What do you think?
Rate this book
Connected: The Surprising Power of Our Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives
Celebrated scientists Nicholas Christakis and James Fowler explain the amazing power of social networks and our profound influence on one another's lives.
Your colleague's husband's sister can make you fat, even if you don't know her. A happy neighbor has more impact on your happiness than a happy spouse. These startling revelations of how much we truly influence one another are revealed in the studies of Dr. Christakis and Fowler, which have repeatedly made front-page news nationwide.
In Connected , the authors explain why emotions are contagious, how health behaviors spread, why the rich get richer, even how we find and choose our partners. Intriguing and entertaining, Connected overturns the notion of the individual and provides a revolutionary paradigm-that social networks influence our ideas, emotions, health, relationships, behavior, politics, and much more. It will change the way we think about every aspect of our lives.
Your colleague's husband's sister can make you fat, even if you don't know her. A happy neighbor has more impact on your happiness than a happy spouse. These startling revelations of how much we truly influence one another are revealed in the studies of Dr. Christakis and Fowler, which have repeatedly made front-page news nationwide.
In Connected , the authors explain why emotions are contagious, how health behaviors spread, why the rich get richer, even how we find and choose our partners. Intriguing and entertaining, Connected overturns the notion of the individual and provides a revolutionary paradigm-that social networks influence our ideas, emotions, health, relationships, behavior, politics, and much more. It will change the way we think about every aspect of our lives.
336 pages, Hardcover
First published September 28, 2008
685 people are currently reading
11072 people want to read
About the author
Nicholas A. Christakis
9 books450 followersNicholas A. Christakis, MD, PhD, MPH, is the Sterling Professor of Social and Natural Science at Yale University, with appointments in the departments of Sociology, Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Statistics and Data Science, Biomedical Engineering, and Medicine.
Previously, he conducted research and taught for many years at Harvard University and at the University of Chicago. He was on Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2009. He worked as a hospice physician in underserved communities in Chicago and Boston until 2011.
Nowadays, he spends most of his time in the Human Nature Lab, where his team explores a broad set of ideas, including: understanding the evolutionary, genetic, and physiological bases of friendship; encouraging villages in the developing world to adopt new public health practices (working in locations in Honduras, India, and Uganda); mapping social networks in settings around the world; arranging people into online groups so that they behave better (such as being more cooperative and more truthful); developing artificial intelligence that helps humans address challenges in collective action; exploring the effect of social interactions on the human microbiome; and more. When he is not in the lab, he teaches at Yale University.
Christakis was elected a Fellow to the National Academy of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in 2006, to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2010, and to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2017.
Previously, he conducted research and taught for many years at Harvard University and at the University of Chicago. He was on Time magazine's list of the 100 most influential people in the world in 2009. He worked as a hospice physician in underserved communities in Chicago and Boston until 2011.
Nowadays, he spends most of his time in the Human Nature Lab, where his team explores a broad set of ideas, including: understanding the evolutionary, genetic, and physiological bases of friendship; encouraging villages in the developing world to adopt new public health practices (working in locations in Honduras, India, and Uganda); mapping social networks in settings around the world; arranging people into online groups so that they behave better (such as being more cooperative and more truthful); developing artificial intelligence that helps humans address challenges in collective action; exploring the effect of social interactions on the human microbiome; and more. When he is not in the lab, he teaches at Yale University.
Christakis was elected a Fellow to the National Academy of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences in 2006, to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2010, and to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2017.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 389 reviews
January 16, 2011
There are a number of things I’ve been thinking about lately and quite a few of those things are discussed here in this book. So, in a sense I should have found this much more interesting than I did. Overall, I was a little disappointed even though I think this book has an important message and has interesting things to say about a number of incredibly important issues.
If I had written this book…
It is hard to say just what the perfect society might be for humans, but what we have today seems pretty close on a number of counts. We live longer now, a larger number of us live (potentially, at least) worthwhile lives that we have some measure of control and choice over, and compared to any other time in history we are probably less likely to die from random acts of violence. However, paradoxically, we probably feel less happy and less in control of our lives today than our ancestors ever did before. I think a lot of this has to do with our feelings of connected and disconnectedness.
We like to think of ourselves as ‘individuals’. We are attracted to stories of those who go off on their own – monks or Jesus into the wilderness or Nietzsche’s Zarathustra living in his cave and coming down from the mountains – and then for these loners, purified by their social isolation, to somehow come back to us and to tell us of the path, of the way. A foundational myth within our culture is that society itself is insane and that it is only individuals (and even then only certain and of necessity very few individuals) who are in fact both wise and sane. As Nietzsche himself puts it, “Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, nations and ages is it the rule.”
However, we forget (or overlook the fact) that human individuals don’t really exist, at least, not the romantic individuals of these myths. I think part of the appeal of these myths is that we tend to be confused by the fact that we are constrained to look out at the world through a single set of eyes and that it is this optical illusion that deludes us into forgetting how much we are shaped and defined by the society we find ourselves immersed within.
Surveys have been done that show not only that we are remarkably well connected with all other humans – the idea of ‘six degrees of separation’ has become a cliché – but also other surveys show that if your friend’s friend loses weight then you are also likely to lose weight. The friends of our friends play more of a role in our lives than we might ever want to imagine – so much so that if you are looking for a new partner (sexual or otherwise) a good strategy is to join Facebook and start flicking through the profiles of your friend’s friends. Throughout history that one step remove has been the most likely source of our partners.
We have also come to think of the world as hierarchical. We think of the world as having the President of the USA on the very top (or maybe Rupert Murdoch, if I’m feeling particularly disheartened) and we then shimmy down the branches of the great tree until we find ourselves at the roots somewhere in an African or in a Latin American slum, you know, inhabited by the sorts of people that even if a million of them were to die it would not generate the news print of a particularly bad rail accident somewhere in the first world. (Think I exaggerate? http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm)
We like to think in symbols – we like to think in simple schemes. So, if we can think of all Orientals as Muslims and of all Muslims as terrorists and fanatics and all terrorists and fanatics as not like us, well, it simplifies and justifies both our current mistreatments of ‘them’ and our refusal to do anything, to make any change. We have created simple dichotomies (us = good, free, moral, superior; them = bad, fanatical, misguided, childlike) and with these schemes we are able to overlook any atrocity that is committed in our name and by our hand.
But what if we were to move away from hierarchical structures and simple dichotomies and toward building and strengthening the networks and connections that already exist between people. Because so many of our current myths are directly opposed to such an idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZg8a0...
How would you react to the challenge of The Third Man? Tax free or not, the lives of others are not the same as the lives of ants, even if they do prove hard to comprehend at anything like a little distance. In a week where a madman has cut a scythe through so many images that cluster around US democracy – a 9/11 child, a judge, a Jewish congress woman, a pair of grandparents – the paradoxes and contradictions and confusions of who is valuable and who is not, who should live and who die, who counts and who does not, have all become messy and confused in ways of aching complexity. As much as I would like to endorse Obama’s words, “Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle” or to believe with him “that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us”, a few things I have witnessed this week help to confound that hope.
When Sarah Palin says, “Don’t retreat. Reload” or when she produces a poster with gun sights marking the states were she wishes Republicans to defeat Democrats in elections, I struggle to see these actions of hers as anything but an incitement to murder, as an incitement to her supporters to shoot her political adversaries. When she is then outraged that people might take her actions or her words or the images she has produced on their face value, I can only conclude that either she is utterly disingenuous or that she and I live in completely incommensurable worlds. To put that in plain language, I can’t help feeling that she is either a liar or that we simply don’t speak the same language.
And when you watch the first moments of Obama’s speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztbJmX... it is difficult not to feel for him as he tries to control the audience, an audience so unsure of how to react at such a time, in such a circumstance. An audience that can only think to cheer. It is sad, almost sad beyond words, but we seem to have become a world that has forgotten that silence speaks louder and is more articulate than applause.
What this book teaches us is that normalising behaviours is incredibly powerful within our societies. If we choose to normalise hatred and anger and fear we will get one particular type of society. Nevertheless, there is an alternative.
This book looks at experiments such as the Milgram prison one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_...), but also at other experiments showing how acts of altruism spread. This book offers hope – hope that if we can view others as people, rather than categories or types, perhaps we can avoid inflicting the ever-increasing electric shocks onto a screaming other. And as in the Seven Up series, we will quickly see that people are rarely fully defined by their class or the box we might like to place them in – that learning anything about people at all displays their remarkable diversity and that is what we must embrace – it is our sole life line.
The most fascinating experiment in this book is told around Second Life – a computer site I’ve avoided like the plague for fear of it erasing too much of my first life. All of this section of the book is fascinating (not least the ‘affairs’ committed in cyberspace, with virtual sex tracked by virtual private investigators leading to actual divorce), but what I found infinitely more interesting was the fact that when they allocated people avatars in cyberspace at random, avatars of a different sex to the physical sex of the ‘player’ – the player’s behaviour (including how close they might stand to other players and the likelihood of ‘eye contact’ they would hold) morphed to be identical to that of the socially appropriate behaviours of any other member of that socially constructed gender to which they had been assigned. I have to admit that I found this surprising, but I don’t for a minute doubt its veracity.
This book also refers to The Wisdom of Crowds, a book that has convinced me we need to ensure greater and in fact unconstrained diversity if we are to have a future – diversity of opinion, of life style, of belief. Somehow we need to find ways to increase the access and voice of those who in our society remain outside and voiceless. We need to challenge the masks we ourselves wear, particularly those we don’t even know we have on; like gender, class, nation and race.
Perhaps the only way to liberate ourselves from the faux individualism that dresses us up in our various identities is to recognise the power of the forces shaping us and the equally remarkable power we have to affect change, not only in ourselves, but also in those around us and those around them. With our good actions we can literally make a better world.
If I had written this book…
It is hard to say just what the perfect society might be for humans, but what we have today seems pretty close on a number of counts. We live longer now, a larger number of us live (potentially, at least) worthwhile lives that we have some measure of control and choice over, and compared to any other time in history we are probably less likely to die from random acts of violence. However, paradoxically, we probably feel less happy and less in control of our lives today than our ancestors ever did before. I think a lot of this has to do with our feelings of connected and disconnectedness.
We like to think of ourselves as ‘individuals’. We are attracted to stories of those who go off on their own – monks or Jesus into the wilderness or Nietzsche’s Zarathustra living in his cave and coming down from the mountains – and then for these loners, purified by their social isolation, to somehow come back to us and to tell us of the path, of the way. A foundational myth within our culture is that society itself is insane and that it is only individuals (and even then only certain and of necessity very few individuals) who are in fact both wise and sane. As Nietzsche himself puts it, “Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, nations and ages is it the rule.”
However, we forget (or overlook the fact) that human individuals don’t really exist, at least, not the romantic individuals of these myths. I think part of the appeal of these myths is that we tend to be confused by the fact that we are constrained to look out at the world through a single set of eyes and that it is this optical illusion that deludes us into forgetting how much we are shaped and defined by the society we find ourselves immersed within.
Surveys have been done that show not only that we are remarkably well connected with all other humans – the idea of ‘six degrees of separation’ has become a cliché – but also other surveys show that if your friend’s friend loses weight then you are also likely to lose weight. The friends of our friends play more of a role in our lives than we might ever want to imagine – so much so that if you are looking for a new partner (sexual or otherwise) a good strategy is to join Facebook and start flicking through the profiles of your friend’s friends. Throughout history that one step remove has been the most likely source of our partners.
We have also come to think of the world as hierarchical. We think of the world as having the President of the USA on the very top (or maybe Rupert Murdoch, if I’m feeling particularly disheartened) and we then shimmy down the branches of the great tree until we find ourselves at the roots somewhere in an African or in a Latin American slum, you know, inhabited by the sorts of people that even if a million of them were to die it would not generate the news print of a particularly bad rail accident somewhere in the first world. (Think I exaggerate? http://www.avert.org/worldstats.htm)
We like to think in symbols – we like to think in simple schemes. So, if we can think of all Orientals as Muslims and of all Muslims as terrorists and fanatics and all terrorists and fanatics as not like us, well, it simplifies and justifies both our current mistreatments of ‘them’ and our refusal to do anything, to make any change. We have created simple dichotomies (us = good, free, moral, superior; them = bad, fanatical, misguided, childlike) and with these schemes we are able to overlook any atrocity that is committed in our name and by our hand.
But what if we were to move away from hierarchical structures and simple dichotomies and toward building and strengthening the networks and connections that already exist between people. Because so many of our current myths are directly opposed to such an idea.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZg8a0...
How would you react to the challenge of The Third Man? Tax free or not, the lives of others are not the same as the lives of ants, even if they do prove hard to comprehend at anything like a little distance. In a week where a madman has cut a scythe through so many images that cluster around US democracy – a 9/11 child, a judge, a Jewish congress woman, a pair of grandparents – the paradoxes and contradictions and confusions of who is valuable and who is not, who should live and who die, who counts and who does not, have all become messy and confused in ways of aching complexity. As much as I would like to endorse Obama’s words, “Let's make sure it's not on the usual plane of politics and point scoring and pettiness that drifts away with the next news cycle” or to believe with him “that the forces that divide us are not as strong as those that unite us”, a few things I have witnessed this week help to confound that hope.
When Sarah Palin says, “Don’t retreat. Reload” or when she produces a poster with gun sights marking the states were she wishes Republicans to defeat Democrats in elections, I struggle to see these actions of hers as anything but an incitement to murder, as an incitement to her supporters to shoot her political adversaries. When she is then outraged that people might take her actions or her words or the images she has produced on their face value, I can only conclude that either she is utterly disingenuous or that she and I live in completely incommensurable worlds. To put that in plain language, I can’t help feeling that she is either a liar or that we simply don’t speak the same language.
And when you watch the first moments of Obama’s speech http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztbJmX... it is difficult not to feel for him as he tries to control the audience, an audience so unsure of how to react at such a time, in such a circumstance. An audience that can only think to cheer. It is sad, almost sad beyond words, but we seem to have become a world that has forgotten that silence speaks louder and is more articulate than applause.
What this book teaches us is that normalising behaviours is incredibly powerful within our societies. If we choose to normalise hatred and anger and fear we will get one particular type of society. Nevertheless, there is an alternative.
This book looks at experiments such as the Milgram prison one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_...), but also at other experiments showing how acts of altruism spread. This book offers hope – hope that if we can view others as people, rather than categories or types, perhaps we can avoid inflicting the ever-increasing electric shocks onto a screaming other. And as in the Seven Up series, we will quickly see that people are rarely fully defined by their class or the box we might like to place them in – that learning anything about people at all displays their remarkable diversity and that is what we must embrace – it is our sole life line.
The most fascinating experiment in this book is told around Second Life – a computer site I’ve avoided like the plague for fear of it erasing too much of my first life. All of this section of the book is fascinating (not least the ‘affairs’ committed in cyberspace, with virtual sex tracked by virtual private investigators leading to actual divorce), but what I found infinitely more interesting was the fact that when they allocated people avatars in cyberspace at random, avatars of a different sex to the physical sex of the ‘player’ – the player’s behaviour (including how close they might stand to other players and the likelihood of ‘eye contact’ they would hold) morphed to be identical to that of the socially appropriate behaviours of any other member of that socially constructed gender to which they had been assigned. I have to admit that I found this surprising, but I don’t for a minute doubt its veracity.
This book also refers to The Wisdom of Crowds, a book that has convinced me we need to ensure greater and in fact unconstrained diversity if we are to have a future – diversity of opinion, of life style, of belief. Somehow we need to find ways to increase the access and voice of those who in our society remain outside and voiceless. We need to challenge the masks we ourselves wear, particularly those we don’t even know we have on; like gender, class, nation and race.
Perhaps the only way to liberate ourselves from the faux individualism that dresses us up in our various identities is to recognise the power of the forces shaping us and the equally remarkable power we have to affect change, not only in ourselves, but also in those around us and those around them. With our good actions we can literally make a better world.
September 28, 2009
I've read a couple of reviews by professionals, and have been really surprised that everyone focuses on the content, and no one mentions how poorly organized the book is.
The data is very interesting and compelling. And the authors aren't bad writers. But I'm simply stunned that people who talk about using visualization software to map the topology of social networks can't come up with some workable, organized map of how to present their findings. They seem to rely on having interesting anecdotes and studies to report, rather than having a clearly articulated plan for conveying the information.
There were many, many points at which I found myself wondering whether the conclusions presented were drawn directly from some research or were merely interesting thoughts the authors had. I finally got so frustrated that I quit the book about halfway through.
Fascinating stuff. And if one doesn't care a whit about how the information is presented, one might enjoy this book. I now have a copy I'm willing to pass on.
The data is very interesting and compelling. And the authors aren't bad writers. But I'm simply stunned that people who talk about using visualization software to map the topology of social networks can't come up with some workable, organized map of how to present their findings. They seem to rely on having interesting anecdotes and studies to report, rather than having a clearly articulated plan for conveying the information.
There were many, many points at which I found myself wondering whether the conclusions presented were drawn directly from some research or were merely interesting thoughts the authors had. I finally got so frustrated that I quit the book about halfway through.
Fascinating stuff. And if one doesn't care a whit about how the information is presented, one might enjoy this book. I now have a copy I'm willing to pass on.
May 31, 2012
This book had some great information packed inside of a repetitive package that wasn't very sticky.
Once you picked up the key ideas, most of the conclusions followed in a fairly obvious manner. The key ideas or, at least, the ones that I remember, were:
- Network influence tends to travel three degrees before shrinking to statistical insignificance. You influence your friends, friends' friends, and friends' friends' friends, and they influence you back. The strength of influence decreases with each separation, but the number of people influenced increases.
- Network effects are real. They persist even once researchers account for other sources of similarity in the network such as homophily (the tendency for like to be connected to like) and common external factors (people near each other in the network may share experiences).
Everything travels across the network -- ideas, emotional state, behavior, disease, etc. -- and because of the three degrees of influence rule, you only have limited control over what you are exposed to and who you can influence.
- Not all network ties are equal (weak ties and strong ties). The most important information tends to come from ties that are distant or weak. This is because you have a pretty good idea of the information held by those connected with close, strong ties. For example, people tend to find jobs and relationship opportunities through distant or weak ties because they have generally already evaluated the opportunities presented by their strong, close ties. Distance brings information that you have not already incorporated.
Once you know these principles, much of the rest of the book becomes fairly straightforward.
The authors did present some compelling information in their discussion of the internet. Based on studies that they and others have done, they concluded that relationships on the internet tend to be largely the same as traditional relationships. The mix may have changed (more weak ties, perhaps) and the means of network maintenance have certainly changed, but, for better and worse, people are still largely the same creatures.
Overall, I am glad that I read this book. The information was interesting even if the presentation was less than gripping. The information in the book consisted almost exclusively of real studies, so the conclusions seem well founded, even if not surprising.
Once you picked up the key ideas, most of the conclusions followed in a fairly obvious manner. The key ideas or, at least, the ones that I remember, were:
- Network influence tends to travel three degrees before shrinking to statistical insignificance. You influence your friends, friends' friends, and friends' friends' friends, and they influence you back. The strength of influence decreases with each separation, but the number of people influenced increases.
- Network effects are real. They persist even once researchers account for other sources of similarity in the network such as homophily (the tendency for like to be connected to like) and common external factors (people near each other in the network may share experiences).
Everything travels across the network -- ideas, emotional state, behavior, disease, etc. -- and because of the three degrees of influence rule, you only have limited control over what you are exposed to and who you can influence.
- Not all network ties are equal (weak ties and strong ties). The most important information tends to come from ties that are distant or weak. This is because you have a pretty good idea of the information held by those connected with close, strong ties. For example, people tend to find jobs and relationship opportunities through distant or weak ties because they have generally already evaluated the opportunities presented by their strong, close ties. Distance brings information that you have not already incorporated.
Once you know these principles, much of the rest of the book becomes fairly straightforward.
The authors did present some compelling information in their discussion of the internet. Based on studies that they and others have done, they concluded that relationships on the internet tend to be largely the same as traditional relationships. The mix may have changed (more weak ties, perhaps) and the means of network maintenance have certainly changed, but, for better and worse, people are still largely the same creatures.
Overall, I am glad that I read this book. The information was interesting even if the presentation was less than gripping. The information in the book consisted almost exclusively of real studies, so the conclusions seem well founded, even if not surprising.
August 22, 2025
کتاب رو خیلی دوست داشتم، به صورت واقع بینانه نوشته شده، نه مثل این کتاب روانشناسی زرد ها که الکی بهت امید بده. بررسی موارد مختلفی بود که میتونه روی زندگی ما تاثیر بزاره.
May 22, 2017
This is an interesting book discussing how social networks effect our lives.
Some highlights from the book are:
• Our connections – our friends, their friends, and even their friends’ friends influence how we live, think, behave etc.
• Our interconnection is not only a natural and necessary part of our lives but also a force for good.
• Our connections with others effect emotions, sex, health, politics, money, evolution, and technology. And this makes us human. To know who we are, we must understand how we are connected.
• Social networks have the power of spreading happiness, generosity, and love.
• Humans deliberately make and remake their social networks all the time.
• We seek out those people who share our interests, histories, and dreams.
• There is a tendency of human beings to influence and copy one another. They also copy their friends’ friends, and their friends’ friends’ friends.
• Our influence gradually dissipates and ceases to have a noticeable effect on people beyond the social frontier that lies at 3 degrees of separation.
• If we are connected to everyone else by 6 degrees and we can influence them up to 3 degrees, then one way to think about ourselves is that each of us can reach about halfway to everyone else on the planet.
• Depression, obesity, sexually transmitted diseases, financial panic, violence, and even suicide also spread. Social networks, it turns out, tend to magnify whatever they are seeded with.
• Emotions of all sorts, joyful or otherwise, can spread between pairs of people and among larger groups.
• Our own anxiety makes us sick, but so does the anxiety of others.
• A person is about 15% more likely to be happy if a directly connected person (at one degree of separation) is happy.
• Having happy friends and relatives appears to be a more effective predictor of happiness than earning more money.
• The existence of the social relationship itself may improve one’s happiness
• Each happy friend a person has increases that person’s probability of being happy by about 9%.
• People with more friends of friends were also more likely to be happy.
• A happy sibling who lives less than a mile away increases your chance of happiness by 14%
• Long-term happiness depends 50% on a person’s genetic set point, 10% on their circumstances (e.g., where they live, how rich they are, how healthy they are), and 40% on what they choose to think and do.
• Each extra friend reduces by about 2 days the number of days we feel lonely each year.
• On average people feel lonely 48 days per year,
• Loneliness is both a cause and a consequence of becoming disconnected.
• We would rather be a fish in a small pond than bigger fish in an ocean filled with whales.
• Being married adds 7 years to a man’s life and 2 years to a woman’s life— better benefits than most medical treatments.
• Obesity is contagious.
• Connections that can make us happy can also make us suicidal.
• Our health also depends quite literally on the biology, choices, and actions of those around us.
• Most workers found jobs via old college friends, past workmates, or previous employers.
• Knowledge is power, and knowing what the network is doing is the first step toward solving potential problems.
• Voting is contagious.
• Changes in technology may be altering the way we live in our social networks and may have profound effects on the way we govern ourselves.
• Because we are connected to others, and because we have evolved to care about others, we take the well-being of others into account when we make choices about what to do.
• People who felt a connection to God would have a way of feeling connected to others, because through God everyone is a “friend of a friend.”
• The expected size of social groups in humans, based on our big brains, should be about 150.(Dunbar’s number)
• Like the telephone or the fax machine, an online social network is not useful until many other people are also using it.
Some highlights from the book are:
• Our connections – our friends, their friends, and even their friends’ friends influence how we live, think, behave etc.
• Our interconnection is not only a natural and necessary part of our lives but also a force for good.
• Our connections with others effect emotions, sex, health, politics, money, evolution, and technology. And this makes us human. To know who we are, we must understand how we are connected.
• Social networks have the power of spreading happiness, generosity, and love.
• Humans deliberately make and remake their social networks all the time.
• We seek out those people who share our interests, histories, and dreams.
• There is a tendency of human beings to influence and copy one another. They also copy their friends’ friends, and their friends’ friends’ friends.
• Our influence gradually dissipates and ceases to have a noticeable effect on people beyond the social frontier that lies at 3 degrees of separation.
• If we are connected to everyone else by 6 degrees and we can influence them up to 3 degrees, then one way to think about ourselves is that each of us can reach about halfway to everyone else on the planet.
• Depression, obesity, sexually transmitted diseases, financial panic, violence, and even suicide also spread. Social networks, it turns out, tend to magnify whatever they are seeded with.
• Emotions of all sorts, joyful or otherwise, can spread between pairs of people and among larger groups.
• Our own anxiety makes us sick, but so does the anxiety of others.
• A person is about 15% more likely to be happy if a directly connected person (at one degree of separation) is happy.
• Having happy friends and relatives appears to be a more effective predictor of happiness than earning more money.
• The existence of the social relationship itself may improve one’s happiness
• Each happy friend a person has increases that person’s probability of being happy by about 9%.
• People with more friends of friends were also more likely to be happy.
• A happy sibling who lives less than a mile away increases your chance of happiness by 14%
• Long-term happiness depends 50% on a person’s genetic set point, 10% on their circumstances (e.g., where they live, how rich they are, how healthy they are), and 40% on what they choose to think and do.
• Each extra friend reduces by about 2 days the number of days we feel lonely each year.
• On average people feel lonely 48 days per year,
• Loneliness is both a cause and a consequence of becoming disconnected.
• We would rather be a fish in a small pond than bigger fish in an ocean filled with whales.
• Being married adds 7 years to a man’s life and 2 years to a woman’s life— better benefits than most medical treatments.
• Obesity is contagious.
• Connections that can make us happy can also make us suicidal.
• Our health also depends quite literally on the biology, choices, and actions of those around us.
• Most workers found jobs via old college friends, past workmates, or previous employers.
• Knowledge is power, and knowing what the network is doing is the first step toward solving potential problems.
• Voting is contagious.
• Changes in technology may be altering the way we live in our social networks and may have profound effects on the way we govern ourselves.
• Because we are connected to others, and because we have evolved to care about others, we take the well-being of others into account when we make choices about what to do.
• People who felt a connection to God would have a way of feeling connected to others, because through God everyone is a “friend of a friend.”
• The expected size of social groups in humans, based on our big brains, should be about 150.(Dunbar’s number)
• Like the telephone or the fax machine, an online social network is not useful until many other people are also using it.
May 25, 2010
The Superorganism. We've animated! We've vivified. Social Media, social networking, geolocation, Goodreads, bookmarking, news aggregators, RSS feeds, it goes on and on. We've layered ourselves in so many overlapping, four-dimensional, self-annealing, anfractuous networks that we exist as single honeycombs in a living hive of millions. There are invisible lines that leave your body and connect to other people in ways you can't even represent on paper, exploding outward in fractal, logarithmic steps to the rest of the world. These connections can be both perennial or ephemeral, durable or solvent, obvious or perplexing, and usually several types at once. But, they are as essential--though seemingly unrelated--to the same organism as kidneys and a hypothalamus.
We know what it means to have Six Degrees of Separation between us, ala Kevin Bacon. Connected now presents us the next maxim in the formula that defines the Superorganism. There are 'Three Degrees of Influence,' no more, and generally no less. In other words, you are influenced most by your first degree of friends; next by the second degree of friend's friends; and finally by a third degree of friend's friend's friends. You don't even know those people, and yet, using repeatable mathematical rigor, the experiments show that we are ultimately affected by Three Degrees of Influence. Sure, it's less influence at each degree, but the unknown people in your myriad networks yield a certain, empirical influence over your actions. I shit you not.
For my new friends on Goodreads, that means my buddy from high school has a new work co-worker that now, from Three Degrees of Separation, can influence your thoughts, decisions, and attitudes. It seems absolutely ridiculous, but the PhD authors have employed CRAY 1 supercomputers to cull trillions of nodes and billions of interactions, and have arrived at numbers that are amazingly replicable--and replicable over networks of different kind, shape and form.
In a network of thousands of people there are bizarre clumpings of obesity, depression, athleticism, obsessive-compulsion, white collar crime, hyperlipidemia, and political persuasion. Some of these seem intuitive, but how the heck can my high school buddy's new co-worker affect your triglycerides? Is it possible that your ex-lover's new partner should affect my diet! "No," you say. WRONG. And here's the book to prove it.
Connected presents more material than just a proof of Three Degrees of Influence. The book explains how and, more importantly, why humans live in these networks. This is not an anthropological study, but there are some interesting tidbits about where you should be in your network (central or peripheral) when there's an unexpected outbreak of genital warts, depression, or criminal activity. You also learn to what extent social media has complicated, extended, and entangled your lives with others. As sociologists begin to plumb the data of Web 3.0, a brave new world is coming into focus, and it's a world of helpful, intriguing, unbelievable connectedness.
Twopointsomething rounded up to 3 stars. The book is well-paced and revealing enough. Unfortunately the publisher restrained these PhDs, making the book more palatable to America's sixth grade reading level. I would have preferred a more academic and data-based presentation. Too bad they gloss over the real mechanics of networks and how they morph around like fresh water pseudopods.
We know what it means to have Six Degrees of Separation between us, ala Kevin Bacon. Connected now presents us the next maxim in the formula that defines the Superorganism. There are 'Three Degrees of Influence,' no more, and generally no less. In other words, you are influenced most by your first degree of friends; next by the second degree of friend's friends; and finally by a third degree of friend's friend's friends. You don't even know those people, and yet, using repeatable mathematical rigor, the experiments show that we are ultimately affected by Three Degrees of Influence. Sure, it's less influence at each degree, but the unknown people in your myriad networks yield a certain, empirical influence over your actions. I shit you not.
For my new friends on Goodreads, that means my buddy from high school has a new work co-worker that now, from Three Degrees of Separation, can influence your thoughts, decisions, and attitudes. It seems absolutely ridiculous, but the PhD authors have employed CRAY 1 supercomputers to cull trillions of nodes and billions of interactions, and have arrived at numbers that are amazingly replicable--and replicable over networks of different kind, shape and form.
In a network of thousands of people there are bizarre clumpings of obesity, depression, athleticism, obsessive-compulsion, white collar crime, hyperlipidemia, and political persuasion. Some of these seem intuitive, but how the heck can my high school buddy's new co-worker affect your triglycerides? Is it possible that your ex-lover's new partner should affect my diet! "No," you say. WRONG. And here's the book to prove it.
Connected presents more material than just a proof of Three Degrees of Influence. The book explains how and, more importantly, why humans live in these networks. This is not an anthropological study, but there are some interesting tidbits about where you should be in your network (central or peripheral) when there's an unexpected outbreak of genital warts, depression, or criminal activity. You also learn to what extent social media has complicated, extended, and entangled your lives with others. As sociologists begin to plumb the data of Web 3.0, a brave new world is coming into focus, and it's a world of helpful, intriguing, unbelievable connectedness.
Twopointsomething rounded up to 3 stars. The book is well-paced and revealing enough. Unfortunately the publisher restrained these PhDs, making the book more palatable to America's sixth grade reading level. I would have preferred a more academic and data-based presentation. Too bad they gloss over the real mechanics of networks and how they morph around like fresh water pseudopods.
March 24, 2015
Only three stars for this well-researched, original and intriguing book, mainly because I was much more interested in the original and intriguing conclusions rather than the many pages of social and psychological research and anecdote. These Harvard profs doubtless want to strut their academic stuff but I would have liked (at least) more in the way of summary and signpost, For all that, fascinating, thought-provoking and one of those books that makes you think differently for ever after.
Here are some of the things I learnt from reading (and extrapolating from) this book.
1. We won't understand humans just by thinking of individuals, or yet of social class or race, So things about us are only explicable by seeing us as part of networks. For example, stock market crashes (or exuberance) are much more explained by people being influenced by the network around them, rather than the facts.
2. We affect others in many striking and unexpected ways, and these effects only die out after three degrees of separation: friends of friends of friends.Happiness, obesity, suicide, political affiliation, how piano teachers find new pupils, all show up as clusters in networks. Many things work better (health messages, evangelism) when we think of reaching a network rather than reaching a set of individuals. Persuade a well-connected person to change, and change may spread through the network; persuade someone on the edge of things, and only her or she may change.
3.. All of us instinctively seem to know or pick up our place in a given network, eg workplace, new church etc. We know if we're on the edge; we know if we're well-connected, and that knowledge affects our wellbeing.
4, Because we influence others so much (I think) it is important who speaks first at a meeting. The second speaker has the option of tweaking or agreeing (easy) or radically disagreeing (hard). If a queue of people have already agreed, it's even harder to disagree and harder still to carry the day.
5. A fruitful place to find all kinds of new relationship (romantic, business etc) is the network of your friends' friends. It's a much larger network than the one just made up of your friends, but it's also preselected to be full of possibly congenial people and both you and they are have a place to start your relationship that is superior to the cold call or the chance meeting.
6. Creative teams work well when they are (a) small and very interconnected and (b) loosely connected to others so that they can get fresh creative input. A team of people just thrown together doesn't work too well, nor does one who all know each other very well and have nothing fresh coming in from outside.
Here are some of the things I learnt from reading (and extrapolating from) this book.
1. We won't understand humans just by thinking of individuals, or yet of social class or race, So things about us are only explicable by seeing us as part of networks. For example, stock market crashes (or exuberance) are much more explained by people being influenced by the network around them, rather than the facts.
2. We affect others in many striking and unexpected ways, and these effects only die out after three degrees of separation: friends of friends of friends.Happiness, obesity, suicide, political affiliation, how piano teachers find new pupils, all show up as clusters in networks. Many things work better (health messages, evangelism) when we think of reaching a network rather than reaching a set of individuals. Persuade a well-connected person to change, and change may spread through the network; persuade someone on the edge of things, and only her or she may change.
3.. All of us instinctively seem to know or pick up our place in a given network, eg workplace, new church etc. We know if we're on the edge; we know if we're well-connected, and that knowledge affects our wellbeing.
4, Because we influence others so much (I think) it is important who speaks first at a meeting. The second speaker has the option of tweaking or agreeing (easy) or radically disagreeing (hard). If a queue of people have already agreed, it's even harder to disagree and harder still to carry the day.
5. A fruitful place to find all kinds of new relationship (romantic, business etc) is the network of your friends' friends. It's a much larger network than the one just made up of your friends, but it's also preselected to be full of possibly congenial people and both you and they are have a place to start your relationship that is superior to the cold call or the chance meeting.
6. Creative teams work well when they are (a) small and very interconnected and (b) loosely connected to others so that they can get fresh creative input. A team of people just thrown together doesn't work too well, nor does one who all know each other very well and have nothing fresh coming in from outside.
February 6, 2019
This was an interesting read.
In a nutshell, we influence people in ways and are influenced by other people in ways that might surprise us.
According to the research, we exert an influence by 3 degrees, to our friends, friends-friends, and friends-friends-friends to the tune of 50% to 25% to 10%. (These aren't the exact number, just trying to give you a general idea). So we exert the greatest influence our friends, then their friends, and then their friends friends, before the effect peters out. They compared it to a the ripples created when you drop a stone in a pond.
They also talked a little about obesity, at one point suggesting that obesity may actually be "contagious" or at least work a lot like a contagion. (Sure this will get some people a little riled up.) Their purpose was not to "fat shame" but more to explore how our being overweight/obese and/or having friends that are overweight or obese impact all parties involved. It could be that if your friends are overweight, they might tend to engage in behaviors that promote weight gain and thus it's a matter of peer pressure. Or it could be that if you know someone who is overweight weight or obese and see them as good people, over time we become more accepting of overweight and obese as a whole. Basically, our social norms change so that people are more accepting of "fatness." Again, their point was not to have a debate on the merits of "body acceptance" campaigns. The point was look at how our relationships can impact even our weight over time.
They covered a number of different areas, obesity being just one, but one that I as a health professional am more interested in.
Again, interesting stuff.
In a nutshell, we influence people in ways and are influenced by other people in ways that might surprise us.
According to the research, we exert an influence by 3 degrees, to our friends, friends-friends, and friends-friends-friends to the tune of 50% to 25% to 10%. (These aren't the exact number, just trying to give you a general idea). So we exert the greatest influence our friends, then their friends, and then their friends friends, before the effect peters out. They compared it to a the ripples created when you drop a stone in a pond.
They also talked a little about obesity, at one point suggesting that obesity may actually be "contagious" or at least work a lot like a contagion. (Sure this will get some people a little riled up.) Their purpose was not to "fat shame" but more to explore how our being overweight/obese and/or having friends that are overweight or obese impact all parties involved. It could be that if your friends are overweight, they might tend to engage in behaviors that promote weight gain and thus it's a matter of peer pressure. Or it could be that if you know someone who is overweight weight or obese and see them as good people, over time we become more accepting of overweight and obese as a whole. Basically, our social norms change so that people are more accepting of "fatness." Again, their point was not to have a debate on the merits of "body acceptance" campaigns. The point was look at how our relationships can impact even our weight over time.
They covered a number of different areas, obesity being just one, but one that I as a health professional am more interested in.
Again, interesting stuff.
May 1, 2018
Super interesting info, but I had already heard it all. It's already dated information and the book is really terribly organized and written.
May 12, 2018
Πολύ ενδιαφέρον το θέμα. Οι προσεγγίσεις μου φάνηκαν λιγάκι απλοϊκές (ή με όχι και τόσα στοιχεία ώστε να τις πιστέψω)
September 26, 2020
Το βιβλίο είναι γραμμένο με αρκετά απλοϊκό τρόπο γεμάτο με συναρπαστικές ιστορίες και παραδείγματα.
"Ένα άτομο έχει 15% περισσότερες πιθανότητες να είναι ευτυχισμένο αν κάποιο άλλο άτομο με το οποίο συνδέεται άμεσα είναι ευτυχισμένο. Και η εξάπλωση της ευτυχίας δεν σταματάει εδώ. "
"Ένα άτομο έχει 15% περισσότερες πιθανότητες να είναι ευτυχισμένο αν κάποιο άλλο άτομο με το οποίο συνδέεται άμεσα είναι ευτυχισμένο. Και η εξάπλωση της ευτυχίας δεν σταματάει εδώ. "
March 6, 2024
At first, the concept is really cool, then every single chapter the concept is repeated 900 times. (This was also a book I read for a class, so my review could be a bit biased)
April 27, 2020
Show Me Your Friends and I'll Show Your Future
"Dan Peña"
همه ی شما ها شنیدید که میگن برای خرید خونه سه فاکتور خیلی مهمه : محله ، محله ، محله . یا شنیدید که میگن کوه به کوه نمیرسه اما آدم به آدم می رسه . یا حتماً توجه کردید که از وقتی عضو سایت گودریدز شدید میزان مطالعه تون افزایش پیدا کرده . خیلی وقت ها هم شده که تلاش زیادی کردید و به نتیجه ای نرسیدید اما یه نفر دیگه که هزینه ی کمتری کرده جواب بهتری گرفته . شانس و این مزخرفات رو بریزید دور . دلیلش خیلی ساده است ، اگه مدام شکست می خوری بهتره نتورکی که بهش متصل هستی رو عوض کنی ! در واقع مهم نیست که ما کی هستیم ، مهم اینه که به چه شبکه ای متصلیم . برای درک بهتر این موضوعات ، نیکلاس کریستاکیس ، استاد دانشگاه هاروارد که ��ک دانشمند شبکه های اجتماعیه با مطالعه ی گسترده روی شبکه های انسانی و به کمک تحلیل های روانشناسانه و جامعه شناسانه و الگوریتم های ریاضی – برنامه نویسی نتایج خارق العاده ای از ویژگی های ما آدم ها بدست آورده . قبل از توضیحات بیشتر لازمه یه مقدمه ی خیلی کوتاه در مورد این زمینه ی تحقیقی بگم
آنالیز شبکه های اجتماعی یه علم میان رشته ایه که فارغ التحصیل های کامپیوتر ، صنایع و حتی ریاضی (خیلی مطمئن نیستم) می تونن توش کار کنن . بیس قضیه دونستن برنامه نویسی هستش . در این مدل ها سعی میشه که افراد یا اشیای مورد مطالعه رو به صورت یه گره (تو ریاضیات به نقطه های یک گراف ، گره گفته میشه) و تمام اتصالات بین اون ها رو به صورت یه یال (مثل نقطه بازی که نقطه ها رو با یه خط بهم وصل می کنیم) در نظر بگیرن
نظریه ی شش درجه ی جدایی بیان می کنه که هر دو نفری روی کره ی زمین با کمتر از 6 واسطه بهم متصل هستن . برای نشون دادن اینکه امروزه انسانها بیش از همیشه به همدیگه نزدیکن ، یک نفر رو در میان تمامی ساکنین کره زمین در نظر بگیرید . حال شما از میان پنج آشنایی که یکی از اونا رو شخصاً میشناسید، میتونید به شخص مورد نظر متصل شید . تو قرن بیستم تو ایالات متحده ضرب المثلی در مورد بوکسور افسانه ای آمریکا سولیوان وجود داشت که می تونه یه مثال تاریخی از این نظریه باشه
Shake the hand that shook the hand that shook the hand that shook the hand of 'the great John L
نویسنده ی این کتاب توضیح می ده که چطور دوستِ دوستِ دوستِ شما ، بر هر آنچه که شما احساس میکنید، فکر میکنید و عمل میکنید، تأثیر میذاره
If I know what your friends are doing, I can make a good guess as what you will soon be doing
توضیح کریستاکیس منو یاد جمله ی معروف نظریه ی آشوب میندازه
" آیا بال زدن پروانه ای در برزیل میتواند باعث ایجاد تند باد در تگزاس شود ؟ "
و فکر می کنم میشه در نگاهی عمیق تر و فلسفی تر همه ی ارکان جهان رو در نظمی دقیق بهم متصل دونست ، طوریکه رفتار هر یک از ما می تونه تاثیری شگرف در سرنوشت جهان داشته باشه
هنجارها ، ارزش ها و منطق هایی که ما در جهان می شناسیم توسط همین شبکه ها به ما منتقل میشه و یاد می گیریم که طلا رو با ارزش تر از سایر فلزات در نظر بگیریم (هرچقدر آدم های بیشتری معتقد باشن که طلا با ارزش هست ، ارزش طلا افزایش پیدا می کنه ) یا یک سری معیار کلیشه ای رو برای انتخاب همسر آینده مون ملاک قرار بدیم و در نهایت به آداب و رسوم خاصی پایبند باشیم . مجازات مردم بابل این نبود که به زبان های مختلف دسته بندی شدن ، بلکه این بود که در اثر این تفاوت ارتباط بین شون قطع شد
How network can link us in unwanted ways?
افراد بی شماری رو در نظر بگیرید که به دلیل کینه توزی های بین قبیله ای ، مظلومانه و بی دلیل به قتل رسیده ان . آدم عادل از خودش می پرسه که این خون ها به چه گناهی ریخته شده ؟ پاسخ یه کلمه است ، ارتباطات . در آمریکا حدود 75 درصد از قتل ها توسط افرادی انجام شده که همدیگه رو می شناختن پس اگر می خواید بدونید که یه روزی چه کسی شما رو می کشه ، بهتره یه نگاه به دور و بَرتون بندازید ! اما این ارتباطات همیشه هم بد نیستن . کلبه ای رو در نظر بگیرید که تو آتیش داره تبدیل به خاکستر میشه .اگر یه نفر بخواد به تنهایی از رودخونه سطل سطل آب بیاره قطعاً به موقع نمی تونه آتیش رو مهار کنه اما اگر اینکار توسط " شبکه ای از آدم های متصل " که دست به دست سطل آب رو از رودخونه تا محل حادثه منتقل می کنن انجام بشه ، خیلی سریع تر میشه حریق رو اطفا کرد و این یعنی که کل همیشه بهتر از تک تک افراد عمل میکنه . مطمئن باشید اگه ما انسان ها از روابط مون منفعتی کسب نمی کردیم ، این شبکه ها هیچ وقت نمی تونستن وجود داشته باشن
در مورد شبکه های اجتماعی چنتا قانون خیلی ساده وجود داره . اول اینکه به دلیل قرار گرفتن کنار هم شبکه ها رو بوجود میاریم . دوم هم اینکه علاوه بر اینکه ما شبکه ها رو می سازیم ، شبکه ها هم ما رو می سازن . یعنی آدمی که هیچ دوستی نداره ، زندگی متفاوت تری رو نسبت به آدمی که در مرکز توجه هاست تجربه می کنه . ژنتیک نقش خیلی مهمی رو در دوست یابی و قرار گرفتن در محل خاصی از شبکه ایفا می کنه (با مطالعه روی دو قلو های شبیه به هم این نتیجه مشخص شد) علاوه بر ژنتیک نوع خانواده و تعداد جمعیت افراد درون خانوار هم در این امر بی تاثیر نیست پس میشه نتیجه گرفت که بخشی از قضیه خارج از حدود اختیارات ما آدم هاست . سوم اینکه رفتارهای ما از یه منطق ساده پیروی می کنه
tit for tat
یعنی چطور باهات اولین مرتبه رفتار شده و تو هم سعی کن همین قاعده رو راجع به سایرین پیاده کنی
Do unto others as they have done unto you
همکاری و نوع دوستی میتونه در جوامع متمدن نسبت به جوامع بدوی نقش پررنگ تری داشته باشه . روان شناس ها بازی ای رو ابداع کردن که در اون نفر اول 10 دلار رو باید بین خودش و نفر ناشناسی تقسیم کنه . اون می تونه این تقسیم بندی رو به هر نحوی که می خواد انجام بده فقط پذیرش یا عدم پذیرش پیشنهاد توسط نفر دوم مشخص می کنه که هر دو نفر سهم بگیرن یا نه . منطق میگه نفر اول باید خودخواه باشه و 9.99 دلار رو واسه خودش برداره و فقط یه سنت رو به نفر دوم پیشنهاد بده ، و باز هم منطق میگه که یه سنت بهتر از هیچ چیه پس قبول کن تا هر دو سهمی بگیرید از این آزمایش. وقتیکه آزمایش توی یه جامعه متمدن انجام شد معلوم شد که افراد یاد می گیرن که پیشنهاد های خیلی کم به نفر مقابل ندن ( مثلاً 9 دلار واسه خودش و 1 دلار واسه نفر مقابل ) چون نفر دوم این مبلغ و قبول نمی کنه و در نهایت هیچ کدومشون سهمی نمی برن . تو این جوامع مردم یاد می گیرن پول های بیشتری یا سهم های منصفانه تری رو به کسی که نمی شناسنش پیشنهاد بدن تا هر دوتا از منافع اون پیشنهاد بهره مند بشن . جالب اینجاست که در جوامع قبیله ای همون منطقی که از اول در نظر گرفته بودیم اجرا میشه ، یعنی نفر اول سهم کمی رو پیشنهاد میده و اون طرف هم قبول میکنه
بخند تا دنیا بهت بخنده ! این یه شعار کلیشه ای نیست بلکه آزمایش های متعدد روان شناختی اثبات می کنن که شادی ، غم ، چاقی ، سیگاری بودن ، سرایت بیماری ها و ... از طریق شبکه های بین انسان ها منتقل میشن . یه مثال خیلی ساده اینه ، حتماً خیلی از شما تجریه کردید که وقتی از یه سفر آرامش بخش مثلاً یه جنگل گردی چند روزه به کلان شهری مثل تهران یا هر جای دیگه ای بر می گردید ، فوراً متوجه میشید که کم کم همهمه ی شهر داره جای آرامش شما رو می گیره . روانشناس ها معتقدن که استرس مثل یه موج می مونه که افراد یه شهر رو درگیر خودش می کنه . همون طور که بیماری های واگیردار و میکروب ها بین انسان ها پخش میشه و اون بیماری نه تنها اطرافیان فرد مبتلا بلکه کلی آدم دیگه رو هم درگیر می کنه ، احساسات هم به همین راحتی از طرف ما به دوستامون ، دوست ها ی دوست ها مون و در نهایت کل جامعه منتقل میشه . این قضیه مثل افتادن یه سنگ توی آب راکد می مونه . بعضی سنگ ها موج های بزرگتر و بعضی ها موج های کوچیک تری بوجود میارن . دانشمندها معتقدن که این فاصله ی تاثیر گذاری نهایت تا سه نفر عمل میکنه ، یعنی افرادی که با سه فاصله از شما دورن می تونن این موج رو حس کنن (دوستِ دوستِ دوستِ شما ) . تصور کنید یه اتفاقی داره تو فاصله ی چند نفر اون طرف تر از شما میفته و سود یا ضررش نهایتاً به شما هم می رسه و جالبیش اینه که هیچ کاری هم از دست تون برنمیاد
در سال 1998 یه معلم در یکی از دبیرستان های ایالت تِنِسی بوی گازوئیل رو استشمام می کنه و با گذشت زمان احساس میکنه که این بو داره باعث سردرد ، سرگیجه و حالت تهوع میشه . راجع به کیفیت بو و تاثیرات اون به هم کلاسی هاش میگه و کم کم تمام شاگرد های کلاس و بعد از اون تمام دانش آموز های اون مدرسه همچین بویی رو احساس می کنن . پس از تعطیلی مدرسه ، کارشناس های مختلف از شرکت گاز و آتش نشانی محیط اطراف مدرسه رو به دقت بررسی میکنن و هیچ عامل و اثری از بو پیدا نمی کنن ! معلم از چیزی که وجود نداشته ، تلقینی ساخته بود که با گذشت زمان تمام مدرسه رو فرا گرفته بود . به همچین بیماری ای
"epidemic hysteria"
گفته میشه که نمونه های اون در طول تاریخ کم نیست
آیا میشه گفت همیشه در مرکز بودن خوبه ؟ هیچ چیز تو جهان مطلق نیست و بحث شبکه ها هم نمی تونه از این قاعده مستثنی باشه . مثلاً در مورد بیماری های واگیردار (خصوصاً شیوع بیماری های جنسی) افرادی که در مرکز هستن آسیب پذیر تر از سایر گره هان
If you found your partner online, you were more than three times more likely to get an STD from them than if you found your partner the old fashioned way
در مورد چاقی زمانی که گراف شبکه رو مطالعه می کنیم متوجه می شیم که خوشه بندی بین چاق ها بالاست یعنی افراد چاق بهم نزدیک ترن (فرض کنید من دو تا دوست دارم اگر این دو تا دوست همدیگرو بشناسن ما سه تا یه خوشه رو می سازیم) در مورد سیگاری ها هم این موضوع صادقه . به دلیل قوانین وضع شده تو سال های اخیر و ممنوعیت استعمال دخانیات در محیط های عمومی ، این افراد تمایل دارن که در خارج از شبکه ی مرسوم ، و تو محیط های منزوی سیگار بکشن . رو نمودار گراف هم این افراد عمدتاً تو حاشیه ی نتورک هستن
در مورد جرایم هم باز همین قواعد جاریه . وقتی که افراد توی یه زندان قرار می گیرن یا توی محله ای به دنیا میان که همه خلافکارن ، شانس اینکه جوون های اون محله هم به سمت بزهکاری کشیده بشن افزایش پیدا می کنه . پس برای مبارزه با جرم و جنایت و اعتیاد باید شبکه ای که این افراد رو بهم متصل میکنه از بین برد نه که بخوایم تک به تک افراد رو تربیت کنیم . میشه گفت بررسی یه رفتار از روی شبکه راحت تره تا بررسی رفتار تمامی افراد درگیر به صورت جز به جز
The epidemic stopped because the network changed
مرکز کنترل بیماری ها در ایالات متحده ادعا می کنه که شیوع خودکشی در بین جوون ها هم می تونه ناشی از شبکه هایی باشه که آدم های افسرده رو بهم متصل می کنه و معتقده ژورنال ها یا خبرگزاری هایی که با آب و تاب از این عمل تعریف می کنن یا سعی می کنن از فرد قربانی قهرمان بسازن ، در شیوع بیشتر این تفکر کمک می کنن
در سال 2007 بانک های انگلستان با رکود و ورشکستگی کم سابقه ای مواجه شده بودن . یه تفکر تو جامعه جرقه خورده بود ، پول هاتونو از بانک بیرون بکشید . تمام ! کلی از بانک ها تعطیل شدن چون مردم زیادی برای پس گیری پول هاشون صف کشیده بودن . عده ای ادعا می کردن که ما هیچ دلیل منطقی ای برای کارمون نداریم اما فقط میخوایم که از دیگران عقب نیفتیم . برای این رفتار گله ای یه آزمایش خیلی ساده انجام شد . چند نفر از افراد به ترتیب تو گوشه ای از خیابون وامیستادن و به نقطه ای معین از یک ساختمون نگاه می کردن . رفته رفته مردم عادی که از اونجا عبور می کردن این رفتار رو تقلید کردن
یکی از جاهای خوبی که میشه از تحلیل شبکه های اجتماعی منفعت کسب کرد ، محافل سیاسیه . اوباما تو سال 2008 با دونستن همین چنتا نکته تونست رای اکثریت رو بدست بیاره
اما چه دلیل منطقی ای وجود داره که یه آدم ساعت ها تو صف واسته تا به یه نفر دیگه در انتخابات رای بده ؟ رای دادن مثل یه قمار می مونه آدم ها دو دو تا چهارتا می کنن تا وقت بذارن واسه کاندیدی که بیشترین سود رو واسشون داره (تو ایران مردم از مهر دار بودن شناسنامه سود می برن نه خودِ کاندید) واسه همین قطبی سازی مهم ترین کاری هست که یه جامعه برای مشارکت سیاسی مردم میتونه انجام بده
اینکه گفته میشه رای یک نفر اهمیت داره یعنی چی ؟ من تا حالا تو هیچ انتخاباتی شرکت نکردم و بود و نبودم هم توی نتیجه ی انتخابات هیچ تاثیری نداشته . پس این حرف چه معنایی داره ؟ با آزمایش های متعددی اثبات میشه رای دادن یا رای ندادن افراد ، تاثیر زیادی روی دوستان و سایر افراد متصل به اون فرد در شبکه می ذاره و اونا رو راغب یا غیر مشتاق در امر رای گیری می کنه . من باب مثال رای دادن یه آدم با نفوذ در شبکه می تونه رای دادن هزاران نفر رو به دنبال داشته باشه
استنلی میلگرام یکی از شناخته شده ترین روان شناس های قرن بیستم آزمایش عجیبی رو برای مطالعه ی رفتار آدم ها در تبعیت از اتوریته انجام داد . به کسانی که داوطلب آزمایش بودن، گفته میشد که هدف از آزمایش، تحقیق در مورد حافظه و یادگیری در شرایط متفاوته و اینکه آیا شوک الکتریکی باعث بهبود یادگیری میشه یا نه . به داوطلبا چیزی در مورد هدف واقعی آزمایش گفته نمیشد. فرد مورد نظر پشت دستگاه شوک الکتریکی میشینه و میتونه با اختیار خودش به فردی (از بازیگر های آزمایش) که روی صندلی الکتریکی هست شوک وارد کنه . کسی که ادعا می کنه پزشک هست (بازیگر دوم آزمایش) از اون فردی که روی صندلی شوک الکتریکی نشسته سوال ها رو می پرسه و اونم به عمد اشتباه جواب میده . پزشک (اتوریته) از فرد مورد آزمایش میخواد که شوک الکتریکی رو افزایش بده . برخلاف نظر تمام روان پزشکان 65 درصد از افراد حاضر در این آزمایش تا 450 ولت شوک به فردی که روی صندلی نشسته بود وارد می کردن که منجر به مرگ میشد (یعنی فرد با افزایش ناله ها و ضجه های خودش وانمود می کرد که مرده) در واقع این 65 درصد علی رغم میل باطنی خودشون تو یه شرایط استرس آور این کار و انجام داده بودن . تنها 35 درصد از افراد حاضر در آزمایش بنا به وجدان خودشون از ادامه ی وارد کردن شوک صرف نظر کردن . این آزمایش نشون داد که آدم ها چطور میتونن تحت تاثیر فرمانی از بالادست ، برخلاف چیزی که باور دارن عمل کنن . البته این آزمایش به خاطر صدمات روحی ای که به آزمایش شونده ها وارد کرده بود (که فکر می کردن مرتکب قتل شدن) ممنوع اعلام شد
و اما سوال اساسی . آیا خدا هم در این شبکه می تونه جایگاهی داشته باشه ؟ اگر تمام آدم های شبکه رو به صورت یک گره (همون نقطه) در نظر بگیریم ، خدا میشه اون گره ای که هیچ وقت از بین نمیره و باعث میشه فاصله ی ما با تمام آدم های دیگه توی شبکه اندازه ی یک یال باشه ! یعنی ما به خدا متصل میشیم و خدا هم به اون فرد متصله ، پس ما بیش از هر وقت دیگه ای به فرد مورد نظرمون نزدیک هستیم . حتماً توجه کردید که وقتی یه نفر ، عزیزی رو از دست میده یا شکست عاطفی می خوره این ارتباط با خدا رو تقویت میکنه . در واقع اینجا شخصِ خدا و خداپرستی معنایی نداره ، اون فرد میخواد ارتباطش با فرد از دست رفته رو همچنان از طریق گره ای به نام خدا حفظ کنه ! و این شاید مهم ترین دلیل خداپرستی بین آدم ها باشه ، حفظ ارتباط با جهان
If God were seen as a node on a network, large groups of people could be bound together not just by a common idea but also by a specific social relationship to every other believer. People could perceive a specific social tie to others, and everyone would be one degree removed from everyone else. People who felt a connection to God would have a way of feeling connected to others, because through God everyone is a “friend of a friend".
The idea that God can be personified and seen as part of a human social network is further supported by the fact that people tend to have an increase in religious belief after the death of a loved one: it is as if a connection to God is strengthened when one loses a connection to people. This belief can sustain the hope of being reconnected with others who have departed.
پ.ن : به پیشنهاد یکی از دوستان واسه ی ترجمه ی این کتاب ترغیب شدم . اگر در مورد قوانین انتشارات و حقوق و مزایای ترجمه اطلاعاتی داشتید ممنون میشم تو کامنت بهم بگید
"Dan Peña"
همه ی شما ها شنیدید که میگن برای خرید خونه سه فاکتور خیلی مهمه : محله ، محله ، محله . یا شنیدید که میگن کوه به کوه نمیرسه اما آدم به آدم می رسه . یا حتماً توجه کردید که از وقتی عضو سایت گودریدز شدید میزان مطالعه تون افزایش پیدا کرده . خیلی وقت ها هم شده که تلاش زیادی کردید و به نتیجه ای نرسیدید اما یه نفر دیگه که هزینه ی کمتری کرده جواب بهتری گرفته . شانس و این مزخرفات رو بریزید دور . دلیلش خیلی ساده است ، اگه مدام شکست می خوری بهتره نتورکی که بهش متصل هستی رو عوض کنی ! در واقع مهم نیست که ما کی هستیم ، مهم اینه که به چه شبکه ای متصلیم . برای درک بهتر این موضوعات ، نیکلاس کریستاکیس ، استاد دانشگاه هاروارد که ��ک دانشمند شبکه های اجتماعیه با مطالعه ی گسترده روی شبکه های انسانی و به کمک تحلیل های روانشناسانه و جامعه شناسانه و الگوریتم های ریاضی – برنامه نویسی نتایج خارق العاده ای از ویژگی های ما آدم ها بدست آورده . قبل از توضیحات بیشتر لازمه یه مقدمه ی خیلی کوتاه در مورد این زمینه ی تحقیقی بگم
آنالیز شبکه های اجتماعی یه علم میان رشته ایه که فارغ التحصیل های کامپیوتر ، صنایع و حتی ریاضی (خیلی مطمئن نیستم) می تونن توش کار کنن . بیس قضیه دونستن برنامه نویسی هستش . در این مدل ها سعی میشه که افراد یا اشیای مورد مطالعه رو به صورت یه گره (تو ریاضیات به نقطه های یک گراف ، گره گفته میشه) و تمام اتصالات بین اون ها رو به صورت یه یال (مثل نقطه بازی که نقطه ها رو با یه خط بهم وصل می کنیم) در نظر بگیرن
نظریه ی شش درجه ی جدایی بیان می کنه که هر دو نفری روی کره ی زمین با کمتر از 6 واسطه بهم متصل هستن . برای نشون دادن اینکه امروزه انسانها بیش از همیشه به همدیگه نزدیکن ، یک نفر رو در میان تمامی ساکنین کره زمین در نظر بگیرید . حال شما از میان پنج آشنایی که یکی از اونا رو شخصاً میشناسید، میتونید به شخص مورد نظر متصل شید . تو قرن بیستم تو ایالات متحده ضرب المثلی در مورد بوکسور افسانه ای آمریکا سولیوان وجود داشت که می تونه یه مثال تاریخی از این نظریه باشه
Shake the hand that shook the hand that shook the hand that shook the hand of 'the great John L
نویسنده ی این کتاب توضیح می ده که چطور دوستِ دوستِ دوستِ شما ، بر هر آنچه که شما احساس میکنید، فکر میکنید و عمل میکنید، تأثیر میذاره
If I know what your friends are doing, I can make a good guess as what you will soon be doing
توضیح کریستاکیس منو یاد جمله ی معروف نظریه ی آشوب میندازه
" آیا بال زدن پروانه ای در برزیل میتواند باعث ایجاد تند باد در تگزاس شود ؟ "
و فکر می کنم میشه در نگاهی عمیق تر و فلسفی تر همه ی ارکان جهان رو در نظمی دقیق بهم متصل دونست ، طوریکه رفتار هر یک از ما می تونه تاثیری شگرف در سرنوشت جهان داشته باشه
هنجارها ، ارزش ها و منطق هایی که ما در جهان می شناسیم توسط همین شبکه ها به ما منتقل میشه و یاد می گیریم که طلا رو با ارزش تر از سایر فلزات در نظر بگیریم (هرچقدر آدم های بیشتری معتقد باشن که طلا با ارزش هست ، ارزش طلا افزایش پیدا می کنه ) یا یک سری معیار کلیشه ای رو برای انتخاب همسر آینده مون ملاک قرار بدیم و در نهایت به آداب و رسوم خاصی پایبند باشیم . مجازات مردم بابل این نبود که به زبان های مختلف دسته بندی شدن ، بلکه این بود که در اثر این تفاوت ارتباط بین شون قطع شد
How network can link us in unwanted ways?
افراد بی شماری رو در نظر بگیرید که به دلیل کینه توزی های بین قبیله ای ، مظلومانه و بی دلیل به قتل رسیده ان . آدم عادل از خودش می پرسه که این خون ها به چه گناهی ریخته شده ؟ پاسخ یه کلمه است ، ارتباطات . در آمریکا حدود 75 درصد از قتل ها توسط افرادی انجام شده که همدیگه رو می شناختن پس اگر می خواید بدونید که یه روزی چه کسی شما رو می کشه ، بهتره یه نگاه به دور و بَرتون بندازید ! اما این ارتباطات همیشه هم بد نیستن . کلبه ای رو در نظر بگیرید که تو آتیش داره تبدیل به خاکستر میشه .اگر یه نفر بخواد به تنهایی از رودخونه سطل سطل آب بیاره قطعاً به موقع نمی تونه آتیش رو مهار کنه اما اگر اینکار توسط " شبکه ای از آدم های متصل " که دست به دست سطل آب رو از رودخونه تا محل حادثه منتقل می کنن انجام بشه ، خیلی سریع تر میشه حریق رو اطفا کرد و این یعنی که کل همیشه بهتر از تک تک افراد عمل میکنه . مطمئن باشید اگه ما انسان ها از روابط مون منفعتی کسب نمی کردیم ، این شبکه ها هیچ وقت نمی تونستن وجود داشته باشن
در مورد شبکه های اجتماعی چنتا قانون خیلی ساده وجود داره . اول اینکه به دلیل قرار گرفتن کنار هم شبکه ها رو بوجود میاریم . دوم هم اینکه علاوه بر اینکه ما شبکه ها رو می سازیم ، شبکه ها هم ما رو می سازن . یعنی آدمی که هیچ دوستی نداره ، زندگی متفاوت تری رو نسبت به آدمی که در مرکز توجه هاست تجربه می کنه . ژنتیک نقش خیلی مهمی رو در دوست یابی و قرار گرفتن در محل خاصی از شبکه ایفا می کنه (با مطالعه روی دو قلو های شبیه به هم این نتیجه مشخص شد) علاوه بر ژنتیک نوع خانواده و تعداد جمعیت افراد درون خانوار هم در این امر بی تاثیر نیست پس میشه نتیجه گرفت که بخشی از قضیه خارج از حدود اختیارات ما آدم هاست . سوم اینکه رفتارهای ما از یه منطق ساده پیروی می کنه
tit for tat
یعنی چطور باهات اولین مرتبه رفتار شده و تو هم سعی کن همین قاعده رو راجع به سایرین پیاده کنی
Do unto others as they have done unto you
همکاری و نوع دوستی میتونه در جوامع متمدن نسبت به جوامع بدوی نقش پررنگ تری داشته باشه . روان شناس ها بازی ای رو ابداع کردن که در اون نفر اول 10 دلار رو باید بین خودش و نفر ناشناسی تقسیم کنه . اون می تونه این تقسیم بندی رو به هر نحوی که می خواد انجام بده فقط پذیرش یا عدم پذیرش پیشنهاد توسط نفر دوم مشخص می کنه که هر دو نفر سهم بگیرن یا نه . منطق میگه نفر اول باید خودخواه باشه و 9.99 دلار رو واسه خودش برداره و فقط یه سنت رو به نفر دوم پیشنهاد بده ، و باز هم منطق میگه که یه سنت بهتر از هیچ چیه پس قبول کن تا هر دو سهمی بگیرید از این آزمایش. وقتیکه آزمایش توی یه جامعه متمدن انجام شد معلوم شد که افراد یاد می گیرن که پیشنهاد های خیلی کم به نفر مقابل ندن ( مثلاً 9 دلار واسه خودش و 1 دلار واسه نفر مقابل ) چون نفر دوم این مبلغ و قبول نمی کنه و در نهایت هیچ کدومشون سهمی نمی برن . تو این جوامع مردم یاد می گیرن پول های بیشتری یا سهم های منصفانه تری رو به کسی که نمی شناسنش پیشنهاد بدن تا هر دوتا از منافع اون پیشنهاد بهره مند بشن . جالب اینجاست که در جوامع قبیله ای همون منطقی که از اول در نظر گرفته بودیم اجرا میشه ، یعنی نفر اول سهم کمی رو پیشنهاد میده و اون طرف هم قبول میکنه
بخند تا دنیا بهت بخنده ! این یه شعار کلیشه ای نیست بلکه آزمایش های متعدد روان شناختی اثبات می کنن که شادی ، غم ، چاقی ، سیگاری بودن ، سرایت بیماری ها و ... از طریق شبکه های بین انسان ها منتقل میشن . یه مثال خیلی ساده اینه ، حتماً خیلی از شما تجریه کردید که وقتی از یه سفر آرامش بخش مثلاً یه جنگل گردی چند روزه به کلان شهری مثل تهران یا هر جای دیگه ای بر می گردید ، فوراً متوجه میشید که کم کم همهمه ی شهر داره جای آرامش شما رو می گیره . روانشناس ها معتقدن که استرس مثل یه موج می مونه که افراد یه شهر رو درگیر خودش می کنه . همون طور که بیماری های واگیردار و میکروب ها بین انسان ها پخش میشه و اون بیماری نه تنها اطرافیان فرد مبتلا بلکه کلی آدم دیگه رو هم درگیر می کنه ، احساسات هم به همین راحتی از طرف ما به دوستامون ، دوست ها ی دوست ها مون و در نهایت کل جامعه منتقل میشه . این قضیه مثل افتادن یه سنگ توی آب راکد می مونه . بعضی سنگ ها موج های بزرگتر و بعضی ها موج های کوچیک تری بوجود میارن . دانشمندها معتقدن که این فاصله ی تاثیر گذاری نهایت تا سه نفر عمل میکنه ، یعنی افرادی که با سه فاصله از شما دورن می تونن این موج رو حس کنن (دوستِ دوستِ دوستِ شما ) . تصور کنید یه اتفاقی داره تو فاصله ی چند نفر اون طرف تر از شما میفته و سود یا ضررش نهایتاً به شما هم می رسه و جالبیش اینه که هیچ کاری هم از دست تون برنمیاد
در سال 1998 یه معلم در یکی از دبیرستان های ایالت تِنِسی بوی گازوئیل رو استشمام می کنه و با گذشت زمان احساس میکنه که این بو داره باعث سردرد ، سرگیجه و حالت تهوع میشه . راجع به کیفیت بو و تاثیرات اون به هم کلاسی هاش میگه و کم کم تمام شاگرد های کلاس و بعد از اون تمام دانش آموز های اون مدرسه همچین بویی رو احساس می کنن . پس از تعطیلی مدرسه ، کارشناس های مختلف از شرکت گاز و آتش نشانی محیط اطراف مدرسه رو به دقت بررسی میکنن و هیچ عامل و اثری از بو پیدا نمی کنن ! معلم از چیزی که وجود نداشته ، تلقینی ساخته بود که با گذشت زمان تمام مدرسه رو فرا گرفته بود . به همچین بیماری ای
"epidemic hysteria"
گفته میشه که نمونه های اون در طول تاریخ کم نیست
آیا میشه گفت همیشه در مرکز بودن خوبه ؟ هیچ چیز تو جهان مطلق نیست و بحث شبکه ها هم نمی تونه از این قاعده مستثنی باشه . مثلاً در مورد بیماری های واگیردار (خصوصاً شیوع بیماری های جنسی) افرادی که در مرکز هستن آسیب پذیر تر از سایر گره هان
If you found your partner online, you were more than three times more likely to get an STD from them than if you found your partner the old fashioned way
در مورد چاقی زمانی که گراف شبکه رو مطالعه می کنیم متوجه می شیم که خوشه بندی بین چاق ها بالاست یعنی افراد چاق بهم نزدیک ترن (فرض کنید من دو تا دوست دارم اگر این دو تا دوست همدیگرو بشناسن ما سه تا یه خوشه رو می سازیم) در مورد سیگاری ها هم این موضوع صادقه . به دلیل قوانین وضع شده تو سال های اخیر و ممنوعیت استعمال دخانیات در محیط های عمومی ، این افراد تمایل دارن که در خارج از شبکه ی مرسوم ، و تو محیط های منزوی سیگار بکشن . رو نمودار گراف هم این افراد عمدتاً تو حاشیه ی نتورک هستن
در مورد جرایم هم باز همین قواعد جاریه . وقتی که افراد توی یه زندان قرار می گیرن یا توی محله ای به دنیا میان که همه خلافکارن ، شانس اینکه جوون های اون محله هم به سمت بزهکاری کشیده بشن افزایش پیدا می کنه . پس برای مبارزه با جرم و جنایت و اعتیاد باید شبکه ای که این افراد رو بهم متصل میکنه از بین برد نه که بخوایم تک به تک افراد رو تربیت کنیم . میشه گفت بررسی یه رفتار از روی شبکه راحت تره تا بررسی رفتار تمامی افراد درگیر به صورت جز به جز
The epidemic stopped because the network changed
مرکز کنترل بیماری ها در ایالات متحده ادعا می کنه که شیوع خودکشی در بین جوون ها هم می تونه ناشی از شبکه هایی باشه که آدم های افسرده رو بهم متصل می کنه و معتقده ژورنال ها یا خبرگزاری هایی که با آب و تاب از این عمل تعریف می کنن یا سعی می کنن از فرد قربانی قهرمان بسازن ، در شیوع بیشتر این تفکر کمک می کنن
در سال 2007 بانک های انگلستان با رکود و ورشکستگی کم سابقه ای مواجه شده بودن . یه تفکر تو جامعه جرقه خورده بود ، پول هاتونو از بانک بیرون بکشید . تمام ! کلی از بانک ها تعطیل شدن چون مردم زیادی برای پس گیری پول هاشون صف کشیده بودن . عده ای ادعا می کردن که ما هیچ دلیل منطقی ای برای کارمون نداریم اما فقط میخوایم که از دیگران عقب نیفتیم . برای این رفتار گله ای یه آزمایش خیلی ساده انجام شد . چند نفر از افراد به ترتیب تو گوشه ای از خیابون وامیستادن و به نقطه ای معین از یک ساختمون نگاه می کردن . رفته رفته مردم عادی که از اونجا عبور می کردن این رفتار رو تقلید کردن
یکی از جاهای خوبی که میشه از تحلیل شبکه های اجتماعی منفعت کسب کرد ، محافل سیاسیه . اوباما تو سال 2008 با دونستن همین چنتا نکته تونست رای اکثریت رو بدست بیاره
اما چه دلیل منطقی ای وجود داره که یه آدم ساعت ها تو صف واسته تا به یه نفر دیگه در انتخابات رای بده ؟ رای دادن مثل یه قمار می مونه آدم ها دو دو تا چهارتا می کنن تا وقت بذارن واسه کاندیدی که بیشترین سود رو واسشون داره (تو ایران مردم از مهر دار بودن شناسنامه سود می برن نه خودِ کاندید) واسه همین قطبی سازی مهم ترین کاری هست که یه جامعه برای مشارکت سیاسی مردم میتونه انجام بده
اینکه گفته میشه رای یک نفر اهمیت داره یعنی چی ؟ من تا حالا تو هیچ انتخاباتی شرکت نکردم و بود و نبودم هم توی نتیجه ی انتخابات هیچ تاثیری نداشته . پس این حرف چه معنایی داره ؟ با آزمایش های متعددی اثبات میشه رای دادن یا رای ندادن افراد ، تاثیر زیادی روی دوستان و سایر افراد متصل به اون فرد در شبکه می ذاره و اونا رو راغب یا غیر مشتاق در امر رای گیری می کنه . من باب مثال رای دادن یه آدم با نفوذ در شبکه می تونه رای دادن هزاران نفر رو به دنبال داشته باشه
استنلی میلگرام یکی از شناخته شده ترین روان شناس های قرن بیستم آزمایش عجیبی رو برای مطالعه ی رفتار آدم ها در تبعیت از اتوریته انجام داد . به کسانی که داوطلب آزمایش بودن، گفته میشد که هدف از آزمایش، تحقیق در مورد حافظه و یادگیری در شرایط متفاوته و اینکه آیا شوک الکتریکی باعث بهبود یادگیری میشه یا نه . به داوطلبا چیزی در مورد هدف واقعی آزمایش گفته نمیشد. فرد مورد نظر پشت دستگاه شوک الکتریکی میشینه و میتونه با اختیار خودش به فردی (از بازیگر های آزمایش) که روی صندلی الکتریکی هست شوک وارد کنه . کسی که ادعا می کنه پزشک هست (بازیگر دوم آزمایش) از اون فردی که روی صندلی شوک الکتریکی نشسته سوال ها رو می پرسه و اونم به عمد اشتباه جواب میده . پزشک (اتوریته) از فرد مورد آزمایش میخواد که شوک الکتریکی رو افزایش بده . برخلاف نظر تمام روان پزشکان 65 درصد از افراد حاضر در این آزمایش تا 450 ولت شوک به فردی که روی صندلی نشسته بود وارد می کردن که منجر به مرگ میشد (یعنی فرد با افزایش ناله ها و ضجه های خودش وانمود می کرد که مرده) در واقع این 65 درصد علی رغم میل باطنی خودشون تو یه شرایط استرس آور این کار و انجام داده بودن . تنها 35 درصد از افراد حاضر در آزمایش بنا به وجدان خودشون از ادامه ی وارد کردن شوک صرف نظر کردن . این آزمایش نشون داد که آدم ها چطور میتونن تحت تاثیر فرمانی از بالادست ، برخلاف چیزی که باور دارن عمل کنن . البته این آزمایش به خاطر صدمات روحی ای که به آزمایش شونده ها وارد کرده بود (که فکر می کردن مرتکب قتل شدن) ممنوع اعلام شد
و اما سوال اساسی . آیا خدا هم در این شبکه می تونه جایگاهی داشته باشه ؟ اگر تمام آدم های شبکه رو به صورت یک گره (همون نقطه) در نظر بگیریم ، خدا میشه اون گره ای که هیچ وقت از بین نمیره و باعث میشه فاصله ی ما با تمام آدم های دیگه توی شبکه اندازه ی یک یال باشه ! یعنی ما به خدا متصل میشیم و خدا هم به اون فرد متصله ، پس ما بیش از هر وقت دیگه ای به فرد مورد نظرمون نزدیک هستیم . حتماً توجه کردید که وقتی یه نفر ، عزیزی رو از دست میده یا شکست عاطفی می خوره این ارتباط با خدا رو تقویت میکنه . در واقع اینجا شخصِ خدا و خداپرستی معنایی نداره ، اون فرد میخواد ارتباطش با فرد از دست رفته رو همچنان از طریق گره ای به نام خدا حفظ کنه ! و این شاید مهم ترین دلیل خداپرستی بین آدم ها باشه ، حفظ ارتباط با جهان
If God were seen as a node on a network, large groups of people could be bound together not just by a common idea but also by a specific social relationship to every other believer. People could perceive a specific social tie to others, and everyone would be one degree removed from everyone else. People who felt a connection to God would have a way of feeling connected to others, because through God everyone is a “friend of a friend".
The idea that God can be personified and seen as part of a human social network is further supported by the fact that people tend to have an increase in religious belief after the death of a loved one: it is as if a connection to God is strengthened when one loses a connection to people. This belief can sustain the hope of being reconnected with others who have departed.
پ.ن : به پیشنهاد یکی از دوستان واسه ی ترجمه ی این کتاب ترغیب شدم . اگر در مورد قوانین انتشارات و حقوق و مزایای ترجمه اطلاعاتی داشتید ممنون میشم تو کامنت بهم بگید
April 8, 2021
I found this book relevant now in 2021. With the pandemic on going, the amount of connectivity is correlated to the rate the virus is transmitted. The concept is there. However, this book was written pre social media era, so somehow it was unrelatable. But now, even people who are not technical can actually understand the concept in this book because of the amount of involvement we have with the social media in any form.
This is easy to read book and hopefully can be improved with the perspective of the current social media progress.
Edit.
I realized later that i actually read a recent book with the same author. Haha. The recent book the Apollo's Arrow is a great book talking about the 2020 pandemic and connectivity. So yes. That's cool.
This is easy to read book and hopefully can be improved with the perspective of the current social media progress.
Edit.
I realized later that i actually read a recent book with the same author. Haha. The recent book the Apollo's Arrow is a great book talking about the 2020 pandemic and connectivity. So yes. That's cool.
December 18, 2023
Fascinerende å se hvor mye de sosiale nettverkene vi er en del av, påvirker oss. Og ikke minst hvor stor betydning vårt eget bidrag inn i de samme nettverkene kan ha å si.
April 7, 2025
Ένα βιβλίο για τους λάτρεις της στατιστικής.
Είναι ένα βιβλίο όπου ανατρέχεις και όχι για να θυμάσαι.
Είναι ένα βιβλίο όπου ανατρέχεις και όχι για να θυμάσαι.
December 23, 2020
We discovered that if your friend's friend's friend stopped smoking, you stopped smoking. And we discovered that if your friend's friend's friend became happy, you became happy.”
Well hello, I am sure this is not everyone´s cup of tea but I will have to say that I DO recommend this book. Quite frankly, there isn´t much for me to do during these vacations and so I decided to keep focusing on reading extra material.
This book has a main simple thesis: We are all connected and with this, we lose individuality in some way, making us, as the quote goes, influenced by other people within our network. The book I must say, is quite short. It only consists of 9 chapters and all are incredibly well explained. No problem at all trying to understand them.
“Because of our tendency to want what others want, and because of our inclination to see the choices of others as an efficient way to understand the world, our social networks can magnify what starts as an essentially random variation.”
Chapter one starts of with the basics, how groups and social networks are defined and the rules that exist within them ( that we are mainly the ones who shape our network and in turn, the network shapes us as well as friends and friends friends friends affect us -known as the 3 degree influence).
Chapter two follows by explaining how some emotional elements are spread (based upon evolutionary purposes, mimicry and adopting inward states). The book follows smoothly and explains several cases were this was seen (MPI for instance) . Happiness, loneliness and love are also explained, mainly based of on how networks improve our happiness or makes us feel more lonely which will in turn will make us sever our ties with other people.
Chapter three mainly focuses on the finding of partners and how usually, partners are found by the three degree separation rule and is also determined by our surroundings. It also introduces interesting concepts like relative and absolute standing, the widow effect multiplexity in relationships and why men gain more when they marry than women.
Chapter four focuses on smoking, drinking, the contagion of STD´s among other things. While chapter 5 focuses mainly on economics, financial crisis and supply and demand and how it is exactly that is driven by social networks.
Now chapter 6, this was the chapter I was more interested on since I had taken a political science class and it talked about voting and the rationality of it as well as polarization, the network ties between politicians, lobbyists and how can they exactly be traced. I throughly enjoyed this chapter, it was highly interesting and quite frankly deepened and enriched my previous knowledge.
Finally, chapters 7, 8 and 9 focus on evolutionary traits and genes which are in some part responsible of the creation of our social networks, alturism, charity cooperation, etc and introduces several types of people that help regulate the environment (cooperators, loners, free riders, etc) It also tackles several common thoughts and explains how we usually tend to behave in certain situations (experiments are shown and it touches several interesting topics like bioterror attacks, and the willingness to obey). Quite frankly, this was interesting. The only reason I am giving this 3 stars is because I sometimes found it too much. Overall though, I do recommend it and I would say there´s no need to actually have prior knowledge, which is fabulous.
“If we are connected to everyone else by six degrees and we can influence them up to three degrees, then one way to think about ourselves is that each of us can reach about halfway to everyone else on the planet.”
Well hello, I am sure this is not everyone´s cup of tea but I will have to say that I DO recommend this book. Quite frankly, there isn´t much for me to do during these vacations and so I decided to keep focusing on reading extra material.
This book has a main simple thesis: We are all connected and with this, we lose individuality in some way, making us, as the quote goes, influenced by other people within our network. The book I must say, is quite short. It only consists of 9 chapters and all are incredibly well explained. No problem at all trying to understand them.
“Because of our tendency to want what others want, and because of our inclination to see the choices of others as an efficient way to understand the world, our social networks can magnify what starts as an essentially random variation.”
Chapter one starts of with the basics, how groups and social networks are defined and the rules that exist within them ( that we are mainly the ones who shape our network and in turn, the network shapes us as well as friends and friends friends friends affect us -known as the 3 degree influence).
Chapter two follows by explaining how some emotional elements are spread (based upon evolutionary purposes, mimicry and adopting inward states). The book follows smoothly and explains several cases were this was seen (MPI for instance) . Happiness, loneliness and love are also explained, mainly based of on how networks improve our happiness or makes us feel more lonely which will in turn will make us sever our ties with other people.
Chapter three mainly focuses on the finding of partners and how usually, partners are found by the three degree separation rule and is also determined by our surroundings. It also introduces interesting concepts like relative and absolute standing, the widow effect multiplexity in relationships and why men gain more when they marry than women.
Chapter four focuses on smoking, drinking, the contagion of STD´s among other things. While chapter 5 focuses mainly on economics, financial crisis and supply and demand and how it is exactly that is driven by social networks.
Now chapter 6, this was the chapter I was more interested on since I had taken a political science class and it talked about voting and the rationality of it as well as polarization, the network ties between politicians, lobbyists and how can they exactly be traced. I throughly enjoyed this chapter, it was highly interesting and quite frankly deepened and enriched my previous knowledge.
Finally, chapters 7, 8 and 9 focus on evolutionary traits and genes which are in some part responsible of the creation of our social networks, alturism, charity cooperation, etc and introduces several types of people that help regulate the environment (cooperators, loners, free riders, etc) It also tackles several common thoughts and explains how we usually tend to behave in certain situations (experiments are shown and it touches several interesting topics like bioterror attacks, and the willingness to obey). Quite frankly, this was interesting. The only reason I am giving this 3 stars is because I sometimes found it too much. Overall though, I do recommend it and I would say there´s no need to actually have prior knowledge, which is fabulous.
“If we are connected to everyone else by six degrees and we can influence them up to three degrees, then one way to think about ourselves is that each of us can reach about halfway to everyone else on the planet.”
April 23, 2017
Connectivity theory ή η θεωρία της δικτύωσης: Οι συγγραφείς κάνουν εξαιρετική δουλειά στο να αναγνωρίσουν και να μεταδώσουν τον τρόπο της κοινωνικής δικτύωσης που έχει μείνει απαρράλαχτος από την εποχή των σπηλαίων ως στη σημερινή εποχή της διαδικτυακής εγγύτητας, αλλά και αυτές που έχουν διαμορφώσει καινούριες ατομικές και κοινωνικές σχετικότητες. Έτσι ο κόσμος μας απαρτίζεται από κυρίως “συνεργατικούς” ανθρώπους ανάμεσα στους οποίους βρίσκονται και κάποιοι “παρτάκηδες”, που όμως αντιμετωπίζουν τους “τιμωρούς” με τα ποσοστά τους να διαφέρουν κατά καιρούς και κατά επιμέρους κοινωνία και να χρειάζεται όλα τα μέρη να επανατοποθετούνται ανάλογα, συμπληρούμενη από κάποια μοναχικά άτομα στην περιφέρεια του κοινωνικού ιστού, που όμως δεν είναι και τόσο μοναχικά ή άσχετα με το γενικότερο γίγνεσθαι. Ο αριθμός των ατόμων που έχουμε στενούς φίλους μπορεί να είναι περίπου 7, ο αριθμός για μια ομαλά εξελισσόμενη συζήτηση περίπου 4, και ο αριθμός ενός συνόλου με κοινό σκοπό δύσκολα υπερβαίνει τα 150, με ιδανικότερο το 120. Όλα αυτά με πολύ ωραία εύκολα κατανοητή διήγηση των συγγραφέων. Μέτρησα επίσης ότι για τις 300 σελίδες του βιβλίου χρειάστηκα περίπου 15 ώρες ανάγνωσης, χωρίς να βιάζομαι, και ξαναδιάβασα κάποιες σελίδες. Συστήνεται για όλους, πολύ χρήσιμο και απολαυστικό.
October 7, 2013
A rather "classical" pop-science book, using simplified research and examples to explain, this time, the interesting-ness and power of human networks. Going from prehistoric social mechanisms to digital hyperconnectivity, Christakis and Fowler make a point about how our web of human relationships ends up defining who we are. An enjoyable and well-structured read finished up with an extensive reading list for the research-oriented.
October 5, 2012
Wish I could give this book 3.5 stars. The theories presented in this book are outside the box of conventional wisdom. I found most of it very intriguing. Parts of it really struck a chord with me. Other parts left me scrunching up my face and wondering if their assertions pass the sniff test. I think it will be interesting to see how these ideas play out in the future.
March 3, 2017
Because I love networks, love Stanley Milgram, love the many social network studies that make for entertaining reading, I thought I would love this book. Far from loving it, I found it extremely annoying. So much old guard evolutionary bullshit. This book deserves to be shelved with David Buss, Dawkins, and Helen Fisher. What a terrible thing to do to such a great subject.
July 26, 2020
In order to understand at least some of the destructive dynamics according to all misunderstandings and all the disinformation on the ongoing Covid-19 tsunami, by fake news, troll factories, rumours and homemade "evidence", perhaps this book is something to consider.
Nicholas Christakis: "Connected - The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives" On how our friends' friends' and their friends affect everything we feel, think, and do.
Nicholas Christakis: "Connected - The Amazing Power of Social Networks and How They Shape Our Lives" On how our friends' friends' and their friends affect everything we feel, think, and do.
March 12, 2024
Ganz ok. Größtenteils eine popwissenschaftliche Darstellung von Forschungsergebnissen, die teils outdated, teils etwas wahlos und undiskutiert hintereinander gebabbt sind. Die theoretische Aufmachung zu Beginn und ein paar ausgewählte Unterkapitel zu besagten Forschungsergebnissen fand ich aber dennoch sehr spannend.
April 27, 2023
Chalked full of interesting data! So much data I actually had to slow down my audiobook to absorb it all.
September 26, 2023
Very interesting studies about the connectedness of human beings
June 12, 2019
I gave up before the end, far too repetitive and please cut the politics chat. Nice idea poor execution
July 8, 2022
This was just okay—can easily skim for the parts one finds interesting. The facts are great! And some of the stories/ideas are wonderful!
November 18, 2024
Thought it would be more insightful than it was. Put me to sleep numerous times
September 26, 2024
Σα να συμμαζεύουν οι συγγραφείς στο μυαλό μας δεδομένα που ήδη γνωρίζαμε ή υποπτευόμασταν. Θα το προτιμούσα περισσότερο βαθύ. Χρήσιμο αλλά αρκετά απλοικό. Μάλλον απευθύνεται στον μέσο αμερικάνο αναγνώστη.
December 14, 2019
Choppy and unengaged.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 389 reviews