Social Networking - Groups Mentality?

[Minigun_Fiend]

This isn't a topic about social networking as a general concept, but about something that I've been considering lately.

I'm sure you've all seen it; three or four (or more!) people on Facebook join a group almost simultaneously, despite the fact that these people don't know each other and quite possibly live in completely different places.

While there are certainly a few coincidences along those lines, it does make me wonder just how many times this happens because there actually is a string, no matter how long, that connects these people who otherwise don't know each other.

I wonder how fast this sort of group-joining travels? How long would it take to traverse a string of, say, 4 or 5 people from one area of the country to another - or even another country altogether!

This isn't a topic to complain about people joining stupid Facebook groups or anything; just some sociological food for thought. Something interesting to ponder.

Feel free to post good examples and maybe even investigate the phenomenon. Can you find some far-flung friends that somehow are linked without your (or even their!) knowledge?

[Lagger]

it is an interesting point, im not sure which area of mathematics it relates to properly though.

[Minigun_Fiend]

It's an entirely conceivable hypothesis as well - just go onto any friends' profile page and click a random friend of theirs, then repeat on their profile page and so on.
I can almost guarantee that within two or three recursions you will be on a profile page for someone who you don't know and who lives somewhere you'd never have even considered.

[Iceray0]

All the people on my friends list I know personally or are Dragliders.

[Brendan]

Yes, but if you click on your friends profile links and then on theirs and so on, Murray is suggesting that you can end up quite far away. I have tested this and it does seem to work.

This isn't new though, there is the 6 degrees of separation (which has been tested up to a maximum degree of 13). So, logically, if everyone on Earth had a Facebook account, after clicking through 13 times, you could end up at anyone in the world you wanted to find.

Also, people joining a craze and joining a group because someone else has is explainable through social conditioning. Humans are social animals and have the need to create bonds and relationships. People drink, smoke and give in to peer pressure or accept hazing as part of becoming socially accepted.

Healthy humans should have a friend base of 120-150 (below that and humans will try to fill those spaces, above that and humans will start prioritising friends and caring for others much less. Anyone outside the favoured 150 people are not going to receive much attention or care).

When you copy someone, agree with someone or try something out because a friend has (or if you join a Facebook group because a friend has), then you are creating a mutual bond. Most of the time, they lead to nothing.

If you find someone and recognise that they are wearing a shirt of the band you love and their not a popular band, there will be a need for mutual bonding because of it.

[Minigun_Fiend]

The six-degrees theory is definitely relevant here, yes; it's presumably a combination of that and the social flock mentality (see below) which results in the aforementioned activity.

I'm not sure how it relates directly, but I've read some interesting articles on the maximum social 'circle' of a human and, indeed, the scientific consensus seems to be that we unconsciously maintain no more than 150 'good' friends at any one time.

The t-shirt example you give is a good one that relates a lot to the original theory. The reason one would feel drawn towards someone wearing the logo of a band, particularly an obscure one, that you like gives you an instant common ground on which to build a friendship.

Similarly, when you see someone join a group on Facebook that you particularly identify with, you are usually inclined to click the 'join'/'become a fan' link yourself, and maybe comment on it. Not out of some misguided sense of social acceptance, which I think is something very much mitigated in an online environment (as opposed to joining clubs or societies in the flesh), but out of a desire to establish this new common-ground.

[Serial Number]

a group on Facebook that you particularly identify with

Jonne liittyi ryhmään (that would be "joined") DONT U JUST H8 IT WEN U HAVE A BABY N U DNT KNO WHO DA REAL DAD IS?!

Healthy humans should have a friend base of 120-150 (below that and humans will try to fill those spaces, above that and humans will start prioritising friends and caring for others much less. Anyone outside the favoured 150 people are not going to receive much attention or care).

I've got something around 100 and there's even some people I dislike a lot in there. Is that bad?

[Iceray0]

People drink, smoke and give in to peer pressure or accept hazing as part of becoming socially accepted.

Healthy humans should have a friend base of 120-150

I don't do any of that and I have a friends list of like 30 people some of whom are family and not even friends. Example, my cousin I've met twice in my life.

[Brendan]

Some people are happy with keeping themselves to themselves, this is mainly a social adaption you've made through your life. By default, humans are social animals, just like we're supposed to be hungry for knowledge and able to adapt.

[Iceray0]

I had a very interesting conversation earlier today. We discussed how humans are capable of amazing feats if they put their minds to it and how pathetic it is that we don't.

[Lagger]

give some examples of these amazing feats...

[Brendan]

Paris Hilton can fit most things into her mouth. We could utilise it for hiding missiles.

[Minigun_Fiend]

The 150 figure for social circles is a theoretical maximum, not an 'ideal' or anything like that.

[Iceray0]

give some examples of these amazing feats...

Stonewall Jackson's Vally campaign

Employing audacity and rapid, unpredictable movements on interior lines, Jackson's 17,000 men marched 646 miles (1,040 km) in 48 days and won several minor battles as they successfully engaged three Union armies (52,000 men), preventing them from reinforcing the Union offensive against Richmond.

The Viking Berserker that held the bridge

English sources suggest that a lone Norseman grimly defended the narrow wooden span, felling many a housecarl and thegn with great blows from his axe. An Anglo-Saxon archer failed to bring down the daring Viking hero. Finally, an enterprising Englishman paddled a swill tub under cover of overhanging willows and speared the Norseman from beneath the bridge.

Alexander the Great
Ghengis Khan
Adolf Hitler
Battle of Thermopylae
The Rwandan genocide

Whether for good or for bad these show what humans are capable of.

[Meh]

Putting your mind to create an amazing feat is irrelevant in the subject of military combat.

Also, Sherley housecarls and thegn's are norse and not anglo-saxon. but an interesting example of history, a mad axe swinging naked viking holds off an army for three hours, thus thwarting their surprise attack on the sleeping norse. Not necesscarilly sheer force of will as much as viking berserker being a viking berserker.

[Minigun_Fiend]

If you want to talk about the underachievement of the human race, start a new topic for it please.

This is a topic about social 'flock' theory.