Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Thoughts on Six Degrees

This weekend a friend posted this video of a happy dog seeing his owner for the first time after his deployment in Afghanistan. Of course its heartwarming to see a dog so happy, But the info posted by Capt. Andrew Schmidt is fascinating. He describes is own shock as a video he posted on April 11, 2008 became a sensation a year and a half later. He posts on November 14, "This is getting crazy. They ran this on the Today Show today. I'm not a public person ... this is getting a little intimidating. I'm glad that this clip of Gracie has made so many people happy." On the 15th he says "You have to be careful, because you have no control when you go on TV unless you are very, very savvy (I am not). Or you get crazy and end up building a UFO weather balloon in your back yard."
What is it about this particular video? Why did this one go viral?

In his book Six Degrees: The Science of A Connected Age Duncan Watts is attempting to explain this phenomena. Watts gives a broad overview of the history of network theory and small worlds. He discusses the famous Stanley Milgram experiments and how it led to the the term "Six Degrees of Separation". From there he explains how his own experiments and that of his colleagues, give further insight into the way networks behave. He shows that networks made up of completely different things can still behave in similar ways. One of his first tests was to compare the actors (six degrees of Kevin Bacon), electrical power grids, and the bacterium C. Elegans. All three groups qualify as small world networks because they had some "mechanism by which two nodes that are connected to a common third node are more likely to be connected to each other than two nodes picked at random." (p. 97) Even though small world networks can be found everywhere, they are not the only type of network. Watts spend most of the book finding the similarities in different networks and then points out the discrepancies in these findings. It can be a little frustrating. Just when you think Watts is going to lay down a mathematical formula that will predict network behavior, he instead shows the many ways the network is unpredictable. But, he believes studying them can give insight as to why events happen in a particular way. Watts explains:

"Networks share resources and distribute loads, and they also spread disease and transmit failure--they are both good and bad. By specifying precisely how connected systems are connected, and by drawing explicit relationships between the structure of real networks and the behavior (like epidemics, fads, and organizational robustness) of the systems they connect, the science of networks can help us understand our world." (p. 303)


Beyond the explanation and overview of network theory, the book is a narrative about how one scientists' own social network led to many studies, experiments and ultimately the book. Each time Watts introduces a new colleague or thinker, he gives an account of how he came to know them. He's illustrating once again the breadth of small world networks, even as he explains them.
Here are some last thoughts:

If Manovich divides new media into two forms the database and the narrative, where does the network fit in? The very fact that we are so connected through a network allows the databases to be built. Without a network there is no Wikipedia, or Huffington post or Youtube.

Is there a bit of MacLuhan in Watts' work? Is the network as "medium" also the message?

4 comments:

  1. I guess I never had it in f of me but you're right in the back of my head the the stream of consciousness I do actually consider what I'm reading where. I know on twitter if I respond it is stale but there is a network at work there. If I meet someone I consider what is going on around me and that network becomes what I use to craft that message or at the very least has an influence of.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good post. Love the question about where networks fit in Manovich's thinking. You're right that a network medium allows Wikipedia to exist and succeed, but isn't successful just because of the network. It succeeds because enough people care about Wikipedia. Recall the failed experiment by the L.A. Times. The network is potentially the same as that which supports Wikipedia, but the "nodes" in the network did not seem to care as much. They weren't ready to defend the L.A. Times' effort. I think a video like the one you linked to spreads, as opposed to others, because it touches something human inside so many of us. That video has just as much opportunity to be missed as be a hit. But the individual characteristics of this video make it a more powerful, connected node.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree that network is a good medium to share informative message, but at the same time, it can poison us. Before, I didn't care much what message I put on my Facebook and Twitter because not many of my friends and connections hooking up. After more people join in, I pay more attention on what I write on my wall, and make sure the information/videos/links I share are correct and appropriated.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is really interesting in how you incorporated the medium in the the networking. It comes together and brings an awareness on how we connect with others who we know as friends or professionally.

    ReplyDelete