove Dunbar’s number," Lax wrote, "I actually proved it."
Lax后来苦笑着说，很多他所谓的好友要么说根本不知道他是谁，要不就是这些好友变化太大，以至于Lax自己都不知道他们是谁了。Lax写道：“本来我是想证伪邓巴数字的理论，哪知道最后证明了它。”
打开微信联系人列表，拉到底，估计你的数字也超过了邓巴教授的研究结论。
那么，拥有动辄数千个联系人的感受是什么样的呢？
I had 2000 "friends" on Facebook when I was a student because I was a part of a lot of student organizations (one in my field of study, one in my university, a position in a national student organization as well). Those "friends" built up over time, with student I've met all around my country.
我还是学生的时候有2000 Facebook好友，因为我参加了很多学生组织（有一个我本专业的，一个校内的，还有一个国家级学生组织）。全国各地这样的学生接触多了，这种“朋友”就慢慢多起来了。
I could have met them in a serious way with student formation etc... or in a fun way by partying all over. I was really using Facebook as a network tool containing students from all the universities in my country. They were able to reach me for help or advice, and the same was true for me too.
这些朋友有时候是通过正式的学生组织集会认识的，有时候是一起玩，到处开派对的时候认识的。我真的是把Facebook当作交际工具在用，里面有我们国家所有大学的学生。他们会找我帮忙给建议什么的，当然我也会找他们。
But I was out of this 5 years ago, and since then I've been doing yearly review of my friends list, deleting a lot of contacts each year. Now I have less than 300 "friends", and this number will decrease again in the next review.
不过我已经退圈5年了，从那以后，我每年都会审一遍我的联系人列表，每年都会删掉很多人。现在我的好友数只有300不到，而且这个数字下次审的时候应该还会下降。
——MoredhelEUW
I have 2100 or so as of now. I think I only chat 100 of them.
我现在有2100个左右的好友，我觉得我只跟里面的100个人聊天。
In high school I was in like 5 different clubs. Played golf, so between fundraisers & events & games I hung out with most of the other 45 sports teams, lots of members of which I later became Facebook friends with. Then I added in friends of those friends from parties and bars, and I was at 2000 before I knew it.
高中的时候，我加入了5个社团。我还打高尔夫，所以参加资金筹集会或者比赛的时候，我就会和其他45支队伍一起，里面很多人后来都加了我Facebook.接着我又在酒吧或者派对上加了这些朋友的朋友，不知不觉我就有2000好友了。
——TheHeintzel
Notes
equivalent /ɪˈkwɪvələnt/ n相等的东西
prevalence /’prevələns/ n流行：盛行的状况
indispensable /ɪndɪˈspensəbl/ adj不可或缺的；必不可少的
bulk /bʌlk/ n大（体积）；大（量）
neo-lithic /niːəˈlɪθɪk/ adj新石器时代的
calibrate /ˈkælɪbreɪt/ v标定；校准
budge /bʌdʒ/ v（使）改变主意，改变观点
muddy /ˈmʌdi/ v使混乱；迷惑
pad /pæd/ v填充；覆盖
主播：拉面
编辑：李雪晴
Source: DailyMail, New York Times, Reddit, Forbes
来源：中国日报双语新闻微信
