Hmmm....what to say about them?
I have to admit that of the two articles, my favorite was the Barabasi, primarily because the Castells on the Space of Flows was a bit repetitious but seemed to be primarily about physical space leading to networks, while Linked by Barabasi was more about virtual and intangible, but had to do more with personal connections...and an interesting mathematical theory.
It was interesting to note that most things that occur in nature or otherwise tend toward set mathematical orders. That's true of course, but I for one don't often think to think about it. Power curve vs. bell curve...an inverse exponential basically...it's not too surprising that there should be models which allow for extremes rather than always models which exclude them. Of course like with any model that mathematicians (or economists...they're particularly bad) try to fit to real life...it never exactly fits because it never exactly accounts for everything.
Barabasi's model, he admits, is a bit weak...relying on the twin laws of growth and preferential attachment. Yet...it DOES better represent what's happening than other previous models have. It can be improved on...letting links decay with age, etc. Of course my point is that a model can never account for everything. Talking about movie stars, what about pairings like Owen Wilson and Ben Stiller who rarely appear in a movie without the other, thereby ensuring they would share most links in the IMDB? Definitely not random and not described by preferential attachment based on popularity, but rather by preference for a specific node. Another example I can think of...an existing network pattern from one medium inserting itself in another medium. When the New York Times went online, it already had a high readership. Those already online who read the paper version were likely to then attach to the internet version. Those who join the internet later that are familiar with the paper version are likely to do the same...again, preference based not on the popularity of attachment to the NYTimesOnline but on previous experience with a related node in a different network.
*cough* anyway, tangent aside, the model is workable...a better way of explaining. Is it important that the network concept be explained down to the latest detail? Well, if you want a network to become predictable (and models ARE all about predictibility, hence why the first economist who can make a truly good model of the stock market will be a very, very rich person) they yes, it should always be made better and better. But I think this model captures the important point. Attachment in a network is not random. Nodes exist and can be explained, and furthermore are quite essential for the functioning of a network if interconnectivity is to allow both multiple paths AND only a few degrees to get from most points to most other points.
And of course the internet is a very, very interesting basis for discovering and exploring these types of networks. It allows people to connect like never before. When the london subway was bombed on 7/7/05, I had a friend who was on it (and survived, thank god). But I've never been to London. They've never been to the US. In fact I don't know if either of us has ever been to a geographic location the other has visited ever. But I know her. She is my friend. When she was shaken up after, I was giving virtual hugs. Likewise, I got to be in Rome for the election of the pope...because I "knew" people who were. I know people all over the world, and they know me. But...none of us have ever met. With the web, suddenly connections aren't existing by accident or simple chance of location, but rather entirely by seeking out common interests. This allows larger and larger nods and diversity of nods than ever before. Here comes the true virtual city. And, another aspect is that the web allows greater analysis of non-virtual networks. Databases, such as IMDB allow cataloging and comparison with greater detail and speed than ever before...very nice :)
Another concept I thought that was interesting. Obvious, but interesting...the idea that the most connected nodes are those that have the most impact, and that those only connected to a few places essentially do not exist. It's true, I suppose that without connecting to other people, one tends to have very little impact in the world. At the same time, those websites with almost no one linking to them don't really have any impact, and if they ceased to exist...no one would notice. So, save for the page's creator and possibly one or two others, that page does not exist. My poor blog *pets it*. I try to post here and make it healthy and robust! But if no one visits a link to it, if no one comments, isn't it just wasted data on a blogger server somewhere? And I'll just leave that comment hanging...and abandon my blog to an existential crisis until next week :)
2 comments:
Nice work on networks. You made some great points about the reality of networks. How can networks be applied and what does that mean about social, economical, or political interaction if they are based on this application of network theory. It’s intresting how someone can extend their social circle across the world by the use of virtual networks. What do you think this attribute of the world effects earlier concepts of social networks since these networks have now stretched out to a global scale? Great work.
-Ryan
On the topic of these networks becoming global:
two things actually:
(1) it seems one is able to have a much more diverse experience because one is not limited to viewpoints strictly from their own area/class/etc.
(2) BUT, the world as a whole is probably becoming far less diverse since interaction allows homogenization.
Post a Comment