tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21628316.post115118784735301000..comments2023-10-18T05:54:58.700-04:00Comments on Network Weaving: Social network bandwidthJackhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18317757979125496981noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21628316.post-1155397105828555502006-08-12T11:38:00.000-04:002006-08-12T11:38:00.000-04:00I frequently use a 100 point (bandwidth type)appro...I frequently use a 100 point (bandwidth type)approach when asking people about their allocation of time across a given set of relationships (usually working relationships). People find it easy to use, and it enables me to progessively filter out some relationships, if I want to, during the analysis.<BR/><BR/>It also can add more nuance to the analysis of reciprocal links. Instead of binary possibilities (reciprocated/not reciprocated)there are more shades of reciprocation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21628316.post-1152719209993461162006-07-12T11:46:00.000-04:002006-07-12T11:46:00.000-04:00Good points, Jack. This is probably obvious, but ...Good points, Jack. This is probably obvious, but different people will tend to naturally have different patterns of connection that make sense for them.<BR/><BR/>First of all, I don't believe our bandwidths are equal in the first place. As a "social connector," I have a MUCH bigger bandwidth in social interactions than my wife. Let's say the median is 50. She has 30 points to distribute, I have 70 points to distribute. (We actually both start out with the same number of "points" -- but hers are focused on activities like meditation and reading which are not social in nature).<BR/><BR/>The way that she distributes her 30 points will also be very different than the way that I distribute mine. She will distribute the vast majority of her points on her +9 and +10 connections.<BR/><BR/>On the other hand, I will tend to spend very little time proportionately with my +9 and +10 connections. Instead, my personal style of being a social connector is to have a fairly large number of contacts, with fairly common interaction. I do not have a HUGE number of contacts with minimal interaction. So, I tend to spend my 70 points pretty evenly distributed among my +3 to +10 connections, with a few points in reserve for new connections or those that are weaker.<BR/><BR/>Does this make sense?SteveHabibRosehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01924870988403951672noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21628316.post-1151945855625664222006-07-03T12:57:00.000-04:002006-07-03T12:57:00.000-04:00s/perifery/periphery/you can delete this comment w...s/perifery/periphery/<BR/><BR/>you can delete this comment when you fix the typoAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21628316.post-1151340621096962412006-06-26T12:50:00.000-04:002006-06-26T12:50:00.000-04:00Barry Wellman, who has studied soc cap for many ye...Barry Wellman, who has studied soc cap for many years, says that the research is being poorly reported [i.e. not accurate with many nuances unreported] and that internet connections are being excluded.<BR/><BR/>Not as simple as these reports make it.<BR/><BR/>Yet, we as network weavers are glad that this suggests more of our work is needed! ;-)Valdis Krebshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10670204822980965408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21628316.post-1151274910303627782006-06-25T18:35:00.000-04:002006-06-25T18:35:00.000-04:00Study: Americans' Social Contacts Slipping<A HREF="http://www.forbes.com/entrepreneurs/feeds/ap/2006/06/23/ap2836773.html" REL="nofollow">Study: Americans' Social Contacts Slipping</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com