Readings+--+Christakis,+chapter+1


 * Summary of //Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives//, chapter 1**

In Christakis’ book “In the Thick of It” they give examples of how those close to you act out violently or act out in a more caring manner, such as saving your life. The author gives the story of the Peretti’s and how everybody was killing everyone to get revenge and how two thirds of interpersonal violence is witnessed by a third party. They then continue to give the story of Cathy who donated her kidney to her friend’s husband and how various other people donate organs while they are alive or deceased. People’s social networks play a large role in what happens to them, and having bad social networks has even prompted some to create better social networks and help others who seem to be trapped in the negative or violent networks.

In Christakis’ example of the “bucket brigade” he explains a good social network in which neighbors help someone put out a fire that has started in their home. Not only are people helping but they have devised a way that puts their helping hands in the best possible position, by forming a line and passing buckets of water down and then passing the empty buckets back. Christakis defines a social network as “a specific set of connections between people in the group” (9) and it’s the group at large and what they are doing that is most important, not the individuals. The bucket brigade is a linear social network where one person connects to the next who connects to the next. Another social network is one that has branches, such as a telephone tree. When information needs to get out quickly to several people, one of the best ways is to have one person call two people, who each call two more people, who each call two more people, thus making the tree look slightly more like a pyramid than a tree if you were put the first caller at top and all subsequent callers below. This is what the Ponzi scheme was built off, or the pyramid scheme (we’ve all heard of those and how they are a load of crap!!).The four types of social network connections are nodes (no ties at all), mutual ties (such as the bucket brigade), inbound ties and outbound ties (the telephone tree), and multiple ties (military squadrons).

A network community is defined as “a group of people who are much more connected to one another than they are to other groups of connected people found in other parts of the network” (Christakis 13). Being more connected makes you central because you know more people so your ties push you to the middle rather than the edges. A networks shape is always the same no matter how it is visualized. Even though I imagined the telephone tree as a pyramid, its network shape will always be a tree. The different types of ties that connect social networks can vary, some are lifelong ties, some are short lived, some are personal ties and others are anonymous. Ties can be many things such as buckets of water, money, or even germs and disease which are all called contagions. There are several rules, or principles that explain why the ties and the whole group are more important than the individual:

1) “We Shape Our Network” – People exhibit homophily which means that we want to associate with people who are like us. First people decide how many connections they want, then how closely or densely they want those connections to be, and finally how central they want to be in the network. Social networks are not always chosen, however; Christakis explains that some are born into small or large families and don’t have a choice about it but it still affects their lives. Scientists have discovered that social networks do not vary by gender, but by other means, and that those who graduate/attend college have larger social networks than their counterparts who did not. Those in transitive social networks are tied to each and every person and every person is also tied to one another. Those in transitive networks tend to stick together while those who are less transitive jump between several groups.

2) “Our Networks Shape Us” – “A person who has no friends has a very different life than one who has many” (Christakis 20). Christakis gives the example of a study done on Norwegian military conscripts that shows that first-borns’ have the highest IQs, second-borns ‘ have a lower IQ, and third-borns’ have an even lower IQ. If an older sibling is lost, then the IQs of the younger siblings bump up a level. Christakis also gives the example of a child who experiences their parents divorcing. The child still has a relationship with each parent, but the relation changes from what it was when the parents were still together. Also, by being more or better connected in a social network makes you more “susceptible” to what happens to that specific network.

3) “Our Friends Affect Us” – What flows through the ties between people is also important because it influences how we are. For example, if your roommate plays a lot of video games, you will also play more video games, if your parents were democrats, you are also likely to be a democrat.

4) “Our Friends’ Friends’ Friends Affect Us” – Not only do those who are directly tied to you influence you, but those tied to who you are tied to can influence you, like the game telephone. This is called a hyperdyadic spread which is defined as “the tendency of effects to spread from person to person, beyond an individual’s direct social ties” (Christakis 22).

5) “The Network Has A Life of Its Own” – Social networks are not necessarily controlled by the people in them. Certain characteristics are only shown in groups or networks and are not exhibited by individuals. When this happens it is called an emergent property.

How people are connected and the amount of ties that they must go through to reach another person they may not know are called degrees. “Your friend is on degree from you, your friend’s friend is two degrees, and so on” (Christakis 27). The author gives the example of an experiment where people were asked to send a letter to someone who they thought might know this specific business man, on average the letter was sent through six people (or six degrees) before reaching this business man. There is also the three degrees of influence rule which means that our influence usually impacts to the third degree, as far as our friend’s friend’s friend. The intrinsic-decay explanation tells us that by the time our influence gets to the fourth degree, the information may not be as accurate or reliable as in the first, second, and third degree. Network-instability explanation tells us that fourth degree relationships are unstable because there are more ties that can be severed to cut that relationship off. The evolutionary-purpose explanation tells us that fourth degree relationships are unstable because in the past we did not live in large groups so it may not be biologically possible for us to have stable fourth degree relationships. Finally, social networks can cause inequality: “situational inequality (some are better off socioeconomically) and positional inequality (some are better off in terms of where they are located in the network)” (Christakis 31).


 * Discussion**


 * As humans I don't think we often think about how connected we are and the consequences of those connections (whether they be positive or negative). I especially liked how the author started with a network as simple as the bucket brigade and moved on to more complex social networks. While, I believe people don't often think about how connected they are, I do think people observe it more than they did 20 years ago. The reason for that is Facebook. For instance in the past two weeks there has been a bunch of statuses saying "I like it on the floor, or I like it on the coach, and so forth". This is actually a campaign for breast cancer. A lot of people didn't have a clue what these statuses were about for awhile. Then a few people voiced their negative feelings for the campaign and that spread. I've seen a lot less "I like it" statuses, as many people have started voicing their opinions. This suggests others may be influenced by the statuses of their friends, and ultimately friends of friends. The author also talked about how your position on the network effects what you see. Again, I can see this through a Facebook example. Yesterday and the day before Facebook exploding with statuses regarding Coming Out Day. Because of my position on the social network I probably saw a lot more statuses on this, then my friend's mom who is on Facebook.**


 * -Brittany Goree**


 * I mostly agree with you on the fact that we as humans don't realize how similar we really are. In my sociology class this summer i learned that every person is connected to someone else by six people. The example was that if i was looking for someone who lived in Boston who was a lawyer, it would only take six connections for me to get a hold of that person. They would be a friend of a friend of a friend, etc. People for the most part are narrow minded. If we were to think broader then just our family, town, state even, we could accomplish so much more with our lives. People should help people to better all of our society. Causes, News, etc. is spreading like wildfire now due to facebook and twitter. I personally think that is a great change and is allowing people around the world to communicate more efficiently. Many people think that all our technological changes just cause problems but thats because people are scared of change. Social connections are all about networking. We can use all these new connections to do great things, people just need to take advantage of the connections given to them, and do right by the people helping them.**


 * -Jillian Bennett**


 * "In a very basic sense, then, a social network is an organized set of people that consists of two kinds of elements: human beings and the connections between them". I never really considered how my connections to my friends-friends affect me. Its a strange, yet simple concept. I am friends with over 700 people on my facebook page; granted, I am not personally close and really friends with every person, a lot of the people I add because I know that they are my friends friend or we have mutual friends. But, I see every post of theirs and sometimes we even have short discussions via status or wall-post. Even though the social network is taking over the internet, I find facebook/twitter/myspace to be so convenient. Honestly, I would say about 85% of the news that is relevant to me, I find out through facebook or twitter.**
 * -Katie Moses**