How big is too big?
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?