***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** HI Bruce, you have your finger on an area sna has yet to grapple adequately with. Firstly a distinction, and this comes from the world of sociometry and not sna. Sociometric literature defines positive, negative and neutral tele in relationships, as being attracted to (positive), rejecting (negative) and 'no sense of' as neutral tele - the two way emotional flow of feeling between people. It is often clear (to me) that sna relationships are not the telic relationships envisioned and described by Jacob Moreno. His work and that of psychodramatists, sociometrists, and group workers 'measure' emotionally significant relationships. So positive relationships described 'companions' on specific criteria. And of course, positive, neutral and negative are not linear measures, they desribe emotional connections between people which when mapped, display the psychosocial networks. This means A may be positive to B, but B may be negative to A. (put simply: A wants to marry, date or have a cup of tea, with B, but B does not choose A for any of these interactions). You get the picture. SNA has yet to find a way to map these attractions and pulls away between people and in my opinion, tends to overvalue positive connections. Also it seems to me in sna, that when there is no relationship between say, c and d, sna'ers call this a 'structural hole' however, it remains unclear to me, the nature of this relationship. Are these two negative to one another (that is, dont choose one another), or do they even know one another? If you go to Moreno's original work 'who shall survive' you see some great diagrams of this phenomena. This year, Zerka Moreno, Dr Moreno's partner and muse for over 30 years, has a book of her writings from 1944 being publised by Routeledge, and she has a number of papers on tele and the nature of tele. SNA researchers will find her work significant and well informed in understanding applications of positive and negative choices when mapping positive and negative relationships. regards, Diana Jones -----Original Message----- From: Neubauer, Bruce [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: 26 July 2006 9:12 a.m. To: [log in to unmask] Subject: distinction between values of meanings and strengths of relationships ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** I am confused by the notion of negative relationships. It seems to me that if there are two poles to the meaning of a relationship it should be modeled as two relationships and not as one relationship with positive and negative values. I see the presence or absence of a relationship as a question independent of the strength and meaning of a relationship if one exists. Perhaps this is a question of the distinction between strength of relationship and meaning (interpretation) of a relationship. How can the strength of a relationship be negative when zero represents the absence of a relationship? Measures of things like love and hate are not necessarily mutually exclusive in a linear way. Also, is it more intuitive to represent the strength of a relationship by the thickness or color of the line rather than by the length of the line (or the distance between the nodes)? Does a long line between nodes intuitively suggest a strong association (the length of the line) or a weak association (the distance between nodes)? Bruce _____________________________________________________________________ SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message. _____________________________________________________________________ SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.