An interesting equation
As I was reading the novel Green Mars this afternoon, one of the characters mentioned a very interesting equation:
n(n-1)/2
That equation happens to describe the number of possible relationships between n nodes in a social (or any other) network. You can verify that it works by considering the cases of 2, 3, and 4 people, respectively. For n=2, there is only one possible relationship (2(2-1)/2), for n=3 there are three relationships, and for n=4 there are six.
I found this equation rather fascinating because it quantifies the often mind-boggling complexity of social relationships. If I consider just my own circles of friends, the largest fully interconnected group, about eleven people, equals a whopping 55 discrete relationships! Yet, I could probably tell you at least something about all 55 of those relationships. Now, consider that Dunbar's Number, 150, an estimate of the theoretical maximum group size that the human brain can track, yields a mind-boggling 11,175 discrete relationships!
Given the exponential complexity of social networks, I can really understand why people rely on "chunking" methods like stereotypes or sub-groups to try to comprehend large groups of individuals.
n(n-1)/2
That equation happens to describe the number of possible relationships between n nodes in a social (or any other) network. You can verify that it works by considering the cases of 2, 3, and 4 people, respectively. For n=2, there is only one possible relationship (2(2-1)/2), for n=3 there are three relationships, and for n=4 there are six.
I found this equation rather fascinating because it quantifies the often mind-boggling complexity of social relationships. If I consider just my own circles of friends, the largest fully interconnected group, about eleven people, equals a whopping 55 discrete relationships! Yet, I could probably tell you at least something about all 55 of those relationships. Now, consider that Dunbar's Number, 150, an estimate of the theoretical maximum group size that the human brain can track, yields a mind-boggling 11,175 discrete relationships!
Given the exponential complexity of social networks, I can really understand why people rely on "chunking" methods like stereotypes or sub-groups to try to comprehend large groups of individuals.