Complexity and Social Networks Blog

I took the hour last night to watch this segment - all in, it was more than useful.

I, at least, see three generalizations that, tentatively, we might abstract from the discussion. Each is potentially important, if not far-reaching:

One. The (so far quite) successful social networking (SN) sites represented in the video’ed session - FaceBook and A Small World - serve existing, real-world social groups. Rather than aiming to engender new links and new groups, the SN site provides service to members of an existing real-world group. That of course speaks volumes about the appropriate functionality for a SN site. More basically, that means we are not seeing ‘new social groups’ on these sites, only a service provided to what we have always known since the ancient past of human functioning.

Also, there is some intimation that such social groups typically are ‘small.’

(MySpace, not represented by a speaker, became in effect an exception.)

Two. There was relatively strong suggestion that the function of social groups evolves across the human developmental cycle - i.e., varies by age. The age-ranks mentioned were: teens, college-age, and early/middle professional. This surely-controversial proposition, if proved to have some basis, would speak to changes in and different roles for the human social connection, as a person grows and matures.

Has this been discussed in literature? Potentially, this opens surprising new vistas on a changing function for social ties and on development.

Three. There was some intimation of tension between social ties and commercial gain. This is potentially the most controversial, but also the hoariest in its traces from the far past forward

The example was Xing. And - to be clear - no one in the discussion suggested this tension. However, one could conclude from the video discussion that Xing and its main competitor, LinkedIn, exist to grease the process for finding remunerative commercial connections - whether that is expertise on a topic or a next link/person into a needed player for some business proposition, e.g., a new customer or source of financing.

While we speak of this as a network link (and do so accurately), there is an open question whether the link is also social, at least in the essential human sense. In some cultures, there will not be a business tie unless there also is a personal link, with all the long-term mutual obligations thereto. However, other cultures make a point of disconnecting the two.

In such a latter culture, while a social tie may be an option, it is not required. In fact future dealings may ‘betray’ what would otherwise be obligations, for instance when next year a lower-cost supplier supplants this year’s source. Hence, sites such as Linkedin and Xing, that serve young/middle business professionals searching for that next business proposition (at least as described in the video), may - or may not - also have a social component. That differentiation - if it survives its controversial statement … - calls for some care with which labels are applied to these new sites.

One of the more vocal points made in the video is just this differentiation - in general - among sites that probably too-generically get the label ‘social networking site.’ For instance, we may need the label ‘business connection’ rather than ‘social networking’ for some sites.