Social Network Blog - g44

The Killworth reading’s estimation of personal network size through a testing in 3 different cities actually raised questions in my mind as to what sort of ties a “personal” network should consist of when modeling on a theoretical level. While Killworth leaned more towards reversed small world testing by essentially measuring how many people one knows and extrapolating from there, I feel that Hill’s approach to the composition of social networks allows for more discussion. The difference between these two approaches lies in the scope. For Killworth a personal network includes all the people that you know and know of, while for Hill a personal network is composed of all those you know, value, and actively cultivate a relationship with at least annually. His Christmas card study by nature completely eliminated the extensive mathematical modeling present in the Killworth article and focused on the cognitive constraints imposed by the human neocortex. The Hill article also delineates that emotional closeness rather than frequency of contact is the key to the hierarchy of human relationships. Hierarchy is almost intuitive given the constraints on cognitive space. I know that this idea of hierarchy based on emotional closeness rings true because it is taxing to devote resources to my personal network as described by the Killworth article, but according to the Hill makes it more feasible.

Questions:

How would the Hill study differ if he were to have looked at Birthday Cards? Is there anything inherently better about Christmas cards for the purposes of this study?

How are Killworth’s extrapolations of network size useful in moving the study of social networks towards an over-aching theory that can accurately predict networks?

The second two readings for this week focused on the composition of social networks. The McPherson et al reading focusing on the types of homophily and the factors which make it weaken of strengthen ties, and the Pearson article focusing on drug related homophily and assimilation behaviors among sporty teens. The idea that social distance translates to network distance is quite intriguing when one considers University life. Baseline homophily perhaps contributes to a lot of the initial interactions by very diverse people while inbreeding homophily is what binds long term friendships. Being in the same place at the same time for the same reason creates quite a bit of multiplexity in a relationship therefore I suppose when one has so much in common with others, strong homophilic associations like race, and class can be overcome. The added dimensions of organizational affiliations and shared living quarters further make the University space unique. The rich , poor, black, and white live together, study together, and participate in organizations together on equal footing. Perhaps it is the social expectation that college students meet others who are very different from themselves that creates an environment where very different people meet and establish strong network ties. I’m undecided whether it’s primarily the multiplexity of relationships at college that breed diverse relationships or social constructs that prime us with that expectation. The Pearson article also contributed to my curiosity in that Alcohol can be seen as another element of multiplexity in student relations. According to Pearson in high school athletes it tends to promote assimilation to drinking behavior as well as homophily effects. I believe that these effects are even stronger on the University level due to the fact that 1) there’s no parental supervision and 2) beer is everywhere! Therefore I similarly believe that there should be more tailored campaigns to college students about alcohol use.

Question:

How would Pearson’s study differ if performed on PENN’s campus? How?