 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Hamada
Joined: Jun 1, 2004
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male & 33
Country: United States
Province/State: New York
City: Brooklyn
|
[Poll] Social Networks
June 1, 2004 - 03:56 AM
|
|
I remember reading something about six degrees of separation. It suggested that we're just one hand-shake away from 300 people, two away from 90,000, three away from 27 million and so on. Isn't that Wild?
If interested, follow this URL below:
http://backissues.worldlink.co.uk/articles/250100180310/22.htm
Bob Metcalf’s law states that the value of the network increases in proportion to the square number of nodes on the network (n2 "n squared" . Metcalf’s law is restricted to asynchronous point-to-point transactions. In Kevin Kelly’s book “New Rules for the New Economy” the value of the network is (nn "n to the power of n", where multiple synchronous connections are allowed simultaneously.
From social to business networks both seem to have similar functions and processes.
Complexity theory of network evolution can explain B2B networks. Usually, a B2B is a self organizing network and starts with few connections and through a process called auto-catalysis; they bring more and more connections. These connections form around supernodes. Supernodes go through a growth phased marked by the relative stability of the exchange. As the exchange grow, the system moves goes towards the “edge of chaos” where the exchange loses its utility and stability. Either the exchange falls over the edge (i.e. overcapacity) or recovers and evolves into an agile system.
--The inspiration for this piece comes from this article on Cnet News:
http://news.com.com/2010-1023-5205844.html
Is it possible to create "supernodes" as powerful and flexible as the virtual/online in the real world (in the community service/cultural diversity space) without falling into any ecological fallacies?
ps: This is my first post/day on takingitglobal.org hope this was of use and leads into something we all can benefit from...
How many online Social Networks are you subscribed to?
Too many I lost track...
(2 votes for 50%)
4 to 5
(0 votes for 0%)
2 or 3
(2 votes for 50%)
1
(0 votes for 0%)
0 Social Networks what?
(0 votes for 0%)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Terri Willard
Joined: Jul 27, 2001
Posts: 370 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 40
Country: Canada
Province/State: Manitoba
City: Winnipeg
|
Re: Social Networks
June 1, 2004 - 12:14 PM
|
|
Hi Hamada,
Fascinating post! It's going to take me some time to think through all of the issues you've raised, but I think they are extremely critical to understanding what it will take to nudge societies over the tipping point towards greater realization of human rights and sustainable development.
A quick reaction, though, is to note that there is a very fuzzy separation between virtual and real worlds in "online" communities. What has kept TIG vibrant and growing are the "supernodes" which have developed - these "nodes" are highly mobile individuals who travel around the world working on projects with other community members and/or meeting in person at development-related conferences and events. The "real" infiltrates the virtual; the virtual supports the real.
I'm intrigued by your statement about not "falling into any ecological fallacies." Can you elaborate on that a bit? I don't think I fully understand what you mean... although I presume that it's linked to nodes collapsing under the "weight" of maintaining so many relationships (which is something I do worry about).
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Hamada
Joined: Jun 1, 2004
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 33
Country: United States
Province/State: New York
City: Brooklyn
|
ecological fallacies
June 2, 2004 - 01:22 AM
|
|
In the past I have tried to transfer human behavior models to organizational behavior. An attempt to lets say use "team work" concepts to organizations within same industry to team up is considered an ecological fallacy.
The best term I found to explain this is the following:
ecological fallacy – the assumption that relationships between variables at the aggregate level imply the same relationships at the individual level.
source: http://www.utdallas.edu/~jargo/papers/ecofal_2.pdf
But like Taikod mentioned "The "real" infiltrates the virtual; the virtual supports the real." so I guess we are ecologically safe :-)
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
Home
Community
