Social Network Blog - r5

Although I am terribly confused with the wording of your question, I think that you are questioning the meaning and function of "searchability" in social networks. As discussed in the Duncan Watts article, the importance of available information and knowledge about the other nodes within our networks strongly affects how we navigate the flow of information and determine the shortest and most efficient paths to the targets. How much information we have about the people within our network is critical in the "next choice" decision between intermediaries. In the Milgrim study, the participants were given the name, address, and occupation of the target. Based on that information they then looked for other people within their network that could be connected to this information in some way. In most forms of communication there are multiple paths to the same target.

In your question concerning Lois Weisberg it is most likely a personality characteristic, rather than a genetic phenomenon. Essentially anyone could be a Lois if they really wanted to be, but it takes a certain kind of person to fill such a socially exhausting role.

Meg or may I call you Ms. r5,

I think it is important to note that Gladwell likens the 5-6 intermediaries to 5 separate "worlds" of acquaintances. When we look at 5 links as in essence representatives for an entire acquaintance network, a concentric circle unto itself, it is more clear that a 5-6 link chain is quite a bit of social distance between start and desired endpoint. Furthermore, I too agree that the diversity at Penn is an ideal microcosm of the world at large, or at least as close to one as one would be able to control and measure readily. The clear distinctions in social distance between students vs. faculty members, subcultural groups in excess of 160 interest groups and a nearly 20,000 student campus provide an ideal environment to try out a “small world” problem study.

I too feel that the scientific twist on social networking is a bit too simplistic and not nuanced enough to fully capture human decision making in a “small world” problem study. The Killworth study in particular bothers me because it compares actual decision making to the conceptual shortest route and measures “error”. I believe that the motivations behind choices too hold importance because there are certainly times when the conceptual route is NOT in fact ideal. This is in fact alluded to by both Killworth’s path accuracy and next choice analyses which curiously point to third variables which aren’t demographic.

Finally, I believe that the “Lois” type has less to do with personality and more to with curiosity, community involvement, and motivation to understand or at least relate to people. Though these people may very well be very bubbly, I think the key to their versatility among different acquaintance groups is their participation and true interest in the activity and the people involved.

I find it intriguing how you interpret the word problem. In my personal opinion I feel that the small world problem refers to the "problem" that our intuition of having such a large and diverse world is seemingly not true based on experimental results like Milgrim's. I see it as being more like an intellectual problem, in the fact that it's not meant to be negative but more just a confusing result and I think the solution comes in lining our intuition up with reality. That said though, I agree that this 6 degrees of separation (to anyone) is a bit exaggerated. When I first read the study I admittedly was wrapped up in how shocking and cool it was, but when I think more about it, it's hard to really fathom that it's true for everyone. After reading yours and other people's posts there seems to be all kinds of examples of how this might not work for everyone (for instance people in different parts of the world and social outcasts like the homeless). Unfortunately, testing this hypothesis randomly all over the world is impractical if not impossible. As is always the problem with social science you can never be sure if any solution is true. However, regardless of how far the study can extend and regardless if it's externally valid, I think the main benefit to this research is that it makes us question our way of thinking about the structure of the world and hence inspires new research and ideas.
As far as Lois is concerned I think this is a question just about all of us have. What I found interesting is that her son Jacob seemed to have some of the same "connector" qualities as she did. While Gladwell notes that Jacob is just the capstone of his pyramid, he never looks into the fact that Jacob may be the capstone of others pyramids as well. So even though he says Jacob is different I think this observation helps show that there is some genetic component to these qualities. If there was more of an analysis of Jacob I think we'd get a better picture of how much is genetic and how much is personality based.

A point stressed in the article about Lois Weisberg is that she is not what you would imagine as a typical "charismatic" type in which an individual would have a public or extroverted persona. Lois apparently does not strive to be the center of attention and "fill a room; eyes don't swivel toward her as she makes her entrance." Rather, than make her impression by drawing alot of attention through loud gestures, Lois wins the favor of individuals by geniuely being interested and wanting to meet people (not having them draw to her.) Therefore, I disagree that she is a fun seeking people pleaser, but more of an individual fascinated with people in various areas of interest.

Also in regards to the Korte article in which there are 5-6 links between any two random individuals in a population of 200 million, I believe that this is an overall average. As was mention in the Milgram article, the length of links ranged from 2-10! I think in the Penn community, the average will be a lot smaller because we each have connections in various areas of the school. I predict that there will be some that will only be one link (but I doubt the target will be such a predictable individual).