On Sat, 02 Aug 2008 23:54:43 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote: > The "six degrees" theory apparently holds up, even in the electronic age. > http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/aug/03/internet.email
A few points: (1) Although there may be problems with the entry, one should check out the "six degrees" entry on Wikipedia to get a better sense of the history associated with the concept (it did not originate with Stanley Milgram). See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_degrees_of_separation (2) The article states: |The theory of six degrees of separation contends that, |because we are all linked by chains of acquaintance, you |are just six introductions away from any other person on |the planet. I know that popular media often confuses things but (a) isn't the "six degrees" supposed to be an empirical finding or a fact in contrast to a theory, and (b) as articulated by Milgram and others, isn't the theory the "small world hypothesis", that is, because of the creation of new forms of communication and travel, the "seperation" between any two random people (represented by the number of people one would have to go through to establish contact between the two) can be measured and described statistically? The actual degree of seperation would depend upon whether one is really trying to connect two random people or two people who might have pre-existing "paths" (e.g., connecting two Ph.D.s in psychology; a number that should be smaller than six, especially if the two have email address, belong to professional organizations that publish directories of their members, and/or have contact info either in their email or associated website). (3) The article states: |In other words, putting fractions to one side, you are linked |by a string of seven or fewer acquaintances to Madonna, the |Dalai Lama and the Queen. I assume that "the Queen" refers to Queen Elizabeth and not some version of the rock band "Queen". And |The database covered all the Microsoft Messenger instant-messaging |network in June 2006, equivalent to roughly half the world's |instant-messaging traffic at that time. Perhaps the inference is unwarrented but since the two statements above are seperated by only a couple of sentences, there does seem to be the implication that Queen uses instant messaging. I did not know that. (4) If, as the article asserts, that the 6.6 billion people on earth are seperated by only six people, why haven't we caught Osama bin Ladin? Does his IM program have a very exclusive "White List"? (5) The article summarizes the results from the Milgram and Travers study, pointing out that 296 people were giving instructions to contact a Boston stockbroker and found that 6.2 links or degrees. However, only 64 contacts (letters) reached the stockbroker or 64/296=.2162 or only about 22% of the attempts were successful. In other words, 78% of the participants could not contact the target person. Perhaps I am reading this wrong but doesn't this mean that it was impossible in the majority of cases to reach a target person, at least in the Milgram & Travers version of the task? (Travers, Jeffrey, and Stanley Milgram, "An Experimental Study of the Small World Problem," Sociometry 32(4, Dec. 1969):425-443) (6) Milgram originally published his "small world hypothesis" in the following: Stanley Milgram, "The Small World Problem", Psychology Today, 1967, Vol. 2, 60-67 I am in continual amazement at the power of the magazine "Psychology Today" to influence popular culture as well as psychology. Oh why oh why did the APA sell it!?! ;-) -Mike Palij New York University [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
