Google
 

Papa Roach "I almost told you that I loved you"

multi-viewpoint movie of my jump

Tuesday, January 30, 2007

The reliability of Six-Degree & the effects of Connection

Kadushin explained about the concept of "Six Degrees of Separation". He argues that "For most purposes, the number of effectively consequential zones is between two and three; that is, whatever is being studied, individuals or organizations, past the third or at most fourth zone objects or nodes have relatively small effects on the focal individual or structure."(p.11) I want to consider the reliability of "Six-Degree" and the question that "Does the connections with the people, past the third or fourth zones, have only small effects?"


According to
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%85%AD%E6%AC%A1%E3%81%AE%E9%9A%94%E3%81%9F%E3%82%8A this Web page (sorry, its Japanese), if six people, who have the connections with 43.15 people, are connected, every people on the earth will be connected because 43.15 to the 6th power (the 6th root of 43.15?) is 6,454,829,873... and the world population in 2005 is 6,453,581,351, which is less than 43.15 to the 6th power. Of course, it does not consider the overlaps, so this number can not be true. Moreover, if there is any person who is not connected with anyone, nobody can reach him or her. Therefore, it is almost impossible to connect all people on the earth through six people. However, if you give up those who are connected with nobody, there is still possibility to connect other people. I don't know what is the enough number of connections to overcome those overlaps, but 43.15 is a quite small number. If connections are not restricted to only strong ones, most people should have more than 43.15 connections. I can't prove this theory to be right, but considering the number 43.15, I think it seems to be probable.


To answer the question that "Does the connections with the people, past the third or fourth zones, have only small effects?" , the strength of connections must be defined. In here, I suppose that being connected means that knowing each other. If so, I don't think the effect of connections will decrease as the number of the zones increases. Each zone should have almost same effects. For example, if you want to ask something people in the sixth zone know, first you will ask someone in the first zone. You and the person in the first zone know each other, so he or she is likely to ask your favor. Next, the person in the first zone will ask the person in the second zone. The probability that the person in the second zone will do his or her favor is same as the case between you and the person in the first zone. It will not change. Therefore, the effects of connections cannot be changed by the number of zones. Of course, the speed to get the information you want will change, but at least, you can get the information you want.


I'm sorry to write redundant blog. Thank you for your patience.



Bibliography

Charles, Kadushin. Introduction to Social Network Theory. Unknown, 2003.

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

2nd week

Rheingold explained the connection between "the technical properties of computer networks and the communication properties of social networks."(p. 58)
He explained the several laws which can be used to estimate the value of network.

They basically estimate the value by how many ways its nodes are connected.
One thing we have to consider is that these values are just potential.
For example, Metcalfe's law defines the value of network as the square of the number of its nodes because nodes are connected each other.
(http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~ny3k-kbys/contents/sneaky_exponential.html
You can find the detailed explanation about each law in English and Japanese in here.)
The connections between each node really exist, but they are not necessarily utilized well.
Imagine the network of telephones.
It is true that they are connected each other, but it is impossible that all of them fully utilize these connections because it means everyone calls every other people who have phone.
Same thing is true for Reed's law.
It may be true that the network's potential value will exponentially increase if its nodes can form groups.
However, creating and maintaining groups and contacting with other groups require some costs.
Therefore, the potential value of network will not necessarily be utilized.
The question is how technology enable us to utilize this huge potential value.


One interesting thing is that these two books have the different views of the value of social networks.
Cross and Parker says that "we are not simply suggesting that more connectivity is always better." (p. 8)
They argue that the balance of connection in network is important.
However, the several laws Reighngold explained in his book estimate the value of network only by the number of connection.
For him, more connectivity is better.
We should consider the question that "Which is better, the number connections or the balance of connections?"



Bibliography

Rheingold, Howard Smart Mobs: The Next Social Revolution. Cambridge, MA, Basic Books, 2003.

Cross, Robert L. The hidden power of social networks : understanding how work really gets done in organizations. Boston, Mass: Harvard Business School Press, 2004.

Wednesday, January 17, 2007

First post

Hello, my name is Ryo.
I'm from Japan and studying in American University as an exhange student.
This semester, I take ITEC333 Social Networking & Business class.
This blog will be used for that class.
I will write my thought about the assigned reading each week.
I'm not a native English speaker, so I may write something difficult to understand.
So please be patient with my posting.

Thanks


I post this blog on my honor.