Following on from yesterday's post on the CMU/Microsoft research, there are two networks in the research: the buddy network and the communications network for that month.
The buddy network has 240 million nodes with 9.1 billion edges. Which equates to 75 contacts per node/person (9,100,000,000 x 2 / 240,000,000). This is an indicator of the size of an individual's weak-tie / acquaintance network.
The communications network has 180 million nodes with 1.3 billion edges. Which equates to 14 contacts per node / person (1,300,000,000 x 2 / 180,000,000). This is an indicator of an individual's strong-tie / tribal network.
How do these results link to the second and third of Dave Snowden's magic numbers?
Showing posts with label instant messaging. Show all posts
Showing posts with label instant messaging. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Sunday, March 30, 2008
the presence paradox - lite communication tools
Lite communications tools such as Twitter & Instant Messaging & SMS txting offer the promise of ambient intimacy or the less confronting option of ambient presence. Little slivers of meaning 'n' grooming flick(er)ing between people.
Leisa Reichelt's ambient intimacy post positions these lite tools as mostly "phatic". I am not convinced that we are very good at correctly recognising "phatic" vs. "semantic" acts of speech. Most of our corporate communications (emails from the CEO, townhall meetings, intranet pages) position themselves as meaningful but are frequently meaningless. Instead they convey another set of messages around status, order & control. They are, in fact, almost purely phatic.
The further you move away from the tools supposedly concerned with meaning into the tools associated with grooming, the more actual meaning you will find. The corporate communications department rarely thinks of IM as a comms channel (thankfully). Let's hope they don't find out.
Leisa Reichelt's ambient intimacy post positions these lite tools as mostly "phatic". I am not convinced that we are very good at correctly recognising "phatic" vs. "semantic" acts of speech. Most of our corporate communications (emails from the CEO, townhall meetings, intranet pages) position themselves as meaningful but are frequently meaningless. Instead they convey another set of messages around status, order & control. They are, in fact, almost purely phatic.
The further you move away from the tools supposedly concerned with meaning into the tools associated with grooming, the more actual meaning you will find. The corporate communications department rarely thinks of IM as a comms channel (thankfully). Let's hope they don't find out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
