Category Archives: power-laws and networks

Your friends are friendly than you are.

Since the links in social networks are power-law distributed some people have mind numbingly large numbers of friends while most of us have many many fewer. Your much more likely to know these highly friendly people compared regular folks. Should you count the number of friends of your friends and compute an average you’ll almost certain to discover that average is greater than the number of friends you have. So generally speaking your friends are just plan friendly than you are.

That presumably leads to everybody feeling as if they don’t have as many friends as they ought to. Everybody’s impression is that they are a wall flower.

This insight was gleaned from M. E. J. Newman’s paper “Ego-centered networks and the ripple effect – or – Why all your friends are weird” found here.

voice of a group blog

LineDancing.jpg
I’ve never been to a rave and I don’t really want to but I saw one in that horrible movie. Who’s in charge? It is a question that comes up.

When people ask that about open source I like to tease them. I say it’s kind of like what happens if you put a bunch of people together in any group. Pretty soon they all start spontanously dressing a like, using the same cliches, making fun of people outside. It’s in the nature of things, like the rythmic clapping of an audience. I gather that rythmic clapping is somewhat more common in European audiences than American ones.

Standard behaviors can emerge entirely bottom up. Fact is, given the way that power-law network tend to emerge out of all kinds of unregulated linking up, I’m beginning to think it’s more the rule than the exception.

It’s actually kind of amazing the way a lot of open source projects seem to
spontaneously organize. You create a body of code; you add a half a dozen interested parties; after a bit they all start rattling around in something that approaches – just a bit – a synchronized manner. Who’s in charge? The code repository?

In the fractal nature of these kinds of discussions I got to noticing this at three scales all at the same time. First you have the ongoing to-and-fro-ing about “what is a blog.” Which is of course the conversation about what is the emerging standard blog. Second you have the question as it applies to an indivdual and his blog. There you might call it “finding your voice.” Some people’s voice is long tedious essays; others are tightly written humorous observations; some like to write little provocative Zen koans; while yet others have found a voice that consists of just revealing a stream of URLs they find interesting. Part of the tension in the “what is a blog” conversation arises from the way it does the violence of catagorization to individual voices. Who in charge? Where to you get off announcing that the annual christmas letter isn’t a form of blogging.

Group blogs are an fun kind of intermediate level. It’s the middle class! Sometimes easy going, tollerant, urban. Sometimes uptight, gated community, suburban. I’d not noticed the way that if you look at a few group blogs; like many-to-many or crooked timber you can clearly see that the particpants have begun to adopt a similar voice. Comming to them fresh you might assume that they gathered together because they shared a common voice; but if you read some of their individual writing from years past you notice that they had either wider ranges or even entirely different centers of mass. I suspect if you just measured the size of the postings you’s see a kind of learning to clap in unison begins to emerge.

Over on the brand spanking new Planet Apache this process is particularly stark. First off we have a mess-o-people posting how have already developed a voice over the last few years. Second we are aggregating those entirely automaticly from their individual blogs; so to first order there is no reason to expect these voices to begin to standardize. Third the Apache communities I’ve particpated in have been particularly good at remaining both tolerant and diverse – which would suggest there is less social pressure toward a common voice. It’s very much in the best interest of a healthy open source project to remain like that; otherwise you make it a lot harder to bring on new blood. But then on the otherhand the Apache communities I’ve particpated in have been extremely narrowly focused, very much communities of limited liablity. That’s because they focus down onto the working code; often have no other scope. That suggests two things; that these folks have a strong expectation that planet apache will focus down on something, probably the work of the various projects, and secondly that these folks aren’t fluent in what happens if you don’t limit the liablity.

I have good friend who drew my attention to a behavior he calls “monkey see monkey do;” i.e. that we primates like to try things. We watch the other monkeys and then we go “Oh, that looks like fun. I think I’ll try that!” And, it is fun. I certainly tried blogging for much those same reasons.

It will be interesting to see what happens at planet apache. Maybe we will wander into a common voice there. Maybe we will remain “just a bunch a guys.” Maybe some people will choose to submit a partial feed of their own blog not because there are guidelines for the planet’s content but because they decide they want to avoid the subtle temptation to conform any conventions that might begin to emerge there. Certainly some people like to settle into a framework. Who knows?

Hopefully we won’t be tempted to answer the question: “Who’s in charge!” Or was Mark Slemko once so wisely said: “That would be wrong, except when it’s not.”

Clay Shirky on Powerlaws

Clay writes a excellent overview of some of the means for engineering the shape of the power-law curve. It’s nice to see another voice talking about that problem rather than just railing about the meer existance of the curve.

While I have a few minor quibbles with Clay’s posting I’m so pleased!. For example I’m pleased by his collection of examples of mechanisms people use to try and reshape the curve. A large collection of such mechanisms is key to informing a strong intuition about what you can do to fix extreme cases or inequality, failed growth, polarization, etc. One scale free network is not like another.

He misses the issue of how network design biases who will capture the new growth in the network – some designs encourage the emergence of a more egalitarian distribution.

He touches on the issue of volitility. This is a two edged sword; you want stablity – since network participants pay a cost to reshuffle the network – and you want moblity/oportunity. I believe, but I don’t have enough data or a reasonably model that the distribution of volitility in most of these networks is similar to that found in the distribution of firm sizes from year to year. Small firms change size a _lot_ more than large firms – it’s a double expodential. If that’s the right distribution for the volitility then the design problem is to manage the constants in that distirbution.

He provocatively introduces the idea that conservatives have a tolerance for inequality. I think that’s far too generous. I think that conservatives have an enthusiasm for inequality. That they believe that elite status is the rightous reward rather than a happen stance of system design. That a more severe slope to your power-law curve will drive people to increased striving and they are blind to the extent that a more egalitarian slope enables innovation, creation, diversity, and reduced social tension. Since what happens if you encourage diversity is the emergence of many many loosely joined power-law networks sorted out by different arts there is a deadly tendency of conservatives to encourage competititon between these arts that leads to a monotheistic world with a single dominate network and ranking.

That in turn brings me to the information issue. I wish Clay had mentioned that one way to reduce the slope of the curve is to improve the information available to the network members. That encourages members to link to things that are more diverse. I.e. the habit of linking to the “more popular blogs” is less egalitarian than the habit of linking to the “most popular blogs that discuss my interests.” You can’t do the latter if you don’t have good information.

There is a meta issue, like the one about how many networks you think exist about the size of your network/community. If you regulate your network; by increasing the information, innovation, limiting it’s upper or lower bounds, etc. etc. that implies you have drawn a boundry around it. That you have converted it from a public-good into a club-good. That you have given it a cell membrane. You can do that with pricing, certification, etc. etc. You can’t ignore these membranes.

I was surprised that he doesn’t use the word innovation, he has before, to talk about one of the goals of your network design.

Go it Alone

One of the textbook examples of a network effect is the ATM network. The more ATMs in your network the more value your customers will perceive in opening a bank account with your bank. All else being equal customers will pick a bank with a larger network of free ATMs. For very small banks, those with only a hand full of offices, this became a serious competitive problem about a decade ago. To solve the problem these banks formed branded ATM networks. In my region, for example, a large number of very small banks formed a network known as SUM. The SUM network allows me to bank with a small bank but get the advantage of a large free ATM network.

So yesterday I stopped to get money and the ATM machine announced that the bank I was in had withdrawn from the SUM network. My first reaction to the bank

Distribution of Wealth

A good Paul Krugman article about the shifting distribution of wealth and more importantly a nice summary of how to shift it.

Suppose that you actually liked a caste society, and you were seeking ways to use your control of the government to further entrench the advantages of the haves against the have-nots. What would you do?

One thing you would definitely do is get rid of the estate tax, so that large fortunes can be passed on to the next generation. More broadly, you would seek to reduce tax rates both on corporate profits and on unearned income such as dividends and capital gains, so that those with large accumulated or inherited wealth could more easily accumulate even more. You’d also try to create tax shelters mainly useful for the rich. And more broadly still, you’d try to reduce tax rates on people with high incomes, shifting the burden to the payroll tax and other revenue sources that bear most heavily on people with lower incomes.

Meanwhile, on the spending side, you’d cut back on healthcare for the poor, on the quality of public education and on state aid for higher education. This would make it more difficult for people with low incomes to climb out of their difficulties and acquire the education essential to upward mobility in the modern economy.

And just to close off as many routes to upward mobility as possible, you’d do everything possible to break the power of unions, and you’d privatize government functions so that well-paid civil servants could be replaced with poorly paid private employees.

Variations on these are exactly the same as what you do if you want to increase the slope of market concentration or the dominance of a given standard.

For example if your trying to increase the concentration in a market you want to make it harder for the small players to get access to supply (that’s analagous to cutting off health care to the poor). Or you might want to raise regulatory barriers such that strong players have a scale advantage in meeting those new requirements (standardized testing for example).

The article that Krugman cites refers to “Wal-Martization” as causal factor in the increasing disparity of wealth and the falling mobility between classes. That’s exactly right, as Wal-Mart has consolidated the retailing industry they have created increasing barriers to the ablity of small firms to reach consumers. So, for example, when Wal-Mart requires RFID tags or EDI support from their suppliers they raise barriers that assure only larger suppliers can survive. It’s a commercial twist on the old chestnut of excessive goverment regulation.

One aspect of the whole distribution of wealth debate that goes under reported is, I believe, a blindness to the effect on small businesses. I’d be very surprised if it weren’t true that what ever is true about the distribution of individual wealth wasn’t exactly true about the distribution of firm wealth. I just don’t see why there would be a meaningful difference between these two kinds of economic entities – in a macro economic sense.

Hubs, Contagion, Immunity

shy.jpg

It is conventional wisdom in the scale free networking crowd that highly connected hubs are the key to assuring that everybody is only a few hops away from everybody else. These hubs, ranked by the connectivity, are also at the top of the power-law distribution that is characteristic of scale free networks.

Marketing people know this – if you can get the hubs to recommend your product then your golden. Epidemiologists know this – if you can vacinate the hubs you can slow the spread of the disease.

One aspect of that which I don’t think is well appreciated is that if your a hub you need to have a strong immune system. It’s easy for the marketing guys to target hubs, it’s much harder for them to convince them. It strikes me as obvious that if being a highly social person is geneticly linked then it would be extremely advantagous – from a survial point of view – if that trait was linked to a strong immune system.

So I didn’t find this report surprising. Shyness can be deadly. That holds that shy people have weaker immune systems. I’m peeved by the value judgement there, i.e. that shy is bad. Social is only one of many many attributes that people might specialize in.

Much the same way that a plant pays a high cost having thorns or an exagerated sexual display (in energy that might be expended on other goals for example) I very much doubt that having a strong immune system is a low cost trait for a animal to carry. Same thing for risk adversion.

Meanwhile, I think there some subtle trade off lurking here between attractive and social that I’m having trouble framing up just right. Warning insta-Theory! But I suspect that attractive people then to be shy.

Landscaping the Power

A delightfully visual posting about how to visualise the substructure of the power-law of attention. It is a little misleading. I don’t know that one could turn the gravity down low enough for any landscape to have escarpments as brutal as those in power-law land. But, it does help to shake loose people’s blindness to the way that the power-law of attention is the sum of many many power-law of attention to X, Y and Z.

The Sun King

Seems reasonable that gravity would lead to perferential attachement and hence to a power-law distribution. Here we have the top ten bodies in the solar system plotted in rank order. As usual around here this is a log-log chart. The earth’s mass is one on the Y axis.

solarSystem.gif

Going Nowhere

I was reminded of Ivan Illich the other morning. One of his rants was to frame the problem of how to raise the average volocity of the Mexican population as two choices. Choice A: build a jet airport in Mexico city. Choice B: build a large number of small bridges all over the nation. It was clear which raised the maximum speed; but it was also clear the B raised the average speed substantially more. It’s a good example of the trade-offs you make deciding to aid the power-law’s elite vs. the long tail.

What triggered this reminding? The Chinese space shot. First I smiled because that’s such an extreme case of choice A. Such a fine example of societies tendency to pointless monumentalism. Such an odd thing for a socialist state to engage in; not that anybody really harbors many illusions of the Chinese as particularly socialist anymore. But then I laughed out loud, because at least A and B acutally create linkages. Space shots don’t go nowhere. That’s really the extreme of monumentalism.