LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  January 2003

SOCNET January 2003

Subject:

NYTimes.com Article: Connect, They Say, Only Connect

From:

[log in to unmask]

Reply-To:

[log in to unmask]

Date:

Sat, 25 Jan 2003 14:08:32 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (277 lines)

***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/ *****

This article from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by [log in to unmask]


Network theory is hot ...we are trendy!!!

Enjoy,

Valdis


P.S. I sent full article to avoid the NY Times registration hassle for non-subscribers


[log in to unmask]


Connect, They Say, Only Connect

January 25, 2003
By EMILY EAKIN






The whiteboard in Duncan J. Watts's office at Columbia
University was a thicket of squiggly blue lines, circles
and calculus equations. Mr. Watts, an associate professor
of sociology, had just begun a passionate disquisition on
the virtues and liabilities of scale-free networks when the
telephone rang. It was Alfred Berkeley, the vice chairman
of Nasdaq, hoping to chat about the exchange's design.

Mr. Watts, 31, is a network theorist. And these days that
means fielding frequent calls from powerful admirers like
Mr. Berkeley - Wall Street moguls and government officials
eager to tap into a nascent academic science that few
understand but that many think may hold the key to
everything from predicting fashion trends to preventing
terrorism, stock market meltdowns and the spread of HIV.

Never mind that Mr. Watts's new book on the subject, "Six
Degrees: The Science of a Connected Age," which will be
published by W. W. Norton next month, is littered with the
arcana of theoretical physics as well as charts and graphs
that appear to require an advanced degree in math in order
to decipher. Network theory is hot. Two other recent books
on networks, "Linked: The New Science of Networks"
(Perseus, 2002) by Albert-Laszlo Barabasi and "Nexus: Small
Worlds and the Groundbreaking Science of Networks" (W. W.
Norton) by Mark Buchanan, have already sold tens of
thousands of copies.

And that's not counting sales in the burgeoning genre of
consumer studies, where network science terms and concepts
are invoked with near religious fervor. From Malcolm
Gladwell's three-year-old best seller, "The Tipping Point,"
to just-published analyses like "The Influentials" and
"Branded: The Buying and Selling of Teenagers," the shelves
at Barnes & Noble are laden with books alternately
applauding and deploring the importance of things like
hubs, connectors, mavens and influencer teens for creating
fads, cementing brand loyalty and swelling profits.

"Network theory has become a bit of a fad," Mr. Watts
conceded after hanging up the phone. "I spend half my time
telling people I think it's relevant to a lot of problems
people care about and half my time trying to tone down the
hype."

Network scientists study networks: collections of people or
objects connected to each other in some way. Think of the
1.5 million Manhattan residents or the 30,000 genes inside
a human cell. Such networks, scientists argue, behave in
ways that can't be understood solely in terms of their
component parts. Without knowing what every single person
or object within the network is doing, they say, it's
nevertheless possible to know something about how the
network as a whole behaves.

Stated that way it sounds simple. But as an intellectual
approach, network theory is the latest symptom of a
fundamental shift in scientific thinking, away from a focus
on individual components - particles and subparticles - and
toward a novel conception of the group. As Mr. Barabasi, a
professor of physics at the University of Notre Dame, put
it: "In biology, we've had great success stories - the
human genome, the mouse genome. But what is not talked
about is that we have the pieces but don't have a clue as
to how the system works. Increasingly, we think the answer
is in networks."

Not that network theory is an entirely contemporary
creation. Its roots stretch back nearly 300 years, to
Leonhard Euler, a brilliant 18th-century Swiss
mathematician who dabbled in nearly every branch of modern
science, from algebra to astrophysics. In 1736, Euler took
up a brain teaser that had preoccupied the residents of
Königsberg, a Prussian town on the Pregel River not far
from where he lived: how to cross all seven bridges in town
without crossing the same bridge twice. No one had been
able to pull off the feat, but Euler provided the
mathematical proof that it could not be done. To do so, he
turned the problem into a network, depicting the bridges as
lines and the landmasses they connected as nodes.

After Euler, mathematicians continued to analyze networks,
then called graphs, enumerating the properties of orderly
and static structures like ice crystals and beehives. No
one thought to tackle networks of people or objects that
were, as Mr. Watts puts it in his book, "actually doing
something - generating power, sending data or even making
decisions." Such complex real-world networks were assumed
to be random: nodes and links connected in an arbitrary,
disorderly fashion.

But clearly this is not always the case. "Imagine that you
really did pick your friends at random from the global
population of over six billion," Mr. Watts writes. "You
would be much more likely to be friends with someone on
another continent than someone from your hometown,
workplace or school. Even in a world of global travel and
electronic communications, this is an absurd notion."

Of course, studying a network of six billion people is an
unfathomable proposition. It wasn't until the mid-1990's
and the advent of powerful computers that network
scientists were able to analyze real-life networks of
significant size and complexity. And in doing so, Mr. Watts
and his colleagues made some tantalizing discoveries. By
1998, they had found that networks as diverse as actors,
power grids, the World Wide Web, the proteins in a human
cell and the neurons of a wormlike organism called C.
elegans aren't random at all but obey the same simple,
powerful rules.

For example, whether the network has nearly a billion nodes
(the estimated number of Web pages) or just half a million
(roughly the number of actors in the Internet Movie
Database), the paths between any two nodes tend to be
extremely short - such that, for example, any two movie
actors can be connected by an average of less than four
links.

That may not seem like news to anyone who has played the
Kevin Bacon Game - in which film actors invariably turn out
to have starred in a movie with Mr. Bacon or else with
another actor who has - or seen John Guare's play "Six
Degrees of Separation." (The play was inspired by the
famous 1967 experiment in which the Harvard social
psychologist Stanley Milgram tried to prove that anyone in
America could reach anyone else through a chain of fewer
than six people.) But it was not entirely clear why these
should all be "small-world" networks. As Mr. Watts points
out, "There is nothing similar at all about the detailed
way in which movie actors choose projects and engineers
build transmission lines."

Eerier still, in 1999, Mr. Barabasi and a student at Notre
Dame found that many of these small-world networks are also
what scientists call scale-free. Many natural phenomena,
including traits like height and I.Q., tend to cluster
around an average (producing the familiar bell curve
distribution). By contrast, scale-free networks go in for
extremes: a few hubs - nodes with lots of links - and many
more nodes with hardly any links at all. (Think of Google,
the search engine, as a hub, and your personal homepage -
which probably has just a few links - as an ordinary node.)


Mr. Barabasi's discovery startled scientists. "People
always knew there were networks but thought they were
random," he said. "To know they were nodes linked by hubs
was very unexpected."

It also provoked a frenzy of research. For as Mr. Barabasi
and his collaborator were able to show, the structure of
scale-free networks has important practical implications.
If you remove a few nodes at random, the network can still
function normally. But if you remove one of the hubs, the
results can be catastrophic.

Inspired by this insight, cancer researchers are now homing
in on the cell's hub proteins in order to learn how to
defend them from devastating attacks. Epidemiologists
studying sexually transmitted diseases are arguing that it
makes more sense to identify and treat the hubs in the
transmission network than to give drugs to everyone. "The
Bush administration's policy to give drugs to mothers with
children is completely irrelevant to stopping AIDS in
Africa," Mr. Barabasi said. "It's much better to go and
target the hubs."

Even the United States military has begun recruiting
network theorists to conduct counterterrorism research,
with the goal of learning how to protect information and
economic networks at home and destabilize terrorist
networks abroad.

Yet just which network model describes human society
remains a subject of fierce debate. Mr. Barabasi believes
the human social network is scale-free with the expected
smattering of richly connected hubs. Mr. Watts disagrees.
"If you asked people to list the number of people they
recognize, that could be scale-free, everyone recognizes
Michael Jordan," he said. "But if you said, `Who would you
trust to look after your kids?' That's not scale-free. As
you start to ratchet up the requirements for what it means
to know someone, connections diminish."

Is society a small-world network of the sort Milgram was
interested in? Mr. Watts spent the past year trying to test
that idea, using the Internet as a proxy for the world
population. Whatever the results, he says, it's clear that
human psychology has not yet adapted to the implications of
a connected world.

"We like to think of our world as full of atomized
individuals," he said. "But decisions people make and the
actions they take are so hopelessly entwined with the
behaviors of everyone else that it's difficult to draw the
boundaries around the individual." When it comes to
choosing a CD or explaining the success of Harry Potter,
your preference may matter less than the network's.

But some scholars dismiss the network hypothesis
altogether. Judith S. Kleinfeld, a psychologist at the
University of Alaska at Fairbanks, prompted a flurry of
media attention last year when she published an article
questioning the validity of Milgram's small-world findings.
Given the prevalence of networks - from power grids to
airports to the Internet - it's tempting to assume that
human society is a network as well, she says. But
ultimately, that is impossible to prove.

"Duncan assumes the world is a matrix," Ms. Kleinfeld said
in a telephone interview. "He wants to know how you get
from one point on it to another. But what if the world
isn't a matrix? What if people aren't all connected? What
if they're islands in space?"

Mr. Watts admits that he faces daunting empirical
challenges - and that overzealous scientists are a concern.
"You can turn almost anything into a network," he said,
holding up two papers he had received on the "small world
of human language" and shaking his head. "So what?"

"When I'm brutally honest with myself, I think that if we
can figure this out, we can answer some important
questions. Other times, I think it's just too hard."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/25/arts/25WATT.html?ex=1044521712&ei=1&en=5fd9163972c76185



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
[log in to unmask] or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
[log in to unmask]

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager