Slashdot Mirror
Seeing and Tuning Social Networks
Lisam writes "Jon Udell, in a fascinating column titled "Seeing and Tuning Social Networks", writes: "New forms of social software are one of the most hopeful green shoots erupting from a still-bleak technology landscape." Software is catching up with what we know about social networks: the greater the reach of your array, the more effective an actor you can be within an organization.In this column, Jon talks with two observers about software that maps social networks and their patterns..."
it probably doesnt matter much to you if you are in an office/business/netowrk that doesn't require politics but any big business or univeristy requires that you be if not socialloy skillfull, at least adequate....telling a stupdi user that he is being, well, stupid will stop your career/job very quickly indeed if that stupid user is a dean or VP or something. this is a very underrated aspect of geekiness.
FreeBSD for the impatient.
It's not 'waaaay' over your head, just a different context than you're used to. Most of the article is just talking about statistics and their implications... no hard facts or revelations, just kinda like rumors that haven't been verified but might be interesting in the future.
It's much like talking about cloning, we all know what it means but what are the ramifications to our gene pool? Without recombinate dna how will we evolve? Clones begetting clones begetting clones, where is the fun in that? not to mention the lack of orgasms...
BTW this isn't 'new tech' it is just old tech on speed... and similar in it's results, ie: premature ejaculation of info that may or may not be relevant.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
Interesting article to read, but this is kinda of an obvious thing.
You need to make as many social connections as you can. This is especially important in business and when working within a large corporation.
This whole realm is already at least partially mapped out by a number of researchers. The ones referenced in the article are actually the least impressive of the lot, in my experience.
My personal pick for most notable researcher in this area is Joshua Epstein. He's with the Sante Fe Institute. The best book of the several he's written is:
Nonlinear Dynamics, Mathematical Biology
and Social Science (Santa Fe Institute
Series, Lecture Notes, Vol 4)
Joshua M. Epstein
Perseus Publishing
ISBN: 0201419882
It presents a number of mathematical models (games theory), including a variant of a Non-linear Richardson called "GloboCop", which does a fairly good job of modelling "core team" based Open Source software projects (IMO).
There has actually been a lot of work along these lines; the first I ever heard of it was an article in Analog Magazine's "Science Fact" column, entitled "Toward a Science of Psychohistory".
-- Terry
What this article points to most of all, at least for me, is the need for better tools to map abitrary dynamic non-hierarchical networks. Social networks, interlinked buearocracies, realms of knowledge (that whole noosphere thing), the internet itself, the list goes on. There are specific projects about looking into one or another of these, but few share the tools they develop to do the analysis, and those that do tend to release things very specialized to whatever they're studying.
I know I for one am interested in collecting and mapping several datasets, for intellectual and practical gain, but lack the time, resources, knowledge and skill to develop full dynamic network visualization software (preferably in web-friendly form) all by my lonesome.
So, uh... Hey! You! Open source developers! Get to work, chop chop!
(to pre-emptively answer the 'why don't you start a project then?' question, I'm just an artist with geek tendencies who can write a little code, and I do mean a little)
----- I don't believe in wisconsin.
My personal pick for most notable researcher in this area is Joshua Epstein. He's with the Sante Fe Institute.
...
He's with the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.
MEEP! MEEP!
I suppose viewing it as a "network" is the only way that most Slashbots will ever understand social interaction.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." - George Bush
Someone didn't do their homework. Data visualization, network visualization, and social network visualization have been hot topics for a while.
patents pending
The usual thing: someone who doesn't know the field patents what someone skilled in the art should know.
Social Networks has been pretty slow to come to open source world. One of the few pieces of software I know that uses them is the R project, which now has some social network analysis tools.
For visualization, though, I'm currently unaware of any open-source tools. Krackplot has a free web interface, and there is a simple Java program that uses spring-based algorithms for node positioning, but I know of nothing open-source that uses Krackplot's simulated annealing algorithm.
In general, social network analysis can be very useful, but it's results are often subject to misinterpretation. For example, a social isolate in a business might be isolated for a good reason (they are doing research, for example), so you wouldn't want to tell them to integrate themselves more. But in general, it's a great tool to get another look at data you would not normally find out about.
they are then responsible for it's security. Period. Anything else is just neglegence and will get their pants sued off them.
Maybe you wouldn't get a gig in Hollywood, but you are indisputably an "actor" in the sense used by Bruno Latour to encompass all humans and whatever other entities might act so as to influence the data/knowledge. Latour's actor's do not even need to have intentions.
I ran into them in a Philosophy of Science course a decade ago, but nowadays you can just use a Google search.
-- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
You should also try Wasserman and Faust's (1994) book on the subject. It is showing its age a bit, but remains the best single volume on the subject.
-Carter
While I can sympathize with the general complaint that not all work in the field is sterling, your overall conclusion is simply wrong. Pick up any copy of one of the better journals in the field (e.g., the American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Social Forces, Journal of Mathematical Sociology, Social Networks, or Social Psychology Quarterly (actually a sociology journal)) and you'll find genuine social science research. As in any field, some studies are better than others, but, on the whole, the discipline does manage to lurch forward despite the claims of naysayers.
That said, I will not deny that there's a lot of non-science (and nonsense) which manages to fly under the "sociology" label. As a professional sociologist, this probably angers me a lot more than it angers you, but this is not a matter which can be rectified overnight. My colleagues and I try to do good science, to support others who do good science, and to encourage the use of rigorous standards in evaluating each others' research. Alas, many of those outside the discipline are more interested in throwing stones at the field as a whole than in aiding those who are trying to make a difference....
So here's a hint: if you want to help improve the quality of sociology, stop painting the whole discipline with the "junk science" brush. The charicature is incorrect, and it serves to undermine the quiet majority of scientists who work hard to expand human knowledge in this area.
-Carter