Social Network Blog - g41

While the importance of centrality is impossible to deny, the Freeman article raises more questions than it answers. The difficulty arises as broad generalizations about the role of centrality are made across many different types of organizations, from a steel mill to social networks. Freeman runs into to many different definitions of types of centrality to make any diffident definitions. In order to understand the article, I think it is important that we clarify what we do know. Centrality is vital, group properties and processes are dependent upon it, no matter if the centrality is based on control, independence or activity. Group efficiency, group structure and complexity of organizational tasks all contribute in some way to determining the level of centrality. Since this class is called social networks I guess we should work from there and then attempt to move to other organizations. In social networks centrality is determined by ties and network structure. I agree that a key role of centrality is in combining subunits. The unit that connects and bridges different subunits has a special role, and without it, the structure could not exist. However as social ties grow and strengthen overtime, the importance of a central node fades. For combining weak ties a central node is essential, but between strong ties centrality takes a new role, one of guidance and authority for the remaining social structure. Is centrality more important in the forming and combining of ties or maintaining ties in long term bonds?

In the Wassserman article central nodes are called “stars.” The article is in conjunction with most of Freeman’s article, in determining who is a star. Degree, closeness, betweeness, information, and rank all help to define an individual node as being the star of a social network. Both articles attempt to base their findings in a graph and again with generalizations, but centrality for specific groups is very individual and has many subtleties. One being prestige of the node also can be called status. Both articles also give an equation to determine centrality. While I believe this is useful in determining a who maybe a star, it does not specify, this particular nodes role as a star to the rest of the social structure more than it has fulfilled the criteria better than anyone else. The article continues to differentiate between the effects of centrality: total effects centrality, immediate effects centrality and meditative effects centrality. While we maybe able to determine which node has the highest level of centrality and their effects to the rest of the structure, their specific role to the other individual nodes is still yet to be as easily quantified.

Reading the previous two articles, I have been most intreged to discover a hard line generalization about the effects a central node, star, has on the remaining social network. However, I forgot to examine a possible reverse effect. The Valente article, on “do popular students smoke?” gave a hypothesis of a more give and take relationship between popular, central nodes and group trends. While peer pressure is a common notion, the pressure the leader of a group to set trends for the group is widely over looked. The article states that popular kids are more likely to smoke. These popular smokers are closely tied to gender and ethnicity, and the results prove the correlation. A stronger association between smoking and popularity exist for girls than boys, and even more so for latino girls than latino boys, but the strongest association was for non-White boys. While determining which groups are most susceptible to being influenced by popularity to smoke is important in anti smoking campaigns, is there a possible genetic, gender and ethnic characteristic, that can explain susceptibility to peer-pressure?

The Kerbs article on mapping terrorist networks based on closeness and betweeness gave a welcome shock of reality to the importance of network structure. The severity of the acts of 911 emphasis the necessity of science and factual information behind determining social structure and social leaders. A key concept that in the article that discusses in determining tie strength and leaders is trust. Trust however is extremely difficult to measure across different social networks and its own evolution as the group grows together. I have to admit I never really thought that mapping out social networks could be protecting our country, but apparently I was wrong.

.

Bryce LeFort
Assignment # 2

The status of our core discussion networks has changed over the past few decades. Putnam and basically every other author we have read, Lovin, McPherson and Brashears all agree it reflects a much larger social change. The number of close personal ties has dropped significantly from even 1985. The results of the data collected by Smith-Lovin and Putnam as well as others, suggest that the number of people an individual discusses close personal matters has dropped by a third. These results are fairly common and seem to be an accurate depiction of our current social structure. The even more significant findings are that on average 25% of respondents say they have no one to confide these personal matters. Putnam refers to these close ties as our safety net; the people that help us emotionally, mentally and physically, when we are unable to support ourselves alone. So the question becomes, what are the causes of the larger social change that has influenced our social networks? Many different explanations are relevant but the underling driving factor is the necessity for the safety net is gone. Society has changed, people are more independent, and general well being of our country has steadily increased overtime. One of the leading causes of death in our country is automotive accidents, not disease or starvation. The drop in close personal ties has dropped because there is little need for and little these ties can do for us in our current society. The important matters that create the necessity have shifted toward an economic focus. It is difficult to argue that money doesn’t drive our current society. Putnam argues that the most recent generation in that past that has supported the necessity for close personal ties was the WWII generation. Times of crisis have bonded our country and communities more than any other driving factor. Even in recent years, 911 and Katrina gave a greater necessity and exposed a lack of close personal ties. These horrible acts created a reason for people to search for the safety net that has been missing. However, these hardships are isolated incidents; on average our generation has faced fewer hardships than past generations. Individuals now have the ability to choice to be social and choice who one forms close ties with. The ability to choose close ties with the increase of easy of supporting weak or distant ties has essential allowed people to choose fewer close friends from a larger pool. Putnam and Lovin address the cyber age and its ability to connect people of greater distances more easily but Putnam says, “It won’t solve our problems, It wont bring us chicken soup.” The necessity for the chicken soup has declined with the lack of crisis a person faces, and in the rare cases of emergency the close ties within family are still as strong, if not stronger because of the lack of other strong ties. McPherson suggests that even kin close ties have declined but Lovin and Putnam are both adamant that the kin ties are the most consistent ties across generations. As a result the choices that individuals are making for the close ties have a trend to be very homophilous. The article “Birds of a Feather..” tracks the growing trend of similarity within social networks. Maybe our lack of necessity to develop strong personal ties with others has hindered our ability and as a result we choose similar people because it is easiest to develop these relationships and safest. No matter what the cause of the growing homophily in our social networks, our close ties have vastly diminished to only family and similar individuals to ourselves.

The changing times have allowed people to place more attention on weak ties than focusing on developing close ties. From an economic standpoint the lack of necessity of strong ties has made it more beneficial for an individual to expand their network through weak ties. The shift toward weak ties is discussed in both the Dunbar and McCarthy articles. There is a correlation between amount of weak ties and strong ties, and our current society is more dependent on weak ties to benefit the individual, but when the next crisis occurs we will again realize what we are missing.

In the “Birds of a Feather” article, the level of homophily is not surprising, at least not surprising for most of the ties. “Similarity breeds connection” is a fairly obvious statement. People are naturally drawn to people like themselves; it is much easier to start a tie with someone who shares similar characteristics and activities. Along those lines, it is much easier to form a close tie with a person with a person who shares similar opinions, in the article this is called value homophily. Value homophily seems somewhat counter intuitive to me. In the article it talked about a person you are most likely to share close personal information or ask advice is someone who you share value homophily, however, I would think that someone you are asking advice would offer a different opinion or a different point of view. Essential by asking someone who shares you opinions and beliefs you are asking your self for advice. The other thin that I found interesting in the article was the difference in gender. I thought it was entertaining how the article discussed how gender homophily at young ages, because I can remember when boys thought girls were gross and the opposite was true. In the mist of the obvious, the article also said that boys at this age are less homophilious in the choices based on race than girls.
Are boys genetically less racist than girls? Is this natural tendency of young boys to form ties with other races stopped by years of education and influence by society?

In the “Homophily and assimilation among sports active adolescent substance users” article, it underlines the mainly negative affects of homophily and assimilation. First, users of that age are going through an awkward phase in their lives where individuals try to shape and develop themselves. As a result it no surprise that people share more ties with people similar to themselves. Adolescents do not want friends that even if not verbally stated make choices like not to drink, smoke cigarette or marijuana, which negatively critique the choices the individual has made. The article also discusses a level of peer influence in a negative fashion.
Can’t peers affect individuals in a positive manner, such as stop substance use, equally as it does in a negative manner, or do non-users simply choose not to form ties with users? Why is there a great trend to influence users negatively?

As I began to read the “Social network size in humans” I was extremely excited about the idea of using Christmas cards as a method of determining network size. I have always marveled at the Christmas card phenomenon. I personally always felt it was a way to flaunt one’s family’s success through a family photo and short paragraph about how well the children are doing in school. However, the people who are chosen to receive a Christmas card are even more significant. In the article, it predicts a limit of a 150 maximum ties for an individual. However, I know from years of Christmas cards that my family receives far more than a 150 cards. The number of cards my family receives is obviously higher because of my two parents and my brother all have individual social networks. The article says the mean of cards sent was 153 with a wide range of closeness both distance and emotionally. I believe the exaggerated number of xmas cards we receive and send, is that this is an opportunity to communicate personally but with minimal effort to distant ties, both physical distance and emotionally. As the article dissects the level of ties that a person sends xmas cards to, I believe that very close ties, xmas cards are merely a formality. Chances are you will see a tie that close over the holidays or at least speak with them on the phone.
Do to the wide range of tie strength that chistmas cards are sent to, has your family even created more than one card to cater to the different recipients, and why?

Week 5 – Community

As we discuss communities, we must first begin by understanding what makes a community. The definition and idea of community has changed and is different to each individual. However, despite the differences, at the core a community is composed of a combination of strong ties and weak ties. According to the Wellman and Wortley’s article, “strong ties provide emotional aid, small services, and companionship.” The article focuses on six different reasons for the role different ties play in peoples lives. The different reasons are: strength, access, structural, kinship, positional resource, and similarity and dissimilarity. These all help to create support, the purpose of ties. The article explores how different close ties are provide different kinds of support, for example intimate kin ties provide financial support.

However, Fischer explores if the setting effects type of ties and community by extension. He believes that there are two types of relations, traditional which are composed of relatives, neighbors, and fellow members of religious organizations. He comments about how our community has been “destroyed” by urbanism, creating a new type of relations, with co-workers, fellow members of secular organizations, just friends and others, called modern relations. In urban areas, the idea of community is greatly different than traditional. However, Fischer says that it is neither version of community is better or worse just different. People in urban areas are able to choose who they which to share close ties to. In cities more choice is available and people are more likely to form close ties with people similar to themselves, and less likely to be dependent on traditional relationships.

Bott explores the survival of traditional relationship, namely kin in an urban environment. She claims there is a close correlation with network connection and role segregation within married couples. Bott hypothesis that couples with more connected networks have a more conjugal role segregation. The reason being that both of these people enter the relationship with very well formed social networks which support the individual, thus the person maintains their personality and has less tendency to conform and unite with their spouse.

The main theme through out all the readings is support, the type of ties has changed as community has changed. Community has changed due to urbanization, but neither is better. Different people desire different types of ties and all are supportive and extremely necessary.

TIE Strength

I feel that the common bond between all of the readings we have done so far, is an attack on our current community and social bonds. The Mark Granovetter article emphasis a fairly drastic decrease in the number of people we discuss personal matters, in both kin and non-kin stats now versus in past generations. While these numbers that Granovetter focuses on do prove, despite flaws in the testing, a social change in the core network structures, it fails to answer the bigger question, is this a worse situation than in past generations. Granovetter uses the term “close ties” loosely, and through the period of the 19 years between surveys the definition and necessity of close ties has changed. The numbers emphasis a shift toward much more closely, compact group of personal confidants. The necessity has changed people aren’t dependent on each other for simple everyday survival, and as a result the connection that suffered the most is neighborly bonds. The question then becomes how are these groups of personal confidants more interconnected if they are not bond by proximity. It has become much easier to stay connected to people at great distances and location no longer becomes a limiting factor. Due to this easy of transportation and communication people are not forced to branch out and search for local connections. The numbers of conifidants that people posess decrease accordingly. The question that is hinted toward through most of these articles but isn’t asked is if this is better or worse than in previous generations. I believe it is not, the number of close connections a person has, if any, by no means reflects a person ability to communicate or maintain a health society benefiting life. A person now is exposed to more information and has the ability to choose the level of relationships more openly and less by necessity.

Ronald attempts to argue that from a micro level analysis of social networks and tie strength, a large macro level judgment can be made. I don’t dispute the importance of the small to the large, but I am very hesitant to make broad generalizations based on small sample sizes and events that occur within few amounts of people. I personally believe that to fully encompass our entire society is virtually impossible, but with that said the information and theories that can be developed due to these small level studies is vital.

Based on Granovetter’s findings what would you expect to find from a similar study done at penn? I agree that the size of our personal confidants will be much higher than the norm; I don’t believe that it is due to higher education. Does higher education invoke a larger number of close relationships? Does this higher number of personal confidants lower the strength of family relationships?

Ronald discusses the number or weak ties, in today’s society are a high number of weak ties more valuable than a couple strong ties?

Does Burt’s structural hole argument make more sense and is more relative to social networks like ours, specifically?

Small World

“It is a small world,” is a cliché because of the high number of times it is said. However, the data Milgrim discuss in Psychology Today, reporting that on average it takes only 5.5 intermediate acquaintances to connect any two random people across the US is still a surprise. While these results prove the one view point, saying that any two people can be connected through acquaintances, I believe that there is a percentage of people who are can not be connected because of unbridgeable gaps. I believe that even within the US there are many groups of people that are completely contained and have no way to infiltrate. These excluded groups are not the norm, but the second view is no less important. The unbridgeable gaps, may not be absolute or the standard, they do insinuate a separation within our society.
Milgrim expands on the causes and specific example of the separation with our society. The solution is due to our social structure. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Milgrim explores the ease of a message passing across racial lines. The results were significant and conclusive; it is harder to bridge this gap due to low number of gatekeepers. However, these results are from 1970 and while they are relevant, I believe that in today’s society it is much easier to bridge this gap. However, the problems with the small world don’t end with its inability to account for social structure but also with the method the message is passed from acquaintances.
Social Networks, explores and blames many uncompleted chains on people’s decision of acquaintances to pass the message. The article suggests that a large percentage of incomplete chains is due to the wrong choice of acquaintances. The article continues that many people just try to pass the message to the location and not necessarily the intended target. The results suggest that even within a given location these gaps still remain that are difficult to bridge and are not confined to secluded groups.
Six degrees of separation explores on such journey that a message must take and shows the ability to connect extremely distant people. The success of the small world is not in its ability to connect people but in its difficult crossing social barriers.

Week 2 Reading

While Wellman manages to cover all sides of the argument for the existence of community in modern day, his main argument is that community and its meaning has changed with society. Wellman begins by address the issue of the past community versus the modern day community. Of coarse community has changed, hundreds of years ago even 50 years ago people were extremely dependent on each other, and the existence of a close-nit society was not only the norm but was necessary. Everyone is more independent now, this is no secret. I personally don’t understand how this can be looked as a critic on society; these people, who use history as the golden years, want to model modern society after the past. I believe that only when we are completely independent, when people no longer need the help of others, and when people choose to interact that creates a much closer society. A completely voluntary society, unlike the one’s of the past which more represented life on remote island forced to ask family and neighbors for help not by desire to interact but for mere survival. I believe that if we used the terminology from Peter Munge to describe the “golden years,” we would realize that actual strength of bonds between different nodes when forced bonds out of necessity are removed is actually more like and indirect connection when in comparison to linkages in modern day communities. However, this necessity shared in the past did create stability through a symmetrical relationship in which each node needed the other. I want credit to go to our modern community. Ours community is not built on necessity but out of desire, and from that desire forms stronger bonds. For example, if you gave a community 100 years ago infinite resources to live, do you believe that the community would remain as close? Of coarse not, the reason for the community has been stripped away. The large scale social changes that have been have destroyed the community and replaced it with a greater one; a community built for the individual to experience as he or she wishes.