作為一款國民級應用，微信體量龐大。
紐約時報科技專欄作家Li Yuan在談到她的工作狀態時撰文稱：
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.
說我工作和生活都在微信上，一點也不為過。這款應用等同於WhatsApp加上Facebook加上Paypal再加上Uber，還有很多其他功能。
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.
從我手機電池的用量數據來看，每天使用手機的9小時裡，有三分之一花在微信上。這還不包括我用微信網頁版的2-3個小時。
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.
而且我這種重度用戶還不少。中國有8.29億網民，但微信註冊帳號有10多億。幾乎每個中國人都有至少一個帳號，有些人還不止一個。
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.
他們當中有三分之一的人每天使用微信超過4個小時。微信的流行程度已經讓它成為許多人生活和工作不可或缺的一部分。兩年前，我認識了兩個拒絕用微信的人，然後我就想圍繞他們寫篇文章，看看他們沒有微信是怎麼生活和工作的。但我還沒開始寫，他們倆就加了我微信。
工作重心在社交軟體上的人通常都有超越常人的聯繫人數量，包括但不限於媒體從業者、公共關係、市場、銷售、乃至微商以及被很多家長加了微信的班主任們。
微信好友上千，朋友圈數十個分組（雖然很多基本不用）都漸漸成為常態。
有人不僅會發問：
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?
很明顯，單純用人緣好或者性格外向來解釋微信好友多，既不準確也不重要。不過我就想問這麼多好友是怎麼加起來的？這些人就隨便見到一個加一個嗎（或者乾脆沒見過面的也加）？他們經常旅遊嗎？他們怎麼管理這麼多人呢？
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.
或許我們在線上社交網絡中可以有5000個好友，但是科學家們發現，人類大腦最多只能夠管理150個朋友。
Oxford University Professor Robin Dunbar has conducted a study of social groupings throughout the centuries, from neo-lithic villages to modern office environments.
牛津大學教授羅賓·鄧巴針對若干個世紀以來的社會群組進行了研究，研究對象從新石器時代的村落一直延伸到現代辦公室。
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.
他的研究結果基於他1990年代的理論「鄧巴數字」。該理論認為，大腦內負責有意識思想與語言的區域——新皮質（大腦皮層的背面）的大小限制了我們，就算我們再愛社交，也只能管理150個朋友。他將「能維持住的」朋友定義為那些你給予關心而且每年至少聯繫一次的朋友。
距離牛津大學羅賓·鄧巴教授的研究結果問世已經過去了二十多年，有人懷疑，社交媒體的湧現，可能會改變Dunbar教授聲稱的「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?
過去幾年裡，有一類討論很活躍，說Facebook，Twitter以及其他社交網絡的興起是否讓社交變得很簡單，以至於「鄧巴數字」需要修改一下了。現在社交達人們通常都有超過1000個好友，這麼看來，「鄧巴數字」難道不應該相應提升一下嗎？
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的數據科學家們也參與了進來。他們對任意兩個人之間需要多少個「朋友的朋友的朋友」才能夠聯結上進行了分析。過往大家篤信的理論是「六度區隔」（你和任意一個陌生人之間只需要6步，也就是5個人就能聯繫上），但Facebook研究員Lars Backstrom表示這個理論可能不再適用了。
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，他們先是從同一國家任意的兩個人著手研究，結果顯示兩人之間平均只需要跳3步就能聯繫上對方。跳出國界——比方說從澳大利亞和挪威隨機選兩人——結果顯示平均也只需要跳4.74步（不到4個人）。
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，鄧巴教授卻並未改變觀點。在《科技評論》的一個採訪中他直言，那些「好友」都不能真正算作「朋友」。他表示：「Facebook把這些人都稱作『朋友』，模糊了界限，但事實上，這些人不能算數」。
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.
鄧巴教授稱，我們說自己有超過150個聯繫人的時候，我們其實是把一些雜七雜八的社會交往也算進去了。其中有一種就是點頭之交，另一種就是只是能認出臉的交情。按照鄧巴教授的標準來算，我們大多數人有著500個左右的點頭之交，1500個左右的「認臉之交」。
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.
社交媒體時代，記錄「鄧巴數字」的學術研究並不多。但是有兩個Twitter上的研究顯示，150這個數字可能仍然是一個可信的標準。有一個挺搞笑的測試是《連線》雜誌作者Rick Lax做的，他聯繫了自己的1000個Facebook好友，看看有多少人能夠和他進行有意義的交流。
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後來苦笑著說，很多他所謂的好友要麼說根本不知道他是誰，要不就是這些好友變化太大，以至於Lax自己都不知道他們是誰了。Lax寫道：「本來我是想證偽鄧巴數字的理論，哪知道最後證明了它。」
打開微信聯繫人列表，拉到底，估計你的數字也超過了鄧巴教授的研究結論。
那麼，擁有動輒數千個聯繫人的感受是什麼樣的呢？
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.
我還是學生的時候有2000+ Facebook好友，因為我參加了很多學生組織（有一個我本專業的，一個校內的，還有一個國家級學生組織）。全國各地這樣的學生接觸多了，這種「朋友」就慢慢多起來了。
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.
這些朋友有時候是通過正式的學生組織集會認識的，有時候是一起玩，到處開派對的時候認識的。我真的是把Facebook當作交際工具在用，裡面有我們國家所有大學的學生。他們會找我幫忙給建議什麼的，當然我也會找他們。
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.
不過我已經退圈5年了，從那以後，我每年都會審一遍我的聯繫人列表，每年都會刪掉很多人。現在我的好友數只有300不到，而且這個數字下次審的時候應該還會下降。
——MoredhelEUW
I have 2100 or so as of now. I think I only chat 100 of them.
我現在有2100個左右的好友，我覺得我只跟裡面的100個人聊天。
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.
高中的時候，我加入了5個社團。我還打高爾夫，所以參加資金籌集會或者比賽的時候，我就會和其他45支隊伍一起，裡面很多人後來都加了我Facebook.接著我又在酒吧或者派對上加了這些朋友的朋友，不知不覺我就有2000好友了。
——TheHeintzel
Notes
equivalent /kwvlnt/ n相等的東西
prevalence /』prevlns/ n流行：盛行的狀況
indispensable /ndspensbl/ adj不可或缺的；必不可少的
bulk /blk/ n大（體積）；大（量）
neo-lithic /nilθk/ adj新石器時代的
calibrate /klbret/ v標定；校準
budge /bd/ v（使）改變主意，改變觀點
muddy /mdi/ v使混亂；迷惑
pad /pd/ v填充；覆蓋
主播：拉麵
編輯：李雪晴
Source: DailyMail, New York Times, Reddit, Forbes
來源：中國日報雙語新聞微信