Six Degrees of Scientific Misconduct
Stanley Milgram one of the 'giants' of social science seems to have misrepresented the findings in one of his classic studies. Maybe we are not as interconnected as we think we are! And what sayeth those social scientists who continue to insist that there is no need to hold their feet to the same regulatory fire as pertains to medical research? - Art Caplancontribute a comment
Comments have been closed for this post.
comments
Both Albert-Laszlo Barabasi (in "Linked: The New Science of Networks") and Duncan Watts ("Six Degrees") talk about Milgram's ideas, and the flaws in the study - including the fact that most of the letters in these studies (which Watts, at least, has also done) never make it to their target. At least in the current science of networking stuff, it's very clear that the six degrees (it's actually five and high decimals - shall we cry inaccuracy for saying six instead?) is merely the average steps for those that get there.
Both Barabasi, and Malcolm Gladwell in his pop-sci "The Tipping Point", talk about how it's not that we're all six degrees, it's that we all know people who function, in networking terms, as hubs - the connecting points. Because we know them, we 'know' lots of people - or at least have the potential for connection. But Barabasi shows that it's actually quite few people who are these hubs, and it's governed by power laws.
All of which is to say, the BBC article and the researcher in it are both several years behind the times, at least in terms of connectivity, networking, and our understanding of how those social systems function. It's kind of much ado about nothing.
- by Kelly on Sep 13, 2006 at 1:28 AM | link
And in odd timing, right after I wrote that, I saw an advertisement for the new JJ Abrahms show, "Six Degrees". Wanna bet it misrepresents the theory just as well as the play/Will Smith's movie did?
- by Kelly on Sep 13, 2006 at 1:31 AM | link