Separating Facebook users: 4.74 Degrees

Remember my less-than-epic, although very entertaining, quest to confirm or deny the famous Six Degrees of Separation experiment, originally conducted by Stanley Milgrim?  My goal was to send out letters, as in the original experiment, and have those recipients do their best to get those letters to a named someone in Boston.  Each link in the chain would write down their name on the letter, and, by the end, we’d have a list of how many people the letter went through to get to that final person.

You might remember that not one letter made it to my contact in Boston.

Many other groups have turned to Facebook to answer the question. Several failed, fake, or ineffective “Six Degrees” Facebook groups have popped up.

However, just a few months ago, the University of Milan partnered with Facebook to report that the average number of acquaintances separating any two people in the world was not six, but 4.74.

The new research used data from 721 million Facebook users, more than one-tenth of the world’s population. Facebook posted the results on their data facebook page.

From the New York Times article:

The experiment took one month. The researchers used a set of algorithms developed at the University of Milan to calculate the average distance between any two people by computing a vast number of sample paths among Facebook users. They found that the average number of links from one arbitrarily selected person to another was 4.74. In the United States, where more than half of people over 13 are on Facebook, it was just 4.37.

That being said, Facebook users are probably a self-selected bunch.  In this case, the people who use Facebook are those who have online access and choose to use Facebook.  They might be better connected individuals than those who do not use Facebook.

Importantly, this study raises questions about definitions like “friend,” “acquaintance,” or “guy you met one time on the bus.”  Which of those actually counts as a connection?

Either way, it’s pretty exciting to know that we’re only a few introductions away from people like Hugh Laurie and David Cameron.*

*If anyone here is Facebook friends with them, let me know.

The Future of the Internet: Real Names (Part 1 of 3)

Today, at the World Future Society 2011 Conference, I joined members of the Weiner, Edrich, & Brown team on a panel about Youth Trends.  I identified three trends related to the internet and social media.

Disclaimer: I am a Googler, however, nothing in this post has been influenced by confidential information or is a commentary on any insider knowledge about any of the topics I might be addressing.

Real Names

The internet has traditionally been viewed as the Wild West of technology.  It has been an unspoiled frontier, waiting to be discovered, tamed, and understood.

Part of that mystery and allure has been the ability traipse around the internet anonymously.  Sites like 4chan, Omegle, and Chatroulette, are based on the anonymous nature of internet interaction. Even traditional chat clients like AIM, gaming websites like Kongregate, of social media outlets like Twitter, only ask for a username – a made up nickname – that doesn’t have to be your real name.

Increasingly, the internet is shifting towards a model based more on individual accountability.  Facebook has algorithms that attempt to detect whether or not you’ve put in a real name.  Google+ is asking users to input their real names, too. Right now, the internet is trending towards asking users for their real names.

This confirmation of identity has to be the next step in the evolution of the internet. Without confirmed identities, the internet will never act as a forum for highly secure transactions, such as serious banking or voting.

Of course, there will always be proponents of anonymity.  Christopher Poole is one such proponent. On the internet, he’s known as Moot. Moot is the founder of 4chan, and, more recently, Canvas, both of which are anonymous message boards.  A few years ago, he spoke at TED, creating a case for anonymity.  The video is definitely worth watching.

Up next: Reputation

Why You Should Name Your Child “Peter”

One of my favorite parts about the tech revolution is the sheer amount of data that we, as end users, generate.  I’m thrilled when companies or organizations use data, voluntarily offered by their users, to write impromptu market research reports.  It’s even more exciting when market research isn’t their core competency.

One of the best examples of this is OKCupid‘s OKTrends, which reports on “Dating research from OKCupid.”

Insights, LinkedIn‘s equivalent market research arm, published a report on their blog that analyzes names.  The report analyzes names of professionals using LinkedIn. Specifically, the report looks at what names are overrepresented in different professional areas, such as among sales reps, CEOs, engineers, or athletes.

The top CEO names, for men:

  1. Peter
  2. Bob
  3. Jack
  4. Bruce
  5. Fred

And for women:

  1. Deborah
  2. Sally
  3. Debra
  4. Cynthia
  5. Carolyn

LinkedIn identifies two trends. Among males, CEO names tend to be either short or shortened versions of popular first names.  This could be because nicknames are often used to denote friendliness or openness.  Conversely, female CEOs use their full name to project a more professional image.

Here’s the infographic.

Read LinkedIn’s full report.

Thinking about Thinking Recap

In the Information Overload series, we discussed the concept of distilling information down to manageable, bite-sized summaries.  In the Thinking about Thinking series, we talked about the need for deep thought and fleshed-out ideas.

For those of you in the Information Overload camp, here’s a summary of everything we talked about in the Thinking about Thinking series.  For those if you who want to read more, click through to read the entire series, in all of its glory.

  1. Thinking About Thinking. In this introductory post on how technology is rewiring our brains, we looked at some of the reasons this series is worth your time to read.  These included our increased penchant for multitasking, the ability of internet use to change our mental processes, and our affinity for each new electronic notification text message.
  2. Do We Really Need Deep Thought? The media we consume is decreasing in size, and, thus, depth of information.  Does that mean our thoughts are adjusting accordingly?  Most scientific breakthroughs actually do require deep thought – the “Ah-ha” moment is a myth.
  3. Are We Addicted? Our Brains On Technology. This post looks at the science behind addiction, and how some of that science shows our brains react to technology in the same way they react to other addictions.
  4. The Opposite of Technology. Studies show that being in – or thinking about – nature causes our brains to make connections.  Conversely, being in or thinking about man-made environments, like cities and highways causes our thoughts to become scattered and jumbled.
  5. Getting off of Social Media. This post took it one step further, and  looked at organizations and people who are turning off their technology and social media connections.  We borrowed the term Countertrend – a social backlash to a trend – to describe the phenomenon.
  6. Conclusion: Circuits and Cerebellums. In this final post, we talked about some suggestions for dealing with all of this technology.

On Monday, I’ll be attending FailCon 2010. According to the website, “FailCon is the premier conference on start-up failures and how to prepare and recover from them.” Panelists include representatives from Etsy, the New York Times, Formspring, Twitter, Zappos, and more.  Look forward to posts about failure – then subsequent success.

Information Overload Recap

For those of you who’ve been busy, I’ve put together a quick recap and reference guide to the Information Overload series.  The series looked at how to deal with the extreme amounts of information we’re faced with on a daily basis. I wanted to put everything in one place for ease of navigation.

You  might consider this the “lite” version of the series – all of the information distilled into one place.  This post is helping you deal with information overload … right now! Read more of this post

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 408 other followers