Search the Archives

  • Social networks are not what you think they are

    Posted on February 19th, 2009 by Spike and currently 17 commenting.

    There’s a fascinating report that came out this month (thanks Eric Dodds) by Noshir Contractor, the Jane S. and William J. White Professor of Behavioral Sciences at the McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science at Northwestern University. Contractor and his collaborators are studying nearly 60 terabytes of data from EverQuest II and interviewed 7,000 players of the game (which makes this one of the largest social science research projects ever performed).

    Okay, get this: This is a game that 45 million people play from all around the world. And while the report reveals a lot of interesting facts, here’s the one I find most intriguing:

    Even though players could play the game with anyone, anywhere, most people played with people in their general geographic area.

    “People end up playing with people nearby, often with people they already know,” Contractor said. “It’s not creating new networks. It’s reinforcing existing networks. You can talk to anyone anywhere, and yet individuals 10 kilometers away from each other are five times more likely to be partners than those who are 100 kilometers away from each other.”

    Read that again: “It’s not creating new networks. It’s reinforcing existing networks.”

    When you start to think about your own social network, is that true for you? It is for me. While I’ve had the opportunity to connect with a lot of new people, the vast majority of them are just acquaintances. And it’s caused me to grow closer to my existing network. It all goes back to the research (sorry, I can’t remember from where right now) that a human can’t maintain over 100 relationships at a time. It’s just too overwhelming.

    It just goes to prove that we are all learning more about these tools and how they connect people everyday. The more things change, the more they stay the same, eh?

    Share The Love
    SubscribeBlinklistBloglinesBlogmarksDiggdel.icio.usFacebookFurlMa.gnoliaNewsVineRedditStumbleUponTechnorati
    Tags: , , , ,

17 Responses to “Social networks are not what you think they are”

  1. Nothing stays the same, always change to remain - Henriette Weber February 19th, 2009 at 9:55 am

    [...] a quick excellent pointer to a mindprovoking blogpost on the Brains On Fire Blog. It basically states that social networks are not what we think they are. - Instead of really [...]

  2. Brandy February 19th, 2009 at 11:59 am

    I joke that I don’t have time for anymore friends. My ‘network’ requires an investment of time and commitment. I don’t want to sacrifice edifying my existing circle for another. Only something/someone spectacular could entice me to venture out!

  3. Brains On Fire Blog » Blog Archive » Social networks are not what you think they are | Think Networks February 19th, 2009 at 12:34 pm

    [...] Brains On Fire Blog » Blog Archive » Social networks are not what you think they are. Posted by Noshir Contractor / Filed under:Networks and Technology [...]

  4. JR February 19th, 2009 at 12:46 pm

    Interesting, but not conclusive. Are there other dynamics of the game that lend themselves to this kind of behavior? My experience has been the opposite on other sites, such as Twitter.

  5. Spike February 19th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

    JR, I actually feel more compelled to “follow back” people in my city or state - and I have no idea why. Thanks for making me think about that…

  6. tito mambo February 19th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    Spike,
    The research you’re referring to is commonly called “Dunbar’s Number”. The research showed that the size of a primate’s social group is related to the size of it’s neo-cortex. Based on the size of the human neo-cortex, we should be able to maintain social groups with about 150 other people.
    I guess technology augments our brain’s processing power. Do we use that power for depth of relationships? breadth of relationships? a bit of both?
    I don’t question the research or your own experiences. Technology hasn’t increased the number of people I know, but I now regularly keep up with people who otherwise would have been lost to distance or time.
    How about we create a new concept? Let’s call it “Dunbar’s Mass”. It’s the product of the number of people you know and the number of times you contract them. If technology hasn’t changed Dunbar’s Number I think Dunbar’s Mass is growing dramatically.
    Regards,
    Tito

  7. Spike February 19th, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    Thanks SO MUCH for the info, Tito. Very, very helpful indeed. And I love the term, “Dunbar Mass!” I’m totally going to use that from now on in presentations and writing. Don’t worry, I’ll give you the credit!

  8. Leandro February 19th, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    It’s an interesting thought. I think it depends entirely on the type of social network, as well as its purpose.

    On a place like Twitter, where all most people are looking for is some minor connection, it doesn’t take much to friend someone from the other side of the world. On a site like Facebook, where you post personal information, you’re likely only to friend someone who you’ve met at least once, or perhaps share some kind of social connection like (a) work place or (b) college, etc. So, I think the medium is key: is this a “casual” social network, or a “personal” social network?

    I don’t know that you can equate online gaming with social networks in general. It depends what an individual is after — collaborative games suggest a “pack mentality,” and maybe seeking a geographic link is an instinctual reaction to that.

  9. Community Guy, Jake McKee - Feed Reader Highlights - February 20, 2009 February 20th, 2009 at 6:00 am

    [...] Social networks are not what you think they are [...]

  10. Colby Gergen February 20th, 2009 at 9:39 am

    When I read this post I scrambled through my feed trying to remember a post I had just read pertaining to Dubar’s Number. And I found it. Chris Brogan posted it not to long ago here: http://www.chrisbrogan.com/beating-dunbars-number/

    I found it to be an interesting article and like this research you brought to my attention as well. I agree I do tend to be more likely to follow people from Columbia more than I would in Palo Alto. After reading this though I finally started to think about why I am more likely to do so, and here is what I came up with:

    1. You feel more connected to people from your geographical area even if you don’t know them personally because you know the same places, events, and maybe people. This makes me feel more comfortable with them and also is a source of information should I be looking for a hot new restaurant for a date on Friday.

    2. You have a higher probability of meeting these people. Social networking with people far away is fun, informative, and for me, educational. But I probably won’t meet the majority of the people I follow. Except for those in Columbia, because we share so much, we may run into each other. (I follow and am followed by many people in the Journalism School here that I’ve never meet but do hope to eventually [I'm even thinking of hosting a tweetup, haha]). For example, I was in the J-Library and saw a girl I knew from Twitter, so I went up and talked to her. It was fun, and it really wasn’t as awkward as you might think.

    3. I actually only have 2 reasons right now but I hate making 2 point lists. Any other ideas?

  11. Craig Johnson February 21st, 2009 at 6:42 am

    When it comes to this concept of the 150 and Twitter, how do we explain the folks that follow 1000s of people on Twitter? I’ve never understood that. I guess they are following, but not engaging or reading all of those at all. Doesn’t make sense to me. I’ve recently had to start unfollowing people that I really don’t read their tweets, just so I can keep true to the actual term of “follower”. On the flip-side, I’d rather people not follow me unless they really care about what I have to say. Don’t follow me if all you want is to try and get me to follow you.

    Thoughts?

  12. Chris Rackley February 23rd, 2009 at 9:32 am

    I really wish I could express my thoughts as concisely as Craig Johnson does.

    I think this whole idea is interesting. But I would stipulate that Twitter dances to a different tune. Largely because the culture established in Twitter is that of a “I need more followers so I can have a bigger ego” kind of culture. But when it comes to Facebook, LinkedIn, hobby forums, flickr, etc. it makes sense that something is already established in the connection. I don’t get on Facebook to make new friends. I get on there to connect with old ones, and so on.

    Back to the Twitter (which I will confess I argue over a lot - passionately so - and even I see the argument getting tired), it’s almost as if these rules don’t apply because in the case of so many, the goal is not to connect. Usually the goal is to pad personal stats by gaining followers. Nobody who follows thousands of people is following a thousand different conversations (unless they have no life). Even people that I’ve connected with over the past year on Twitter have been subsequently “unfollowed” because I’m just tired of hearing what they have to say. And the fact is, that should be okay. It’s my flippin’ twitter feed, after all. The point is that in Twitter, when someone’s going far beyond their realm of known connections to make new ones, this usually isn’t a “connection,” per se . . . because there’s no desire to connect. . .

    . . . unless by “connect” you mean “play the numbers game.”

  13. Steve Hershberger February 23rd, 2009 at 12:35 pm

    Spike-

    Reinforces something that has started to bubble up to the surface and that is social interaction is social science, not computer science.

    MMOLG’s and even social networks like FaceBook and Linkedin, even specialty ones like MyShutterspace.com allow users with common interests to interact and organize around shared interests and points of view. Many drivers of points of view and worldviews are fueled by geographic social trends. For instance, if you go to Berkley, you may be a bit more liberal. You are attracted to attend Berkley for the same reason. Since 99% of people are social creatures, we crave face to face interaction. Online environments as this study shows are extensions and amplifiers of social networks, not proxies. I am posting a blog on this and will link to your post. Great work!

  14. Social networks: No ‘Net’ new? - Lumenatti - Lumenatti February 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm

    [...] a blog posted today by Spike Jones of Brains on Fire, [...]

  15. Steve Hershberger February 23rd, 2009 at 1:24 pm

    Dunbar’s Mass. Did a little research on Dunbar’s Number and Tito has an EXCELLENT point of view. Dunbar’s Mass might have legs.

  16. Craig Johnson February 23rd, 2009 at 5:01 pm

    Chris, I think it’s the actual practice of Twitter that has unconsciously taught me to express my thoughts very concisely.

  17. Social networks: No ‘Net’ new? - Lumenatti - ComBlu March 24th, 2009 at 9:16 am

    [...] a blog posted today by Spike Jones of Brains on Fire, [...]

Leave a Reply