Social Network Blog - g3

The overarching theme of this week’s readings is of tie strength and its effect on networking. Overall, I gathered that the strength of a tie is determined by the amount of energy and connectivity there is between two individuals. When one is intimately tied to an individual, in that they share a lot of common interests and supply ample amount of time with the other individual, they are then able to relate emotionally and confide in one another within this strong tie. However, in situations of weak ties, acquaintances are connected with one another based on common interests, shared experiences, but overall are not close friends. The strong ties networks are close-knit but small, while weak tie networks are loose but can be quite expansive, often spanning over various social groups. Within both of these types of social groups are many advantages and disadvantages that the articles expose.

Miller McPherson et. al. study the diminishment of strong ties in American society in the past two decades in the article “Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades”. Overall, this study compared the US social system of ego-networks from the GSS (General Social Survey) from 1985 with 2004. The main point of the study found that there was a decline in individual’s strong tie networks. Using the central question of “How many people do you discuss important matters with?” the researchers found that the network size dropped a third. The average number of people that the subjects confided in during 1985 was 2.94, compared with 2.08 from 2004. Whereas in 1985, the greatest proportion of individuals had confided in 3 people (20.3%), with only 10% confiding in no one, in 2004, the greatest proportion were confiding in no one (24.6%) and 16.9% sharing in 3 others. Also, almost half the individuals were confiding in no one or only one other person in 2004. These facts prove to be quite disconcerting and I have to ask why people sharing important conversations with less people.

There was, however, an increase in the proportion who confide in their spouses or partners, 38.1% in 2004 versus 30.1% in 1985. My original thoughts were that people began to share their most important conversations with their most intimate relationships and saw no desire to seek additional people with which to converse. However, on page 17, McPherson states that more highly educated, younger, currently married people are less likely to be social isolates. Therefore, I believe that the factor of marriage is one element to sharing, meaning that a person who fits these factors, will have at least one person that they will confide in, meaning they are not entirely isolated. But once people include more factors of greater education levels and age, they may expand to have more relationships because they have more ties to other groups, but still may seek their spouses for most of the conversations. Also, although there may be less likelihood when people fit all of these factors, people with the highest level of education in 1985 still had the greater number of discussion partners compared to 2004, five as opposed to three. What I found particularly interesting was that based on the graph in Figure 1, there appeared to be a more exponential slope for non-kin discussion partners dependent on education level for both 1985 and 2004. I think that this is caused by the broadening of social networks after experiences shared in various levels of education. 1. Are there any specific studies that focus on the topic of having shared significant number of experiences in college cause ties to become tighter or are we purposefully seeking these experiences because we already have close ties with people (i.e. Is course selection determine more by wanting to be in the same class as another person? Or are these people inevitably going to be friends because they have the same experiences, and in turn have the same interests?)

Also, McPherson states that strong ties “contact those whom they have close core networks with [and] those that have many types of relationships”. Thus, to upkeep strong ties, we must expend a great amount of energy and time, with the busier lifestyles and limited resources individuals have now compared with 2004, we are unable to have a great amount of strong ties. We can only focus on sharing with less key individuals who share many relationships and networks with (i.e. a fellow student who is also your best friend, housemate, and teammate). This overlapping of networks will be discussed later in this blog. Furthermore, the researchers themselves stated that in being true to the original study questions, they did not alter the questions properly to fit the 2004 population. Perhaps subjects did not consider conversing over instant message, email, and telephone as being true conversations. 2. What other new advancements in the 21st century could account for discrepancies in the numbers of confidants? Can we include conversations via facebook and myspace? What about posting your important issue for feedback on a website or blog?

The article “The Strength of Weak Ties” by Mark S. Granovetter focused on weak ties and how they expand the overall networks of individuals. He states that “the strength of a tie is a (probably linear) combination of the amount of time, the emotional intensity, the intimacy (mutual confiding) and the reciprocal services which categorize the tie” with “each of these [being] somewhat independent of others.” The past article focused mainly on the declining number of strong ties. This definition further explains why a decrease in the number of resources we have available now compared to two decades ago would not allow use to fill these listed factors of tie strength. Thus, because of our limited amounts of resources we are able to create a greater number of weak ties. However, although we may have less instrumental, social, and emotional benefits of strong ties that would be more likely to help in crisis, we do have a more expansive network from we can draw “resources”.

A major argument made by Granovetter is that weak ties can create local bridges between networks of strong ties. So a group of four closely knit friends all offer each a great amount of trust and support. One individual has an acquaintance in another network of strong ties that also have their trust in one another. Although, the one persons’ tie with another network may not be as tight as with his or her own group, being acquainted allows a level of communication and some trust. Perhaps, word of a job will spread and trust will be given to a friend of a friend. Or in a more business related example, a trend will be spread through the groups “over the bridge” thus propelling a chain reaction from an “innovator” social group to the more main stream “early adopter,” terms central to the marketing world. “People with many weak ties are… best placed to diffuse such a difficult innovation, since some of these ties will be local bridges” (1367). My take on this is that Granovetter argues that to spread information, it is best to have many weak ties and you are open to a greater world. 1. Which is better, to have a small, exclusive network of close individuals who will support you in times of trouble or be exposed to more of the world and the various networks available? 2. Do certain careers drive individuals to compromise one tie network for another? (i.e. public relations being based more on weak ties.)

“The Social Structure of Competition” by Ronald S. Burt focuses on the topic of competition and how the capital of social structure is a leading factor to the success of individuals, “social capital is first arbiter of competitive success”. Overall, the greater social capital a person has the more power they can impose to gain their desires. Social capital is the relationship people have with other individuals via network with others to gain resources (as mentioned earlier in my blog) and having a proper structure so that one may gleam important resources at the appropriate times. Burt mentions that timing and proper networks are key to success in competition. If you know the proper people who wield certain powers, they can connect you what you desire.” Personal contacts get your name mentioned at the right time and the right place sot aht opportunities are prestned to you” (71). Thus, when you are in contact with these key players you are offered considerable opportunities. What is even better is to be in the scenario of Tertius Gaudens , in which between two fighters, the third (the middle) benefits. The Tertius Gaudens is a type of local bridge that an individual is placed in the middle of negotiations. For example, you are being offered jobs from two employers, they must negotiate to win your contract. Thus it is very beneficial to have many networks you can bridge into, so that you may be offered many opportunities. 1. However, are there detrimental scenarios when you are caught in the middle of a fight for you? Can you end up being a loser because being in both groups contradicts your image? 2. “Social capital is first arbiter of competitive success”, this statement refers to the pursuit success, but can there be any means for success without the foundation capitals of financial, human, and the unmentioned, cultural? Are these foundations?