| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2 | |||||
| 3 | 4 |
5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
| 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
| 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 |
| 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 |
| 31 |
« Longitudinal data, causal inferences, and the institutional milieu | Main | An Introduction »
6 December 2005
Thomas Schelling, in Micromotives and Macrobehavior, notes the social inefficiencies of Christmas cards (31-33). He claims that cards are based on a system of obligations, and that once a card has been sent one year, failing to send one each subsequent years sends and active—and negative—signal. Tim Hartford, the Undercover Economist, reiterates this theme, and notes that the yearly lag for feedback (I send a card this year, and receive one in return next year) may create this trap. Instead of thinking of the card tradition as a forced system of obligations, however, suppose we look at it from a networks perspective.
Routers on the internet occasionally send “pings� to other machines, to maintain a set of contacts and reaffirm each other’s existence. A ping packet is very simple, and the transaction carries little contextual information beyond the necessities of network config data. I would argue that cards serve a similar function: the simplest form of communication between two parties to maintain a network of weak ties. There are many people with whom I would like to maintain some casual ties, but have relatively little to say at this time. An informal poll of colleagues in the office supported this view: people want to maintain networks beyond the daily standards of intimacy. The basic problem with cards is that we now have simpler and cheaper forms of communication, so the relative cost of card + labor + stamp has grown.
If we were to grant to traditionalists that the traditional practice of pen-and-paper correspondence has largely disappeared from modern life, there are still ample ways to stay in touch with friends and colleagues. Phone, email and instant message, for example, are now relatively cheap and ubiquitous in certain networks, yet each medium carries a certain overhead in the missive. A phone conversation, particularly without a specific motive, can be awkward and requires small talk “catch up� that may not be necessary or wanted. The synchronous nature of phone calls make them hard to scale for a large ego-network, especially given time constraints. IM can interrupt the alter at his or her workspace, which can be equally invasive, and is also subject to time constraints. IM does allow a constant presence through the practice of “buddy lists� allowing presence to be registered without active communication. (Has anyone done research on presence and maintenance of buddy lists?) However, this practice may be too passive to “ping� a network tie: like a blog or website, it is pull, rather than push.
So is it possible to have a social network ping mechanism that is low cost but socially acceptable? Or is the inherent cost of the ping integral to maintenance of social ties, a la economics of gift giving? Hartford argues that we should burn the Christmas card list and start over again with people we actually care for. Perhaps a push to move the annual holiday greetings to an email format would be better. Go ahead, ping your network.
Posted by Allan Friedman at December 6, 2005 11:18 AM